Privatization doesn't have to mean no subsidies, and subsidies doesn't have to mean actual tax revenue being sent to the private company. It can be in the form of tax incentives and exceptions on certain regulations. Politicians who didn't understand that forced Amazon to drop its plan to build one of its headquarters in Long Island City, Queens. One of the politicians even suggested using some of the "subsidies" (tax incentives) to pay teachers more. These people failed to understand that the tax revenue related to the new headquarters would not actually exist if they don't build the headquarters and tax incentives are not tax revenues that can be used to pay government employees.
If a government owned company is losing $1 billion a year to provide a certain service for the people and struggles to improve that service due to funding constraints, what is wrong with handing it to private sector owners and giving them some tax incentives, and maybe even some financing that is much less than the amount that the government is losing each year for a period of time? Yes, you have to give people an opportunity to make large profits before they are willing to risk their capital. And when they actually succeed and make large profits, you can fight with them about how much of that profit should be shared with the people later, in the form of new taxes. Don't be like the financial illiterate politicians and activists who forced Amazon to drop its plan to build the Long Island City headquarter.