Off topic. I am getting a cognitive dissonance from the statements like "The airport is part of our national infrastructure...". Heathrow is owned by Heathrow Airport Holdings, private company.
Like being a serf and having to rely on your local Lord.
In an ideal world, this is because the Government decided it would be cheaper to subsidise a private company doing it, rather than doing it itself. Whether or not this is true -- or indeed was entered into in good faith -- is a case-by-case sorta thing.
Standard playbook.
Used to work on the same industrial park as a critical part of the national grid. Boy racers near there learned very quickly that you'll have a gun pointed at you for being there, and that's in the UK.
In a socialized or communist nation, you would expect all national infrastructure, if not all means of production, to be nationalized, i.e., owned & run by the govt.
In a capitalist society, not only the means of production but many critical national infrastructure structures and services can be owned and run privately.
E.g., power & telecom companies are regulated monopolies. Some roads have been privatized so the company builds & maintains them, utilizing some of the toll money. Lotteries are often private companies running state-sponsored games. In the US, there are private prison operators. Many hospitals in US are private. And of course many of the airports are similarly privately owned.
Obviously results and benefits vary widely by industry and operation.
While the gist of your point is correct, I feel I should mention that socialism or communism doesn't necessitate that the means of production is nationalized and government owned. The means of production could just as well be owned by the workers, not the government.