Those quotes are about home student undergraduate fees. These do not represent the total income / expenditure of an academic department, i.e., whether it is profit-making or loss making, even less so now than was the case in 2012.
Since 2012, diversification of income has become increasingly important, primarily through increases in numbers of overseas UGs and PGTs, but also in things like commercialisation, sponsorship, executive education and tapping into various types of research-related income outside the standard UKRI funding streams.
It is the total income / expenditure arising from all these income streams that determines whether a department is profit or loss, and unfortunately many A&H subjects and some SS subjects perform poorly in these areas (and have little potential to do better) so they have ended up as loss making departments.
This is particularly an issue now, as the cost of teaching a home undergraduate student has gone up considerably since 2012 so that even cheap to teach courses in A&H and SS may still make a loss on home UG students, and they have no or limited other revenue streams to off-set this loss.
There have also been all kinds of other things going on in HE and the government since 2012 that have reduced the financial viability of A&H both now and in the future, from both the point of view of universities and of the government (who, when you take into account loan repayments and write-offs, subsidise the teaching of A&H subjects more than any other subjects).
As academics, I am sure that many of us would wish that academic excellence and education were the primary determinants used to judge whether an academic department or subject was viable, but that isn't HE now. Unless you can leverage your excellence into cold, hard cash, you are always going to be vulnerable. The bottom line is always financial.