You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

May 20, 2015

Thailand’s New Air Carriage Act

A new law on air carriage came into effect in Thailand on May 14, 2015. The law, called the International Air Carriage Act (Air Carriage Act), covers air carrier liability for accidents, delays, and cargo losses. Until now, Thailand did not have any specific legislation governing air carriage liability, although claims could be brought under the general provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code.

The more detailed provisions contained within the Air Carriage Act therefore provide a welcome degree of certainty for air carriers and passengers alike. The Act is also generally consistent with the Montreal Convention 1999, the international airline liability treaty, of which Thailand is not a member. The Air Carriage Act brings Thailand closer to international standards, and may signal a new willingness by the Thai government to ratify the Montreal Convention.   

Liability for Bodily Injury or Death  

Under the new law, an air carrier is liable for a passenger’s death or injury when the accident occurred either on board the aircraft or during embarkation or disembarkation. The liability level is determined, in part, by a plaintiff’s contributory negligence. The Air Carriage Act, like the Montreal Convention, does not define what it means to be “on board,” or “embarking” or “disembarking.” Interpretation of these terms will be left to the individual courts. Since Thailand has a civil law system, each case will be interpreted differently.       

The Air Carriage Act sets statutory limitations to liability, including liability for bodily injury or death. The carrier is liable for damages of up to 113,000 special drawing rights (SDR) per passenger (about THB 5.29 million or USD 158,725). Plaintiffs cannot bring claims for losses over this amount, unless the damage resulted from an intentional act or a negligent act when knowing that damage may occur.    

Under the law, advance payments can be requested by passengers entitled to claim compensation to meet “immediate economic needs.” The law further states that advance payments should not be construed as admissions of liability. The payments can also be offset against any subsequent damages paid by the air carrier.

Liability for Checked Baggage and Delays

The air carrier is also liable for damage arising from the destruction or loss of checked baggage. Liability attaches only if the event that caused the destruction occurred on board the aircraft or if the carrier controls the checked baggage. The Air Carriage Act does not define these terms, so they will be interpreted differently by the national courts. The air carrier is automatically liable for damage to or loss of unchecked baggage when the damage is due to the carrier’s agents.

The carrier’s liability for baggage losses is limited to SDR 131 (about THB 6,127 or USD 183) for each passenger. Similar to the exception to the liability limits for bodily injury or death, plaintiffs cannot recover more than SDR 131 unless the loss resulted from an intentional act or negligent act when knowing that damage may occur.  

An air carrier is also liable for damage caused by flight delays. To escape liability, the carrier must prove that it took measures to avoid the damage. The carrier’s liability for damage to passengers caused by delays is limited to SDR 4,694 (about THB 220,000 or USD 6,506). For baggage-related damages caused by delays, the carrier’s liability is limited to SDR 131 SDR (about THB 6,127 or USD 183) per passenger.

Importantly, air carriers cannot “contract out” of liability. Under the Air Carriage Act, any contractual clause seeking to remove a carrier’s liability or limit liability to an amount lower than the maximum limits is void. The law also specifically states that the voided clause does not render the entire agreement void.  

Liability for Cargo Losses

The Air Carriage Act contains provisions governing liability for air cargo. A carrier is liable for damages caused by the loss or damage to cargo when the event causing the damage took place during the carriage by air. The carrier is also liable for damage to cargo that resulted from delays, unless the carrier can prove that it “took all measures” to avoid the damage. A carrier’s liability for damage to cargo for destruction, loss, damage, or delay is limited to SDR 19 per kilogram (about THB 892 or USD 26). The carrier is also prohibited from exonerating or limiting itself from liability.

Jurisdiction

The Air Carriage Act applies equally to domestic carriage and international carriage. All cases brought in relation to domestic carriage by air must be brought before the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court in Bangkok. But strangely, the Air Carriage Act does not mention jurisdiction for cases involving international carriage. This deviates from the Montreal Convention, which has specific provisions on jurisdiction. Moreover, the Air Carriage Act makes no mention of handling disputes by arbitration—another difference with the Montreal Convention. Issues involving jurisdiction over cases related to international carriage will therefore be decided by the individual court.

The implementation of international standards with respect to air carrier liability promises a higher level of protection to passengers, who will no longer have to prove any breach of contract or wrongful act by the carrier to be entitled to compensation. Carriers and their insurers meanwhile will benefit from greater predictability and will be protected from inflated or frivolous claims, allowing them to better manage operational risk. The new legislation is therefore a welcome development that should serve to enhance the reputation of the aviation industry in Thailand.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 23, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok-based aviation specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This annual guide examines the key legal issues impacting aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in nearly 40 jurisdictions worldwide. In addition to the Thailand chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to this year’s edition. The Thailand chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal framework governing all aspects of aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance. Some topics covered include: sale and lease agreement terms taxation lease registration and enforcement lease assignment/novation insurance and reinsurance debt structuring securities liens The guide also examines other matters with practical implications for the aviation industry’s day-to-day operations. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 23, 2026
Aviation law experts from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Vietnam offices have prepared the Vietnam chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 from Chambers and Partners. Covering nearly 40 jurisdictions worldwide, the guide addresses key legal considerations for aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers. Alongside the Vietnam chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins also provided the Thailand chapter for this year’s edition. The Vietnam chapter delivers detailed insights into the legal environment affecting aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance. Some of the topics it examines include: sale and lease agreement terms taxation lease registration and enforcement lease assignment/novation insurance and reinsurance debt structuring securities liens The guide also covers other issues influencing the day-to-day activities of aviation industry participants in Vietnam. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative analysis of practical legal matters impacting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across leading jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create