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

October 25, 2023

Nonpossessory Security on Aircraft

The Legal Industry Reviews

Sale and leaseback structures and pledges of an aircraft are primary tools in Thailand for lenders to secure aircraft financing. However, these prevalent approaches come with certain limitations. Sale and leaseback structures usually require lots of documentation, while the use of pledges requires delivery of the pledged property to the pledgee and the pledged property must always remain in the possession of the pledgee or a third-party custodian as agreed to by the parties, because the pledge will be legally discharged if the pledged property is returned into the possession of the pledgor.

Since 2015, there has been another alternative for securing aircraft financing in Thailand. This came with the introduction of the Business Security Act B.E. 2558 (“BSA”). The BSA allows creation of a security interest over movable property (including aircraft) as collateral to secure debt repayment or other obligations without having to deliver the property to the secured party. Therefore, it is now possible for a security interest to be created over an aircraft on a non-possessory basis.

To realize this type of security interest, the BSA requires that a business security agreement be made in writing and registered with the Business Security Registration Office. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the security providers still retain the right to transfer or dispose of the secured property. However, the BSA prohibits the security providers from transferring or selling the secured property when there is a cause for enforcement of the secured property and the security receivers have notified the security providers about this cause in writing.

According to the BSA, entities that are eligible to be a security holder and take business security as a secured creditor include financial institutions and other persons prescribed in ministerial regulations issued by the Ministry of Commerce or the Ministry of Finance.

However, at present, “business security” under the BSA also has its own limitations, as “financial institutions” under the BSA only include the financial institutions within the meaning of the Financial Institution Business Act B.E. 2551 (2008), as amended, which are banks, finance companies, and insurance companies licensed to operate in Thailand. This effectively means that non-financial institutions (either onshore or offshore) and offshore banks without a banking license in Thailand are currently not permitted to hold business security under the BSA in their favor. Currently, the only exception in which a foreign entity would be allowed by a ministerial regulation to take business security is if the foreign entity is a bank granting a loan in syndication with one or more Thai financial institutions.

 

This article was first published in the October 2023 Thailand edition of The Legal Industry Reviews, an international platform that publishes news and applied law updates from industry-leading law firms in about 30 jurisdictions worldwide. To read the full aviation contribution, or to browse the complete issue, please visit The Legal Industry Reviews website.

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 as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free 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 as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free 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