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

February 20, 2026

Thai Court Revokes Foreign Pilot Wet Lease Exemption

Subscribe to Updates

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 44 of the Air Navigation Act requires all aircraft “personnel,” including pilots, to be Thai nationals, and the Ministry of Labor’s Notification on Prohibited Occupations further reinforces this prohibition by permitting foreign pilots to operate only international flights.

Against this backdrop, the labor minister’s exemption authority under the Foreign Workers Management Emergency Decree B.E. 2560 (2017) is strictly limited. Under the decree, exemptions may be issued only in special cases involving the protection of national security or the national economy, or the prevention of public disaster.

These statutory constraints reflect the protective purpose of Thailand’s reserved‑occupation system, ensuring that foreign‑labor exemptions serve the public interest rather than private operational needs.

The Supreme Administrative Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Administrative Court held that the notification exceeded statutory authority. Although acknowledging the minister’s ability to issue foreign‑worker exemptions, the court concluded that the circumstances underlying this notification did not constitute a statutory “special case.”

The court’s key findings were:

  • Lack of statutory necessity: The exemption was issued in response to a private airline’s operational request, not to a need for national security or economic protection or public‑disaster prevention.
  • Harm to Thai pilots’ opportunities: The court emphasized that foreign‑labor exemptions must not affect national security, career or professional opportunities for Thai nationals, or the promotion of Thai wisdom and identity. The court also found insufficient evidence of a genuine pilot shortage that would justify overriding these protections.
  • Unlawful administrative discretion: Because the notification did not meet the statutory criteria for a “special case” and primarily served private commercial interests rather than the public‑interest purpose under the decree, the court ruled it an unlawful exercise of discretion under the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542.

Accordingly, the notification was revoked effective November 17, 2025, the date of judgment.

Operational Consequences

The ruling does not prohibit wet‑lease arrangements altogether. However, it makes clear that foreign pilots may not operate wet‑leased aircraft on domestic routes. Airlines that continue to utilize wet‑leased aircraft for operational flexibility must assign Thai‑national pilots to fly those domestic sectors.

The Supreme Administrative Court’s revocation of the foreign‑pilot wet‑lease exemption marks a significant affirmation of Thailand’s statutory limits on foreign‑labor permissions. By determining that the Ministry of Labor’s Notification failed to satisfy the legal criteria for a “special case,” the court reaffirmed the primacy of public‑interest protections, the employment priority of Thai nationals, and the need for legally grounded administrative decision‑making.

Related Professionals

Industries

Aviation

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 2, 2024
Aircraft lease agreements are commonly governed by the law of England and Wales, New York, or another common-law jurisdiction. This article examines the challenges of applying these and other foreign laws to an aircraft lease dispute in Thailand. The applicability of foreign law in Thailand is subject to the Conflict of Laws Act B.E. 2481 (1938). Section 8 of the Conflict of Laws Act states, “Whenever the law of a foreign country which is to govern is not proved to the satisfaction of the court, the internal law of Thailand shall apply.” According to this section, the burden of proof is on the party that claims the foreign law. The claiming party must prove to the court the existence of the foreign law and how the law applies. However, in aircraft lease disputes, especially those that involve seizing or repossessing aircraft, generally only Thai law will apply. Seizing or repossessing an aircraft involves Thai government authorities such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) and the Airports of Thailand (AOT), among others, and these authorities will only comply with Thai law. Moreover, foreign court judgments are not enforceable in Thailand. This means that any action to seize or repossess an aircraft in Thailand must be initiated in Thailand and using Thai law. Foreign court judgments, however, can be used as evidence and may be helpful in convincing the CAAT or court that the lessor is entitled to repossess an aircraft, and in proving damages. The Thai laws relevant in a hostile repossession or seizure action include the Air Navigation Act, the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), and the Civil Proceedings Code (CPC). The CCC provides guidelines on contract termination and the rights of parties in lease agreements. Specifically, it outlines the conditions under which a lessor can terminate
Read More
December 15, 2023
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has published an updated edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand for 2023. This guide outlines the key factors for starting and operating a business in the Thai market. Issues covered include: Investment incentives Financial facilities Exchange controls Import and export regulations Structures for doing business Requirements for the Establishment of a Business Operation of the Business Cessation or Termination of the Business Labor legislation, relations, and supply Tax Immigration requirements This publication is part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series prepared by member firms in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide. The guides serve as a useful resource for planning international business strategy and researching new markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand is available through the button below.
Read More
October 25, 2023
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,
Read More
August 17, 2023
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins’ offices in Vietnam have provided the Vietnam chapter for the Aviation Finance & Leasing 2023 guide from Chambers and Partners. The guide covers the most important legal developments affecting aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in 32 jurisdictions worldwide. In addition to the Vietnam chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand chapter for Aviation Finance & Leasing 2023. Each chapter provides in-depth details on the legal regimes affecting all aspects of aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance, including sale and lease agreement terms; taxation; lease registration and enforcement; lease assignment/novation; insurance and reinsurance; debt structuring; securities; liens; and many others that affect the day-to-day operations of leading players in the aviation industry. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with expert legal commentary focusing on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across a range of key jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2023 is available as a PDF through the button below, courtesy of Chambers and Partners. The full guide is accessible for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More