Thai Court Rejects Interim Bid to Stop Foreign Pilot Permits

(THAILAND) Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has rejected the Thai Pilots Association’s interim request to suspend permits for foreign pilots operating domestic flights, allowing the government’s temporary waiver for foreign crews to remain in effect for now. The court’s interim decision, delivered in early November 2025, dismissed a bid by the Thai Pilots Association to halt the Ministry of Labour’s authorization for foreign pilots to work on Thai domestic routes under wet-lease permits, citing the risk of disrupting flight operations and affecting passengers and cargo services.

The ruling keeps in place a Cabinet policy first approved in December 2024 that lets airlines wet-lease aircraft along with foreign pilots for peak travel periods, a move officials said was necessary to cover staffing gaps. The Thai Pilots Association, led by its president, Captain Teerawat Angkasakulkiat, filed a lawsuit in March 2025 seeking a temporary injunction against this arrangement and arguing the measure harms Thai pilots who are available to work. The court declined to freeze the permits while the case proceeds, saying existing permissions should stand to avoid immediate harm to the flying public and logistics.

Thirty-eight foreign pilots and co-pilots have received temporary work permits under the waiver to date, according to figures cited in the case. Most of those permits support operations by Thai VietJetAir, which brought in two A320-200s under a wet lease from Avion Express, based in Vilnius, to fly routes between Bangkok Suvarnabhumi, Phuket, and Chiang Mai during the 2024/25 winter season. Those flights have continued as scheduled after the ruling, with the permits and wet-lease arrangements recognized by Thai regulators.

Captain Teerawat warned that the court’s refusal to suspend permits now could have wider consequences for the next holiday surge.

“Unless the court rules in our favour, the resolution leaves open the possibility for any airline to use foreign pilots for domestic routes again during the next High Season,” he said.

He added that, “The policy could eventually lead to aircraft piloting being removed from Thailand’s restricted occupations list, which currently reserves the role for nationals.” The Thai Pilots Association insists that “many Thai pilots remain unemployed,” disputing the government’s claim of a shortage and contending the waiver could normalize reliance on foreign pilots beyond its stated purpose.

The government, through the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Transport, maintains the policy is legal and necessary to ensure operational stability during periods of high demand. The Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) has confirmed the paperwork for the wet-lease permits is in order, and Thai VietJetAir has defended its use of foreign pilots as a response to high tourism demand and aircraft shortages. The carrier’s reliance on wet-lease permits, and the temporary work permissions for 38 foreign pilots and co-pilots, have become a flashpoint in a broader industry debate about staffing, safety, training, and the protection of Thai jobs.

Teerawat said the association’s core legal challenge—to revoke the authorization for foreign pilots entirely—remains before the court. He argued that the interim ruling still matters for how future applications will be viewed. This decision, he said, “could serve as a reference for future labour ministers if new applications arise.” The Thai Pilots Association has pressed the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand to “create a fairer employment system, publish pilot employment data, and ban ‘pay-to-fly’ schemes, where pilots pay for jobs.” In a petition rallying support, the union told members and industry stakeholders:

“We affirm that we will take action to protect the rights of all Thai pilots and request the support of members and stakeholders in the aviation industry to stand together in support of the Thai Pilots Association’s petition to the Administrative Court.”

At the heart of the court fight is how far and how long the temporary waiver can go. The association’s lawsuit targets the Cabinet’s December 2024 resolution permitting airlines to wet-lease aircraft with foreign pilots for up to six months, a measure officials said was justified by a shortage of local pilots during the winter peak. Government records also outline a broader window: Cabinet approval in December 2024 allows wet leasing with foreign pilots for up to one year, ending December 31, 2025, with the option for two six-month extensions. The Thai Pilots Association argues that the lack of a clear, tight time limit risks turning an exceptional measure into a recurring tool that undermines local employment.

Industry numbers feed both sides of the argument. The CAAT reports there are 3,024 commercial pilots registered in Thailand, including 1,219 pilot school graduates still seeking employment. The Thai Pilots Association points to those 1,219 graduates as evidence that experienced crews and job-seekers exist domestically and that airlines should hire from this pool rather than rely on foreign pilots. Airlines and officials counter that immediate operational needs—especially during the winter holidays—require flexibility, and that wet-lease permits with foreign pilots are a recognized solution to cover short-term gaps without compromising safety or schedules.

The court’s interim decision focused narrowly on immediate harm, not on the merits of the underlying case. Judges concluded that suspending already-issued permits would interrupt ongoing flight operations and could ripple through passenger travel plans and cargo movements nationwide. For Thai VietJetAir, whose wet-lease permits underpin two A320-200s flying in and out of Bangkok Suvarnabhumi to Phuket and Chiang Mai, the decision avoided sudden cancellations. For passengers, it means existing schedules will continue while the legal process plays out. For the 38 foreign pilots and co-pilots holding temporary work permissions, it offers short-term certainty that their assignments remain valid.

The Thai Pilots Association has framed the dispute as a test of Thailand’s protected occupations policy, which traditionally reserves certain jobs for nationals. The group says that allowing foreign pilots, even under limited wet-lease permits, chips away at a long-standing principle designed to safeguard skilled roles for Thai citizens. Teerawat’s warning that, “The policy could eventually lead to aircraft piloting being removed from Thailand’s restricted occupations list, which currently reserves the role for nationals,” captures a fear that temporary exceptions could evolve into permanent change. That concern extends to wage and training standards, with union members cautioning that ongoing reliance on foreign pilots might depress pay, reduce investment in local training, and set a precedent that loosens Thai-only protections in other aviation roles.

Airlines and regulators reject the notion that safety or quality is compromised. The CAAT, which oversees licensing and safety compliance, has said all paperwork for the current wet-lease permits meets regulatory requirements. Thai VietJetAir has emphasized that the leases help match capacity to tourism demand and mitigate aircraft shortages that might otherwise ground flights or leave passengers stranded. Officials at the Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Labour have described the waiver as a lawful, time-limited step to keep domestic air services running during peak load, framing it as a pragmatic response in a period of tight resources.

Still, the case has surfaced broader questions about data transparency and hiring practices. The Thai Pilots Association wants regular publication of pilot employment data so policymakers and the public can see how many licensed pilots, including new graduates, are available and how many are actually in cockpit roles. The call to ban “pay-to-fly” schemes—arrangements in which pilots pay for experience that should come through paid employment—goes to the heart of how airlines manage entry-level hiring and training costs, and whether those costs are being shifted unfairly to pilots themselves. Teerawat’s demand to “create a fairer employment system, publish pilot employment data, and ban ‘pay-to-fly’ schemes, where pilots pay for jobs” lays down a marker for future regulatory changes even beyond the current dispute over wet-lease permits.

The scope of the Cabinet’s waiver remains an important detail. While the association’s filing highlights a six-month limit tied to the high season, the broader approval provides latitude through December 31, 2025, with possible six-month extensions. That timeline means airlines could continue seeking wet-lease permits with foreign pilots as new peak periods approach, subject to ministry approvals. Teerawat’s caution that, “Unless the court rules in our favour, the resolution leaves open the possibility for any airline to use foreign pilots for domestic routes again during the next High Season,” reflects this longer runway. It also underscores why the association pressed for an interim halt: without it, the policy continues to function while the main case moves slowly through the courts.

For now, the main legal challenge to revoke the policy remains under review. The Thai Pilots Association is preparing for a legal process that could stretch well beyond the end of the current tourist season, even as foreign pilots continue to fly under existing wet-lease permits. The group argues that the precedent set in this case could shape aviation hiring long after the current permits expire, influencing how future labour ministers interpret their authority and how airlines plan their seasonal staffing. Teerawat’s prediction that the interim ruling “could serve as a reference for future labour ministers if new applications arise” signals an awareness that court language now may sway ministerial decisions later.

The numbers at stake are relatively small—38 foreign pilots and co-pilots—but the symbolism looms larger in a sector closely tied to national pride and economic recovery. Domestic routes linking Bangkok Suvarnabhumi, Phuket, and Chiang Mai are vital for tourism and business travel, and the capacity to keep those flights running on time has been a government priority. At the same time, a generation of pilot school graduates—1,219 by the CAAT’s count—wants cockpit seats that they say should not be filled by foreign pilots during a time-limited waiver. Balancing those demands has pulled ministries, airlines, and unions into a public contest over who should fly Thai domestic skies and under what rules.

The court’s limited focus on immediate disruption leaves the larger policy questions to the main case and to the ministries that administer labour and transport rules. The Ministry of Labour’s announcement authorizing temporary work permits is the practical lever that enabled airlines to snap up foreign pilots under wet-lease contracts, while the Ministry of Transport and the CAAT have managed the airworthiness, scheduling, and compliance side. For airlines, the current clarity allows them to plan through the winter period; for pilots’ unions, it is a reminder that legal strategies must be coupled with public pressure and data to shape policy over the longer term.

Airlines with wet-lease permits have stated that these contracts are time-limited and tied to specific aircraft and routes. Avion Express’s two A320-200s, working for Thai VietJetAir on winter routes, illustrate how an international operator can plug into domestic Thai networks for a season and then depart. Whether similar arrangements return in future high seasons will likely depend on court outcomes, ministry choices, and the depth of the pilot pool by mid-2025, when airlines typically finalize schedules and staffing for the next winter. The Thai Pilots Association’s warning that the waiver could set a precedent will be tested as those decisions approach.

As the case proceeds, both sides appear entrenched. The Thai Pilots Association is building its argument on unemployment among licensed Thai pilots and the protected status of piloting as a Thai-only occupation. The ministries and Thai VietJetAir point to legal authorizations, documented shortages, and the need to keep planes flying when demand spikes. While the court’s interim decision has favored continuity of service over a pause in permits, the legal questions about the scope and purpose of the waiver remain open.

For travelers planning flights between Bangkok Suvarnabhumi, Phuket, and Chiang Mai this winter, the practical result is simple: schedules should hold, and planes will keep moving. For Thai pilots and trainees, the stakes are more personal, centered on whether the cockpit remains a profession reserved for nationals or becomes one where foreign pilots are routinely used during high season. The Thai Pilots Association has made clear it intends to fight on.

“We affirm that we will take action to protect the rights of all Thai pilots and request the support of members and stakeholders in the aviation industry to stand together in support of the Thai Pilots Association’s petition to the Administrative Court,” the group said.

Regulators say they will continue to apply the rules as written. The Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand has reiterated that operators must satisfy all safety and documentation requirements for wet-lease permits and pilot authorizations, regardless of nationality. With the interim suspension denied and the main challenge pending, the next decisive moment will come when the court addresses the substance of the Thai Pilots Association’s case—or when ministries decide whether to extend the waiver beyond December 31, 2025, as the Cabinet’s approval allows, potentially in two six-month steps. Until then, foreign pilots may continue flying under current wet-lease permits, and the legal and political debate over who should fly Thai domestic routes will continue to build toward a fuller judgment.