50 minutes ago, treetops said:

Because your graphic specifically mentioned Air Passenger Duty incorrectly as £212. I'm not ignoring the others but I'm only querying this one figure.

This is from your post.

Perhaps you could show the source of the information and we can try and work out what they've done?

APD decribed in full here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-air-passenger-duty-rates-from-1-april-2025/air-passenger-duty-rates-from-1-april-2025-to-31-march-2026

Proposed revisions

Legislation will be introduced in Finance Bill 2024-25 to amend section 30 of Finance Act 1994. The rates will be as follows:

From 1 April 2025

Bands (distance in miles from London)	Reduced rate (lowest class of travel)	Standard rate (1) (other than the lowest class of travel)	Higher rate (2)
Domestic band	£7	£14	£84
Band A (0 to 2,000 miles)	£13	£28	£84
Band B (2,001 to 5,500 miles)	£90	£216	£647
Band C (over 5,500 miles)	£94	£224	£673

(1) If any class of travel provides a seat pitch in excess of 1.016 metres (40 inches) the standard rate is the minimum rate that applies. (2) The higher rate applies to flights aboard aircraft of 20 tonnes and above with fewer than 19 seats.

The information is on the link you sent me.

I see what I have done, I should have said a business class seat as that is how I travel. 👍 Case solved 😃

On 2/6/2026 at 9:40 PM, stevenl said:

Valid arguments to support your opinion would be nice. So far they're lacking.

They obviously know they are bleeding money.

As usual, farang will pay. So, up the passenger surcharge, because farang will always pay, right?

Unless, of course, they start going to Vietnam, which they are, on mass. 😂

Tourism up 21% in Vietnam.

You can paint it however you like, but money go down, put price up. Thai Economics 101.

On 2/6/2026 at 4:04 PM, Patong2021 said:

You have not provided anything even remotely intelligent in which to support your claim.

As I said in another post, they are bleeding money. Farang pay, because farang always pay. It's jist a money grab to patch up what's going broke in other areas.

Those other areas will reveal themselves in due course.

Meanwhile, tourism is up 21% in Vietnam. So I guess the passenger surcharge had to go up. 😂

What will go up next year, as Thailand falls further behind?

I'm thinking the 800k Thai baht will soon be going to 1 million or more, for an annual extension, but that for another thread.

23 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

As I said in another post, they are bleeding money. Farang pay, because farang always pay. It's jist a money grab to patch up what's going broke in other areas.

Those other areas will reveal themselves in due course.

Meanwhile, tourism is up 21% in Vietnam. So I guess the passenger surcharge had to go up. 😂

What will go up next year, as Thailand falls further behind?

I'm thinking the 800k Thai baht will soon be going to 1 million or more, for an annual extension, but that for another thread.

Your comments are unfounded and with no merit whatsoever.

1. Who is bleeding money? Have you even looked at the financial statements?The AOT is not bleeding money and on the contrary, makes a small profit. Unfortunately it is insufficient to fund new investments of the size and scope planned for.

2. You assume "farang" were singled out for the fee. International passengers are paying. This includes Thai nationals. Are you now claiming that Thai people do not fly internationally?

3. Who do you expect to pay for the renovations and upgrades at the airports? The users and direct beneficiaries or the general taxpayers? Thailand's international fee is no different than any other national strategy. International airline passengers pay similar fees in the EU, Canada, USA, Africa etc. You still have not provided an alternative funding source for the needed funds.

4. You do not understand basic mathematics and how to make a comparison. So what if Vietnam tourism increased by 20%? The starting point was low. Vietnam tourist 2025 arrivals were only 21.2 million, while Thailand was almost 33 million. Thailand has started 2026 with a healthy surge compared to the same time in 2025 with a return of Chinese visitors. Do have a look at the tourism data. Vietnam has all of the same problems as Thailand with the difference that it is less tolerant of misbehaving foreigners than Thailand. Vietnam's inter city and provincial transit network is a mess and not comparable to Thailand's. Have you even gone through the arrival experience at a major Vietnamese airport? Ask the people who endure the entry process . There are days when it takes 30-60 minutes for the first bags to be delivered at arrivals, and that's after the 30+ minutes it can take to get through immigration and the long hot crowded lines. At BKK, I am usually through immigration in 10 minutes and my bag is delivered in less than 15 minutes after I arrive at the carrousel. My last arrival from Tokyo and it only took 35 minutes for me to walk off the aircraft, pass immigration, collect my bag, and walk out the door. Try doing that at an airport in Vietnam.

5. You obviously have a grudge against Thailand. That's your personal issue and has nothing to do with the passenger service fee which mirrors the fees charged in other countries.

21 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Your comments are unfounded and with no merit whatsoever.

1. Who is bleeding money? Have you even looked at the financial statements?The AOT is not bleeding money and on the contrary, makes a small profit. Unfortunately it is insufficient to fund new investments of the size and scope planned for.

2. You assume "farang" were singled out for the fee. International passengers are paying. This includes Thai nationals. Are you now claiming that Thai people do not fly internationally?

3. Who do you expect to pay for the renovations and upgrades at the airports? The users and direct beneficiaries or the general taxpayers? Thailand's international fee is no different than any other national strategy. International airline passengers pay similar fees in the EU, Canada, USA, Africa etc. You still have not provided an alternative funding source for the needed funds.

4. You do not understand basic mathematics and how to make a comparison. So what if Vietnam tourism increased by 20%? The starting point was low. Vietnam tourist 2025 arrivals were only 21.2 million, while Thailand was almost 33 million. Thailand has started 2026 with a healthy surge compared to the same time in 2025 with a return of Chinese visitors. Do have a look at the tourism data. Vietnam has all of the same problems as Thailand with the difference that it is less tolerant of misbehaving foreigners than Thailand. Vietnam's inter city and provincial transit network is a mess and not comparable to Thailand's. Have you even gone through the arrival experience at a major Vietnamese airport? Ask the people who endure the entry process . There are days when it takes 30-60 minutes for the first bags to be delivered at arrivals, and that's after the 30+ minutes it can take to get through immigration and the long hot crowded lines. At BKK, I am usually through immigration in 10 minutes and my bag is delivered in less than 15 minutes after I arrive at the carrousel. My last arrival from Tokyo and it only took 35 minutes for me to walk off the aircraft, pass immigration, collect my bag, and walk out the door. Try doing that at an airport in Vietnam.

5. You obviously have a grudge against Thailand. That's your personal issue and has nothing to do with the passenger service fee which mirrors the fees charged in other countries.

Over a 50% rise in a fee / tax that predominately targets foreign tourists is a money grab. Simple at that.

25 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Over a 50% rise in a fee / tax that predominately targets foreign tourists is a money grab. Simple at that.

It's like arguing with a chatbot. You are not making any sense. each time your argument is disproven you come up with something even more unfounded and nonsensical.

An international passenger service fee applies to anyone who is flying internationally. "foreign tourists" have not been singled out. 50% of nothing is nothing.

The only thing simple here is your case. You still have not offered an alternative means of paying for the additional infrastructure needed at the airports. The fee was woefully under priced and has now been corrected. Feel free to fly to airports which do not invest in their infrastructure.

23 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

It's like arguing with a chatbot. You are not making any sense. each time your argument is disproven you come up with something even more unfounded and nonsensical.

An international passenger service fee applies to anyone who is flying internationally. "foreign tourists" have not been singled out. 50% of nothing is nothing.

The only thing simple here is your case. You still have not offered an alternative means of paying for the additional infrastructure needed at the airports. The fee was woefully under priced and has now been corrected. Feel free to fly to airports which do not invest in their infrastructure.

It's like arguing with a shareholder. You are not making any sense. PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT is all that counts.

Money Number One.

This rise in the Passenger Service Charge just hides the their incompetence to run things efficiently.

Clearly, with tourism being around 21% of Thailand's GDP, it does target foreigners.

Stop being a Thai apologist and get with the real world here.

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's like arguing with a shareholder. You are not making any sense. PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT is all that counts.

Money Number One.

This rise in the Passenger Service Charge just hides the their incompetence to run things efficiently.

Clearly, with tourism being around 21% of Thailand's GDP, it does target foreigners.

Stop being a Thai apologist and get with the real world here.

You have yet to offer a coherent rational reason for your ranting and whinging.

Your ignorance is irritating to the point that it is difficult to determine if you are serious, or are intentionally being a buffoon. International tourism accounts for approx. 9% of the Thai GDP. The GDP contribution is derived from a basket of services, none of which is particularly influenced by an airport service fee. Quality visitors would still be flying into Thailand in the same number, even if the service fee was 2 or 3X higher or lower. No one other than chronic complaining farangs is losing sleep over the increased fee, nor is anoyone changing their travel plans.

This is not about profit. It is about paying for the necessary investments in new and upgraded operational infrastructure. You have still not explained how the investment in equipment and plant would be paid for if there wasn't a provision made for it through an increased user fee.

You have the position that you as a foreign visitor are special and that the airport(s) and taxpayers of Thailand should pay for your use of the airport. If you want charity, collect it in your home country.

You claim that the AoT do not run the airport efficiently. How would you know? Have you ever managed an international airport that handles 62 million people a year? Have you even had management responsibility for a large complex operation? I am a frequent international flyer, in and out of Thailand regularly and have had the opportunity to experience international airport operations in multiple regions over the years. Most of Thailand's airports are well managed compared to their peer group around the world. Thailand has to process thousands of ignorant, clueless, dirty people every day and does a decent job of it. My airport experience at most Thai airports is as good, as many of the world's leading airports. The problems are from other passengers, not the airport administration.

The international passenger fee collected by Thailand is comparable to other large international airports. Look at the passenger fee for Vietnam. Similar.

20 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

This is not about profit. It is about paying for the necessary investments in new and upgraded operational infrastructure.

None of the 730 baht passenger service charge has been spent on investment or infrastructure, because it it had been, there would be no need for such a large 50% increase.

Obviously, the 730 baht passenger surcharge has been misappropriated, and not that upgrades are actually needed, their answer is a large increase for a short term fix.

10 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

None of the 730 baht passenger service charge has been spent on investment or infrastructure, because it it had been, there would be no need for such a large 50% increase.

Obviously, the 730 baht passenger surcharge has been misappropriated, and not that upgrades are actually needed, their answer is a large increase for a short term fix.

You have an opinion, but no solid arguments.

On 2/15/2026 at 1:54 AM, stevenl said:

You have an opinion, but no solid arguments.

They are now talking about raising the VAT. Another money grab. Using the pensions / pensioners as a excuse.

Thailand's economy is tanking, so is its tourism industry.

Money Go Down - Put Price Up - Thai Economics 101.

Chose other destinations like Vietnam for the long winter breaks.

Thailand is destroying the tourism and it's attractivity in increasing prices all over and with it's immigration bureaucracy.

2 hours ago, SingAPorn said:

Chose other destinations like Vietnam for the long winter breaks.

Thailand is destroying the tourism and it's attractivity in increasing prices all over and with it's immigration bureaucracy.

It's already been happening for some time, hence the price rise/s.

Thailand doesn't know how to compete. Thailand has always been used to manipulating an unlevel playing field that's been in their favor.

Well, Vietnam has now leveled the playing field, and winning the game.