BANGKOK, THAILAND – Thailand’s new government planned to introduce a 300-baht entry fee for arriving air passengers in 2026, tying the charge to healthcare and tourism funding.
Why Thailand wanted to introduce an entry fee
Public hospitals in tourist hotspots such as Phuket had carried significant costs from treating uninsured foreign visitors. The Vachira Hospital there treated more than a million people a year, putting pressure on its budget. The planned fee was intended to shift part of that burden onto the tourism sector itself.
Of the 300 baht, about 70 baht were earmarked for an automatic accident and health insurance scheme for visitors. The remainder was to fund infrastructure, security systems and the preservation of attractions. Long-term residents with valid permits, as well as diplomats and locally approved workers, were to be exempt from the charge.
No novelty: Thailand’s history of travel charges
The proposed entry fee was not entirely new, despite public debate describing it as a first. Thailand had previously imposed a departure tax on both locals and foreigners. Introduced in 1981 to curb capital outflows during an economic crisis, it was abolished in 1991.
When a tourist levy was floated again in 2023, a government spokesperson explicitly pointed to that earlier charge and noted that such a fee had existed before. Today, another cost already applied largely unnoticed: the Passenger Service Charge (PSC) levied by Airports of Thailand (AOT).
Since 2007, this airport service fee had been included in air tickets and stood at 730 baht for international departures. From June 2026 it was set to rise to 1,120 baht, a 53 percent increase. The hike was to affect everyone leaving one of the six AOT airports, including travellers returning to Germany, Austria or Switzerland, meaning the 300-baht entry fee would not have been the only additional burden in 2026.
Six ministers, one unresolved project
Thailand had discussed the entry fee since 2020. In February 2023 the cabinet approved the plan in principle, but it was never implemented. Since then the country had seen six different tourism ministers.
Each of them announced the fee, and each failed due to shifting political priorities, resistance from airlines or weak visitor numbers. The new Anutin-2 administration, which took office at the end of March 2026, signalled it wanted to move quickly.
Deputy Prime Minister Phiphat Ratchakitprakarn confirmed that the 300-baht charge for air arrivals would be submitted at the first cabinet meeting. A separate 150-baht version for land and sea borders was put on hold, as it would have disproportionately affected cross-border commuters and day-trippers.
Global comparison: low level, distinctive design
In global terms, Thailand’s planned levy ranked among the lowest. The amounts demanded by other destinations made 300 baht seem modest by comparison.
In Bhutan, visitors paid a Sustainable Development Fee of 100 US dollars per night, around 7,000 baht, under a long-standing “High Value, Low Volume” strategy. The daily rate had been cut from 200 to 100 dollars in 2023 and was expected to remain in place until 2027, putting Bhutan in a league of its own. New Zealand charged a one-off International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy of 100 New Zealand dollars, roughly 57 US dollars, collected with the electronic travel authorisation and channelled into conservation and tourism infrastructure.
On the Indonesian island of Bali, all foreign visitors had paid 150,000 rupiah, about 9 euros, since February 2024. This one-time fee went towards environmental protection and cultural preservation and could be paid online via the “Love Bali” app or at the airport. Japan took a different approach by increasing its “Sayonara tax” on departures from 1,000 to 3,000 yen from 1 July 2026, around 20 US dollars, a sum embedded in air tickets that noticeably raised travel costs.
Japanese cities were also expanding local accommodation taxes. Kyoto, for example, introduced a five-tier system in March 2026 with rates of up to 10,000 yen per person and night in luxury hotels. Authorities in Japan argued that the additional revenue should help curb overtourism in hotspots such as the Arashiyama bamboo grove and Dotonbori.
Europe and Southeast Asia rely on overnight stays
Across Europe, accommodation taxes dominated, either as a percentage of the room rate or as a fixed amount per person and night. This model differed fundamentally from Thailand’s proposed one-off entry charge.
Amsterdam levied 12.5 percent of the room price as city tax, on top of a value-added tax that had risen from 9 to 21 percent in January 2026. Barcelona could charge up to 7.50 euros per night, while Berlin applied a 7.5 percent culture and tourism tax to the accommodation price. In Switzerland, cantonal visitor taxes generally ranged between 2 and 7 francs per night, meaning a ten-night stay in Amsterdam alone would generate far more local tax than Thailand’s planned single payment.
In Southeast Asia, room-based systems also prevailed. Malaysia charged a tourism tax of 10 ringgit per room and night, roughly 2 to 2.50 US dollars, on all hotels above a certain star category, hitting long-stay guests harder than short-term visitors. Singapore had raised its Goods and Services Tax on hotel bookings to 9 percent at the end of 2023, making accommodation noticeably more expensive.
Thailand’s model would have deliberately broken with this pattern. Instead of daily charges on overnight stays, the fee would be due once per trip, regardless of whether a traveller stayed in a five-star hotel or a guesthouse. This was meant to make the system more transparent and equally priced for backpackers and luxury travellers.
One-off instead of daily – and linked to insurance
Under the proposal, anyone spending three weeks in Thailand would have paid the 300 baht once, just like a visitor staying four days. By contrast, the European approach increased costs with every extra night, so a three-week stay in Amsterdam would attract triple the city tax of a single week.
For expats and long-stay holidaymakers, whom Thailand traditionally attracted, that difference was significant. Another distinctive feature was the insurance component, as none of the comparable destinations linked their entry fee so directly to automatic coverage.
Whether the model would work in practice depended on the final design of the insurance benefits, details of which the government had not yet published. Travellers were still advised to carry their own health insurance offering substantial coverage.
Current status and what travellers should watch
As of April 2026, the entry fee had not yet taken effect. The new government had announced it would table the measure at its first cabinet meeting, but a formal decision was still pending.
Anyone flying to Thailand in the following weeks therefore did not yet pay the 300 baht. However, this situation could change quickly once the cabinet adopted the plan.
Once introduced, the fee was to be included directly in the air ticket, similar to Japan’s Sayonara tax. Travellers would likely see it as a line item on their booking rather than paying separately. Regular visitors to Thailand were advised to monitor updates from the tourism ministry, as timeframes and details could still shift until formal implementation.
Editorial notes stated that all figures and tax rates reflected the status of April 2026 and could change, and that information regarding the Thai entry fee remained subject to alteration until an official decision.