'Flight tickets to Thailand will become significantly more expensive due to higher taxes on long-distance flights from 2027'
From 2027, flying will become more expensive, especially for those who travel far, such as to Thailand. The government wants to make the flight tax dependent on the distance you fly. In this way, they want to collect an additional 250 million euros each year. State Secretary Tjebbe van Oostenbruggen is working on plans to make this possible.
Several ideas have been explored. For example, extra tax for short flights and special levies for private jets and transfers at Schiphol were considered. However, the cabinet will probably opt for a simple form: the further you fly, the higher the tax.
Previously, fixed rates were considered, for example one amount for short flights and a higher amount for long-distance travel. But now it seems that the flight tax will gradually increase with distance. A flight to Madrid, for example, will be taxed slightly more than a flight to Paris. And a flight from Amsterdam to Bangkok could become €100 or more more expensive per person due to the extra flight tax, insiders believe.
The cabinet must make a final decision on this before Budget Day. The Tax and Customs Administration needs time to prepare the new rules.
Aviation sector fears disadvantages
The aviation sector is concerned about the plans. According to airlines, the costs at Schiphol are already far too high, especially compared to other European airports.
The aviation association Barin also warns. They believe that the Netherlands can cooperate better with other European countries. If only the Netherlands introduces a higher flight tax, many travellers will soon choose to fly via foreign airports. Just like many Dutch people already do their shopping in Germany.
Source: Telegraaf
About this blogger
-
This article was written and checked by the editors. The content is based on the author's personal experiences, opinions and own research. Where relevant, ChatGPT was used as an aid in writing and structuring texts. Although the content is handled with care, no guarantee can be given that all information is complete, up-to-date or error-free.
The reader is responsible for the use of the information on this website. The author accepts no liability for any damage or consequences resulting from the use of the information provided.
Read the latest articles here
News from ThailandMay 14, 2025Baht set for fresh dip on strong dollar and global uncertainties
Shopping May 14, 2025Tourist Guide: Shopping for Fashion and Clothes in Bangkok
Food and drinksMay 14, 2025Coconuts in Thailand are a delicious thirst quencher and healthy too!
IslandsMay 14, 2025Bounty Island Koh Phayam
You can leave from Brussels if you live in the border region. Long-term parking is also cheaper there.
I also fly regularly from Brussels. I take the train in Breda. It makes little difference whether you take the train to Amsterdam or to Brussels.
If you want the comfort of a direct flight, you will pay extra. If you make a stopover not too far from Schiphol and fly from there to Bangkok or another distant destination, you will not be bothered by the flight tax based on the long distance.
It will therefore become financially even more attractive not to book a direct flight but to make a transfer if this plan goes ahead. KLM and Eva air will notice this in the number of bookings. Result: their tickets will become cheaper, because otherwise they would have to fly with a half-full box.
In short: this plan of the government will not work. As soon as they realize that, they will come up with another plan.
When I still flew to Thailand regularly, I almost always left from BRU, while I lived in Dordrecht, so not really the border region
.
Also flew a few times from DUS with Air Berlin ..
This is nothing more than grabbing for the sake of grabbing.
Under the guise of the environment and so on.
Paying more for longer distances is illogical, because there is no alternative for longer distances.
If you fly within Europe, or within a radius of about 1000km, you can easily find an alternative and they can be made more expensive to “promote” those alternatives. That does not apply to flights to Thailand, Aruba or South Africa for all I care!
Shameless grabbing…unbelievable!
So it will still be cheaper to fly with a stopover than to fly direct or from abroad.
What a petty, short-sighted, bad Dutch way of thinking that a high flight tax for departures from Schiphol alone has any weight in the European environmental scale!
Are we still 'Europe' or not?
Aren't these matters that you regulate at European level?
With this, yet another, money-grabbing initiative under a false flag, Schiphol, as an international airport, is once again being put further behind in the international airport competition.
This has clearly not been thought through again by the 'dot' on the world map called the Netherlands.
I live near the border with Germany and I notice that I cross the border more and more often. For example, I do my shopping in Germany, I fill up my car in Germany and I fly from Düsseldorf to Thailand. How come?
Oh, yes, what I notice more and more when I fill up my car in Germany is that there are long lines of Dutch people who not only fill up but also stock up on large supplies of tobacco products. How come?
Luckily I don't smoke…
Will flying with online purchased tickets flights Thailand-Netherlands-Thailand be cheaper than with ticket Netherlands-Thailand-Netherlands?
(No Dutch flight tax)
For regular Thailand travellers living in the Netherlands, it may be beneficial to fly to Thailand once with a one-way ticket and then continue with tickets Thailand-Netherlands-Thailand.
A bit of a short-sighted policy, but perhaps I shouldn't be surprised about this cabinet. After the previous failed introduction of an additional tax, the realization came that this should be tackled at European level. The wheels turn slowly there, but pre-sorting is shooting yourself in the foot again. It is clear that we need to be more considerate of the environment (see science). But this can only be done in a good and larger total package. For example, good, less polluting alternatives on shorter distances (cheaper and better train traffic, to name but a few).
There are no good alternatives to flying for long distances, and making long distance travel more for the richer citizens seems like a bad idea to me. Those VVD bigwigs and associates will not lose a night's sleep over it or fly a kilometre less. So that's top policy from The Hague again... ahem.
If you don't want an air tax, dear Rob, you should vote for PVV or Forum for Democracy.
VVD
The VVD recognizes the importance of aviation for the Dutch economy and emphasizes the need for sustainability. They advocate greening aviation, so that the Dutch can continue to discover the world in a clean way. Although the VVD does not explicitly reject the flight tax, the emphasis is on stimulating cleaner technologies and maintaining the competitive position of Dutch airports.
D66
D66 is an outspoken supporter of the flight tax. They see it as a first step towards fairer pricing of flying and compensating for CO2 emissions. D66 also wants to get rid of exemptions for excise duty and VAT in aviation and advocates European agreements to give flying a fairer price.
CDA
The CDA supports a European air tax, particularly to discourage short-haul flights. They propose to stimulate train travel under 500 kilometers and advocate an effective European rail network.
GreenLinks
GroenLinks aims to shrink the aviation sector. They want Schiphol and regional airports to become smaller and focus on essential aviation. They also advocate not opening Lelystad Airport and introducing strict emission ceilings for CO2 and other harmful substances.
PvdA
Within the PvdA, proposals have been made for an air tax of at least 100 euros per ticket and a ban on flights within Europe for which fast train connections are an alternative. Not all members agree with these proposals, and the party faction in the House of Representatives wants to discuss this.
PVV
The PVV is against the flight tax and wants Schiphol to be able to grow. They believe that Dutch people should be able to continue to fly affordably from Dutch airports and therefore advocate abolishing the flight tax.
SP
The SP is against a general flight tax that affects everyone. They advocate a tax on frequent flyers, so that the bill does not fall to people who only go on holiday by plane once a year. In addition, they want to tax transfer passengers and make the aviation sector more sustainable.
Christian Union
The Christian Union wants to base the flight tax more on actual CO2 emissions and introduce a surcharge for flights up to 1250 km to stimulate more sustainable transport by train. They also advocate differentiation in airport charges for aircraft with higher noise pollution and want to get rid of unnecessary transfers.
christianunie.nl
SGP
The SGP is in favor of a substantial increase in the flight tax for destinations in Europe that are easily accessible by train. They want travelers to neighboring countries to take the train instead of the plane and advocate for investments in better international train connections.
SGP
Forum for Democracy (FVD)
FVD is against the increase in the flight tax and advocates tax reductions. They are critical of plans to further increase the flight tax and see this as a negative development for the aviation sector.
Then I feel better with the SP and their position on the flight tax. Saving the climate is good, but that can (must) also go hand in hand with an affordable daily life for Jan Modaal and below modal. I am not such a fan of inequality, where bigwigs at the top notice little (nothing) of necessary policy changes.
What great advice Peter, vote for FVD, the party that promotes the moon landing, 9/11 and the reptilian government, but all joking aside, I have been flying to Thailand since 1979 and if I compare the prices over that period, we now fly for a song, back then you lost a month's salary.
A ticket with KLM or EVA quickly costs 1000 euros or more. That is not a monthly salary, but it is heading in that direction. Thanks to our Green friends, flying will only be affordable for the elite and Rob Jetten with Frans Timmermans next to him in the plane in about 10 years. Just like in the past with communism in Eastern Europe and now still in Cuba: the people are dying and the party bosses are eating caviar. Great, such a green socialist utopia.
I think this comparison is not valid because salaries were simply much lower in the 70s than they are now and for a song now is also nonsense:
Before the covid hoax I flew to the Netherlands for an average of €500 to €600 return, now it is around €950
If you are still working, your income will have increased slightly, but for AOW recipients
the income increase is negligible. They will certainly not fly to Thailand for a song.
Another idiotic plan, especially from the left-wing climate dramatists. Robbie Jetten will probably like it. He travels to his boyfriend in Argentina, supposedly on a business trip, but immediately goes out to court. He can easily afford it. The average man cannot.
If you want to implement an effective policy, you can introduce a moderate flight tax for flights shorter than 4 hours and/or where there is no alternative, such as a train connection. All longer flights and intercontinental flights should be spared because these travellers have no other choice, for example to visit family.
This has little to do with the environment, but is just another tax on tax. People assume that if you can fly far, you must have a fat wallet.
Everyone near the border will soon be flying from Belgium or Germany. Traveling there by car also pollutes the environment.
It may even be that Thailand travellers fly to Madrid first and from there to Thailand because it is cheaper, so even more emissions. Transferring may become interesting anyway, just transfer in Doha or Istanbul and you may save.
We will see.
The till is empty and it needs to be picked. Normally it's the motorist's turn but now we have XR for that; well, then the pilots... This doesn't help at all; you do this in an EU context or leave it alone.
I also have a similar suspicion Erik. The coffin is empty, and even though the ladies and gentlemen are really not stupid. If it were about the environment/climate then they would know: this is better arranged at European level and as part of a larger package of measures. And then this comes from a right-wing cabinet with not a single green or red party in it. And even here on the blog some respondents point to the green or left-wing parties (not that D66 is left-wing, yes progressive on social issues, but not for nothing the image as a centrist neither fish nor fowl party). That is quite clever…
In any case, an unwise plan by the cabinet. Who knows, it might still get stuck and once again not get through both Houses.
Nobody is going to fly 6 hours to save a few euros – not me anyway, waste of my time. So yes, then it is just (extra) paying. In the meantime, the rest of the world is being filled with airport expansions and the countries where this is happening, it is not only for the 'home market'. I only fear that all growth scenarios can go in the trash if flying in the West becomes for the elite again and the money only has to be raised within the own region. Every euro spent on being able to get to the destination is not spent at the destination and perhaps even less spent at the destination. Leads again to the question of how tourism can be promoted...
According to the climate fanatics, our own country is far enough and beautiful enough, so why go far away. We will pay, one way or the other!
All the airports in our neighbouring countries are laughing their heads off.
They are actually expanding there and they realize that globalization cannot be stopped.
Just look at what has been and will be built in Qatar and Bangkok.
Weeze airport is also expanding with destinations source: https://www.rn7.nl/nieuws/artikel/airport-weeze-breidt-uit-met-nieuwe-vakantiebestemmingen
Many come this way by boat and we fly in the opposite direction by plane.
The reception of the boats still has to be paid for and in Poland and Scandinavia they are all pushed across the border from Russia. This will continue for a while, the entrepreneurs can no longer bear it.
In the past there was a calculation of how much of the euro you earned goes to tax, I think you'll be shocked.
Flight tax, stop this vulgar greed, you fly a maximum of 30 minutes above the Netherlands.
I have been flying around the world for years and in 95% of the cases I always leave from Dusseldorf as the starting point.
They are laughing their heads off about Dutch policy mismanagement.
I live in Limburg (Netherlands) and have been traveling to Thailand via Frankfurt for several years. Often it even makes quite a difference with Düsseldorf. I have been “ignoring” Schiphol for years, far too expensive in every way!
It is a fact that everything regularly becomes more expensive. So also flying. Personally I do not worry about that, because I cannot do anything about it. And let's be honest. If someone goes to Thailand, then that person is prepared for considerable expenses. So what difference does an increase of € 100,= or for that matter € 150,= make? If such an amount is a problem, then do not go to Thailand and enjoy your holiday in the Netherlands. Do not want to live above your financial means, that will lead to disappointments and frustrations.
I fly EVA. Their planes are green. That's bullshit of course but so is that other bullshit.
What I noticed is that the once so popular for regular Thailand visitors China Airlines (competitive ticket prices) no longer plays a role at all. If you look at their current ticket prices, they are a lot more expensive than the 5* airlines Emirates, Qatar and Ethihad. I think they are going to have hard times. If you compare this company with China Eastern (also Skyteam) for example, you pay less than half with the latter. That is why I do not know any Dutch person who flew the BKK-AMS route with the once so popular company in the past year.
To be honest, I think KLM also charges way too much money for their very poor service.
I also often went with China Airlines in the 90s. It was fine then. Also in terms of price.
But does China Airlines still have a direct connection between Bangkok and Amsterdam like it did back then?
I thought they now went via Taipei and then you are quickly on the road for 24/25 hours and that is why many travelers dropped out
Or am I wrong?
I was also one of those people who regularly flew with China Air, but what you say is correct, there is no longer a direct connection from Bangkok to Amsterdam.
By the way, incomprehensible decision by China Air.