A recent order by the ruling military government of Thailand to ground international flights operated by 12 airlines was seen by some as a duplication of an order issued by the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT). In an article by Airfinance Journal, published on September 15, 2017, John Frangos, a consultant in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution department, gave his insight into why the government may have thought the additional order – a so-called “Section 44 order” – was necessary.

“By using Section 44, the government is essentially telling the airlines: ‘You can’t challenge this,’” John is quoted as saying. “Otherwise, with the CAAT’s order standing alone, there is a risk that the airlines would challenge the legality of that order and seek an injunction. The Administrative Court could potentially issue an injunction allowing the airlines to fly internationally. Section 44 takes away this possibility.”

“In this way, using Section 44 helps the government show the international community … how seriously it takes this issue.”

Airfinance Journal  is a news and analysis provider for airlines and aviation industry capital providers. You can read the full article, entitled “Analysis: Why Thailand banned international flights twice,” on the Airfinance Journal website (subscription required).