Vietjet Thailand has just pressed the accelerator on a bold growth plan that could reshape short-haul air travel in and out of the Kingdom. The low-cost carrier, led by Chief Executive Woranate Laprabang, confirmed an aggressive fleet upgrade this year with nine new Boeing 737-8 jets on order — a clear signal it intends to transition to an all-Boeing fleet within five years and target 50 aircraft by 2028.
From Airbus to Boeing: A strategic pivot
Mid-year the airline returned four Airbus A320s, leaving 14 of that type in operation, but the plane swap is about more than brand loyalty. The 737-8s offer longer range and operational flexibility, enabling Vietjet to chase higher-demand international sectors. With one Boeing due in October, four more in November and another four in December, the carrier will grow to 23 aircraft by year-end — a meaningful jump for a budget operator focused on rapid route rollout.
Cool-season international push
Vietjet is using its new capacity to press into lucrative East Asian markets during the cool season. October will see the debut of Bangkok–Seoul services, while December brings flights to Tokyo (Narita) and Osaka. These launches come at a fortuitous moment: the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has restored Thailand’s safety rating to Category 1, a development that opens the door to more overseas opportunities and bolsters international confidence in Thai carriers.
Leadership on the move
Woranate Laprabang’s fleet vision is already translating into route moves. Pinyot Pibulsonggram, vice-president of commercial and customer service, has been at the frontline of the expansion narrative — and he’s keen to stamp down rumours that Vietjet plans to blow prices up in a fare war. According to Pinyot, demand is strong enough to keep fares stable while the airline focuses on market share through network breadth rather than destructive price cuts.
Rebalancing after softer Chinese demand
Even as Chinese arrivals remain softer than hoped, Vietjet continues scheduled services to top China cities — Beijing, Hangzhou, Guangzhou and Shanghai — which are still popular among Thai travellers. To offset reduced Chinese inbound tourism, the airline is diversifying its international mix with new South Asian links: Kolkata and Ahmedabad are slated to join the network later this year.
2025 and beyond: ambitious route map
By the end of the year Vietjet expects to serve seven countries with 25 international routes and 12 domestic routes. Looking further ahead to 2026, the airline has its eyes on Hong Kong and Nagoya, and is even exploring longer sectors such as Phuket–Perth. Domestically, Vietjet will add Nakhon Si Thammarat to its timetable, marking its 11th provincial destination as it battles to reclaim Thailand’s second-largest domestic market share, according to the Bangkok Post.
Government support and financials
The airline has also tapped government backing, securing 26,000 seats under a 200,000-flight domestic support programme designed to stimulate internal connectivity. Financially, Vietjet reported 7.5 billion baht in revenue for the first half of the year and remains on track to hit 15 billion baht by year-end — effectively matching last year’s full-year performance despite the shortfall in Chinese visitors.
What this means for travellers and competitors
For passengers, the expansion promises more direct options to South Korea, Japan and South Asia, cheaper connections through increased seat supply and an overall boost in frequency. For competing carriers, Vietjet’s plan is a reminder that capacity and network diversification can be potent tools in a low-cost carrier’s arsenal — especially when backed by a move to aircraft that deliver longer ranges and lower per-seat costs on many sectors.
Final approach
Vietjet Thailand is clearly not content to coast. The airline’s pivot to a Boeing-heavy fleet, timely international launches, and strategic route diversification aim to turn the current headwinds into tailwinds. Whether the gamble pays off will depend on execution, fuel prices, and how quickly demand on new routes matures — but for now, Vietjet is accelerating into a future of bigger skies, bolder routes and more options for travellers across the region.
Photos: Woranate Laprabang (courtesy Smart-Aviation Asia Pacific); Pinyot Pibulsonggram (courtesy Travel Daily Media).
We’re doubling down on network and efficiency — nine 737-8s is just the start toward 50 by 2028. This pivot lets us open longer routes without sacrificing low fares, and it’s timed with Thailand’s improved FAA rating to win confidence abroad.
Sounds ambitious, but isn’t switching fleets midstream expensive? Training crews and changing maintenance chains can’t be cheap.
True, the transition has upfront costs, but the per-seat economics and range flexibility of the 737-8s pay back quickly on international sectors we plan to open.
As someone in airline operations, I agree the 737-8 offers range improvements, but integration risks — spares, pilot conversion, supply-chain delays — are real and often underestimated.
Then why not keep a mixed fleet for flexibility? Completely switching seems like putting all eggs in one manufacturer’s basket.
We considered mixed operations, but long-term simplicity, bargaining power on purchases and lower unit costs made the Boeing-heavy plan the better strategic choice.
I appreciate the transparency, but will passengers actually see lower fares? More seats can mean lower prices, but only if demand follows.
We expect demand to grow with more frequencies and routes; our strategy is to grow market share via network breadth rather than cut-throat price wars.
Good to hear a focus on sustainable pricing; price wars wreck smaller players and service quality eventually.
Boeing vs Airbus drama again. I just want cheaper flights to Japan, honestly.
Same here — if they add Osaka and Tokyo on direct routes, sign me up; stop with one-stop nightmares.
Direct is great but check flight timings and connections; cheap fares at midnight are not always worth it.
Real question: will these new routes be sustainable without subsidy and with volatile fuel prices? Market entrance often looks sexy on paper.
Government backing of 26,000 seats smells of state distortion. Is this fair competition or corporate welfare disguised as connectivity?
Public funding for internal connectivity isn’t unusual; it stimulates local economies and tourism in under-served regions.
Yes, but transparency and route selection criteria matter; otherwise it becomes a bailout for favored carriers.
If it helps provinces get flights, I’m okay. My town needs better access to Bangkok.
I’m skeptical about demand diversification away from China. Kolkata and Ahmedabad are niche markets; will Thai tourists fly there in volume?
South Asian diaspora travel and business ties could support those routes, especially if launched with decent frequency.
Maybe, but marketing and partnerships will be crucial, not just throwing metal at the sky.
From an environmental policy perspective, fleet expansion without clear carbon plans is worrying. More flights often mean more emissions unless offsets or efficiency gains are proven.
We are aware of environmental concerns; newer 737-8s are more fuel-efficient than the older A320s and part of our plan includes exploring sustainable aviation fuel options.
Fuel efficiency helps, but transparency on targets and independent verification are needed, not just marketing statements.
FAA Category 1 restored — finally. Maybe that’ll bring US partners and codeshares. But does it really change daily life for passengers here?
It improves international confidence and could attract more transfer traffic, which benefits route networks and fares.
I hope so, but the proof is in route launches and seat sales, not in regulatory headlines.
If fares stay stable as they claim, who loses? Probably other low-cost carriers in Thailand. Expect price battles eventually.
Our goal is to avoid destructive price wars; competition should be about network and service, not just undercutting.
Easier said than done. Market dynamics often force fares down, especially on popular leisure routes.
Phuket–Perth sounds exciting but is that leisure-only demand or can they sustain year-round flights? Seasonal routes are tricky.
We’d target peak seasons initially and assess year-round viability later; flexibility is key in our rollout plans.
Complete fleet homogenization can boost efficiency but reduces bargaining leverage in events like global grounding or supplier issues. Risky move.
That’s correct. A diverse supplier base can be a hedge. But scale with one type can lower unit costs dramatically — it’s a trade-off.
We considered hedging, but the data favored scale benefits for our route mix and growth targets.
Airlines always say ‘demand is strong’ right before fares climb. I’m cynical — keep the prices low, please.
Customer demand versus yield management is a balancing act. Lower base fares often come with add-ons that increase final price.
We will prioritize customer experience even as we expand capacity; route reliability and on-time performance are top priorities for us.
Words are nice, but operational discipline matters. Rapid growth can strain crews and ops unless investments match expansion.
Agreed — that’s why we’re phasing deliveries and aligning crew training and maintenance plans with capacity growth.
Are they buying new or leasing? Lease terms can hide costs and affect long-term balance sheets.
A mix of purchase and leasing gives us flexibility, and financial teams are structuring deals to balance cashflow with growth.
I’m excited about more direct Japan and Korea flights. Less transit stress for families visiting relatives is a real quality-of-life gain.
That’s a good point; diaspora and family travel often drive route success more than tourism marketing.
Competitive dynamics: This move may push other ASEAN LCCs to upgauge or consolidate. Could be a regional reshuffle brewing.
Consolidation could follow if smaller carriers can’t compete on network or capital for larger jets.
Exactly, so regulators should watch for anti-competitive outcomes, not just celebrate growth.
Pilot shortage alert: scaling to 50 aircraft means lots of pilots needed. Training pipelines and retention should be spelled out.
We are investing in training partnerships and retention programs to ensure a steady supply of qualified crew.
Partnerships help, but global hiring wars and contract expectations will make retention costly.
What about customer service? Sometimes LCC expansion leads to worse service quality. Hope they don’t cut corners.
Customer experience often depends on operational stability. Rapid network growth without backend investment can degrade service.
I like that they target South Asia links. There’s untapped VFR and business travel potential with India and nearby markets.
Yes, but visa and bilateral agreements matter. Airline interest is only one piece of the puzzle.
Environmental activists will hate this, economists will cheer, travelers will benefit — classic story. Where’s the compromise?
Compromise means transparent targets on emissions per ASKM, SAF commitments, and independent reporting; otherwise it’s hollow.
Does anyone trust Boeing less after the MAX crises? I’m biased but reliability perceptions matter to passengers.
Perception does matter, but Boeing has made fixes; regulatory restorations like FAA Cat 1 help rebuild trust if enforced rigorously.
Operational safety depends on regulators, airlines, and manufacturers; a single-aisle fleet requires top-tier maintenance regimes to avoid systemic risks.
Will Vietjet codeshare with other airlines? Partnerships could make new long-haul connections easier without immediate big-jet buys.
We’re exploring partnerships and codeshares selectively, aiming to enhance connectivity while protecting our LCC model.
If this forces other carriers to improve service while keeping prices down, passengers win. If it leads to dominance, we lose out.
Exactly the tension regulators should mind: growth can be pro-consumer until competition weakens.
Smaller airports like Nakhon Si Thammarat getting service is great. Regional connectivity often gets ignored in favor of hubs.
True, but viability in the long run depends on population, tourism development, and frequency — one route alone isn’t enough.
I hope the onboard experience isn’t downgraded. Luggage fees and cramped seats make long-haul budget flights miserable sometimes.
That’s a core issue: LCCs need to balance monetization with basic comfort; otherwise they erode repeat business.
Is this good for people who travel for work? Does more planes mean more job opportunities?
Yes, expansion creates jobs across pilots, cabin crew, ground staff and maintenance, and we aim to recruit locally wherever possible.
That’s awesome. More jobs and cheaper flights would be great for my family.
They should pair route launches with local tourism campaigns. Seats alone don’t create demand if destinations aren’t marketed properly.
Agreed — destination marketing, visa facilitation and flights need to be coordinated for success.
I worry about hidden trade-offs: lower unit costs sometimes translate into worse labor conditions. Anyone heard about staff concerns?
Labor tensions can surface when growth outpaces wage adjustments and work conditions; unionization trends could rise.
Overall, I welcome more choices. Competition has made travel accessible for more people, and that social benefit is huge.
True, but only if competition remains fair and doesn’t lead to monopoly pricing later on.
If they promise stable fares and deliver more direct routes, I’ll switch to Vietjet. Reputation will be key though.
We welcome passengers to try our expanded network and will work to earn loyalty through reliability and value.