飞机锁座收费合理吗？（法治聚焦）

Core Viewpoint - The practice of airlines locking premium seats during the ticket purchasing process is a method to increase revenue, which may infringe on consumers' rights to fair trade and choice [1] Group 1: General Findings - The survey conducted by Jiangsu Consumer Protection Committee revealed that all ten selected domestic airlines have implemented seat locking practices, with no airline fully opening all economy class seats [2] - The average seat locking ratio across the surveyed routes is 38.7%, with some airlines like Spring Airlines and Shenzhen Airlines exceeding 60% and 50% respectively [2] Group 2: Payment for Unlocking Seats - Many airlines require consumers to use miles or membership points to unlock premium seats, with specific examples showing different point thresholds for various seat categories [3] - Some airlines have introduced additional paid options for purchasing points or miles, further pushing consumers towards a paid unlocking mechanism [3] Group 3: Lack of Transparency - Airlines provided vague explanations for seat locking, citing reasons such as reserving seats for special passengers and maintaining flight balance, which contradicts the high locking ratios observed [4][5] - Customer service responses were often unclear, failing to provide reasonable justifications for the locking practices [4] Group 4: Unfair Terms - The seat selection agreements of the ten airlines commonly contain unfair terms, lacking clear communication about locking rules and fees, which may violate consumers' right to information [6] - The use of ambiguous language in agreements allows airlines to avoid disclosing the number and range of free seats available, facilitating unilateral seat locking [6] Group 5: Expert Opinions - Experts argue that the seat locking practice is a form of price discrimination and information concealment, which increases consumer decision-making costs and distorts market efficiency [9] - There is a call for airlines to balance economic benefits with consumer rights, advocating for clearer rules and transparency in seat allocation practices [9]