从锁座比例看，购买阶段所调查的航线锁座比例为19.9%—62.1%不等，均值达38.7%。其中，春秋航空 南京—兰州（9C6188）航线锁座比例超过60%，深圳航空深圳—湛江（ZH9327）航线锁座比例超过 50%，这2家航司超过半数的经济舱座位被提前锁定；海南航空、东方航空、厦门航空的相关航线锁座 比例处于40%—46%的较高区间；吉祥航空相关航线锁座比例相对较低，不到20%。 江苏省消保委提出，机票锁座服务市场存在四个问题：锁座行为普遍存在，优质座位过度锁定；解锁机 制变相付费，挤压普通消费者权益；信息不透明且解释不合理，侵犯知情权；协议文本存在不公平格式 条款，权利义务设置不对等。 对于信息不透明一项，江苏省消保委提到，部分航司选座页面标识模糊，购票时未显著告知锁座规则与 收费标准；客服回应则多显牵强，常以"保障安全""系统默认"等为由，与"高比例锁座、付费即解"的实 际相悖，无法提供合法合理依据。 中国人民大学国家发展与战略研究院研究员陈占明表示，制定团体标准能够为航班座位管理提供明确依 据，有助于保障旅客知情权，使其在购票时提早掌握座位信息，从而更合理地判断是否需要付费选座。 从行业角度看，统一标准 ...

1月23日，中航协发布公告，为进一步引导航空公司规范航班预留座位行为，更好满足旅客多 样化、差异化的座位选择需求， 在民航局的指导下， 中国航空运输协会正组织各航空公司研 究制定《公共航空运输企业航班预留座位规则》团体标准，拟对预留座位的种类、范围、比例 及旅客信息告知等关键内容进行规范。 "这就是回应了旅客的呼声"。民航业内人士林智杰向21世纪经济报道表示。近两年众多消费者 投诉航司锁座行为，江苏省消费者权益保护委员会近期发布的一份调查显示， 十家主流航司 的经济舱平均锁座比例高达38.7%，部分航线甚至超过60%。 超三成优质座位被锁定 记者丨高江虹 编辑丨高梦阳 在中航协下场前，江苏省消费者权益保护委员会近期发布的专项调查报告，指出了国内航空服 务中"锁座"现象的普遍性。 一位不愿具名的国内航司工作人员向21世纪经济报道坦言， 航司锁座的小心思是想增长辅助 收入，但付费选座被国家发改委处罚后，通过锁座曲线获得多元产品收益成了新路径。 只不 过疫情前锁座没那么高，疫情后航司连年亏损，经营压力下锁座比例才节节攀升，最终令旅客 忍无可忍。 不过，与国际通行的锁座比例相比，中国航司并不算出格，国内航司也颇为委屈 ...

21世纪经济报道记者 高江虹 1月23日，中航协发布公告，为进一步引导航空公司规范航班预留座位行为，更好满足旅客多样化、差 异化的座位选择需求，在民航局的指导下，中国航空运输协会正组织各航空公司研究制定《公共航空运 输企业航班预留座位规则》团体标准，拟对预留座位的种类、范围、比例及旅客信息告知等关键内容进 行规范。 "这就是回应了旅客的呼声"。民航业内人士林智杰向21世纪经济报道表示。近两年众多消费者投诉航司 锁座行为，江苏省消费者权益保护委员会近期发布的一份调查显示，十家主流航司的经济舱平均锁座比 例高达38.7%，部分航线甚至超过60%。 一位不愿具名的国内航司工作人员向21世纪经济报道坦言，航司锁座的小心思是想增长辅助收入，但付 费选座被国家发改委处罚后，通过锁座曲线获得多元产品收益成了新路径。只不过疫情前锁座没那么 高，疫情后航司连年亏损，经营压力下锁座比例才节节攀升，最终令旅客忍无可忍。 不过，与国际通行的锁座比例相比，中国航司并不算出格，国内航司也颇为委屈，因为包括选座费在内 的辅助收入正成为全球航空业增长的引擎。 2024年，该项收入预计飙升至1484亿美元，占行业总收入 近15%。美国三大航司 ...

1月23日，中航协发布公告，为进一步引导航空公司规范航班预留座位行为，更好满足旅客多样化、差 异化的座位选择需求，在民航局的指导下，中国航空运输协会正组织各航空公司研究制定《公共航空运 输企业航班预留座位规则》团体标准，拟对预留座位的种类、范围、比例及旅客信息告知等关键内容进 行规范。 "这就是回应了旅客的呼声"。民航业内人士林智杰向21世纪经济报道表示。近两年众多消费者投诉航司 锁座行为，江苏省消费者权益保护委员会近期发布的一份调查显示，十家主流航司的经济舱平均锁座比 例高达38.7%，部分航线甚至超过60%。 一位不愿具名的国内航司工作人员向21世纪经济报道坦言，航司锁座的小心思是想增长辅助收入，但付 费选座被国家发改委处罚后，通过锁座曲线获得多元产品收益成了新路径。只不过疫情前锁座没那么 高，疫情后航司连年亏损，经营压力下锁座比例才节节攀升，最终令旅客忍无可忍。 不过，与国际通行的锁座比例相比，中国航司并不算出格，国内航司也颇为委屈，因为包括选座费在内 的辅助收入正成为全球航空业增长的引擎。 2024年，该项收入预计飙升至1484亿美元，占行业总收入 近15%。美国三大航司的辅助收入早在2022年就超过 ...

Core Viewpoint - The increasing trend of paid seat selection in the airline industry is criticized for limiting consumer choice and infringing on their rights, with some airlines locking a significant percentage of seats for additional fees, leading to a perception of a caste system in seating arrangements [1][4][10] Group 1: Paid Seat Selection Practices - Paid seat selection, initially a strategy for low-cost carriers, has now become widespread among all airlines, with some airlines being humorously suggested to rename themselves as "low-cost" carriers [3][4] - The practice of charging for seat selection has evolved into a complex system where even economy class seats are categorized into multiple tiers, with limited free options available [1][4][5] - Reports indicate that some airlines have seat lock rates exceeding 50%, with fees for seat selection ranging from 50 to 500 yuan [5][12] Group 2: Consumer Experience and Perception - Consumers are increasingly frustrated with the lack of available seats during the selection process, often left with undesirable options, leading to comparisons with social hierarchies [4][7] - The complexity of seat classifications and the inconsistency in naming conventions across airlines contribute to consumer confusion and dissatisfaction [7][10] - The perception of inequality in seating arrangements has been likened to a caste system, where better seats are reserved for those who can afford to pay more [4][5] Group 3: Financial Implications for Airlines - Airlines are increasingly relying on ancillary revenue from seat selection and other services, with reports indicating that such services contribute over 50% of their ancillary income [19][21] - Despite efforts to boost revenue through paid seat selection, many airlines are still facing significant financial losses, with major carriers projecting net losses in the range of 12 to 22 billion yuan for the first half of 2025 [22][23] - The competitive landscape has led airlines to prioritize high-tier members for better seating options, further complicating the experience for regular travelers [21][23]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the increasing trend of airlines charging for seat selection, which is perceived as a violation of consumer rights and a shift from safety considerations to revenue generation [3][4][11]. Group 1: Airline Practices - Many domestic airlines have implemented paid seat selection services, requiring passengers to pay extra or use mileage points for preferred seating [3][7]. - Airlines like China Southern and Air China have specific rules regarding seat locking, with some seats reserved for special services or requiring mileage for selection [4][8]. - The practice of locking seats, especially in the front rows, has shifted from safety concerns to a means of generating additional revenue [9][12]. Group 2: Consumer Rights and Legal Implications - Experts argue that paid seat selection infringes on consumer rights, particularly the right to know and choose, and may violate consumer protection laws [11][12]. - Historical precedents exist where airlines faced penalties for charging extra for seat selection, indicating a legal framework against such practices [10][11]. - There is a call for airlines to be transparent about seat locking policies and to ensure that a significant portion of seats remain available for free selection [11][12].

Core Viewpoint - The practice of paid seat selection by airlines has become a common revenue-generating strategy, raising concerns about consumer rights and transparency in the industry [2][3][8]. Group 1: Paid Seat Selection Practices - Many domestic airlines have implemented paid seat selection services, requiring passengers to pay extra or use mileage points to select certain seats [2][5]. - Airlines like China Southern and Air China have specific rules regarding seat locking, with some seats only available for purchase or mileage redemption [5][6]. - The proportion of locked seats varies by airline and flight, with no standardized regulations governing this practice [3][6]. Group 2: Consumer Rights and Legal Concerns - Experts argue that paid seat selection may violate consumer rights, particularly the right to know and choose freely, and could be seen as a breach of contract [3][8][9]. - The lack of transparency regarding seat availability and the rationale behind seat locking has been criticized, with calls for clearer communication from airlines [8][9]. - Historical precedents exist where airlines faced penalties for similar practices, indicating ongoing regulatory scrutiny in this area [7][8]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The shift towards paid seat selection is viewed as a move away from initial safety considerations to a focus on additional revenue, potentially harming airline reputations [6][9]. - Industry analysts suggest that this trend could lead to a deterioration of consumer trust and loyalty, as passengers feel their rights are being undermined [9].

Core Viewpoint - The practice of airlines locking premium economy seats and charging "seat selection fees" under the guise of "additional services" has sparked public debate, raising concerns about transparency and consumer rights [1][2]. Group 1: Airline Practices - Airlines are locking seats for safety reasons and to balance cabin weight, which is generally accepted by passengers [1]. - However, when the practice of locking seats exceeds safety needs and becomes a means of disguised charging, its rationality is called into question [1]. - The current controversy centers on airlines dynamically adjusting locked seat ratios and obscuring fee standards, which undermines the clarity required by regulations [1][2]. Group 2: Consumer Sentiment - Consumers are naturally wary of hidden fees and have clear expectations regarding service quality, leading to disappointment when basic service contracts are perceived as violated [2]. - The dissatisfaction with "seat selection fees" stems not only from increased costs but also from a breach of trust in the fundamental service agreement [2]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The normalization of "seat locking" as an industry practice threatens the foundational trust necessary for long-term development in the aviation sector [2]. - Some airlines are even including public service seats, such as emergency exit and mother-child seats, in the charging system, which contradicts regulations prioritizing special passenger protections [2]. Group 4: Regulatory Recommendations - It is essential to establish hard limits on the proportion of locked seats to prevent widespread locking practices [2]. - There should be transparency in fee standards to ensure passengers are fully informed before purchasing tickets [2]. - Protection of special seat resources must be enforced, prohibiting the commercialization of seats related to public interest [2]. Group 5: Broader Context - The discussion surrounding seat selection fees reflects a broader societal dialogue about maintaining fairness in commercial transactions, particularly in public service sectors [3]. - Airlines must balance economic benefits with social responsibilities, ensuring that innovations do not compromise public service integrity [3]. - A combination of improved legal regulations, technological empowerment, and innovative oversight is necessary to create a market environment that encourages innovation while ensuring fairness [3].

Core Viewpoint - The recent discussions around "paid seat selection" in the airline industry have raised concerns about consumer rights and the legality of such practices, with experts suggesting that these practices may violate consumer protection laws [1][2][4]. Group 1: Lack of Transparency - Airlines have not publicly disclosed the standards for their "seat locking" rules, including the basis for calculating the locking ratio, dynamic adjustment mechanisms, and specific fees or points required for seat selection [2][3]. - This lack of transparency infringes on consumers' right to know the true conditions of the services they purchase, as stipulated by the Consumer Rights Protection Law [2]. Group 2: Increased Locking Proportions - Reports indicate that the proportion of locked seats has increased significantly, particularly on popular routes, with a shift from locking only special seats to including more desirable seats in the economy class [2][3]. - This practice limits consumers' choices, as airlines are reserving premium seats for paid selection while offering only less desirable options for free [2]. Group 3: Questionable Justification for Fees - The rationale behind charging for seat selection is under scrutiny, as consumers traditionally expect that the purchase of a ticket includes the right to a seat [3][4]. - The pricing of seat selection within the same class varies without a clear basis, suggesting that the fee structure is more about maximizing profits rather than reflecting service costs [3]. Group 4: Consumer Rights Violations - The practice of charging for seat selection is seen as a violation of consumers' rights to know and choose, contradicting the airlines' responsibilities as public service providers [4]. - Recommendations include airlines adhering to safety protocols for special seats, standardizing their operational practices, and increasing transparency regarding seat locking rules and fees [4].

Core Viewpoint - Domestic airlines are facing criticism for locking a significant number of seats during online check-in, limiting consumer choice and potentially violating consumer rights and pricing laws [1] Group 1: Consumer Experience - Many consumers have reported limited seat selection when checking in online for flights, particularly on routes such as Beijing to Urumqi and Sanya, where front-row and certain window and aisle seats are often locked [1] - Airlines are offering pre-selected seat upgrade services, with international flights typically requiring payment for seat selection, while domestic flights may require mileage redemption [1] Group 2: Regulatory Concerns - Experts argue that the practice of locking seats for additional revenue may be illegal, infringing on consumer rights to information, choice, and fair trade [1] - There is a call for airlines to clarify the proportion of locked seats and to publicly disclose seat selection rules [1] Group 3: Industry Practices - The practice of paid seat selection began in low-cost airlines abroad and was adopted by domestic airlines around 2015, initially for safety reasons but has since evolved into a controversial revenue-generating service [1] - The lack of authoritative regulation and the limited number of airlines reduce accountability, allowing airlines to operate without facing significant penalties for these practices [1] - Historically, the only notable penalty occurred in 2016 when the Beijing Development and Reform Commission fined China United Airlines over 440,000 yuan for similar practices [1]