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]

Core Viewpoint - The practice of "paid seat selection" by airlines has become a controversial industry norm, raising legal and ethical concerns regarding consumer rights and fair pricing [1][5][10]. Group 1: Paid Seat Selection Practices - Airlines are increasingly charging for seat selection, with only a small percentage of seats available for free. For example, on a flight with 300 seats, only 14 were free, while the rest required payment ranging from 35 to 140 yuan [3][5]. - The introduction of paid seat selection was initially marketed as a convenience but has evolved into a profit-driven model, undermining the original intent of providing fair access to seating [5][7]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Concerns - Legal experts argue that the "locking" of seats for paid selection violates multiple laws, including the Public Aviation Transport Passenger Service Management Regulations, the Consumer Rights Protection Law, and the Pricing Law [5][8]. - Despite past penalties, such as the one imposed on China United Airlines in 2016 for similar practices, enforcement against airlines engaging in paid seat selection has been minimal [7][10]. Group 3: Consumer Impact and Industry Response - The current practices not only infringe on consumer rights but also create a negative perception of airlines, as passengers find themselves unable to sit together or choose preferred seats without additional fees [10]. - There is a call for regulatory bodies to intervene and investigate these practices to protect consumer rights and improve the overall service quality in the aviation industry [10].

Core Viewpoint - The practice of "paid seat selection" by airlines has become a controversial industry norm, with increasing instances of "locking" seats that require additional fees or points for selection, despite having already sold tickets based on seat class [1][2]. Group 1: Industry Trends - The average daily ticket booking volume for domestic flights during the upcoming National Day holiday has increased by over 25% compared to the same period last year [1]. - The number of airlines implementing "seat locking" has grown, with a notable increase in the proportion of locked seats [1]. - For example, on a flight from Osaka Kansai to Beijing Capital, only 116 out of approximately 300 seats were available for selection, with only 14 of those being free [1]. Group 2: Consumer Rights and Legal Issues - The practice of locking a large number of seats infringes on passengers' rights to know and choose, as it effectively monetizes their autonomy in seat selection [2][4]. - Legal experts have indicated that the widespread "paid seat selection" practices may violate multiple laws, including regulations on public air transport services, consumer rights protection, and pricing laws [4]. - Consumers are encouraged to assert their rights and can potentially initiate public interest lawsuits against airlines for these practices [4]. Group 3: Public Sentiment and Reactions - Discussions on social media regarding the necessity of purchasing a seat after buying a ticket have garnered over ten million views, indicating widespread dissatisfaction [2]. - Many travelers express frustration over the inability to select preferred seats, which can disrupt family seating arrangements and overall travel experience [4].