此外，《征求意见稿》还提出要 明确预留座位的释放时间，防止"最后一刻"才放座。 航空公 司须在网络购票、值机等环节以显著方式告知旅客免费与预留座位范围、积分/里程兑换标 准、付费选座价格（仅限国际及地区航班）、预留座位释放时间等信息。同时， 座位图需使 用清晰图标区分"免费可选""会员可选""线上不可选""已选座位"等类别，杜绝信息模糊与误 导。 据央视新闻报道，记者从中国航空运输协会了解到，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， 中国航空运输协会组织各航空公司研 究制定了《公共航空运输企业航班预留座位规则（征求意见稿）》团体标准，今天向社会公 布，并进行为期一个月的公开征求意见。 此次公开征求意见的《公共航空运输企业航班预留座位规则（征求意见稿）》团体标准覆盖国 内、国际及地区航班，首次系统规范航空公司经济舱座位预留的种类、范围、比例及信息告知 等关键内容。 根据《征求意见稿》内容， 航空公司须将经济舱座位分为"免费可选座位"和"预留座位"两大 类。 其中： 运行保障性预留座位需基于安全和服务刚性需求， 包括安全员座位、紧急出口限制、特殊 旅客（如轮椅、担架、 ...

Core Viewpoint - The China Air Transport Association is organizing airlines to establish a group standard for "reserved seat rules" to regulate the practice of locking seats on flights, aiming to clarify the types, scope, proportions of reserved seats, and passenger information notification requirements, with plans to solicit public opinions soon [2] Group 1: Industry Practices - A survey by the Jiangsu Consumer Protection Commission revealed that the average locking seat ratio for economy class among 10 major airlines was 38.7%, with some airlines exceeding 60% [2] - The locked seats, often preferred ones like window and aisle seats, typically require consumers to pay extra or use points for selection, which has been criticized as a form of disguised secondary charging by airlines [2] - Airlines often justify the locking of seats with vague reasons such as "load balancing" and "system defaults," which have been deemed excessive compared to the reasonable needs for ensuring aircraft load balance or emergency evacuation [2] Group 2: Consumer Rights and Transparency - The Jiangsu Consumer Protection Commission pointed out that the rules regarding seat locking lack transparency, as the ticket purchasing pages do not clearly indicate which seats require additional fees, the fee standards, and the basis for seat locking [2] - Consumers typically discover that their desired seats are unavailable only during the seat selection phase, which infringes upon their rights to be informed and to choose [2] - Commentary suggests that while airlines pursuing economic benefits is understandable, any innovation in business models must adhere to legal boundaries, as separating basic services that should be included in ticket prices into additional charges effectively deprives consumer rights [2]