Major Chinese Airlines Summoned Over Seat-Locking Practice

Ten major Chinese airlines have been summoned by consumer authorities and ordered to rectify their practice of locking large portions of preferred economy-class seats, China Central Television reported yesterday.

The issue of seat locking and paid seat selection has sparked widespread public discussion. Many passengers complain that convenient seats — such as those in front rows, by windows, or on aisles — are often locked during online check-in and available only for an additional fee.

Following these complaints, the Jiangsu Consumer Council investigated 10 domestic carriers: China Southern Airlines, Air China, Hainan Airlines, Xiamen Airlines, Shenzhen Airlines, Shandong Airlines, Sichuan Airlines, China Eastern Airlines, Spring Airlines, and Juneyao Air.

The probe found all 10 engaged in seat locking in economy class. The proportion of locked seats at the ticket-purchasing stage ranged from 19.9 percent to 62.1 percent, averaging 38.7 percent.

According to the council's findings, the locked seats are primarily those preferred by passengers, including front-row, window, and aisle seats, while only less desirable middle or rear cabin seats are offered for free selection.

The investigation concluded that unlocking these preferred seats essentially requires payment or compromises ordinary passengers' rights. Most locked premium seats are only accessible using frequent flyer miles or points, meaning non-members or occasional travelers are forced to accept less favorable seats.

Additionally, some airlines allow passengers to unlock preferred seats through mileage or point redemption or direct payment, effectively transforming a basic service into a paid add-on.

When questioned by the council, several airlines cited reasons such as reserving seats for special-needs passengers, ensuring emergency seat availability, and maintaining flight load balance. However, the investigation contradicted these claims.

The high seat-locking rates often exceeded 30 percent, undermining the "special-needs reservation" justification. The locking of numerous standard window and aisle seats, not just exit rows, conflicted with the "emergency seat" rationale. Furthermore, the possibility of unlocking seats via payment or points negated the "load balance" argument.

The council also noted a lack of uniform standards among airlines for determining which seats to lock.

By artificially restricting choices, airlines are potentially infringing on consumers' rights to information, free choice, and fair trade.

Experts argue that by designating large numbers of conventional convenient seats as "preferred" and placing them behind paywalls or point-redemption systems without transparent criteria, airlines are essentially creating a paid service from a basic right. This practice distributes resources based on membership tier or payment ability, establishing unreasonable transaction conditions which likely violate the principles of fairness and consumer rights as stipulated in relevant Chinese law.

The Jiangsu Consumer Council has held online talks with the 10 airlines, demanding rectification and requiring them to submit detailed written corrective reports within 15 working days.

The council stated it would continue monitoring the implementation of corrective measures and take further supervisory actions as necessary.