Trip.com Group has come under fire from the airline industry after fully refunding an Air China premium economy ticket that had initially been deemed almost entirely non-refundable.
The passenger, Mr. Lin, paid RMB 15,000 (about USD 2,219) for a flight to New York but later cancelled the trip because of a schedule change. He was initially offered just RMB 400 (about USD 59) in refunded taxes and fees, with the remaining RMB 14,700 deemed non-refundable under Air China’s fare rules.
Trip.com initially told Lin that it could refund no more than the airline’s policy allowed. But after state media CCTV reported the dispute, he received two separate payments on the morning of July 28, bringing his total refund to the full ticket price.
The decision triggered strong backlash from airlines, which argue that the online platform has disrupted established industry rules.
Yet the dispute also raises a more fundamental question: why are airline refund policies still so opaque and inconsistent?
If China’s railways can operate a nationwide, transparent, tiered refund system, why should airlines retain such wide discretion over refund charges?
Calls for reform have repeatedly emerged in recent years. Yet the industry associations have remained largely silent, airlines have made little progress, and even the most basic level of transparency has yet to be achieved.
Wei Zhu, an associate professor at China University of Political Science and Law, said both the platform and the airline had failed to adequately disclose key information, leaving the consumers under a material misunderstanding. He argued that the relevant clauses could constitute unfair standard terms and therefore be deemed invalid.
A closer comparison of the three major Chinese airlines’ international branded fares shows that Air China applies non-refundable restrictions more broadly than China Eastern Airlines and China Southern Airlines.
For mid-tier fare classes, China Eastern and China Southern generally still provide some flexibility for changes and refunds. Air China, by contrast, classifies comparable fares as non-refundable. Even among higher-priced tickets, Air China has a noticeably larger share of non-refundable products.
Throughout the dispute, Air China has remained largely out of sight. It set the rules, while Trip.com took the blame and paid the refund — yet Air China is the one expressing dissatisfaction.
One passenger’s victory should not become a fig leaf for an unfair system. New industry rules are overdue, and now is the moment to put them in place.
