Mr. Lin, a consumer, spent 15,217 yuan on international flight tickets on the Ctrip app and initiated a refund request on July 13 due to a change in his travel plans. However, he only received 432 yuan back. Ctrip claimed it was due to the airline’s regulations, while the airline customer service mentioned that the fees needed confirmation from the platform, sparking online attention.
On July 20, Mr. Lin told The Paper that on July 3, he placed an order through the Ctrip app for a flight from Beijing to New York on July 16, planning to watch the World Cup soccer game. The total amount paid for this order was 15,217 yuan. Due to a last-minute change in his schedule, he requested a refund on July 13.
“When processing the refund, I noticed a prompt for a fee of over 400 yuan on the page,” Mr. Lin said. He subconsciously thought that by cancelling three days in advance, a fee of over 400 yuan needed to be deducted, so he did not carefully check and directly confirmed the refund. It was only the next day when he checked his account that he realized the platform had only refunded 432 yuan.
This refund consisted of 374 yuan for airport construction tax and 58 yuan for additional service fees, meaning that none of the 15,217 yuan for the flight ticket was refunded, with a refund rate of less than 3%.
Mr. Lin explained that he was a Ctrip Diamond member and originally trusted the platform to protect the rights of high-end users. However, due to a busy day, he did not carefully read the refund regulations line by line and assumed that the refund amount would not be deducted so severely. After realizing the heavy losses, he requested to restore the original ticket or reschedule, but Ctrip customer service replied that they could not handle it and stated that the refund and change fees were set by Air China, with the platform only executing them.
Upon reviewing the order page afterwards, Mr. Lin raised concerns about the unreasonable design of the platform interface: the flight ticket he purchased was prominently displayed at the top of the app page, with only a small note stating “only partial taxes can be refunded.” Meanwhile, at the bottom of the same page, there were other flights on the same route available for refund or changes at a cost of only 400 yuan more. Mr. Lin believed that the ticket he bought was not a low-cost discounted ticket, and the platform’s small-font display of crucial refund and change restrictions could easily mislead consumers.
On July 20, a Ctrip customer service representative told The Paper that the airline’s refund policy prohibits refunds both before and after takeoff. “The refund fee is the airline’s policy. Ctrip does not charge any fees. If the airline can provide a full refund, even if they have received your money, they can refund it to you. We also checked with the airline, and they clearly informed us that refunds were not allowed.”
In the evening of the 20th, a reporter from the mentioned media consulted with Air China’s customer service as a user, who replied that the ticket was issued by a third party, and specific fees needed to be confirmed with the original issuing entity. When asked, “Isn’t the third party’s refund policy determined by you?” the customer service representative replied, “Consult the place where you purchased the ticket.”
This incident immediately sparked online attention.
Netizens commented, stating, “The core of this controversy is not only the exorbitant refund fee but also the platform’s lack of critical risk prompts. When an important clause affecting property worth tens of thousands of yuan, such as ‘only partial taxes can be refundable,’ is condensed into an inconspicuous single line of small text, the so-called ‘informed consent’ becomes meaningless.” “It’s another case of small print, is this not making a fool out of consumers? Only getting 432 back from a 15,000-yuan flight ticket, even bandits would have to admit it’s impressive.”
“Paying fifteen thousand for an international flight ticket, ending up with only 432 after a refund, opaque layers of deduction standards, easy to buy tickets but difficult to refund, the rules for ticket refunds and changes really need to be standardized.” “Please present a complete and clear set of rules for ticket refunds to protect consumers from invisible losses; it’s too difficult for ordinary people to earn money in an economic downturn.”
“Refunding a 15,000-yuan flight ticket with only 400 yuan left, nearly a complete loss, deliberately concealing refund and change rules in small print, passing the buck back and forth between the platform and the airline. Excessive fees far exceed a reasonable range, squeezing ordinary people with predatory terms, should be properly regulated.”
“The most frustrating part is encountering obstacles in seeking recourse after suffering losses, Ctrip pushing responsibility to the airline, the airline asking users to contact the ticket-purchasing platform, both sides passing the ball back and forth, ordinary consumers powerless against standardized predatory terms, can only accept it.” “Ctrip says it’s according to the airline’s rules, the airline says contact the platform for confirmation, passing the buck back and forth, and in the end, it’s the consumer who pays the bill. Many people aren’t unwilling to seek justice but the process is too long, and the threshold is too high, they can only accept it. The rules of refunds and changes should be transparent.”
“In case of flight cancellations, they just send you a text message. The platform and the airline are too strong; seeking justice is difficult.”