Late in October, a travel blogger known as Liu Boyi encountered a shocking issue while booking an international flight through a third-party ticketing platformDespite paying in cash, he received a ticket that had a markedly lower value—a mileage ticket instead of the cash ticket he had expectedThis incident disregarded civil aviation regulations and nearly derailed his planned journey.

After unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation through customer service, Liu decided to expose the issue publicly.

His revelation sent waves through the community, prompting many others to investigate their own flight histories, leading to the discovery of similar discrepancies and prompting a surge of complaints aimed at the platform for explanations and refunds.

Unlike the typical price fluctuations due to timing, customers reported that the price discrepancy they encountered referred specifically to the amounts collected by the platform being higher than those indicated on the airline's itinerary, in violation of regulations and infringements on consumer rights.

This has not been a new issue; it is one that has gone unnoticed for too long by the average traveler.

Investigating further into how these unreasonable price discrepancies came about, we discovered that they were rooted in the intricate relationships between airlines, third-party platforms, and ticket agents

These intermediary platforms not only provided travel conveniences but also created information barriers and opaque practices that caused many consumers to pay more than they should have.

When there is incremental change, it can lead to qualitative changeThis year, passengers have become more sensitive than ever to the fluctuations in ticket pricesMany have begun to push back against the information asymmetries they once accepted, taking part in a consumption revolution that advocates against middlemen profiting off price differences in ticket sales.

The Hidden Pricing Difference in Airline Tickets

On October 21, Liu Boyi purchased an international ticket for 1260 yuan on the Tongcheng travel platform for a flight the next day, intending to participate in a Scandinavian airline’s million-mile challenge

• Carbon Fiber Industry Sees Growth
• Port Cities: Economic Booms and Busts
• Derby Software Bridges Four Gaps with Generative AI
• Saudi Stock Market Predicted to Rebound in 2025
• Traders' Outlook on Korea's Economic Future

A requirement of the challenge was that the ticket must accumulate segments and points normally.

Being a regular fare checker, Liu wanted to ensure that this ticket met the mileage requirements for his participation in the challenge.

However, when he checked the ticket details, he was shocked to discover that Tongcheng had issued him a mileage ticket instead.

Unlike regular cash tickets, in the itinerary provided by the airline, the mileage ticket was marked at zero cost, making it impossible to accumulate segments or points

Furthermore, the rules around cancellation and changes were significantly stricter.

According to regulations, airlines are forbidden from selling mileage ticketsSuch tickets should be redeemed for personal use or typically voluntarily transferred to family or friendsIf the source of a mileage ticket is found to be unclear, or if there is suspicion of mileage theft, it could be revoked, resulting in boarding complications.

To avoid delaying his travel and affecting his mileage, Liu eventually booked a normal cash ticket for the same flight on a different platform at a similar price

This time, the new ticket was legitimate and could accumulate segments and points.

Liu believed that the platform has infringed on his rights by selling a mileage ticket as a cash ticket without adequate disclosure of the reality of the situation, and he was particularly disturbed to find that the “electronic itinerary” provided by the platform misrepresented the actual cost of the mileage ticket, modifying it to 809 yuan — including taxes and fees — creating the impression that everything was in order.

Both the airlines and ticketing agents must adhere to using legitimate electronic ticket itineraries, and the ticket prices on these itineraries must match the actual amounts collected.

Had Liu not been aware of how to check, he said, “If I had only learned about this issue after my flight, the challenge would have been for naught, and the loss would have extended beyond just the price of one ticket.”

He immediately contacted customer service at Tongcheng, demanding compensation for “consumer fraud” per the provisions in the Consumer Protection Law, seeking triple refund; however, the offered resolution from customer service was a mere 100 yuan voucher.

Feeling unsatisfied with this, Liu exposed the issue to a wider audience.

Online, many began to trace their own experiences, uncovering further price discrepancies, with cases involving major platforms such as Tongcheng, Qunar, Fliggy, and Ctrip

Among these cases, some had inadvertently purchased zero-cost mileage tickets at high prices, while others found themselves paying extra amounts ranging from dozens to hundreds of yuan for low-priced tickets, with the latter scenario being more widespread (note: mileage tickets are one type of price difference ticket).

After Liu's expose, Luo Xin discovered that she had also faced an issue, having purchased a ticket for 786 yuan through Tongcheng last November, only to find out that she had overpaid by 20 yuan compared to her itinerary.

Studying law, she has always been vigilant about consumer rights and decided not to let this incident slide

From contacting customer service to filing complaints with 12315, 12326, and Black Cat Complaints, just four days later, she reached a settlement, receiving a refund of 1572 yuan from Tongcheng, equivalent to double her actual payment.

At nearly the same time, Li Yu reached a mediated agreement with Qunar in court.

Three months prior, due to a 120-yuan price difference between four international tickets and their itineraries, after failing to reach a resolution, she sued Qunar, with the court hearing taking place at the end of October

Li Yu indicated that she ultimately received triple compensation for her payment.

How Price Differences Disappear

When Luo Xin inquired with the platform's customer service regarding her 20-yuan price difference, the explanation she received was that prices fluctuate.

This is a common response provided to many consumers who initiated complaints

Such statements have led many people to misinterpret that price differences are normal.

However, industry experts point out that this confuses two distinct concepts of “price differences.”

Fedup, a platform that deals with airline dispute complaints, has received over 20,000 complaints or inquiries, and Wu Chenxi, the operations director of the developing company, explained the different applicable scenarios.

“Price fluctuations occur while tickets are still for sale—that is, before they are sold—due to adjustments based on supply and demand

However, once a customer makes a booking, the backend data locks the seats and prices in real-time, eliminating any possibility of price fluctuation,” Wu Chenxi clarified, pointing out that the consumers who submitted complaints were part of this latter scenario.

With a clear understanding of the distinction, Luo Xin examined the service agreement on Tongcheng, which noted that if there were any discrepancies between the payment price and the actual ticket price, the actual ticket price takes precedence and that any price difference would be automatically refunded after flight departure

Luo questioned why the platform had not executed this automatic refund, to which customer service replied that “airline tickets are different from train tickets, airline tickets are more complicated.”

But can such claims of “complication” or “oversight” by customer service be trusted? Wu Chenxi provided a perspective.

Over the past two years, complaints regarding price difference tickets have surged

Some ticket sales agents have also realized the trend and started to act cautiouslyAfter booking tickets on third-party platforms, if consumers require a dedicated itinerary (note: specifically formatted with a blue background in China), they often receive SMS from the platform proactively refunding price differences, while those who do not ask for the itinerary typically miss out on such notifications.

“This is due to the fact that they know once you ask for the itinerary, you will undoubtedly discover the price discrepancy,” Wu Chenxi explained“Thus, technically it is entirely feasible for them to issue refunds for price discrepancies proactively; it just comes down to whether they wish to do so.”

It is worth mentioning that sometimes platforms and agents inform users they can issue an “invoice” instead of an itinerary

However, merely issuing ordinary invoices rather than an itinerary provided by the airline cannot reveal discrepancies between the actual payment amount and the ticket price.

In addition to ticket price discrepancies, another major area of complaints has been travel packages or add-on options bundled with flights, such as rental vouchers or pick-up tickets, which have been common sources of price complaints in recent years.

In April this year, a consumer reported on Black Cat Complaints that the ticket price indicated on the airline’s itinerary was 850 yuan, while Ctrip charged 1060 yuan

The 210 yuan price difference was for a travel package that the platform claimed could be canceledThe consumer stated they had never opted for such a package, claiming it was a bundled sale that was genuinely non-cancelable.

Wu Chenxi remarked, “The fundamental issue is that it can conceal the problems of mileage tickets, price difference tickets, and othersWhen explaining to passengers afterward, because these are bundled with ticket sales and not previously clearly priced separately, they can give rational justifications for arbitrary pricing on travel packages while this does not comply with the regulations in civil aviation on passenger ticket management, as ticket price specifically refers to the price of air transportation services, not travel packages.”

Price discrepancies due to middlemen exist in various industries, but airline tickets are somewhat unique

In particular, flight itineraries can be used for reimbursements and qualify as special invoices for value-added tax, linking them to tax administration, leading civil aviation regulations on passenger ticket management to stipulate that the ticket prices on itineraries must reflect the actual amounts collected.

Correspondingly, many passengers traveling on business have reported difficulties in obtaining reimbursements due to price differences, requiring them to cover costs out of pocket, while if they claim reimbursements based on the payment amounts provided by the third-party platform, their companies may face discrepancies in financial accounts.

Unfortunately, despite such price discrepancies being irregular, civil aviation policies have yet to outline specific penal measures.

Whose Responsibility Is It?

After her flight, Shen Ruiqi discovered that Qunar had overcharged her by 79 yuan.

More perplexingly, she found that she had been signed up for an added “Spring Journey Three-Person Version” package, and her order list contained the ticket reservations for two strangers, with their travel times and locations not matching her own.

Having never purchased this package, the tickets belonging to the two strangers were definitely not hers

Moreover, through the delay insurance policy, she was able to see the complete ID numbers of the other two individuals and could even print their itineraries.

The “Spring Journey Three-Person Version” was a special discount ticket offered exclusively to members of Southern AirlinesAccording to their customer service, it required logging into the member account to purchaseTherefore, Shen Ruiqi suspected that someone else had logged into her account to make such changes, but customer service claimed they were unable to verify or trace such activitiesQunar's customer service stated they could not see her account information.

Many others have reported similar experiences online, where unknown travelers were added as spouses, children, or bound into unfamiliar family groups.

In response, Southern Airlines issued a statement on October 29, announcing that the related cases indicated a third party had illicitly used passenger information to register member accounts on Southern Airlines' official channels and purchase flight products to benefit from price differences.

On the other hand, Tongcheng responded to the previous mileage ticket issues, stating that they would initiate a “refund of triple the original price” for users affected by mileage ticket problems while also noting the discovery of certain suppliers conducting illicit operations privately, leading to the termination of partnerships.

Responses from both parties highlighted a third role: ticket agents.

When people book tickets, as well as making ticket changes or cancellations through platforms like Tongcheng, Qunar, Ctrip, and Fliggy (collectively referred to as OTA platforms), most airline tickets are sold and manually processed by ticket agents, except for those directly from the airlines.

The role of the platform herein is similar to that of Alibaba; the airlines are akin to manufacturers while ticket agents serve as intermediate sellers and distributors.

Thus, which of the three parties bears responsibility for selling mileage tickets, price difference tickets, or possibly leaking information during the process?

Some voices point the finger at “black ticket agents.” According to data from Qichacha, there are approximately 22,000 existing ticket agent companies across the nation, and their sheer volume creates regulatory challenges.

However, this is not the complete picture

Shen Ruiqi revealed that the third-party agent issuing her ticket was Jiaxin Haoyuan Information Technology Co., Ltd.—a wholly-owned subsidiary of Qunar.‍‍

Much like how Taobao has its own Tmall, the relationship between OTA platforms and ticket agents is more intricately intertwined.

“The top five OTA platforms all possess their own wholly-owned or affiliated companies, often sharing office space

A considerable portion of the tickets sold on the platform, although claimed to be sold by joining merchants, are, in truth, sold directly by the platforms themselves,” Wu Chenxi discussed.

Fedup has reported that operators need to publicly disclose business licenses and other foundational information, while platforms must verify these operatorsYet, for certain tickets, there is no visibility of the sales agent information on any of the reservation pages prior to paymentSuch tickets may have been sold through non-compliant agents, with layers of subcontracting involved. Not only can a range of irregularities occur with ticket issuance, but consumer personal data during this transfer also runs the risk of being misused and left unprotected.

Ticket Prices and the Path to Protection

In fact, platforms and ticket agents have considerably profitable revenue streams beyond merely profiting off of ticket price differences

Ticket agents can receive commissions from airlines or develop value-added services clearly priced for consumers to choose whether or not to purchase, while OTA platforms, leveraging their advantage of aggregating information, have even broader income sources.

However, in 2015, the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission required the three major airlines to increase their direct sales ratio to 50%, prompting airlines to shift away from their reliance on ticket agentsIt significantly reduced the commission income for traditional ticket agents, making it far less lucrative than profiting from mileage or price difference tickets.

Since the beginning of 2023, airlines have placed greater emphasis on refined operations to regain time lost during the pandemic, actively marketing promotions and venturing into e-commerce and live streaming

The prevalence of “bargain tickets” has intensified the volatility of ticket prices recentlyEarlier this year, multiple airlines lowered their fees for economy class cancellations and made adjustments to restrictions, enabling free refunds for changes made more than 30 days prior to departure and offering free refunds for ticket price adjustments within 24 hours of purchase.

With airlines adopting a more customer-friendly approach, they are keenly competing against trains and high-speed rail in terms of cost-effectivenessMeanwhile, ticket agents seem to be struggling to keep up with these changes.

On the internet, consumers are also quickly breaking through existing information barriers

Credit for air travel has been demystified; what once appeared as a luxury for the “middle class” is now more commonly seen as a regular consumer productConsequently, when price irregularities arise, individuals exhibit a stronger desire to seek appropriate protection and assert their rights.

Despite the airlines' efforts, platforms offering more flight choices across various carriers and a suite of supportive services maintain a large user baseThus, during this transitional period, irregularities can still go concealed within third-party OTA platforms due to inadequate regulatory oversight, information barriers, lack of standards, and ineffective checks, making consumer rights protection an ongoing challenge.

As Luo Xin shared her consumer rights experiences online, she encountered numerous similar cases, yet the final resolutions varied greatly; some received triple their ticket price in compensation, while others merely got refunds for the price differences, highlighting that the standards for resolution remain inconsistent

She questioned, “If the situations were alike, shouldn’t the resolutions be the same? Otherwise, it feels quite unfair.”

Li Yu was among the few who decided to pursue litigation for “triple compensation.”

She noted that platforms are likely aware that very few people will ultimately take legal action against them; this non-compromise approach makes it difficult to curtail irregular practices.

For her, the three-month process appeared tedious but turned out relatively short, supported by a lawyer at home.

On the day of the online court session, the opposing counsel arrived late due to the hearings before hers still being underway, resulting in their hasty presentation