In a move that has rattled the airline industry, Trip.com Group has fully refunded an Air China premium economy ticket that was initially deemed almost entirely non-refundable, igniting a debate over fare rule transparency and the power of online travel agencies (OTAs).
The passenger, Mr. Lin, paid RMB 15,000 (about USD 2,219) for a flight to New York but later cancelled due to a schedule change. Air China's fare rules dictated that only RMB 400 (about USD 59) in taxes and fees could be refunded, with the remaining RMB 14,700 forfeited. Trip.com initially upheld this policy, but after state media CCTV reported the dispute, Lin received two payments on July 28 totaling the full ticket price.
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from airlines, who argue that Trip.com has overstepped its role as a distribution channel by overriding established fare rules. However, the incident also raises a fundamental question: why are airline refund policies still so opaque and inconsistent?
Industry calls for reform
China's railway system operates a nationwide, transparent, tiered refund system, yet airlines retain wide discretion over refund charges. Calls for reform have repeatedly emerged in recent years, but industry associations have remained largely silent, and airlines have made little progress toward basic transparency.
Wei Zhu, an associate professor at China University of Political Science and Law, said both the platform and the airline failed to adequately disclose key information, leaving the consumer under a material misunderstanding. He argued that the relevant clauses could constitute unfair standard terms and therefore be deemed invalid.
A 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 provide some flexibility for changes and refunds, while Air China 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.
This incident is not isolated. The travel industry has seen similar tensions between OTAs and airlines over refund policies, especially during the pandemic when mass cancellations exposed the fragility of fare rules. As airlines tighten safety regulations, they are also being urged to revisit commercial policies that often disadvantage consumers.
For travel professionals, the case underscores the need for clearer communication between airlines, OTAs, and passengers. It also highlights the growing influence of OTAs in shaping customer expectations, even when they operate within the constraints set by carriers.
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. As the industry evolves, stakeholders must work together to create a more transparent and equitable refund framework.
