Summary of the Core Issues
A controversy arose when two girls purchased three hard-seat tickets but used one seat to store snacks, raising the question of "who has the right to dispose of seats occupied by passengers who did not board the train." The 12306 customer service stated that the seats belong to the ticket holders, and the train staff also indicated they could do nothing about it. However, from a legal and public resource perspective, the article argues that the railway authorities have the right to reallocate unused seats, suggesting that the responses from customer service and train staff are unreasonable. The article recommends that the railway improve its rules and ticket pricing system.
I. The Incident and the Initial Position of the Railway
The incident was straightforward: two girls bought three tickets, but one seat was used for storing snacks, preventing other passengers without seats from boarding. When those passengers approached the train staff, they were told that the seats belonged to the girls and that there was nothing they could do about it. 12306 customer service also confirmed that unused seats belong to the ticket holders, and the railway can only assist in communication but cannot enforce any changes. This led many to believe that "you can use the seat you paid for however you wish," but the article disputes this viewpoint.
II. Legal Aspects: Unactivated Seats Are Not Available for Use by Ticket Holders
The key principle here is the requirement that the ticket, ID, and the person boarding must match. According to the "Railway Passenger Transport Regulations" and the "Civil Code":
- To board a train, you must have a valid ticket, ID, and be the person listed on the ticket; otherwise, it is considered an unpaid ticket.
- Passengers must sit in the seat designated on their ticket. If the person does not arrive, the seat is not actually "activated" (i.e., not available for use).
Even if the girls had the ticket for the empty seat, since the corresponding person did not board, the railway could not complete the verification process, meaning the right to use the seat still belonged to the railway. Simply buying a ticket does not grant unrestricted use; the person must physically occupy the seat.
III. The Railway Does Have the Right to Manage Unused Seats
The "Civil Code" also stipulates that if a passenger fails to board on time, they must refund or reschedule their ticket. If they do not, the right to use the unused seat reverts to the railway (the carrier). As a public service provider, the railway has the responsibility to allocate seats reasonably, such as offering them to passengers without seats.
The train staff could have used their systems to identify which seats were empty and advised the girls to give up the seat until the rightful occupant arrived. Their claim of being unable to intervene was essentially an attempt to shirk their responsibilities.
IV. Public Resources Should Not Be Wasted
Some argue that "if you buy a ticket, it’s yours, and you should be able to use it as you wish," treating train seats like ordinary goods (e.g., buying two ice creams and discarding one). However, train seats are public resources:
- Ticket prices are regulated by the state and are not completely market-based.
- Public resources must be used efficiently and fairly; otherwise, those with money might monopolize all seats (e.g., through scalping or by wealthy individuals).
Therefore, opposing this behavior is not about moral coercion but about ensuring the fair use of public resources.
V. How Should the Railway Improve?
The article suggests two improvements:
1. Clarify rules for reclaiming unused seats: Establish clear guidelines that allow the railway to reclaim tickets from passengers who did not board, providing train staff with a basis for mediation.
2. Optimize the ticket pricing system: Increase the price difference between seated and unoccupied tickets to encourage seat occupancy by those who have purchased them and to make the situation fairer for those without seats (e.g., making unoccupied tickets more affordable).
By doing so, the railway can resolve conflicts more effectively and provide better service.
Conclusion
The core issue is not whether the girls were in the wrong but rather the railway’s understanding and enforcement of its rules. Public resources must balance fairness and efficiency; the idea that "you can use a seat you bought however you want" should not prevail, as trains are for everyone, not just for a few to waste.