This refund provision is not reasonable and is questionable in terms of science, openness and transparency. He found in recent years in the research, the refund fee is charged in the name of transportation and miscellaneous charges, but its standards were previously set by the State Council railroad transportation authorities, and did not conduct public hearings in accordance with the law.

From a legal standpoint, when a passenger buys a ticket, a passenger transportation contract is actually formed between the passenger and the railroad transportation company. According to the provisions of the contract of carriage of passengers by rail, the passenger refund belongs to the unilateral termination of the contract, the refund fee should be liquidated damages, or economic loss compensation costs.

Zhou Shihong that, if as transportation and miscellaneous expenses, the refund fee is charged for the standard and the amount is much higher than the cost; if as liquidated damages or economic loss compensation costs, and contrary to the jurisprudence, the lack of loss calculation basis. "And in reality, the railroad enterprise as a contractual relative, breach of contract, unilateral termination or termination of the contract of carriage does not need to bear responsibility, in passenger transportation only need to agree to refund and change." Zhou Shihong believes that this violates the principle of fairness and equality.

Zhou Shihong suggested that the competent price authorities in accordance with the provisions of the price law and government price decision-making hearing methods, organize experts and relevant institutions on the standard of refund fees for railroad passengers, and on this basis on its reasonableness and legality of public decision-making hearings, and based on the results of the demonstration and hearings, the railroad transport enterprises are required to clarify the nature of the refund fee, adjust the fee standard.

Relative to the railroad sector, the refund fee for civil aviation is higher, sometimes even more than 50 percent. Many passengers have complained about the problem, and some consumers have taken legal action to demand that airlines lower their refund fees.

So how did the court rule? The "Civil Judgment of the Second Instance of Air China Limited, Ji Chunling and Other Air Passenger Transportation Contract Disputes," published by Judges.com in December 2021, showed that Ji Chunling was charged a 90 percent refund fee when she unsubscribed from her Air China ticket.

The court endorsed the provision of the refund fee, finding that the two parties had entered into a valid contract of carriage and that the legal nature of the refund fee was a liquidated damages for the termination of the contract. Air tickets have the characteristics of timeliness and perishability, passenger refund will lead to air carriers to incur the cost of time and opportunity cost of re-sale, and bear the risk of empty seats, and the risk increases with the time of the passenger refund with the shortening of the take-off time.