China’s High‑Speed Rail Under Fire as “No‑Seat” Tickets Cost the Same as Second‑Class Seats

In its reply, 12306 explained that the “no‑seat” (无座) ticket is effectively a “no fixed seat” (无固定座位) ticket, meaning that passengers are allowed to occupy any unallocated second‑class seat that happens to be empty. The railway’s customer‑service team emphasized that once a ticket holder with an assigned seat boards the train, the standing‑ticket holder must yield the seat. By framing the product as a conditional use of second‑class carriage space, the agency argued that the fare can justifiably match that of a regular second‑class ticket, which is set by the China State Railway Group and overseen by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) according to mileage and regulatory guidelines.

The explanation found some supporters. A number of netizens pointed out that the ability to sit when a seat is free adds flexibility that would otherwise be unavailable to passengers who are forced to travel without a ticket at all. One user wrote that for urgent trips, the option of buying a “no‑seat” ticket—even at full price—is preferable to being stranded, and another noted that the price reflects a genuine second‑class service, albeit without a guaranteed spot.

Opposition, however, was louder and more numerous. Critics argued that the lack of a guaranteed seat dramatically reduces comfort, especially on journeys exceeding three hours, and should be reflected in a lower fare. Many called for a discount of at least ten percent, or for “no‑seat” tickets to be priced as standing‑room only, similar to the subway model where standing and seated travel are billed the same despite obvious differences in comfort. Some users recounted personal experiences of having to scramble for a vacant seat only to be asked to give it up when the ticket holder for that seat arrived, describing the process as both stressful and inconvenient. A few even suggested that a modest portable stool might become a de facto accessory for long “no‑seat” trips.

The discussion also turned technical. Frequent flyers highlighted the seat‑indicator lights on newer Fuxinghao trains—green for an empty seat, yellow for a seat that will be taken at the next stop, and red for occupied—pointing out that these cues help “no‑seat” passengers identify available spots. Railway staff who entered the conversation generally echoed 12306’s stance, describing the practice as a legitimate use of second‑class capacity and insisting that the pricing structure is consistent with current regulations.

Beyond the immediate dispute, the controversy revives a longer‑standing public concern. In 2013, a freelance writer and social‑welfare activist named Wei Zhuang called for “no‑seat” tickets to be sold at half price, a sentiment that continues to echo in today’s posts. Academics such as Liu Xiaojun of Beijing Jiaotong University have previously weighed in on railway fare fairness, and while they were not directly quoted in the latest exchange, their earlier analyses provide a backdrop for the current outcry.

The NDRC, which sets the overarching pricing framework for the railway sector, was cited by 12306 as the authority whose policy spirit underlies the fare parity. Yet the public’s response suggests that policymakers may need to reconsider whether the existing model adequately balances the revenue goals of the state‑run railway with passenger expectations of comfort and value.

As the debate rolls on, the hashtags remain active, with polls on Weibo showing a clear majority of users deeming the equal pricing unreasonable. Many commenters expressed frustration that 12306 frequently appears in hot‑search rankings, interpreting the recurrence as a sign of systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The hope expressed across the platform is that the railway authorities will take the feedback into account and, perhaps in future revisions of ticket‑pricing regulations, introduce a differentiated rate for “no‑seat” tickets that better reflects the reduced level of service. Until then, travelers who need to move quickly across China’s sprawling network must decide whether the convenience of a flexible ticket outweighs the discomfort of an uncertain seat.