The dispute over passengers buying an extra ticket and using the seat for snacks has continued to grow. At first, I thought it was a straightforward contract question. The nature of the seat and the rights acquired by the ticket holder should ultimately be determined by the transport contract and the conditions of travel. There did not seem to be much to argue about, so I paid little attention to it.
The story then gathered momentum online and the discussion moved to increasingly abstract levels. The railway authorities responded more than once, and some of China’s most influential official media outlets began publishing commentary. Some people approached it as a comparison of Chinese and foreign law, then elevated it into a contrast between China’s emphasis on the public interest and the West’s emphasis on individual freedom and personal rights. A single train seat was turned into a miniature representation of differences between Chinese and Western civilisation.
I think that is plainly an overreading. Chinese and Western societies certainly differ in their approaches to individual rights, public order and state administration. But placing this incident directly inside such a grand framework means starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support it. The judgement is not derived from the facts and rules. An existing judgement is being imposed on a particular event.
We should begin by establishing what happened. According to the railway authority’s subsequent investigation, three passengers had purchased three named hard-seat tickets, but only two of them passed through the ticket gate and travelled. Those two put snacks on the empty seat assigned to the passenger who had not boarded. A passenger holding a standing ticket later wanted to sit there. The parties could not agree, and the conductor did not make a clear decision, so the dispute escalated.
The investigation and China State Railway Group’s explanation are available at: https://app.xinhuanet.com/news/article.html?articleId=20260823dc3e54f0f2764022aa3056df2fbee30a
The first task is to distinguish three people — the person who pays for the ticket, the passenger named on it, and the person who actually passes through the gate and boards. These three roles may belong to one person, but they can also belong to different people. Paying the fare does not by itself give the payer an unrestricted power to dispose of the seat. The subject of the transport contract is not the chair as an object. It is the carrier’s service of transporting a particular passenger from the point of departure to the destination.
Article 809 of China’s Civil Code defines a transport contract clearly. The carrier transports a passenger or goods from the place of departure to the agreed destination, while the passenger pays the fare or transport charge. Article 815 further provides that the passenger must travel at the time, on the service and in the seat recorded on the valid ticket. The law consistently refers to the passenger, not merely the payer. The contract concerns the transportation of a person, not the sale or lease of a chair.
The relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China are available at: https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/zwgkztzl/2025nianzhuanti/2025mfdxcy/2025mfdxcy_mfdql/202505/t20250507_518708.html
The Railway Passenger Transport Regulations issued by the Ministry of Transport take the same approach. A ticket is evidence of the railway passenger transport contract. The railway operator must transport the passenger in accordance with the information recorded on the ticket, and the passenger must travel on the recorded service, in the recorded carriage, class and seat. Although the ticket lists a seat, that seat is a condition attached to the provision of passenger transport. It is not a separate item of property transferred by the railway company to the purchaser.
The Railway Passenger Transport Regulations are available at: https://xxgk.mot.gov.cn/2020/gz/202211/t20221117_3710719.html
In this incident, therefore, the third ticket had been paid for, but the passenger named on it had not passed through the gate and travelled. She did not exercise the right to use the assigned seat for that section of the journey. The two travelling companions could not exercise that right in her place, much less convert the seat into their own food-storage space. Payment did not change the party to the transport contract or automatically transfer the passenger’s rights to her companions.
At the same time, the passenger holding the standing ticket could not simply claim the seat. She had a right to travel but no automatic right to that particular reserved seat. A reasonable procedure would be for railway staff to establish whether the original passenger had boarded and then authorise temporary use according to the section of the journey and the circumstances onboard. If the original passenger later boarded at an intermediate station, the temporary occupant would still have to give up the seat. China State Railway Group subsequently explained that a passenger who had not passed through the gate no longer had the freedom to control the original seat, while a passenger without an assigned seat could use an unoccupied seat temporarily. If the original passenger boarded later in the journey, the right to use the seat would be restored. This is a typical arrangement combining contract rights with operational management, not a simple denial of private rights.
If the same question is considered in Australia, the basic legal structure is not fundamentally different. It is important to begin by noting that Australia has no single set of seating rules covering every passenger railway in the country. Rail travel is governed by state legislation, the conditions of individual operators and the particular ticket product. It is therefore not accurate to say that Australian law always permits a person to buy two seats, or that Australian railways will always give an empty reserved seat to another passenger.
In New South Wales, for example, clause 68O of the Passenger Transport (General) Regulation 2017 provides for seats to be reserved for passengers and permits an authorised officer to direct a person to leave a reserved seat if the necessary permission is absent. Clause 74 of the same Regulation provides that tickets are generally not transferable, subject to specified exceptions or the operator’s authorisation.
The current New South Wales Regulation is available at: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/sl-2017-0473
These provisions protect a passenger’s right to travel and to use a reserved seat. They do not mean that the purchaser owns the chair. The seat remains part of the railway’s operating system, and its use is jointly governed by the ticket type, the passenger’s identity, the operator’s rules and the management powers of railway staff.
Australian railway rules also commonly distinguish between reserved and unreserved seating. Victoria’s V/Line, for example, states that a reserved ticket guarantees a passenger a particular seat, while an unreserved ticket provides the right to travel in an unreserved carriage. If no seats are available, the holder of an unreserved ticket may have to stand for part or all of the journey. In an unreserved carriage, even paying two ordinary fares would not reserve two seats, because the ticket product never included a right to a particular seat in the first place.
V/Line’s seating rules are available at: https://www.vline.com.au/Information/FAQs/Question-1
Even on a train with reserved seating, buying two ordinary passenger tickets does not necessarily mean that the operator has agreed to let one person use the second seat for property. This is especially so when tickets are issued in passengers’ names. The identity attached to the second ticket, whether that person actually travels, and whether the operator permits the purchase of an additional seat can all affect the result. A ticket issued to a passenger who does not board cannot ordinarily be used by a travelling companion or by luggage as a substitute passenger.
The position changes if the operator expressly offers a product such as an “extra seat”, “comfort seat” or “sole use” arrangement. The customer is then buying more than a second ordinary passenger ticket. The operator has expressly promised additional space. NSW TrainLink, for example, permits a customer to pay the fares and berth charges for both sleeping berths and obtain sole use of a twin sleeper compartment. It also states that sole use is unavailable when the compartment is converted to ordinary seating for daytime travel. This example shows precisely why the right to exclude others from a second place depends on what the contract expressly provides, not merely on whether the passenger has paid an additional fare.
NSW TrainLink’s sole-use sleeper conditions are available at: https://transportnsw.info/regional-travel/travelling-onboard/sleeper-cabins
If a railway company has expressly agreed to sell an additional seat and staff later allocate it to somebody else, the issue may become whether the operator has performed the contract and whether the customer is entitled to a refund or another remedy. Australian Consumer Law protects consumers in receiving services that are fit for a stated purpose, but it still protects what the contract and the supplier’s representations actually promised, not a right imagined unilaterally by the customer.
The Australian consumer guarantees are explained at: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees
Seen in this way, the similarities between China and Australia are much greater than the differences. Neither country turns a train seat into a passenger’s personal property merely because that person paid money. Both distinguish between the right to travel, a reserved seat and an expressly purchased right to additional space. Both recognise an operator’s authority to manage order onboard and the use of unoccupied seats. Both also require other passengers not to resolve the matter through argument, coercion or by moving another person’s belongings themselves.
The more genuine differences lie in ticketing systems and operational detail. China operates a comparatively unified real-name rail ticketing system, so the connection between the ticket, the passenger’s identity and the act of travelling is tighter. Australian railways are administered by different states and operators. Some long-distance services use named bookings and allocated seats, while many suburban and intercity services require only a valid ticket and do not guarantee a seat. These are differences in institutional structure and railway operation. They do not amount to a civilisational opposition between individualism and collectivism.
China’s later decision to allow passengers without assigned seats to use seats that were not currently being exercised, while preserving the original passenger’s right to reclaim the seat after boarding at an intermediate station, does not simply sacrifice individual rights to the public interest. It protects the original passenger’s contractual rights, permits the reasonable temporary use of an idle resource, and preserves the railway operator’s management authority. What it expresses first of all is a technical arrangement of rights and boundaries, not a grand declaration of values.
What is genuinely worth noticing in this dispute is how easily people translate “I paid for it” into “this thing is mine”. Rights under modern service contracts are rarely that simple. Buying an airline ticket does not mean that we have purchased a chair on the aircraft. Booking a hotel room does not give us ownership of the room. Buying a train ticket likewise gives us transport and the use of a seat on agreed conditions. The content of the right comes from the contract. It cannot grow beyond the contract by itself.
It is entirely reasonable to ask whether the railway rules were clear enough, to criticise the conductor for failing to coordinate the situation, and to demand a more explicit procedure for the temporary use of seats assigned to passengers who have not boarded. But there is no need to turn a poorly explained ticketing rule into a civilisational comparison in which China values the public interest and the West values individual freedom.
If one conclusion should be drawn from the comparison, I think it is this — in both China and Australia, individual rights cannot be extended without limit by the words “I paid for it”, while public administration cannot operate arbitrarily outside contracts and rules. A mature system does not simply choose between the individual and the public interest. It explains the boundaries among the rights of different parties and gives frontline staff a procedure they can actually apply.
A train seat holding a packet of snacks tells us nothing about Chinese and Western civilisation. It tells us only that when the public does not accurately understand a contractual relationship and the operating rules are not clearly explained, even an ordinary seat can become a surface onto which everyone projects a value judgement.
Discover more from Geoffrey Chen
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.