Enterprises should not cite international practices that are in their favour while ignoring those that protect consumers' interests, says a signed article in Guangzhou Daily. An excerpt follows:

Starting from next week, infants aged under two years will not pay the fuel surcharge when taking a plane. And children aged between two and 12 years will only be charged half of the surcharge. These adjustments are made because of public inquiries after the new fuel surcharge standard was put into use.

It is a triumph for passengers and public opinion. It is also a success for the civil aviation sector and its administration in actively responding to public opinion.

Charging infants a fuel surcharge like adults was irrational, passengers complained. Infants take no seats and do not have much weight. The ticket price for an infant is only 10 per cent of that of an adult. Why are they charged the same fuel surcharge? But the most persuasive reason for cancelling the surcharge on infants is that "infant passengers are not charged for it on most international flights operated by foreign or domestic airliners."

Many large enterprises tend to cite "international practice" as the reason for collecting new charges from customers in recent years. For example, banks started charging fees on small accounts following international practice. Telecommunication companies collect a monthly rental charge following the international practice.

International practice now seems to be a double-edged sword; it is not always preferable for enterprises. Not collecting a fuel surcharge for infants is also an international practice. And domestic companies know it well since they do not collect it for infants on international flights.

For Chinese consumers, international practice sometimes causes resentment because it results in them being robbed of their money. But now we have found a good international practice that will help consumers keep their money in their pockets.

The problem here is that consumers usually have little information on international practices. Enterprises, however, tend to only introduce international practices which are in their favour.

To better protect consumers' interests and rights, enterprises should not be allowed to engage in double-dealing tactics by only citing international practices in their favour.