A. A few months ago I booked a flight for two and then went to select seats on the airline's site. Based on the destination and time of year, I was surprised to find only two adjacent seats were available without paying a premium (額外費(fèi)用). But I was even more surprised a few weeks later, when we boarded the aircraft and a flight attendant announced that only 30% of seats were occupied, so we should all feel free to stretch out.

　　B. So how could a flight that looked nearly full a month earlier wind up with seven out of ten seats empty? That's a question only the airlines can answer, and they're not eager to provide many details.

　　C. Are some carriers intentionally holding back seat assignments, in the hope we'll all pay for "premium" seats?It's a fair question, and the evidence is intriguing.

　　Behind the screen indeed

　　D. An awful plot goes on behind airline and travel booking screens, and much of it is strictly off-limits to consumers. What we do know is that for decades now airlines have become masters of what the industry 　calls yield management, offering millions of combinations of fares based on advance purchase patterns and other booking trends, so nearly everyone pays a different price based on when they buy. But now that paying extra for your seat selection has become common practice, securing your reservation is just half the battle.

　　E. Some industry experts have connected the dots. "They're trying to get people to buy premium seats," says George Hobica, USATODAY. com's Fly Guy columnist and the founder of Airfarewatchdog. com. "They want to increase revenue. And we're getting more complaints about it. " He notes that it "really annoys" passengers who want to sit together, particularly when traveling with small children.

　　F. He's echoed by Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition (聯(lián)盟): "With yield management,consumers are aware and they know that airlines are constantly changing prices on seats. But if this is true, it is unethical--they're grossly misleading us. The thing that I find so offensive is conveying to me that I have no options, but if I wait a week or two then I do have options. "

　　G. According to the airlines, the reason for ancillary ( 附加的 ) revenue is unbundling (分類(lèi)計(jì)價(jià)) ticket prices,so passengers who desire a given service--say checking a bag or ordering a soft drink--pay for it, while those who don't are spared the cost. But as Mitchell notes, "There's another twist to this. The airlines are saying fees are for 'optional services. ' Well, seats aren't optional! "

　　H. Of course, securing a good seat isn't an issue if you're in first class or you're an elite member of a frequent flyer program. But what about the rest of us? As I've pointed out repeatedly in recent columns, we're faced with record-high load factors, the highest for the U. S. airline industry since World War II. But even with the average percentage of occupied seats for domestic flights at 82. 7%, it's still an average--some flights will be fuller but others will not, particularly weeks in advance. Yet searching for seats keeps getting harder and harder.

　　Seats for sale

　　I. Hobica cites the major airlines as the prime culprits (起因), but he also notes even low-cost carriers can make securing seats difficult. On the flip side, he credits JetBlue and Virgin America for providing customers with clear policies. And then there is British Airways, which allows passengers in economy and business classes to select seats only 24 hours in advance. I asked an airline representative if seeing fewer free seats is a trend, and the response was: "That's going to vary because there are so many variables. "

　　J. I decided to check on seat availability at Delta. com. I inquired about economy-class availability for two seats on a busy route--Atlanta to Chicago--and conducted an apples-to-apples search for the same morning departure seven days in advance, and again 14 days in advance. For the flight one week out, a total of only eight seats were available, one preferred and seven standard, but only one set of two seats together. For the flight two weeks out, a total of 29 seats were available, consisting of 20 preferred and only nine standard, and still with only one set together. Remarkable how even twice the booking time still produced so few "free" seats, separately or together, yet there were plenty of seats that could be bought for the fight price.

　　K. I contacted Delta and a spokesman said the price for preferred economy varies "depending on a number of different factors," so customers need to compare the costs on a flight-by-flight basis. The preferred seats are reserved primarily for Medallion ( 大勛章 ) members, and become available without additional charge 24 hours prior to departure. When asked if Delta has received complaints about a dearth of free seats, he stated,"Overall, our seat program has been received very well. "

　　L. But my findings dovetailed ( 吻合 ) with recent complaints filed with Airfarewatchdog:(1) When (my husbanD. tried to get a seat assignment on the first flight there was just one "complimentary (免費(fèi)的 ) seat"(near the back in the middle) available. . , the other available seats had to be purchased for $69. On the connecting flight there were no "complimentary seats" at all! Is this legal? He bought and paid for a ticket on these flights and now he is supposed to "buy" a seat! (2) (After) paying for the flight, a message popped up and said that I could only get a seat assignment when I checked in. In order to get a confirmed seat, I had to pay $129 extra! Unless I pay, without a confirmed seat, I am the first one to be bumped from the flight if they are overbooked. How do they get away with this? (3) Does checking in online at the 24-hour mark before the flight give me a number in line or let me select seats then? Or do we all rush the gate with our boarding passes (and no seat assignment) in order to get the seat assignment?

　　How to respond?

　　M. So what can you do? It's a tough proposition. Usually I would offer strategies for countering such airline initiatives, but in this case the options are limited. That's why some believe the U. S. Department of Transportation should investigate these practices. As Mitchell says, "The airlines are holding all the cards with this one. There is a sore need for transparency on this. When people are confused, they make bad decisions. "

　　N. That said, consider the following: (1) When budgeting your airfares, make sure you consider not just baggage fees but the added cost of seat selection--for all travelers and in both directions. (2) If possible, book early,when there should be more seats available, and check in early too. Why the qualifier "should"? Because if availability is artificially manipulated, it's hard to be certain. (3) Book airlines that offer more transparent seat-selection policies.Of course, this is not an issue with Southwest and other carriers that offer "open seating" policies. (4) Finally, the last resort is what Hobica calls "horse trading": negotiating seat swaps with other passengers.But this has become a risky and undesirable option with flights so full, overhead bins (行李倉(cāng)) so crammed and fellow passengers who may have paid for premium seats in advance.

　　段落匹配練習(xí)選項(xiàng)：

　　46. Behind the airline and travel booking screens, a terrible plot is being carried out, much of which is rigorously kept confidential from passengers.

　　47. The airlines' excuse for additional fees is unbundling ticket prices, so those who want the given service like baggage check and soft drink ordering will have to pay.

　　48. Whether some carriers withhold seats on purpose for earning consumers' premium is a question deserving to be cleared up.

　　49. Mitchell holds that there is an urgent need for transparency on carriers' seat assignments.

　　50. While Hobica ascribes the main responsibilities to the major airlines, he also mentions that the low-cost carders are making securing seats difficult.

　　51. Some believe that, in order to solve the problem of airlines' withholding seats, some actions should be taken by the U. S. Department of Transportation.

　　52. When people budget their airfares, they should consider both the baggage fees and the added cost of seat selection.

　　53. Kevin Mitchell considers the so-called yield management of the industry unethical and misleading.

　　54. What the spokesman of Delta says suggests that the preferred economy-class tickets are available 24 hours in advance of the plane's departure.

　　55. The last strategy to counter the airline's initiatives is to exchange seats with other passengers by negotiating with them.

　　段落匹配練習(xí)答案：

　　46.D

　　解析：題干意為，在航空公司和旅行社的訂票系統(tǒng)中，一項(xiàng)可怕的陰謀正在實(shí)施，而其中的隱情則嚴(yán)格對(duì)乘客保密。注意抓住題干中的關(guān)鍵詞airline and travel booking screens，a terrible plot，rigorously和confidential。文章段落中，論及航空公司和旅行社訂票陰謀的內(nèi)容在D段出現(xiàn)，該段第一句提到，在航空公司和旅行社的訂票機(jī)制幕后，一個(gè)可怕的陰謀正在上演。而且對(duì)其中的內(nèi)幕消費(fèi)者大多毫不知情。由此可見(jiàn)，題干對(duì)原文做了同義改寫(xiě)，故答案為D。題干中的a terrible plot和is rigorously kept confidential for分別與原文中的an awful plot和is strictly off-limits to相對(duì)應(yīng)。

　　47.G

　　解析：題干意為，航空公司把實(shí)行機(jī)票分類(lèi)計(jì)價(jià)作為額外收費(fèi)的借口，所以那些想要諸如檢查行李或點(diǎn)軟飲料等特定服務(wù)的乘客就必須承擔(dān)相應(yīng)費(fèi)用。注意抓住題干中的關(guān)鍵詞unbundling ticket prices和the given service。原文段落中，論及機(jī)票分類(lèi)計(jì)價(jià)和要求特定服務(wù)的內(nèi)容在G段出現(xiàn)，該段第一句就提到航空公司稱，之所以收取附加費(fèi)是實(shí)行機(jī)票分類(lèi)計(jì)價(jià)的緣故，這樣一來(lái)，如果乘客想要某種特定的服務(wù)——比如，托運(yùn)包裹或者點(diǎn)一杯軟飲料——就要為此付費(fèi)，而那些不需要此類(lèi)服務(wù)的乘客則無(wú)需付費(fèi)。由此可見(jiàn)，題干是對(duì)原文的同義改寫(xiě)，故答案為G。

　　48.C

　　解析：題干意為，部分運(yùn)營(yíng)商是否故意保留座位以賺取消費(fèi)者附加費(fèi)這個(gè)問(wèn)題值得弄清楚。注意抓住題干中的關(guān)鍵詞carders，premium和question。原文段落中，論及運(yùn)營(yíng)商們是否故意收取附加費(fèi)的問(wèn)題在C段出現(xiàn)，該段中作者提到，這是一個(gè)值得研究的問(wèn)題，而且其情況到底如何也很引人關(guān)注，實(shí)際上就是在說(shuō)這個(gè)問(wèn)題值得弄清楚。由此可見(jiàn)，題于是對(duì)原文的同義改寫(xiě)，故答案為C。題干中的withhold和on purpose分別對(duì)應(yīng)原文中的holding back和intentionally。

　　49.M

　　解析：題干意為，米切爾認(rèn)為運(yùn)營(yíng)商們?cè)诜峙渥贿@一問(wèn)題上亟須透明。注意抓住題干中的關(guān)鍵詞Mitchell，need和transparency。原文段落中，提到Mitchell且論及分配座位透明度的內(nèi)容在M段出現(xiàn)，該段第五句引用Mitchell的原話，指出這一問(wèn)題亟待透明。由此可見(jiàn)，題干是對(duì)原文的同義改寫(xiě)，故答案為M。題干中的urgent need對(duì)應(yīng)原文中的sore need，carriers’seat assignment代指原文中的this。

　　50.I

　　解析：題干意為，盡管霍比卡把主要責(zé)任歸咎于各大航空公司，他也提到，低成本的運(yùn)營(yíng)商們同樣使得座位的獲得變得困難。注意抓住題干中的關(guān)鍵詞Hobica，themain responsibilities，themajorairlines和thelow—costcarders。原文段落中，提及Hobica和低成本的運(yùn)營(yíng)商使獲得座位變得困難的內(nèi)容在I段出現(xiàn)，該段第一句話提到，霍比卡認(rèn)為各大航空公司是造成這種狀況的罪魁禍?zhǔn)祝统杀镜倪\(yùn)營(yíng)商也起到了推波助瀾的作用。由此可見(jiàn)，題干是對(duì)原文的同義改寫(xiě)，故答案為I。題干中的ascribes…to…和main responsibilities分別對(duì)應(yīng)原文中的cites…as…和prime culprits。

　　51.M

　　解析：題干意為，一些人認(rèn)為，為了解決航空公司保留座位的問(wèn)題，美國(guó)交通運(yùn)輸部應(yīng)該采取一些措施。注意抓住題干中的關(guān)鍵詞theU.S.DepartmentofTransportation。文章段落中，論及美國(guó)交通運(yùn)輸部的內(nèi)容在M段出現(xiàn)，該段第三、四句話提到，通常作者會(huì)就如何應(yīng)對(duì)航空公司的這類(lèi)政策給出一些策略，但是在這種情況下，可選擇的策略非常有限。這就是為什么一些人認(rèn)為美國(guó)交通運(yùn)輸部應(yīng)該對(duì)此類(lèi)做法進(jìn)行調(diào)查的原因。由此可見(jiàn)，人們認(rèn)為交通運(yùn)輸部應(yīng)該有所行動(dòng)，故答案為M。

　　52.N

　　解析：題干意為，人們?cè)跒橘I(mǎi)機(jī)票制定預(yù)算的時(shí)候，應(yīng)該把行李的費(fèi)用和附加的選擇座位的費(fèi)用都考慮在內(nèi)。注意抓住題干中的關(guān)鍵詞budget,airfares，baggage fees和the added cost of seat selection。文章段落中，論及制定機(jī)票預(yù)算的內(nèi)容在N段出現(xiàn)，該段第(1)點(diǎn)提到，預(yù)算票價(jià)的時(shí)候，確保自己不僅將行李費(fèi)用考慮在內(nèi)，還要考慮為選擇座位而支付的額外費(fèi)用。由此可見(jiàn)，題干對(duì)原文進(jìn)行了同義改寫(xiě)，故答案為N。

　　53.F

　　解析：題干意為，凱文·米切爾認(rèn)為所謂的收益管理是不道德且具有誤導(dǎo)性的。注意抓住題干中的關(guān)鍵詞Kevin Mitchell，yield management,unethical和misleadin9。文章段落中，提到Kevin Mitchell和航空業(yè)收益管理的內(nèi)容在F段出現(xiàn)，該段引用米切爾的原話中提到，對(duì)于收益管理，消費(fèi)者心里有數(shù)，他們知道航空公司經(jīng)常改變座位的價(jià)格。但是如果情況果真如此的話，航空公司的做法確實(shí)是不道德的——他們?cè)趪?yán)重地誤導(dǎo)人們。由此可見(jiàn)，題干是對(duì)原文的同義轉(zhuǎn)述，故答案為F。

　　54.K

　　解析：題干意為，達(dá)美航空公司發(fā)言人的話表明，經(jīng)濟(jì)艙優(yōu)等座在飛機(jī)起飛前24小時(shí)內(nèi)可獲得。注意題干中的關(guān)鍵詞the spokesman of Delta，the preferred economy.class tickets，available和the plane’sdeparture。文章段落中，論及達(dá)美航空公司發(fā)言人的內(nèi)容在K段出現(xiàn)，該段第二句提到，優(yōu)等座主要是為獎(jiǎng)?wù)鲁蓡T預(yù)留的，在飛機(jī)起飛前24小時(shí)內(nèi)無(wú)需支付額外費(fèi)用就可獲得。由此可見(jiàn)，題干是對(duì)原文的同義轉(zhuǎn)述，故答案為K。

　　55.N

　　解析：題干意為，應(yīng)對(duì)航空公司這類(lèi)行為的最后策略是和其他乘客商量調(diào)換座位。注意題干中的關(guān)鍵詞the last strategy，exchange seats和negotiating。文章段落中，論及與其他乘客商量調(diào)換座位的內(nèi)容在N段出現(xiàn)，該段第(4)點(diǎn)提到，最后一個(gè)應(yīng)對(duì)策略，即霍比卡所說(shuō)的“討價(jià)還價(jià)”，是和其他乘客商量一下調(diào)換座位。由此可見(jiàn)，題干是對(duì)原文的同義改寫(xiě)，故答案為N。題干中的the last strategy和exchange seats with other passengers by negotiating with them分別對(duì)應(yīng)原文中的me last resort和negotiating seat swaps with other passengers。