In August 2025, two nearly identical lawsuits were filed: one against United (in San Francisco federal court) and one against Delta Air Lines (in Brooklyn federal court). They claim that each airline sold more than one million “window seats” on aircraft such as the Boeing 737, Boeing 757, and Airbus A321, many of which are next to blank fuselage walls rather than windows.
Passengers say they paid seat-selection fees (commonly $30 to $100+) expecting a view, sunlight, or the comfort of a genuine window seat — and say they would not have booked or paid extra had they known the seat lacked a window.
As reported by Reuters, United’s filing argues that it never promised a view when it used the label “window” for a seat. According to the airline, “window” refers only to the seat’s location next to the aircraft wall, not a guarantee of an exterior view.
Wouldn’t that be the definition of, “Bait and switch”??? Which is already illegal?
You PAY EXTRA for a WINDOW SEAT and there’s no window?! Why would someone pay more than? What would be the point of paying more if there’s no “window” seems very cut and dry! That’s like paying extra for an aisle seat and get a middle seat, that’s NEVER in question, they are just trying to get people’s money! Savages!
This just proves don’t fly United nor Delta… which they are already super high priced anyways…
Its time
Ought to call them skin seats since they’re next to the planes skin
“War is peace”
That’s what they are trying to pull. Look it up.
According to the airline, “window” refers only to the seat’s location next to the aircraft wall
Then call it “wall seat”
It’s like trying to call the non runway parts of airports ramps, aprons and taxiways. Because technically none of it is made with tarmac anymore but the general population is too stupid to go back so now that’s what it’s all called.
The agreement was im paying 355 dolars for a window seat. If ‘window seat’ just refers to the location, then dolars just refers to the fact its an amount of currency, and ill have my bank adjust the payment to reflect that was in pesos.
Cool. So since the government is going to side with this bullshit: I say that “income tax” doesn’t mean a tax on my income.
This scam already exists. That’s why Jeff Bezos pays a much lower rate on what is - bullshit aside - his income.
Since I don’t technically ‘come’ ‘inside’, so I won’t pay it
Avoiding being forced to buy a minivan, I see. Clever you. 🤌🏼
Sprinter or a Transit. Not a minivan. Full sized van. Heck an Econoline 1500 or similar conversion vans would work if they still made conversion vans.
I mean, don’t charge extra for something then not deliver it. Seems cut and dry.
If the aisle/middle/window in coach all cost the same price then no one would have any standing to sue. The airlines charged customers extra. They did this to themselves.
Ironically, that could be the technicality they’re banking on. They aren’t charging for the window seat - they’re charging for the ability to select your own seat which is the same regardless of where you select.
No, I think any seat change costs the same price, no matter if you switch from window to somewhere, or from somewhere to window.
And this is why the civil court system is just plain broken. Despite the astronomical cost of taking this upsurd stance in court, it is worth it. Thier needs to be damages assesed for the absurdity of the logic used to force something to cost more court time than it should get.
That’s punitive damages, but they aren’t punitive enough to discourage this behavior. The courts don’t work for us.
Yup. Make it 10x actual damages for this kind of bullshit. Then they’ll stop, maybe.
Thier needs
Whose?
dismiss with prejudice/disbar the lawyers that push these lawsuits at all
course, there are plenty of rigged court systems in the US that justify their whole existence via these sham lawsuits, so…
Would a reasonable person assume that is what it meant? Probably not. United should lose this case.
Any person that saw an aircraft from the inside before probably. Some window seats are in between two windows, so technically they’re double window seats.
cut and dry
Next there won’t be a seat, the term “seat” just means the place you stand for the whole trip
If airlines could get away with stacking people in there like a transatlantic slave ship they would do it.
As a mildly tall person, not even exceptionally tall, flying as it is already is borderline painful. The seat space is not built for anyone who isnt pint sized
I saw a plan years ago that was basically that. ‘seats’ were planks leaned back at a ~°70 angle, reducing space in between to like 1 foot per person.
As a a 5’11” person, yeah it’s painful to fly.
Just imagine if you were 6ft! The horror!
Ryan Air has entered the chat.
ZSSK seems to think the same:
No indication there’s no windows (same for the single seat at the end) during selection. In the cart it even mentions the window. You just… gotta know the train already.
The image is stolen from this video, I don’t have one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGXdAn54eAcHey, I also bought a ticket where the description said “seat next to the table”, and there was none, though to be fair the diagram did not show it, just howering the mouse above the seat did. Also 1st class in that case.
reminds me of this meme:
“Sweet window seat, bro”
United, probably
I too have a photo like that. ER-175J (OO) if I remember correctly.
This wouldn’t be a problem if they left the seats where they were from the factory instead of squashing them all as close together as possible.
If the seat doesn’t include a window then it needs to be called a wall seat. This is an open and shut case of false advertising.
They’ll try and argue that it’s just the generic term that is most familiar to their customers, not a specific definition of what you will find if you take that seat. “Aisle” “middle” and “window” are just commonly-accepted shorthand for the first, second, and third seats in a row, not prescriptive definitions.
Source: I once worked for a Extended Warranty company and they do the exact same crap. The product they sold is a service contract, it has nothing whatsoever to do with actually extending your existing warranty. But they were allowed to keep calling it an “extended warranty” and use that term predominantly and market off it, because that is the term that is in common usage for the product they sell. All they had to do was add tiny text at the bottom of the site that said “A service contract is often referred to as an “extended car warranty,” but it is not a warranty.” 🤣🤣🤣 At worst, the airlines will have to do something like that.
Or at least put a monitor running Microsoft.
No, I already get nauseous traveling.
At one point in my career, they moved us to a long white room with no windows. (The reason this particular room on this floor did not have windows was that on the wall, where the windows normally would have been were large external letters on the outside of the building spelling out the original name of the building. So of course you couldn’t have windows behind the externally mounted letters.) And their attempt at making it bearable was to put giant vinyl stickers of somewhat cartoonish window scenes along the big long outside white wall. I did not enjoy working in that space.
At least they tried
ah yes the fresh taste of that (checks notes) vinyl sticker air
Yeah, lets stare at a blue screen for five hours because the screensaver coded in Electron crashed minutes after takeoff.
It is a seat that is closest to the windows for the row. This is an open and shut case of common fucking sense
That isn’t what the name implies. Way to move goalposts. You should work for united.
Would you have the same opinion it if they didn’t include a seat either? Since there are two words at play here and we’re apparently making gross allowances for meaning in one could we do the other? Would it be acceptable if they placed you near the area with a seat?
"Seat” refers only to the location allocated near to a row of seats, not a guarantee of actual place to sit.
What kind of legal linguistic creep are we going to tolerate under this heading of “common fucking sense”?
I promise the airlines don’t need you defending them on lemmy.
Not defending them, and don’t care. There are a bunch of self righteous people on here who think they’re coming up with a profound statement when it’s just common sense they need.
deleted by creator
If they had marked which particular seats didn’t have actual windows, it’d likely be fine to keep the terminology.
I know you are getting downvoted, but I call the seat furthest from the aisle the “window” seat no matter what is on the “far” side of it.
So, I think it’s entirely possible that United wins this case in front of a judge. If it gets decided by a jury, I’d expect at least one person of the 12 (or so) to insist that “window seat” means there has to be a window.
