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.

This is so fucking dumb. It has that "boneless wings can contain bones" judgement energy from Ohio awhile back. 🤦🏻

I remember back when the seats actually aligned with the windows on airplanes, such that you could sit in a seat and look out the window.

Then they started shoving more rows of seats in. Over the past 20 years or so, I’ve often got a “window seat” where the nearest window is positioned directly beside the seat in front, where nobody can open or close the cover without fully reclining (ha) the seat, and there’s zero view because of the angle.

Technically still a window seat, as there IS a window nearby, but not what you’d expect coming from any other mode or era of transport.

"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"

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.

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.

Would a reasonable person assume that is what it meant? Probably not. United should lose this case.

A window seat without a window is like an isle seat that isn't on the isle.

False advertising.

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.

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.

Reminiscent of the lawsuit about pints of beer being less than a pint. Bars argued it was a style of glass and not a unit of volume.

Next there won't be a seat, the term "seat" just means the place you stand for the whole trip

I prefer window seats specifically because they are up against a wall, and I know I have an armrest to myself. If that's where I end up, I am more likely to just close the window shade, particularly if I am jetlagged and need sleep.

However, I had status on United for a while and throughout that whole time did not have to pay any extra fees for that "window" seat. If the airlines are up-charging for window seats, then they better have windows, otherwise they should call them something else.

Obstructed view discount. We have the technology.

collapsed inline media

Are their no small claims tribunals in the US? This refund would be over so quickly in Australia and no doubt the ACCC would be on their arse.

We barely do anything about monopolies here these these days, but at least false advertising and right to refunds are rock solid.

Also, those seat selection fees are crazy. International flights I've seen like $8, maybe $15 if you're getting really crazy.

Who in the world is paying $100 to select their seat?

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 then? 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…

I’ve had this happen to me and I did feel like it was kind of a rip off. They should rename the seat to wall seat and be done with it.

So, basically they're trying to get us ready for these standing seats.

The regulatory requirements to make standing airline seats possible have not been met in either Europe or North America, and they're unlikely to ever be satisfied—unless government oversight finally becomes so corrupt and useless that this concept is forced through.

Under this administration?

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.

It literally does. Otherwise we would call it a fuselage seat.

Maga gutted consumer protections have consequences

On one hand: for me, as an aisle-seat-preferer, the draw of a window seat is simply not having a meatbag on both sides of me.

On the other hand: yeah it’s definitely false advertising.

This does seem like the worst seat option unless you really just want to sleep and even then you can get it with window and pulling the shade down. Its like obstructed view seating. Honestly even the isle on that row should be notified of the lack of a window.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-UoERHaSQg

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P45E0uGVyeg

They’d be right if that’s how people referred to the outer seats, but it’s not. It’s not like “boneless chicken wings” where you know it’s not an actual deboned chicken wing. There is no question that people say window seat to mean a seat next to a window and not the opposite of an aisle seat.