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.
Window seat?? No no, we said widow seat.
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.
wait what? What’s a boneless chicken wing then?
(Don’t think I’ve ever heard that phrase but I’d assume it’s a chicken wing with the bones removed)
Boneless wings are breast meat that has been shaped to look like a bone. That’s why it’s called a boneless wing, not because it’s literally a deboned wing.
In any case if you’re on a flight longer than a couple hours you’re not allowed to open them anyway, they make you keep em shut so people can nap 🙈 But it’s fun to look out for the takeoff and landing. But the planes that tint the windows are the best.
What? No they don’t.
I mean I guess if you’re in the air at night then yeah you can open them. My last few flights were long haul going west during the day, so the sun never goes down, and people sleep the whole way.
It really depends on the airline and the time of day at the destination.
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…
The main reason I like window seats isn’t because of the window, it’s because I can fall into deep sleep and nobody will wake me up because they need to get out and pee.
So jealous of being able to sleep on the plane…
Well, yeah, that’s what the controversy is. They’re saying “window seat” implies sitting in the opposite of the aisle, not necessarily having a window. (Which is BS. People take it to mean window.) So they’re saying it’s not a bait and switch.
🤔
Its time
I’m going to grease up the blade ways
Past time
“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.
I don’t think the public would be confused if they called the windowless seat a wall seat and made attempts to clarify. They could even warn the buyer when they select the seat.
I don’t understand your gripe here. What’s wrong with those terms?
Exactly!
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.
Ought to call them skin seats since they’re next to the planes skin
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.
Delta not only charges you for the privilege of selecting your own seats, but charges you for the “preferred” aisle or window seat.
Here’s a flight in January 2026 to Atlanta:
And here’s the seat key denoting the aisle and window seats as “preferred”
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
You know I wouldn’t mind flat bunks though, like stack 3 high. You have a table time to go sit and eat and have a coffee then back to the bunk.
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.
