So you changed your argument? You originally said the seats don’t cost more, but now you’re saying everyone is a moron for not choosing the package that flatten seat cost? Even though you checked every flight from both airlines in every country they operate to ensure that, by undeniable fact, seats in a particular row are a flat cost?

You asked where, we showed you where. Imagine arguing that a la carte chocolate mousse doesn’t cost more than vanilla ice cream because you could have chosen all-you-can-eat at the start

That’s why I gave you row 55 pricing. It’s 2nd from the back, the rearmost row with all 9 seats available at the time of looking. I don’t know why you’re so confident there’s no window upcharge when you can clearly verify for yourself that there is, in fact, a way to get it to show you different pricing. Somehow, you’re convinced picking true basic class is not valid because it’s so poor.

That’s a funny edit you added to the parent comment. In your very first comment, you asked “We’re [sic] are people paying extra for a window seat?” and then two different people showed you. Amazing.

So your proof that “this lawsuit is bullshit” is that… If you pick a higher class at the start, it hides the window upcharge as a flat fee? I mean yeah, if I click Premium economy at the start, I get the near-wing seats for free, and I can even grab a rear row steerage seat for free, no discount applied.

You are wrong that there’s NO upcharge for different seats in a row. That’s it.

Confidently incorrect.

Lol I literally just checked for you. Not only is the middle seat cheaper, but the aisle seat is more than the window seat. Picked a large cross-USA trip to make sure it’d have triple seats.

JFK-LAX
Jan 18, 2026
Basic as can be to make sure no upcharges were included Picked whatever flight was first
787-9, dual aisles with 3 triple seats across.
Aisles are the same across a row, middles are the same as well, regardless of middle triple or side triple
Row 45 (preferred eco) Window is +$70, aisle is +$54, aisle is +$86
Row 55 (eco) window is +$30, middle is +$23, aisle is +$36

Meanwhile, you’re being unnecessarily condescending about wanting a window seat. It’s preference. Good for you and your jetset life. I like window seats, that’s all.

I too have a photo like that. ER-175J (OO) if I remember correctly.

I rode a 787 intercontinentally for the first time earlier this year and was very disappointed by the forced tint. I was really excited to see, I believe, the arctic ice cap. Nothing. Like, I get it’s a long flight and apparently most people just take drugs and sleep, but damn. I would have shielded it with my jacket anyway.

But even still, know how I deal with wanting to nod off when a 4am flight hits day break? A $6 sleep mask. I’m not affected by windows, reading lamps, the crew flicking the lights for fun, that one person typing in Word at full brightness on a red eye flight, or people using flashlights to search their bag.

[Editing for everyone else rolling by: I just checked, middle was cheapest, window was mid price, aisle cost the most. Original comment continues:]

90% sure the middle seats are cheaper when I book United directly. I fly 6 trips a year and am a window addict. I don’t know, doesn’t matter how often I fly, I stare out the window. It’s fascinating every single time. I also don’t have to get up much, so I enjoy not being bothered for everyone else’s bathroom trip. My SO will pick the middle seat, which is why I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it be cheaper.

I have also been burned with a wall seat. I got it on some Embraer (175?) where it was 2 seats each side, I think row 10 on one side and 12 on the other were walls.

I will acknowledge the aisle seat may be better on this new-to-me annual 15 hour flight where the 787 windows were tinted the whole time anyway. Sub-8 hour flights are fine, but the slow creeping of claustrophobia is real on that flight.

They went on strike in the Reagan era and then got fired and replaced.

Don’t kink-shame Nipples Cuomo

I’ve never seen it with eyes. Even if I did, it’d barely rank higher than a meme in long term sentimentality. May as well be a sinbad S dragon

I’m still not sure I’d recognize it, especially not without the backing shield. Sure, you can say that’s just on me, but there’s so many symbols and references that lead back to nazis that I can’t imagine I’ll know them all. I’d counter that by asking if you’d think anything deep about seeing a Medusa tattoo.

Also, people get meaningless tattoos all the time, especially once you get over your first one’s novelty. You liked it that day. No one is sentimental about their cartoon toaster. No one put meaning into every single element of their full sleeves. Right now there’s a trend of just getting 20 pieces of flash, not far from the generalized traditional designs from the 1950s

Yeah, wheen they’re defending female youth sports. They need to check the locker rooms in case there’s any secret children’s dicks ah god dammit nevermind

Is this your hobby? Thinking about why Taylor Swift is bad?

That might be biased because your own age puts you into groups of interest to others your own age. I tried to be encompassing with “middle age” because, well, that probably includes me, a 30-something teenager. But that being said, I have felt there’s been a slow swing to at least be inclusive of 18-25 year olds. But I also have confirmation bias there because I can’t hang with the kids’ slang anymore, so it stands out when I see it.

Digression: I’d like to do a study on “what’s the funniest number” because it’s both age and time dependent. 69 has been funny for a long time, but for boomers and older, was there any other funny number? Gen x and some millennial would likely say 42 (Hitchikers guide to the galaxy). Other millennial might hark back to SpongeBob with 24/25. But what has obviously gotten me curious is 6-7. Of course, my assumptions stem only from my own observations and I could be missing large entries.

It’s a platform catering towards techy middle aged men that can’t relate to her story at all. Of course, there’s always the bullshit about “of course I can’t relate to being a greedy billionaire” but it’s every single aspect, namely, never having been a teenage girl.

These guys will then go on to act like the teen girl story is a gimmick and that she should do something more mature, then scroll and geek out over painting some 40K figurines. Spoiler alert, we never stopped being kids, we just got wrinkly and gray.

I don’t get Swift. 300,000,000 women do. Clearly, she’s striking a chord somewhere significant.

This is what they wanted. They wanted Trump to run the government like a business. They somehow think businesses do well after Trump pulls his cash. They somehow think the government should be run for profit as if the government will pay them. They somehow think the grift was anything other than firing half the staff to cut costs and then fleeing the company a year later right before the listing ship keels over from the weight of mismanagement. They somehow think they’ll be C-level once Trump empowers them.

They somehow think they won’t be the fat trimmed for efficiency.

He still has a sizeable tech bro/temporarily embarrassed millionaire following filled with politically-apathetic/“right leaning for the tax breaks” people. But I can’t imagine they’re opinionated enough to take his opinion as a call to cancel their own convenient Netflix subscription so your point still stands

I didn’t say it was innately harmful. If it’s a feature no one asked for, there’s a good chance marketing is taking a shot at getting you hooked on something beyond performance/functionality specs. So, an extreme opinion, but we are surrounded by addictive designs that extend beyond the expected functionality.

Possibly harmful in the sense it promotes habit-forming rituals. But we’re already addicted anyway, so maybe net zero effect other than brand loyalty