United Airlines is facing an interesting class action lawsuit in California, regarding how it markets window seats. Is this an entirely frivolous lawsuit, or is there some merit to it?
In this post:
United’s California class action lawsuit over window seats
There’s a new class action lawsuit against United in California, accusing the airline of charging passengers extra for window seats, only for passengers to find themselves in seats without windows (thanks to View from the Wing for flagging this).
Indeed, aircraft fuselages don’t consistently have windows, so there are some seats that may be marketed as window seats, but the passenger doesn’t actually have the ability to easily look out a window. As it’s described:
For many travelers, a window seat is worth the extra cost. But some passengers on United Airlines say they paid additional fees for a window seat and got something very different: a seat next to a solid wall.
Now, a class action lawsuit alleges that United Airlines misled customers by selling “window seats” that did not actually have windows. Plaintiffs claim this practice may violate airline passenger rights and may constitute false advertising, and they are seeking compensation.
The class action lawsuit is open to those in California who paid extra for a window seat on a United flight within the past four years, but ended up in a seat that didn’t have a window.
This lawsuit sort of makes a good point
People can debate whether this lawsuit is frivolous or not, but it raises an interesting question — does the nomenclature that’s used globally to differentiate seats make sense, or is it time for an update?
We all agree that the defining characteristic of an aisle seat is that it offers direct access to the aisle. We all agree that a middle seat is between at least two other seats. Logically, you’d think that a window seat is one that offers, you know, a view of a window.
However, that’s not actually how the term is used in practice. Instead, we use the term “window seat” to mean a seat that isn’t between two seats that also isn’t an aisle seat… right? While this lawsuit is targeted at United, the term “window seat” is one you’ll find at airlines across the world, so this is hardly a United specific problem.
There’s literally a running joke on Ryanair’s social media about this very topic, where passengers post pictures of themselves in the window seat without a window, and then, of course, Ryanair’s social media team gets sassy.
Funny enough, Ryanair is perhaps the world’s most transparent airline when it comes to this, because the carrier’s seat map specifically indicates which seats don’t have windows.
So while I don’t think it’s necessary to completely change the concept of what we call seats closest to the fuselage, I do think we should see airlines consistently offer a disclosure, similar to what Ryanair has.
Of course savvy travelers can research the location of windows in comparison to seats using sites like aeroLOPA.
Bottom line
United Airlines is facing a class action lawsuit in California, over the concept of charging extra for window seats that don’t actually offer windows, but instead, are next to a solid wall. This is a problem across the industry, so it’s hardly specific to any one airline.
It’s true that while aisle and middle seats have a clearly agreed upon definition, window seats are a bit trickier, since they sometimes don’t provide a view of a window. I do think other airlines should follow Ryanair with the way in which the airline discloses the lack of windows at window seats.
What do you make of this window seat lawsuit?
I absolutely agree on this lawsuit 100%. Prior to seat charges, I would have said this is a frivolous lawsuit. However, as the airlines continue to unbundle services like charge for seats, they need to be transparent. If there's no window, then it should be marked as such.
Take baggage fees when a bag is lost and comes on a later flight (sometimes days later). Airlines have argued a baggage fee doesn't necessarily mean the...
I absolutely agree on this lawsuit 100%. Prior to seat charges, I would have said this is a frivolous lawsuit. However, as the airlines continue to unbundle services like charge for seats, they need to be transparent. If there's no window, then it should be marked as such.
Take baggage fees when a bag is lost and comes on a later flight (sometimes days later). Airlines have argued a baggage fee doesn't necessarily mean the bag will arrive on the same flight you are on. What??? Yes, I paid for the bag to be transported five days later than my flight.
We need to start holding airlines more accountable. If this is the lawsuit that starts the ball rolling, then I am all for it.
Agreed. Especially with today's technology, it shouldn't be hard to update the seatmap displays to show where a given airframe and seat layout don't have a window for a window seat.
It's certainly a spurious suit at best, but I agree with it none the less! Airlines have one goal in mind these days, and it's separating you from as much money as possible. Being jammed up against a wall with a person jammed up against you would not be nice if you are paying to see outside and that helps you relax.
All United has to do is label their seats better and give a little compensation if they fall short - free snack and a drink ought to do the trick
"It's certainly a spurious suit at best..."
How so? If one pays for a window seat, one reasonably expects to have a transparent clear glass-and-plastic-covered shoulder-levelish opening next to them.
It's a really easy solution to just mark it on the seat map online. All good airlines do this and even on trains like the Eurostar. Not sure it's sue worthy, but hey this is America.
Glad to see that UA is being called to account and though we all know nothing will happen except a bunch of lawyers will be able to buy another luxury car or a vacation home, maybe consumers will get lucky and UA will continue it's side in the ACSI's Customer Satisfaction Index.
Still a bit of light between UA and the Section 8s (NK & F9) but I'm sure UA will close the gap soon enough.
"People can debate whether this lawsuit is frivolous or not..."
People are generally complete idiots these days, so they can and will debate all sorts of utter nonsense. That said, I think this lawsuit absolutely and clearly has merit.
Pretty simple, pretty clear: They're not window seats, at least not all of them are. Some of them are "partial window seats" and some of them are just "wall seats". Any airlines selling a window seat...
"People can debate whether this lawsuit is frivolous or not..."
People are generally complete idiots these days, so they can and will debate all sorts of utter nonsense. That said, I think this lawsuit absolutely and clearly has merit.
Pretty simple, pretty clear: They're not window seats, at least not all of them are. Some of them are "partial window seats" and some of them are just "wall seats". Any airlines selling a window seat that doesn't have a window is cheating their customers through deceptive marketing.
I mean, it would be like MacDonalds selling a hamburger that doesn't contain any ham (hey, wait a minute...get my lawyer on the phone, stat!)....
Seriously, I'm glad to see this lawsuit and wish them success. Should be an easy win. Class action, here I come.
The jokes surrounding Ryanair's 11A seat always give me a chuckle.
The Airline Booking Systems all support a characteristic "No Window" (it's an IATA standard), precisely aiming at representing such seats. It's then fairly easy to flag these seats (in the back-end's seat map) and have this rendered on customer channels (e.g. the web-site). Just requires doing the work :-)
Given the extortionate amount UA charges to sit anywhere aside from half-way into a toilet at the back, I hope they get raked over the coals.
"Window seat" is fairly self-explanatory. The clue is in the name.
This lawsuit will go nowhere. UA might refund any seat fees to passengers that can prove they paid and booked a window for a seat with no window.
It seems like being by a window doesn't carry the same attraction it once did. On the last few flights I've taken, over half of the window passengers kept the shades down for the entire flight.