There’s a new class action lawsuit against United Airlines for selling window seats without windows. Surprisingly, United actually does this.
The airline sells some seats next to the fuselage that don’t have windows beside them, and customers are paying seat assignmnet fees expecting to look out the window but they can only look at the interior wall of the cabin.
You might think ‘but window seat is just nomenclature’ and doesn’t promise a window beside it but that is not true.
- an aisle seat is next to the aisle and has another passenger on only one side of you.
- a middle seat is between two seats, so there’s a passenger potentially on both sides of you.
- a window seat is next to the cabin wall, so there’s a passenger on just one side of you, and you’re furthest from the aisle so there are more passengers to climb over to get to the lavatory.
But a window seat on United Airlines actually does promise a window! They promote it during the booking path as part of the upsell!
And for a variety of reasons not every seat beside the cabin wall has a window to look out of. Most famously, on most Boeing 737s seat 11A is advertised as having a window but doesn’t. Honestly though this is more commonly an issue with American Airlines, with misaligned windows after a number of densification projects to cram in more seats, than with United.
The class action against United is limited to:
- California residents
- Who paid extra for a window seat on United within the past four years (no free seat assignments for elites here)
- And the window seat didn’t have a window.
The lack of windows at window seats happens because of structural elements in the fuselage (where cutting a window would weaken the airframe) and because airlines change row spacing so that seats wind up next to solid wall between windows.
There seems like a pretty simple solution here: just flag on the seat map that there’s no window. state that there isn’t actually a window there. Aerolopa shows window placement on the United 737-800:
Now, this is a California suit for a reason:
- California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law have broader definitions of deceptive practices than many other states. THe False Advertising Law there can be paired with unfair competition claims.
- California courts and juries are generally seen as more receptive to consumer claims, especially in cases alleging misleading marketing.
- California courts do not follow the Federal Arbitration Act the same way federal courts do when it comes to enforcing class action waivers in adhesion contracts. The McGill rule (McGill v. Citibank, 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017)) treats agreements waiving the right to seek public injunctive relief as unenforceable. (Limiting the suit to California residents is an attempt to keep the case in state court and avoid dismissal from arbitration clauses and class-action waivers.)
- The Airline Deregulation Act pre-empts state laws “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.” And seat prices are at issue here. Plaintiffs will argue that the deception is about the physical attribute of the seat—a misrepresentation of a product feature—rather than the price or service of the airline.
I do wonder, though, whether similar thinking could be applied to when flight attendants require windows down on a long haul flight? Since you were sold a window seat and then denied use of the product you purchased? Or what about where another passenger prevents you from using the window you purchased?
United could turn the disclosures about lack of window at the window seat into a revenue opportunity, so maybe this class action is a blessing in disguise. Call it “Basic Window” – it becomes part of how they compete against low cost carriers by making the product worse.
If you want a seat with an actual window, you need to buy up to Window Plus (free for MileagePlus Gold members and above, and Chase co-brand cardholders). These seats don’t have a view of the ground because they’re located over the wing. If you want a full view, those are Premium Window seats, which come at a higher price (free for 1Ks, Global Services, and Club card customers).
The same treatment could apply to United’s Basic Lavatory, if they’d install a window in the first class lav. Coach passengers could be charged a fee for access, continuing the trend of unbundling premium products.
For a premium experience in the sky, please consider Delta.
Ironically, I prefer to sit in window seats so I can keep the shade closed and not be blinded by the sun the entire flight. I’ll take the wall seat any day.
Don’t give them ideas. “Basic Window ” and “Premium Window” will debut before the end of the year.
Can’t wait for the $1.43 payout; at least the lawyers should make money… /s
I like window seats and am willing to pay extra for them because I like the window and I like having only one person right near me (aisle seats have a stream of people passing near them). I never spend the entire flight with the window shade closed. I have never flown on a B787 with narrow seats and someone else controlling the window. I hope the passenger wins against United.
UA should announce that anyone that can prove they paid for a window seat but didn’t get an actual window will be refunded their seat charge. Very few are going to respond either because they can’t remember or can’t/difficult to prove.
And some people get two windows. I agree with Gary – easy solution, just make a note when you select the seat. They do it for limited or no recline and with United’s solid IT easy leash to add another parameter.
@greggb57 — Can you imagine up-charging window seats on one side of the plane depending on the projected views on the flight path?
@1990 — For real.
@L737 — For those that don’t merely close their window shades, I’ll say, it makes a huge difference which side. Three examples. For LGA, if flight path is a direct approach to runway 4, left side is usually a great view of Manhattan. Likewise, runways 15 or 19 at DCA, I’d go left side, too, if you wanna see DC. If going south out of HND, great views of Mt. Fuji from right side. I can go on…
There used to be the window seat in last row in an MD-80 got you a wall, the next to last row got you a view of the engine nacelle!
I’ve had a business class “window” seat with no window before. I note that some airlines are now noting that in seat selection. Now, if the passenger doesn’t READ the note… I’ve also noted that some international flights will intentionally block those seats for “crew rest” when there is not a dedicated crew rest area away from the passenger cabin.
untied will argue their CoC says “transportation only” which was american’s defense against erika hamilton ( https: // http://www.thestreet.com / travel / woman-wins-lawsuit-vs-american-airlines-over-bizarre-claim )
hamilton “won” but that was a small claims action and her compensation was insulting
@gary please keep us apprised of developments in this matter
@Craig Jones — Pal, you can still enjoy that sorta view today, on Delta’s ancient 717s, last row, about 26. Also, you forgot.. to look… for the label…
“The lack of windows at window seats happens because of structural elements in the fuselage (where cutting a window would weaken the airframe)”
This is not true. The reason there is no window at row 11 is due to an air conditioning duct traveling vertically along the fuselage wall (sidewall riser duct).
If it was a structural requirement, there would not be a window at row 11 on the right side of the fuselage.
What I don’t understand is why airlines aren’t marking these seats as “U” – undesirable, as we once had back in the day in the GDS systems. I did some basic checks in Sabre, using the old school blue screen seat maps and the new GUI (graphical user interface), and sure enough – Alaska, United, Delta don’t mark these seats.
We used to be able to code our seatmaps like this, and some still do – on the GUI some airlines will notate that the 1st exit row in a two row set doesn’t recline, for example.
Here are the labels from Sabre, for example
AVAIL NO SMK: * BLOCK : / LEAST PREF: U BULKHEAD: BHD
FWD OR MID CBN: D PREMIUM: Q UPPERDECK: J EXIT ROW: X
SEAT TAKEN: . WING: W PAID: P LAVATORY: LAV GALLEY:GAL BED:S
PREF ACCESS LAV: PAL DOOR: DOR SCREEN: SCR CLOSET: CLS
PREF ACCESS:H BASSINET:B LEGROOM:L UMNR:M REARFACE:@.
So the technology does and *has* existed, it just choses to not code them as such, and yeah, I think United is liable for that. Especially if they booked online, it would be so easy to add in the description on UA.com like we get in the GUI, and add in “Limited or no view”.
I love the idea of categorizing the window seats and charging approprietly: unobstructed view, obstructed view, partial view, and interior only view. (Similar to hotel rooms and cruise ship cabins.) United could profit off of the view type per each seat! I think it would be a fantastic new concept.
A question not answered yet: did UA charge as much for 11A (sorta windowless) than 11F (full on window)? That would make the case stronger, thus more likely leading to a big lawyer payout and trivial compensation to pax.
@This comes to mind — If the lawyers (on either side) pay a ‘gratuity’ to our Dear Leader, they may be able to argue whatever they wish, and win! It’s supposedly $1 million. Just don’t explicitly call it a ‘quid pro quo’ or put it in writing. See: Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024). ‘Winner, winner, chicken dinner!’
About time.
And lucky those who live in California – always ahead of the time, more civilized than the rest of the country.
My recent trip to Iceland, I was able to see and photograph the Northern lights, from my window seat. I would really be disappointed if it was a windowless “wall”. Window seats offer extra shoulder room due to the curvature of the cabin wall, where you can lean in, and for longer flights, even wedge a pillow there and sleep in peace! While one can argue isle seats also offer “extra” shoulder room, you will frequently get bumped by passing passengers/attendants/food carts!
But, having windows actually introduces structural weak spots in a plane. And other than for the pilots, it’s not a necessity. With the advancement of high quality displays, I wouldn’t be surprised if we will see “windowless” fuselage with screens fitted on the interior to simulate “see through walls” in the near future.
It’s window-side seats vis-a-vis aisle-side seats The side of the aisle or the side of the windows or in the middle. This is a frivolous lawsuit IMHO as a California resident and a California litigator. Alas, United will likely pay something to settle it.
that’s not a window depicted, that’s an exit door……..
Caveat emptor – use one of the websites (e.g. seat guru) where you can determine the exact layout of a plane, and see seats color coded for potential issues, such as missing windows. While it’s true that airlines may change equipment, and there are multiple layouts of some airlines’ planes, there’s a lot of info that helps. For example, United’s 737-800 has 4 layouts and in 2 of the 4, 11A has no window.
I agree with Ducky that this is a frivolous lawsuit, but some lawyer’s going to make money. But it’s easy enough to find a seat that meets your needs if you know where to look.
If anything need to sue for charging extra to pick your seat and not having any seats available to choose.
You are sitting in a chair in the sky going 600mph and your hair isn’t ruffled. It’s friggin’ amazing and beautiful outside the window. Touch the window shade closest to my shoulder and you won’t do it again. If you want it pitch dark, put on some sleep shades, but your right to a completely dark cabin ends with the extra fare I paid to sit by one single window and appreciate flight.
Hard to defend that 11F has no window but 11A does, yet the seat price is the same. The FAA needs to get going on that rule change on minimum pitch, which would reverse this misalignment of rows and windows.
False advertising. Even if it were no extra charge, it would still be mislabeled information. It is a very simple modification to the booking process, so do it, or face consequences of passenger complaint.
@Matt : “For a premium experience in the sky, please consider Delta.”
I totally agree. “For a premium experience in the sky,” please consider flying Delta to YYZ Toronto.