1051

United argues 'window seat' does not mean 'seat with a window' (aerospaceglobalnews.com)

submitted 3 months ago by bytesonbike@discuss.online to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

200 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I didn't follow that story, but if it was over some suit over bone chips, I'd donlt think that it'd be analogous. Normally, "boneless wings" are less-desirable than regular wings. Boneless wings are just reconstituted chicken, so you can use scraps and stuff for them. It's kind of like the relationship between steak and hamburger.

But with hamburger, you can occasionally have a bone chip make it in.

That's in contrast to a window seat, where a window seat is often considered to be preferable, and someone not getting one would feel like they're being mislead as to the actual value of what they're getting.

Like, I wouldn't expect truth-in-advertising issues to come up with boneless chicken; you wouldn't likely wouldn't get boneless chicken wings because of an aversion to bone or something, where that's your main goal.

kagis

Yeah:

https://apnews.com/article/boneless-chicken-wings-lawsuit-ohio-supreme-court-231002ea50d8157aeadf093223d539f8

It doesn't sound like it's a false advertising case with the chicken, but a product safety one.

[-] bss03@infosec.pub 1 points 3 months ago

I disagree with the ruling because the bone in question was described as "long, thin". If it was just bone chips, then it wouldn't have caused the complainant issues. Because of that description I think the liability should (ultimately) be on the party the was responsible for deboning the chicken.

I could be wrong about how liability cases work, but I think the Ohio case should have held the restaurant liable for the complainant's injury/distress but allow their findings to be carried into a suit from the restaurant against the supplier of the bag of boneless wings.

No deboning process is going to be perfect, but that's what liability insurance is for. I do think no "long, thin" bones should make it through a reliable deboning process, tho.

this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2025

1051 points (99.5% liked)

Not The Onion

20700 readers

1672 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world