1054
United argues 'window seat' does not mean 'seat with a window' (aerospaceglobalnews.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
199 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
[–] 7 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent