United Airlines tried to argue that a “window seat” does not necessarily include a window, which is the kind of corporate reasoning that makes a person check whether “airplane” still means airplane.
On Monday, July 6, U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco rejected the airline’s argument that a window seat refers to the position of the seat on the airplane and does not promise any outside views, Reuters reported.
The rejection of United’s defense comes after the airline tried to fight a proposed class action lawsuit from passengers who argued they were unfairly charged for window seats that didn’t have actual windows.
The airline’s argument is basically: you were near the window concept. The window aura. The window district. Maybe no actual window, but certainly a strong window-adjacent energy. Unfortunately for United, passengers tend to understand “window seat” in the old-fashioned sense, meaning a seat with a window, because civilization has not yet fully surrendered to fee-based nonsense.
Airlines have finally discovered basic nouns as a revenue opportunity.
It's a window seat, just with an obstructed view.
Heck, the fine print on your ticket tells you that the purchase of said ticket is no guarantee that the airline will get you to the destination, even as some passengers were taken by bus instead of plane. The idea that the airline actually owes you anything at all just because you gave them money seems not to be something airlines recognize.