(Reuters) Delta Air Lines and United Airlines were sued on Tuesday by passengers who claimed they paid extra money to sit in "window" seats, only to find themselves placed in seats next to a blank wall.
Proposed class actions were filed against United in San Francisco federal court and against Delta in Brooklyn, New York federal court, seeking millions of dollars of damages for more than 1 million passengers at each carrier.
Good. People should not pay extra for something that they don’t receive. If the “window” seat lacks a window, it should be indicated and not sold at the same price as other window seats. Like how “obstructed” balcony cabins are indicated as such on cruise ships.
How is it possible for the airlines to claim they were unaware of this situation? There’s only one word to describe charging 100,000 customers— wait, it’s a million customers!— for a seat described as a window seat when the seat is not adjacent to a window—— fraud.
Delta and United won’t want me on THAT jury!
How is it possible for experienced Travelers to claim they were unaware of this situation? For them to not understand that while seat configurations can change, the locations of the windows can not change is pretty hard to believe. Now the obvious is fraud? We all know that in reality if not in description that "Window" denotes an end of the row of seats, not a window. To pretend otherwise is just greed. The cost of the airline defending itself from this sort of nonsense and greed adds a few dollars to every plane ticket.
I’m an aisle seat person, but my husband wants a window seat, specifically for the views through the window. No window, no “window seat,” no question.
The only type of seat that a passenger won’t expect to have some bonus desired attribute is a middle seat, and none of those are identified as anything other than “middle.” With so many airlines now charging extra for specific seats, being accurate as to a seat’s specifics is necessary.
The theater analogy is accurate. We’ve just booked seats for several performances coming up in London this fall, and were glad to know what seats had obstructed views, or limited knee room, or a high wall in front of seats, or stools instead of chairs, etc. The discounted prices weren’t enough to sway getting crappy seats, but the theater providing the information was essential to having satisfied customers. Describing a seat inaccurately amounts to false advertising, and some of that money obtained through misidentification is going back to wronged customers. Take in less money beforehand, or pay out more later - sounds very fair.
This happens on trains as well. Considering that more scenery is available during a train trip, I would find this more annoying. I know because it's happened to me.
But I never thought of suing.
If I remember correctly, Seat Guru used to mark seats with "Obstructed views."
