United Airlines argues ‘window seat’ does not mean ‘seat with a window’

[moa999]

Pretty sure on almost every airline contract seats aren't guaranteed.
And on almost every aircraft model there will be windowless seats, typically where fuselage joins are.

But id want a refund if I ended up in that seat after selecting window. Different if one specifically selected that seat from a seatmap that showed no window.

 

[Ade]

Instead of using Window, Aisle and Middle seats, using Inner, Aisle and Middle position - may imply that the pax will be seated at the Inner position), but no guarantee of a view window.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Instead of using Window, Aisle and Middle seats, using Inner, Aisle and Middle position - may imply that the pax will be seated at the Inner position), but no guarantee of a view window.

Inner means inside though… so aisle!

The system has served us well for 80 years? I don’t think we need to change it.

Just change the seat map to indicate seats without windows

 

[Quickstatus]

Just change the seat map to indicate seats without windows

They do indicate overwing exits, so not a stretch to indicate wall seats, but what actually constitutes a window seat?.
In my view it is only a window seat when the passenger can control the shade (notwithstanding cabin crew instructions).

There are seats positioned in such a way that it is between normal windows, not because of a missing window.

 

[Warragul]

There are seats positioned in such a way that it is between normal windows, not because of a missing window.

Embraers have a few of them

 

[justinbrett]

Even when paid.

QF doesn’t sell window seats.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

QF doesn’t sell window seats.

A and F/K seats are available for purchase, particularly for those without FF membership, or for flights originating outside of australia.

Cross referencing with seat preferences that equates to window (and aisle) seats.

Dun guarantee a view though,

 

[Quickstatus]

QF doesn’t sell window seats.

Next time speak to the call centre and ask them to move your seat assignment to a "window" seat.
They understand "window" seats and will gladly sell you a ticket with a "window" seat assignment

(Even though they don't charge extra for window seats per se).

 

[justinbrett]

A and F/K seats are available for purchase, particularly for those without FF membership, or for flights originating outside of australia.

Cross referencing with seat preferences that equates to window (and aisle) seats.

Dun guarantee a view though,

QF never claims them to be window seats. Have a look yourself. Pick the middle seat in that same row and it’s the same price. Whatever assumptions you come up with are just that.

There’s no cross referencing with seat preferences as when they are used there is no fee.

Next time speak to the call centre and ask them to move your seat assignment to a "window" seat.
They understand "window" seats and will gladly sell you a ticket with a "window" seat assignment

(Even though they don't charge extra for window seats per se).

I don’t know how to make it any clearer, you don’t pay extra to request a window seat with QF so I don’t know how you can claim you’re being shortchanged.

I get the original argument against UA because they explicitly label the seat “window seat” and are charging a fee. You said UA should follow QF and I agree, in this instance, that argument wouldn’t work against QF.

 

[flyingfan]

Extremely disingenuous for UA to claim a window seat doesn't mean a window. We ought to counter-claim that paying for our tickets doesn't mean we'll pay the full amount, or before the flight, or to UA...

 

[Quickstatus]

I don’t know how to make it any clearer, you don’t pay extra to request a window seat with QF so I don’t know how you can claim you’re being shortchanged.

I never claimed they did. My post about taking a leaf out of QF playbook was about something completely different to QF labelling or not labelling seats. It was about selling something but calling it something else.

I don't know how to make it clearer but I'll try...

Qantas tried to use an argument that they don't sell tickets but a bundle of rights (which qantas has since agreed to withdraw using that as a defence). And UA could take that idea right out of Qantas' playbook. Sell the window seat but when someone complains, call it a bundle of rights not necessarily a window seat per se.

 

[justinbrett]

Qantas tried to use an argument that they don't sell tickets but a bundle of rights (which qantas has since agreed to withdraw using that as a defence). And UA could take that idea right out of Qantas' playbook. Sell the window seat but when someone complains, call it a bundle of rights not necessarily a window seat per se.

I think you’re just trying to recycle old jokes - but the serious point is they can just sell it as a seat, show a seat map, and let people make up their own minds

UA was undone because they specifically label it as a window seat, where there was no requirement to do so. AA don’t label it either from what I can see.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Qantas tried to use an argument that they don't sell tickets but a bundle of rights (which qantas has since agreed to withdraw using that as a defence). And UA could take that idea right out of Qantas' playbook. Sell the window seat but when someone complains, call it a bundle of rights not necessarily a window seat per se.

Your airline ticket is STILL a bundle of rights. That’s legal fact. Your ticket is NOT a guarantee of carriage on a particular flight, as you yourself agreed to, above where you said the expectation is to get on ‘an’ aircraft (rather than a particular flight).

That is completely different to an airline’s sale of a windows seat. They’re not even in the same ballpark.