Delta Air Lines and United Airlines were sued on Tuesday by passengers who claimed they paid more money to sit down in “window” seats, only to search out 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, NY, federal court, searching for tens of millions of dollars of damages for greater than 1 million passengers at each carrier.
The complaints say some Boeing 737, Boeing 757 and Airbus A321 planes contain seats that will normally contain windows, but lack them due to the position of air-con ducts, electrical conduits or other components.
Passengers said Delta and United don’t flag these seats through the booking process, unlike rivals reminiscent of Alaska Airlines and American Airlines, even when charging tens or occasionally a whole bunch of dollars for them.
The lawsuits say people buy window seats for several reasons including to deal with fear of flying or motion sickness, keep a baby occupied, get extra light or watch the world go by.
“Had plaintiffs and the category members known that the seats they were purchasing (were) windowless, they might not have chosen them — much less have paid extra,” the United criticism said. The Delta criticism contained similar language.
Delta relies in Atlanta, and United in Chicago. Neither immediately responded to requests for comment.
Ancillary revenue from seat selection, baggage fees, cabin upgrades, airport lounges and other services help carriers generate extra cash once they fly while keeping base fares lower.
The Delta lawsuit is led by Nicholas Meyer of Brooklyn, and the United lawsuit is led by Marc Brenman of San Francisco and Aviva Copaken of Los Angeles. Copaken said United refunded fees for her windowless seats on two flights, but not a 3rd.
Passengers can use web sites reminiscent of SeatGuru to search out pluses and minuses of specific seats, including those lacking windows.
Carter Greenbaum, a lawyer whose firm filed the 2 lawsuits, said the flexibility to search out information from third party web sites doesn’t excuse Delta’s and United’s conduct.
“An organization can’t misrepresent the character of the products it sells after which depend on third party reviews to say a customer must have known that it was lying,” he said in an email.
The cases are Meyer v Delta Air Lines Inc, US District Court, Eastern District of Recent York, No. 25-04608; and Brenman et al v United Airlines Inc, US District Court, Northern District of San Francisco, No. 25-06995.
