A pair of lawsuits against two US airlines over what counts as a “window seat” has drawn attention to a quirk of aircraft cabins: not every window seat actually has a window.
Several carriers, including United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Alaska Airlines, and Ireland’s Ryanair, operate Airbus and Boeing aircraft with some seats that lack physical windows because of the plane’s design. For example, seats 10A and 11A on certain Boeing 737s.
This shouldn’t necessarily come as a surprise. Most carriers identify these seats during the booking process. Still, air carriers’ ticketing of these seats is under scrutiny as the cases proceed, potentially with ramifications for seat offerings and fares.
The civil cases, both filed in August 2025, allege that United and Delta charged passengers extra for these seats without providing a clear warning that they would actually be seated beside a blank section of fuselage.
Aviva Copaken, a plaintiff in the suit against United, said she paid up to $170 for window seats that did not have a window.
In a November motion to dismiss the case, United argued that a window seat simply refers to a seat positioned next to the aircraft wall, rather than one that guarantees a view.
A US district judge in San Francisco rejected that motion on Monday, allowing the lawsuit to move forward. Delta’s motion to dismiss, which was filed in Brooklyn, is still pending.
A future ruling against the airlines could prompt them and other carriers to rethink how they price or disclose these seats. United has already updated its booking process to show when a selected seat lacks a window.
United told Business Insider that it had nothing to share regarding the lawsuit. It’s unclear if Delta updated its booking systems; the airline declined to comment.
Why are there windowless seats?
Windowless seats are largely a result of how aircraft are designed and how airlines plan their seat layout.
Aircraft such as the Airbus A320, Boeing 737, and Boeing 757 families have components, including air conditioning ducts, emergency equipment, and electrical wiring, that can prevent windows from being installed in certain parts of the fuselage.
How much legroom airlines want to give their passengers also plays a role. Adding or removing rows could shift the alignment with the windows.
The location of windowless seats varies by plane model, but they are often found around exit rows or at the rear of the cabin.
Spanish flag carrier Iberia, for example, has windowless seats in row 39 on its Airbus A321XLRs. JetBlue has at least one no-window seat on much of its Airbus narrowbody fleet.
Some larger jets, like the Boeing 777 and Boeing 787, have seats with misaligned windows rather than completely missing ones.
Many of these unpopular windowless seats are in extra-legroom sections of economy and can cost a premium despite the lack of a view.
For example, a United Boeing 737-900 flight from Chicago to Newark, New Jersey, in September disclosed during booking that seat 11A did not have a window. The upgrade price was $80 — the same as identical seats in the rows with windows.
That pricing strategy is not unusual: looking at flights on Alaska and Ryanair, windowless seats were priced the same as other regular window seats.
Can you get a refund for booking a windowless seat?
Copaken, the plaintiff, said in the lawsuit that United refunded her seat fee after she complained to the airline. Another plaintiff, Marc Brenman, said he received a refund of 7,500 MileagePlus miles.
However, refunds are not guaranteed.
United said its contract of carriage does not define a window seat as providing an external view, and refunds are generally required only when a customer is downgraded from their original paid seat.
Similar policies exist at other airlines, including Alaska and JetBlue.
While it may be worth asking an airline for a refund or travel credit if you discover your window seat is actually a blank wall, passengers may have limited recourse if the lack of a window was disclosed at the time of booking.
Read the full article here
