Airlines claim that passengers who pay extra for window seats are not entitled to a view in class-action lawsuit

These travelers unknowingly threw their money out the window.

When you book a window seat on a plane, you’re likely expecting to be seated next to a window — but some airlines argue otherwise.

In response to a class-action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines and United Airlines filed by passengers who claimed they paid extra money to sit in “window” seats, only be sit in seats next to an empty wall, United has asked a federal judge to dismiss it.

The airline is arguing that a window seat means a seat next to a wall — not necessarily a seat with a view.

“The use of the word ‘window’ in reference to a particular seat cannot reasonably be interpreted as a promise that the seat will have an exterior window view,” the airline’s lawyers wrote in a motion to dismiss the case on Nov. 10.

“Rather, the word ‘window’ identifies the position of the seat — i.e., next to the wall of the main body of the aircraft.”

The lawyers also noted that United’s contract of carriage does not explicitly guarantee that a window seat will have an exterior view next to it.

One plaintiff in the suit against United, Aviva Copaken, claimed that she paid as much as $169.99 for a window seat, and when she boarded, there was only a view of the cabin wall.

Boeing 737s have at least one row with a missing window at the window seat because of the placement of components such as ducts, electrical conduits — and these planes make up over half of United’s fleet. Missing windows can also be found on Airbus A320s and Boeing 757s.

While some airlines — such as American Airlines, Alaska Airlines and Ryanair — tell customers during the booking process whether or not their window seat has an actual window, United and Delta don’t issue a warning, the suit said.

Carter Greenbaum, who is representing plaintiffs against United and Delta, told Reuters that United’s argument was “contrary to the reasonable expectations of countless passengers who unknowingly paid extra money for windowless window seats. Consumers deserve better than empty promises and United’s word games.”

He added in a statement to People, “As airlines have begun charging for services that were once free, passengers should at least expect upfront disclosure of the fees and that if they pay an extra fee, they will get the product they paid for.”

On Oct. 15, an amended complaint contended that most passengers choose to pay extra for a window seat for the comfort it provides to these travelers.

“Many passengers have a fear of flying or experience anxiety, claustrophobia or motion sickness, and windows provide greater comfort in an otherwise distressing environment,” the complaint read.

“Whatever the motivation for buying a window, had plaintiffs and the punitive class members known that they were buying windowless window seats, they would not have selected them at all, much less paid extra for them.”

The complaintant is suing United on four counts: breach of contract (“ticket breach”), breach of contract (“record of agreement breach”), breach of implied contract and promissory estoppel, which is the legal term for going back on a promise.

A proposed trial date was set for June 7, 2027.

The Post has reached out to United for comment.