美国联合航空因其“无窗窗户座位”的收费问题，正面临一项诉讼，并试图将其驳回。该公司辩称，“窗户座位”仅指飞机靠墙的座位位置，并不保证乘客能看到外部景色。此前，联合航空和达美航空被乘客起诉，指控其在未明确告知的情况下，对一些实际没有窗户的座位收取额外费用。律师在驳回动议中表示，座位的“窗户”标识仅指其在飞机内部的位置，而非外部视野的承诺。尽管部分航空公司会在预订时明确告知此类情况，但联合航空和达美航空并未这样做，引发了消费者的不满和质疑，认为这种做法违背了乘客的合理预期。

🪟 航空座椅定义争议：联合航空在法律文件中辩称，“窗户座位”仅指飞机靠墙的座位位置，而非乘客能够看到外部景色的座位。这一说法旨在驳回乘客的诉讼，该诉讼指控航空公司在未明确告知的情况下，对本应有窗户的座位收取额外费用。

⚖️ 乘客权益受损质疑：乘客起诉联合航空和达美航空，指控其收取额外费用购买“窗户座位”，但这些座位实际上没有窗户，导致乘客的合理预期落空。原告方认为，航空公司的做法剥夺了乘客应有的知情权和公平交易权。

✈️ 飞机设计与信息透明度：部分波音737飞机因内部管道等组件的安装，确实存在某些座位区域没有窗户的情况。然而，联合航空和达美航空未能在预订过程中向乘客明确告知这一信息，而其他航空公司如美国航空、阿拉斯加航空和瑞安航空则会进行提示，这加剧了此次争议的焦点。

💰 额外费用与价值不符：有乘客表示，他们支付了高达169.99美元来选择一个窗户座位，结果却发现只能看到机舱墙壁。这使得乘客认为支付的额外费用与获得的实际价值严重不符，构成了不公平的收费行为。

United Airlines and Delta Air Lines were accused of unfairly selling 'windowless window' seats.United filed a motion to dismiss the case on Monday.Its lawyers argued it "cannot reasonably be interpreted" that a window seat would have an exterior view.

When is a window not a window?

United Airlines is trying to get a lawsuit dismissed by arguing that a window seat only means one next to a wall, and not necessarily with a view.

In August, United and Delta Air Lines were sued by passengers in two separate but similar suits. Both airlines were accused of unfairly charging extra for some window seats without warning that there wasn't actually a window there.

United filed a motion to dismiss the case on Monday.

"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.

"Rather, the word 'window' identifies the position of the seat—i.e., next to the wall of the main body of the aircraft," they added.

The lawyers also pointed to United's contract of carriage, which does not expressly promise that window seats have exterior views.

Aviva Copaken, a plaintiff in the United suit, said she paid as much as $169.99 to choose a window seat, only to find out upon boarding that she only had a view of the cabin wall.

Boeing 737 planes, which make up over half of United's fleet, have at least one row with a missing window due to the placement of ducts, electrical conduits, or other components. Airbus A320s and Boeing 757s can also have missing windows.

While American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, and Ryanair are among the airlines that warn customers about this in the booking process, United and Delta do not, the suits say.

Carter Greenbaum, representing plaintiffs against United and Delta, told Reuters that United's position 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.

United did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent outside US working hours.