Isn’t unchecked capitalism just delightful?

  • reversedposterior@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    For the sake of argument, what would you call a seat that was not next to the aisle? I’m not defending them but at the same time I’d understand window seat just means ‘against fuselage’, yet I agree this is a confusing term.

    • treesquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      Wall seat. It’s not hard. If window seat just means next to a wall that may have a window, it’s a still a wall seat, even if there’s a window. A window seat is always next to a window because that’s literally what defines it as a window seat.

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Wall seat or outer seat, I would think.

      It was only because of airlines’ decision to change seating layouts that made it out of alignment with the aircraft’s windows to maximize capacity, and since then they have been attempting to redefine the what a window seat is.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        “Outer seat” is good. Of course I think that after reading this whole article and having all the nuances in my head. Anyone who sees that term in a booking interface will not know what it means.

        • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’ve thought it over again after reading your comment, if airlines really wanted to weasel out of offering a window, and didn’t want to call it an ‘outer wall seat’ for clarity, they could call it a “window-side seat”, “window-adjacent seat”, or “window-end seat”. That would be like the American product saying “chocolate-flavored candy”, where it’s technically true and only misleads enough not to be afoul of the law.

          • scarabic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yeah, that’s closer to the mark. It’s so subtle. Can you call it a window-adjacent seat if it isn’t adjacent to a window? I’m sure a marketer somewhere can find the right weasel-word :D

    • _edge@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just don’t charge extra and when customers pick a seat indicate the lack of a window. You’ll find a passenger who doesn’t care.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          They don’t. Aisle seats sometimes cost extra due to the slight bit of extra room to wiggle around in, but window seats never do (as far as I’m aware) - because it’s not actually an advantage to sit by a window. This is a nothingburger of an article.

          • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            They don’t. Aisle seats sometimes cost extra due to the slight bit of extra room to wiggle around in, but window seats never do (as far as I’m aware) - because it’s not actually an advantage to sit by a window. This is a nothingburger of an article.

            “As far as I’m aware”, nice save. Maybe read the article before you dismiss it?

            Both airlines were accused of unfairly charging extra for some window seats without warning that there wasn’t actually a window there.

            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.

            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.

            How nice of you to play for big corpo that habitually rips off customers by always skirting the extent of what the law allows them to get away with. They must be called out - to the fullest extent of the law - whenever they overstep, however little.

            I’m sure multiple lawyers and countless plaintiffs decided to go to court over a “nothingburger”.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      For the sake of argument, what would you call a seat that was not next to the aisle?

      Cabin view.

    • mercano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’d call it bulkhead, but that term’s already used by seats in the front row of the section. Wall seating? Hullside?

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      The reality is that yes they are “against fuselage” seats which almost always means a window, but due to aircraft design, has a small chance of being up against a solid wall. They are saying that “window seat” is a descriptive term but not a guarantee because of this. I’m sure that in most cases where this has ever caused real concern, flight crews were able to reseat people to adjust or airlines compensated the aggrieved flyers or I don’t know people fucking sucked it up and moved on with their lives.

    • Sergio@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just say “window/wall”. And if customers ask “well why are you charging extra” say it’s bc some people like to sleep while leaning against the wall. (true!)