I’m not sure how this is going to play out, but I don’t see how this is going to end well…
In this post:
71% of United flight attendants vote down new contract
Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen flight attendants at most major US carriers ratify new contracts, since they were otherwise working on pre-pandemic contracts, not factoring in the increased cost of living we’ve seen in recent years.
While flight attendants at most major airlines have ratified new contracts within the past year or so, United’s 28,000 flight attendants, represented by the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA), have been the exception. In May 2025, we finally saw the flight attendants get a new tentative contract.
These contracts are negotiated by the union leadership, but then have to be approved by the membership through a vote. The union described this as a “historic agreement,” whereby flight attendants would get huge pay increases and quality of life improvements. Over the past several weeks, the membership has been voting on this contract, and the results are now in… it seems members disagree with union leadership.
United flight attendants have rejected this contract, and not just by a little margin — 92% of eligible members cast their ballots, and 71% of those participating voted against it. That’s a resounding rejection.
This contract would’ve seen flight attendants get retroactive pay, an average of 27% raises as of the date of signing, with additional raises in subsequent years. That’s in addition to other quality of life improvements. Now flight attendants are back to the drawing board on a new contract.
Here’s how Ken Diaz, the president of the union’s United chapter, describes this:
“United Flight Attendants today voted to send a strong message to United Airlines management by rejecting a tentative agreement that didn’t go far enough to address the years of sacrifice and hard work to make the airline the success it is today. This is democracy in action.”
“Flight Attendants need substantial improvements as soon as possible. Our union will survey members as quickly as possible to identify the key issues Flight Attendants are ready to fight to achieve in an agreement they want to ratify. We always said no matter the outcome of the vote, we will fight forward and that is what we will do with the power of 28,000 Flight Attendants and our whole union standing together.”
This is not good for United management…
I’ve gotta be honest, I’m really surprised to see the margin by which this contract has been rejected. I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had been rejected by a small margin, but by this kind of a margin? Wow. More than two-thirds of flight attendants voted against it.
At this point, the two parties have to start over with negotiating a new contract, and that likely won’t be a fast or easy process:
- This isn’t good for United management, in terms of morale of employees, managing costs, or moving on to other priorities
- This isn’t good for United flight attendants, in terms of them getting the pay raises they so desperately need
What makes this tricky is that the proposed contract basically matched the best contracts we saw negotiated by other airlines. As much as unions like to talk a big game about “industry leading” contracts, ultimately we typically see pattern bargaining, where they end up in a similar place.
So, how could this play out? I can’t imagine management is willing to make this contract much richer. At the same time, I also don’t see how flight attendants will have a whole lot of leverage, especially under a Trump presidency. I can’t imagine his administration will be authorizing them to go on strike any time soon (even Biden avoided that).
Bottom line
United flight attendants have just voted to reject their new contract, by a huge margin no less. This contract would’ve given flight attendants substantial raises, and would have put their compensation in line with that of competitors, which recently ratified new contracts.
Obviously they’re not happy with that, and I can’t imagine it will be a smooth process from here. I’d be surprised if this doesn’t start to have an operational impact, sooner rather than later…
What do you make of United flight attendants rejecting this contract proposal?
So here is the deal. When your CEO and VPs get raises and your company for years uses COVID as a excuse not to give one you give your company the finger. When you work without a raise in historic price increases which do not in anyway effect your management because of their pay you tell them to pound sand. When your CEO lavishes praise on the company for record breaking profits while you get...
So here is the deal. When your CEO and VPs get raises and your company for years uses COVID as a excuse not to give one you give your company the finger. When you work without a raise in historic price increases which do not in anyway effect your management because of their pay you tell them to pound sand. When your CEO lavishes praise on the company for record breaking profits while you get a poke in the eye you tell the mfer to F off.
Thats where we are at in USA in most sectors of the economy. Take MS they just laid off 9k employees announced record revenue. CEO releases a message that layoffs are the paradox of success. Then they desire us to worship them. I wouldnt give one of them CPR if they needed it. I would sit and watch them expire.
Harsh, but fair.
Are you high? There were so many concessions we would never recover. Wake up and read all the BS that was tried to shove down our throats. A 1.5 Billion stock buyback but no money for the front line workers Flight Attendants = NOPE
Huge raises?? How about up to date raises when the economy was bad. How about the retro pay for an expected contract? And how about accountability by the company for breaking the contract?? That’s all the Flight attendants want. What they deserve! During Covid they worked in masks til 2022 all while the CEO got a raise! And United got government money for Covid. They have not had a raise since 2019!!! Respect your employees.. treat them right or you will get 71% NO!
An "operational impact" IS the leverage the flight attendants are willing to yield for a better contract from the country's most successful airline. Power to the People! ✊
I can smell the crazy entitlement in the comments. Why are people shaming the FAs for wanting better conditions?
It's the people that make the company function. Scott Kirby and CEOs are profiting off of the back of those employees.
Why are you attacking FAs for choosing this profession? Who do you expect to staff your flights then?
Many jobs in this world, especially in the US, do not pay well and many people are...
I can smell the crazy entitlement in the comments. Why are people shaming the FAs for wanting better conditions?
It's the people that make the company function. Scott Kirby and CEOs are profiting off of the back of those employees.
Why are you attacking FAs for choosing this profession? Who do you expect to staff your flights then?
Many jobs in this world, especially in the US, do not pay well and many people are scraping by. The working class people are the backbone of our society. Are you going to trash teachers, librarians, waiters, etc. because they aren't paid well?
This is not just about compensation. This is about quality of life. United flight attendants can be on call for 24 hours a day for up to 6 days in a row. They are subject to multiple legs prior to working an all nighter/ red eye domestically. They can have a 15 hour duty day and only be compensated with 5 hours of pay for said day. The legal rest after such a day can...
This is not just about compensation. This is about quality of life. United flight attendants can be on call for 24 hours a day for up to 6 days in a row. They are subject to multiple legs prior to working an all nighter/ red eye domestically. They can have a 15 hour duty day and only be compensated with 5 hours of pay for said day. The legal rest after such a day can be only 10 hours long and that doesn’t include deplaning, transit time to and from the hotel. Many flight attendants especially the juniors with less than 5 years are burnt out. There must be significant improvements to their quality of life not just their compensation.
They're free to go work somewhere else, but they won't, because it means sacrificing their precious seniority.
You can't always get what you want. Be glad to have a job.
The CEOs make 400 times as much as the FAs. It’s only fair.
The CEO almost certainly works many, many more hours every month than any FA, and has significantly more responsibility. Comparing their salaries is a laughably obvious red herring, because their jobs are totally different.
@Pete,
Per D3SW's metric: 400 times more hours than a FA? 400 times greater responsibility?
You mean huge concessions!
It's clear that financial incentives were not the primary concern for the Flight Attendant. Instead, the focus appears to be on the working conditions and how it relates to their quality of life. A positive work environment can significantly enhance job satisfaction, while poor conditions may lead to a negative experience that ultimately affects customer interactions.
Seems like it also sent a strong message to union leaders.
Unions play stupid games -- and win ZERO prizes! So predictable. The biggest enemy of workers is often their own union. Fact.
I must have missed the part where there was a “huge raise”. The huge raise was from 18 million to 33 million to our CRO, it wasn’t flight attendants who got it. If you can’t give huge $$$ then I need better quality of life. This was not either.
I think the spirit of the rejection is well represented in the comments. In a multi-page contract many items have to make sense for it work. Would you get a pay raise only to become a slave to the company? The contract was filled with gotcha lines which will hurt more than the smoke and mirrors of the raise, as done here by this article’s slant. Why the "wow" in the tagline? As a consummate...
I think the spirit of the rejection is well represented in the comments. In a multi-page contract many items have to make sense for it work. Would you get a pay raise only to become a slave to the company? The contract was filled with gotcha lines which will hurt more than the smoke and mirrors of the raise, as done here by this article’s slant. Why the "wow" in the tagline? As a consummate flyer on Continental then United, one felt and discussed the difference with some FAs during the transition and thereafter. So, Kudos to the unified "United" FAs and shame on the their union, the AFA, who continues to mislead their flock into a burning house. The rejection, so it seems, is about the quality of life in this stress infused era we live in. Lets make sure we discuss the veracity of the contract itself, no punch lines.
I feel that some people miss the point of rejecting a TA like this. It typically gives the negotiators leverage to work with. Undoubtedly the initial asks from the union were slowly reduced down to the TA despite the best efforts of the negotiators. These talks are mediated by the federal government and ultimately that’s also who decides if an actual impasse has been reached, allowing for self help like a strike. Sometimes a vote...
I feel that some people miss the point of rejecting a TA like this. It typically gives the negotiators leverage to work with. Undoubtedly the initial asks from the union were slowly reduced down to the TA despite the best efforts of the negotiators. These talks are mediated by the federal government and ultimately that’s also who decides if an actual impasse has been reached, allowing for self help like a strike. Sometimes a vote like this is the only way to test the waters and determine what is acceptable to one side or the other. If the mediator puts the talks on ice, you know the F /As overplayed their hand, its like getting a time out to think about what they’ve done. But if they just take a short break or get right back to the table then you may surmise there is more room to get fixes wanted by the union. At the end of the day I love the flight attendants but it takes three weeks to make a new one and they don’t require any special training, how much should they really pay for unskilled labor?
Comments like yours are fuel to the problem. United flight attendants undergo 7 weeks of specialized emergency, safety, medical, and aircraft specific training. We earn our wings and while "anyone" could do it 250,000 people applied for the privilege and only 3000 received the invitation. God forbid you're ever in need of emergency treatment or your plane suffers a catastrophic emergency. There's a reason service received 2 days of focus while emergency evacuations, security, and...
Comments like yours are fuel to the problem. United flight attendants undergo 7 weeks of specialized emergency, safety, medical, and aircraft specific training. We earn our wings and while "anyone" could do it 250,000 people applied for the privilege and only 3000 received the invitation. God forbid you're ever in need of emergency treatment or your plane suffers a catastrophic emergency. There's a reason service received 2 days of focus while emergency evacuations, security, and CPR received the rest. But all we do is serve drinks...
Whereas Kirby is doing 90 hour weeks in the office, is "always on" 24/7/365, and is accountable to the board and the shareholders. And don't try to sell yourselves as CCRNs or Emergency Medicine physicians. Gimme a break.
The airline industry operates at a razor thin margin. How much do these women think they should be paid?
First of all it’s not all women and second of all it wasn’t the money we found fault with. The language was concessionary. In general the quality of life under that contract was questionable.
You are completely out of touch!!! More than women are flight attendants. We easily work 14-16 hour days and are only paid when the door to the plane closes, which is about 7-9 hours of the day depending on what you are flying. I’ve been flying since 1987 & would love to retire but I’m only 60. Don’t look at the hourly & think it’s great pay. I fly 130 hours a month, that’s door...
You are completely out of touch!!! More than women are flight attendants. We easily work 14-16 hour days and are only paid when the door to the plane closes, which is about 7-9 hours of the day depending on what you are flying. I’ve been flying since 1987 & would love to retire but I’m only 60. Don’t look at the hourly & think it’s great pay. I fly 130 hours a month, that’s door close to open. I am gone from home a lot. That doesn’t include the 1 hour 45 minutes spent preparing & boarding the plane, nor the 30 minutes it takes to get everyone off plus my time to clear customs & get to my hotel to rest. Starting pay for flight attendants puts them in the working class poor. They are eligible for food stamps and subsidized housing. Learn what it really means before you make ignorant comments.
Hey Christine! So you’ve been working for an airline since 1987 and just now realize that serving drinks on an airplane doesn’t pay well?? Ya know, maybe you could have spent some time learning a skill set and find a career that pays what you need but instead you chose to work an entry level job for 40 years. Unbelievable.
Your comments and overall attitude are ignorant and don’t even justify a response. I will say why don’t you educate yourself before sounding like a pompous fool.
former Pan Am FA...GO GO GIRL !!! they have no idea what I did and what you do !
You’re been there 38 years and you’re still bidding trips that have 16 hour duty days? You fly 130 hours, from out to in and your preflight duties start 105 minutes before departure? Either you are exaggerating for affect or you’re based in North Korea.
Shame on you . Almost 40 years on a job and you’re struggling with finances. You should have planned for a better future. Like most people living beyond your means
I have a great business idea for brick-laying and trench-digging. However, I will not be able to turn a profit without enslaving you and your family. I trust my margin is sufficient incentive to you for that?
Bobby, Don, and Frank are insane. Do you scorn the FAs who serve you drinks on the flight because they're in a poorly compensated profession?
When an FA beginning their career qualifies for food stamps, that's a severe problem in our society, and it is 100% valid to call that out. Christine is not attacking any of you, but you are mocking them for choosing a profession in the service industry.
Do you really think...
Bobby, Don, and Frank are insane. Do you scorn the FAs who serve you drinks on the flight because they're in a poorly compensated profession?
When an FA beginning their career qualifies for food stamps, that's a severe problem in our society, and it is 100% valid to call that out. Christine is not attacking any of you, but you are mocking them for choosing a profession in the service industry.
Do you really think everyone should just quit their FA roles and become Fortune 500 CEOs instead?
Sara Nelson is a cancer on the industry. She routinely screws her own members in order to go to SXSW, Aspen, Coachella, TV appearances to hob nob with elites while not caring at all about them. She stalled negotiations thinking her bargaining power would improve when in fact the industry is slowing down. What a tool she is.
The NMB is not POTUS or FOTUS - sure they get to appoint. FOTUS is still trying to get the CFR to lower interest rates - AND he appointed him.
It is highly unlikely that a DEM/GOP controlled NMB will authorize a strike in the airline industry. IMHO.
No retro pay….for the last 5 years…just a smaller signing bonus
It was a “wash” for UAL…..back to previous Purser pay from before Covid and lower staffing and airport hotels/lower quality equals no additional cost to the company….
The raise was fine
Rising costs and a worsening economy have not historically been good for airlines. Regardless of how this plays out, things are going to be tense in the industry for a few years. Good contracts for employees are only good if the employer remains solvent.
You should pay attention to earnings reports because United and Delta are performing well. The CEO of United says he predicts an upswing in premium revenue
Actually I do but I do not take a USA centric approach. Air Canada stock tanked over 10 percent yesterday when it missed the second quarter earnings target. Their CEO also « remains optimistic in a challenging market «. The industry is cyclical. If you fix your cost structure then you are going to suffer when revenue declines. Salaries are only one part of the overall cost structure.
I'd pay more attention to the anti-union parrots if they argued as vocally against police unions.
I'm pro-police, anti-union, even, well, especially public employee unions. You're pro-union, anti-police. I'd pay more attention to you if your ideas haven't failed repeatedly.
Maybe FAs would prefer minimum wage and then be allowed to hustle pax for tips?
My take was that the headline comp was OK, but there were a thousand little work-rule details that lacked improvement or were actually steps back.
YES! THIS!
As a longtime union employee - we see our young and junior employees have the majority of the vote - they see $$$ and say, “It’s all about the money, honey”.
Whereas the FA union make-up is more senior than junior and work rules and scope (look it up) are very important.
Anyone else going to address the elephant in the room? FAs don’t deserve that kind of money? No ok then
That's one point of view. Another is that while FAs may appear to be just serving food and drink, their most essential role is only apparent in the event of a disaster. If you have a survivable crash, then guess who makes the difference between you living or dying? At that point it's not the pilots. The FAs are responsible for evacuating the aircraft, where seconds can make the difference between life and death. It's...
That's one point of view. Another is that while FAs may appear to be just serving food and drink, their most essential role is only apparent in the event of a disaster. If you have a survivable crash, then guess who makes the difference between you living or dying? At that point it's not the pilots. The FAs are responsible for evacuating the aircraft, where seconds can make the difference between life and death. It's something they train for, and is top of mind. Their secondary role is to ensure that 200 or so people crammed in a metal tube at 30,000+ ft are able to co-exist without confrontations escalating into violence - which seems to be on the increase. Perhaps the bigger elephant is this: Does the CEO of UA deserve the $35M he gets paid?
I'll address it, FAs deserve that kind of money. Done!
this is a tired line.
FAs are federally required.
Other airlines manage to pay their FAs competitive wages. UA, for some reason, seem to think they can string their FAs out just like they did with their pilots and are doing with their mechanics.
It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with Scott Kirby's view of employee relations which look no different at UA than they were at AA and US
FAs have rejected the Tentative Agreement not because they want more money overall - although that would be nice - but because of all the changes to work rules that management tried to get approval for.
Everything at UA is seniority based. Which means that many junior FAs are forced into working very long hours – some parts of which would be at zero pay, such as when waiting at an airport between ending one...
FAs have rejected the Tentative Agreement not because they want more money overall - although that would be nice - but because of all the changes to work rules that management tried to get approval for.
Everything at UA is seniority based. Which means that many junior FAs are forced into working very long hours – some parts of which would be at zero pay, such as when waiting at an airport between ending one flight and starting another on the same day. And let's not forget that working X hours a month isn't the same as a regular job. Working a night flight when your body thinks you should be asleep requires additional time to recover. Yes, FAs chose that line of work – but they should compensated fairly for the work they do.
The union hasn't helped themselves. Rather than sending out the entire TA to FAs, they initially just sent out highlights. Probably as they didn't want FAs looking at the details. Now the union have said they are going to survey FAs on what they disagreed with. Didn't they do that in advance??
As a regular traveller, I have a lot of sympathy for the FAs who do a great job. They are the face of UA that fee paying passengers interact with. UA and the union’s execs have had massive pay increases, while the FAs haven’t had a raise since 2020. They’ve not valued enough by their leaders, and have been let down by their union who should have fought harder on their behalf. The whole thing’s a mess!
correct.
and the FAs wanted the company NOT to impose preferential bidding which is used by workgroups at many other airlines.
So UA penalized the FAs by taking away benefits which rub salt in the wound.
Some of those benefits do cost money. The company needs to provide better assurances of how preferential bidding will be managed - and the FAs need to understand that need helping the company be more efficient will hurt the...
correct.
and the FAs wanted the company NOT to impose preferential bidding which is used by workgroups at many other airlines.
So UA penalized the FAs by taking away benefits which rub salt in the wound.
Some of those benefits do cost money. The company needs to provide better assurances of how preferential bidding will be managed - and the FAs need to understand that need helping the company be more efficient will hurt the FAs.
but if the company wants to be punitive, they will get that right back.
Tim Dunn says, "The company needs to provide better assurances of how preferential bidding will be managed"
Sorry, PBS was not part of the UA flight attendant TA and it is unlikely to be included in TA2.
again, you missed the point and misstated what I said.
The AFA did not allow PBS to be a part of the contract proposal even though the company wanted it.
try a little more to understand what is said instead of your reflexive need to defend UA.
Ben says, "I’ve gotta be honest, I’m really surprised to see the margin by which this contract has been rejected. I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had been rejected by a small margin, but by this kind of a margin? Wow. More than two-thirds of flight attendants voted against it."
Why are you surprised? Over 90% of UA pilots voted down their first deal. This is part of the dance, the process. Makes for...
Ben says, "I’ve gotta be honest, I’m really surprised to see the margin by which this contract has been rejected. I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had been rejected by a small margin, but by this kind of a margin? Wow. More than two-thirds of flight attendants voted against it."
Why are you surprised? Over 90% of UA pilots voted down their first deal. This is part of the dance, the process. Makes for great clickbait, but this too shall pass after some simple and mostly non-economic adjustments to this TA.
and yet the UA pilots ultimately voted in a contract that was worth twice as much as what they rejected because DL and its pilots negotiated a much richer contract.
It is beyond naive to think that UA is going to win in yet another confrontation with its unionized workgroups who have figured out very well that the Scott Kirby at UA is no different than the labor-confrontational Scott Kirby at AA and US.
...and yet the UA pilots ultimately voted in a contract that was worth twice as much as what they rejected because DL and its pilots negotiated a much richer contract.
It is beyond naive to think that UA is going to win in yet another confrontation with its unionized workgroups who have figured out very well that the Scott Kirby at UA is no different than the labor-confrontational Scott Kirby at AA and US.
UA employees in THREE workgroups - the largest and most critical to the operation have ALL rejected contract proposals.
The pilots are the ONLY GROUP that has ended up w/ an approved second contract and it cost billions more than the contract proposal that was rejected.
Tim Dunn says, "It is beyond naive to think that UA is going to win in yet another confrontation with its unionized workgroups who have figured out very well that the Scott Kirby at UA is no different than the labor-confrontational Scott Kirby at AA and US."
What is beyond 'naive' is that you seem to think any airline CEO is a pushover for labor. UA and UA flight attendants will work it out.
Tim, do you know how common it is for employees to vote down an initial contract offer?
You say employee morale is in the dumps under Kirby. Huh?
Please point out where you got that data.
Employees at UA know Kirby is the reason United is as successful as they are today.
Did DL give their pilots everything they asked for when they negotiated? No? Does that mean the pilot morale is low?
...Tim, do you know how common it is for employees to vote down an initial contract offer?
You say employee morale is in the dumps under Kirby. Huh?
Please point out where you got that data.
Employees at UA know Kirby is the reason United is as successful as they are today.
Did DL give their pilots everything they asked for when they negotiated? No? Does that mean the pilot morale is low?
Is AS morale low since they also rejected a contract?
Is DL flight attendant morale low since many of them want to unionize?
You still haven’t said which employee groups are underpaid at UA, relative to DL. Yes the flight attendants are, but that’s it. Any UA group that gets a future raise will see that raise matched at DL.
You must think flight attendants make much more than they so if you think UA will be hobbled by their future salaries.
You’re also forgetting all the huge increases in revenue UA has made (particularly in NYC, where six of the ten highest UA revenue markets are, compared to only three for DL), plus the future credit card revenue UA will see under the new contract.
no, it simply is not industry norm, Mark.
The fact that you even think confrontational labor relations is the norm shows how disconnected you are from reality and nothing more than a mouthpiece for UA execs.
DL opened its pocketbook and gave DL pilots a contract that was worth twice as much as UA proposed.
DL FAs will unionize based on the same rules that govern UA's FAs if DL FAs see a need to...
no, it simply is not industry norm, Mark.
The fact that you even think confrontational labor relations is the norm shows how disconnected you are from reality and nothing more than a mouthpiece for UA execs.
DL opened its pocketbook and gave DL pilots a contract that was worth twice as much as UA proposed.
DL FAs will unionize based on the same rules that govern UA's FAs if DL FAs see a need to do so.
and UA has lost huge amounts of share in NYC and it won't be recovered.
Yes, Delta ‘gave’ the pilots a contract. You are kidding, right? I sure hope so.
Being offered retroactive pay, the FA feel militant. They can try to hold off for bigger pay, hoping that the retroactive clause will remain.
FAs are sometimes bullies, which hurts their image among the public.
My understanding is that the No vote was far less about financial considerations, and much more about the proposed introduction of new working methods. As "Guest" noted below:
The issues are work rules and management not being held accountable when in the wrong, too many gray areas that can be interpreted differently, poor hotel language, zero pay for extended domestic ground/sit times, nearly zero improvement on 401k, vacation accrual and pay, and limited reserve improvements....
My understanding is that the No vote was far less about financial considerations, and much more about the proposed introduction of new working methods. As "Guest" noted below:
The issues are work rules and management not being held accountable when in the wrong, too many gray areas that can be interpreted differently, poor hotel language, zero pay for extended domestic ground/sit times, nearly zero improvement on 401k, vacation accrual and pay, and limited reserve improvements. Good on United attendants for seeing money isn’t always the driver to a good and fair contract.
I suspect that if UA's mgmt addressed those issues then the vote would pass without any additional increase in monetary compensation.
Sara Nelson is the bully in chief
If any United FAs are reading this, I would love to hear what you (and/or your colleagues) thought was insufficient about this proposed contract and what you are looking for?
Theres 4 highlights thats seem to be the issue- besides of course complaining reteo wasnt enough
- currently you do not need to work a minimum amount of hours to maintain healthcare. There are about 200 fas on the senority list who do not work flights-at all- and still receive healthcare benefits by paying their portion. I dont know of any other company where you dont have to work and contribute to the productivity of...
Theres 4 highlights thats seem to be the issue- besides of course complaining reteo wasnt enough
- currently you do not need to work a minimum amount of hours to maintain healthcare. There are about 200 fas on the senority list who do not work flights-at all- and still receive healthcare benefits by paying their portion. I dont know of any other company where you dont have to work and contribute to the productivity of the company and receive healthcare.
The TA would have imposed a 480 credit hour yearly minimum to maintain healthcare. Credit hours included vacation, sick pay, fmla, paid and unpaid leaves.
- unpaid "sit time" currently you could fly from ORD to BOS, sit for 3:59 unpaid, then fly back to ORD and be done. So a 5 hour credit trip for 9/10 hours of work. They would like to see either paid in full sit time (not sure at what rate) or a sit rig like AA and united pilots have. Delta does not have a sit rig.
- reserve availability periods or RAPS. currently UA reserves are 24 hour reserves. All of them. Meaning when they have a reserve day, they are available to be called 24 hours for assignment.
The TA introduced RAPS of 14 hours with a 3 hour call out, meaning the company is required to give a reserve 3 hours to report for an assignment. So if your RAP period started at 8am, the earliest you'd be assigned something is 11am. Flip side, if your period ends at 8pm, the latest you'd be assigned to something is 11pm, and you've been on call since 6am. Four times a month, the company could extend your period up to 5 hours for an additional 3 hours of pay.
From what's been said, the company was willing to go to a 12 hour RAP but with a 2 hour call out. The union rejected that bc reserves made it clear they wanted to maintain a 3 hour call out. A compromised like AA has would solve the problem to me- reserves that cover 1 airport only get a 2 hour call out and reserves that cover multiple airports i.e.(EWR,JFK,LGA)(DCA IAD, BWI) get the 3 hour call out. To me, thats the easiest fix of the demands.
- not having black and white consequences for the company when they violate the contract. It doesnt happen often, but SUBCO was usually compensated in some way when continental violated the contract (forcing FAs to work longer periods than allowed for example) whereas compensation didnt happe. At united. No company will put in black and white those rules- it wasnt even in subconscious contract- that was more of a goodwill management thing. Not sure there would be a satisfactory solution for that.
Theres other complaints about the bow defunct TA, but those were the loudest
Unions will always be the downfall. When will workers wake up to that? They pay dues for years and get nothing while the heads of the unions make out like bandits. UPS just signed a huge contract last year and now their drivers are being laid off. The union bosses are doing great though. Only in a union will workers reject huge pay increases and retro pay bonuses when the economy is not that great...
Unions will always be the downfall. When will workers wake up to that? They pay dues for years and get nothing while the heads of the unions make out like bandits. UPS just signed a huge contract last year and now their drivers are being laid off. The union bosses are doing great though. Only in a union will workers reject huge pay increases and retro pay bonuses when the economy is not that great and they could really use that money. They'd be better off negotiating one on one with the airline.
One would argue that only in a union would pay raises even be possible.
Yes, because the 90%+ of american workers that are non-union never received a pay raise? One would only argue that if they were a complete idiot, which is why one might need a union to extort companies to give one more money.
They don’t need to strike. They actually could just call out and f over United’s operations if they want. Especially the most lucrative high yield flights. If 71% are on the same page then I expect some ideas will be coming to fruition
The raises were industry matching and not a contentious topic. The issues are work rules and management not being held accountable when in the wrong, too many gray areas that can be interpreted differently, poor hotel language, zero pay for extended domestic ground/sit times, nearly zero improvement on 401k, vacation accrual and pay, and limited reserve improvements. Good on United attendants for seeing money isn’t always the driver to a good and fair contract
and yet UA FAs who would have lived under the contract rejected it.
You could blame the AFA if the exact same thing hadn't happened 2 other times - in 2 other union contracts - over the past 3 years at UA.
This is "meh" for United management, but much worse for Sara Nelson's future.
AFA put another union before their own people and gambled on election timing. They lost the gamble.
Ms Nelson is not in a good place nor should she be.IMHO
Well apparently they don’t desperately need a pay increase as stated in this article. They are taking a great risk by rejecting this offer and many of the union members for some reason think you always say no to the first offer as a better offer is ready to roll out . Unfortunately that is not the case and how many of the flight attendants could afford to walk out if indeed a strike was...
Well apparently they don’t desperately need a pay increase as stated in this article. They are taking a great risk by rejecting this offer and many of the union members for some reason think you always say no to the first offer as a better offer is ready to roll out . Unfortunately that is not the case and how many of the flight attendants could afford to walk out if indeed a strike was allowed. I guess we will wait and see how the gamble plays out. The odds are against the union members in my humble opinion.
They took note of AS flight attendants who rejected the first negotiated contract and then voted in favor when it was sweetened. But now, should the economy tank, it will be difficult to negotiate much better terms. No risk, no reward I guess.
A collective bargaining process is not just about getting a pay increase - it's also about improving work conditions, working rules, layover hotels and health care costs, amongst other host of issues that impact workers' wallets. Ignoring the latter while focusing only on the pay raises is "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Worker morale is a reflection of how corporations treat their front line employees. It looks like turbulence ahead unless corporate bean counters start...
A collective bargaining process is not just about getting a pay increase - it's also about improving work conditions, working rules, layover hotels and health care costs, amongst other host of issues that impact workers' wallets. Ignoring the latter while focusing only on the pay raises is "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Worker morale is a reflection of how corporations treat their front line employees. It looks like turbulence ahead unless corporate bean counters start seriously valuing the labor and the working conditions of their customer facing, front line employees.
The rejection is less about the raises and the monetary value, and more about the language of the agreement itself. The existing flight attendant contract is riddled with grey areas that the company has exploited time and time again in bad faith. Those grey areas have ALWAYS worked in the company’s favor, and the FAs have had to pay for it over and over again or risk their jobs/discipline for pushing back against abusive practices...
The rejection is less about the raises and the monetary value, and more about the language of the agreement itself. The existing flight attendant contract is riddled with grey areas that the company has exploited time and time again in bad faith. Those grey areas have ALWAYS worked in the company’s favor, and the FAs have had to pay for it over and over again or risk their jobs/discipline for pushing back against abusive practices by the company.
The new TA has SO MANY of those same grey areas, and the FAs are sick of it. They want black and white, crystal clear, enforceable language that the company will no longer be able to exploit and enforce only when it benefits them. The FAs want to win some of those contract language grey area battles too, and that’s what this no vote is truly about.
That's an interesting summary.
It sounds like the healthcare proposal only affects a minority - so not sure why this is cited as a highlight issue.
If an FA has to "sit" somewhere in-between flights as part of their working day, that's a direct consequence of UA's scheduling. Of course they should be paid for this time, it is part of their role. Have UA's execs explored new technologies that could improve/optimize scheduling? Paying FAs...
That's an interesting summary.
It sounds like the healthcare proposal only affects a minority - so not sure why this is cited as a highlight issue.
If an FA has to "sit" somewhere in-between flights as part of their working day, that's a direct consequence of UA's scheduling. Of course they should be paid for this time, it is part of their role. Have UA's execs explored new technologies that could improve/optimize scheduling? Paying FAs for their time while waiting between working flights would encourage more management focus on minimizing this down time.
The same for reserve periods. Better scheduling and positioning of FAs would help address this.
It seems that AA has a model that might work well for UA in certain areas, like RAPs. So why wasn't this part of the TA?
Probably the biggest issue is the reported grey areas in the TA wording. Any decent contract should address the exception paths – the action to take when something doesn't happen the way it should. Contracts should be black and white. Yet contract negotiators and lawyers on both sides still relish in adding in ambiguities. This creates uncertainty, and leads to a loss of trust.
One way forwards is for FAs to identify the top-10 (or whatever) issues where the TA was open to interpretation, and for UA and the union to make the outcome for each one crystal clear.
Sorry, that was meant to be a reply to Guest's "TA2 better? Doubt it" post.
The reason most FAs voted no is this contract isn’t industry leading or even industry matching. The pay is, sure, and that’s the easiest for people outside the industry to understand. But compared to AA which is UA’s closest comparison (large, unionized, legacy airline), the work rules are much worse even under the new contract. My big reasons for voting no were: 1. no actual improvement to red eye flying rules. The duty day for...
The reason most FAs voted no is this contract isn’t industry leading or even industry matching. The pay is, sure, and that’s the easiest for people outside the industry to understand. But compared to AA which is UA’s closest comparison (large, unionized, legacy airline), the work rules are much worse even under the new contract. My big reasons for voting no were: 1. no actual improvement to red eye flying rules. The duty day for overnight flying was reduced by half an hour, and they got rid of working a flight after a red eye. However, we have many trips that are built with two legs then a sit before a red eye flight (say, LAS-SFO, SFO-LAS, 2-3 hour sit in LAS, then LAS-ORD red eye). The check in for these trips is so early that it counts as “daytime” flying but you are undoubtedly working overnight. Compared to AA, where if a duty period touches between 0100-0101, they can only work 2 legs maximum. 2. No sit pay. AA has both boarding pay and also gets partial pay for sits between flights over 2.5 hours (UA pilots also get this). The company loves to make us sit up to 4 hours (before any delays!), often in outstations without a crew room. It’s not about the money, it’s about forcing the company to build trips efficiently. Often times the plane we take in is going back to base, but we have to sit…meanwhile the crew taking over the plane is getting off of their OWN long sit. Considering the amount of unpaid work we already do it’s so frustrating to waste more time when we could be home hours earlier. 3. The reserve rules are still the weakest in the industry. Currently United FAs have 24 hour reserve, this contract would have been 14 hours (can be extended to 19 four times a month) with an optional 24 hour reserve. It is an improvement, but AA has 12 hour reserve periods and DL only has 6 days of reserve a month. The money on this contract was good, but none of my or many other FAs concerns were addressed in this contract so it was a pretty easy no for me.
Management will probably offer a slightly richer contract. But this is just pure greed on the employees side. If you can't side with your union who negotiated a great deal for you, then what good are you?
FA compensation is small compared to ALPA. UA can put a few extra bucks on the table. This says more about the FA's union leadership who should resign when they don't command the respect of their members.
They also don't have a fraction of the skills and are not close to being as in-demand as the ALPA (well, at least over the last few years). Can we be honest here? Most are tenured, mediocre, grouchy, power-craving folks who traded the possibility of a legit career for the romance of flying. Fast forward 25 years and they're disillusioned waitresses wondering what happened.
There also is an imbalance between supply and demand. When...
They also don't have a fraction of the skills and are not close to being as in-demand as the ALPA (well, at least over the last few years). Can we be honest here? Most are tenured, mediocre, grouchy, power-craving folks who traded the possibility of a legit career for the romance of flying. Fast forward 25 years and they're disillusioned waitresses wondering what happened.
There also is an imbalance between supply and demand. When tons of people are queued up and competing for low wage jobs, the management incentive to placate their incumbents is non-existent.
Most FAs seem happy with the greed - its the work rule changes like the company making them contactable at all hours on a layover that they have problems with. Would you want your employer calling you at 2am after you have worked a 12 hour flight? If you don't then you are greedy according to your own statement.
Ben hit it on the head. This is very bad for UA mgmt.
UA mechanics rejected their contract and now the FAs recognize that UA is trying to sell them a bill of goods.
Scott Kirby was handed the best employee relations by Oscar Munoz the company has had in decades and yet it has taken less than a decade for it to vanish.
UA simply cannot generate the profits that are comparable to DL...
Ben hit it on the head. This is very bad for UA mgmt.
UA mechanics rejected their contract and now the FAs recognize that UA is trying to sell them a bill of goods.
Scott Kirby was handed the best employee relations by Oscar Munoz the company has had in decades and yet it has taken less than a decade for it to vanish.
UA simply cannot generate the profits that are comparable to DL and pay its employees industry average wages and benefits.
UA employees are tired of the song and dance about how great the company is doing - at UA employees' expenses.
As I have said many times before, AA and UA have been in a zig and zag relationship for years; this just might be AA's time to return to an industry leadership position while UA lags.
@Tim UA is doing fine. It is profitable, and its profit margin grew about 6% last year. This isnt a contest between airlines.
UA is doing as well as it is because and only because it is underpaying all of its non-pilot unionized employees.
UA's profits would be middle of the pack - not anywhere near on par with DL - if UA was paying its employees industry-comparable wages.
Scott Kirby knows full well that UA cannot pay industry comparable salaries and benefits - let alone industry leading - and generate profit margins on par w/ DL.
...UA is doing as well as it is because and only because it is underpaying all of its non-pilot unionized employees.
UA's profits would be middle of the pack - not anywhere near on par with DL - if UA was paying its employees industry-comparable wages.
Scott Kirby knows full well that UA cannot pay industry comparable salaries and benefits - let alone industry leading - and generate profit margins on par w/ DL.
You and everyone else are massively kidding yourself if you think that UA's employees will continue to deliver for the company when it is clear that UA's entire philosophy is below industry average pay and drawn out labor relations.
This isn't about just the FAs. It is the way Scott Kirby does business.
and UA union leadership knows full well how toxic UA's labor relations were for years. and they also know how that toxicity broke UA.
Besides the flight attendants, which groups are underpaid compared to counterparts at other airlines?
All groups except the flight attendants have a contract negotiated since COVID. They make the same as counterparts at DL and AA. When the UA employees get raises, DL and AA will match.
You’ve said six groups, including the flight attendants, are due for a new contract. Which groups are those? Before you say pilots, customer service, or ramp, none...
Besides the flight attendants, which groups are underpaid compared to counterparts at other airlines?
All groups except the flight attendants have a contract negotiated since COVID. They make the same as counterparts at DL and AA. When the UA employees get raises, DL and AA will match.
You’ve said six groups, including the flight attendants, are due for a new contract. Which groups are those? Before you say pilots, customer service, or ramp, none of those contracts are amendable.
read UA's 10K if you aren't sure.
Every labor group except for the pilots is working under amendable contracts.
and, no, UA employees do not have clauses that grant them pay raises based on what non-union DL gives out.
and rebel,
what happened in the past isn't what is at stake. It is the potential for years long further negotiations not just for the FAs but for multiple work groups.
Once again, UA...
read UA's 10K if you aren't sure.
Every labor group except for the pilots is working under amendable contracts.
and, no, UA employees do not have clauses that grant them pay raises based on what non-union DL gives out.
and rebel,
what happened in the past isn't what is at stake. It is the potential for years long further negotiations not just for the FAs but for multiple work groups.
Once again, UA has, by far, the most workgroups that do not have current contracts and their employees are paid hundreds of millions of dollars less than their peers.
UA just took a $500 million plus charge to their 2nd quarter earnings (which they will probably reverse in the 3rd quarter) to pay for catchup salaries (likely retro) for the FAs.
UA simply would not have taken a $500 million charge if their employees were being paid industry-comparable wages.
Just because the FAs were the only group that had a contract in the voting stage doesn't mean that is the only labor group that isn't underpaid and for which UA has to be ready to spend cash.
Tim, not true. I’m in customer service and our contract, along with Ramp, becomes amendable in December. We currently have very similar work agreements as our counterparts at DL. Only flight attendants make less. You have incorrect information.
Mark says, "Tim, not true. I’m in customer service and our contract, along with Ramp, becomes amendable in December. We currently have very similar work agreements as our counterparts at DL. Only flight attendants make less. You have incorrect information."
Thanks for setting the record straight and good luck with your next contract!
Brian W says, "UA is doing fine. It is profitable, and its profit margin grew about 6% last year. This isnt a contest between airlines."
Exactly. UA and the AFA will figure out the sticking points and fix them just like UA and ALPA did. This is just part of the process. The UA flight attendants have been great on my flights throughout these negotiations.
Of course the collective bargaining process will work.
The notion that UA can just do a few minor workrule changes and the FAs will approve this contract is the part I have major exception with.
And using the UA pilot contract makes precisely my point - it cost UA twice as much as they planned to spend originally and it was DL and its pilots that provided the framework for what eventually got passed by UA's pilots
This is a much larger rejection for the Union leadership who negotiated on behalf of the workforce.
I'm not sure how United's management is at fault here. They negotiated with the Union leadership and came to a proposal. Looks like the Union didn't represent the interest of the FA.
UA has not successfully negotiated a union contract on the first vote post covid.
this is the 2nd contract that was rejected this year - the former by the mechanics.
UA pilots rejected their first contract only for DL to end up being the first of the big 4 to sign a post-covid new contract which was worth twice as much as UA originally offered.
UA's union leadership is continually being told by...
UA has not successfully negotiated a union contract on the first vote post covid.
this is the 2nd contract that was rejected this year - the former by the mechanics.
UA pilots rejected their first contract only for DL to end up being the first of the big 4 to sign a post-covid new contract which was worth twice as much as UA originally offered.
UA's union leadership is continually being told by the company they won't give more and yet UA employees can see it is a management problem since other airlines manage to get make good deals w/ their employees.
@Tim,
This weird obsession with being first. It is really irrelevant who the first carrier was to sign the pilots contract.
It's also not responsible to compare the non union workforce of DL (except the pilots) with UA or AA. \
Let me explain this to someone that's has the brain of a baby. In a union company, the union votes for their leaders to represent them to management. It's their responsibility to negotiate...
@Tim,
This weird obsession with being first. It is really irrelevant who the first carrier was to sign the pilots contract.
It's also not responsible to compare the non union workforce of DL (except the pilots) with UA or AA. \
Let me explain this to someone that's has the brain of a baby. In a union company, the union votes for their leaders to represent them to management. It's their responsibility to negotiate the terms and conditions that are best for their members. If the union rejects what was agreed upon by the Union leadership to management, that's on the Union Leadership.
That's what happened here.
it IS relevant that UA's offer was HALF of what DL offered its pilots and UA ended up having to settle at DL rates.
UA desperately wants to short change its employees while it is DL that leads the increase in compensation not just for unionized but also non-union employees.
and yet DL has a far longer track record of profitability
UA has been built on an unsustainable series of advantages and will fall back to its place halfway between AA and DL
It is just part of the process. UA told the pilots it was the best deal on their 1st TA and it wasn't even close to that. In this case the economics aren't even the issue. It will be fine. The UA flight attendants are great and they deserve a great contract.
I am not surprised by this contract rejection. What’s actually really shocking that is rarely spoken about and that is the actual worker within the flight attendants rejected their own union negotiators. Obviously the 71% of the voters think it’s own union didn’t bring a better contract.
It seems to me when a company treats all their flight attendants as if they all lie and cheat about sick leave and then require doctor visits and forms filled out, that they end up with employees that do not feel that they are valued and part of the team. Being valued is not just about money. It’s about work rules, environment and communication.
Voting against pay raises seems to be the flavour of the month.
When the CEO took home $34m in compensation and the company is planning to spend $1.5 BILLION to buy back its own stock, I can see why the rank and file think there's extra money to go around. Stock buybacks never should have been legalized, thanks Reagan. The buybacks post 1982 function as a way to pump CEO compensation, when it could be better invested into technology, infrastructure, or, wait for it, the employees that CREATED the value to begin with.