United Airlines flight attendants are about to vote on a new contract, which is long overdue, as their current contract became amendable in 2021. For the most part, the tentative contract looks great, with significant raises, boarding pay, and much more. However, some flight attendants also have concerns, so here’s one of the changes that’s likely to raise some eyebrows.
In this post:
United lowering standard for crew layover hotels
JonNYC shares some of the text of the tentative agreement that United management and the union have agreed to, specifically relating to the hotels that flight attendants stay at during layovers. This text specifically covers the change in language between the old contract and the new contract, and notes a potential downgrade to the hotels that flight attendants will stay at.
Some of the layover hotel requirements being eliminated seem reasonable enough, reflecting the times. For example, the “ability to access services with cash” is being eliminated, as establishments increasingly become cashless.
However, the quality of hotels at which flight attendants will stay with the new contract sure seems like a downgrade. The tentative contract no longer includes language about the quality of hotels that flight attendants will stay at.
In the old contract, the language stated that flight attendants are entitled to a “business class hotel,” whatever that is, exactly. In the new contract, the standard of hotels required for flight attendants is simply described as hotels with “regular maintenance and cleaning performed to keep it in a tenantable condition.”
UA: from the FA TA, hotel downgrade:
— JonNYC (@xjonnyc.bsky.social) June 11, 2025 at 2:09 PM
[image or embed]
Is this change in hotel terms a big deal?
Of course it’s anyone’s guess what exactly this change in terms will mean in practice. The fact that something in the old contract specifically referencing the quality of hotels is being eliminated with the new contract suggests to me that those standards will be lowered.
Now, I don’t expect that we’re suddenly going to see United downgrade all crew layover hotels overnight, and move flight attendants to motels. However, it does suggest that there may be a general lowering of the standard over time. A hotel with regular maintenance performed isn’t exactly a high standard when it comes to quality, if you ask me.
Bottom line
United flight attendants will shortly be voting on a new contract. While the new contract has lots of huge improvements that will likely add over a billion dollars of value per year for flight attendants, there are also some concessions. One of those seems to involve layover hotels, where flight attendants may soon not be entitled to the same standard of hotel.
I’m curious if flight attendants consider this to be a big deal, or if they’re just happy on balance to see their compensation increase substantially.
Really, who needs a flight crew anymore?
AI and robots can do the same job. Air France’s food is mostly liquid slop now and can be dispensed via tubes directly to each seat. AI can yell at you and tell you to put on your seatbelt. Let’s see, what else do they do?
To evacuate aircraft you idiot. Do you have a micro d? Comments like this show it
I see this a little differently. By removing the "business" hotel verbiage, it was too restrictive. Bonvoy has 57+ brands, and they have some that are not "business" branded. This could allow for an upgrade, or just simply, so that they don't have to stay at the crowded Hilton downtown just because a conference is going on.
No it’s because Scott Kirby is cheap and wanted to save money. United flight attendants already get some trash hotels and have one of the weakest contracts in the industry. This was not to improve the situation
I am sure this TA will pass, even though it has major concessions in disguise. United has a vocal minority who are all saying to vote "no", but once it's time to vote, many will vote "yes" for the raise. That's what happened at American. They were all screaming that they would vote no, but then their contact passed by 75% yes votes. So we will see if UA can actually be unified in a cause.
Actually that isn’t true I knew a lot of flight attendants that were voting yes at AA. And to compare what was presented to you at AA contained many concessions , verbiage to be on call while on layovers, and verbiage that states a possible major decline in hotel quality? I didn’t think so!
If air crew are staying at a hotel involving ground transportation, they do not need to worry about the flight departing without them if there is a probelm with the ground transportation, while paying passengers do.
The number of rooms in attached-to-the-terminal hotels is usually comparatively small, i.e. that's a scarce resource.
The reduction in stress for n paying passengers from staying in such hotels is greater than for air crew.
So to...
If air crew are staying at a hotel involving ground transportation, they do not need to worry about the flight departing without them if there is a probelm with the ground transportation, while paying passengers do.
The number of rooms in attached-to-the-terminal hotels is usually comparatively small, i.e. that's a scarce resource.
The reduction in stress for n paying passengers from staying in such hotels is greater than for air crew.
So to contribute to maximum social happiness, I suggest airlines should generally not put crews in such hotels.
I was stuck in a traffic jam on the way to Cape Town airport and was worried I'd miss my flight. I was stressing until I looked across at the stationary minivan in the next lane and saw a full BA crew inside. We all got to the airport 15 minutes after the scheduled take-off time and took off 90 minutes later, with all pax and crew on board :)
AFA United works for and serves Scott Kirby and that’s why there are so many oops we didn’t mean to put that in there and oops that’s not what it means from The AFA and Sara Nelson. Scott Kirby asks for concessions then the union lies and says they are not concessions. United twists the wording and then AFA says we will file a grievance knowing they won’t win it because United got the exact...
AFA United works for and serves Scott Kirby and that’s why there are so many oops we didn’t mean to put that in there and oops that’s not what it means from The AFA and Sara Nelson. Scott Kirby asks for concessions then the union lies and says they are not concessions. United twists the wording and then AFA says we will file a grievance knowing they won’t win it because United got the exact language in the contract they needed. Rinse and repeat. I must say if you’re a flight attendant and you vote for this you’re an idiot.
Exactly. AFA is a business, just like United is. Any flight attendant who thinks that the AFA actually cares about flight attendants has had the wool pulled over their eyes.
AFA is a Union their job is to secure an industry leading contract like AFA Alaska secured especially if they are trying to get Delta to be AFA. It’s not to fck over their flight attendants
Yes, we do consider this a downgrade and I’m concerned about this language. We also asked the union to change the wording of “downtown like” to “business city center” mirroring the Pilots contract language. That didn’t happen either!
We are also very concerned that a minimum yearly flying requirement has been implemented and the penalty for not flying that minimum is LOSING YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE! This is totally unacceptable! Mnay of us will turn...
Yes, we do consider this a downgrade and I’m concerned about this language. We also asked the union to change the wording of “downtown like” to “business city center” mirroring the Pilots contract language. That didn’t happen either!
We are also very concerned that a minimum yearly flying requirement has been implemented and the penalty for not flying that minimum is LOSING YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE! This is totally unacceptable! Mnay of us will turn down this offer for that reason alone.
If you want health insurance, you should fly! It’s shouldn’t be free!
Stay in your lane bottom feeder. Is that why Europe has free healthcare?
But the contract is not so groundbreaking
They will got compensation, to honestly just compensate inflation through those years. The real salary increase is rather sad
There is more than meets the eye as far as concessions. So called "Boarding Pay" is a joke. It should have been "Ground Pay". Also, the so called "Retro Pay" is actually a " Signing bonus" in disguise. Should I go on?
Dearest Ben,
I’m not entirely sure how you skipped it or didn’t see it but this is not the only concession. It’s actually several major concessions. The union added new wording into the TA saying(see below)
7.Q.5.f.(3). LAYOVER : Flight Attendants are required to be available on layover, including acknowledging any calls from Crew Scheduling.
This addition has caused more serious mistrust in the union. Ken Diaz also said no concessions but in this TA...
Dearest Ben,
I’m not entirely sure how you skipped it or didn’t see it but this is not the only concession. It’s actually several major concessions. The union added new wording into the TA saying(see below)
7.Q.5.f.(3). LAYOVER : Flight Attendants are required to be available on layover, including acknowledging any calls from Crew Scheduling.
This addition has caused more serious mistrust in the union. Ken Diaz also said no concessions but in this TA it would require a minimum of 480 hours a year which again they never had before.
Also the union recently lost a grievance on requiring absence certificates on Friday, Saturday and Sunday due to unclear language they allowed in their current contract so that could come back at any time.
United flight attendants were already having issues with some hotels being far out for city centers. Like the LHR layover being in Woking and Amsterdam being in The Hague due to the union allowing “Downtown like” in their current contract
This TA offered isn’t great in terms of money it just matches Delta and in a year they will be out performed by Delta, Alaska and Southwest. The union did not secure higher profit sharing either or pay for sits longer than 2 1/2 hours like AA flight attendants receive . Seeing as they could be stuck with this TA for another 10 years it would seem like the logical idea is to replace the negotiating committee if they are allowing this kind of language in their contract. It’s literally the weakest tentative agreement we’ve seen so far from a legacy or major
I wouldn't object to being in The Hague - it's a lovely city itself, and in terms of train services NL works like one big city - astonishingly good.
Woking for LHR is interesting - of course most people would prefer to be downtown, but hotel prices in London and various other cities are extraordinarily expensive.
If 5 minutes walk from the main train station, seems reasonable; if needing a taxi to get anywhere...
I wouldn't object to being in The Hague - it's a lovely city itself, and in terms of train services NL works like one big city - astonishingly good.
Woking for LHR is interesting - of course most people would prefer to be downtown, but hotel prices in London and various other cities are extraordinarily expensive.
If 5 minutes walk from the main train station, seems reasonable; if needing a taxi to get anywhere then not.
Something about easy access to public transport to reach downtown might be more feasible.
Not really you have to catch a bus and a train to get to the Amsterdam city center and United does not reimburse you. A cheap company
Looks like Motel 6, choice hotels or City express will be getting some business
The contract should give examples of hotel brands which are a guideline. I cannot recall seeing crew at a Hampton Inn yet ot is foreseeable with the wording here.
Regional crews do stay at Hampton Inns, and I have seen mainline crews as well.
There are some perfectly good Hampton Inns.
And some unacceptable mainline Hiltons.
An airline with feedback from each crew member staying should be able to quikcly identify unacceptable properties and replace them.
I've had some input into an employee expenses policy where we defined the normal expectation for staff to stay in a 'standard room in a midscale hotel (e.g. Novotel or similar)'. Arguably the most important part of that policy is a near-total ban on stays in 'private apartments or similar accommodation (e.g. Airbnb properties)'- any exceptions need to be justified by the employee authorised by management.
UA crews do stay at select Hampton Inns. Not all are great, but the one in Southwest Florida is nice.
"regular maintenance and cleaning performed to keep it in a tenantable condition"
This is going to be tough to find for layovers in the United States. This standard doesn't seem to be very common there anymore.
This seems like it might be taken a little out of context. See point f. at top of page (almost cut off) about AFA inspections showing “approved”. To me the list seems like a list of very minimum requirements and that the afa still gets to inspect and approve hotels. Could be wrong but I think you’d need to see the whole agreement to say.
That is what the whole agreement says and that’s the problem. It’s a grey area just waiting to be exploited.
Based on the physical appearence of most UA flight attendants, I'm surprised to hear that they were ever offered hotels at all.
No. They just had lousy uniforms.
New uniforms are much better and they all look sharp.
I’m a businessman and i stay at Motel 6.
If you’re just looking for a place to sleep for the night, paying 150, 200, or more per night is ridiculous.
"Businessman" could mean anything including a dumbass.
"Just looking for a place to sleep" never describes me. I am looking for, inter alia:
- Physical security
- Quiet: soundproofing, soft-close doors, triple-pane windows, non-PTAC HVAC
- Dark: blackout shades to facilitate deep sleep
- Adequate plumbing (many cheap hotels have slow or clogged drains)
- Adequate water pressure (don't want to spend half an hour in the shower to rinse off)
"Businessman" could mean anything including a dumbass.
"Just looking for a place to sleep" never describes me. I am looking for, inter alia:
- Physical security
- Quiet: soundproofing, soft-close doors, triple-pane windows, non-PTAC HVAC
- Dark: blackout shades to facilitate deep sleep
- Adequate plumbing (many cheap hotels have slow or clogged drains)
- Adequate water pressure (don't want to spend half an hour in the shower to rinse off)
- Missing at Motel 6: bath amenities provided. (Motel 6 does not provide shampoo)
- A supportive mattress (otherwise the $$ you saved on a hotel is just redirected to physical therapy)
I have seen lawyers at ordinary law firms stay at both the Econolodge and Hyatt. It depends on how much they want to milk the client. Some are really greedy but there are a few who do a good job and don't try to run up the bill, either by expenses or creating a lot of billable hours.
In contrast, all neurosurgeons tend to do a good job. They don't remove your brain just...
I have seen lawyers at ordinary law firms stay at both the Econolodge and Hyatt. It depends on how much they want to milk the client. Some are really greedy but there are a few who do a good job and don't try to run up the bill, either by expenses or creating a lot of billable hours.
In contrast, all neurosurgeons tend to do a good job. They don't remove your brain just to make money, only when it's medically necessary. They don't purposely try to manufacture more work or stretch the truth.
Ha. Good luck finding a non-sunken mattress and decent water pressure at most American hotels, the latter thanks to all the dumb lefties who think it'll save the planet if they force everyone to take 30 min in the shower instead of 10 min, all while using the same amount of water in the end. I've started bringing my own $10 shower head that I've removed the flow restrictor from and screwing that on during my stays at many hotels.
The language everyone is seeking can be very subjective. What are the boundaries of “business hotel” and how can you be sure that inclusion secured a particularly higher grade than “safe and secure”? The new language is no more defining than the old and certainly doesn’t suggest a downgrade as stated. As we all know, even a star rating system is very ambiguous for hotels… and airlines. Imagine if crew had to stay in hotel...
The language everyone is seeking can be very subjective. What are the boundaries of “business hotel” and how can you be sure that inclusion secured a particularly higher grade than “safe and secure”? The new language is no more defining than the old and certainly doesn’t suggest a downgrade as stated. As we all know, even a star rating system is very ambiguous for hotels… and airlines. Imagine if crew had to stay in hotel stars ratings that aligned with Skyteax ratings of the airline service?! I think the US3 keep their crews in hotels that are appropriate and are reactive to blatant safety issues. I think the ish for “downtown hotels” is a union push too far. Hotels in dome cities aren’t chasing their business and you have to wonder why crews need to be there.
Good, give the workers more money and save money on expensive hotels.
That money belongs to the shareholders, not the employees.
You act like Flight attendants don’t deserve anything..Just wondering do you feel the same about yourself at your place of employment?
Agree that it is tricky to define.
In central Europe I find a fairly effective rule of thumb is "shower is at least 12 sq ft".
Do you know how many four and even five star hotels are total sh%tholes because they're own by franchisees and hotel chains are really in the business of selling franchisees not run hotels?
I'd doubt that UA is going to put crews in the LaQuinta. Moreover, most hotels are airports are chain hotels.
Crews don't always stay in airport hotels, e.g. I recall staying in one of the NHs in the very centre of Buenos Aires for 10 days or so and there was a constant flow of Air Europa crews staying there - and they obviously only fly to EZE which is an hour's drive from the centre on a good day. I also remember seeing GF crew in one of the Grand Mercures in central Bangkok,...
Crews don't always stay in airport hotels, e.g. I recall staying in one of the NHs in the very centre of Buenos Aires for 10 days or so and there was a constant flow of Air Europa crews staying there - and they obviously only fly to EZE which is an hour's drive from the centre on a good day. I also remember seeing GF crew in one of the Grand Mercures in central Bangkok, again a very long way from the airport.
But I agree that star ratings aren't really an indication of quality. I think the removal of the 'business class' reference is just getting rid of outdated language, but the contract isn't very well drafted because I would want to codify a couple of basic services such as a 24-hour reception desk and daily room cleaning (in fact, that sort of thing is also in the interests of management as it mitigates the liability risk for health and safety issues).
"Crews don't always stay in airport hotels..."
100% correct in my experience. Most crews, at least mainline carriers, stay at hotels in urban centers. And they're quite visible. I've seen LH, AF, and BA crews at downtown DC hotels, SQ and JL crews at downtown Sydney hotels, DL, LH, and AF crews at northern suburban Johannesburg properties, and the list goes on.
Tbh I'd rather have much more concrete language than "business class hotel" in my contract
I think you're less likely to find, say a Doubletree or Hilton Garden Inn, that's a total craphole than a Motel 6 that receives "regular maintenance and cleaning" but I'd love to be proven wrong.
AFA believer spotted......