United Flight Attendants are Closing In on a Contract


One of the longest open labor negotiations in the US has been between United and its flight attendants. It’s been going on for so long that even American seems to be (incorrectly) seizing on this as an excuse for United’s ongoing superior financial performance. It now appears that this lengthy negotiation is finally getting close to a resolution, if I’m reading the tea leaves right. Even the union says there could be an agreement this month.

Airline labor contracts in the US are unique. Unlike in most industries, airline contracts don’t expire; they simply become amendable. This allows labor negotiations to go on for ages, and as consolidation has created larger airlines that are more critical to the economy, labor groups have become all-but-prevented from striking.

We have largely been in a pattern-bargaining world lately where each new contract financially matches what the other big airlines provide with some incremental improvements. The airlines then all take turns topping the last agreement… until there’s some massive downturn where it all gets clawed back in bankruptcy. (At least, that’s been the historical pattern which we can all hope will eventually end.)

United’s flight attendants — represented by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) — have had an amendable contract since 2021, so we are hitting the five-year mark which is longer than most new contracts last. What has taken so long? As always, it’s complicated.

A Slow Start by Design

The early days, of course, were not ideal for the union to come to an agreement because the airlines were financially vulnerable in the COVID world. The AFA presented its opening proposal in October 2021, but it was in their best interest to wait awhile until profits returned to get serious about negotiating anyway.

When things did improve, the union didn’t want United to go first. The AFA actually lent its lead negotiator Joe Burns to American’s flight attendant union, the APFA, as its lead negotiator in their talks. This makes a whole lot of sense if you want American to agree to a deal first so that you can then swoop in with something better at United, but it also does slow things down for your own membership.

Two months after American flight attendants ratified their agreement in September 2024, the United flight attendants replaced their negotiating committee… and finally brought Joe Burns back into the fold. With that reset, it sounded like real negotiations could actually begin. Things started to move quickly.

It was only about six months later in May 2025 when a tentative agreement was announced. Unfortunately, the union misjudged what membership wanted, and what is now called TA1 was shot down in July. That meant going back to the table once again, but first, the union had to figure out where it screwed up. It sent out a survey to members, and then it went back to the airline.

United for its part seems to be hanging its hat on the idea that it gave as much economically as it could, and any additional concessions will require the union giving in elsewhere. In fact, United put out a note to flight attendants late last week which suggested that eliminating Personal Time Off (PTO) would help pay for other improvements. Apparently other airlines don’t have this, which is separate from vacation time. But this is the kind of haggling that’s going on.

I can’t imagine that United is going to hold strictly to this idea that there can be no change in the economica value, regardless of the rhetoric that gets put out there. There has to be wiggle room in any negotiation, but undoubtedly it won’t be as much as the union asks for, and that’s where we find ourselves today… waiting for that middle ground to be found.

The Issues At Hand

So what are the issues? It’s not completely clear since the union did not respond to my request for comment, but there are some clear areas of improvement that are needed to get the membership onboard.

Hugely important from what I see is the discussion around so-called “sit rigs.” Flight attendants get paid for the time worked when the door is closed on the airplane (and boarding pay will presumably be added in this round since other airlines have done that). But this means that if a trip is built with long layovers, the flight attendants — through no fault of their own — have to sit around and not get paid in between flights. There are multiple ways to deal with this, but I believe what we’ll end up seeing is that scheduled sits over a certain period of time (couple hours, maybe?) will receive some sort of pay. I believe the pilots already have that in their agreement, and it seems entirely reasonable to me.

But as United noted in an update it sent internally on Feb 13 that I reviewed, “there does remain a significant gap between our respective positions on how to offset the cost of the AFA’s new proposals.”

There is also a back-and-forth about the Preferential Bidding System (PBS) which many flight attendant groups already use. This replaces the union-built manual lines with a computerized system that lets flight attendants put in their preferences, and then assignments are made. The company likes this since it makes things more efficient, but it sounds like there may be a split between flight attendants where some like it and some don’t. Either way, it sounds like this isn’t going to happen this time unless the union changes its tune.

And then there’s the healthcare issue. We all know this story. Costs have spiraled, but workers want protection. Something will have to give on that. Some things from the company, like requiring a minimum number of hours worked to get healthcare, seem entirely reasonable. Others, likely less so.

Hopefully, the Home Stretch

With these issues still in play, why do I say that an agreement may come soon? Beyond the number of issues having been narrowed dramatically, there’s been a lot of noise and media attention coming out lately, and I think the heat is on to end this thing.

American seems to be playing some kind of game, pushing a narrative that United isn’t paying full labor costs so that somehow helps justify American’s financial underperformance. We saw this come out in the hollow opinion piece entitled “The skies for American Airlines are clearer than you think” which looks like the author just had American write the article and he signed his name. This is quite laughable since United not only took a $561 million charge in 2025 as a result of the previous tentative agreement, but it also includes the expected impacted of labor agreements being concluded in its 2026 guidance which is far superior to American’s.

But AFA leader Sara Nelson is also jumping on this bandwagon, comparing United CEO Scott Kirby unfavorably with American CEO Robert Isom who she portrays as a friend of labor. She piled on when American subsidiary PSA came to an agreement with its flight attendants. I imagine she thinks putting Scott Kirby against Robert Isom — a relationship with a whole lot of history dating back to American, US Airways, and even America West — will somehow get things done. Strange bedfellows….

But all of this noise is more of a distraction that just pushes in the right direction. There are two multi-day negotiating sessions scheduled in March. The internal communications have ramped up, and the union sounds uncharacteristically optimistic. In its latest Feb 16 note, it said:

We believe that, given the number of open issues and the progress we have made, we should be able to reach an agreement in March.

So now, we wait. With any luck, we can finally stop talking about this particular labor issue soon and move on to the next one.

Get Cranky in Your Inbox!

The airline industry moves fast. Sign up and get every Cranky post in your inbox for free.

Brett Avatar

15 responses to “United Flight Attendants are Closing In on a Contract”

  1. Mike (dontflymuch) Avatar
    Mike (dontflymuch)

    Always pro union! Back in the day I did some COSH work that allowed to meet with a lot of unions. The AFA union safety people were always some of the brightest and best union safety people to work with.

  2. 1990 Avatar
    1990

    Good. I hope they get what they’re looking for, and that it works out well for them. We all should care more about workers and consumers on here (across the various blogs and of course in real life). Don’t let the astro-turf’d union-bashers and bootlickers go-off unopposed.

    1. Kevin Avatar
      Kevin

      @1990–

      100% yes to all of that.

      1. SEAN Avatar
        SEAN

        Second! I hope the FA’s at united are always United.

  3. Matt D Avatar
    Matt D

    Most of those mergers never should’ve been allowed to happen.

    If any company becomes too big to fail (a nod back to the 2008 BS), it should be too big to exist.

    We not only should not have any more mergers, some of the larger companies-including some airlines (so not just picking on them) should be forcibly broken up. Like the way Bell was back in the early 1980’s. But don’t make the same mistake that was done back then to where, within about a decade or so, they all merged right back together.

    Two or three companies should not be allowed to control 90% of any given sector.

    A clause in any such breakup would preclude any type of M+A activity for all perpetuity.

    If it becomes a matter of “security” as you alluded to, then don’t allow a single point of failure. Because protectionism and bailouts should not be allowed under any circumstances. Ever.

    Can’t have it both ways.

    If one of them goes under, oh well. Let it affect 1% of the economy. Not 50%.

    1. Eric R Avatar
      Eric R

      Especially in an industry such as this. Airlines used certain events to support their arguments for mergers over the past few decades to the detriment of the flying public.

      Now we have a situation where they are too large to fail, and so large that it provides significant barriers to entry for new competition.

      1. SEAN Avatar
        SEAN

        Fare enough, but this is what top business executives have been wanting for decades regardless of industry… few players dominating a sector. The problem is… in many of them the public can always say no & walk away.

  4. RPCV Avatar
    RPCV

    Airlines know that contracts don’t expire; they simply become amendable and can go on for years, as in the case here. It saves United’s ongoing superior financial performance financially. In the mean time, employees work on for years with no increase in wages or benefits and living expenses continue to rise. I think it’s time to rewrite the “Railway Labor Act” that covers airline contracts so contracts does not become amendable like every other industry. Then airlines will take negotiations seriously.

    1. Kevin Avatar
      Kevin

      Better yet, eliminate the RLA altogether. Affected employees can fall under the same guidelines as every other industry. It’s forces both companies and labor to be on their game.

  5. See_Bee Avatar
    See_Bee

    I’ll play contrarian here for fun…

    At what point are UA FAs able to step back and wonder what value are they really getting from the AFA? They have to pay ~$600 in annual dues and the union is a key reason (not that UA is blameless) in why this is taking so long. You can’t get mad at UA when they have leverage for dragging it out if the union did the same thing when they had leverage back in 2021

    Let’s use DL as a counterexample. Their FAs are non-union with essentially the same pay scale as AA (so they can pocket those union dues as extra $$). PLUS they get profit sharing, which this year was ~10%. DL is able to pay that in part because they gain labor efficiencies from not having to haggle over technology, etc. like UA is having to do with the union. Oh and DL can provide raises annually vs having to drag out negotiations

    1. Kevin Avatar
      Kevin

      “Oh and DL can provide raises annually vs having to drag out negotiations”

      The word “can” is doing a lot of work here.

      1. See_Bee Avatar
        See_Bee

        Can you show me examples where DL hasn’t been timely in raising compensation for their FAs? DL typically has press releases when they raise non-union compensation every 12-18 months, including corporate employees (sans COVID of course). They were also the first US airline to pay FAs for boarding time

        It’s fine to anchor on my wording but unless you have specific examples, it feels disingenuous to approach as a blanket stonewalling by DL management

        EDIT: a quick search on ChatGPT shows non-union compensation raises the last 4 years straight

        1. Kevin Avatar
          Kevin

          There’s nothing disingenuous about it. They can, but are never under any obligation to do so. They “can” also alter any policy or benefit they want, at any time, for any reason.

          1. See_Bee Avatar
            See_Bee

            I’m not sure you are being clear with your point then. This is how compensation works for every other employee in corporate america – raises (regular ones at that) aren’t a guarantee and the market is efficient where employees may leave their workplace for somewhere else that will pay them more

  6. David C Avatar
    David C

    We, the consumer, wind up paying for these salaries anyway.

    I do hope the FA’s get a fair shake and can move forward. With 97 UA segments last year, I did not come across a single FA who made a disparaging remark about the airline.

    I think the miscalculations by the union leadership probably deflected some of the company directed frustration.

    Hopefully they can get the deal done!

Leave a Reply to Mike (dontflymuch) Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Cranky Flier