This is a fascinating peek inside United Airlines flight attendant union politics. Union members just rejected a new contract the union negotiated, that would give them their first raise in five years.
AFA-CWA says United flight attendants rejected the contract the union negotiated and recommended – telling them there was no better deal, this was not just a first offer – because of an executive who is leaving. Convenient. Senior Vice President of Inflight John Slater is retiring form the airline.
- This excuses AFA’s own accountability
- While telling crew that any reason to reject whatever contract they negotiate next is gone.
- And also excuses top management for everything union members are unhappy about even though the union has previously claimed the vast majority of its members continue to have unresolved issues at work.
— JonNYC (@xJonNYC) August 4, 2025
John Slater becomes the Girardian sacrifice for the airline and the union – the scapegoating mechanism where a community projects its violence onto a chosen victim, believing that sacrificing this individual will restore order and harmony.
Ultimately the union believes they already got as much economic value from United as they possibly could (and that includes quality of life / work rules). That’s probably correct, especially with a new administration even less likely than the last one to sign off on an airline strike. So now they’re left with shuffling around priorities in the contract to sell something new as better to the membership, but without much greater investment by the airline.
They’ll survey flight attendants, say they’ve aligned priorities better with what crew want, and do some math that says the new contract gives them more. But they’re also saying Slater was really the reason they were unhappy, so everyone can move forward.
Nah, they deserve a better deal. Keep fighting the good fight. Ignore this noise.
Slater had 42 years with the company. Hard to say this retirement wasn’t already planned.
Scott Kirby prefers to blame anyone but himself for anything that goes wrong at United so I’m sadly not surprised that Nelson’s crappy management at the union does the same.
Flight attendants should wake up to the reality of a faltering job market (which has been sub optimal for years but the bogus numbers just hide it), softer demand from consumers for travel, and no shortage of young people that want their jobs.
They should remember that for example from 2001 to 2012 American Airlines did not hire one new flight attendant, other than maybe a few South American based. If there’s a crash in air travel the younger flight attendants are going to be back working at WalMart.
@1990 — this ties in nicely to the 80s Guy conversation from yesterday: “Now, the first order of business is to blame everything on the guy before me…Professor?”
@George Romey — Wait, so is the ‘economy’ strong, or not?
Because, I thought your ‘guy’ was willing to literally fire the ‘experts,’ and ‘fudge’ the numbers so that He’s always ‘good,’ and the other ‘team,’ always bad, objective reality be damned.
As to labor, generally, everyone, young and old, wants not just a ‘living’ wage, but a ‘thriving’ wage, which should be not only possible, but ‘standard’ in our country (referring to the USA).
Finally, please ‘pick a lane,’ are you in-favor of immigration or against it, now? It just seems like you enjoy complaining about workers and anyone you deem ‘lesser than’…
@L737 — The irony is many of our ‘problems’ today can be literally sourced to the start of ‘trickle-down’ economics in the 80s, and hype-men, like that fictional character in Futurama. It was the beginning of the slow-death of what was one of the greatest creations on Earth: the American middle class.
If the union negotitors listened to the members of their concerns, that would have been forefront in the negotiation. The members rejected because of a variety of work rules not fixed and or added by the company. Historically FA negotiations don’t do well, but failure by 71% is bad.
Economic problems started well before the trickle down economics 80s. The oil embargos were a major part as was stagflation. The price and wage controls did not work. The economy was in shambles in the 1970s and I remember it well.
71% is not overwhelming to me. If it was that bad it would have been in the 90 percentile. Don’t expect a quick resolution here. Probably some changes on the AFA negotiating committee. Then you have to get them up to speed with where they were position wise. Might even have to survey the membership again. Bottom line is the F/A’s lose on the time value of money. No matter what they say it’s always about the coin. The economics of this deal have been set. There will be some movement of the furniture and by that time the F/A’s will be worn out and basically agree to the deal they rejected in the first place.
@Coffee Please — Nah, they’re working on it; it doesn’t have to take long, but either way, worth it. You also forget that the pay increase is retroactive, so what they’re fighting for will cover them for the ‘time value of money,’ unless you’re making a more general argument that if they ‘invested,’ etc., but that’s attenuated, because not everyone is gonna use that increased income the same way. Bottom line is that this is all part of the process. If management doesn’t tango, then probably strike-y strike.
coffee is right. The AFA tried to play different groups within the UA FA ranks against each other and, to the AFA’s surprise, the majority of FAs aren’t willing to sell their future job protections for the benefit of a minority of high seniority FAs.
UA also really wants preferential bidding and very likely is penalizing the overall agreement for the unwillingness of the AFA to adopt PBS.
there will be some backside covering but ultimately UA FAs will pay a price for being divided and the AFA’s inability to balance competing interests.
@1990.
Is it 100% retro or a portion of? Very few labor groups get 100%.
@1990
One more thing. I highly doubt the company and AFA are even talking right now.
@Coffee Please — I’m not sure, and it’s probably being re-negotiated now anyway. By the way, I’m not involved, though, I generally support organized labor, as greater protections and advocacy for workers tends to benefit the society at-large, and, more specifically, here, I hope the FAs get a better deal, because ultimately, I think well-supported crews make for better passenger experiences, too. I’ve been consistently pro-worker and pro-consumer on here, and nothing has changed my mind otherwise so far.