Chicago — Flight attendants at United Airlines have voted to reject a proposed labour contract, ending hopes of a swift resolution to negotiations that have stretched on for almost five years without a pay rise.

 

More than 71% of participating flight attendants voted against the tentative agreement, according to the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), the union representing the crew. The decision sends negotiators back to the table amid growing frustration over pay, working conditions and scheduling practices.

 

Pay and purchasing power at the centre of dispute

 

The rejected deal offered average wage increases of less than 27%, which many flight attendants said failed to compensate for inflation during the prolonged negotiation period. Union estimates suggest the real value of wages has fallen by around 25% since the last contract was agreed.

 

Union leaders had described the proposal as the strongest deal achievable under current conditions, but the scale of the rejection highlighted a significant gap between leadership expectations and member priorities.

 

Beyond pay, flight attendants raised concerns over contract language governing layover hotels, warning it could allow lower-quality accommodation located further from city centres.

 

Others said approving the agreement would weaken their bargaining position in future negotiations.

 

Limited leverage for labour action

 

The talks are taking place under the US Railway Labor Act, which governs airline labour relations. Under the law, strikes require federal approval — something that has not been granted to airline unions under either the Trump or Biden administrations.

 

That limitation has reduced the union’s ability to exert pressure, forcing negotiators to focus on trade-offs within the contract rather than external action.

 

Following the vote, the AFA acknowledged that it had misjudged member sentiment and launched a new survey to identify priorities, particularly around scheduling and rest standards.

 

Scheduling system becomes flashpoint

 

As negotiations resumed, United Airlines reintroduced proposals related to flight attendant scheduling — an issue that had previously been set aside.

 

At the centre of the dispute is the Preferential Bidding System (PBS), a computer-based scheduling model already used by several other US airlines.

 

Under PBS, flight attendants submit ranked preferences for factors such as days off, destinations, trip length and report times. An algorithm then assigns schedules while ensuring operational coverage and regulatory compliance.

 

United says modernising the bidding system would increase flexibility and efficiency. The union, however, disputes that characterisation, saying management has revived proposals already rejected by members.

 

Why PBS is controversial

 

While airlines argue PBS improves coverage and reduces costs, many flight attendants view the system as unpredictable and difficult to navigate.

 

Critics say the software follows preferences literally rather than intuitively, sometimes producing schedules that meet technical criteria but conflict with practical expectations.

 

Senior flight attendants are particularly opposed, as the system reduces the visible influence of seniority and can disrupt long-established schedule patterns.

 

Strategic positioning on both sides

 

United has previously agreed not to implement PBS, leading some analysts to view its reappearance as a negotiating tactic rather than a firm demand.

 

By placing an unpopular proposal on the table, management may be creating leverage that can later be withdrawn in exchange for agreement elsewhere.

 

Industry observers note that United is unlikely to significantly improve the financial terms already offered, while the union must demonstrate concrete gains to secure ratification.

 

What happens next

 

Negotiations are expected to continue, with both sides under pressure to reach a compromise.

 

Given the strong opposition from flight attendants and prior commitments, the Preferential Bidding System is widely seen as unlikely to appear in the final agreement.

 

Instead, its role may be symbolic — allowing the union to block a controversial change and present that outcome as a meaningful victory to members.