United Airlines cabin crew have rejected a tentative labour contract, sending both sides back to negotiations as scheduling reforms and pay structure remain disputed.
The airline is now tying future contract improvements to operational cost savings, including the introduction of a new flight scheduling system for flight attendants known as the Preferential Bidding System (PBS).
United and AFA-CWA union tentative agreement rejected
71% of United flight attendants rejected the tentative agreement negotiated between United Airlines and the Association of Flight Attendants-Communications Workers of America (AFA-CWA) union, despite the proposal including pay increases after five years without raises.
AFA-CWA union leaders who had struck the agreement with United Airlines had argued that the deal stretched airline finances to their limits, but many crew members expected additional gains, particularly compensation for airport standby time and clearer protections around hotel standards during layovers. When those expectations were not fully met, dissatisfaction grew.
The union has since surveyed members to reassess priorities, and negotiations are scheduled to resume. United has also communicated directly with employees, signalling willingness to address airport waiting time pay but insisting overall contract costs cannot increase without tradeoffs.
This situation has placed scheduling reform at the centre of negotiations, with United promoting the adoption of PBS to replace the current monthly line bidding system.
How PBS differs from the monthly line bidding system
Under the current monthly line bidding system, management builds fixed monthly schedules that flight attendants bid on based on seniority, later adjusting through trip trades or drops.
PBS allows flight attendants to submit preferences for trips, days off, layovers and report times, with schedules assigned based on those preferences while respecting staffing rules and seniority. It replaces only the schedule-building process and does not eliminate trading.
United says that PBS improves operational efficiency and reduces last-time scheduling disruption and lowers administrative costs, freeing funds that can support pay and benefit improvements within existing financial limits.
Why so many flight attendants resist PBS
Despite airline support, many flight attendants remain sceptical. PBS can feel complex and unpredictable, especially for mid-seniority crew members who may see monthly schedule variations. Workers who rely on consistent schedules for commuting or childcare worry about reduced predictability.
Some crew members also dislike the strategic nature of PBS bidding, which often requires learning system tactics to obtain desired trips. When preferences are not awarded, employees often feel the system worked against them even when results reflect seniority rules.
PBS serves two roles in negotiations. First, United wants to modernise scheduling. Second, the system provides bargaining flexibility because operational savings can offset new compensation demands without increasing total contract cost.
Negotiators may ultimately present PBS adoption as a necessary tradeoff for improved pay or additional benefits. Removing PBS from negotiations later could also help secure agreement approval if talks stall.
For now, United Airlines and the AFA-CWA union return to the bargaining table with a clearer understanding that scheduling reform may determine how much financial improvement becomes impossible in the next contract.
What do you think of the United Airlines flight attendants’ demands? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
