United Airlines Flight Attendant Labor Deal Highlights Key Wage And Hour Issues

A recent agreement between United Airlines (“United”) and its flight attendants is a major signal to employers across the industry about employees’ expectations. After over a year of negotiations, a rejected agreement, and federal mediation, United and the Association of Flight Attendants-Communications Workers of America (“AFA-CWA”) union arrived at a second tentative agreement (the “Agreement”) that restructures compensation in meaningful ways. For legal and HR professionals, the details are worth close examination.

Key Terms of the United Airlines Flight Attendant Labor Deal

The AFA-CWA and United reached the Agreement on March 26, 2026. The United Airlines Master Executive Council unanimously approved it during a special meeting on April 2, 2026, opening a path for member voting beginning April 23, 2026. The full Agreement can be found here.

Wages

The Agreement offers the first increase to flight attendants’ base pay since 2020, with top-of-scale pay exceeding $100 per hour by the end of the contract. Union members would also receive a signing bonus upon ratification. United is the last major airline to raise flight attendant pay since the pandemic.

Pay Structure

Although the Agreement results in increase pay rates, perhaps the most consequential changes in the labor deal involve the work for which flight attendants get compensated. If the new framework is ratified:

• Flight attendants will be compensated for pre-flight duties, including time spent during boarding. This category of work was previously uncompensated, and flight attendants were only paid between departures and landings.
• Layovers exceeding two and a half hours will be paid at 50% of the standard rate, which is known as “sit pay.”
• Additional compensation is available to cabin staff when flights are disrupted or delayed.
• Profit-sharing is now available for flight attendants at United, albeit still at lower rates compared to non-unionized Delta’s leading model.

Work Conditions

Beyond compensation, the Agreement improves several other terms of employment. Flight attendants not be required to work more than one flight before a redeye assignment. Hotel quality standards during layovers have been improved. Lastly, healthcare and retirement benefits have been enhanced to compete with the other industry leaders.

A Long-standing Wage and Hour Issue

The inclusion of compensation for pre-flight duties in the flight attendant labor deal addresses a well-documented wage and hour vulnerability. Until recently, flight attendants were not paid at the same rates for their time spent completing boarding tasks, conducting safety checks, or assisting passengers before the airplane door was closed as they were for post-door closing activities. This type of work typically amounts to 30-45 minutes per flight, with potentially several flights a day.

This type of pay structure is generally not permissible in other industries. The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires that employees be paid for all hours of work. Preparatory and concluding activities performed before or after a shift officially ends may qualify as “principal activities” under the FLSA.

The airline industry operates under an amendment to the FLSA, which exempts certain carriers from its overtime provisions. However, the amendment does not eliminate the employer’s obligation to pay for all hours worked. The Agreement explicitly defines compensation for pre-flight duties, reflecting a trend in the aviation industry to close the gap in wage and hour laws.

Legal Risks for Compensation noncompliance

Employers who fail to compensate workers for all hours worked face significant legal exposure. Wage theft, broadly defined as the denial of pay for work performed, can open employers to class action lawsuits. In transportation industries, workers have successfully litigated claims involving unpaid waiting time, pre-shift safety briefings, and equipment inspections.

Rejected Agreements shifts Leverage in Negotiations

The path to the Agreement illustrates how labor negotiations in highly regulated industries are rarely linear and how early failures may produce labor-friendly final agreements.

In May 2025, United and the AFA-CWA reached a first tentative agreement. That tentative agreement was rejected by 71% of the AFA-CWA’s voting members in June 2025, an overwhelming signal that the terms therein did not reflect the union members’ priorities.

One of the biggest points of contention was disagreement over United’s plan to implement the Preferential Bidding System (“PBS”), a scheduling system that optimizes routes based on operational efficiency rather than worker preferences. PBS is commonly used by many other airlines, and the AFA-CWA has even helped implement them in the past. While United projected saving costs with PBS, flight attendants viewed it as a threat to predictable schedules and work-life balance.

The union went back to its members, surveyed their priorities, and re-entered negotiations through the National Mediation Board. This second round of negotiations lasted from October 2025 through March 2026.

The ten-month gap between the first tentative agreement’s rejection and the Agreement highlights the critical cost of labor negotiations in aviation: lost time. Airline labor relations are governed by the Railway Labor Act, which imposes a structured mediation and cooling-off process that can significantly delay implementation of a new agreement. Voting on the Agreement ends on May 12, 2026, even if the Agreement is ratified by AFA-CWA members, the terms won’t take effect until June 2026 – over a year after the first tentative agreement was rejected.

Notably, the Agreement removed United’s push for the PBS implementation and flight attendants will preserve their current scheduling system that gives a month-to-month outlook.

This back-and-forth is common in labor negotiations is not limited to the aviation industry. Healthcare, transportation and even the public sector often see agreements that are at first rejected but result in stronger final contracts for workers. The cost of delays, however, falls on both corporate and worker sides.

Employer Takeaways

For employers reviewing their own compensation structures, scheduling systems, and compliance obligations, the United Airlines flight attendant labor deal offers several practical lessons.

1. The explicit callout of pre-flight duties in the Agreement should prompt employers to examine whether their current pay practices capture all hours worked, regardless of industry. If employees are required to perform tasks before their “official” shift begins or after it ends, that time is likely compensable under the FLSA. Wage and hour class action lawsuits have been some of the most active areas of employment law for over a decade.
2. Notably, the Agreement allows United to use a two-tier, regional-mainline, pay model. This structure lets regional flight attendants perform the same work as mainline counterparts while being paid significantly less, often at half the mainline rates. While two-tier systems are a common cost-saving strategy in aviation, they create significant risk for employers.
3. From the first tentative agreement’s rejection in June 2025 to the projected implementation of the Agreement in June 2026, there has been a full year without compensation improvements while incurring costs related to negotiation and straining worker morale. Employers who view aggressive wage bargaining as cost-saving may lose sight of these downstream expenses. Reviewing wages proactively, especially in a tightening labor market, can reduce the likelihood of extended disputes.
4. United’s CEO Scott Kirby recently acknowledged a 58% increase in jet fuel prices in early 2026. Labor costs and fuel comprise the largest expenses for airlines, and with limited control over fuel costs, there may be more pressure to reduce labor costs to compensate. Employers in cost-volatile industries should consider their operating costs alongside labor negotiations to keep a holistic perspective. Labor agreements that allow for flexibility (such as Delta’s profit-sharing models) may offer a more sustainable path than fixed increases alone.
5. The PBS scheduling dispute led to the rejection of the first tentative agreement. For employers, this is a reminder that operational efficiency tools can become dealbreakers if workers perceive them as negatively impacting their work-like balance. Employers should strive to understand their workers through positive relationships because they are critical stakeholders in any company.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.