Furious flight attendants are demanding that United Airlines sack a pilot who made an inflammatory comment on a public social media post, which shared the news that crew members at the Chicago-based carrier had rejected a new tentative contract by a wide majority.
On Tuesday, the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA) announced that 71% of its members had voted to reject the proposed agreement on a turnout of 92% of more than 28,000 crew members.
The union had been pushing flight attendants to accept the agreement, arguing it was the best deal it could achieve, but its negotiators will now have to go back to United in a bid to squeeze more concessions out of the airline.
Under the proposed deal, flight attendants would have enjoyed an immediate average pay raise of 26.9% and been paid a so-called ‘retro pay’ bonus averaging $21,500 – with some veteran high-time flight attendants receiving as much as $50,000 or more.
The ballot result sparked a controversial comment from one pilot who wrote in response to the news: “Love it, now they will get nothing.”
The comment continued: “They all want pilot pay!!! Kirby (Referring to Scott Kirby, the chief executive of United) should go to a local university where they are all a dime a dozen!!!”
The pilot, who had uploaded a photo of himself in uniform standing in front of a United Airlines airplane on his Facebook page, quickly deleted the comment when faced with a barrage of critical replies to his viewpoint, although it was already too late.
Furious flight attendants had already screenshotted the comment and were calling for him to be disciplined.
In 2023, United’s pilot workforce agreed on a new $10 billion contract for 16,000 aircrew that sees some senior Captains earning $452,000+ per year, while even new joiner First Officers can earn as much as $117,000 annually.
That is based on flying hours of between 70-85 flying hours per month, which is significantly less than the kind of hours that new hire flight attendants can expect to work in order to survive in their first five years.
While the chances of this pilot facing a serious disciplinary action for his comment are unlikely, flight attendants have been quick to point out that he’ll have to face disgruntled crew members on board his flights.
“Hopefully he brings his food from home,” one person wrote on social media, while another commented: “And just like that I forgot to cook his meal. Oh, he needs a potty break? Sorry, service is running late and the entire cabin is in line to use the fwd [forward] lavatory. Maybe later.”
A Change.org petition has even been created calling on United Airlines to investigate the pilot, explaining:
“This statement is explicitly derogatory toward Flight Attendants, reducing their value and professionalism to being “a dime a dozen,” while mocking their advocacy for fair compensation.”
“The tone and language are not only dismissive and degrading, but they also foster a hostile work environment and contribute to a culture of division and disrespect within the flight crew community.”
The petition continues: “Such behavior is in direct violation of our company’s Flying Together guidelines, which require all employees to treat one another with dignity, act with professionalism in public and online, and refrain from harassment, bullying, or disparaging remarks—especially in public forums that reflect on our brand and culture.”
Explainer: What’s the comment about university students about?
In his now-deleted social media comment, the pilot suggested that United Airlines turn to hiring university students as flight attendants – something that the airline currently doesn’t do but isn’t completely without precedent.
In 2021, the newly created Breeze Airways, from serial aviation entrepreneur David Neeleman, embarked on a project to hire 18-year-old university students as part-time flight attendants while completing their online college studies at Utah Valley University.
Under the controversial program, flight attendants would have been paid a fixed monthly salary of just $1,200, alongside an annual bursary of $6,000 and free shared company accommodation.
Once they completed their university course, they would be required to stop working for Breeze. Within months, and under mounting scrutiny from unions and lawmakers, Breeze dropped the project and started to hire full-time and part-time flight attendants.
Flight attendants at the airline later voted to join the Association of Flight Attendants.
Ignorance? That can be cured. Stupid? That’s forever. What I love about social media is how many of the dumb masses will not only write something stupid, but they will post a picture along with them being in a company uniform! THAT is stupid. As far as “being sacked”, that’s gonna be a bit tougher. While the First Amendment does not apply to this situation, the company can raise a bit of cain and ALPA would, most likely, stand behind the guy. The pilot wouldn’t be sacked unless he violated company rules.
This is NOT a bonus but money we would like back from the years of concessions we have given United. Please know that.
First- There is company policy in place about social media posts, and this violated it.
Second- This, and many other articles, keep missing the point about the retroactive pay. It keeps saying the flight attendants are turning down a huge raise with a bonus. Wrong. Let’s look at it from a different angle. You’ve worked for a company for 1 0 years. Management says we are giving you a raise of $5.00 an hour…. but, it will take effect in 5 years, at which time we will pay that difference as a bonus. Then in 5 years, the company, which claims it has been having historic profits tells you, “well, actually, we know you’ve worked 40 hrs a week for the last 5 years. 40hrs x 4 weeks x 12 months x 5 years = 9600 hours x $5 = $48,000. That about is just too much for us, so, how about we give you 10% of that? $4,800 is a great bonus check, right?
That is what the flight attendants are looking at. They took concessions on the last contract to help the company. Now the company doesn’t want to pay back money they used to grow and invest.
And third – for most people, or wasn’t even the money, it was various work rules and vague wording that could be twisted. When the company has a history of leaving Grey area in wording, it 90% of the time goes to the dark side when implementing its interpretation instead of the light side and doing what is right. Quite a few flight attendants would’ve voted yes if all the verbiage was more like a competent lawyer had hammered out all rules and scenarios in black and white with no wiggle room to reinterpretation .