United Airlines Teamsters Letter 2/13/25
BARGAINING COMMITTEE UPDATE AND NOTICE OF VOTE ON UNITED’S CONCESSIONARY CONTRACT PROPOSAL
Dear United Airlines Teamsters,
United needs a reality check. On Wednesday, February 12, 2025, United Airlines presented the Committee with its economic proposal and a term sheet proposal regarding other open items. United’s proposal was intended to be the equivalent of a hot poker in the eyes of the membership.
United believes the membership would treat its packaged proposals as one that the members would work under for the next six years. It appears that the overwhelming rejection of the April 17, 2024, Extension Agreement was not enough to convince United that the membership will not accept substandard contractual terms. We therefore are submitting United’s February 12, 2025, proposals, along with already tentatively agreed to provisions, to the membership for a vote. In this vote, which will be conducted in the very near future, we are asking the membership to vote whether they would work under United’s proposed concessionary six-year contract or whether they would reject it.
As the attached slide prepared by our economists shows, United’s economic proposal contains technician rates that are well below market rates for technicians, which have increased dramatically since the rejected April 17, 2024, Extension Agreement. United’s February 12, 2025, Date-of Signing rates are identical to rates contained in the rejected Extension Agreement. It repackaged the rates by rolling the VEBA payments directly into the technician rates, thereby effectively eliminating the VEBA itself. At the end of United’s proposed six-year contract, the technician rates would be approximately ten (10) cents greater than the rates that would have been in effect at the end of the 4-year term of the rejected Extension Agreement. United stated that its economic proposal was reasonable and competitive. The Committee strongly disagreed and informed United that their economic proposal was so far out of sync with market rates that it is an insult to the membership. United’s negotiators stuck to their position that its economic proposal is reasonable and competitive.
United’s proposal contains other provisions that are equally unacceptable and equally insulting to the membership. For example, United proposes eliminating the CARP Plan and replacing it with a cash balance plan, putting our members at a great disadvantage. It also eliminates retiree Bridge Medical, eliminates the medical plan’s default PPO plan, and places a 70/30 cost-sharing burden on the technicians, which is currently 80/20. United also intends to encourage non-A&P-licensed technicians to work on the floor, eliminate PCL across all stations, and extend the time it takes to reach top-of-scale pay.
With respect to Scope, United refuses to restore any heavy maintenance lines anywhere across the system. United emphasized this point by proposing to eliminate the Base Protections contained in the current collective bargaining agreement. United currently outsources approximately 85 percent of its heavy maintenance to foreign repair stations in China and South America. The Union made a good faith proposal to bring more heavy maintenance checks back to the United States. However, United outright rejected the Union’s proposal and responded by threatening to take away certain job protections that already exist, effectively forcing us to bargain against ourselves if negotiations continued based off United’s response.
While United’s proposals include a few modest improvements over the current contract, such as increasing the moving allowance to $14,000, the proposals in total are concessionary and unacceptable. As noted above, United insists that its proposals are reasonable and competitive. We told United that we would let the members decide whether the proposals are reasonable and competitive, and we are confident the membership will agree with us that the proposals are not only unacceptable, but also completely out of touch with reality. United seeks to impose punishing concessions on this membership while the company is making historic profits and stock has more than doubled in the last six months.
The Committee urges each and every member of this bargaining unit to VOTE NO on the company’s proposals. While this vote is not a contract ratification vote, it is nevertheless crucial that all the membership participate in this vote so that United will finally understand that the membership has had enough of their nonsense. A NO VOTE will represent a loud and clear message that United must get serious – and realistic - with these contract negotiations and bargain in good faith.
In Solidarity,
Your United Airlines Teamsters National Negotiating Committee