April 10, 2026
Expanded Scope Provisions Overview
New Language based on Pilot language:
All Flights operated by United Pilots, which require Flight Attendants, will be staffed with United Flight Attendants covered by our Agreement.
This “me-too” with the Pilots brings us under the protections of the strongest scope provisions in the industry.
The Pilot language:
Limits United Express flying:
Limits on number of regional aircraft, number of seats and total block hours.
Limitations on flying from hubs and connecting operations.
Limits other Domestic code share agreements.
Limits on foreign code and revenue-sharing agreements.
This provides additional protections on management farming out flying with Pilots but not Flight Attendants.
Limited Exception on United Express flying
The company may own a wholly owned regional carrier conducting United Express flying.
This does not expand the amount of regional flying as it comes out of the totals provided in the Pilot agreement.
All protections and limitations of the ALPA United pilot agreement regarding this flying apply to United Flight Attendants.
Rejected Company Proposals
We rejected proposals to eliminate our existing Scope language.
The current language on ownership remains intact, with only the limited exception of United Express flying.
Learn more about LOA 16 Here > https://unitedfacontract.org/ta2-articles/blog-post-title-four-lr658-tcthp-wf5mw-yd6ke-d6zc9-nytn4
Key Scope Provisions of the UA Pilot Agreement > Listen to the ALPA Scope Communication HERE
Scope FAQs
Q. If ALPA changes their Scope Language, are we then tied to their change?
The language provides that we are covered by the pilot scope language as amended, so we would capture any future changes to scope. That is no different than under the current Contract, as the Pilot agreement is where all the limitations on United Express and other flying are found. The pilots take scope negotiations very seriously and, as they have explained, have been successful in limiting United Express flying over the last two decades.
Q. Would we be forced to work on a Regional Aircraft (50 Seater) under TA2?
The company currently could choose to introduce smaller aircraft under the current contract, but choose to do that under the United Express flying. TA2 provides if the Pilots operate a flight, then we operate that flight. In the unlikely event the company chose to staff 50 seaters with United Pilots then that would be our work. But it would be an expansion of flying and would be bid upon like any other line. The idea that any current Flight Attendant would be forced to fly a 50 seater is unlikely, speculative and remote.
Q. Will these changes allow United to merge with JetBlue?
The provisions on ownership of a wholly owned carrier are narrowly crafted to only include a United Express Carrier and would not apply to the JetBlue merger. We retained all of our existing language in LOA 16 regarding company ownership. Our language would help in future mergers because by linking our flying to the Pilots it would help prevent the company from stalling any future merged contract negotiations.
How Does LOA 16 Impact the Air Wisconsin Arbitration Decision?
In the 1990s, AFA won an arbitration that management violated the existing scope language by operating a wholly owned subsidiary. This required a payout to United Flight Attendants.
However, United management had an easy fix. They simply continued flying regional flights through capacity purchase agreements, which allowed the company to control the inventory and schedules of the United Express Carriers. Management had an easy workaround on the arbitration decision, and they used it. There is nothing in the current Flight Attendant agreement that limits the amount of regional flying, the number of aircraft, or the size of aircraft.
If the current AFA scope language prohibited regional flying, we would not see any United Express flying. However, management conducts a whole operation of flights under the regional banner, similar to its major competitors. Additionally, Alaska, American, and Delta all own one or more regional airlines. Nothing in this TA expands their ability to conduct regional flying, and in fact, by tying us tighter to the pilots’ language, we are actually provided greater protection.
The only meaningful limitations on United Express flying come from the ALPA-United agreement, which specifies how many aircraft can be operated, the number of seats, and even the routes. Under the Pilot agreement, whether United Express operates under a wholly owned subsidiary of United or is contracted out to a carrier such as Republic, Commute Air, GoJet, or SkyWest, it does not change the amount of regional flying.
In terms of value, United management would like to own a regional carrier, but they don’t have to have it. They were willing to settle past negotiations without it, as they simply run United Express flying through regional partners. That’s why thirty-year-old economic calculations are of little value as they ignore the impact of alternatives for the company as the regional airline industry evolved over time, or that the flying already exists today.
Job security provisions we benefit from today are already tied to the Pilot agreement restrictions on United Express operations. But the tie is imperfect and does not protect us from situations where United farms out flying with only United pilots operating those flights. That is a real concern, and we close that loophole with this Tentative Agreement.
The scope language agreed to is a major improvement to our job security.