employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

United Airlines

Is this your company?

Great opportunities if you work for them, but below-average benefits will deter many from taking the chance on United - Human Resources Manager United Airlines Employee Review

4.0
Oct 21, 2014
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

The level of tenure at United tells you they are doing something right in retaining people to work with them. The collaborative headquarters work environment really seems to lend itself to new ideas and different points of view, although the very nature of the business means that change is not as rapid. It also really appears that there is a conscious effort to align the thinking and efforts from the people at the airports, to the people in the planes, to the people in the head office, and everywhere in between.

Cons

Career development program is not well articulated, so the onus is on the individual to set out goals and work to achieve them, with very little structure. This benefits highly-motivated employees with plenty of initiative, but still provides less guidance than many companies, and may be unattractive to new employees who are looking for that support.

Explore other reviews about United Airlines

5.0
Jun 19, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

good pay , good hours, good co workers

Cons

stop the favortism and be fair in schedule

3.0
Apr 22, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

United is genuinely a good place to work in a lot of ways. The dev side has strong leadership, the work is interesting, and there are real engineers doing real things. When I started, I was proud to tell people where I worked.

Cons

The Quality Engineering org has gone downhill fast since the leadership change about two years ago. It's hard to overstate how much the culture has shifted. The focus now is almost entirely on offshoring roles to India, and the US team has been quietly squeezed—people being nudged toward retirement, others suddenly finding themselves with negative performance feedback after years of solid work. It doesn't feel issue-driven, it feels like a headcount strategy with a polite cover story. On top of that, we spent most of last year implementing process changes that look impressive in a slide deck but don't actually move the needle. Meanwhile, the QE org has drifted away from what the dev leadership is actually trying to build. We're solving problems no one asked us to solve while the real priorities sit on the side. It's frustrating to watch, especially when you know what this team used to be capable of. The day-to-day environment has gotten noticeably toxic. People are checked out, the good ones are looking, and there's a real sense that institutional knowledge is being treated as disposable.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All