I don’t like airline mergers, but I was a big proponent of the idea that the Alaska-Hawaiian merger was about as reasonable as they come. Neither airline dominates the mainland-Hawaii market (neither was even the largest player before the merger, and United, Delta, Southwest and American all offer significant service). Alaska doesn’t overlap on any other routes flown by Hawaiian.
Any degradation in Hawaiian Airlines flying we see post-merger may have happened anyway. The carrier has struggled for the past five years. The Alaska acquisition is a lifeline.
If anything, Alaska overpaid. There’s no real moat in Hawaiian Airlines markets. Alaska really just acquires knowledge of flying to Pacific destinations and some route authorities which are mostly replicable. And they gain a fleet of overwhelmingly Airbus planes for long haul and Hawaii – mainland service, right after finally getting rid of the last of the Airbus fleet acquired in their deal for Virgin America.
Today, Hawaiian Airlines serves:
- Auckland and Sydney
- Fukuoka, Tokyo Haneda and Narita, and Osaka in Japan
- Seoul
- Papeete, Pago Pago, and Raratonga
Hawaiian Airlines Airbus A330 First Class
It’s clear that we’re going to see some long haul flying move to Seattle. That means some Hawaiian Airlines widebodies leave Honolulu. There will be fewer widebodies operating between Honolulu and the West Coast, perhaps, and fewer Honolulu – Pacific destinations. But it’s not just those markets that will see planes shift around.
It turns out that this merger is likely to be personally negative for me, because my prediction is that one of the first Hawaiian routes that Alaska Airlines drops is Honolulu – Austin.
- Alaska wants Hawaiian widebodies for Seattle international long haul flying
- The Austin flight has never performed especially well
- It was a pandemic add to begin with when many markets were closed and they needed to find a place to send their planes. Orlando was already axed, but Austin remains.
Hawaiian Airlines Airbus A330 First Class
Trying to figure out how quickly this decision might be made, I wondered about service obligations that might flow from subsidies Hawaiian received for the route.
For a few years before the route started, the Austin airport was looking to hand out money for someone to fly to Hawaii. They were also pitching incentives for Amsterdam, Beijing, Dublin, Paris, Seoul, Shanghai, and Tokyo.
- Amsterdam was supposed to commence right as the pandemic started, and was delayed. KLM flies this route 3 times weekly.
- Norwegian was supposed to offer Paris service, but ceased transatlantic operations with the pandemic.
- There were rumors of the Delta-Korean joint venture starting Seoul at the time, but the KLM add went first and the pandemic intervened. Austin has no non-stop flights to Asia.
- China flying is certainly off the table at this time. The big Apple presence in Austin made it seem farfetched but not insane back in 2019.
KLM Boeing 787 in Austin
Austin airport, however, tells me that “Hawaiian Airline’s incentives expired in 2023” so there are no requirements for Hawaiian to maintain service.
I’ve taken the Austin – Honolulu flight a few times. In August I had no problem getting five first class award seats using partner miles on the flight for my preferred dates. That’s not a flight that’s doing well! For what amounted to 16,000 Bilt points (transferred to Virgin Atlantic with 150% bonus) apiece I got a great deal, but my bet is not a sustainable one.
Flying to an AA hub would be a better use the plane anyway.
I really would not be surprised once the integration gets underway for Parent AAG to jettison the few 787s in the fleet (possibly to Partner AA) and stick primarily with the A330 fleet that Hawaiian has more of. With current delivery issues for BOEING, it would make perfect sense for AA to offer a deal of spinning off their A330-200 fleet which is currently PARKED for the few 787s that Hawaiian is currently operating. AA has shown no interest in bringing those young airframes back but they could be of interest to a current operator.Time will tell whether the Management Team at AAG is serious about flying longhaul Transpacific or whether they will stick to what they know and offer a more comprehensive schedule of the Western US and offer feed to their partners in ONEWORLD. Anything is possible but streamlining the fleet, synergy and cost savings are what makes a Merger/Integration successful. Hawaiian was losing money on much of their flying and it certainly wasn’t because the Mai Tais served onboard were awful. js….
I would wonder if the mergers were really worth it, especially if it’s gonna affect airline companies in a negative way
Instead of flying just twice a week between Honololu and Pago Pago in American Samoa, I’d add a weekly Seattle or Los Angeles to Pago Pago flight. There is a huge Samoan community in California and along the West Coast. Probably works better for mail and other cargo. And then maybe continue the flight from Pago Pago to Auckland. Again, lots of cargo. And Kiwis go to Samoa.
Is Alaska destined to be the American Motors of airlines?
The place dying US airlines go to decompose?
It will be interesting them trying Seattle for long haul? It would just be rebranded as Alaska? Anyway, Delta is not exactly a powerhouse there so that would be interesting
I’m not in AUS and don’t expect to fly to HNL anytime soon. But, this would be a tough one for me. Either fly nonstop in the lousy 2-2-2 F a332 or connect (DFW or IAH, for example) and get a proper 1-2-1 for the long leg.
@roger On the contrary, I’d personally be very surprised to see them get rid of the 787s. I think that was a big part of what Alaska wanted with Hawaiian. Even long before the Alaska merger, Hawaiian has been wanting to launch Europe routes. The 330 doesn’t have the legs for that from HNL. 78 does, which is part of why Hawaiian cancelled their A330neo order and ordered the 787s instead. The 78 also offers Alaska significantly more flexibility (and, due to newer engines, presumably significantly better per-seat operating costs) than the 330ceo from SEA. Plus, there’s the optics issue. When you home base and largest market is *Seattle*, there’s some incentive to go with Boeing, even beyond the operational and cost advantages.
Alaska has never had much of an appetite for real growth. They bought Virgin America to prevent Jetblue from becoming a formidable West coast competitor. They overpaid and they jettisoned the majority of their fleet. And they pulled out of important transcon markets. Now they’ve bought Hawaiian to reduce a competitor and make themselves less of a takeover target. Personally, I think they’ll squander those assets also. After all this, they’re still only #5 in US airlines.
Most Samoans in the US are from what used to be called Western Samoa not American Samoa. This is why Air NZ used to have Auckland to LAX flights via Apia. The cook island service is heavily subsidized by the CI government, frankly the only reason HA got the route was because NZ asked for too much money
On every forum I read, people seem to have the idea that AS wants to start nonstop long-haul international service from SEA and will commandeer airplanes from HA to do so. I am very skeptical about that. For one thing, AS paid $1 billion in cash and took on $900 million in HA debt to acquire HA. Where would AS fly from SEA that would produce good yields that isn’t already well covered? Seattle to Tokyo already has Delta, ANA, and Japan Airlines. SEA-TPE already has 4 airlines on the route. There are already nonstops to a lot of European destinations on multiple carriers. You get the idea–there is a lot of competition and not only from Delta–there are many foreign competitors. SEA to Australia and/or New Zealand nonstop service would be nice but still very risky for Alaska. Samoa doesn’t feel like a good bet. It will be interesting to see what AAG does with its purchase of HA but international long haul out of SEA is hardly a sure thing.
My prediction is that they will keep the Hawaiian branding on the wide-bodies, and fly SEA-ICN and SEA-NRT. Makes little sense to fly to Asia with Alaska branding, which has little brand recognition there.
HA removing AUS-HNL makes sense. Like others, they were chasing people not money. The rich Californians who go to Hawaii for a long weekend several times a year are not the ones who moved to Austin. It’s the failed Californians who couldn’t figure out how to make it in an expensive area who moved to Austin, so it’s not like they have disposable income to feed a travel habit in the first place. That, and fares from Austin to Hawaii are much more significant than the $89 one ways you sometimes see from California to Hawaii.
As for what AS will do with the HA frames, maybe they can consolidate some of their high frequency flagship routes like SEA-GEG. That will free up narrowbodies to expand their Apple Vacations partnership into beach cities from oddball markets. Why should a regional airline like Alaska bother with transpac expansion when there’s untapped business in markets like St. Louis to Belize?
Alaska overpaid for Virgin America too, but it did eliminate a competitor.
What I’m wondering is now with this merger does this now change the plans for HA’s A330s. Hawaiian plan was to retire their A330s and replace them with 787s. Could AS decide to keep the A330s which aren’t that old flying HNL-XXX-HNL routes and take the 787s to SEA to use on long haul international routes out of SEA?
It’s best to wait and see what happens, it’s best not to speculate publicly and run your mouth publicly about something you don’t know unless the airline releases an official statement about the matter.
@FNT Delta Diamond:
I think you’re spot on. Plus the governor of American Samoa made a comment about a month ago in some remarks to the effect of hoping the Alaska deal meant more utility in their air service and possibly a change in destination.
I dealt with Alaska Air Group for almost 40 years and got a pretty good insight into how they think. Alaska Air Group will replace the HAL A330’s with 787’s (or possible 797’s should it be available) as soon as they can (reference the moves made after the acquisition of Virgin America). There is a long, and almost uncanny, loyalty between AAG and Boeing that drives their fleet decisions. Also, although some routings will change, the HAL long-haul fleet will continue to be based out of HNL since that is where the maintenance expertise resides (especially for the A330 fleet).
Although no final decision has been made, it would be smart AAG’s behalf to not update/upgrade the 717 fleet but to replace it with a more modern fleet. First, Boeing really has no interest anymore in the 717 (remember, this was not a Boeing aircraft to start with and production was discontinued in 2006). Since Boeing does have a joint venture with Embrear on the C-390 tactical transport (along with a now-abandoned attempt to purchase 80% of Embrear’s commercial aircraft division) it would make the most sense for the 717 fleet to be replaced by Embrear 175’s (or possibly 195’s).
The other key thing is there is no interest within AAG of discontinuing the HAL brand or livery.
HA should have axed the Japan market since it hasn’t recovered. Staying that market is like feeding a dead horse you can’t resurrect. I heard when they had MCO that the flights were full and of course the AUS flights have been full. A pilot that used to fly for HA told me that.
ANC- NRT service would be a good start.
This sounds more of a an acquisition than a merger.
Advice:
– Merge the two brands into “Alaska-Hawaiian Airlines”
– Deploy the A330s on domestic transcon routes from SEA, SFO, and LAX, and fly them seasonally to Europe in the summer
– Use the B787s to expand the intercontinental network, primarily from SEA, but also, opportunistically, SFO and LAX.
I think this route will stay around until at least HA joins oneworld because then the AUS and SAT AAdvantage members can help make the route become profitable.
As a former Alaska Airlines employee – another positive to this merger is that both carriers have a large contingent of Hawaiians working in the workforce – and not just in Hawaii. So I think from that standpoint, it is a win.
Good day~ why would anyone choose a 20-30 year old airframe over a next gen B787? So much speculation over what AS is going to do from outsiders? Wait and watch as all is revealed.
PS: route changes and dropping cities is part of running an airline. Don’t get that confused with some harbinger of what it to come. Cheers
@Marco – AS doesn’t really have the ability to compete in a competitive market like SFO or LAX. Their operation at SFO today has fewer routes than what VX had. They simply don’t understand the California market, and without a number of local cult followers infatuated with supporting a local business like they have in SEA, they can’t cut it. Meanwhile United continues to ramp up at SFO and take every available gate, taking over T2 that they vacated. Since AS/VX merged, UA is bigger and AS is smaller. So from that perspective, moving frames to SFO for international service wouldn’t work. AS’s regional half-a** behavior would drive customers to competitors, for which there are plenty.
@Los – MCO and AUS don’t really have the base to support such flights. Any airline can fill a flight if they drop the fares low enough. At 14 cents per seat mile, they would need to fill MCO-HNL at $665 each way per seat (before taxes) at 100% load. Granted there’s cargo, credit card revenue, and other items to offset that (as well as empty seats that have to be covered), but that’s a lot of coin in a place like Orlando where people are struggling with low pay and high costs due to right-wing lack of regulation on things like insurance. Plus the numbers for Orlando don’t match the reality. While MCO appears to have income numbers that sometimes support households having disposable income, when you dig into it and find a household is really the sum of 4-6 poverty wage theme park employees working multiple part time jobs so they can skirt paying benefits, there’s really no disposable income to be had for a leisure trip like this.
I just bought last month a ticket on HA from Melbourne Australia to HNL and later from HNL to Austin in August 2025. Hoping they don’t cancel till after that!
I hope to God I don’t have to use a Boeing plane from Seattle to Hawaii. Hawaiian airlines has always used the Airbus which is far superior compared to Boeing. If Alaska refuses to use the Airbus. I will not fly with them. I guarantee, I’m not the only one!
AAG has moved mechanics out here from AS and HA are continuing tonttsin new people on yhe A321N mx here as well (I’m here in HNL, classmate movedd back a few months ago, husband is AS 737 mech, my cousin is HA ramper currently learning mx for the pratt engines on the 321 for her chosen promotion path).
Speculative of course, but we may see AAG eventually supplement 717s interisland with 737s on triangle routings like WN is doing especially once 717 replacements are selected and things start to happen there (personally see the only options as E2-190 or A220-300, but I digress).
A332s will eventually be phased out, A321Ns stay as they are right sized (much to my dismay) for west coast Hawaii routes. 787-9 will be the HA flagship eventually, and if they do have SEA flyi g or other smaller hub focused flying on 787s outside of HNL, it would be smart to have them on triangle routes with one or two other planes routing through. Especially if slots become available in slot restricted space.
Ex: HNL-SEA-HND ➡️ HND-HNL-ICN➡️ICN-SEA-HNL➡️HNL-SEA-MAN?
Ultimately, AAG would be smart to keep some things close to their chest, but some things speculated ove rthe years (even up thread) may not be as smart in the end if done. I think AAG will be wise enough to not do business as usual as it relates to Hawaii flying, although greed is a fickle sunuvagum. ♂️
If Alaska Air follows it’s history with the Virgin America many more routes will be dropped much like the dropping of most VirginAmerica JFK routes to the west coast!
Maybe ‘Alaska’ from Seattle isn’t the best brand if they are truly ambitious on a global scale??