Alaska Airlines has been busy making bold moves, while Hawaii has quietly slipped backward. First came a new nonstop to Reykjavik, Iceland on a 737 MAX, the longest narrow-body flight ever flown by a U.S. airline at 3,622 miles and seven and a half hours each way.
Then came an even sharper contrast: new Dreamliner service from Seattle to Seoul starting September 12, 2025, with a launch offer of buy-one-get-one-free tickets and award seats for as little as 20,000 points each way.
Those international deals are cheaper even than some interisland fares. Meanwhile, Hawaiian Airlines is eliminating Boston, Seoul, and Fukuoka, with no new Hawaii routes announced except a few holiday extras. The difference could not be more glaring, and it continues raising questions about what Hawaii’s aviation future looks like.
Alaska Airlines takes its boldest leaps yet.
The Reykjavik route begins May 28, 2026, operating daily in summer on a 737-8 MAX. Alaska is marketing it as proof that its narrow-body fleet can handle everything from the shortest hop to a long 3,631-mile journey.
Passengers will see complimentary Wi-Fi, refreshed seating, and premium pillows and blankets, while a new codeshare with Icelandair opens more than thirty-five onward European destinations through seamless connections.
Seoul gives Alaska an equally important foothold across Asia Pacific. Operated on Hawaiian’s 787-9 Dreamliner, Seattle–Incheon launches September 12, 2025, with a debut promotion of buy-one-get-one-free tickets and Atmos Rewards redemptions starting at 20,000 points.
For Hawaii travelers, the sting is obvious: just as Honolulu loses its own Seoul service, Alaska adds it from Seattle with bargain fares that highlight exactly how the center of gravity has shifted.
Hawaii’s long-haul dream.
At the very moment Alaska unveils these expansions, Hawaiian is pulling back. Boston, once the longest domestic flight in the United States, is gone. Seoul, long a crown jewel of Hawaiian’s Asia network, is gone. Fukuoka, while smaller, carried symbolic weight as a second Japan gateway. All three end this November, and Hawaiian has announced no new long-haul routes to replace them.
The reasons have included rising costs, weaker demand, and years of international issues. Those delays prevented Hawaiian from launching the European or deeper Asia routes that once seemed possible. Now the Dreamliners are being deployed to reinforce safe, core markets from Seattle. Ambitious expansion has been replaced by consolidation and sure bets.
Why Iceland and Seoul win while Hawaii loses.
There is irony in seeing Iceland and Seoul gain service from Alaska just as Hawaii loses both. For decades, Honolulu was the exotic end of airline ambition, once drawing widebody jets from Pan Am, TWA, and United. Now Seattle is where the bold moves are being made.
Reykjavik works neatly for Alaska because of Icelandair’s network and the ability to fly it with existing 737s. Seoul from Seattle on Dreamliners positions Alaska in the transpacific market at the same time Hawaiian is retreating from it.
Hawaii requires higher operating costs and more complex economic and logistical considerations. From a corporate perspective, Iceland and Seoul are more reliable options. Yet, for those of us here in Hawaii, it feels like we are being overlooked, albeit for good reasons.
Readers see unraveling.
Across our site, readers say much the same. Some believe Hawaii is being left with scraps while Alaska is pointing its resources elsewhere. Others worry that Hawaiian’s proud identity, built on connecting the islands with the world, is at risk of becoming little more than a feeder for Seattle. And yet others remain grateful that Hawaiian was saved from yet a worse fate, had Alaska not come along when it did.
What this means for Hawaii travelers.
For the short term, vacations to Hawaii are unaffected. But strategically, the picture is clear. Alaska is pouring resources into expansion, new interiors, cheap award tickets, and global codeshares. Hawaiian is cutting some long-hauls and offering only a few short-term holiday add-ons from Honolulu.
That leaves Honolulu travelers with fewer direct options, less competition on existing long-haul flights, and more likelihood of paying higher fares. It also means that more Hawaii trips going forward will require routing through Seattle, reducing Honolulu’s role as a true hub. Even with some holiday flight adds, the bigger picture is contraction.
Hawaii’s aviation future: crossroads or spoke.
For decades, Hawaii was envisioned as the crossroads of the Pacific, connecting Asia, North America, and, perhaps one day, Europe. That vision is shrinking fast. At the same time, Alaska Airlines, once a regional carrier, is expanding into a new global player.
This feels like a turning point. Will Honolulu reclaim its place as any form of global connector, or will it become just another spoke in Seattle’s wheel?
Your turn.
Do you see Alaska’s new flights to Iceland and Seoul as harmless corporate moves or a troubling sign that Hawaii is being sidelined?
Would you have flown a Hawaiian Dreamliner nonstop to Europe if the airline had ever launched it? And how do you feel about seeing 20,000-point award seats to Seoul from Seattle while Hawaii loses that very route?
Share your thoughts below. Mahalo!
Get Breaking Hawaii Travel News
What some of the Seattle can’t comprehend; their gain comes at Hawaii’s loss.
As much as I feel for Hawaiians and the stakeholders of Hawaiian Airlines, this is why Hawaiian was in the position it found itself: it failed to act on the numbers.
For example: BOS-HNL had the lowest RASM (Revenue/Available Seat Mile) in the country. It didn’t matter the load factor was above 80% some days, it was a loss leader. I’m unsure about the metrics of Fukuoka, but I’d be willing to bet the RASM was pretty dang low as well.
Additionally, it just makes sense to transfer the Seoul slot from HNL to SEA. It’s a larger market, it’s less complex to feed through SEA and it’s less reliant on leisure travelers.
Lastly, Hawaii has been seeing a reduction in wide bodies operating from the mainland by all carriers, I’d expect that trend to continue as this merger continues and Alaska executes its plan to become a global airline.
I think these discussions would be better served with some hard numbers instead of nebulous gestures to “symbolic weight”. The Fukuoka route had a load factor of just 59% in May, which is unsustainable. It was ridiculous that it lasted for as long as it did. Incheon was at 71%, compared to Asiana’s 79% and Korean Air’s 83% (even though Hawaiian was selling tickets at a steep discount). And Delta couldn’t make Boston work either; most connecting traffic can easily route through JFK or stop on the west coast instead. It sucks to lose direct but Alaska is not in the business of losing money; maybe they’ll be back once things stabilize further. No one but Hawaiian flies international routes that are 59% full, and all of these numbers are publicly available on AviationDB. And the strategy to stop losing money on bad routes is perfectly aligned with Alaska’s desire to make more money on Asia and Europe routes, hence the ICN and KEF expansions.
Very well stated.
The ongoing destruction of Hawaiian Airlines is blatant and obvious. Alaska Airlines is now deeper in debt and desperately trying to expand flights from Seattle and Alaska to global destinations in a bid to save itself. The government should have seen this coming.
Alaska misled everyone about their intentions, acquiring Hawaiian Airlines solely for its Dreamliners and A330s. This was never a true merger—it’s the dismantling of an airline, its culture, and everything Hawaiian Airlines stood for. The notion that Alaska can compete with Delta or United is laughable.
Why would millions on the West Coast fly from Anchorage or Seattle to Europe,Asia etc when they can depart from SD, LA or SF, which have much larger populations and better connections? This is desperation from a struggling airline, reliant on 737s, that stole Hawaiian’s planes to chase a pipe dream.
There hasn’t been much service between ANC and Europe or Asia for more than a decade when the advent of the 747-400 made stopping in ANC between western Europe and east Asia no longer necessary.
AS shouldn’t have too much trouble competing with United out of the Northwest. That airline abandoned the region 2 decades ago and conceded it to Alaska Airlines. That void is what made it possible for Delta to buy Northwest and build up its existing Seattle hub, and to abandon its lagging efforts in PDX.
Alaska Airlines is #1 out of Seattle domestically. Why they couldn’t eclipse Delta internationally as well remains to be seen. They are talking about 12 markets out of Seattle. That’s about the same as Delta, but with superior domestic connections.
Was Alaska’s purchase of Hawaiian all about dismantling HA, rather than enhancing it?
Absolutely. Hawaiian Airlines died in 2019, it’s last profitable year. AS just bought the carcass.
Franklin M–you seem to have a point of view (you said something similar in a different BOH thread) without the facts to back it up. First off, let’s take SD (SAN airport) off your list. They don’t have many connections to Europe or Asia at all. Yes, LAX and SFO are big international airports. But, depending upon where you live, they are both out of the way (trans-oceanic flights use great circle routing, which arcs northward–SEA is on the way to Europe and Asia, SFO and LAX are not). If you live in Orange County, would you rather drive through bad traffic to LAX or depart from SNA and connect on the way in SEA? SFO (I used to fly there weekly) is not a great connecting airport because all it takes is high cloud cover to close one parallel runway, which causes major headaches. If you are on a short haul connecting flight, your flight is very likely to be cancelled on that day.
SEA has huge O&D traffic and more pax in 2024 than SFO. It will work, even w/o many connections.
As far as Seoul, the route is already saturated with near daily service by both Korean Air, Asiana, and Air Premia. Hawaiian’s outdated business class cabin is not competitive, and did not generate the revenue needed to retain the route.
Again, feelings do not keep an airline afloat. Dollars do. If they’re not there, cut the route. Plain and simple.
Again I’m stressing that is best that Hawaiian concentrate on the Hawaii market and strengthen what is profitable while eliminating what isn’t. I have never flown any of HAs East cost routes so that isn’t a loss for me and Boston isn’t even a major domestic market within the US either, maybe just not the best choice for an east coast non stop.
I just can’t argue with cutting routes that don’t preform. If Seoul or Fukuoka had been doing better than breaking even, and they weren’t, they would not have been pulled. Honolulu, geographically is not well positioned as a hub to anywhere but itself, fuel stop, yes, hub, no. A viable Hawaii to Europe nonstop market is a longshot. Europe has so many closer, cheaper tropical destinations with low cost package holidays where Europeans have faithfully returned to for decades. Hawaii is a destination, not a hub. Remember, we still have three other airlines to choose from, move your status and miles elsewhere.
Long distance flights will mostly be through Seattle or LAX for decent pricing. Already, you can fly cheaper to tahiti via LA than directly from HNL. A shame.
Not really. Look at a globe. Hawaii isn’t on the way from the continental US to Tahiti, and planes don’t need to stop there for fuel.
Alaska Airlines has go no indication they plan to build up LAX. They’ve poked around with SAN lately, but with regional jets.
SAN is probably not going to get long haul flights by AS. Although the airport is definitely upping its terminal game, it only has a single runway, making such expansion limited/difficult. The airport also has a nighttime curfew on takeoffs.
From a financial standpoint, I don’t see international long hauls from LAX in Alaska’s future, i.e., I agree with you. There is too much competition. SEA is much more advantageous to AS, where it is already the dominant carrier and has a more loyal customer base and more connectivity.
I was looking forward to flying out of PDX on Hawaiian Airlines to the Islands one day. Now I’m wondering if that will ever happen now. I’ve heard all of the glowing reports about feeling like you’re already in the Islands once you’re aboard. I understand that in the corporate world all that matters is the bottom line (money). But with Hawaii being one of our last lines of escape from our modern world of trouble and turmoil couldn’t they make an exception in this case?
I’m not sure why flying from PDX to Hawaii might never happen? Those flights go every day from PDX to Honolulu, Lihue, Kona and Kahalui, all you have to do is buy a ticket.
Your vacation starts when you get to Hawaii, your flight is your ride to Hawaii, it’s 5 hours, you will survive, you will be okay. A little music and a pink color palette isn’t going to make any difference. Pack your bag, shop for a nice yet affordable place to stay (these places do exist), get on the plane and suffer through those five hours, get off the plane and somehow you will still be alive. Now, enjoy the next week or two and forget those very few hours you spent getting here, they are the least important part of your trip.
Absent the buyout, Hawaiian would have declared bankruptcy for the third time. It survived before and would have survived again, stiffing creditors and probably yet another bailout from the state of Hawaii… but it would have survived as Hawaii’s Flagship Airline. But thanks to the buyout promoted by Hawaii’s 4 Mayors telling us how wonderful this deal was for the people of Hawaii, Alaska is looting Hawaiian, eventually leaving nothing but some neo Airbus narrow bodies, with very uncomfortable seats and dicey engines, and the ancient 717s that are about as worn out as a plane can get. Jobs sre are moving to SEATAC and HALs pilots sre getting screwed. Should have merged with Aloha, and all of this would have been avoided.
I can imagine the screaming from ITO to LIH if the US government had allowed monopoly interisland service.
BOH, I feel you have misinterpreted AS’s entry into the SEA-ICN market. It is not a “safe core route,” at least for new entrants. It is currently served by Korean, Asiana, Delta, and soon by LCC Air Premia. That’s a lot of competition–and also why AS is offering deals like BOGO, introductory low fares, and other promotions. Those deals will not last–nor will the route if it doesn’t perform.
I feel your pain concerning the changing role of Hawai’i as a TPAC hub. However, the main driver of that change is not any airline, including Alaska and Hawaiian. It is improved aircraft, allowing much longer range flights. Everyone wants nonstops if possible. Hawai’i’s future for nonstops will depend solely on its ability to generate demand. Given the state’s small population, that probably means increasing the number of international tourists. It’s a bitter pill but an inconvenient truth.
Don’t forget both Korean and Delta are Skyteam members and have a deep partnership. Seoul seems like a terrible choice considering there’s no OneWorld connectivity there. I have a feeling Alaska will be retreating with it’s tail between it’s legs within a year.
I agree with you that ICN from SEA is very competitive and that it is a SkyTeam stronghold. I am not sure about onward connectivity from ICN for AS as there are still interline agreements in place. And at least for now (that could certainly change, especially with AS becoming a direct competitor), KE is an AS partner airline, despite being in different alliances. It will be interesting to see how/if this works. One variable is the Korean-Asiana merger. Currently, both airlines have daily nonstops out of SEA. Will KE keep up 2 daily flights post-merger? If not, then the addition of AS doesn’t change current seat availability much. LCC Air Premia is also entering the market. I don’t know if your prediction is accurate, but I agree that if the route doesn’t perform, it will be gone.