One year after Alaska Airlines bought Hawaiian Airlines for $1.9 billion, the dream of a global Hawaiian brand is officially dead. Alaska executives have abandoned Hawaiian’s international expansion plans, choosing instead to fold everything into their Seattle-focused global strategy.
That leaves many to question what was lost in the process.
How Hawaiian Airlines almost became a global brand.
Hawaiian’s brand carried aspiration and an identity few U.S. airlines have ever matched. The orchid Pualani logo, island-inspired colors, and its unique and endearing sense of place created recognition far beyond Honolulu and throughout the world. When Hawaiian entered new markets, such as New York or Tokyo, the buzz was immediate. At one point, Japan routes alone represented nearly 20 percent of the airline’s revenue, and Hawaii tourism officials viewed Hawaiian as the state’s bridge to Asia.
As we documented in “How Hawaiian Airlines’ Pualani Branding Took Aloha Global,” the Flower of the Sky logo became an international ambassador that extended beyond flights, in cities from New York to Tokyo, and Beijing to Sydney.
Hawaiian’s branding was more than a marketing exercise. It carried cultural weight and immediately set the airline apart in ways competitors could not replicate. It was both an American brand success story, rare in the airline world, and a Hawaiian cultural story that resonated wherever the planes flew.
In Asia, especially, where brand prestige matters, Hawaiian’s identity gave it a unique runway, even before it had the proper long-haul fleet to compete effectively. An expanded Hawaiian presence in Japan, Korea, and beyond might have positioned Hawaii as more than a leisure stop. It could have been a global niche carrier with a distinctive aura.
Readers have told us again and again that Hawaiian once felt like a “glimpse of paradise” before you even landed. That aspirational identity, repeated in hundreds if not thousands of comments, clearly mattered.
Alaska Airlines was built for Seattle, not Singapore.
Alaska Airlines is a strong and competitive West Coast carrier, known for reliability and efficiency. Its brand works domestically but has never translated into international prestige. Outside of Mexico, Alaska’s global footprint has been minimal.
Competing with carriers like JAL, ANA, or Singapore Airlines in Asia requires not only superior service and planes but also a strong marketplace presence. That’s an area Alaska has never seriously attempted to play in.
As we detailed in Hawaiian Was Building The Future Of Flying Before It Fell Apart, Alaska’s approach has been about assimilation rather than elevation. The buyout of Hawaiian was not about preserving a unique identity, but rather about integrating it into Alaska’s existing and future mold. That approach reflects what some see as corporate arrogance. It is the belief that Alaska’s way is always the right way, even when it ignores the nuances of international markets and the emotional weight of the Hawaiian brand.
Can Alaska crack Asia’s billion-dollar market?
Hawaiian’s cutbacks in Asia are already painful. Service to Fukuoka and Sapporo ended. Flights to Seoul and Haneda were reduced. Meanwhile, Japan’s ANA and JAL now dominate Hawaii lift, controlling most of the seats between the two regions. Hawaiian could not hold the line alone, but its brand still carried recognition and opportunity.
Since Hawaiian no longer reports results as a standalone airline, it isn’t easy to know precisely how its Asia flights are performing under Alaska. DOT traffic data still shows Hawaiian-coded operations, but those results are now buried inside Alaska’s group reporting. Travelers often remark on half-empty international cabins, which raises questions about how much of the so-called turnaround is tied to brand strength versus group accounting.
Alaska has no similar resonance. Without Hawaiian’s name, Alaska becomes just another U.S. airline abroad, functional but forgettable. That is the stark difference from what Hawaiian once represented in Asia.
Reader voices: what we are losing.
Readers have been outspoken about what this buyout means, and their voices capture the loss better than anything else. Abner, a longtime reader, summed it up: “Alaska and international market, I say Alaska was the wrong choice. They should have extended the Hawaiian brand, not the Alaska brand. At least Hawaiian had some semblance of an upscale feel. Alaska can’t and won’t attract much from long-haul Asian competitors.”
JohnW, one of our most prolific commenters, expanded on that point: “Whenever Hawaiian Air entered a new market far from Hawaii the name created a lot of buzz that other carriers do not. Whether in NYC (it was given a segment on Good Morning America as I recall) or in foreign countries it is always a brand that stood out in ways Alaska never could. There is a worldwide mystique surrounding Hawaii and using the Hawaiian brand would give Alaska a substantial marketing advantage. Even in markets that do not serve Hawaii.”
And Sunil Rao took it further: “Absolutely. The word Hawaiian evokes a lot more excitement than Alaska. Don’t count on Alaska Airlines management to realize this. They ruined Virgin America, which had much better brand standing than Alaska. Their whole promise was to expand San Francisco as another hub, which they failed miserably.”
Camm W added a further provocative twist: “It never occurred to anyone to retire the Alaska name and become one global Hawaiian Airlines? Problems solved all the way around. People dream of Hawaii, not Alaska. Alaska has no recognition in Asia and the South Pacific.
Keeping the name Hawaiian would make that whole brand an instant powerhouse if they don’t hire another idiot like Peter Ingram to ruin it. This merger has the potential to shine, but the Alaska name must be retired.”
Together, these perspectives show a pattern. Alaska has not just struggled with brand building. It has consistently chosen to bury brands that arguably carried more value than its own. Virgin America was one example. Hawaiian Airlines is poised to be next.
What could have been.
It is true that Hawaiian’s international growth was never guaranteed. The canceled A350 order, repeated Dreamliner delays, and mounting financial pressures showed how fragile the airline had become.
Without Alaska’s buyout, it is entirely possible that Hawaiian would have slipped into bankruptcy, leaving nothing at all. Alaska now says the Hawaiian aircraft assets posted a positive margin for the first time since 2019. No one will ever know if Hawaiian could have found a different backing that preserved its brand while returning it to health.
Yet even with those struggles, its brand carried weight; Alaska never will. Imagine a Hawaiian Airlines that had partnered more closely with Asian carriers, used its Dreamliners to anchor premium routes, leaned into its cultural identity, and carefully expanded abroad. That vision might have cemented Hawaii’s role in the global aviation market in a way Alaska cannot replicate.
For more on how this plays into the broader integration, see How Long Will Hawaiian Alaska Dual Branding Really Last and Big Planes, Big Dreams, And The Mistakes That Broke Hawaiian Airlines.
Do you think Hawaiian Airlines could have become a global player if its brand had been nurtured instead of buried? Or was it always destined to be swallowed by a larger carrier in the dog-eat-dog airline world? Share your thoughts below.
Photo Credit: Beat of Hawaii in NYC to celebrate the start of HNL-NYC service many years ago.
Get Breaking Hawaii Travel News
I get that Hawaiian is a beloved brand and the cultural significance and what it has historically represented for Hawaii has been enormous. However, it was one of the country’s most poorly managed airlines, and it was never going to be a major global player. There isn’t enough international demand outside a few key Asian markets (which Hawaiian has performed poorly in). Furthermore, I don’t understand the drama around the changes Alaska is going to make, or the surprise at some of the decisions. There would be no more Hawaiian without Alaska. It’s lucky that we have something at all. We’ve just been given a far superior rewards and loyalty program. We just got options to redeem on so many more partners. We’re getting a better lounge. The Pualani is staying (despite frequent speculation without evidence). The 787s should never have been in Hawaii in the first place. Alaska is spending a ton of money to preserve the brand. It might be time to lean into the positives…
That lady dancing in New York City doesn’t look very Polynesian to me.
This merger outcome is a tragic success story. The corporate identity that Hawaiian Airlines 🌺 built was a model of branding efficiency. It seems that Alaska’s own success may have paradoxically blinded them to this valuable aspect of their new acquisition. Alaska Airlines had the chance to benefit long-term from the distinctive Hawaiian Airlines aura and its worldwide appeal.
We often expect corporate strategies to be developed and executed in a rational, businesslike way. In this case, however, the disregard for such a tangible asset feels more like the regime-change maneuvers of the Lannisters in HBO’s Game of Thrones or other more recent political upheavals.
Actually, many of us Do remember Aloha Airlines. I learned to love the Hawaiian spirit and warmth of the Hawaiian culture. Who can forget “Miracle Landing,” the TV movie about an Aloha Airlines’ fuselage being ripped off while in the air? Or the senior flight attendant Clarabelle, who was ejected from the plane and never found?
Many national carriers throughout the world are not run for profit. But rather looked at as essential transportation and symbol of national pride. Weather they are state owned, Lufthansa, Air Fiji, Emirates, or state subsidized, Air New Zealand, Singapore, or Thai; airlines are seen for much more then just “profitability.” If the people of Hawaii think our interests lay better in Tacoma then Koapaka, you will be sadly disappointed.
Lufthansa hasn’t been state owned since 1994. That’s pretty much the case around the world with first and second tier airlines. You have to dig really deeply into the Third World to find an airline today that is state-owned and operates “As an instrument of national policy.”
Some governments have a stake in their national airlines, but those airlines are operated strictly as a for-profit business in the interests of all the stockholders.
The days of governments pouring money down airline ratholes as a matter of national pride, or as a strategic tool ended shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union
Alaska does one thing well, which is murdering brands.
They succeeded at doing so with Virgin America and will absolutely do the same with Hawaiian.
I don’t understand why, because branding and marketing has never really been their strong suit. Case and point with “Atmos” – come on, really?
Why not embrace what Hawaiian did well, which is brand power, and expand it.
Where or how would you “expand the brand.”?
What’s the problem? Hawaii in general is losing it’s global identity in being only the destination for the Rich and wealthy. Greed,fees,taxes,room rates,cleaning fees, deposits, only to be charged to the tourists. Wait until Hawaii’s identity will be full of the unemployed, welfare, and state assisted residents. Maybe Hawaii needs to be focused on their own identity instead of some Corporate airline identity.
They are correct. Alaska will never evoke the romantic culture Hawaiian Airlines does. Frozen tundra verses warm beaches is not even close. If they value their markets,Alaska should lean into the Hawaiian name, image, and cultural heritage people love.
My family has traveled to Hawaii for close to fourth years.I have seen first hand how the Alaska Take over has begun to mute and or erase the Hawaiian Airline (HA)) visibility. The great larger Hawaiian air craft in San Diego has been replaced by Alaska smaller aircraft leaving those of us who flew business or first very little options flying from San Diego. The look and feel of the HA planes transported you immediately to the tranquility of the Islands; the second you set foot on board. Alaska to Hawaii simply does not convert the past level of comfort and cultural transformation. Think of the visual of the cold fur bundled Alaska Logo versus the Hibiscus welcoming you to the Islands. Simply a visual disconnected that will not serve Alaska as a corporate entity for long. Inclusion not elimination will help the resulting airline succeed.
It’s a difficult thing when an airline identity disappears such as Pan Am or TWA. However Hawaiian’s fate will be better than that of Aloha Airlines.
This article lacks the financial reality that Hawaiian was in. It was headed for insolvency absent a buyer. One could be angry or upset at Alaska but at the end of the day many of the flight cancellations that have happened from HNL to Asia would have occured through the reorganization process. I am sympathetic to the perception of the loss of brand etc but the financial condition of the airline was dire and the pandemic only accelerated issues that existed prior.
The airline name means very little. My family has annually visited Hawaii for over 45 years. We switched our travels to Mexico and the Bahamas over the past two years because of costs. Everything is less costly and we have essentially the same travel experience. Aloha and may God bless the islands – I think you’re going to need His help.
I too had hoped Hawaiian Airlines would remain visible, but global and island issues that couldn’t be predicted severely impacted the airline’s financial position. Having Hawaiian Airlines go bankrupt would have resulted in the same situation. No one remembers Aloha Airlines and it too embraced Hawaii’s aloha spirit which is really about the Hawaiian people, history and culture. Let’s hope this survives.
To me the simple fact, especially for Asia and other Pacific markets:
Alaska (Airlines) – cold place with eskimo temperatures. Seattle is also cold. Asian tourists not looking for that IMO.
Hawaiian – Tropical, warm, fun, beaches, leisure. It’s a brand that just carries that persona.
Alaska is missing the boat on this one.
No one flies to Alaska or Seattle to go to the beach!
@macprohawaii: But wouldn’t it seem silly to fly a Hawaiian branded plane from East Asia to Seattle? (The Hawaiian brand is currently operating these flights, although I don’t expect that to last once the 2 airlines get a combined operating certificate.). Do you really think Asian passengers don’t know their intended destination? How would using the Hawaiian brand entice people to fly from one cold climate to another? It’s still cold when you arrive. What you said makes sense for Hawai’i flights but not for flights that don’t touch Hawai’i. And guess what? AAG will be using the HA brand for flights that do go to Jawai’i.
As a multi-decade platinum flyer with Hawaiian I feel compelled to respond to this article and some of the comments I’ve read.
At this moment I am sitting in Osaka with a group of Japanese friends and I can tell you with great accuracy that the Hawaiian brand is well known and well respected. When I ask about Alaska as a brand people think cold and typical low quality American type airline. Big mistake to rebrand Hawaiian airline and the international market when Hawaiian has worked for years to develop brand and quality recognition. Really arrogant and stupid Senior Management at Alaska who don’t seem to know what they’re doing with international markets. There is no American flag carrier that can even begin to compete on service and quality with any Asian airlines. In a couple of days I’m flying to Hong Kong on Cathy Pacific in premium economy and it is better quality than any American Business class in terms of service and seat comfort.
Keep in mind that for travel to and from the United States, roughly 70% of the passengers are Americans, so brand recognition of Alaska Airlines isn’t as important.
I remember going to London in the mid-1980’s and seeing ads for Delta Airlines and their one little flight between Atlanta and London Gatwick.
The name “Delta” was meaningless in London at the time, but it was certainly well known it Atlanta and that’s what the company was focusing on. There is Lots of travel between Japan/South Korea to not just Seattle, but around the Northwest. You wouldn’t believe the investments in agriculture around the Northwest from Asia. It’s not just about summer tourism, of which there is a great deal.
So, yeah, there will be a lot of work to do in brand recognition for Asian originating travel, but it won’t be as hard as you might think and Alaska Airlines is certainly in it for the long haul.
Very well said, @Goforride. After the fall of PanAm and TWA, no one in other parts of the world knew much of anything about Delta, United, etc., but both have become behemoths. AS doesn’t need to become that big to be successful. They will do just fine using their own name.
Hawaiian lost it. Attitude got weird, their employees weren’t kind or helpful on ground services especially LAX. Honolulu agents had chips on shoulders and upgrades were friends and family.
Alaska had good pricing, food and services.
The Aloha spirit only works if you have it.
When flying I viewed Hawaiian Airlines like a national airline similar to Qantas on my way to a mythical far away destination in the Pacific. The ambiance of both put me in the mood of an exciting adventure before reaching the destination. Such a shame to see Hawaiian swallowed up. From magical to yellow school bus in a missed opportunity for Alaska to have the Hawaiian name as the surviving identity.
I hope Alaska keeps their Asia routes out of Honolulu, since many locals have family connections in Asia. With HNL being a hub, it cuts the flight time to being more manageable with a short layover. Also, Ive spoken to many Asians and many don’t feel safe visiting the continental USA, but are at ease visiting Hawaii. Even if costly, they do feel safer among the locals. I’ve moved away from Hawaii to the mainland and always look forward to a stopover in Hawaii. It gives me a chance to visit friends, relatives and eat the local foods there. I will surely miss Hawaii, if we have to take the flight to Haneda from Seattle. The aloha spirit will be lost without HNL being a hub for Hawaiian. Many of us are of Asian ancestry and do have our connections to the Asian countries. It won’t be the same and I like many who don’t live in Hawaii will probably use Zip Air, United etc. just any old airline. Hawaiian brand lost and will become like any other big airline.
It seems your article is stuck in the past. I loved flying HA, unfortunately with just having their first profitable quarter since 2019, HA was not going to make it on their “Global” mission and they weren’t able to pivot to profitability.
Their people are great, their service is great but the global expansion and its implementation did not work.
So many in denial. Hawaiian bankrupt twice, soon to be three times. Rescued by Alaska. Now Alaska feeling the pressure of Hawaiian’s near billion dollar debt and systemic operating losses, so Alaska makes difficult decisions to preserve combined brand. If Hawaiian is so much more recognizable than a
Alaska, why was it continually broke? Admit you are all just sad you lost your lovely airline that had a failed business model.
Pan-Am, TWA, Northwest Orient. All butchered by corporate wizards.
Oh no!
Where is the promised “Synergy” between the bankrupt Hawaiian and the hostile buyer Alaska?
When Peter Ingram took his $13,200,000 it was obvious Hawaiian Air days were numbered.
Monthly APAC flier on HA here. HND, KIX, NRT, ICN, PEK, FUK, CTS in that order. Show us the “half empty international cabins” !!! They are a myth from a time long past.
Our local population has started discovering Japan and flights have been as busy as can be!
You are absolutely right regarding the global brand. No offense, but who cares about Alaska apart from people in the Pacific Northwest. But Hawai’i invokes dreams even as far away as on the also beautiful white sand beaches of Tel Aviv and Hof a Carmel.
Your local population, meaning the people of Hawaii, have just started discovering Japan?
I suspect Hawaii is not that far up on the list of places people in Tel Aviv dream of.
Yes. You’d be surprised how many ohana are repeatedly going to Japan these days.
I have had a project in Tel Aviv for the past decade and have been in and out several times a year. No, really! Young Israelis love US culture and you’d be surprised how many younger Israelis are dreaming of Hawai’i and many have even been. Up on Lake Kinneret in the Galilee, there are even Hawai’i beach resorts.
@Alex–for those who don’t know, most people refer to Lake Kinneret (it really is a freshwater lake) as the Sea of Galilee. I didn’t know there were Hawaiian-themed resorts there. That’s pretty interesting. I did know that one can see people carrying surfboards near the Mediterranean beaches of Tel Aviv so I am willing to believe there is interest in Hawai’i. How much of that would actually translate to tourism, given the long distance, number of closer beach resorts, and the political situation, is questionable.
Hi Steve, agreed. I mentioned Israel as an example of the surprising reach that the idea of Hawai’i has. Tel Aviv is simply too far and it is more realistic for my Israeli friends to vacation in Greece, Munich, Italy, Turkey, or even on the US East Coast.
Hawai’i’s international image is positive—but so is Alaska’s. Europeans and Aussies have made the trek to Alaska over many years, especially on cruises, many of which began in Seattle. When AS first expanded into California, many people were surprised they did so well using the Alaska brand. I suspect the same will be true in their international expansion. You are correct that Asians have a special affinity for brand names but that is mostly in terms of high-end consumer goods. I am not at all sure it extends to airlines. JAL, ANA, Singapore, and Cathay Pacific are all good brands because they provide great service. For sure, AS will need to step up its game in that regard but don’t forget that they are partners (oneworld) with both JAL and Cathay. AS’s success or failure will rely more on service than brand name.
To answer your question, no, I don’t think HA could have been a global player on its own. That has as much to do with geography and O&D demand as much as anything else. New technology aircraft have made refueling stops obsolete. The demand has to be there for global service and it just isn’t.
BTW, nice photo from Pershing Square, across from Grand Central Terminal in NYC. You are undoubtedly correct that AS didn’t get that kind of promotion when they started flying to NY!
Seriously, BOH? Please name any instance of a successful company that bought out another company and replaced its own brand name with that of the company it purchased. I can’t think of any.
The title of this article is misleading. I don’t agree that HA’s global identity is lost. There are still international long hauls from HNL and there will be—as long as they are profitable. You are correct that it is now harder to separate HA’s financial performance from AS’s but you can still determine load factors. The LF for HA’s Fukuoka flights was terrible.
It has absolutely happened before. US Airways kept the American name, and Continental kept the United name. Both times the buyer gave up its own brand because the acquired one had more global value. That’s the point here: Hawaiian’s name carried recognition Alaska doesn’t. Yes, some long-hauls remain, but the Hawaiian brand itself is what’s disappearing.
@ Mark M–while I appreciate your passion, neither example you gave is true. United bought Continental, not the other way around. The US Airlines/AA merger was more of a true merger than a buyout, although the US Airways management team did take over the reins at AA. However, US Airways didn’t really buy out AA and there was an agreement in place to keep US Airways hubs in place for a period of time. There was no such agreement as to AA hubs, which speaks volumes about the nature of the merger.
FYI, USAirways did not acquire AA it was a merger as was United Continental.
America West Airlines (Bought USAirways and changed its name to “USAirways”) USAirways (bought American Airlines and changed its name to “American Airlines) . South Central Bell (Now AT&T). Allied Signal. (Bought Honeywell and changed it name to “Honeywell”) Bank of America (Bought by NationsBank and changed its name to “Bank of America”).
@Goforride: US Airways didn’t buy AA–it was a true merger–but a couple of your other examples are pretty good. Thanks. But Bank of America sounds national and did even when it was only in California.. Both Hawaiian and Alaska sound more regional, even if they aren’t in actuality. Alaska has spent years expanding its brand such that most of its flights don’t touch the state of Alaska these days and many don’t touch SEA either. The same cannot be said of HA, where every flight has always touched HI (until after AAG bought them). It makes very little business sense for AS to drop the Alaska brand in favor of a different regional brand name that has nothing to do with where it is flying, as has been suggested here. Do you really think the Hawaiian brand would entice Brits or Japanese people to fly to Seattle? I don’t.
I agree. One thing that both Hawaiian and Alaska are saddled with in an attempt to have transoceanic ambitions is a name that sounds quite regional.
Then again, Icelandair has had come success in capturing business from North America through Iceland and on to Europe.
I wondered if maybe Alaska Airlines might come up with a wholly new brand, but the new Northern Lights livery dispelled that.
Of course, a name that is even less geographically obvious has never stopped Southwest and no one thinks Delta Airlines only flies to the Mississippi delta.
It doesn’t take long before people stop thinking of the significance of the name.
The only thing that matters is can they get someone who wants to fly from Sacramento to Rome to choose an airline named for a far away state that has nothing to do with their journey.
If I lived in Sacramento, I would consider taking AS to Europe or Asia via SEA. Have you flown out of SMF recently? AS and HA are both in the new terminal, which is beautiful, and security lines are short. SEA is geographically on the way; SFO and LAX, and Midwest and East Coast hubs, not so much. AS is already a popular choice at SMF, even for intra-California travel. The same can be said for FAT, SBA (which doesn’t even have flights to LAX), SBO, SAN, SNA, etc., etc. A lot of factors will go into airline choice for connecting traffic from smaller CA airports but I don’t think the Alaska name will be a negative. AS is extremely well-established in CA and is another opportunity for oneworld loyalists who don’t want to fly AA–and AAs long-hauls from LAX and SFO are fewer in number these days anyway.
Unfortunately Hawaiian Airlines since being bought out by Alaska, shows where Alaska’s priority is. What’s going to happen when ASs A-330s get old? Will AS invest in newer A-330 NEOs? I knew AS was going to divest Virgin America. Boeing made sure of that particularly their A-320 series.
Boeing had nothing to do with the decision to retire the Virgin Airbus planes. That was more about flying just one aircraft type, which was less expensive than flying multiple types. It also allowed for more operational efficiency in the case of mechanical issues, making it easier to swap airfcraft.
No, I don’t think AS will buy A330neos. However, they are going to upgrade the interiors of the existing A330 fleet, which was pointed out in the article.
Here’s what simple from Alaska’s playbook. They didn’t integrate or keep separate Virgin America – they bought it as a strategic move to protect and add routes. What the geniuses at the table forgot was the loyalty, brand and experience was top notch. Myself, friends, family and work colleagues preferred it even over cheaper offerings on the same route. We were paying for the service, mood lightning, fresh planes and top notch customer service.
So, here we are again with more geniuses that just don’t seem to “get” what brand and loyalty, customer service and experience – actually mean. It’s almost an entire repeat. The difference now is that I have about 3 law firms watching them like a Hawk and the minute they deviate from the promises, we’re coming. Mark my words.
I don’t know if anyone at any airline these days is truly a genius. Virgin America wasn’t sold because they were in stellar financial shape, although it was probably in better shape than HA. And no promises were made to keep the Virgin brand going. The AS execs are such geniuses, though, that they still have to keep paying royalties to Virgin in the UK for use of the name–even though they haven’t used it in a long time.
The major strategic reason for buying Virgin was as a poison pill to prevent DL from being able to do a hostile takeover of AS. Remember, this was right after the “battle of Seattle” began. There was no such motive for the takeover of HA. In this case, you are correct–promises were made and I fully expect AS will live up to them for the duration of the agreement. However, dropping the Alaska name in favor of the Hawaiian name was never part of those promises.
Alaska itself was a really good airline. I appreciated flying them for a dozen years ago between Hawaii and the SF Bay Area.
But it is increasingly becoming clear that its leaders have a small town mentality. They are clearly having a really hard time to expand their executive minds to fit a more global world. They think they have a plan — make Seattle a hub for the world — and they seem determined to execute it no matter the costs. By all means, try making Seattle a hub. But do it carefully, slowly.
Hawaiian at its best, under Mark Dunkerly, was the exact opposite. He made only few mistakes, one of which was being too early for the mainland China-to-Hawaii market, but he was almost perfect in “reading” the Japan opportunity.
I agree that AS’s expansion plans are aggressive and risky. I would just point out (since you are from the Bay Area) that in 2024, SEA had more passenger traffic than SFO, although not by a lot. The Bay Area has a lot of O&D traffic but so does the Seattle area. My own experiences traveling to SFO almost weekly for a number of years for work is that it’s a decent airport but it is prone to severe delays because even high cloud cover is enough to close down one parallel runway, reducing capacity by 50%. As a hub, that makes it a risky connecting airport, especially since under those conditions, long-haul international flights get priority for landing while shorter haul domestic flights are delayed or even cancelled. Another hub on the West Coast that is better located (shorter distance) than SFO to both Europe and Asia has a reasonable shot–and it’s already been a global hub for many years, just not with AS.
“Without Hawaiian’s name, Alaska becomes just another U.S. airline abroad, functional but forgettable.”
The same also describes Hawaiian’s tired worn-out aircraft operating to Asia, which cannot compete with the premium cabin offerings of JAL, ANA, Korean, or Asiana. Vibes will only take you so far. Let’s not get carried away with hyperbole.
The trays in the bulkhead seats are getting a bit old and the seats could use a replacement in the next 3 years or so. Some of the toilets are getting to the end of their life. But these problems are minor. Hawaiian A320-200 service between Hawaii and Japan is still among the best deals out there. ANA and JAL have superior product, but seat space is tiny, baggage rules are insane and really enforced, and premium economy is way overpriced for what it offers.
Honestly, yes, Hawaiian was in deep financial trouble. Without Alaska, there may not have been anything left. That not withstanding, I hate the loss of the brand more than I can say, but maybe survival in some form is better than nothing at all. Time will tell.
Survival of the brand? This is not what we are seeing here, is it? This is death in slow motion. Without a strong CEO who understands Hawaii and has a global outlook — no offense, but a sustainability background doesn’t cut it — the Hawaiian brand is already doomed.
I’m not sure people realize what this means for Hawaii itself. Losing Hawaiian’s global identity is like losing your cultural ambassador. It’s not just about flights at all, it’s about how the world sees Hawaii.
That is very well said. I am hopeful that more worldwide connections from SEA, particularly to Europe, will give Hawai’i more one-stop connections than before. Time will tell if that works but if it does, it could help build more markets for Hawai’i travel and maybe even lead to nonstops from HNL.
I used to book Hawaiian specifically because the experience felt quite different — the music, the crew, even the colors. The entire vibe. Alaska can copy the planes, but it will never capture that feeling. It is gone.
We saw this coming with Virgin America. Alaska buys the brand, guts the identity, and calls it a strategy. It’s a tragedy for Hawaii and for anyone who believed in Hawaiian’s potential.
Just returned to KOA from HND on Tuesday. There was nothing with Alaska branding in the whole boarding area. I found that quite odd.
Moving forward is AS trying to underwhelm Asian routes with little or no branding? You would think they would be making an effort to let people overseas that they are the new player in town.
AS might be in over their head. Their international route structure especially to Europe is going to be very thin with everything going through SEA.
Delta/AF is looking better all the time.
I have only flown in and out of HND once but as I recall, all of the gates are shared and assigned by the airport. That’s likely why you didn’t see any particular airline branding.
Yes, gates and check in counters in HND and KIX are usually operated by ANA or JAL staff. Apart from TV displays, there are no airline specific brand displays.
What is gonna happen to my hawaiian miles on the hawaiian miles credit card
Hawaiian Miles will be automatically transfered to Atmos Rewards. If you have not already created an Atmos Rewards account, create one on alaskaair.com, then go back to your Hawaiian account and link your miles to your Atmos account. Towards the end of September, Hawaiian Miles will be “locked” for a few days to facilitate the transfer to Atmos. It’s better for you to create the Atmos account now to seamlessly allow the transfer to an existing Atmos account. It’s pretty easy to do. I have 200,000+ Hawaiian Miles and I’ve set up the linkage. Be proactive and do it now.
Not correct. Hawaiian Airlines purchased the 787 to replace the A330. Instead Alaska is taking the 787 to Seattle and keeping the 330 Honolulu, a net break even for widebody long haul out of Honolulu. They have committed to refreshing the interiors of the 330s. The only change there is that instead of a 787 out of Honolulu they will continue with the A330 and not replace the 330s. I actually prefer the seating setup in the 330 (2-4-2), I do like the 787s but happy riding on a 330 and keeping what Hawaiian has established. The biggest difference I think is that if a route isn’t making money Alaska will stop flying it whereas Hawaiian kept flying it, which is why Hawaiian was looking for a buyer to bail it out in the first place.
Alaska may have saved Hawaiian from bankruptcy all right, but they buried what made the airline special. No one in Tokyo or Seoul dreams about flying Alaska. They dreamed about Hawaiian.
I am not sure they really dreamed of flying Hawaiian, although they may have dreamed about Hawai’i itself. As another poster pointed out, HA’s tired A330s don’t compete well with the likes of JAL, ANA, Korean, and Asiana.
Exactly, Ernie. That is the psychology you’ve got to tap into.
Seattle = rain, dark, clouds, fog. Culturally interesting and beautiful back country, but Nothing Like almost mythical Hawai’i.
When I mention to my neighbors here in our Kyoto downtown condo where we live these days that I am flying to Europe, they are “so what?” When I mention Hawai’i, their eyes lit up. “Iiiiiii, ne?”. (Japanese language for Envy.) Make no mistake. Japan will come back to Hawaii. When it does, Alaska better be ready.
As a shareholder, I’d want an airline I invest in to tap into That energy.
LOL! It’s not foggy in Seattle.
It is seriously gloomy in the winter, but that is more than made up for by glorious summers when the place is overrun with tourists from all over the world.
Japan is never coming back. It’s population is aging and declining in numbers and that’s just going accelerate.
Think in terms of the lifespan of a 787. What will the demand for that plane look like over its lifetime of serving the Japanese market from Hawaii?
Down…down…down.
Japan’s demographics are undeniable, but I don’t buy the simplistic “shrinking population = shrinking demand” story. A big share of our workforce here is white-collar, and AI plus automation could support living standards even with fewer workers. What matters for Hawaiʻi is not raw headcount but disposable income and cultural preference, and those ties to Hawaiʻi run deep. The weak yen is the immediate brake on travel — not lack of interest. Over a 787’s lifespan, airlines will keep flying where people most want to go, and for Japanese leisure, Hawaiʻi will stay near the top of the list.
HA was failing and Alaska saved it. There are 2.4 million residents of King County, WA, and 1.4 million in the entire state of HI. The GDP of King Co is 445billion, it’s 90 billion for HI. It’s about money and who has it and that is okay. Why this delusion of greatness? Why this hand ringing and tooth gnashing of greatness lost for HA? It. Was. Never. There. Money isn’t everything, but empty pride is a lower form of delusion. Once a person is on the beach or watching a lava flow, do you actually think they care how they got there? They do not.
Robert, but how many people outside the US have ever heard of King County, WA?
@Alex–you have completely missed the point. No one is marketing King County so whether people have heard of it is irrelevant. What is relevant is its population compared to Hawai’i’s and how that drives flight demand. Robert failed to mention that the Seattle metro area (parts of 3 contiguous counties) is about 4.5 million, roughly 3 times the population of Hawai’i, and that the combined population of WA and OR is about 12 million.
@Steve F — yes, the “hub math” does favor Seattle: King County has ~2.3M residents, the metro over 5M, and WA+OR ~12M, more than enough to sustain a long-haul gateway. But destination brand still matters — “Hawaiʻi” sells itself in Japan, Korea, and Australia in a way “Seattle” never will, which is why Alaska is keeping HND, KIX, and Australia from Honolulu while shifting NRT and ICN to Seattle.
The complication is that NRT and ICN were not just Japanese and Korean feeders; they also funneled an increasing amount of Greater China tourist traffic into Hawaiʻi. On top of that, Hawaiʻi is culturally complex and Japan is central to its success, yet Joe Sprague, whom HA employees just came to trust, is stepping down and Alaska has installed a Hawaiian CEO with no prior airline leadership.
SEA may be the scalable connector and HNL the iconic destination, but losing key Asian connectors and underestimating the cultural challenge could make the strategy fragile.
@Alex–I appreciate your kindly worded reply. I understand that there is a lot of emotion in these discussions. There are also conflicting opinions among supporters of the HA brand–some say it means nothing now while others, such as yourself, want it used on routes that don’t touch HI.
It looks like HA currently flies HNL-ICN only 5 times per week, the same as Air Premia, but KE and Asiana are both daily. That indicates that the route is well served, even if HA drops out, and probably bad load factors for HA. AAG stated that low demand drove its decision to cut the route. I am guessing Joe Sprague had a hand in the decision before he left.
AAG is refurbishing HA A330s, which will help HNL long hauls, but emotions aside, demand has to be there. SEA has a lot of O&D; it’s not just about connecting traffic. The region has a huge AAPI population and in Kansai, the name Ichiro is still magical and evokes Seattle.
@Steve, I agree the ICN market is crowded, but from my own travel I can tell you those flights are mostly full — the issue is yields, not lack of demand. The same story at NRT, where ZipAir and others drove fares down. What puzzles me is Alaska’s posture: they’re bold about pouring resources into a risky Seattle global hub play, yet at the same time they’re quick to pull back from contested markets like ICN or NRT where competitors clearly see value. If those competitors aren’t walking away, maybe the smarter question is how to market and position the Hawaiian brand more effectively instead of giving up. Otherwise Alaska risks teaching itself that every head-to-head fight outside Seattle is unwinnable.
@Alex–You may be right about low yields. I wanted to discuss that but a 1k char limit is problematic. VFR pax are always looking for the lowest fare. I suspect there is more business traffic to/from/thru SEA than HNL. I also think more mainland outbound tourists are looking for premium seats, which drives up yields.
HNL has 2 problems as a hub: it’s off the coast of Mexico so out of the way for connections to East Asia from the mainland. Also, everyone wants nonstops if possible and new planes make them possible from more markets. So, in order to improve yields on HNL routes, it will be necessary to draw in more Asian tourists who want and will pay for premium seating. If HI is willing to do that and successful at it, I see a bright future for Asian nonstops to/from HNL. And, I sincerely hope it happens.
Obviously you’ve never traveled to Alaska in the summer.
Agree 100% on the A330 Seating, in First/Business, it was 2-2-2, how many Couples on a romantic trip to Hawaii want to sit in the middle. All downplayed the Seating in First, from basically California, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Portland and Seattle, who needs Sleepers when Hawaiian still flew Daytime flights? With over 95 Trips to Hawaii from 1986, many things changed from initially Delta L-1011’s in First in Dual Aisle, the American, Hawaiian was the promise of and the glamour of the Yankee Clipper. Someone will pick up the ball, maybe Larry Ellison, but bankruptcy, was not solely Hawaiian, it was the State Government under Governor Ige, and how the One Party System treated Covid, the Tourist and their own residents in the Service Industries, paying PPR $ instead of getting back to business of Tourism, this, while taking the Counties Hotel Tax and putting it in the States General Fund, while creating a dangerous under-current of dis-like and even hate for mainland American’s!8
We Alaskan’s do indeed understand how you feel about loosing the Hawaiian identity. Some years back, the Seattle Corporate offices of Alaska Air were going to remove our Eskimo from the tail. The push back was similar to what I’m reading here. As a resident of the 49th and 50th state, it would have been wonderful for them to keep a combination of logo’s on the tail like the first promotion of the merger. BTW, Alaska has a large population of Polynesians and Asians and a large percentage of international travelers.
OMG. BOH totally forgets that Hawaiian Airlines was on a certain road to bankruptcy. I fondly remember Aloha Airlines, with its great warm chocolate chip cookies. But they went bankrupt and liquidated. At the time, I preferred Aloha Airlines *any day* over Hawaiian Airlines. But I got over it. Alaska Airlines was, *by far,* the best combination for the soon-to-be-bankrupt HA. Do you think that United, Delta, or American Airlines (or God forbid, Southwest) would have been anywhere close to where Alaska has tried to maintain aloha? Alaska has specials for Hawaii residents (Huaka’i). Do you really think another big corporate would have done that?
Well…Thank you for “enlightening” us.
The article seems to have articulated it best…inflated “corporate arrogance”.
Respectfully, what’s your point?
It’s important to be honest here, the world doesn’t just see Hawaii through leis and hula dances. Increasingly, Hawaii is seen as a place bogged down by backward politics, protectionism, and resistance to change. While other global destinations evolve and modernize to stay competitive, Hawaii often clings to outdated models that stifle progress. That image of being unfriendly to innovation, hostile to outside investment, and politically paralyzed does more to damage Hawaii’s global identity than the loss of any airline brand ever could.
Southwest also has specials for HI residents.