A small set of Hawaii route changes quietly surfaced, and at first glance, they look somewhat routine, though they are already engendering questions among passengers. Dig a little deeper, and they reveal something interesting about how Alaska and Hawaiian are testing their post-acquisition strategies.
Aviation tracker Ishrion Aviation flagged the changes. Beginning May 13, Alaska takes over Hawaiian’s Honolulu to San Jose using a Boeing 737. On June 10, Alaska also takes over the Honolulu to Salt Lake City route. At the same time, Hawaiian moves its Airbus A321neo onto both Kona to San Jose and Lihue to San Jose. Those changes are also starting on June 10.
That is the complete list. Four routes. Two airlines. Two aircraft types. No press release and no explanation. So what’s it about?
What makes this worth paying attention to is not the destinations.
It is the aircraft swap itself. The Boeing 737 MAX 8 and the Airbus A321neo are very similar in what they can do. Both are narrowbody aircraft with the range and economics to handle Hawaii–West Coast flying very easily.
If this were about aircraft capability, there would seemingly be little reason to swap anything at all. That is the telltale part.
This move is not about which airplane is better for serving these Hawaii routes. It is about how the airline wants those airplanes to work inside its network.
Alaska wants connectivity beyond just Hawaii.
Alaska taking over Honolulu to Salt Lake City is the clearest example. Salt Lake City is not just an endpoint. It is a connectivity market. Assigning a 737 to that route aligns with Alaska’s broader network, where aircraft arriving from Hawaii can more easily continue deeper into the mainland system with limited downtime.
That is where the 737 fits into the flow. Alaska already has a very extensive crew, maintenance, and scheduling depth around that fleet, which gives it more flexibility once the plane lands, rather than treating the flight as a simple out-and-back to Hawaii.
Hawaiian’s A321 plays a different role, for now.
Hawaiian’s side of the swap points to a different issue altogether. Kona to San Jose and Lihue to San Jose preserve Hawaiian-branded nonstop service from neighbor islands, something the airline has positioned the A321neo to support.
The deeper question is not why the A321 is used on these routes, but whether Hawaiian’s A321 fleet can remain viable at its current size. With just 18 aircraft, compared with Alaska’s nearly 250 Boeing 737 aircraft, the A321 fleet sits in an awkward middle ground. It is too large to walk away from easily and too small to optimize fully.
Subfleets at this scale are inherently inefficient, and that’s something that Alaska has historically been reluctant to sustain. Crew flexibility is limited. Spare coverage is thin. Schedule disruptions may ripple more easily because there is not much fleet depth to absorb them.
This is not a secret inside the industry. Alaska has signaled recently that this narrowbody subfleet eventually needs to either grow meaningfully or disappear. The middle ground rarely works well for long. Alaska learned that lesson after acquiring Virgin America and ultimately retiring its entire Airbus fleet.
What this route swap appears to do is test that reality without forcing a decision. Hawaiian keeps the A321 on a set of routes where brand presence matters. Alaska takes over trunk routes where connectivity and follow-on flying matter more than which narrowbody operates a particular leg.
What travelers actually notice.
For travelers, the change is not abstract. When a route switches apparent operators, people notice. Seat layouts change. Onboard service feels different. While loyalty programs have merged, things like seat layouts and onboard service still differ.
That is why even a small swap like this generates a reaction. Until branding fully converges, at a point still unknown, these distinctions remain visible, and Hawaii flyers are especially attuned to them.
Incremental changes, not a sudden shift.
It is also important not to overstate what this means. This is not yet a fleet verdict. And, these changes do not even take effect until spring.
What is more interesting is the pattern they fit. Since Alaska acquired Hawaiian, many meaningful changes have arrived quietly. Routes shift. Aircraft move. Schedules get redone. Instead of sweeping announcements, the integration has unfolded incrementally, one piece at a time.
This route swap fits that mold. It looks somewhat boring on the surface. Underneath, it is probing whether and where Hawaiian’s A321 fleet is scalable long term or remains a niche tool best used sparingly for the foreseeable future.
When you book a Hawaiian flight and discover Alaska is operating a route you have flown for years, does that matter to you, or do price and schedule always win in the end?
Get Breaking Hawaii Travel News
Here’s what it “really means”? As opposed to what it “means”?
Airlines must be profitable. A harsh reality, but there are only two options: Go out of business or get bought out. Apparently, Hawaiian’s business model was not profitable. Frequent flyers of a buy- out, rarely receive increased benefits from a merger.
I have traveled on Hawaiian Air for decades and hope to continue. But a recent debacle concerning lack of appropriate website security on the Atmos website, is making me rethink my intentions. My account was drained of all transferable miles, and an international business class ticket was made by someone, I did not know, on Iberia Airlines. My miles were reinstated quickly. The future process to use them is not, requiring telephone calls, pin usage, and providing legal documents. It’s the same old thing. A lack of appropriate website security protocols constitutes an increased burden on the consumer, not the business who failed to do so.
I’m not sure what you mean that Salt Lake City is a “connectivity market.” It is a dead end for Alaska Airlines, served mostly by Horizon/SkyWest.
I suspect the aircraft swap is nothing more complicated than the somewhat smaller 737 better aligns with demand in a market where Hawaiian Airlines is at most an asterisk.
As Hawaiian Airlines has no planes on order and Alaska Airlines is essentially frozen until it starts getting its MAX 10’s in 2027, no doubt there will all sorts of tweaks to optimize aircraft and crew utilization.
Remember, most people travelling between the mainland and Hawaii are originating on the mainland and don’t all have the emotional attachment to Hawaiian Airlines that many islanders do. And perhaps just as important, every day someone who remembers Hawaiian Airlines well dies off and another person who never heard of HA becomes a new visitor to Hawaii.
We booked last spring for a HA flight from Maui to San Jose on an A321 Neo in January, 2026. The booking showed the aircraft as the A321 Neo until about three weeks ago. As the flight approaches and for the last three weeks the booking shows Aircraft: Not Available. This also means we no longer have seat assignments, and are unable to access seat assignments. Want to bet the A321 will be changed to a B727?
I am showing a 321 for all of Jan.
BTW Alaska hasn’t flown a727 in years.
Whoops! I did mean a B737!
All the angst about the changes to Hawaiian Airlines brought about by Alaska Airlines is entirely misplaced. Hawaiian was well on its way to bankruptcy. Things were going to change post-Covid, and all to the worse relative to the mismanaged Hawaiian Airlines. Would all the complainers prefer an even more drastic disruption/reconfiguration/[expletive] change by an acquiror such as United, Delta, or American Airlines? The “old” Hawaiian Airlines was going extinct. I think Alaska was the best choice amongst “bad” choices compared to a totally unsustainable Hawaiian Airlines business model.
I guarantee your flight will not be operated on a Boeing 727. Alaska no longer uses that aircraft. There may be only a few of those operating in the world.
Well I’m a former boeing mechanic, which is why I only fly on Airbus whenever possible. Yeah the boeings are cheaper, but you get what you pay for and that cut corner comes with the cost. That cost is 5,779 fatalities on boeing 737s. That’s 1 death for every 2 737s produced. The only thing keeping boeing alive is the boeing stock all of our lawmakers own. Airbus for me.
@John–not sure where you get your statistics but assuming they are correct, it’s still a ridiculous comparison. The 737 has been in service a lot longer than the A320/321 series. The Airbus planes are not without their own issues. Give it time. Also, you have not linked cause and effect. How many 737 crashes were caused by pilot error, wind shear, or other causes unrelated to the planes themselves?
Alaska just initiated a schedule change for our May, 2026 OGG – SEA flight. We travel first class with a pet in cabin between Maui and Seattle, so we always make sure to book Alaska flights, because the Airbus A330-200 used by Hawaiian Airlines does not allow pets in their first class cabin – the funky plastic seat surrounds in first class on these Hawaiian planes leave no underseat space for a pet in first class (underseat stowage of the pet is required). Hawaiian always knew this, but the Alaska CS representatives do not (yet). We were told by Alaska today that we and our pet were now confirmed on a new Alaska-run Hawaiian flight – in first class on the Hawaiian Airbus A330-200, so we should be fine. I double-checked with Hawaiian separately, and they confirmed my suspicions – no pets in cabin on the Hawaiian Airbus A330-200. A pretty unique issue, but illustrates that Alaska is switching flights up pretty willy-nilly…so buyer beware.
As one who has traveled with a pet on Alaska Airlines flights, they are great. However, Hawaiian Airlines with pets are an absolute disaster. When we fly interisland with our 13lb dog, we only fly Southwest. HA has a capricious and arbitrary decision matrix when flying. Our neighbor has successfully flown from HNL to OGG with their 10lb dog and then been denied boarding on the return from OGG to HNL. This has happened multiple times to her. Never trust Hawaiian personnel. However, we have nothing but kudos for Alaska Airlines personnel.
Alaska has ruined Hawaiian just like they did Virgin America. The Hawaiian brand will be gone by the end of the decade, mark my words.
@Kyle S–would you prefer that HA no longer exist? As others have pointed out, it would have gone out of business absent the buyout. So, it seems strange to me that you expect HA’s operations to remain unchanged after the buyout, given that that mode of operation led the company toward bankruptcy. I am rooting for HA’s success under the AS umbrella.
The merger between these two airlines has been a hard pill to swallow. You can not pick a seat until you pay in full, not knowing what type of aircraft you will be on for the long haul. I have flown Hawaiian for over 75 years and if this is the way they treat loyal customers I will fly another airline to/from the islands.
Aircraft comfort means even more to our family than price and schedule. Even 1 or 2 inches in seat pitch or width mean everything to travelers who are extremely tall and cannot make themselves shorter or smaller. On mainland flights, the day schedule is tolerable but red eyes are misery filled. Such a small fleet I wonder if they will consider swapping some of these Neos in for the A-17’s now flown inter-island which are always full to and from the big island year-round.
What is a A17?
I think @G.M. means the “Boeing” 717 (really, a M-D built airplane).
@G.M.–are you saying you think HA might use 717s for TPAC mainland routes? If so, I don’t think that’s possible as they don’t have the proper ETOPS certification to do that. If you meant not using the A321s on inter-island routes, that makes more sense.
Boeing 717s are great for interisland travel but I wouldn’t want to fly one for more than an hour. The seatbacks are not padded, nor do they recline. These planes were built for commuter hops, and they do it well.
Apparently, there are not many smaller choices out there, but Alaska/Hawaiian will have to choose replacement planes soon, as the 717s are about 25 years old.
I seem to recall that B737s have to sit and cool for hours between flights, rendering them unsuitable.
Yes. Will undoubtably look at other carriers after decades flying Hawaiian. Do not like the way Alaska is changing everything.
I just booked 3 roundtrip, non-stop tickets from Maui to Las Vegas. I tried the booking on both Hawaiian and Alaska websites. The difference I noticed is that Alaska does not allow you to see the seat maps unless you buy tickets.
(If a flight is very crowded, I might choose a different flight, or airline.)
You can purchase tickets, then cancel, after seeing the maps, but that is a hassle. I booked on Hawaiian so I could see the maps first, but I wonder how much longer that will be possible?
I still prefer Hawaiian and the A-321 planes if a single aisle plane is the only option.