Hawaiian Airlines’ long-haul aircraft are venturing into new territory, signaling a quiet but seismic shift with Hawaiian-branded planes flying to Europe and beyond under Alaska Airlines’ ownership banner. But there’s much more to it than that.
Hawaiian A330 widebody becomes backbone of Alaska long-haul flying.
This week, Alaska CEO Ben Minicucci reconfirmed that the airline will launch nonstop service from Seattle to Europe in 2026. Though the exact destinations and aircraft weren’t revealed, the long-haul expansion will depend heavily on the Airbus A330 widebody jets Alaska inherited from Hawaiian.
“The A330 widebodies Alaska inherited from Hawaiian will add new capabilities to Alaska’s fleet, allowing it to reach markets it couldn’t access with the 737. — Alaska Airlines CEO.
This comes as Alaska publicly asserts that the A330s remain the backbone of Hawaiian’s West Coast service. We said months ago that this wouldn’t last and that Hawaiian’s widebody dream was already unraveling.
If flying A330s to Phoenix and Sacramento as examples worked, every other airline would still be doing it. It doesn’t, and Alaska won’t. These jets are too large, costly, and powerful to remain trapped in island-to-west coast service, especially when a new and exciting global play is on the table.
Hawaiian Airlines’ fleet strategy: off-base for too long.
While other major carriers like American, United, and Delta shifted to more economical narrow-bodies for most Hawaii routes, Hawaiian clung to a model that leaned heavily on its A330 widebodies. The result was a fleet almost twice as weighted toward widebodies for relatively short, five-hour flights. And remember that until not many years ago, Hawaiian didn’t even own any narrow-body mainland fleet.
The legacy carriers corrected this imbalance of widebody vs narrow-body decades ago, leveraging widebodies only where truly needed and using narrowbodies for most routes. Alaska is now right-sizing that equation for Hawaiian—something Hawaiian was never able to do on its own.
What does this mean for Alaska’s European plans?
The new European service will launch from Seattle, where Alaska has already begun retooling its international network using aircraft and routes it inherited from Hawaiian. That includes new service to Tokyo Narita, launching this week, and to Seoul in September. Europe is next. And none of those routes touch Hawaii.
Minicucci confirmed too this week that “the Airbus A330s will be housed in Honolulu, using Hawaiian’s existing infrastructure.”
But being based in Honolulu no longer means just serving Hawaii. The A330s will be cycling through Seattle, operating long-haul missions that Hawaii was never economically positioned to support.
Chris, a BOH reader, put it plainly: “Hawaiian just does not have the capital to expand on its own to gain market share and passengers needed to support these routes. They did try.”
Under Alaska’s umbrella, the same widebodies are being rerouted into a far more aggressive strategy.
The impact on Hawaii travelers.
The change should soon become visible for travelers who are used to mainly flying A330 widebodies, Hawaiian’s by far largest fleet, between Hawaii and the mainland. Instead, we can definitely expect to see more narrow-body A321neos and 737 MAX aircraft.
Hawaiian’s latest Boeing 787s appear to be concentrated solely around Seattle. And the comfort promise that once defined long-haul Hawaii flying is set to become harder to find. Much like Southwest—but in a different way—Hawaiian, via Alaska, will join the American, Delta, and United Airlines crowd in how they now operate Hawaii flights.
As one reader, KG, wrote: “No widebody from Seattle to Hawaii = no customer. Sorry, there is no way I am sitting in a narrow-body single aisle 3×3 seating for 5 hours on a vacation.” Dave added, “I’ve flown somewhere else altogether” just to avoid the discomfort.
Many others echoed the loss of comfort and sense of occasion. Kalani W. said, “I’ll miss the double aisles and ample space the Airbus 330 afforded on flights home to Hawaii.” Kathy asked, “What happened to that sense of aloha in the air?”
Europe plans have changed everything.
Until now, Alaska had neither a widebody fleet nor any presence in European travel. Hawaiian, on the other hand, had the aircraft but not the reach. This combination changes everything. The A330s—previously stuck flying many five-hour routes from the west coast to the islands—can now be unlocked to serve longer-haul, higher-yield destinations. From a business standpoint, this makes complete sense, and that’s why we’ve been continuing to call this from the outset, well over a year ago.
Reader Kelly, who recently flew from Kona to Europe, said: “If AS had a nonstop from SEA to LHR, that would bring the total flight hours down and necessitate only 3 flights. That would be better than 4.” The convenience is real—but so is the shift in focus.
These are not Hawaii-first routes. They are Alaska’s next big thing, and it’s huge, powered by jets that used to be known exclusively for flying you to the Hawaiian Islands.
Hawaiian branding, stretched thin.
Minicucci has pledged that the Hawaiian brand and service will remain intact on all flights to, from, and within Hawaii. But what happens when those same Hawaiian-liveried planes depart Seattle for Europe, never touching Hawaii?
That’s unclear—and it’s where the brand story seems to unravel. A Hawaiian-branded aircraft flying from Seattle to Paris may check the box in terms of function, but emotionally, it’s a huge departure—and for now, a visible disconnect.
Arik asked, “Are they stranding us out here? Do we now have to fly five hours one way in order to fly 10 hours the other way?” Another commenter added: “The bean counters of Alaska Airlines will utilize HA aircraft to routes where they can make money.”
The promise of two brands, one company, sounds great in a well-crafted press release. But on the runway, it looks more like an obfuscation of what Hawaiian once was.
What about Boston, Phoenix, New York, etc?
Several readers are asking what happens to Hawaii’s more extreme mainland routes—those that require a widebody due to range. New York and possibly Boston remain important to Hawaii’s connectivity, but the signals are mixed.
Stacy W. wrote, “Do you think they will keep the A330 from Phoenix to HNL? I sure hope so! It’s the reason we fly HA to Hawaii.” And Ted B. wondered, “Will the Boston–Honolulu route continue after September 2025? If the route goes away, I’ll make the West Coast stop, but will have no loyalty to any one airline.”
Whatever widebody routes survive, geography and traffic will force it, and not because Alaska believes in the psychology of flying twin-aisle jets to leisure markets. These decisions are financial, not emotional.
Looking ahead to 2030.
Alaska plans to launch 12 new international routes from Seattle by 2030, using widebody aircraft. While some will be operated on new Boeing 787 Dreamliners, the near-term lift will need to come from the large Hawaiian A330 fleet. There’s no plan to retire them. In fact, they’re doing the bulk of the flying now.
Hawaiian’s widebody dream may not be over—it’s just been rerouted, rebranded, and reassigned to a place far from the islands that gave it life, now years ago.
As Don put it: “Being cramped like sardines in an airline is the same feeling as standing in line at some restaurant… Welcome to Hawaii.”
But maybe that feeling is moving north, too.
Get Breaking Hawaii Travel News
This article is very incorrect on a key comment regarding the A330 being too large for Phoenix and Sacramento
Those A330 flights are always full flights especially during summer and winter so no they’re not too big for those routes
I predicted AS would take HAs widebodies for new international service from SEA. Looks like I was right.
I think the article misses a big point. Alaska is going to paint the incoming 787-9 orders in Alaska livery as it builds its international gateway out of Seattle. The Hawaiian A330s are being used in a support role until Alaska takes delivery of those orders, ratifies the labor contracts, and completes integration.
The first time I flew to Hawaii was in a 747. I avoid 737 etc like the plague period it may be just a four or five hour flight from the West Coast but I’m flying from the East Coast and just because I changed planes in Los Angeles San Francisco doesn’t make trip shorter appropriate for a no frills single aisle plane
Have flown on wide bodies to Maui for 25 years. When those stop, so do I.
Mr. Minicucci, as a Hawaiian airline / Alaska customer who travels to Europe every few months for business reasons, I’d welcome the opportunity to connect through SEA. However, please consider a Central European airport, say, Frankfurt or Paris, over LHR. In Europe we increasingly get around by high speed rail and, while London has the Eurostar tunnel route, that route is simply expensive and journeys takes too long for many attractive European destinations to serve as a good initial access point. London hotels are also typically expensive and LHR is overall not as good an experience. I’d put my money on Frankfurt.
We have been flying to Hawaii, mostly Kauai, once or twice a year for the last 15 years, usually on Alaska from the Bay Area. If a non-stop on Alaska is not available, but one is on Southwest, that’s who we fly. We are happy on both airlines. We are comfortable on narrow bodies, and generally prefer them to the “cattle car” widebodies. Alaska also has about the best frequent flyer program in the industry if you use their credit card, which we do. We have flown to Europe on Alaska miles the last two years and are doing it again this year (all 3 times to and from Milan). Last year it was all narrow bodies (OAK-PDX-KEF-MXP); we were happy with those flights. We have also flown to and from LHR from SFO on British Airways A380s on Alaska miles; we paid about $100 each extra to get on the upper deck to get in a smaller cabin. Our next trip is Aer Lingus going, American returning. We’re looking forward to flying an Alaska B-787 to and from Europe in the future.
If you want comfort fly first class or business class. Flying coach had never remotely provided comfort in any plane or configuration.
Coach is survivable when the layout is 2 two seats on the outboard sides of the aisle.
3 across seating is torture unless the middle seat is empty and how often does that happen anymore,
Wherever there is enough traffic to support a WB there is an economic case to be made. When there is not, a narrow body is scheduled. Simple fact of airline life. I like WBs, but on a 5 hour flight a reasonably configured NB is acceptable. Anything beyond that is my line in the sand. In all reality, the amount of personal space does not change no matter what type of aircraft you fly. Appreciate all you do to keep us informed, but lets not rehash the same dead horse. Mahalo
I just flew on an Alaska Air flight from Portland to Honolulu on a 737 Max. It was brutal, even with an aisle seat. And this is coming from someone who is used to long haul flights in regular economy.
Ask a former Aloha Airlines employee, who took an economic hit, and is no longer spending time with their airline’s colleagues, if this merger with Alaska would have been a More Preferred option to the alternative of what happened to Aloha Airlines. Then i will be interested in the culture of wide-body or narrow-body. With no solid “bottom line,” there is no airline to have a culture. I for one am grateful to see the culture of Hawaiian Airlines going “hand in hand” with Alaska Airlines then going “down and out” as with what happened to Aloha Airlines. As an armchair analyst the 737 has worked well for the “bottom line,” of Alaska Airlines, and the heritage of the Hawaiian A330s will work well too if used to its fullest capabilities and configured for the right markets away and outside of the Islands and the West Coast Mainland, besides of course those airports which are sufficiently capacity restrained. Congrats
I don’t think this ‘about turn’ by AS should come as a surprise. The A330 is a ‘long-hauler’, and from an international business standpoint, would be beyond the ‘needs’ of relatively short flights from the West Coast to HI and back. The ‘sardine cans’ that most fly to HI are appropriate for the duration of the flight to the islands. Unlike the A330, they pack more persons/flight, cost less to operate and purchase. From a business view, the 737/A321 are the logical ‘cattle carrier’ of choice: cheaper to purchase, more profitable to operate. It’s ‘win-win’ for the airlines, ‘lose-lose’ for the travelers. But! Ya gotta fly, right? So you will get packed in to every nook and cranny to make the 5-6 hour flight and whimper quietly, mumbling about ‘lack of service’ and ‘my butt hurts’ and ‘why can’t I get a cup of water’ all you want. Just don’t annoy the flight crew and leave that ‘call button’ alone!
Can anyone explain what the following from the article refers to? There was reference about flying from Seattle to Paris on an Hawaiian/Alaska A330. That would require not only multiple hops, but also more flight time, although I realize that quoted person was saying it satirically, if that is what here she meant.
“Do we now have to fly five hours one way in order to fly 10 hours the other way?”
The only thing I can rationalize regarding that comment was it was specifically referring to AS’s imminent SEA-Asia trans-Pac service thus requiring a backtrack from HI to SEA before proceeding to Asia if one desired to fly AS service exclusively. Otherwise AS’s service from HI to Europe would seem quite competitive compared to it’s rivals…..
Not a surprise as BOH has been very open in its reporting and warnings of these changes. Get ready to see lots of new Alaska paint jobs on these Hawaiian aircraft in the years ahead. It’s going to take some getting used too.
Unfortunately, the spirit of “Aloha” doesn’t go that far to ‘pay it’s freight’…
Of course, UA can fly 777’s from SFO/LAX as they have incredible feed from the mainland in addition to local traffic. Interesting to see if this will become a more competitive advantage for them…
Not completely sure what MInicucci’s term ‘housed’ means. Assume it’s for maintenance & perhaps training purposes as I imagine such space @ SEA is most likely unavailable. Also Hawaiian has an agreement to support @ least Amazon’s 10 A330-300’s so it’s logical that it remains in HNL. The good news is I’d imagine AS will be routing the HA 330’s to HNL for maintenance purposes & pax will have an occasional equipment substitute treat !
Maybe a hybrid/retrofit livery can be incorporated on the HA 330’s which would serve a unique marketing niche as the 330’s ply their trans-Atlantic routes …
Guess I will continue to use United.
Alaska is not seeming to care about comfort. They engulfed Hawaiian and now they are becoming not worthy.
Sad for all of us wanting comfort on our way to the islands.
All of these airlines could do better on comfort, providing elevated footstools.
Hawaiian has gone the way of Longs Drugs. While it says “Longs” on the outside of the store and the highly anticipated yellow ad comes out every Sunday, the brand is owned (and some say ruined) by parent company CVS.
Longs is not the same store that it was and it never will be again. Sadly, Hawaiian Airlines will go the same way. Alaska is out to make money for its investors. Unfortunately, they have poked the bear (Delta, Southwest, United, ANA, JAL, KAL, and other foreign airlines) and are not large enough to compete head-to-head with them. Short-term gain may lead to long-term pain.
Just curious what, if anything, was unique of special about Long’s Drugs ? They were here in California and I”d never know the difference if you blindfolded me and placed me in a Long’s, Rite-Aide, CVS or Walgreens!
Longs was very different in HI than CA. Much more attuned to the Hawaiian locals and to the tourists, as much of an oxymoron as that sounds. One stop shopping and not cookie cutter.
The airline gossip when HA first got the 787 was an HNL flight to Europe, but HAs pending bankruptcy scuttled that option.
I have 3 flights to Europe in 2026 and am looking forward to only having 3 flights from KOA to ? in Europe.
HA and AS are a much better product than the legacy carriers in mho.
Seeing a Hawaiian Airlines plane at London Heathrow would invoke more positive feelings than an Alaska Airlines liveried plane. Perhaps Alaska should have taken over the Virgin name instead.
I have been a loyal HA traveler to Hawaii for two decades. Narrow body A/C to Hawaii from West Coast, not for me. I’m sad to say i am done with Hawaiian Air.
BOH predicted this. I remember reading your older piece and thinking, nah, not that fast. And now here we are. So what’s next?
A friend of mine just flew to HNL from Portland on a 330. I don’t know how long this will last.
I am wondering if Alaska will respray the B-789s into Alaskan livery. From this article it seems like the answer is yes.
We’ve flown HA50/51 JFK to/from HNL on several occasions recently; there’s something special & exciting about seeing Pualani pull up to the gate at JFK on a dreary East Coast morning !!!
I think Alaska is in for a ride awakening. We are Years over due for a recession, and the Europe market is incredibly cut throat and seasonal.
Alaska can’t even get their loyalty program straightened out. Long time Hawaii resident who travels Alaska frequently. Can’t get mileage credited correctly nor upgrades as a 75k traveler.
And with loyalty, Hawaiian would’ve gone bankrupt and there’d be nobody to be loyal to.
I’m a pilot. You don’t waste widebodies on short hops unless you’ve got money to burn. They didn’t.
Agreed 100%.
Sad to see the magic going away. Some of us actually chose Hawaiian over cheaper flights just for the feeling of space and comfort. Definitely a new time.
It was inevitable that these changes had to take place. It was one of Hawaiian’s major problems with their schedules.
This is what happens when you try to play legacy airline with leisure routes. The numbers don’t work. That’s why Delta, United, and American pulled their widebodies off most of these routes. And Alaska has succeeded without any up until now.
Hawaiian was never going to win that bet long-term, and Alaska is simply making the call they couldn’t. It’s painful to see but it does make sense. That’s the airline biz today.
BOH has done an excellent job of covering the HA widebody story. Hawaiian and Alaska Air are my two favorites airlines so I was actually happy about the merger. I felt it was necessary to saving HA. But your instincts are correct: Like others, my only negative reaction is that what I love most of HA is the widebody planes and hope we don’t lose them.
But I’m staying philosophical. There is more to the HA experience than the widebodies. The music, the flight staff, their uniforms, and yes the Rum Punch are fun. In Seattle a lot of the ticketing staff are actually Hawaiian natives. So if the company decides that moving widebodies to longer flights to Europe, I’m still going to be loyal to HA. Regarding rebranding widebodies to Alaska for long flights that don’t involve the Hawaiian islands–why wouldn’t Alaska Airlines do that? The downside of course is it feels kind of permanent.
I believe that the B-789s will be resprayed. Most people won’t even notice. Why? The A330s have been around for so long and to most people they are Hawaiian.
Aloha is gone…Just like our Governor. “I will use the nuclear option “. Maui home owners found out 2 years ago.