What started as a typical flight to Maui quickly escalated hundreds of miles southwest of Seattle. On June 3, Alaska Airlines flight 825 bound for Kahului was cruising at 34,000 feet when the crew suddenly declared an emergency and began a rapid descent. It was first reported by Aviation Herald.
The Boeing 737-900 aircraft lost cabin pressure, reportedly triggering oxygen masks and an immediate descent to 9,000 feet. Pilots then turned the plane back toward Seattle, where it landed safely on runway 34R approximately 90 minutes after departure. No injuries were reported.
The FAA confirmed the incident and opened an investigation into the pressurization failure. The airline sent a replacement aircraft, which reached Maui with a delay of about six hours.
What passengers said happened.
The affected flight, operated by aircraft N462AS, an 11-year-old Boeing 737-900, had just crossed the Pacific coastline when the issue began. Passengers reported a loud whooshing sound followed by a sudden drop in cabin altitude. The crew moved quickly to assist and calm those onboard.
Based on the flight path, the descent lasted about 15 minutes before the aircraft leveled off and turned northeast to return to Seattle. Those who were onboard described the atmosphere as calm but tense.
One passenger on social media praised the crew’s professionalism, but admitted the event left them shaken. The aircraft type typically carries around 178 passengers, though the exact number on board has not been confirmed.
Why this Hawaii route risk stands out.
Long overwater flights between the mainland and Hawaii demand more from aircraft and crews. Diversions over the Pacific are rare but serious, because there are few options for alternate airports. These routes require strict compliance with ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards), which mandate specific maintenance and reliability protocols.
A comment we received about the incident said, “A cabin pressure failure on a short domestic hop feels like one thing. Over the Pacific, it gives the appearance of something else entirely.”
In this case, the flight was still early enough to return to Seattle. Had it occurred further into the journey beyond the half-way mark, the aircraft might have been forced to fly at low altitude all the way to Hawaii then divert to a Hawaii airport.
A closer look at the aircraft.
The 737-900 involved is part of Alaska’s legacy fleet still used on Hawaii routes, alongside newer MAX aircraft. It’s certified and maintained for long-haul overwater operations such as island fights.
Flight records show the same aircraft also experienced an extended delay the day before. According to a report shared by aviation source JonNYC, there was suspicion that it may have ingested a nose gear pin into one of its engines, prompting a return to the gate and a delayed departure on a different flight. While the events appear unrelated, the back-to-back issues will likely be examined closely as part of the FAA investigation.
How Alaska responded.
Alaska Airlines confirmed the return “due to a pressurization issue” and said the aircraft was undergoing inspection. It did not say whether this was a known issue or a first-time alert on that specific airframe.
The FAA investigation, which typically results in findings being added to the public record, does not typically result in more information being released immediately.
A replacement aircraft, another 737-900 (registration N468AS), resumed the flight to Maui later that day. The airline did not announce any compensation, though it generally offers flight credits or reimbursements on a case-by-case basis.
What travelers should know.
This incident is a reminder that long overwater flights demand more—of planes, crews, and systems. Emergencies are rare, but when they happen far from land, the stakes rise fast.
Even so, American commercial aviation has one of the best safety records in the world. Incidents like this stand out precisely because they’re gratefully so uncommon—and because the system is designed to catch problems before they become disasters.
Get Breaking Hawaii Travel News
Unless it was rapid decompression, which would be accompanied with a bang or other sudden structural failure, this was most likely a pressurization controller or outflow valve issue.
As far as ETOPS flying, this scenario is mitigated by contingency planning assuming either an engine failure, loss of pressurization, or both, at the worst possible location …. Basically right in the middle of the oceanic route depending on winds.
Flight planning runs a fuel scenario with these losses at the ETP, the aircraft is then fueled to accommodate not only fuel burn for the flight but also fuel for flying at 10,000 for one of these failures. If a failure occurs before ETP, at ETP or immediately after WTP, the aircraft will always have enough fuel for these scenarios to return to the West Coast or continue to the islands.
Now, Id like to read all the expert comments from everybody else.
I’ve always been leary of long over the ocean flights with only twin engine jets. The old days of Boeing 707s, 747s and McDonnel Douglas DC8’s seemed safer.
Hmmmmm…. what an aircraft choice for your Hawaii ‘dream’ vacation:
1) Both narrow body sardine cans ( Buh bye HA A330’s & 787’s, mostly )
2) Flying on a 737MAX-killer, or a legacy 737-900 that earlier ingested a
gear pin & currently has pressurization issues.
Not like the ‘good ole days’ when most HI flights were multi-engine
wide bodies ( & the ETOPS acronym didn’t even exist), when in the ‘remote possibility’ of an engine failure, there
were plenty of remaining ones, not to even mention the added comfort, space & service !
~~Aloha~~