Alaska Air Group is undergoing a major transformation, turning Seattle-Tacoma into a global hub, with plans to launch a dozen long haul routes by 2030. So far, the airline has added Tokyo Narita (NRT) flights, with Seoul Incheon (ICN) flights launching in September 2025, and London Heathrow (LHR) flights and Rome (FCO) flights launching in May 2026.
Well, Alaska has now announced its latest long haul route out of Seattle, also the first that won’t be operated by a wide body. It’s a cool route, but also likely the least comfortable flight operated by any US airline.
In this post:
Alaska adding Seattle to Keflavik flights as of May 2026
As of May 2026, Alaska Airlines will launch daily seasonal flights between Seattle (SEA) and Keflavik (KEF), located near Iceland’s capital, Reykjavik. The exact details for the 3,622-mile flight haven’t yet been announced, so we don’t yet know what the schedule will look like, or exactly on what day the route will launch.
In the summer season, Alaska will operate the flight daily with a Boeing 737 MAX 8, featuring 159 seats. This includes 12 domestic first class seats and 147 economy class seats. It remains to be seen how those premium seats will be marketed — will Alaska sell them as business class, as premium economy, or something else?
Alaska partner Icelandair already operates this route, with up to three daily frequencies, so there will be a lot of capacity between the two markets. Ultimately there’s merit to this route — not only is Iceland a popular vacation destination in summer, but this will open up all kinds of one-stop service between Seattle and Europe for Alaska customers, in partnership with Icelandair.
This must be the most unpleasant flight by a US airline
It makes perfect sense that Alaska Airlines will operate this route with a Boeing 737 MAX. The route is within range for the aircraft, and it’s not exactly a high yielding business market. For that matter, competitors largely also fly domestic configured aircraft to Iceland.
That being said, this doesn’t sound like a great passenger experience, and I have to assume that this must be the least pleasant flight operated by a US airline:
- It’s the longest nonstop Boeing 737 route operated by a US airline
- While I enjoy the Alaska experience, the airline doesn’t have seat back televisions on its 737 MAXs, which definitely come in handy on a flight of this length
- While some other US airlines also fly domestically configured aircraft to Iceland, this is the longest route operated by a US airline to Iceland
Of course let me acknowledge that Icelandair also flies narrow body planes in most markets to the United States, so this actually basically matches the competition. However, at least the airline has seat back entertainment, which at least helps with keeping passengers occupied.
Bottom line
As of May 2026, Alaska Airlines will launch a new daily seasonal flight between Seattle and Keflavik with a Boeing 737 MAX. This is the first new long haul route from Seattle that won’t be operated by a wide body jet.
It’s cool to see that Alaska plans to fly to Iceland, though the passenger experience here definitely won’t be much to get excited about. Then again, that’s par for the course for Iceland.
What do you make of Alaska’s new Seattle to Iceland route?
@Tim Dunn--AS has agreements with so many other carriers for one reason: it has made the Alaska Mileage Plan one of the very best loyalty programs worldwide. It's an asset that they work with so many other carriers--and no one refers to their currency as "Sky Pesos.". Furthermore, AS will have onward connections from KEF, something that DL and UA don't have. That kinda sounds like strategic planning to me.
Also, AS is not a...
@Tim Dunn--AS has agreements with so many other carriers for one reason: it has made the Alaska Mileage Plan one of the very best loyalty programs worldwide. It's an asset that they work with so many other carriers--and no one refers to their currency as "Sky Pesos.". Furthermore, AS will have onward connections from KEF, something that DL and UA don't have. That kinda sounds like strategic planning to me.
Also, AS is not a feeder airline. Yes, they have fed international partner operators (including Delta before DL became a competitor at SEA) but that hasn't been their core business. They are indeed West Coast-centric and especially focused on the PNW but have built a huge network connecting those areas with the rest of the country and a number of foreign destinations. Is this latest expansion risky? Sure, but Delta must be scratching its collective head by now, wondering why it poked the bear by aggressively trying to elbow out AS at its home base. That aggression caused AS to expand massively, offering more nonstops to more locations from SEA than any other carrier--and that was before this big international expansion. It's going to be an interesting few years ahead.
Alaska’s approach to forgo seatback screens and provide streaming to personal devices is refreshing. It’s much easier to rest or focus when you don’t have tacky ads blasting in your face from all the passengers around you who keep their screens on while they just stare at their own phones anyway.
Alaska will have 16 FC and 145 Y (161 total) seats on the MAX 8 by next year. What makes this flight a challenge is actually the eastbound flight. The nearest alternate is Glasgow which is 800 miles past KEF. Nuuk is also an option but is also 800 miles. That's a lot of fuel to carry out of Seattle. I know Icelandair has successfully flown both the MAX 8/9 on the route in the past. Exciting day for Alaska. Get the popcorn.
I took AS from JFK-ANC and was dreading it due to the length but it was actually not bad. I was in first class which has a lot more legroom and leg rests and is superior to most domestic first products in the US. I also thought the service and food were very good. I'm looking forward to their expansion.
No screen means no mandatory ad break when I am trying to nap. Every time I think about flying anyone except Alaska, I always change my mind based just on this.
Spot on !
Alaska has hundreds of free movies, TV shows, and music that you can stream for free to your personal iOS or Android device of your choosing on every flight. They have Satellite internet on every flight also. What they don't have is bulky, heavy and outdated 1990's seatback screens that requires tradeoffs to offset the increased weight of the IFE system, like less fuel or less passengers. Not really a sacrifice.
One thing AS has that many carriers don't have is AC power at every seat, even in Economy. That helps a lot if using a personal device on a long flight. DL, as an example, only has 2 outlets for 3 seats, even in Premium Economy, on a number of aircraft.
I did the CNS-HND on Virgin Australia when that was a thing and the wifi and streaming ife were also broken at the time. Even in "J" (being generous here) you definitely felt it after the 5th hour. The problem with single aisles is there's just nowhere to really move as you don't have room in the galleys to stretch either and the window seats face a much more curved body due to the smaller...
I did the CNS-HND on Virgin Australia when that was a thing and the wifi and streaming ife were also broken at the time. Even in "J" (being generous here) you definitely felt it after the 5th hour. The problem with single aisles is there's just nowhere to really move as you don't have room in the galleys to stretch either and the window seats face a much more curved body due to the smaller width.
The only thing that worked to pass the time was the very generous alcohol. Can't imagine how Y felt if they had an occupied middle seat.
AS already flies from SEA to Costa Rica. That is a few hundred miles shorter, but the return trip is blocked at 8 hours, similar to Icelandair's KEF-SEA flight. And while I understand that some will prefer the IFE, the AS 737 Max8 holds 159 passengers, while the Icelandair A321Neo has 187 seats, and both have 4 bathrooms. Neither plane sounds fun, but I would consider it a draw.
What an utterly boring way to fly to Iceland lol.
it's also worth noting that AS has a codeshare/loyalty program partnership which means that AS will be helping its competitor on yet another route that AS wants to operate.
It is hard to take AS' international aspirations seriously given that all they saw themselves as for years has been a domestic feeder airline for international carriers and now have to compete against their own partners that are, as is the case here, larger and more entrenched in the market
Alaska Airlines benefits from an employee group that is generally very supportive of their employer and is a company that consistently ranks high for customer satisfaction. I love Delta, Tim, but there are other quality rides and I do fly Alaska a lot and I rank the experience as good if not better than Delta, in both F and Y. They are well positioned for an international expansion.
I don't disagree with any of what you said but that is not at all what I wrote.
I wrote that AS didn't have the foresight to realize that it might want to be a player in international markets for years -and, in fact, codeshared w/ every international airline that launched a flight from SEA - if it didn't involve Delta.
Now, AS is feeding their own competitors, including, IIRC, DL's own JV partner, KE....
I don't disagree with any of what you said but that is not at all what I wrote.
I wrote that AS didn't have the foresight to realize that it might want to be a player in international markets for years -and, in fact, codeshared w/ every international airline that launched a flight from SEA - if it didn't involve Delta.
Now, AS is feeding their own competitors, including, IIRC, DL's own JV partner, KE.
How is it not a sign of a lack of strategic planning to sign a long-term loyalty and codeshare contract w/ FI and then decide to start your own flights to KEF?
Tim you're being out of date and picking your arguments for a narrative.
Almost every airline except LCCs have interline outside of their alliance. It's called incremental revenue.
AS strategic move was acquiring HA, step one. Step two is now evaluating their assets and relocating to maximize their return on investment (I'm sure that was a major factor in the acquisition).
An example of how you're not up to date is VS...their largest interline partner...
Tim you're being out of date and picking your arguments for a narrative.
Almost every airline except LCCs have interline outside of their alliance. It's called incremental revenue.
AS strategic move was acquiring HA, step one. Step two is now evaluating their assets and relocating to maximize their return on investment (I'm sure that was a major factor in the acquisition).
An example of how you're not up to date is VS...their largest interline partner at LHR is....guess who
again, AS decided to jump into a relationship with every airline other than DL that started a long haul international route into SEA.
Tell me what other carriers have that type of relationship in their primary hubs.
and the issue is not that AS signed those relationships but they are now helping their competitors now that AS has decided to start their own metal services.
Tell me how it helps AS to provide feed...
again, AS decided to jump into a relationship with every airline other than DL that started a long haul international route into SEA.
Tell me what other carriers have that type of relationship in their primary hubs.
and the issue is not that AS signed those relationships but they are now helping their competitors now that AS has decided to start their own metal services.
Tell me how it helps AS to provide feed to FI on the SEA-KEF route which both carriers serve.
or how it makes any sense for AS to codeshare with KE which was a founding member of SkyTeam with Delta - and Delta has had a hub in SEA for, what close to 10 years.
Help me understand how it isn't a massive strategic failure that AS is now helping the foreign carriers - some of which also have relationships with DL - on the same routes that AS now wants to fly.
and tell me where else such an arrangement exists in the US.
If SEA-KEF (3,622 miles) can be flown by a 737 MAX 8, I would imagine the same aircraft could also do ANC-NRT (3,433 miles). Of course, there's Russian airspace to contend with...
The aversion to narrowbodies makes little sense.
The 737 comfort is the same as the 707 except slightly less legroom in 2025 versus 1960. The 737 seat is the same width as the 777 or A350.
737 may not have business class pods with doors but Keflavik may not support much business traffic.
I say not ouch too much. However, bring magazines if there are no screens.
"The aversion to narrowbodies makes little sense."
This. It's all in their heads. I've seen people crying about Iberia flying A321 transatlantically, not realizing that the A321 actually offers them MORE headroom than the airline's A330 that it was replacing, while offering the exact same shoulder and legroom in coach.
It makes no sense, yet they still whine obnoxiously.
Absolutely agree. With little variation a seat is a seat, regardless of what cabin you are in. I would take a quality inflight experience ( food, FA's attitude etc) on a narrow body way before a less than quality experience on a wide body.
The 737 seat is actually wider than a 3-4-3 configured 777, which both UA and AA operate dozens of.
a big part of the preference for widebodies is about proximity to the aisle which matters much more on a longhaul flight. On the 767, approx 60% of seats in economy are aisle seats; on the 330 it is 50%; even on 9 abreast 787s or 350s, it is 44%. On the 737 or 320, it is 33%.
I know I'm probably the least qualified to play armchair airline executive, but if you'll entertain me for a second, Alaska should JV with Icelandair. If Alaska wants to be a true international carrier, even if only in one region of the U.S., they need good connecting partners in other continents, especially Europe. Icelandair would check a lot of boxes here. They don't currently JV with any U.S. airline (yes I know Southwest is trying...
I know I'm probably the least qualified to play armchair airline executive, but if you'll entertain me for a second, Alaska should JV with Icelandair. If Alaska wants to be a true international carrier, even if only in one region of the U.S., they need good connecting partners in other continents, especially Europe. Icelandair would check a lot of boxes here. They don't currently JV with any U.S. airline (yes I know Southwest is trying to partner but its early enough that Alaska can still establish itself as a dominant partner for FI), They have a lot of European destinations from KEF, and Iceland is pretty well situated on the great circle route from PNW to Europe. Alaska would get a strong european partner with access to dozens of one-stop destinations, and Icelandair would get more feeder traffic. Alaska can probably then justify up-gauging the SEA-KEF route to a 787. FI can even join Oneworld, but the AS/FI JV can probably still operate seperately from the AA/IAG/AY JV. The western U.S. would gain a fourth competitive option to Europe. I wonder if this is the long term goal with the KEF route?
and yet WN has far more potential gateways that could connect to KEF than AS does.
That is simply the nature of AS deciding after decades that it wants to compete in the international market.
and SEA is on the "wrong side" of the US to be most valuable to a European carrier.
and oneworld doesn't want a competing JV that is not linked - and the same is true for any other alliance and any other part of the world.
Actually Tim, given you are ever the opinionated one, I’m curious to know what you believe Alaska should do to position themselves as a competitive international carrier, or if there even is a path for them to do so.
I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems clear that AS wants to join the existing OneWorld JVs to Europe, Japan, and Australia/New Zealand whereby it will operate flights from SEA and HNL to key partner hubs and premium leisure destinations, essentially substituting for AA on those routes. After that, AS will see what else has demand from its customers and can also be financially viable.
It may work or it may not against...
I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems clear that AS wants to join the existing OneWorld JVs to Europe, Japan, and Australia/New Zealand whereby it will operate flights from SEA and HNL to key partner hubs and premium leisure destinations, essentially substituting for AA on those routes. After that, AS will see what else has demand from its customers and can also be financially viable.
It may work or it may not against Delta and its partners, but it is probably the only way that AS could succeed given all of the benefits that JVs have (coordinated schedules/fares, reciprocal status perks, etc.) relative to the much higher costs that AS is now taking on than it previously has.
Jay,
SEA makes the most sense as a TPAC gateway; as your only TATL gateway, it makes little sense.
There are multiple oneworld cities in Asia that they could serve from SEA; they also could add PDX and SAN int'l service.
The idea that they will be successful to 12 cities from SEA is a stretch.
I wouldn't be surprised if ICN is an early casualty.
I will never understand the obsession travel bloggers have with seatback screens. All they do is take up weight. Give me either WiFi or a screen holder and I will be happier than a seatback screen.
That would put you in the minority. AA and UA learned from customer feedback that the majority want screens.
surely you don't mean that AA learned from customer feedback. They are still ripping AVOD off of their non-international fleet.
It is UA that learned from B6 and DL.
Same, I prefer to use my own screen. And the other big plus is you don't have someone potentially banging on the back of your seat the whole flight while they manhandle the touchscreen.
Why do you care if something adds weight to the plane. And why choose between WiFi and a personal screen? Many airlines will offer you both.
Even if it’s just to have the map on in the background while you read or book or use the plane’s WiFi, the number of screens in use on planes that have them equipped show how popular they are, especially that more of them have Bluetooth capabilities to connect to your personal headset or air pods.
@george I am not a travel blogger and I’m pretty “obsessed” with having a seat back TV on a long flight. I don’t have an iPad and I don’t particularly want to watch a movie on my phone. A lack of screen on a long flight is a big reason why I avoid American on longer domestic routes.
@George, you win dumbest comment of the day. Having a screen does not deprive you of anything. Just turn it off if you aren't interested.
For me, I love having the devoted screen for flight tracking or tail camera -- especially if the WiFi is being weird and FR24 isn't loading properly for me.
Also, given the mediocrity of most WiFI services, I'd rather take seatback screen over using my laptop/tablet anyway.
Its not an obsession however, if I need to use my own Ipad to watch tv then I cant use my own Ipad to do something else. I would rather have the tv on the IFE on and then connect my ipad or laptop to the internet to get work done. Its just more convenient.
Also, Alaska's wifi is cr@p. You have to pay for it and its awfully slow.
The last two flights I took on United and Delta had such bulky IFE boxes under the seats there wasn’t even room to fit anything but the tiniest carryon item under there.
"I will never understand the obsession travel bloggers have with seatback screens"
It's not just travel bloggers, it's overwhelmingly favored by the traveling public, which is WHY airlines put up with the weight penalty in the first place. Same for personal overhead spigots.
and more and more AVOD systems are not heavy and do not require underseat boxes.
DL has a number of fleets that have their own custom sized tablets attached to seatbacks and power but which receive their content via the aircraft's WiFi rather than wires or cables. It is no different than streaming content on your own device - except it is DL's device and their content.
Icelandair used to operate a Max 8 on SEA - KEF. Recently it has been switched to an Airbus XLR, but that used to be one of the longest Max routes out there.
I like to think Icelandair put the Airbus on the route to spite Boeing for not continuing the 757 program. This is a prime route for it.
This is essentially no worse than JFK-ANC. AS just needs to work on its long haul narrow body soft product.
I've been on that flight, it's fine. This would only be 300 miles longer than that. The seat width and pitch on the AS 7M8 essentially matches the 752 that FI flies on the same route. This is a nothingburger.
We need more Alaska Airlines stories today. MORE!!!!!
Is UA not operating MAX aircraft on TATL flights beyond Iceland?
and Icelandair does fly KEF-YVR on a MAX
depends on what "beyond Iceland" means.
They fly EWR-FNC but I don't believe a United MAX touches the British isles or continental Europe.
FNC is just about directly south of KEF while PDL is actually west of KEF but both are Portuguese islands.
and the FNC-EWR flight is 7 1/2 hours which is not much different from what AS is doing either. AS is just starting much further west and going to a destination much further north.
They are both domestic configured aircraft at the range limits of the MAX with those configurations.
Yes, but that doesn't make any of what Ben said less true.
Both EWR-PDL and EWR-FNC are shorter than SEA-KEF.
UA's FNC-EWR is scheduled for 7 hrs 30 minutes tomorrow on the MAX, just 25 minutes faster than FI's KEF-SEA on the 321NEO.
7 hours or more on a domestic configured narrowbody - likely with all seats sold - is a cramped flight.
I think it's time for Alaska to have a narrowbody flatbed product.
Slap them on transcons and this flight. And maybe some Hawaii routes.
I've thought before that the 321s should be reconfigured with flatbeds for that kind of mission. Premium transcons, premium Hawaii routes, maybe some flying like this.
I would bet that some of the 330s will end up on transcon flights but the notion of long narrowbody flights in domestic configurations is not just an AS issue.
UA operates PDL-EWR which, while not as long as this flight is still a transcon flight on a narrowbody
Longer than the UA Island Hopper?
@ AJO -- Hah, fair. I added the word "nonstop" to the description of it being the longest 737 route operated by a US airline.