I don’t think this is terribly surprising, but Alaska Air Group seems to have quietly increased its Boeing 787 order book, in line with the carrier’s long haul aspirations.
In this post:
Alaska Air Group Dreamliner order increased to 17 frames
In 2018, Hawaiian Airlines placed an order for the Boeing 787-9. The order was for up to 20 jets, including 12 firm orders and eight options. At the time, these planes were intended to modernize the carrier’s long haul fleet, which otherwise consists of Airbus A330-200s.
That strategy evolved over time, and in 2024, we saw Alaska Air Group acquire Hawaiian Airlines, which has been quite transformative for the company. As part of this, we’ve seen Alaska announce plans to turn Seattle-Tacoma (SEA) into a global gateway, with plans to operate a dozen long haul routes from the airport by 2030.
In order to fuel this growth, Alaska Air Group has just upped its Dreamliner order by five aircraft, now having 17 firm commitments. While there hasn’t been an announcement from the airline, The Alaska Pilots Podcast, which is run by the company’s chapter of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), has revealed these details.
We know that Alaska increasingly plans to operate long haul flights out of Seattle with Dreamliners, so in March 2026, Alaska plans to open a 787 pilot base there. While Alaska Air Group initially launched long haul flights out of Seattle to Tokyo Narita (NRT) with A330s, the carrier’s new routes to Seoul Incheon (ICN) and Rome (FCO) will be operated by 787s.
So it’s logical that the company would have 787 pilots based there, rather than just cycling pilots on complicated and longer trips from their base in Honolulu (HNL) to Seattle. I imagine that those 17 Dreamliners would be sufficient to operate the dozen long haul routes out of Seattle, factoring in spares, some rotations requiring more than one frame, etc.
Alaska needs to figure out its long haul strategy, stat
It’s certainly a fascinating time for Alaska Air Group, and I’m excited to see how the company’s strategy evolves. Launching long haul flights and going head-to-head against existing players isn’t easy, especially when you’re not part of any long haul joint ventures.
I’d argue that there’s a lot of long term potential here — Alaska has a loyal customer base, a huge connecting network in Seattle, valuable airline partnerships, and is a generally well run company.
However, Alaska is also going head-to-head against Delta. Alaska has the advantage in terms of regional connectivity, while Delta has the advantage in terms of having existing long haul service and joint ventures. With that in mind, I really think Alaska needs to focus on creating a cohesive long haul strategy ASAP:
- The airline launched long haul flights out of Seattle with A330s, which simply don’t have a competitive hard product, and Alaska still hasn’t announced concrete plans to refresh the interiors of these jets
- While the 787s have a good passenger experience, those planes still don’t have Wi-Fi, which is a major issue
- The current branding is confusing — people are boarding long haul flights from Seattle on Hawaiian branded jets, with the typical Hawaiian soft product
- There’s an amazing new Delta One Lounge Seattle, while Alaska is reportedly working on a new premium lounge, but it’s still a couple of years from opening
Like I said, I think Alaska can find eventual success with long haul flying. However, it seems like maybe the carrier should’ve waited a year or so to be able to fully develop its strategy, before a sort of half baked launch of the service, since first impressions matter.
Of course I understand that a lot is going on at Alaska at the moment, and the complications of two air the air operator certificates, different unionized workforces, etc.
So far, the load factors on the new Seattle to Tokyo Narita flight aren’t exactly encouraging. I expect that will improve over time, but again, one wonders if waiting a little longer to establish a more deliberate strategy would’ve been the better option. Then again, maybe these flights are already more profitable than how Hawaiian could’ve operated them out of Honolulu.
Bottom line
Alaska Air Group has reportedly upped its Boeing 787 order from 12 jets to 17 jets, exercising five options. I don’t think that’s too surprising, and it’s a clear reflection that the company is committed to making long haul service from Seattle work. I think the big question is how long it will take for this flying to become profitable.
I understand all the challenges Alaska is facing with ramping up these flights, but it sure seems like a little more could be done to be competitive from the start.
What do you make of Alaska increasing its Dreamliner order?
Interesting that Ben chose to comment on the less than great loads of the new NRT route, yet purported "airline analysts" wanted to ignore it, when the proof is in the pudding.
The reality is that Alaska is taking on a big risk with this expansion, things could improve or go south.
Unfortunately, they don't offer a competitive product to their own alliance member JAL that exactly serves this route.
Alaska has a large hub...
Interesting that Ben chose to comment on the less than great loads of the new NRT route, yet purported "airline analysts" wanted to ignore it, when the proof is in the pudding.
The reality is that Alaska is taking on a big risk with this expansion, things could improve or go south.
Unfortunately, they don't offer a competitive product to their own alliance member JAL that exactly serves this route.
Alaska has a large hub at SEA, but there have been markets that they don't do well like MEX and CUN, where they ceded ground to the DL/AM joint venture, proving exactly that JVs are the bread and butter for international expansion.
If Alaska were to enter a JV, things would be significantly different for it.
I wonder if the -10 would work for them. The -10s range seem to be adequate for them, while the -9s size works for them too.
Why would they want more seats, when they can't fill the smaller gauge right now?
I wonder if there are enough wide body gates at Sea-tac to accommodate these 17 787s. With all the long-haul routes added in recent years, that airport is very full.
part of AS' strategy is to try to dump a bunch of widebodies into SEA in order to cut DL's gate advantage because SEA does calculate gate access higher based on the number of widebodies.
but widebodies can't create gates that don't exist. and SEA is not incentivizing flights that duplicate existing markets - not for AS, not for DL or any other airline.
other airlines including DL will continue to add widebodies.
...part of AS' strategy is to try to dump a bunch of widebodies into SEA in order to cut DL's gate advantage because SEA does calculate gate access higher based on the number of widebodies.
but widebodies can't create gates that don't exist. and SEA is not incentivizing flights that duplicate existing markets - not for AS, not for DL or any other airline.
other airlines including DL will continue to add widebodies.
and the reality is that there are 4 US airline hubs that use more than 35 widebodies - UA at SFO, DL at ATL, DL at JFK and UA at EWR. SEA for either AS or DL will never be in that league.
AS simply cannot successfully deploy four dozen widebodies across its network.
You stress the importance of wifi on flights all the time. My assumption is it stems largely from the fact that you want to be able to work inflight. On the other hand, I have never chosen a flight or an airline based on wifi. Yeah, it's great to have and sometimes I work on flights as well, but it's really so far down on the list of priorities that it's a non-factor. Curious if who between us is the outcast on this issue.
@ Nobody -- I don't think it's the least or most important aspect of an airline experience. However, I think it's increasingly becoming a standard amenity that passengers expect. If it weren't, we wouldn't be seeing so many airlines introducing Starlink Wi-Fi for free nowadays.
I am one of those tech people with a somewhat flexible work arrangement who is kind of online all the time - not uncommon group for buying international J - and I would literally not even consider buying a ticket without WiFi
OTOH, I do not care at all if that WiFi costs $0 or $20
the chances are high that AS will simply retire the A330-200s. They are not at all ideal for Pacific routes and it is hardly worth putting a premium product on them and end up w/ 50 less seats than AS' 787s and DL's 339s and 359s have.
Factor in that there will be increasing pressure for AS to fix Hawaiian's money-losing domestic and international network and using more fuel efficient and longer range aircraft could do more for HNL than SEA.
Nope.
yes, screws loose is accurate.
The notion that AS will be able to successfully deploy over 40 widebodies across its existing network and what it can deploy from SEA is beyond delusional.
but this honestly might be AS' "pride cometh before the fall" moment
Sure - I think Ben and team know a lot more about running an airline than some “blogger” who has no idea about strategy and running a company.
I'm sure he does - but that is not the question and your reply doesn't answer whether AS can successfully deploy 4 dozen widebodies across its current network. AA only has 130 widebodies.
let's get to the root of all of this which is that AS is having another 10 year itch to grow out of its PNW home. It did it last decade wiht the Virgin America acquisition which was a resounding failure no...
I'm sure he does - but that is not the question and your reply doesn't answer whether AS can successfully deploy 4 dozen widebodies across its current network. AA only has 130 widebodies.
let's get to the root of all of this which is that AS is having another 10 year itch to grow out of its PNW home. It did it last decade wiht the Virgin America acquisition which was a resounding failure no matter how you want to frame it.
Hawaiian is a money losing airline, the Hawaii market is shrinking, and the answer to just dump a bunch of widebody capacity into new flights from SEA faces the reality that SEA is very congested already and there really are nowhere near enough untapped markets from SEA to deploy even half of HA/AS' current and planned widebodies.
Let's check back in 5 years but I suspect I will have been one of the few people that didn't believe that AS can do what it says it will do - and will be proven right.