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?
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.