It’s an exciting time for Alaska Air Group, following the company’s takeover of Hawaiian Airlines. We’re seeing the airline totally shift its strategy, including turning Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) into a global hub, with the goal of having 12 long haul destinations by 2030.
The first destination will be Tokyo Narita (NRT), with that service launching as of May 2025. Now the second route has just been put on sale, to Seoul Incheon, with that service starting as of September 2025.
In this post:
Alaska Air Group’s new Seattle to Seoul Incheon route
As of September 12, 2025, Hawaiian Airlines and Alaska Airlines will launch 5x weekly, year-round, nonstop flights between Seattle (SEA) and Seoul Incheon (ICN). The 5,216-mile flight will operate with the following schedule:
HA871 Seattle to Seoul Incheon departing 3:25PM arriving 6:50PM (+1 day)
HA872 Seoul Incheon to Seattle departing 8:50PM arriving 3:00PM
The westbound flight is blocked at 11hr25min and will operate every day except Mondays and Tuesdays, while the eastbound flight is blocked and 10hr10min eastbound and will operate every day except Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Hawaiian Airlines will use an Airbus A330-200 for the route, featuring 278 seats, comprised of 18 business class seats and 260 economy class seats.
As a reminder, Hawaiian’s business class is in a 2-2-2 configuration, so that’s not terribly competitive nowadays. Alaska Air Group does plan to update the interiors of its A330s to be more competitive, but there’s no timeline for that yet. Meanwhile economy is quite comfortable, given the 2-4-2 layout, as many people like the pair of seats by the windows.
The timing of the route launching is no coincidence, as it will start right before Chuseok, also known as Korean Thanksgiving Day, which is one of the most important and festive holidays in the country. With it taking place in early October this year, the flight is well timed.
Note that currently, Hawaiian operates 5x weekly flights to Seoul Incheon from Honolulu (HNL). As of now that flight continues to be on sale, though it sure seems like that might be cut. That flight is also 5x weekly, with a similar schedule, and getting slots at Seoul Incheon can be challenging. So it could be that Seattle replaces Honolulu, as we’ve seen with the new Tokyo Narita route.
With Alaska and Hawaiian still being on separate operating certificates, there’s understandably some confusion about how exactly service like this works:
- The flight will be operated by Hawaiian crews, since the work groups of the two carriers are still separate
- The flight is bookable through the websites of Alaska or Hawaiian, whether paying cash or redeeming miles
- The plan is only for Hawaiian to join the oneworld alliance as of 2026, so as of now you couldn’t earn or redeem most other oneworld miles for these flights, or take advantage of oneworld Emerald or oneworld Sapphire elite perks
- I’m curious what the soft product will be like on this flight; will it be the typical Hawaiian soft product, or will this receive more of an Alaska service?
My take on Alaska Air Group’s new Seattle to Seoul Incheon route
I’m delighted to see Alaska and Hawaiian introducing long haul service out of Seattle, and giving Delta some much needed competition in long haul markets. Alaska has an incredible West Coast hub with a huge amount of connectivity, and a loyal customer base in the Pacific Northwest.
One thing to keep in mind is that even though Alaska is in oneworld, the airline has a partnership with Korean Air, which should provide feed beyond Seoul Incheon, and help fill planes. So just as Alaska will rely on Japan Airlines to fill planes in Tokyo Narita, I imagine Korean Air could help in Seoul Incheon. Quite honestly, I’m a bit surprised that Alaska and Korean Air continue to partner, given the extent to which Alaska and Delta are competing.
That being said, there’s no denying that the airline faces an uphill battle on this Seoul Incheon route, especially initially. This is a very strong market for Delta and its partners, as it’s served by Delta, Korean Air, and Asiana (which is now owned by Korean Air, but still operating separately, for the time being). Furthermore, until these Hawaiian A330s are reconfigured, the hard product is quite uncompetitive, especially when you consider that Alaska will be competing against established airlines.
In the long run, I think Alaska’s strategy will work well. The airline needs to build up its long haul presence in Seattle and reconfigure A330s, and over time, I think Alaska could be the dominant long haul carrier at the airport.
Bottom line
As of September 2025, Alaska Air Group will launch 5x weekly nonstop flights between Seattle and Seoul Incheon, using Hawaiian Airbus A330s. This will be the second of a dozen long haul routes that Alaska Air Group launches out of Seattle by 2030, with the first being to Tokyo Narita.
Alaska definitely has an uphill battle with its long haul expansion, given the rather uncompetitive business class product, plus establishing itself in long haul markets. But in the long run, I’m sure this will work out well, especially with Alaska’s loyal customer base.
What do you make of the new Alaska & Hawaiian Seattle to Seoul Incheon route?
HA! AS wants 300K for biz to NRT on a lousy airplane. No thanks. Makes my United Polaris flight DCA ORD HND for 250k in a DreamLiner a bargain Or even less Avios I can take the long way QSuites to Doha then JAL DreamLiner to HND
All to get LH seat 1K on the Queen to FRA. Then home on Swiss First.
Alaska had been pretty good but even Bank of America is finally cracking down on our churning
Alaska is going to need to update the interiors. Delta flys the A330-900 on the same route with a much nicer cabin.
switching to an A350... even better
and DL, like NH, flies to HND, the preferred airport for local Tokyo traffic
Alaska does have the SEA hub strength, but I find it interesting that they're directly taking on routes that have multiple JV carriers, and wonder what that'll do to their yields.
As it stands AS/HA are not part of the OW JV, so they are yet another competitor beyond the three major JVs. SEA-ICN doesn't seem like it can support four carriers on it. ICN market is closer to size to the TPE market than it is the to TYO market.
the irony is that JVs reduce the amount of revenue on domestic flights that are part of international longhaul itineraries.
Very few people actually see the total revenue including the international portion but they somehow can't understand why DL's domestic revenue that feeds its international flights is less than what AS gets on its codeshare flights for other airlines.
Can the companion fare be used on these new transpacific flights? Or since they are operated by HA, they would be ineligible?
Companion fare isn't eligible for domestic flights on HA metal, so I imagine it won't be eligible on transpacific flights as well. I've been looking to use my companion pass for flights between the west coast and HNL, and it only shows flights on AS metal. What sucks more is that the direct flights between SFO - HNL have been cut and all require a layover somewhere.
Good article and analysis Ben. Just one thought though on something you said at the end
"over time, I think Alaska could be the dominant long haul carrier at the airport." -->
For one this assumes that the demand they have for travel to/from Seattle will translate when they start flying international. It could but many of their current customers are probably used to flying other airlines when flying long haul out of Seattle....
Good article and analysis Ben. Just one thought though on something you said at the end
"over time, I think Alaska could be the dominant long haul carrier at the airport." -->
For one this assumes that the demand they have for travel to/from Seattle will translate when they start flying international. It could but many of their current customers are probably used to flying other airlines when flying long haul out of Seattle. It's not a direct comparison but it's not like JetBlue has had an easy go flying from to Europe and that's with narrow bodies (although some might argue their ability to compete while flying narrow bodies is limited I suppose)
Beyond that though, I'm not sure how valuable being the dominant international carrier at just one airport is long term. At the end of the day, many travelers are still interested in airlines with broader connectivity. The big 3 airlines are each the dominant international carrier something to the tune of at least 2-4 airports each.
It seems to me Alaska's ceiling as it pertains to long haul flying is carving out a not overly profitable halfway decent niche in Seattle. I just don't see how they do better than that. The competition on long haul flying out of Seattle (whether to Asia or Europe) will be stiff.
Whatever niche you are talking about - the other long haul player at SEA (DL) does not. AS will at last make as much profit as the losses that DL is incurring on its SEA operations.
now tell us why AS doesn't file a case against DL if AS knows that DL is just dumping unprofitable capacity into SEA?
1. Either AS does the same thing elsewhere or 2. AS knows that DL really does make money at SEA - including on international flights and to the eastern US where DL gets substantially higher average fares than AS.
cling to the notion of DL's vulnerability if it helps you sleep...
now tell us why AS doesn't file a case against DL if AS knows that DL is just dumping unprofitable capacity into SEA?
1. Either AS does the same thing elsewhere or 2. AS knows that DL really does make money at SEA - including on international flights and to the eastern US where DL gets substantially higher average fares than AS.
cling to the notion of DL's vulnerability if it helps you sleep at night.
You should be asking why AS is finally getting around to adding longhaul international flights decades after other airlines operated international flights from SEA - and a decade after DL set up its hub there.
and you should be asking how AS is going to break into a market that is increasingly controlled by the big 3 alliances and where there isn't a single carrier in decades that has ever succeeded outside of the alliances.
and when you figure that out, let us know why those carriers are going to give up valuable slots at LHR and HND. and more importantly let us know WHEN that happens.
Somebody is angry and upset about the idea of AS expansion in SEA...
And doesn't know how to refute that AS is in an alliance and is twice the size of DL in SEA already.
Plenty of OneWorld carriers serve ICN outside of a JV. What are you even smoking today?
Why is it so crazy for you to believe what Delta says? They claim their profits are in their core hubs and they also...
Somebody is angry and upset about the idea of AS expansion in SEA...
And doesn't know how to refute that AS is in an alliance and is twice the size of DL in SEA already.
Plenty of OneWorld carriers serve ICN outside of a JV. What are you even smoking today?
Why is it so crazy for you to believe what Delta says? They claim their profits are in their core hubs and they also mention when new hubs are profitable -- something Delta has NEVER said about Seattle.
Moving on from the TD Crazy...
Oh please Tim - almost everything you've stated on this blog with your "esteemed" aviation knowledge on Alaska's moves has been absolutely wrong or are is fast heading that way. You're the one that said:
- the Alaska-Hawaiian merger was not going to go through regulatory without "MAJOR" concessions such as Alaska leaving OneWorld (FALSE)
- Alaska would not develop a meaningful long-haul network from Seattle anytime in the next 5 years (will be...
Oh please Tim - almost everything you've stated on this blog with your "esteemed" aviation knowledge on Alaska's moves has been absolutely wrong or are is fast heading that way. You're the one that said:
- the Alaska-Hawaiian merger was not going to go through regulatory without "MAJOR" concessions such as Alaska leaving OneWorld (FALSE)
- Alaska would not develop a meaningful long-haul network from Seattle anytime in the next 5 years (will be FALSE)
- Alaska, JAL, and AA all would have 0 interest in a Transpacific JV (JAL and Alaska are publicly interested - the interest part is almost certainly false. TBD on the regulatory approval part)
Alaska has a path to becoming the OneWorld alternative to AA at LAX for the Pacific. We shall see on the JVs, but Alaska and some of AA's JV partners clearly believe there is opportunity to add it to the JVs. If that happens, then everything you just stated in your last paragraph is irrelevant.
Obviously Alaska has looked to add long-haul at SEA after AA failed at SEA-LHR (a route that DL also loses $ on given their consistently poor LFs sub-80% outside of summer and that they shifted 3 frequencies from SEA this fall / winter to MCO) and didn't follow through in adding SEA-BLR and other planned routes. DL is not going to leave SEA, but they also don't have any viable path to catching up to Alaska at SEA let alone overtaking it.
Since DL hubbed SEA in 2014 Alaska has grown its domestic market share from 52% to 54% today. Alaska has a far lower cost basis than DL - we shall see what happens, but looking at just SEA almost anyone would rather be Alaska than DL. DL has the better overall operation and position, but in SEA Alaska has the clear advantage.
"Alaska has a far lower cost basis than DL"
For now. But when carriers radically alter their market/mission profile, costs only go one in one direction, and it isn't "down."
Granted, their costs will never likely equal the much different DL, but they don't have to, to become a particular drag on Alaska's ambitions.
and yet you can't accept that DL, a much larger carrier, has dramatically increased its market share in SEA - BY TAKING SHARE FROM OTHER CARRIERs.
and DL still gets about 70% of the total local SEA market revenue that AS gets because DL carries much higher revenue per flight and passenger because international revenue and eastern US revenue - where DL is the largest - is worth so much more.
and you and others...
and yet you can't accept that DL, a much larger carrier, has dramatically increased its market share in SEA - BY TAKING SHARE FROM OTHER CARRIERs.
and DL still gets about 70% of the total local SEA market revenue that AS gets because DL carries much higher revenue per flight and passenger because international revenue and eastern US revenue - where DL is the largest - is worth so much more.
and you and others still can't answer the question as to why DL 1. not only is able to run all of these money-losing hubs that the internet thinks DL has - even one money-losing hub would be more than social media admits that AA and UA have - and still make more money at the end of the year than every other US airline - and 50% of the entire US airline industry's profits and 2. why AS doesn't file a predatory pricing lawsuit against DL given that DL is much larger.
the notion that DL loses money in ANY hub is a figment of internet social media's fascination with seeing DL fall. Period.
What is in public data - which many people can't accept - is that AA loses money flying the Atlantic and Pacific for years; DL has long made more money per seat mile across the Atlantic, Pacific and to Latin America and HA clearly has lost lots of money on its international network for years.
AS is simply trying to justify its purchase of HA - which is their SECOND merger to try to grow larger in the west - by shifting underperforming HA routes to SEA where it thinks it can win in two of the 3 areas where DL has had a clear lead from SEA for years - longhaul international and the eastern US.
AS flies as much capacity through SEA because it has no other hub through which to connect virtually ALL of its traffic while DL has a half dozen other hubs that can and do connect traffic that AS can only connect via SEA and, with their intended growth, via PDX.
AS has yet to prove that it can profitably fly a single longhaul international route. They very well may.
but to Tokyo, they are flying to the airport that is NOT the preferred airport for high value local traffic while to Seoul, they will fly a route where 3 of the 5 existing and proposed flights are under a KE subsidiary, by KE or by its JV partner, DL and one more is proposed by Air Premia
Nobody will slight AS if they succeed but you and a whole lot of other people get way too excited at the prospect of DL's downfall when the chances are just as high that AS will walk away from its international expansion just as much or more than it did from Virgin America's position in LAX and SFO transcons
Why are you blabbering on about unrelated questions and topics that neither myself nor anyone else has talked about on this topic? Who is talking about UA or AA? Why do you have to deflect and change the topic every time you are confronted with your own inaccurate statements and in topics where you are likely going to be wrong?
Everyone in the industry has stated that AA likely loses money at LGA / JFK,...
Why are you blabbering on about unrelated questions and topics that neither myself nor anyone else has talked about on this topic? Who is talking about UA or AA? Why do you have to deflect and change the topic every time you are confronted with your own inaccurate statements and in topics where you are likely going to be wrong?
Everyone in the industry has stated that AA likely loses money at LGA / JFK, breaks-even to loses money at ORD most of the year except the summer when it is reasonably profitable as per what Vasu stated a few years ago, and used to struggle at LAX due to its long-haul network although most of it has been cut so it is probably better now.
Scott Kirby, UA's CEO who has far more competitive data than you or me on DL, UA, and every US airline's performance can ever hope for has repeatedly proclaimed that UA is the only airline profitable at every hub for a few years now. DL and AA have never come out refuting that fact. If you look at their financials, DL is the best-run overall airline due to its revenue streams in loyalty w/ AMEX and the refinery, but UA is by far the closest to actual operating profit if you simply look at flying. Obviously, this is a simplified analysis since loyalty program revenue comes from airlines having a broader network, but your repeated screaming about "DOT data" that does not directly link or track with financial reporting statements nor is standardized by airlines is useless conjecture.
AA has likely a few money losing hubs, DL does not great at LAX (probably breaks-even to maybe slightly better than that) and SEA but overall is very profitable, while UA has no extremely profitable fortress hub comparable to ATL or even DFW but has no major underperforming hubs relative to others with LAX likely its lowest performer (likely break-even if not unprofitable).
Regardless, airline industry execs have long stated that most airline routes do not make profits - there's a reason why airlines are considered terrible investments with low margins:
""Only between 25-30% of destinations make profit. Another 40% are breakeven. The remaining are losers. But you cannot only operate as an airline where you make profits."
DL has more routes that make profits than AA helped by its great hubs at ATL and probably more than UA (albeit not by a ton - the profitability gap is more from loyalty and credit card $ than flying), but all 3 likely make 0 money on ~60%+ of their routes (and lose $ on ~30% of those). It's really not rocket science, and none have discovered a gold mine flying that the others have not. It's all about optimizing the business with the extras to squeeze out that last bit of extra profitability which Delta has done the best in addition to admittedly outperforming AA in its most competitive markets. Don't confuse this with DL making a killing at LAX or NYC.
and yet DL manages to generate significantly higher profits than any other US carrier including UA.
and it is no surprise that Kirby touts UA"s hub profitability given that UA has the least lucrative credit card deal. AA and DL clearly allocate their credit card revenues to every city and hub because it isn't hard to figure out where cardholders live and spend money.
yoloswag gets it (above and below) and it is no surprise...
and yet DL manages to generate significantly higher profits than any other US carrier including UA.
and it is no surprise that Kirby touts UA"s hub profitability given that UA has the least lucrative credit card deal. AA and DL clearly allocate their credit card revenues to every city and hub because it isn't hard to figure out where cardholders live and spend money.
yoloswag gets it (above and below) and it is no surprise that you don't want to so you can argue when it is clear that United can't put it all together on the bottom line compared to DL.
and, may I remind you again that UA's 10K mechanics just rejected a proposed contract that they nearly unanimously believe is inadequate. UA did the same thing w/ its pilots who then adopted a contract modeled after DL's success pilot contract. UA has yet to settle with its FAs. Nearly every unionized UA employee will have amendable labor contracts by this summer.
Get back w/ us on UA's profitability after they spend another $1 billion or more on labor costs each year.
2024 was likely the high water mark for UA's profits relative to DL.
and the same principle applies to AS. They have yet to negotiate joint CBAs which will add costs; AS is no longer just a legacy carrier in the corner of the US and AS employees expect to be compensated like other legacy carriers - including what UA is supposed to be paying - plus WN.
I don't know why people focus so much on network strength. Isn't it pretty well known that most flying is subsidized by credit card programs these days?
Delta's hub at SEA is just as much of a play for the wealthy tech metro. For example, I was surprised on two fronts, when Delta launched both their junk Window show at SEA, and even more so when it sold out. Which showcases some fairly significant loyalty programme penetration.
and the complete irony is that a large portion of AS' larger size in SEA is because of the higher number of frequencies they have in the same markets as DL. 10 flights/day LAX-SEA might help AS win more of the local market but it does nothing to help AS feed any more passengers onto its international flights - because only one domestic flight best connects to each international flight.
AS does have more...
and the complete irony is that a large portion of AS' larger size in SEA is because of the higher number of frequencies they have in the same markets as DL. 10 flights/day LAX-SEA might help AS win more of the local market but it does nothing to help AS feed any more passengers onto its international flights - because only one domestic flight best connects to each international flight.
AS does have more flights/bank because it serves additional cities that DL doesn't serve from SEA - but I don't know of a single city that AS serves from SEA that DL doesn't also serve via another hub - and also generates any significant international traffic.
As usual, most of the people that spout the advantages that AS has don't think through the real competitive situation and what advantages either AS or DL have.
thank you for being one of the few that actually thinks
Hawaiian's 2x2x2 seating in business is fine for flights to Hawaii. Should keep them on the long haul Hawaii leisure routes and put the 787s on the Seattle routes. Big mistake with no premium economy seats on the new 787's tho.
Actually, on second thought, Hawaiian's A330's provide a better passenger experience for nearly all passengers. We prefer the 2x Business class seats, and much , much prefer the A330 2x window seating in economy....
Hawaiian's 2x2x2 seating in business is fine for flights to Hawaii. Should keep them on the long haul Hawaii leisure routes and put the 787s on the Seattle routes. Big mistake with no premium economy seats on the new 787's tho.
Actually, on second thought, Hawaiian's A330's provide a better passenger experience for nearly all passengers. We prefer the 2x Business class seats, and much , much prefer the A330 2x window seating in economy. The 787 3x3x3 economy is torture, and my wife and I will never fly it. Have flown Hawaiians A330 in extra legroom economy to Tahiti and New Zealand many times, and it is ok for these relatively short flights.
The A330 is the best airliner ever built.
In December Air Premia also said that they would be flying from SEA-ICN, though tickets have yet to go on sale.
Air Premia is an operational mess. Many Koreans are already avoiding them at all cost
From this article: http://www.koreatimes.com/article/20250226/1553720:
- Of 19 scheduled flights in March between LAX and ICN, 37% were cancelled
- Facing shortage of aircraft and parts
- Just two stopped planes wreaks havoc on their schedule
first, if AS swaps HNL-ICN for SEA-ICN, that will be the 2nd route they will have dropped from HNL since they are doing the same for NRT. Legacy carriers find the value in a merger by removing money-losing route and it was a given that AS would have to drop some of HA's flying since HA's losses have been considerable over the last few years.
second, DL and KE have a joint venture not just...
first, if AS swaps HNL-ICN for SEA-ICN, that will be the 2nd route they will have dropped from HNL since they are doing the same for NRT. Legacy carriers find the value in a merger by removing money-losing route and it was a given that AS would have to drop some of HA's flying since HA's losses have been considerable over the last few years.
second, DL and KE have a joint venture not just from the US to Japan (DL flies HND-HND) but also to S. Korea and beyond. If AS funds the new SEA-ICN route by pulling HNL-ICN, it might help DL/KE or be neutral, just as is true with removing some HNL-Tokyo capacity. OZ is owned by KE now but is not part of the DL/KE JV; presumably because there are alliance changes that have to take place and DL's pilot agreement requires that DL add capacity equal to what KE adds via the OZ merger.
third, DL and KE are in a joint venture while AS has codeshare arrangements with multiple carriers just as B6 does. The fare that AS has to charge a carrier for an AS operated domestic flight as well as what KE charges AS for a beyond ICN are almost always higher than what carriers pay each other as part of a joint venture for the "short" segments of an intercontinental itinerary. AS will get far less benefit from KE than DL will; and SEA-ICN is essentially a JV hub to hub route which allows them to pump even more traffic and more high value traffic on that segment.
committing to using the 787s on SEA-ICN is a step in the right direction in terms of getting the right product in international markets but HA's 787s do not have premium economy which clearly sells for most other international carriers.
and while Sept is a strong international outbound period for flights from Korea, there are months of pretty slow traffic that follow.
Apparently, you believe that Alaska/Hawaiian is totally incapable of effectively competing with the world's only PERFECT airline.
first, you and only you think there are perfect airlines - or perfect anything elses.
and second, AS and DL have both succeeded because they have managed to "stay in their own lanes" People assume that, because AS is larger in the domestic market by virtue of both more frequencies to the same destinations that DL serves mostly in the western US and also because AS serves more destinations from SEA than DL that AS...
first, you and only you think there are perfect airlines - or perfect anything elses.
and second, AS and DL have both succeeded because they have managed to "stay in their own lanes" People assume that, because AS is larger in the domestic market by virtue of both more frequencies to the same destinations that DL serves mostly in the western US and also because AS serves more destinations from SEA than DL that AS will succeed in the international market.
Maybe they will and maybe they won't - but they picked two markets where they are up against substantial advantages that DL AND other airlines have.
AS will break out its international performance at least to the DOT; let's see about a year from now how they do.
"first, you and only you think there are perfect airlines - or perfect anything elses."
And yet, when asked, you couldn't think of one imperfect thing about them, tim.
Maybe ask one of your many alter-egos what they think? But be sure to consider timezones when you do your fake international profiles.
as usual, you have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than to trash people who can intelligently talk about topics which obviously you know nothing about....
life must be hard when you see everyone you disagree with as being the same person.
and rational people don't just spout off a list of things that are wrong w/ someone or something...
If you consider your comments "intelligent", you and your alter-egos are alone in that view.
You keep attacking the same user for your plainly obvious view of Delta as a "perfect" airline. You ridicule him for that comment but also can't name a single imperfect thing about Delta.
Go for it. Naming imperfections of Delta would be therapeutic for you.
I'm sure Aero could do it for you. Just remember to put his "Lass" voice through chatgpt. You forget, at times ;)
I hope the HNL-ICN route isn't dropped. There are still a good number of people that fly between Hawaii and Korea. HNL is my home airport and I'd be really sad to see this route dropped.
ICN wouldn't be dropped, as Korean still flies it. Hawaiian no longer operating it however, is a possibility.
Nice. KE's pricing is pretty crazy
If you told someone 10 years ago Hawaiian Airlines would be flying direct from Seattle to Seoul they’d never believe you.
Even a year ago.
That being said, Alaska did fly to Vladivostok from 1991-98. They should have started flying to Korea and Japan a long time ago. They probably didn't want to hurt their partners, and are now playing catchup.