It’s quite a transformative time for Alaska Air Group, as the company acquired Hawaiian Airlines, and is turning Seattle-Tacoma into a global hub, with plans to launch a dozen long haul routes by 2030.
We’ve just seen the airline launch flights to Tokyo Narita (NRT), and then flights to Seoul Incheon (ICN) are launching as of September 2025. We’re now getting a sense of what the next destinations will be.
In this post:
Alaska launching Europe flights in Q2 2026
Alaska Air Group CEO Ben Minicucci has this week revealed that the carrier’s next long haul destination will be in Europe, and that service is expected to launch in Q2 2026 (so in the April to June timeframe). However, he stopped short of actually revealing which airport the airline would serve. It seems that we should expect the airline to add around two long haul routes per year, through 2030, give or take.
While I have no doubt that Alaska will succeed with long haul service in the long run, the airline faces some unique challenges as it establishes itself in these markets:
- Alaska isn’t currently part of any long haul joint venture, which is often the key to unlocking high yield traffic across the Atlantic and Pacific; that’s something the airline is working on, though
- While Alaska’s Seattle base has a great geographic advantage for transpacific flying for those coming from all over the US, the same advantage isn’t there in the same way for transatlantic flying, aside from serving those on the West Coast
- Alaska’s acquisition of Hawaiian is a work in progress, and for now, the branding is confusing; Hawaiian is operating long haul routes out of Seattle for the time being, so the branding isn’t necessarily obvious to Alaska customers
- The current long haul flying is being operated by Hawaiian A330s, which has a lackluster hard product compared to the competition; while there are plans to upgrade this, there’s no timeline for doing so
Where in Europe will Alaska likely fly?
With Alaska not having yet announced which destination in Europe will be served first, let’s speculate. The good news for Alaska is that premium leisure demand across the Atlantic is strong, so I think Alaska will actually have better luck there than in Asia, given its strong Mileage Plan membership base.
I guess there are two ways that Alaska could approach this service:
- The airline could try to serve a partner airline hub that offers the most connectivity, trying to provide access to many markets with one route
- The airline could try to serve a destination that has a lot of leisure demand, in spite of not being a partner airline hub
One interesting thing is that back when Alaska announced it would launch long haul flights, it provided the below map, showing the geographic advantage that Seattle has compared to Los Angeles and San Francisco. Two of the Asian destination with the biggest advantages were the first to be launched.
Meanwhile Alaska only showed three European destinations — London, Paris, and Rome. I imagine that’s not a coincidence, and reflects the markets that the airline is most looking at.
The way I view it:
- London seems like the obvious choice, given that it’s a British Airways hub, but the challenge is that Heathrow is slot controlled, so I think that service launching is a function of whether Alaska can secure slots; with Alaska not having a joint venture with British Airways, I wouldn’t expect some sort of lucrative slot deal
- Paris and Rome are both huge markets, and Alaska could launch service to them, but partnerships are lacking
- To throw in a wild card, I don’t think Madrid is out of the question either — Spain is a hot destination, and Madrid is an Iberia hub that Alaska could get access to without major slot issues
Personally, I’m putting my money on Rome, for at least a summer seasonal service. There isn’t currently nonstop service from Seattle to Rome, and Italy and Greece are sort of the “it” spots in Europe right now, for American tourists.
Oh, and there’s another reason to believe it might be Rome. Minicucci gave a speech ahead of the inaugural flight to Tokyo Narita, indicating that the decision about the European destination has already been made, and that work is being done internally to launch the service.
He reportedly joked that the team would tackle him if he revealed the destination, but also that his family will be very happy about this route. He’s of Italian heritage…
Bottom line
Alaska is expected to launch its first route to Europe in Q2 2026, out of its new global gateway in Seattle. The airline hasn’t yet revealed which destination will be served, but all signs point to it being London, Paris, or Rome. While London and Paris probably seem like the more obvious choices, I think Rome is most likely, based on the competitive landscape, plus rumors about what the CEO has reportedly commented…
What do you think Alaska’s first destination in Europe will be?
MAD would make most sense in term of connectivity, but American tourists are more fond of Italy.
The Pacific Northwest has a huge Scandinavian population extending from Oregon/Washington east to the Dakotas.
I wonder if Alaska's 787's will fly Europe.
Possibly service to HEL, ARN, CPH, OSL ?
I was going to write BCN, when I realized that IB literally doesn't go anywhere from BCN.
MAD and DUB make the most sense to me.
I have it on very, very reliable insider sources that it will be Naples, Italy..NAP, Naples International Airport..talk about a HOT and POPULAR destination!!!. An AS team has already been dispatched to NAP to measure the room for furniture/drapes so to speak. Catering, cleaning, bag handling,counter space ect. DONE DEAL! Inflight Admin will soon be recruiting ITALIAN Language of Destination F/A's.
Yeah right, lol.
New York City only got seasonal nonstops to Naples in the last few years, and seasonal at that. Atlanta is getting a nonstop for the first time, this month. Major eastern hubs like Dulles, Miami and Boston still don't have it.
There's not a snowball's chance in hell that Seattle is going to, in any foreseeable timeline.
wouldn't HEL make a lot of sense because of how north it is? SEA-HEL-AMS is 500 mi shorter than SEA-MAD-AMS, equal distance if your destination is Rome, and 1000 mi shorter if you are going to Doha to pick up a free 747.
It might. AY is trying to maintain a summer seasonal but it's only for a few months and 3–4 weeklies. No idea about loads, though.
Seems like your AMS example is leading your answer vs the topic
No. Transit on sea-hel-fco is farther than via madrid.
Given demand to Madrid vs Helsinki from virtually any city on earth, Madrid is the shorter transit in this instance and the better choice
Crazy as it sounds I wonder if Alaska Group wouldn't be better off creating a new brand for their intercontinental service. Don't laugh (at least yet) -- IAG has three.
The Alaska brand is extremely strong in the PNW. Likewise for Hawaiian...if you are going to or between the islands and/or south pacific. It's not clear that what works for AS makes sense for flights long haul and HI so strongly identified with tropical/beach/vacations makes...
Crazy as it sounds I wonder if Alaska Group wouldn't be better off creating a new brand for their intercontinental service. Don't laugh (at least yet) -- IAG has three.
The Alaska brand is extremely strong in the PNW. Likewise for Hawaiian...if you are going to or between the islands and/or south pacific. It's not clear that what works for AS makes sense for flights long haul and HI so strongly identified with tropical/beach/vacations makes no sense flying SEA to Europe and Asia.
I'd venture it's likely we'll see all those planes repainted as Alaska once they have a single operating certificate and fully integrated workforce. But given AG aspires to run with the big boys by having a solid intercontinental presence it might be better to have those flights fly under a brand that isn't tied to place in the minds of people who aren't from our neck of the woods here in the Pacific Northwest.
Look at ZipAir. While nonstops to unserved destinations like Rome is a good way to quickly get going what I'd find compelling is a reasonably priced
It could. But as we've seen, regional names really don't make a difference one way or another, especially on longhaul flights. Even discounting fifth-freedom operations:
Aer Lingus flies roundtrip nonstops from Manchester, UK to Florida, flights that completely bypass Ireland. No one cares, they still buy it.
Southwest's biggest operations are in Denver, Chicago, and Baltimore; none of which are in the southwestern US.
Delta is one of the largest carriers in the world, serving...
It could. But as we've seen, regional names really don't make a difference one way or another, especially on longhaul flights. Even discounting fifth-freedom operations:
Aer Lingus flies roundtrip nonstops from Manchester, UK to Florida, flights that completely bypass Ireland. No one cares, they still buy it.
Southwest's biggest operations are in Denver, Chicago, and Baltimore; none of which are in the southwestern US.
Delta is one of the largest carriers in the world, serving all 6 inhabited continents: no one identifies them only with the Mississippi river delta region anymore.
Madrid would be the better option. As a SEA flyer and Alaska loyalist. I would happily take the Oneworld perks at MAD vs FCO, plus the amount of Oneworld intra-European connections from MAD make it a much more valuable location. IMO
Would it be possible that Alaska&Hawaiian will choose a completely new and different name when they go from two brands to one?
@ Daniel from Finland -- They insist they won't, but I guess "never say never." Here's the plan as of now:
https://onemileatatime.com/news/alaska-hawaiian-branding-strategy/
There's some subtlety here. No question that the plan is to maintain the Hawaiian name for flight to/from and within Hawaii.
That's not so clear for the intercontinental runs. In the short term they don't have a choice. The planes have to be flown by HI pilots. But once they've fully integrated that would no longer be a constraint.
Flying SEA NRT or ICN certainly makes way more sense on Alaska branded metal...
There's some subtlety here. No question that the plan is to maintain the Hawaiian name for flight to/from and within Hawaii.
That's not so clear for the intercontinental runs. In the short term they don't have a choice. The planes have to be flown by HI pilots. But once they've fully integrated that would no longer be a constraint.
Flying SEA NRT or ICN certainly makes way more sense on Alaska branded metal given their dominance of the Seattle hub. AS has been SEA based for years and despite the name is fully identified as flying from there (and more recently CA) east-west across the US. In contrast when boarding a HI plane you expect to go to Hawaii or somewhere else in the South Pacific, not to rainy, cloudy Seattle.
I'd wager the HI name won't be a keeper on long haul intercontinental out of Seattle. I wouldn't place a bet on a third brand, but wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't under consideration for when their fleet in place but in the end they'll probably stick with Alaska. They've already separated the name from the state and management almost certainly has an emotional attachment to the brand given they are the acquiring entity.
"Flying SEA NRT or ICN certainly makes way more sense on Alaska branded metal given their dominance of the Seattle hub."
Yet on the other hand, Hawaiian has been flying to Japan and Korea for decade, and is a known and established brand in both places. Alaska isn't at all, save for code-shares.
What aircraft though? Alaska doesn't operate any widebodies...
@ Ryan -- A330s or 787s, which are now part of Alaska Air Group, and some of which may be Alaska branded by 2026, when this service launches.
Alaska is obviously going to face an uphill battle. Nothing like an airline landing in Italy that’s named Hawaiian but owned by Alaska two brands that are not well known in Italy. Also the hard product that you mentioned needs a lot of work. I’ll also ask if Seattle has such huge long haul demand then why has Delta never really cared much about it? Something tells me Seattle is being overhyped in terms of...
Alaska is obviously going to face an uphill battle. Nothing like an airline landing in Italy that’s named Hawaiian but owned by Alaska two brands that are not well known in Italy. Also the hard product that you mentioned needs a lot of work. I’ll also ask if Seattle has such huge long haul demand then why has Delta never really cared much about it? Something tells me Seattle is being overhyped in terms of the long haul revenue it can bring in. Alaska vs Delta will be interesting
@ Ryan -- The short term challenges are huge, like the branding confusion and the lackluster hard product. But I think the reason Delta hasn't been able to make Seattle work so well is because of Alaska's strength. Alaska is really strong in Seattle, and has a huge and loyal customer base. It's hard to come in and take on a well established airline. So I wouldn't view Delta's challenges in Seattle as being indicative of lack of potential for Alaska.
No, it's not because of "hub strength". The demand is actually just not there.
Seattle is just a smaller metro and have fractional demand compared to the places like LA/SF/NYC.
Seattle has maybe 1/3 to 1/4 of the Asia demand of NYC/LA/SF. Meanwhile for Europe, it's not even close. Seattle has about 800k passenger demand for Europe annually vs 8.4M in NY, 2.4M in LA, and 1.9M in SF.
I've read that over half of...
No, it's not because of "hub strength". The demand is actually just not there.
Seattle is just a smaller metro and have fractional demand compared to the places like LA/SF/NYC.
Seattle has maybe 1/3 to 1/4 of the Asia demand of NYC/LA/SF. Meanwhile for Europe, it's not even close. Seattle has about 800k passenger demand for Europe annually vs 8.4M in NY, 2.4M in LA, and 1.9M in SF.
I've read that over half of Alaska's SEA-NRT are connecting passengers, aka the least lucrative and highest cost. And also the least sticky since anyone connecting could also choose LA, SF, or even Vancouver as their connecting hub.
The reason for the loyalty is AS is a really well run airline. I passed 2MM on AA and 1MM on UA more than three decades ago yet fly Alaska whenever possible. Why? Because their people are smart, management trusts them and empowers them to do their jobs.
It's not about the day to day service although that's better on AS but when you need assistance or help fixing a problem be it of your...
The reason for the loyalty is AS is a really well run airline. I passed 2MM on AA and 1MM on UA more than three decades ago yet fly Alaska whenever possible. Why? Because their people are smart, management trusts them and empowers them to do their jobs.
It's not about the day to day service although that's better on AS but when you need assistance or help fixing a problem be it of your making or theirs the people at AS are all about getting it done. I've never once heard "we can't do that" from someone at the airline even though over 30 years of flying I've had some tough to resolve issues (like when they stopped flying to CUN and didn't have an agreement with an airline that could get us their with a reasonable routing).
Am I a fan boy? No, they're a business, they treat me right so I give them my money even when they cost more than competitors because they earn the premium.
I think they need to think about the branding but so long as they keep doing a good job they could call themselves Pooh Bear Airlines and I wouldn't care. Will the word get out to the average guy in Tokyo, Seoul or Rome that Alaska won't treat you the way AA does when things go sideways? Probably not, but anyone who flies frequently knows and hopefully that's enough that these new routes are a success.
I agree, but given the region's technology background I really wish Alaska's IT was less clunky. United's lapped everyone on that front.
Rome is a reasonable candidate because Italian airlines are weak and have been for decades. TWA and Pan Am could compete against Alitalia easier than other European airlines. Westjet chose Calgary-Rome showing that it's not an outlandish choice.
Hawaiian should fly a SEA-FCO route. Alaska has no name recognition in Italy but at least they know where Hawaiian islands are. The corporate guys at Alaska shouldn't overestimate the Alaska name because it's only big in...
Rome is a reasonable candidate because Italian airlines are weak and have been for decades. TWA and Pan Am could compete against Alitalia easier than other European airlines. Westjet chose Calgary-Rome showing that it's not an outlandish choice.
Hawaiian should fly a SEA-FCO route. Alaska has no name recognition in Italy but at least they know where Hawaiian islands are. The corporate guys at Alaska shouldn't overestimate the Alaska name because it's only big in Seattle. Alaska already lost a good name, Virgin America, but the high fees for the name could be an excuse.
For people in the East Coast, the Hawaiian Airlines name would remind people that the airline flies to Hawaii and also Seattle. In contrast, people on the East Coast would have to remember that Alaska doesn't fly non-stop to Alaska but mainly Washington state and Hawaii with some California flights....which is too complex for little brains to remember.
Bottom line: expand the Hawaiian name. Maybe slap Chester on the Hawaiian tails to replace Pulani.
At what point does it make sense to give the whole group a new name… Pacifica or something
After they fully integrate. Might happen.
Madrid makes sense but don't completely rule out LGW neing second. It's nowhere near LHR connectivity but BA do use it for carribean connections to the rest of the UK and there are some random 'euroflyer' destinations.
The DOT just released full year 2024 profitability by global region and HA lost over $200 million flying the Pacific and half of that in the fourth quarter. Their international losses were more than on domestic which also lost money.
AS is making a huge gamble that it can turn around HA's international operation and use some of the resources to grow AS into the international market to cut the advantage DL has from SEA...
The DOT just released full year 2024 profitability by global region and HA lost over $200 million flying the Pacific and half of that in the fourth quarter. Their international losses were more than on domestic which also lost money.
AS is making a huge gamble that it can turn around HA's international operation and use some of the resources to grow AS into the international market to cut the advantage DL has from SEA and for AS to grow into a "legacy global lite" carrier.
The task facing them is huge and the Virgin America acquisition isn't that far in the rearview mirror to not see the disconnect from what AS thought would happen and what happened in reality.
You need to stop making assumptions on performance and profitability with DOT #s - they are not standardized nor audited, so they can't be used to support the claims you make (esp. when comparing DL, UA, and AA's intl performance). One airline can allocate revenue or costs very differently than another, and that is not accounted for.
You often claim DL makes 80% of UA's profits across the Pacific despite flying 40% of the miles,...
You need to stop making assumptions on performance and profitability with DOT #s - they are not standardized nor audited, so they can't be used to support the claims you make (esp. when comparing DL, UA, and AA's intl performance). One airline can allocate revenue or costs very differently than another, and that is not accounted for.
You often claim DL makes 80% of UA's profits across the Pacific despite flying 40% of the miles, is far more profitable TATL and in LATAM, and domestic, but it takes 10 seconds of thinking to realize there's no way that can be true.
DL's net profit in FY24 was ~$3.4B vs UA's ~$3.1B and AA's ~$0.9B. Given DL has much higher credit card revenue from Amex, the math is impossible if your claims based on DOT numbers are true. Thing is, SEC reporting for their financial statements is standardized and shows detail on allocations while DOT numbers do not. So no, DL does not make 80% of UA's profits across the Pacific w/ 50% of the capacity and far more profitability TATL, LATAM, and domestic and have a more lucrative credit card contract with Amex yet only have a 10% higher net profit. It makes literally 0 sense.
Tim has been told for years how basic his understanding is of Revenue accounting or DOT data... The DOT standardizes literally nothing. Their data is pretty useless other than saying which airline is more globally profitable (not delta anymore as the last quarter showed)...
Good luck. He says the same things over and over because they're the only talking points he has and has little new to add.
You can teach an old dog...
Tim has been told for years how basic his understanding is of Revenue accounting or DOT data... The DOT standardizes literally nothing. Their data is pretty useless other than saying which airline is more globally profitable (not delta anymore as the last quarter showed)...
Good luck. He says the same things over and over because they're the only talking points he has and has little new to add.
You can teach an old dog new tricks. But you, apparently, can't teach Tim anything.
It is from data that the AIRLINES THEMSELVES report to the DOT.
HA was deeply unprofitable; it is no surprise that they were losing money on their international network.
AS simply now has the job of cutting the losses on HA's system and try to use the assets more efficiently.
As much as you and others want to argue otherwise, some data really does confirm what is obvious in the rest of the world...
It is from data that the AIRLINES THEMSELVES report to the DOT.
HA was deeply unprofitable; it is no surprise that they were losing money on their international network.
AS simply now has the job of cutting the losses on HA's system and try to use the assets more efficiently.
As much as you and others want to argue otherwise, some data really does confirm what is obvious in the rest of the world - and that is true with DOT profitability by global region.
and Max,
I have given you the opportunity on multiple occasions to restate the profitability by global regions from the DOT according to what you think they should say - but you can't change the bottom line total.
You can shift profits or losses from one global region to another but you can't raise the total.
btw, AS reports that they don't make money flying to Latin America in the 1st and 4th quarter - in line with their overall trend of being much less profitable in the winter.
And the same DOT data confirms the trend I have repeatedly noted: DL's international network generates higher profits than UA's even though UA flies more ASMs.
DL's domestic network is ALSO more profitable than UA's.
AA continues to lose money flying both the Atlantic and Pacific. It didn't make money flying the Pacific for any quarter in 2024 and only made money flying the Atlantic during the 2nd quarter.
Just because you don't like the data doesn't make it wrong.
No
It just means you don’t know how to interpret data, as usual.
As stated
There’s no standardization among carriers in what they report so comparing them is useless
Just restate the numbers the way YOU think they are supposed to look - you just can't change the total.
Do you even read before you type?
I said exactly that. The total is the only correct number in dot data. I don’t rearrange it to my liking because, unless you’re an accountant at ALL three major airlines, you’d have no way of knowing how to do that.
Every airline reports the other pieces and parts differently.
Exactly why I said above “ The DOT standardizes literally nothing. Their data is pretty useless...
Do you even read before you type?
I said exactly that. The total is the only correct number in dot data. I don’t rearrange it to my liking because, unless you’re an accountant at ALL three major airlines, you’d have no way of knowing how to do that.
Every airline reports the other pieces and parts differently.
Exactly why I said above “ The DOT standardizes literally nothing. Their data is pretty useless other than saying which airline is more globally profitable”
Seriously.. read before a stupid reply
Let's not forget the partnership that Alaska has with Condor. FRA would give Alaska Airlines lots of connections to Europe on Condor.
Condor depends upon a government requirement that LH provide connections that LH is challenging (although they keep losing). So not necessarily a good partner for short haul intraeurope.
Steve, you’re not really up to date with the Condor/ LH issues. Like how how condor is increasingly building a domestic and a city-EU network. Getting more and more independent of LH.
For sure Rome. They would face no competition.
London and Paris are both already served from Seattle.
London will be 2nd and we may even expect to see Dublin in 2027 because of connections.
Alaska used to have a lot of tag end service so they know how to do it.
How about eventually a LHR (or LGW)- DUB-SEA with preclearance in SEA?
"How about eventually a LHR (or LGW)- DUB-SEA with preclearance in SEA?"
Who the heck is going to pay anything but bottom-barrel trash fares, to do fly something like that?
Yeah SEA to DUB isn't even daily year round. If anything were to change Aer Lingus would be the one to step up and increase frequencies.
Its FCO....AS has a habit of doing "easy" when it comes to expansion. They will have an insane time to get into LHR; although they WILL need to get there too. But i dont think LHR is appropriate from SEA. I think HNL>>LHR should be on the table. I talk with a ton of people in BA lounges over the years and Hawaii comes up all the time in terms of destinations. Given they have...
Its FCO....AS has a habit of doing "easy" when it comes to expansion. They will have an insane time to get into LHR; although they WILL need to get there too. But i dont think LHR is appropriate from SEA. I think HNL>>LHR should be on the table. I talk with a ton of people in BA lounges over the years and Hawaii comes up all the time in terms of destinations. Given they have the 789....i think this would be an incredible route add; along with being all to themselves.
I would see AY add SEA service....but MAD/BCN makes sense to hook into IB.
FCO is strictly a leisure route. You dont need to complete on product (which AS has ZERO vision on what a longhaul 787 interior in AS livery looks like) as much as say LHR or CDG.
AS needs a premium vision if they want to move into the business routes like LHR, FRA, CDG, MXP, SYD....
Rome would be nice as there already are non stops to Paris and London from Seattle and good connections from there. I like Madrid as well.
I would add that UA has stated FCO is their most profitable and popular TATL route from
SFO, surely AS can tap into some of that potential.
Seattle is not SFO nor do the two even compare
what do you mean?
Just look at the population of SEA v. SFO. Not even close.