Summary Minimal network overlap reduces competition concerns since Alaska & Hawaiian compete on only 3% of routes. In fact, increased competition with legacy carriers is likely, benefiting customers with lower costs & more route options. Alaska-Hawaiian's fleet diversity enhances international service, bolstering tourism & aiding Hawaii's economy.
Alaska Airlines ’ proposed $1.9 billion acquisition of Hawaiian Airlines is currently undergoing intense scrutiny from the Department of Justice (DOJ), with a decision expected within the next few days. If given the green light, it would see America’s fifth-largest airline combine with its tenth-largest in a deal that would bring together two carriers rooted in markets uniquely reliant upon air travel.
At face value, the combination makes sense to both carriers and their customers. But mere months ago, the DOJ blocked JetBlue's planned $3.8 billion acquisition of ultra-low-cost carrier Spirit Airlines due to concerns about the erosion of competition in the domestic market.
Do those same concerns exist with the Alaska-Hawaiian deal, and how do they balance out against the advantages of the proposed merger? Which industry players are in a stronger position as a result of the merger? Minimal network overlap The concerns about the merger leading to reduced competition are minimal because there is minimal network overlap. The two carriers offer a combined 348 routes and compete directly on only 12 (or 3% of all routes). By comparison.