Talk to any line pilot who flies the west coast to Hawaii and you get the same practical worry. Islands and remote communities live and die by seat counts and frequency. If regulators decide to take a hard look at any proposed tie up between a mainland carrier like Alaska and island carrier operations like Hawaiian, the review needs to be written with one foot in law and one foot on the ramp. Passengers do not care about market share math. They care about schedules that exist when they need them, refunds that arrive without a fight, reliable interisland connections, and loyalty currency that does not evaporate overnight.

Start with the basics regulators already enforce. The Department of Transportation has long required carriers to adopt customer service plans, to limit excessive tarmac delay exposure, and to provide timely disclosure of cancellations and significant delays. Those rules are the baseline passengers rely on when things go wrong, and any conditions attached to a merger should reaffirm and strengthen those protections rather than allow exceptions.

Second, expect the Department of Justice to scrutinize competitive effects and the real world impact on fares and consumer choice. The DOJ has shown renewed willingness to block or litigate airline deals it thinks will eliminate disruptive low fare competition and raise prices for travelers. That posture matters because a combined carrier serving both Hawaii and key West Coast gateways could change dynamics on thin but critical routes where one carrier often disciplines fares. Regulators must look beyond headline hub overlaps and examine interisland and Honolulu mainline routes where market power translates quickly into fewer frequencies and higher fares for everyday travelers.

Third, learn from precedent. When Alaska merged with Virgin America the government approved but required adjustments to commercial arrangements to preserve competition. That approval came with targeted constraints on codeshares and other partnerships so the combined carrier would not simply rely on partner networks to stitch up market power. In practical terms any review of an Alaska and Hawaiian combination should consider similar, surgical remedies that preserve head-to-head competition where it matters, rather than broad structural fixes that could cripple island connectivity.

Operationally focused passenger protections I would expect the DOJ or DOT to press for include the following items. Each of these is anchored in routine operational realities pilots and dispatchers live with every day.

  • Maintain minimum published frequencies on interisland routes. Interisland flying is not fungible. If an airline trims frequencies under the guise of consolidation savings, a missed connection becomes a multi day problem for travelers, cargo, and local economies.

  • Guarantee continuity of service on key Honolulu to mainland flows. Honolulu is a choke point. Losing options there raises prices rapidly for a population that depends on affordable air service for families, medical travel, and essential commerce.

  • Protect loyalty program value and clear rules for redemption and status conversion. Frequent flyers are often the first to notice devaluation. Regulators should demand transparent conversion ratios and interim protections so miles are not arbitrarily debased at close.

  • Require robust contingency and staffing plans before any operational consolidation. Combining back offices and operations creates single points of failure. Regulators should require that carriers maintain sufficient crew and aircraft pools to meet published schedules during the integration period, not after a painful cutback that strands passengers.

  • Enforce clear refund and rebooking obligations for controllable disruptions. Passengers should not be left negotiating vouchers when disruptions stem from the carrier’s integration choices. DOT rules on refunds and timely notification are a floor. A merger condition should make prompt cash refunds and reasonable rebooking an enforceable, measurable commitment.

  • Preserve competitive access at slot constrained airports. Honolulu and a handful of West Coast airports are capacity limited. Any review should consider protections to ensure smaller carriers retain the ability to serve these markets so barriers to entry do not rise post transaction.

Finally, the safety and certification angle matters. Merging operating certificates is a complex FAA process. Until a single operating certificate is granted, regulators should insist carriers operate independently on key safety critical functions and hold to their existing customer service obligations. From a pilot and operations perspective, integration glitches happen. Fixing those in advance with enforceable service-level commitments will prevent many of the worst passenger impacts.

Regulators do not have to choose between a healthy, competitive airline landscape and protecting passengers. They can, and should, use the tools learned from recent merger reviews and past precedents to require targeted, enforceable protections that preserve schedules, maintain rural and interisland links, protect loyalty value, and guarantee refunds and rebooking. If you fly these routes, you want outcomes that work in real operational conditions. That should be the litmus test for any DOJ or DOT review: will passengers on the ground and crews in the system be better off, the same, or worse? Hold firms to the answer.