Ramhith Akurati

Associate Editor

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2026

Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines’ proposed $1.9 billion merger has survived litigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) following recent scrutiny of airlines by regulators. Earlier this year, a federal judge blocked the $3.8 billion acquisition of Spirit Airlines by JetBlue due to antitrust concerns. The DOJ successfully blocked the acquisition by arguing it would stifle competition and raise prices for consumers. The Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines merger managed to survive an inquiry by the DOT leading to split decisions by regulators.

U.S. Department of Justice antitrust regulation

The DOJ blocked the Spirit and JetBlue merger primarily due to concerns over reduced competition in the airline industry. The DOJ argued that the merger would harm consumers by increasing fares, reducing choices, and eliminating Spirit’s ultra-low-cost business model, which plays a critical role in keeping airfare prices competitive. Spirit, as an ultra-low-cost carrier, often forces competitors to lower prices, benefiting consumers. A merger with JetBlue could eliminate this competitive pressure, particularly on routes where both airlines operate, leading to a reduction in fare options. By combining their networks, JetBlue could dominate key markets, which would decrease competition and likely result in higher ticket prices for passengers on overlapping routes, especially where fewer alternatives exist. The DOJ aims to maintain competition and protect consumers from monopolistic practices.

Unlike the Spirit and JetBlue merger, the DOJ allowed the Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines merger for different reasons, including the nature of their market overlap which is less significant compared to larger carriers like Spirit and JetBlue. Both airlines serve distinct regions—Alaska Airlines focuses on the West Coast and Alaska, while Hawaiian Airlines primarily operates in Hawaii. This could mean less direct competition on key routes, reducing concerns about fare increases or reduced consumer choice. Additionally, the merger includes commitments to preserve critical services and consumer benefits, which helps alleviate potential antitrust concerns. The DOJ tends to weigh the competitive impact of mergers on consumers and regional market dominance, and this merger might have posed less risk to competition compared to other airline deals.

U.S. Department of Transportation antitrust regulation

Even though the DOJ did not block the merger, the DOT has imposed binding protections on Alaska and Hawaiian Airlines during their merger process. These measures aim to preserve rewards programs, maintain critical flight services, guarantee fee-free family seating, and reduce costs for military families. The airlines are required to preserve the value of customer rewards programs. This ensures that passengers do not lose the worth of their accumulated miles, maintaining the benefits and incentives tied to frequent flyer programs. Both airlines must also continue operating flights on critical routes, particularly those serving remote or underserved areas like Alaska and Hawaii–which rely heavily on air travel. The airlines are required to maintain equitable access to Honolulu International Airport. This prevents one carrier from monopolizing gates or flight slots, ensuring competition and fair pricing. These protections are designed to benefit travelers and smaller competitors, as part of the DOT’s proactive approach to merger reviews.

Future implications of airline mergers and antitrust regulation

The stark differences between the Spirit and JetBlue versus the Alaska and Hawaiian mergers lays out a regulatory framework and the intentions of the DOJ and DOT. They assess whether the merger reduces competition, especially on overlapping routes, which could lead to fare increases, fewer choices, or monopolistic behavior. The departments also want to protect consumers from fare hikes and ensure continued access to frequent flyer programs and low-cost options. They evaluate whether the merged airline would dominate specific markets or hubs, which could stifle smaller competitors. And finally, they want to ensure service to remote or underserved areas is preserved. These agencies are aiming to maintain a balance between efficiency gains from mergers and protecting consumer interests.

While the DOJ and DOT’s efforts to protect consumers in airline mergers are commendable, the effectiveness of these regulations remains to be seen. The preservation of competition through blocking mergers like Spirit and JetBlue and the imposition of consumer protections in deals like Alaska and Hawaiian demonstrate a thoughtful approach, but more could be done to address long-term industry trends. For instance, regulators should continue to scrutinize not just mergers, but also other practices such as code-sharing agreements and airline alliances, which can reduce competition in subtle ways. Additionally, ensuring transparency in pricing, limiting excessive fees, and encouraging the growth of low-cost carriers could further enhance consumer protection. Ultimately, while current efforts are a step in the right direction, a more proactive regulatory stance may be necessary to ensure that consumers truly benefit from a competitive and fair airline industry.