Leaders from Pacific Island nations and territories gathered this week at the East-West Center in Manoa for an inaugural diplomatic and business summit aimed at promoting private sector investments and contracts across island communities in Oceania.

Through Monday and Tuesday the Pacific Agenda summit brought representatives from more than a dozen countries and more than 80 companies, as presidents and prime ministers from across the region rubbed shoulders and held meetings with American corporate executives, investors and experts to discuss everything from infrastructure, energy, tourism, telecommunications and satellite technology.

Among the companies participating were national giants like Salesforce, Boeing, Google, SpaceX and JP Morgan along with local companies like L&L Hawaiian Barbecue, Hawaiian Airlines and Hawaiian Electric.

“Over these past two days, we have listened and shared through the roundtables and dialogues,” said Solomon Islands Prime Minister and Pacific Islands Forum Chair Jeremiah Manele as the summit wrapped up Tuesday evening. “I have noted some candid and frank discussions centered on the topics of this summit. Whilst the past and present may have influenced our perspectives, what we take forward as partners in commercial diplomacy following this summit is critical. Indeed, investment and security are inseparable and critical for prosperity.”

The summit was hosted and co-organized by the East-West Center, U.S. State Department and Oahu-based U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. It’s part of a long effort that is in part aimed at countering China’s growing influence across the Pacific Islands as the U.S. and its allies work to maintain a footing in strategically important island chains.

Many Pacific Island countries have signed onto China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a series of Beijing-funded infrastructure projects aimed at promoting trade with China. Some analysts argue that many of the projects are “dual use” endeavors that also may be supporting Chinese intelligence and military operations in the region.

“We’ve seen other countries coming in the Pacific in quite an aggressive manner,” said U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau. “And in a sense, maybe that’s not a bad thing, and it’s given us a little bit of a kick in the butt to up our game in this region.”

Palauan President Surangel Whipps Jr. told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that it’s been something he’s brought up frequently with American officials, saying that U.S. government agencies are “helping us build infrastructure, schools, health care facilities, roads. But when it comes to private sector, we don’t see you. You’re absent, but China’s there. So what we want to see is we want to see U.S. investment. We want to see Taiwanese investment. We want to see Japanese investment in our islands. We want to see Australian investment.”

The U.S. military has been investing heavily in Palau on infrastructure to support its operations as it pursues port renovations, building radars and stockpiling weapons and equipment for a potential Pacific conflict.

It also has begun building a new fuel depot in Papua New Guinea to offset effects of the ongoing shutdown of Red Hill and working on airstrips and other facilities across the region.

INDOPACOM Commander Adm. Samuel Paparo told attendees and the summit “we do need you in the private sector to move in and to help us build the vibrant commerce that brings this infrastructure to life. I ask you to work with our partners to develop and connect markets, to lower risk, to enhance transparency and to ensure a level playing field.”

As the summit concluded, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency announced it would fund a “hospital relocation project feasibility study” around Palau’s Belau National Hospital — the only hospital in the small island nation — in hopes of rebuilding and modernizing the aging facility, with local company Architects Hawaii Ltd. taking on the work.

Several other Pacific Island leaders told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser they had reached memorandums of understanding with companies to work on future projects across the region. Manele said top issues for island communities included “whether our child has electricity to study at night and whether farmers can reach markets, whether digital connections allow young people to participate in the global economy.”

Gov. Josh Green, who sits on the EWC’s board of governors, called the summit “an extraordinary success from the East-West Center perspective to gather all of these leaders … a lot of serious business partners that are interested in looking at Hawaii as a potential bridge deep into the Pacific.”

Landau said that he foresees looking to the EWC more to engage with Pacific Island nations, saying “the location here in Hawaii makes it a natural choice.” But he said that it would ultimately take years as deals discussed at the summit actually take shape before anyone can measure the impact of the summit.

“We welcome the realignment of foreign policy, and this is the first step in engaging us,” Tongan Prime Minister Fatafehi Fakafanua told the Star-Advertiser. “I think it’s a smart move to use the private sector to encourage investment into the Pacific. Evidently, there is not that much U.S. investment in the Pacific Islands, and we think this is a great catalyst for us to deepen our relationship.”

During closing remarks, Manele told Landau he would like him to “to help us with the establishment of a Pacific trade investment office in the U.S. similar to those that we have in New Zealand, Australia, China, Japan and in Geneva. It will greatly help our efforts in connecting trade and investment opportunities for us into the future.”

But while Pacific Island leaders welcomed the attention of American officials and companies, many still have deep disagreements with the United States. This month President Donald Trump’s administration rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which allowed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

Trump and much of his Cabinet have insisted that climate change is a hoax. The White House has been rolling back environmental regulations while seeking to boost production of fossil fuels, encouraging other countries to import American oil and coal and deriding renewable energy sources.

In a keynote opening the summit, Manele said “climate change remains the greatest security threat impacting our livelihoods, communities and economic prosperity. Rising seas and intensifying disasters erode development gains and strain national budgets. A flooded school or damaged hospital is not only a humanitarian issue, that is strategic one.”

Fakafanua said that during the conference his delegation had conversations with an American company on the prospect of underwater geothermal energy, a renewable source that could help Tonga become less dependent on imported fossil fuels.

“United States administration has prioritized some key areas that they’re focusing on,” Fakafanua said. “But at the same time, it’s a free conversation, and we’re also putting on the table our own priorities.”

Hawaiian Airlines’ passengers are back in federal court trying to stop something most people assumed was already finished. They are no longer arguing about whether they are allowed to sue. They are now asking a judge to intervene and preserve Hawaiian as a standalone airline before integration advances to a point this spring where it cannot realistically be reversed.

That approach is far more aggressive than what we covered in Can Travelers Really Undo Alaska’s Hawaiian Airlines Takeover?. The earlier round focused on whether passengers had standing and could amend their complaint. This court round focuses on whether harm is already occurring and whether the court should act immediately rather than later. The shift is moving from procedural survival to emergency relief, which makes this filing different for Hawaii travelers.

The post-merger record is now the focus.

When the $1.9 billion acquisition closed in September 2024, the narrative was straightforward. Hawaiian would gain financial stability. Alaska would impose what it described early as “discipline” across routes and costs. Travelers were told they would benefit from broader connectivity, stronger loyalty alignment, and long-term fleet investments that Hawaiian could no longer fund independently.

Eighteen months later, the plaintiffs argue that the outcome has not matched the pitch. They cite reduced nonstop options on some Hawaii mainland routes, redeye-heavy return schedules that many readers openly dislike, and loyalty program changes that longtime Hawaiian flyers say diminished redemption value. They frame these not as routine airline integration but as signs that competitive pressure has weakened in our island state, where airlift determines price and critical access for both visitors and residents.

What is different about this filing compared with earlier debates is that it relies on developments that have already occurred rather than on predictions about what might happen later.

The HA call sign has already been retired. Boston to Honolulu was cut before competitors signaled renewed service. Austin’s nonstop service ended. Multiple mainland departures shifted into overnight red-eyes. And next, the single reservation system transition is targeted for April 2026, a process already well underway.

Atmos replaced both Hawaiian Miles and Alaska’s legacy loyalty programs, and readers immediately reported higher award pricing, fewer cheap seats, no mileage upgrades, and confusion around status alignment and family accounts. Each of those events can be described as aspects of integration mechanics, but together they form the factual record that the plaintiffs are now asking a judge to examine in Yoshimoto v. Alaska Airlines.

The 40% capacity argument.

One of the more interesting claims tied to the court filing is that Alaska now controls more than 40% of Hawaii mainland U.S. capacity. That figure strikes at the core of the entire issue. That percentage does not automatically mean monopoly under antitrust law, but it does raise questions about concentration in a state that depends exclusively on air access for its only industry and its residents.

Hawaii is not a region where travelers have options. Every visitor, every neighbor island resident, and every business traveler depends on our limited air transportation. The plaintiffs contend that consolidation at that scale reduces competitive pressure and gives the dominant carrier far more leverage over pricing and scheduling decisions. Alaska says that competition remains robust from Delta, United, Southwest, and others, and that share shifts seasonally and by route.

Competitors reacted quickly.

While Alaska integrated Hawaiian’s network under its publicly stated discipline strategy, Delta announced its largest Hawaii winter schedule ever, beginning in December 2026. Delta’s Boston to Honolulu is slated to return, Minneapolis to Maui launches, and Detroit and JFK to Honolulu move to daily service. Atlanta also gains additional frequency. Widebodies are appearing where narrowbodies once operated, signaling Delta’s push into higher capacity and premium cabin layouts.

Those moves complicate the monopoly narrative. If Delta is expanding aggressively, one argument is that competition remains active and responsive. At the same time, Delta filling routes Alaska trimmed may reinforce the idea that structural changes created openings competitors believe are profitable, and that markets respond when gaps appear.

What changed since October.

In October, we examined whether the case would survive dismissal and whether passengers could refile. That moment felt more procedural than what’s afoot now. It did not alter flights, fares, or loyalty programs.

This filing is different because it is tied to post-merger developments and seeks emergency relief. The plaintiffs are asking the court to prevent further integration while the merits are evaluated, arguing that each added step toward full consolidation this spring makes reversal less feasible as systems merge, crew scheduling aligns, fleet plans shift, and branding converges.

Airline mergers are designed to become embedded quickly, and once those pieces are fully intertwined, unwinding them becomes exponentially more difficult, which is why the plaintiffs are pressing forward now rather than waiting any longer.

The DOT conditions and the defense.

When the purchase of Hawaiian closed, the Department of Transportation imposed conditions that run for six years. Those conditions addressed maintaining capacity on overlapping routes, preserving certain interline agreements, protecting aspects of loyalty commitments, and safeguarding interisland service levels.

Alaska will point to those commitments as evidence that consumer protections were built into the core approval. The plaintiffs, however, are essentially claiming that those conditions are either insufficient or that subsequent real-world changes undermine the spirit of what travelers were told would remain. That tension between formal commitments and actual experience is at the core of this dispute.

Hawaiian had not produced consistent profits for years.

That is the actual financial situation, without sentiment. Alaska did not spend $1.9 billion to preserve Hawaii nostalgia. It purchased aircraft, an international and trans-Pacific network reach, and a platform it thinks can return to profitability under tighter cost control.

What this means for travelers today.

Nothing about your Hawaiian Airlines ticket changes because of this filing. Flights remain scheduled. Atmos remains the reward program. Integration continues unless a judge intervenes.

However, Alaska now faces a renewed court challenge that points to concrete post-merger developments rather than speculative harm. That scrutiny alone can bring things to light and influence how aggressively future route decisions and loyalty adjustments occur.

Hawaiian Airlines’ travelers have been vocal since the start about pricing, redeyes, lost nonstops, and loyalty devaluation. Others have said very clearly that without Alaska, Hawaiian might not exist in any form at all. Both perspectives exist as background while a federal judge evaluates whether the integration should be impacted.

You tell us: Eighteen months after Alaska took over Hawaiian, are your Hawaii flights better or worse than before, and what changed first for you: price, schedule, routes, interisland flights, or loyalty programs?

Lead Photo Credit: © Beat of Hawaii at SALT At Our Kaka’ako in Honolulu.