A regular Hawaii flyer who reads BOH just put words to what longtime travelers are now seeing when booking flights. Fares have surged, planes are half empty, and the carrier that promised to break the monopoly just rolled out a loyalty program instead of keeping fares low.

Jim flies between islands often enough to know when something feels off. He told us he can afford to fly but is choosing not to, and maybe that says more than anything else right now. His focus was not on his own travel. He kept coming back to families and what it looks like when four people try to book a simple Hawaii flight from Honolulu and see totals pushing past $1,000 round trip for twenty-minute flights. He tied last week’s Hawaiian final integration by Alaska directly to the timing, with changes rushing in at once because something about the pricing suddenly felt less stable.

He did not soften it and said the Aloha spirit has been replaced by what he called a greedy eye for profit. Jim asked Alaska to explain what was happening, and he is not alone. He is just someone who said it clearly.

Fares up, planes not full, but the math no longer works for anyone.

Fuel is the obvious headline, but it does not completely explain what visitors and residents are seeing. The Middle East conflict pushed jet fuel to over $200 in a matter of weeks, hitting an industry where fuel now accounts for an unacceptably high percentage of operating expenses. US carriers largely folded that increase into base fares rather than as a separate charge, which helps explain some of the jump but not the entire pricing behavior now showing up on Hawaii interisland flights.

Federal Department of Transportation data covering the 12 months through August 2025 showed Southwest filling just 51.9% of its Hawaii flights between islands, while Hawaiian sat near 74% over that same period. That disparity has held for years now, and planes that are half full usually do not support higher fares because airlines lower prices to fill empty seats. That is how this business works when carriers actually compete.

We checked it ourselves this week. Lihue to Honolulu for meetings in June came back at about $230 round trip per person before any seat selection or other fees, and the flights were wide open on both Hawaiian/Alaska, and on Southwest across the day, with plenty of seats and seemingly no pressure on availability. High fares alongside empty inventory are telltale. This is not a capacity problem; it is a pricing decision.

Southwest came to Hawaii to break the monopoly then finally stopped trying.

Southwest entered Hawaii in 2019 with a simple pitch. Break the Hawaiian Airlines monopoly and keep fares honest. The $39 fare sales became the symbol of that promise, and people remember those numbers because they reset expectations overnight.

Those fares are gone. They did not just fade slowly; they stopped showing up. Southwest never got its Hawaii loads where it needed them, and even after cutting capacity twice in 2025 to shrink its operation, the planes stayed underfilled. Hawaiian held steady in the mid-70% range on the last count, while the competitive pressure that was supposed to keep prices in check no longer seems to matter.

Now both carriers are moving in the same direction on price, and fuel gave them a great reason to move together. No one needed to say anything publicly. The result is the same: the discount era has ended, and nothing valuable has replaced it on the fare side.

Airline points programs are not fare sales.

This week, Southwest expanded its Ohana Rewards program for Hawaii residents, and the pitch sounds familiar. Hawaii residents earn 1,000 points per one-way flight, awards starting at 4,000 points, two free checked bags, and a quarterly 10% discount code.

So two full-fare round-trip tickets earn one free one-way ticket. Is that a deal when the cost per flight is so much higher than it has been before? It asks residents to pay full price repeatedly to earn back a fraction of a trip, and for Hawaii visitors its even worse.

Southwest used to advertise fares that moved the market. Now it advertises points that require multiple paid trips to unlock a limited return. Hawaiian’s Huakai program runs essentially the same playbook on the other side. The headline is up to 20% off one neighbor island booking per quarter, but that’s only for holders of the old Hawaiian Airlines Mastercard. Regular members get 10%. The discount code applies to up to 6 companions on the same reservation. Perks sit atop high prices, with rules that make them hard to use.

When Southwest, which built its reputation on cheap fares to Hawaii, shifts to selling loyalty points, the signal is clear. The focus moved from filling seats with lower prices to holding prices high and offering rewards later, and reader Jim saw that shift when booking, before any press release explained it.

Residents bear the highest cost when flights to Hawaii become a luxury.

Mainland visitors experience it differently. If they book a direct flight to Maui, Kauai, or Kona and stay put, there is no impact. And that direct to neighbor island flight shift has been building for years as mainland carriers added more nonstop routes to Maui, the Big Island, and Kauai. Flying between the Hawaii islands is no longer a key part of many visitors’ itineraries.

The people left flying between islands are residents, and some visitors, those visiting multiple islands, and those going to see family, attend meetings, handle medical appointments, show up for events, or support kids playing sports and music across the islands. Many of these are not optional trips. There is no ferry, there is no road, and flying Southwest or Alaska is the only way.

When fares double and stay there, the choice becomes simple and hard at the same time. Pay it or do not go. Jim chose not to go because he could make that call, but many could not.

The group with the least flexibility is paying the highest prices, and the carriers serving that market have stopped competing on airfare. What they are offering is Hawaii resident loyalty programs of far less value than better airfares.

Jim said it plainly. That is not Aloha when, in a Hawaii flight market, the people who need the service most are the ones with the fewest options.

The shift arrived suddenly.

Two airlines that once competed hard on price are now moving together, and loyalty program enhancements are landing at the same time as clear airfare spikes. Fuel is the reason everyone can easily point to, but the alignment on pricing is the piece that people feel, and that we are writing about. Jim asked Alaska to explain itself, and he has not heard anything that answers his question.

What are you seeing when booking Hawaii flights now? Please tell us in the comments below.

Photo Credit of Waikiki from Diamond Head: © Beat of Hawaii.

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Six transgender Idaho residents are suing the state in federal court, asking a federal judge to declare a strict new bathroom ban unconstitutional.

The law, which goes into effect in July, is the strictest bathroom ban in the nation, subjecting people to time behind bars if they knowingly enter a bathroom, locker room or changing area that does not correspond with their sex assigned at birth — even if the bathroom is in a privately owned business. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and sentenced to a year in jail for a first offense, or a felony with up to five years in prison for a second offense.

The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, say the law forces them to either stay at home or risk harassment, assault or arrest when using public restrooms.

“I’ve been enjoying life as a man and using the men’s restrooms hasn’t been a big deal,” Diego Fable, one of the plaintiffs, said in a news release. “But this law would force me to use the women’s facilities, and doing so would only invite suspicion, questions, and raised eyebrows. I would have to face tough choices every time I leave my home: Do I know the restroom situation when I go out to eat with my friends? Do I know the restrooms available when I go to public parks to go birding? What do I do while I’m at work all day?”

Republican Sen. Ben Toews, one of the sponsors of the legislation behind the law, said in March that the law was needed to protect women and children. He suggested that transgender people could simply find and use a single-occupancy gender -neutral restroom if they wanted.

Few gender-neutral restrooms available

But in the lawsuit, Fable said the only restrooms available at his work, local grocery stores and some restaurants, conference centers and gas stations are multi-occupancy gendered facilities. Other people also perceive Fable as a man, according to the lawsuit — and he is worried he will face violence if he goes into a women’s restroom facility as required by the new law.

“Ultimately, complying with this law would be extremely isolating,” Fable said. “The only safe option truly available is to just stay home –- or leave the state entirely, leaving my treasured friends and community behind.”

The other plaintiffs expressed similar concerns. Peter Poe is a transgender man with a beard, and said using a women’s restroom would be disruptive. Amelia Milette, a transgender woman, says her job requires her to assist clients at their own offices, and most of those offices only do not have gender-neutral restrooms. She said she will have to limit her food and liquid consumption to reduce the need to use the restroom in public places if the law goes into effect.

At least 19 states, including Idaho, already have laws barring transgender people from using bathrooms and changing rooms that align with their gender in schools and, in some cases, other public places. The LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Movement Advancement Project’s tracking of the laws shows that three other states — Florida, Kansas and Utah — have made it a criminal offense in some circumstances to violate the bathroom laws.

Idaho’s law applies broadly to private businesses

But none of the others apply as broadly to private businesses as the Idaho law, which covers any “place of public accommodation,” meaning any business or facility that serves the public. The legislation includes nine exceptions for situations like performing janitorial work, responding to emergencies, helping children or cases when someone has “dire need” of a restroom.

The plaintiffs say the ban will cause emotional harm, exacerbate gender dysphoria and could lead to medical problems like kidney and urinary tract infections caused by being forced to avoid using restrooms. They contend the law is overly vague, that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status, and that it violates their constitutional right to privacy because it will force them to disclose their transgender status.

“This law is a dangerous and discriminatory effort to push transgender people out of public life,” said Barbara Schwabauer, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project.

Schwabauer said they would try to have the law completely blocked. “If you cannot use the restroom at work, you cannot go to work. If you cannot use the restroom at school, you cannot go to school,” she said.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador is named as a defendant in the case along with multiple county prosecutors.

“We look forward to defending the law,” Labrador’s office said in an email to The Associated Press.