For those of us who fly to and from Hawaii regularly, the journey is often still a celebration in the sky, despite all the challenges of modern-day air travel. But on a recent First Class flight, what we witnessed raised serious questions about airline policies and safety: a visibly inebriated flight attendant being served multiple drinks while “deadheading.”

The person was not in uniform but was part of the crew. They were seated up front and, throughout the flight, had many conversations with other crew members who came to talk story with them. We noticed they were feeling the alcohol while continuing to receive more from the working crew—who appeared entirely unfazed.

This wasn’t the first time we’d encountered this, and while not frequent, each time—to our recollection—it happened on the same airline over a couple of decades’ time. That led us to take note when others started writing about this and to dig into the rules behind a situation that may surprise many Hawaii travelers.

Airline fine print behind flight attendant drinking.

In airline terms, “deadheading” refers to crew members flying as passengers, often to reposition for a future assignment. They aren’t working the flight, are typically not wearing an airline uniform, but are still technically considered to be on duty.

One major U.S. carrier with a big focus on Hawaii flights, United Airlines, permits these off-duty flight attendants to drink onboard under specific conditions: they must be out of uniform, not scheduled to work another flight that day, and only drink after the aircraft door is closed. Most other airlines have phased it out due to concerns about safety and public perception.

In other words, this isn’t a policy loophole—it’s deliberate. And now, it’s getting media attention.

What makes Hawaii flights different?

Hawaii flights are longer than most domestic flights and are unquestionably more isolated, with limited diversion options and stricter overwater safety protocols. Airlines consider every crew member onboard, whether working or not, part of the larger safety equation.

If something goes wrong over the Pacific, no matter the nature, having a visibly impaired crew member onboard—regardless of whether they’re scheduled to work—could be a concern. These are not short hops where help is always nearby. Preparedness becomes a greater issue when passengers are up to six hours from the mainland.

That’s why this particular policy might feel different when applied to Hawaii routes. It’s not just about perception—it’s about readiness when needed most.

Why this matters now.

Recent headlines about flight attendants and alcohol use—such as failed breathalyzer tests and crew removals—highlight the growing scrutiny on airline safety and conduct. Policies like this can seem increasingly outdated in an era of heightened awareness.

The rationale for allowing drinking may appear more reasonable on Hawaii flights, where flight time is long and reassignments are unlikely. However, the flip side is that the consequences of an impaired crew member could be more serious, especially if an issue arises with no one else available to step in.

A bigger debate over alcohol, behavior, and trust in the skies.

Alcohol and air travel have long sparked debate among our readers. In a recent Beat of Hawaii article, dozens of comments poured in with frustration, personal observations, and concrete suggestions.

One commenter, JA, pointed out that most passengers don’t realize it’s illegal to fly while intoxicated and proposed visible signage to deter it. Meanwhile, others advocated for simple, enforceable solutions—like limiting onboard alcohol or reviving face-to-face check-ins to catch visibly impaired travelers.

Mike C, proposed tracking drinks by boarding pass and time stamp to limit pre-flight alcohol consumption. At the same time, Don K pushed back against impractical solutions, saying, “Breathalyzers before boarding? Maybe the single dumbest thing I’ve read in a while.”

A shared concern unites all these comments: passengers want safe, predictable flights—and they’re increasingly skeptical about anything that could compromise that. So when passengers see flight attendants, even off-duty ones, being served alcohol, the reaction may be as much about trust as it is airline policy.

What travelers have told us.

After sharing our experience, we heard from other travelers who’d seen similar behavior. One visitor told us, “I didn’t realize they were crew until they started talking about work mid-flight. They were on their third glass of wine. It just felt wrong.”

Another BOH reader told us, “If I showed up tipsy to my job, I’d be fired. Why should someone being paid to fly be drinking at all?”

Others pushed back. “They’re done for the day. If they’re off the clock and following the rules, they should be allowed to enjoy the flight like anyone else.”

This split perspective makes the issue so compelling—and why we decided to share it.

Airline loophole or a smart perk?

Supporters of the policy say it’s a matter of fairness. A deadheading flight attendant, out of uniform and done with work for that day, is still a passenger. Why shouldn’t they be treated like one in all regards?

Critics argue that air travel’s unpredictability—from medical emergencies to diversions or unexpected staffing needs—makes any level of impairment unacceptable. On Hawaii routes, where flights are longer and assistance options are limited, the risks can be amplified.

As a passenger, would you be comfortable knowing a potentially inebriated crew member is onboard and might be asked to assist in an emergency?

A quiet airline policy, now being exposed.

This policy has existed quietly for some time. Honestly, we didn’t know about it ourselves, and we suspect most passengers don’t either. With renewed attention this week, it’s suddenly under a brighter spotlight.

In our case, what was most concerning wasn’t just the drinking—it was how intoxicated the crew member became, and how casually the working staff continued to serve them. It suggested to us that this wasn’t unusual.

That leaves us wondering: How common is this, and how do travelers feel about it—especially on long, remote flights like those to and from Hawaii?

What do you think?

Have you seen this happen on your Hawaii flight? Should off-duty crew be treated like passengers, or held to a higher standard?

As passengers, we trust that everyone onboard—crew included—is prepared for the unexpected. Policies like this challenge that trust and raise an important question: where should the line be drawn, especially on high-stakes routes like Hawaii?

We’d love to hear your thoughts. Let us know in the comments.