The Hawaiian Airlines Memo: A Story of Cultural Identity and Corporate Decision-Making
The Core Issue: A Single Sentence, A World of Emotion
A single sentence, buried in an internal memo, sparked a firestorm of debate and concern among Hawaiian Airlines employees and Hawaii residents. The sentence, which stated that Hawaiian words had been removed from the airline's employee handbook to make the language "inclusive for our entire employee population across the entire U.S.," was more than just a policy update. It was a signal that something fundamental had shifted within the company, and it landed harder than expected, even for those who thought they were already braced for what integration would bring next.
The Background: Hawaii's Language History and Hawaiian Airlines' Commitment
To understand why this sentence was so upsetting, we need to delve into Hawaii's history with its own language. Hawaiian was banned in schools in 1896 following the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, and that ban remained in place for nearly a century, until 1987. The revival of "Olelo Hawaii" since then has been hard-won and deliberate. Hawaiian is one of the state's two official languages, yet its place in daily life is still fragile.
For decades, Hawaiian Airlines stood out as one of the few large employers that didn't treat Hawaiian language as ceremonial or decorative. It was normalized and showed up in communications, values statements, and everyday usage, not as branding flair but as a working language within the company. Not only that, but the passenger greetings on Hawaiian Airlines flights are both in Hawaiian and in English. For many employees, this was an important part of the airline's core internal identity, not just something rolled out for passengers or marketing.
The Controversy: The Walk-Back and Its Implications
The memo's final key point struck a nerve. When a company says it has been removed in the name of inclusivity, people ask who is being included and who is being asked to step aside. The correction simply didn’t settle things. After the backlash, Hawaiian Airlines said the memo was incorrectly worded, emphasizing that the Hawaiian language remains part of its brand through values such as Malama, Hookipa, and Po`okela. In short, Hawaiian words were not being removed after all.
However, the damage was already done. The gap between the original memo and the walk-back revealed a deeper issue: the role of Alaska Airlines, the new owners, in shaping the airline's identity and culture. While the memo carried Hawaiian branding, the decisions come from Alaska Airlines, which now controls policy, systems, and messaging. CEO Diana Birkett Rakow, who joined from Alaska’s corporate affairs team just months ago, has repeatedly said Hawaiian’s identity is secure, but her predecessor, Joe Sprague, told Beat of Hawaii directly that the Hawaiian Airlines CEO role was interim by design, never intended to be permanent.
The Impact: A Sense of Disconnection and Uncertainty
For many employees, the memo cut against the understanding that Hawaiian Airlines felt different, not just through its logo or safety video, but through the ability to show up without cultural translation. It made it feel less settled and less of an assumption, which was the uncomfortable part. This didn’t have to happen, as other airlines with strong regional or indigenous identities have also made cultural choices. Airlines such as Air New Zealand and Air Canada include native and regional languages in their official documents and internal communications, even while they operate large multinational workforces.
The Takeaway: The Power of Unguarded Moments and the Future of Hawaiian Airlines
The original memo was an unguarded moment, showing how someone, somewhere in the organization, framed the Hawaiian language as something that should be removed to make everyone comfortable. Once it was out there, a correction was never going to be enough. This episode will fade from the many headlines, but it won’t fade from memory. Future integration moves will now be read through this lens, with less attention on policy specifics and more on what they reveal. Does this feel like another step away from what made Hawaiian Airlines unique? Or is this just being overblown? What would it take for you to feel confident that the airline’s identity is truly being preserved, or do you even care anymore?
