Hawaiian Airlines' Attempt to Reverse a Controversial Decision Backfired
A single sentence in an internal memo, buried near the end, caused a stir among Hawaiian Airlines employees and the public alike. The sentence, which stated that Hawaiian words were removed to make the language 'inclusive for our entire employee population across the entire U.S.,' sparked a heated reaction, even from those who thought they were prepared for the integration's potential challenges. The memo, generated by Hawaiian Airlines, was actually a decision made by Alaska Airlines, the new owners, which is an important detail often overlooked in the coverage.
The issue lies in the historical context of the Hawaiian language. Banned in schools in 1896 after the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, it remained prohibited for nearly a century until 1987. The revival of 'Olelo Hawaii' has been a deliberate and challenging process, with Hawaiian being one of the state's two official languages, yet its presence in daily life remains fragile.
Hawaiian Airlines had stood out as one of the few large employers that didn't treat the Hawaiian language as ceremonial or decorative. It was normalized in their communications, values statements, and everyday usage, not just as branding but as a working language within the company. This included passenger greetings in both Hawaiian and English.
For employees, this normalization was significant, as it was part of the airline's core internal identity, not just a marketing tool. However, the memo's statement about removing Hawaiian words caused unease, as it implied a shift in priorities and direction.
The backlash was swift, and Hawaiian Airlines issued a clarification, stating that the memo was poorly worded and that the Hawaiian language remains a vital part of their brand promise. Officially, nothing changed, but the unease persisted. The problem wasn't just the memo; it was the attempt to walk it back, which seemed to confirm a shift in priorities.
The sentence that struck a nerve was about inclusivity, and it raised questions about who was being included and who was being excluded. The correction didn't settle the matter, as it didn't address the deeper concerns raised by the memo.
The issue went beyond a simple HR misstep. It implied that Hawaiian Airlines' identity was no longer a given but something that needed to be justified and potentially set aside, which contradicted the initial description of the partnership.
The decision-making process is a point of contention, as the memo carried Hawaiian branding, but the actual decisions are made by Alaska Airlines, which now controls policy, systems, and messaging. The CEO, Diana Birkett Rakow, has reassured employees that Hawaiian Airlines' identity is secure, but her predecessor, Joe Sprague, suggested that the CEO role was interim, designed to end once full integration was complete.
The controversy highlights a disconnect between the airline's loyal customers and the new management. The unique aspects of Hawaiian Airlines, such as the ability to show cultural authenticity and the distinct experience it offered, were now questioned. The memo made it feel less settled and less of an assumption, causing discomfort among employees and customers.
The walk-back couldn't undo the damage, as it revealed a mindset within the organization that framed the Hawaiian language as something to be removed for inclusivity. This was not just an HR issue but a reflection of a broader shift in priorities and a potential loss of cultural authenticity.
The episode will have lasting implications, as future integration moves will be scrutinized through this lens, with a focus on the underlying intentions and values. The question remains: Does this signal a step away from what made Hawaiian Airlines unique, or is it being overblown? The airline's identity is now under scrutiny, and the public is left to ponder the future of this iconic brand.
