Current Thoughts (Mostly Hawaii)

Silent boos and broken bridges

As reported by this blogger on the Hawaii State Senate’s vote to deny Alapaki Nahale-a a second term as a Board of Regent for the University of Hawaii, it was sensed strongly that the vote didn’t go down well with many people.

Especially those who saw the vote in real time, that day, in the gallery.

However, others took issue with it and made it known in various mediums, including print. Both Civil Beat and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser made mention of the vote. And in the case of Civil Beat, included a visual in the form of an editorial cartoon

But seeing how the press reacted to the vote is one thing, it’s another thing to see how those on the inside – university employees – reacted to it. That reaction came soon after the vote, which happened on a Tuesday the 5th of March, that next Friday, the 8th.

Here is what happened.

Every year, the University of Hawaii Community Colleges get together, employees from all seven campuses, in a “confab” of sorts called the Hawaiʻi Student Success Institute, or HISSI for short. This year it was held at the Hawaii Convention Center, and it was estimated by this writer, who attended, that about 1,000 people attended.

It is an all-day event where there is a lunch, during which time there is a presentation made as part of the program. This year, the program revolved around celebrating the 60th anniversary of the University of Hawaii Community College system.

And as with all these anniversary events, dignitaries, former college leaders as well as current leaders attended this event. A few of those dignitaries were, as you may have guessed, legislators.

Considering how things went down earlier that week, this is where the program became interesting.

It started with the emcee of the entire day’s event, University of Hawaii Maui College’s Chancellor Lui Hokoana introducing the dignitaries, including the legislators. And then before calling them up to present certificates, he acknowledged their presence and the tension in the room by saying that he would be “addressing the elephant in the room”.

The speakers at the event, in this general order: Lt. Governor Luke, Senator and Senate President Ron Kouchi, and Senator and Chairwoman of the Higher Education Committee in the Senate, Donna Mercado Kim

He then proceeded to thank the legislators for their support of the Community Colleges and noted that the system will still need their support in the future. His presentation felt like the first movement of a dance, no one quite knew what the next steps were.

And then the opening act – a presentation of a certificate by the governor’s office by Lt. Governor Sylvia Luke. Since no one in that room seemed to have an issue with that office, her presentation elicited no real reaction in the room, outside of the courtesy audience clapping after she was done.

Next up, and not in any particular order was, in order of title and house, Senate President Ron Kouchi, Chairwoman of the Senate’s Higher Education Committee Donna Mercado Kim, and Chairwoman of the House of Representatives Committee on Higher Education Amy Perruso.

Getting the easy one out of the way, Perruso read the certificate from the House acknowledging the 60th anniversary.

And then, in order, was Senate President Ron Kouchi. Welcomed to the podium, he started his speech by talking about how he has an open-door policy, and that he would welcome anyone to come to his office and “talk story”. At least Kouchi knew who he was talking to, and tried to break the tension that was growing in that room, standing next to the University President and three current Regents.

He got a short courtesy clap from the crowd. His words, being graded by this blogger, suggested that at least he tried to “make nice” with his words as a form of a peace offering. It came across, though as if he was dancing with two left feet, and his dance partner was standing on the side trying to figure out what he was dancing to.

And then next up was Senator Kim.

If there was a moment where the good Senator could have used words in their most basic form to build bridges with a room full of people who have chosen words for her actions against the University, she must have that speech at her office.

Instead, and as she talked it became apparent that she wasn’t there to build bridges. Instead, she proceeded to tell the room full of university professionals that her actions in the Senate, on the University, are being done in its best interests. There was no reciprocating “open door” call as the President of the Senate made moments earlier.

There was no bread broken between the Senators and the University of Hawaii at the HISSI conference. And judging by the efforts of Senators to try and “make peace”, it would seem that there is a long way to go on that front, too.

Even before she finished her speech-ette, adding that she didn’t want to read the entire certificate but proceeded to read the “therefore” statements in it, this blogger put his head down and knew full well that she didn’t earn any new fans in the room. Instead, she showed her benevolent dictator side and proceeded to tell the room that “I am being a <add adjective here> for your good!”

So much for the peace offering.

If people were arranged differently in that room, maybe standing instead of sitting, no doubt some would’ve turned their backs on the Senator during her presentation. As acknowledgment that it was time to go right after, they walked out with singular focus to exit the room and didn’t make eye contact when they passed the table this blogger was sitting at, with a former Regent sitting at it too.

The Senators – and by extension Perruso and Luke – may have hoped that attending the HISSI event would improve their image among attendees, but it seems they missed their mark. Instead of fostering a partnership between the Legislature and the University, they demonstrated an authoritarian approach to decision-making and only gave money to the University as a token gesture.

To repair this relationship, it appears that both parties have a significant amount of work to do.

_________

Photo Credits: 
Donna Mercado Kim: "File:Donna Mercado Kim.jpg" by Tinachase321 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Ron Kouchi: "Ron Kouchi" by ThinkTech Hawaii is licensed under CC BY 3.0.
Sylvia Luke: "Sylvia Luke, 2023" by Maryland GovPics is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
University of Hawaii photo: "The Entrance, University of Hawaii at Manoa," by Mj-bird is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Hawaii State Senate: PHwSF 

Testing the (Senate President’s) power

As an observer of politics in Hawai‘i, one of the areas that this blogger likes to witness is when a vote comes up that may show just how strong a coalition is for a leader in the Legislature.

Hawaii State Senate, just before the March 5, 2024 floor session
PC: PHwSF

Those leaders, the Senate President and the House Chair are voted in by the members of the respective body, with the majority vote installing the nominee for that position. Leaders in those positions make up a part of the overall leadership of the state, responsible for maintaining business in the respective chamber, as part of the legislative branch.

As with most positions that are voted in by a constituency, it’s up to the holder of it to maintain their support. How they maintain support is sometimes considered part of the “sausage making” that legislation goes through to get passed. And there are times when the velvet curtain of power is pulled back, and one can see who and what is supporting the mechanism.

That velvet curtain got pulled back, for just a moment, on March 4th, in the Hawai‘i State Senate, when the vote went down to confirm or deny the University of Hawaii Board of Regents Interim Chair Alapaki Nahale-a a second five-year term on the board.

Alapaki Nahale-a speaking to his supporters at the State Capitol, March 5, 2024
PC: PHwSF

They denied him that opportunity, everyone knowing full well that the vote was going to be close. But in watching the events unfold that day, this blogger took a look at who voted for and against Nahale-a, and discerned a few things from that vote.

For the record, the vote was 13 against confirming, 12 for. Looking at the list of those who voted against it, one saw real fast that those who did were squarely in the “leadership court” of the Senate.

That court includes what seems to be a set that is styling itself to the people as some sort of accountability club. They include Senators Donna Mercado Kim – chair of the Higher Education Committee; Donovan Dela Cruz – Chair of Senate Ways and Means from Wahiawā, Michelle Kidani – Vice President of the Senate hailing from Mililani and Kurt Fevella – member of the Higher Education Committee and one of 2 Republicans in the Senate, from Ewa. They were able to bring along 9 others to vote down Alapaki, with the President of the Senate going along with this club.

Senator Les Ihara (foreground) speaking in support of Nahale-a, to the Senate President, Ronald Kouchi, March 5, 2024
PC: PHwSF

Now typically if a candidate is at this level of vote – the full floor – they are either voted up or down, generally, by the whole body. But in this case, barely over half did, with the President adding his vote, and no more.

With such a slim margin of victory over an issue like a nomination, that result told this humble blogger that, perhaps, the current Senate President Ronald Kouchi of Kaua‘i didn’t have as strong a lock on his position as he may think he has.

And other pundits with whom I shared this observation, agreed that perhaps the Senate President position is weaker than first assumed.

This could have ramifications later on especially if a person who voted for Nahale-a gets ticked off enough to try and flip at least one of the votes that voted against, then they could have a shot at reorganizing the Senate.

“But really, is that possible?” you may ask, and the answer is “Oh, yah, you betcha”.

After the vote, Nahale-a, his family and supporters draped lei on the Queen Liliuokalani statue and sang a song.
PC: PHwSF

The reason for that is, unlike a measure that is talking about changing a law, or creating a new law that divides people, nominations of candidates elicit more emotion, especially in those who support the person. How they are handled, treated, and eventually decided upon could lead to a rise in emotion that eventually drives the question of whether the current leaders in the Senate should continue.

The way some have expressed Nahale-a’s rejection brought out raw emotion, anger, and in some cases, resolve in those there that the treatment he received by the Senate should not stand.

Will that drive someone to call for a reorganization of the Senate? This pundit predicts that this vote will be one of a few votes that, potentially, could divide the Senate enough to call for that to happen. With the ongoing issues of recovering Lahaina, Governor Green’s push for more housing, legalization of marijuana, and the pressure of a downturn in tourism on the bottom line, there may be votes that will “tip the emotional bucket over” in the Senate.

Time will tell but make no mistake, on March 4th, during a floor session, the Senate President and his leadership just experienced its first test this year. And while it passed, it didn’t pass with flying colors.

Could Hawaiian have been Alaska? (Part 1)

In this blogger’s continued analysis of the buyout of Hawaiian Airlines by Alaska Airlines, announced in December 2023, questions of “what if” came to mind when it came to what Hawaiian Airlines could have been. 

More specifically, could Hawaiian Airlines have grown to something bigger than itself if it took the growth model of Alaska Airlines, over a long period? The reason for this question is in the documents to buy out Hawaiian, with the local airline being much smaller than Alaska Airlines, making the transaction more of a buyout than a merger. 

It is an intriguing “what if” question because it provides a look at the decisions Hawaiian Airlines made vis a vie those of Alaska, and how they played out at the end. Since there are many parts to what Alaska did to expand in the continent, this will be the first of a couple of blog posts that examine the “what if” scenarios. 

By the time Alaska Airlines entered the Jet Age, it had already established its headquarters and second operational hub at Seattle’s International Airport.
PC: “Alaska Airlines Boeing 707-321 N727PA” by Gordon Werner is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

For this post let’s start with the headquarters choice, and if Hawaiian were to pull up stakes as just “Hawaii’s airline” and make its primary operational hub on the continent. 

IN 1953, Alaska Airlines moved its headquarters from Anchorage, Alaska to Seattle, Washington. They moved the headquarters only 2 years after they received permission to fly routes connecting Anchorage and Fairbanks to Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. Among the reasons for this move included lowering operational costs (cheaper to run offices in Seattle than Anchorage), proximity to talent (easier to pick up talent that wants to stay in Washington or the Northeast than move to Alaska), and general access to investor money (investors like to be in bigger cities it seems). 

Its expansion from Seattle was episodic and over a long period. Deregulation of the airline industry by the Carter Administration assisted in helping that expansion (as it did for many airlines at the time). Of course, because it was over a long period, with them doing it step by step, the overall investment of money to change headquarters was absorbed over time. 

If Hawaiian were to have started an expansion to the Continent, it could have chosen to do it in the mid 80’s when it obtained long-haul planes like this DC-8
PC:”Hawaiian Airlines – Douglas DC-8” by deanfaulkner is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Now if Hawaiian were to make that move, it would require them to put in a lot more money, quickly and establish a large presence somewhere, again in a short period. In the past, say when they started regular mainland operations in 1985, the choices of places to go would have been more limited than in 1953, when the whole West Coast was good for the taking. 

Back in the 80s as it is now, the choices would be limited to port cities that are not named Seattle, or Portland. The two that Hawaiian potentially could have expanded to are Las Vegas and San Diego. Las Vegas would have probably been the better market to expand from as its airport – Harry Reid International Airport – was small but had a lot of promise for expansion, as it did. Hawaiian could have grown with it, if not helped lead it. San Diego is harder as it is land-limited, but it’s a potential anyway due to its intercontinental length runway and operations. 

One could say Los Angeles would have been a good choice, but even back in the 80s (way more now), the Los Angeles market is highly fragmented with no one airline dominating the market. And to boot, much larger airlines have tried to dominate the market and spent billions of dollars to try, only for it to not pan out as they hoped (look at Delta’s revamp of operations from about 2017-2022 and how much they put into it)

Las Vegas Harry Reid International Airport (FKA: McCarren) could potentially be the hub for Hawaiian to establish if it was looking for a hub on the continent. It would still have to contend with Southwest as well as other established carriers.
PC: “Las Vegas McCarran” by Craig Butz is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Either way, the cost of this plan would not be cheap. Estimates of how much an organic expansion into the mainland would cost Hawaiian range from a half-billion to $1 billion. And that money does not guarantee dominance in the port city in the end, let alone get access to future financing to continue expansion after the “beachhead” is established.

As for whether Hawaiian could expand like this, with financing, the answer is “yes, but it will be challenging”. While the airline does have a money-making brand, it would need to come up with an airtight plan that presents a compelling expansion plan that mitigates risks, demonstrates clear profitability potential, and attracts investors and lenders confident in its long-term vision.

If someone knows of financing at this level that Hawaiian could tap into, contact them, they might still need it. 

Since Hawaiian has not done this hypothetical expansion, either those who could finance such an endeavor, or Hawaiian getting ambitions to try, it remains more a hypothetical “what if” rather than a potential “plan B” should the Alaska Air buyout not happen. 

In the next issue of Politics Hawaii with Stan Fichtman, we’ll explore the possibilities Hawaiian would have to purchase an airline on the continent, who that airline could be, and how much Hawaiian would need to finance it. Similar to what Alaska Airlines did in the 80s in their continent expansion. 

Read past entries of Stan Fichtman and PoliticsHawaii.com!

Social Media Feeds

Here is where you can find Politics Hawaii posts on Social Media!

Facebook: Politics Hawaii

Nextdoor: S.J. Fichtman

Instagram (if you want to see nice photos): S.J. Fichtman

Twitter, for now: PoliticsHI 

What am I listening to?

These are the Podcasters that I am listening to, try them out!

Pod Save America (on YouTube)

Regular Car Reviews 

Who am I reading/getting news from

I am very choosy as to where I get my news from, here are some dependable sources I refer to when reading up on topics

The Atlantic

CNBC

Civil Beat (Hawaii on-line newspaper)

Honolulu Star Advertiser (mostly paywalled, but you get free headlines)

Beat of Hawaii (Tourism based news source from Kauai)

The Best of The SuperflyOz Podcast
By Stan Fichtman

The best of my podcasts dating back from Jan. 2018.
Go to The Best of the SuperflyOz Podcast