I don't know, I didn't find that blog post to be at all compelling -- he obfuscated a simple explanation in a complex argument.

Had WN wanted to continue ATA's service to Hawaii they easily could have struck a deal -- certainly a transitional deal, until WN's own aircraft were up to the task (if that's the path they wanted to take).

The simple fact is that, at least for the moment, WN isn't interested in flying to Hawaii. On their own aircraft or anyone's leased aircraft. I can think of several good business reasons why that would be the case.

So why not just say that?