American Airlines (AAL) Risk Factors

In order to operate our existing and proposed flight schedule and, where desirable, add service along new or existing routes, we must be able to maintain and/or obtain adequate gates, check-in counters, operations areas, operations control facilities and administrative support space. As airports around the world become more congested, it may not be possible for us to ensure that our plans for new service can be implemented in a commercially viable manner, given operating constraints at airports throughout our network, including those imposed by inadequate facilities at desirable airports. In light of constraints on existing facilities, there is presently a significant amount of capital spending underway at major airports in the United States, including large projects underway at a number of airports where we have significant operations, such as ORD, LAX, LGA and DCA. This spending is expected to result in increased costs to airlines and the traveling public that use those facilities as the airports seek to recover their investments through increased rental, landing and other facility costs. In some circumstances, such costs could be imposed by the relevant airport authority without our approval. Accordingly, our operating costs are expected to increase significantly at many airports at which we operate,including a number of our hubs and gateways, as a result of capital spending projects currently underway and additional projects that we expect to commence over the next several years. In addition, operations at three major domestic airports, certain smaller domestic airports and many foreign airports we serve are regulated by governmental entities through allocations of slots or similar regulatory mechanisms that limit the rights of carriers to conduct operations at those airports. Each slot represents the authorization to land at or take off from the particular airport during a specified time period and may have other operational restrictions as well. In the U.S., the DOT and the FAA currently regulate the allocation of slots or slot exemptions at DCA and two New York City airports: JFK and LGA. Our operations at these airports generally require the allocation of slots or similar regulatory authority. In addition to slot restrictions, operations at DCA and LGA are also limited based on a so-called "perimeter rule" which generally limits the stage length of the flights that can be operated from those airports to 1,250 and 1,500 miles, respectively. Similarly, our operations at LHR, international airports in Beijing, Frankfurt, Paris, Tokyo and other airports outside the U.S. are regulated by local slot authorities pursuant to the International Airline Trade Association Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines and/or applicable local law. Termination of slot controls at some or all of the foregoing airports could affect our operational performance and competitive position. We currently have sufficient slots or analogous authorizations to operate our existing flights and we have generally, but not always, been able to obtain the rights to expand our operations and to change our schedules. However, there is no assurance that we will be able to obtain sufficient slots or analogous authorizations in the future or as to the cost of acquiring such rights because, among other reasons, such allocations are often sought after by other airlines and are subject to changes in governmental policies. Due to the dramatic reduction in air travel resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, we are in many instances relying on exemptions granted by applicable authorities from the requirement that we continuously use certain slots, gates and routes or risk having such operating rights revoked, and we cannot predict whether such exemptions will continue to be granted or whether we ultimately could be at risk of losing valuable operating rights. We cannot provide any assurance that regulatory changes resulting in changes in the application of slot controls or the allocation of or any reallocation of existing slots, the continued enforcement or termination of a perimeter rule or similar regulatory regime will not have a material adverse impact on our operations. Our ability to provide service can also be impaired at airports, such as LAX and ORD where the airport gate and other facilities are currently inadequate to accommodate all of the service that we would like to provide, or airports such as Dallas Love Field Airport where we have no access to gates at all. Any limitation on our ability to acquire or maintain adequate gates, ticketing facilities, operations areas, operations control facilities, slots (where applicable), or office space could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Airlines are subject to extensive domestic and international regulatory requirements. In the last several years, Congress and state and local governments have passed laws and regulatory initiatives, and the DOT, the FAA, the TSA and several of their respective international counterparts have issued regulations and a number of other directives, that affect the airline industry. These requirements impose substantial costs on us and restrict the ways we may conduct our business. For example, the FAA from time to time issues directives and other regulations relating to the maintenance and operation of aircraft that require significant expenditures or operational restrictions. These requirements can be issued with little or no notice, or can otherwise impact our ability to efficiently or fully utilize our aircraft, and in some instances have resulted in the temporary and prolonged grounding of aircraft types altogether (including, for example, the March 2019 grounding of all Boeing 737 MAX Family aircraft, which remained in place for over a year and was not lifted in the United States until November 2020), or otherwise caused substantial disruption and resulted in material costs to us and lost revenues. The FAA also exercises comprehensive regulatory authority over nearly all technical aspects of our operations. Our failure to comply with such requirements has in the past and may in the future result in fines and other enforcement actions by the FAA or other regulators. In the future, any new regulatory requirements, particularly requirements that limit our ability to operate or price our products, could have a material adverse effect on us and the industry. In 2021, the FAA is expected to issue a number of rules that will impact us, including regulations mandating certain rest requirements for flight attendants. DOT consumer rules, and rules promulgated by certain analogous agencies in other countries we serve, dictate procedures for customer handling during long onboard delays, further regulate airline interactions with passengers, including passengers with disabilities, through the ticketing process, at the airport, and onboard the aircraft, and require disclosures concerning airline fares and ancillary fees such as baggage fees. Other DOT rules apply to post-ticket purchase price increases and an expansion of tarmac delay regulations to international airlines. In 2021, the DOT is expected to implement a number of new regulations that will impact us, including disability rules for accessible lavatories and wheelchair assistance, and refunds for checked bag fees in the event of certain delays in delivery. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act mandates the federalization of certain airport security procedures and imposes additional security requirements on airports and airlines, most of which are funded by a per-ticket tax on passengers and a tax on airlines. Present and potential future security requirements can have the effect of imposing costs and inconvenience on travelers, potentially reducing the demand for air travel. Similarly, there are a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives and reforms at the state and local levels. These initiatives include increasingly stringent laws to protect the environment, wage/hour requirements, mandatory paid sick or family leave, and health care mandates. These laws could affect our relationship with our workforce and the vendors that serve our airlines and cause our expenses to increase without an ability to pass through these costs. In recent years, the airline industry has experienced an increase in litigation over the application of state and local employment laws, particularly in California. Application of these laws may result in operational disruption, increased litigation risk and impact our negotiated labor agreements. The results of our operations, demand for air travel, and the manner in which we conduct business each may be affected by changes in law and future actions taken by governmental agencies, including: - changes in law that affect the services that can be offered by airlines in particular markets and at particular airports, or the types of fares offered or fees that can be charged to passengers;- the granting and timing of certain governmental approvals (including antitrust or foreign government approvals) needed for codesharing alliances, joint businesses and other arrangements with other airlines;- restrictions on competitive practices (for example, court orders, or agency regulations or orders, that would curtail an airline's ability to respond to a competitor);- the adoption of new passenger security standards or regulations that impact customer service standards;- restrictions on airport operations, such as restrictions on the use of slots at airports or the auction or reallocation of slot rights currently held by us;- the adoption of more restrictive locally-imposed noise restrictions; and - restrictions on travel or special guidelines regarding aircraft occupancy or hygiene related to COVID-19, including the imposition of preflight testing regimes which have to date and may in the future have the effect of reducing demand for air travel in the markets where such requirements are imposed. Each additional regulation or other form of regulatory oversight increases costs and adds greater complexity to airline operations and, in some cases, may reduce the demand for air travel. There can be no assurance that the increased costs or greater complexity associated with our compliance with new rules, anticipated rules or other forms of regulatory oversight will not have a material adverse effect on us. Any significant reduction in air traffic capacity at and in the airspace serving key airports in the U.S. or overseas could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the ATC system is not successfully modernizing to meet the growing demand for U.S. air travel. Air traffic controllers rely on outdated procedures and technologies that routinely compel airlines, including ourselves, to fly inefficient routes or take significant delays on the ground. The ATC system's inability to manage existing travel demand has led government agencies to implement short-term capacity constraints during peak travel periods or adverse weather conditions in certain markets, resulting in delays and disruptions of air traffic. The outdated technologies also cause the ATC system to be less resilient in the event of a failure. For example, an automation failure and an evacuation, in 2015 and 2017, respectively, at the Washington Air Route Control Center resulted in cancellations and delays of hundreds of flights traversing the greater Washington, D.C. airspace. In the early 2000s, the FAA embarked on a path to modernize the national airspace system, including migration from the current radar-based ATC system to a GPS-based system. This modernization of the ATC system, generally referred to as "NextGen," has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, and it remains uncertain when the full array of benefits expected from this modernization will be available to the public and the airlines, including ourselves. Failure to update the ATC system and the substantial costs that may be imposed on airlines, including ourselves, to fund a modernized ATC system may have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, our business has been adversely impacted when government agencies have ceased to operate as expected including due to partial shut-downs, sequestrations or similar events and the COVID-19 pandemic. These events have resulted in, among other things, reduced demand for air travel, an actual or perceived reduction in ATC and security screening resources and related travel delays, as well as disruption in the ability of the FAA to grant required regulatory approvals, such as those that are involved when a new aircraft is first placed into service. Our operating authority in international markets is subject to aviation agreements between the U.S. and the respective countries or governmental authorities, such as the EU, and in some cases, fares and schedules require the approval of the DOT and/or the relevant foreign governments. Moreover, alliances with international carriers may be subject to the jurisdiction and regulations of various foreign agencies. The U.S. government has negotiated "open skies" agreements with 130 trading partners, which agreements allow unrestricted route authority access between the U.S. and the foreign markets. While the U.S. has worked to increase the number of countries with which open skies agreements are in effect, a number of markets important to us, including China, do not have open skies agreements. For example, the open skies air services agreement between the U.S. and the EU, which took effect in March 2008, provides airlines from the U.S. and EU member states open access to each other's markets, with freedom of pricing and unlimited rights to fly from the U.S. to any airport in the EU. As a result of the agreement and a subsequent open skies agreement involving the U.S. and the United Kingdom, which was agreed in anticipation of Brexit, we face increased competition in these markets, including LHR. Bilateral and multilateral agreements among the U.S. and various foreign governments of countries we serve but which are not covered by an open skies treaty are subject to periodic renegotiation. We currently operate a number of international routes under government arrangements that limit the number of airlines permitted to operate on the route, the capacity of the airlines providing services on the route, or the number of airlines allowed access to particular airports. If an open skies policy were to be adopted for any of these markets, it could have a material adverse impact on us and could result in the impairment of material amounts of our related tangible and intangible assets. In addition, competition from foreign airlines, revenue-sharing joint ventures, joint business agreements, and other alliance arrangements by and among other airlines could impair the value of our business and assets on the open skies routes. Brexit occurred on January 31, 2020 under the terms of the agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the EU and the European Atomic Energy Community (the Withdrawal Agreement). The Withdrawal Agreement provided for a transition period that ended on December 31, 2020. Prior to the end of the transition period, on December 24, 2020, EU and United Kingdom negotiators agreed to a new trade and cooperation agreement (the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement). Provisional application of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement between January 1 and February 28, 2021 has been approved by the European Commission, the European Council and the United Kingdom Parliament to allow sufficient time for the formal ratification of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. We face risks associated with Brexit, notably given the extent of our passenger and cargo traffic and that of our joint business partners that flows through LHR in the United Kingdom. The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement includes provisions in relation to commercial air service that we expect to be sufficient to sustain our current services under the transatlantic joint business. However, the scope of traffic rights under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is less extensive than before Brexit and therefore the impact of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is uncertain at this stage pending ratification and eventual implementation. As a result, the continuation of our current services, and those of our partners could be disrupted. This could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. More generally, changes in U.S. or foreign government aviation policies could result in the alteration or termination of such agreements, diminish the value of route authorities, slots or other assets located abroad, or otherwise adversely affect our international operations.

From time to time, we are a party to or otherwise involved in legal proceedings, claims and government inspections or investigations and other legal matters, both inside and outside the United States, arising in the ordinary course of our business or otherwise. We are currently involved in various legal proceedings and claims that have not yet been fully resolved, and additional claims may arise in the future. Legal proceedings can be complex and take many months, or even years, to reach resolution, with the final outcome depending on a number of variables, some of which are not within our control. Litigation is subject to significant uncertainty and may be expensive, time-consuming, and disruptive to our operations. Although we will vigorously defend ourselves in such legal proceedings, their ultimate resolution and potential financial and other impacts on us are uncertain. For these and other reasons, we may choose to settle legal proceedings and claims, regardless of their actual merit. If a legal proceeding is resolved against us, it could result in significant compensatory damages, and in certain circumstances punitive or trebled damages, disgorgement of revenue or profits, remedial corporate measures or injunctive relief imposed on us. If our existing insurance does not cover the amount or types of damages awarded, or if other resolution or actions taken as a result of the legal proceeding were to restrain our ability to operate or market our services, our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially adversely affected. In addition, legal proceedings, and any adverse resolution thereof, can result in adverse publicity and damage to our reputation, which could adversely impact our business. Additional information regarding certain legal matters in which we are involved can be found in Note 12 to AAG's Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8A and Note 10 to American's Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8B.

The airline industry is subject to extensive government fees and taxation that negatively impact our revenue and profitability. The U.S. airline industry is one of the most heavily taxed of all industries. These fees and taxes have grown significantly in the past decade for domestic flights, and various U.S. fees and taxes also are assessed on international flights. For example, as permitted by federal legislation, most major U.S. airports impose a per-passenger facility charge on us. In addition, the governments of foreign countries in which we operate impose on U.S. airlines, including us, various fees and taxes, and these assessments have been increasing in number and amount in recent years. Moreover, we are obligated to collect a federal excise tax, commonly referred to as the "ticket tax," on domestic and international air transportation. We collect the excise tax, along with certain other U.S. and foreign taxes and user fees on air transportation (such as passenger security fees), and pass along the collected amounts to the appropriate governmental agencies. Although these taxes and fees are not our operating expenses, they represent an additional cost to our customers. There are continuing efforts in Congress and in other countries to raise different portions of the various taxes, fees, and charges imposed on airlines and their passengers, including the passenger facility charge, and we may not be able to recover all of these charges from our customers. Increases in such taxes, fees and charges could negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition. The CARES Act provided for a temporary tax holiday from collecting and remitting certain government ticket taxes for tickets purchased between March 28, 2020 and December 31, 2020. Under DOT regulations, all governmental taxes and fees must be included in the prices we quote or advertise to our customers. Due to the competitive revenue environment, many increases in these fees and taxes have been absorbed by the airline industry rather than being passed on to the customer. Further increases in fees and taxes may reduce demand for air travel, and thus our revenues.

We consider our intellectual property rights, particularly our branding rights such as our trademarks applicable to our airline and AAdvantage loyalty program, to be a significant and valuable aspect of our business. We protect our intellectual property rights through a combination of trademark, copyright and other forms of legal protection, contractual agreements and policing of third-party misuses of our intellectual property. Our failure to obtain or adequately protect our intellectual property or any change in law that lessens or removes the current legal protections of our intellectual property may diminish our competitiveness and adversely affect our business and financial results. Any litigation or disputes regarding intellectual property may be costly and time-consuming and may divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations, either of which may adversely affect our business and financial results. In addition, we have used certain of our branding and AAdvantage loyalty program intellectual property as collateral for various financings (including the Treasury Loan Agreement), which contain covenants that impose restrictions on the use of such intellectual property and, in the case of the Treasury Loan Agreement, on certain amendments or changes to our AAdvantage loyalty program. These covenants may have an adverse effect on our ability to use such intellectual property.

Our business requires the secure processing and storage of sensitive information relating to our customers, employees, business partners and others. However, like any global enterprise operating in today's digital business environment, we are subject to threats to the security of our networks and data, including threats potentially involving criminal hackers, hacktivists, state-sponsored actors, corporate espionage, employee malfeasance, and human or technological error. These threats continue to increase as the frequency, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions increase around the world. We have been the target of cybersecurity attacks in the past and expect that we will continue to be in the future. Furthermore, in response to these threats there has been heightened legislative and regulatory focus on data privacy and cybersecurity in the U.S., the EU and elsewhere, particularly with respect to critical infrastructure providers, including those in the transportation sector. As a result, we must comply with a proliferating and fast-evolving set of legal requirements in this area, including substantive cybersecurity standards as well as requirements for notifying regulators and affected individuals in the event of a data security incident. This regulatory environment is increasingly challenging and may present material obligations and risks to our business, including significantly expanded compliance burdens, costs and enforcement risks. For example, in May 2018, the EU's new General Data Protection Regulation, commonly referred to as GDPR, came into effect, which imposes a host of new data privacy and security requirements, imposing significant costs on us and carrying substantial penalties for non-compliance. In addition, many of our commercial partners, including credit card companies, have imposed data security standards that we must meet. In particular, we are required by the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council, founded by the credit card companies, to comply with their highest level of data security standards. While we continue our efforts to meet these standards, new and revised standards may be imposed that may be difficult for us to meet and could increase our costs. A significant cybersecurity incident could result in a range of potentially material negative consequences for us, including unauthorized access to, disclosure, modification, misuse, loss or destruction of company systems or data; theft of sensitive, regulated or confidential data, such as personal identifying information or our intellectual property; the loss of functionality of critical systems through ransomware, denial of service or other attacks; a deterioration in our relationships with business partners and other third parties; and business delays, service or system disruptions, damage to equipment and injury to persons or property. The methods used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service or sabotage systems are constantly evolving and may be difficult to anticipate or to detect for long periods of time. The constantly changing nature of the threats means that we may not be able to prevent all data security breaches or misuse of data. Similarly, we depend on the ability of our key commercial partners, including our regional carriers, distribution partners and technology vendors, to conduct their businesses in a manner that complies with applicable security standards and assures their ability to perform on a timely basis. A security failure, including a failure to meet relevant payment security standards, breach or other significant cybersecurity incident affecting one of our partners could result in potentially material negative consequences for us. In addition, the costs and operational consequences of defending against, preparing for, responding to and remediating an incident of cybersecurity breach may be substantial. As cybersecurity threats become more frequent, intense and sophisticated, costs of proactive defense measures are increasing. Further, we could be exposed to litigation, regulatory enforcement or other legal action as a result of an incident, carrying the potential for damages, fines, sanctions or other penalties, as well as injunctive relief and enforcement actions requiring costly compliance measures. A significant number of recent privacy and data security incidents, including those involving other large airlines, have resulted in very substantial adverse financial consequences to those companies. A cybersecurity incident could also impact our brand, harm our reputation and adversely impact our relationship with our customers, employees and stockholders. Accordingly, failure to appropriately address these issues could result in material financial and other liabilities and cause significant reputational harm to our company.

Our competitors include other major domestic airlines and foreign, regional and new entrant airlines, as well as joint ventures formed by some of these airlines, many of which have more financial or other resources and/or lower cost structures than ours, as well as other forms of transportation, including rail and private automobiles. In many of our markets, we compete with at least one low-cost carrier (including so-called ultra-low-cost carriers). Our revenues are sensitive to the actions of other carriers in many areas, including pricing, scheduling, capacity, fees (including cancellation, change and baggage fees), amenities, loyalty benefits and promotions, which can have a substantial adverse impact not only on our revenues, but on overall industry revenues. These factors may become even more significant in periods when the industry experiences large losses (such as the current one caused by the COVID-19 pandemic), as airlines under financial stress, or in bankruptcy, may institute pricing or fee structures intended to attract more customers to achieve near term survival at the expense of long-term viability. Low-cost carriers (including so-called ultra-low-cost carriers) have a profound impact on industry revenues. Using the advantage of low unit costs, these carriers offer lower fares in order to shift demand from larger, more established airlines, and represent significant competitors, particularly for customers who fly infrequently, are price sensitive and therefore tend not to be loyal to any one particular carrier. A number of these low-cost carriers have announced growth strategies including commitments to acquire significant numbers of new aircraft for delivery in the next few years. These low-cost carriers are attempting to continue to increase their market share through growth and several new entrants have announced their intention to start up new ultra-low-cost carriers and, potentially, consolidation, and are expected to continue to have an impact on our revenues and overall performance. We and several other large network carriers have implemented "Basic Economy" fares designed to more effectively compete against low-cost carriers, but we cannot predict whether these initiatives will be successful. While historically these carriers have provided competition in domestic markets, we have recently experienced new competition from low-cost carriers on international routes, including low-cost airlines executing international long-haul expansion strategies, a trend likely to continue with the delivery of planned, long-range narrowbody aircraft. The actions of existing or future low-cost carriers, including those described above, could have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial performance. We provide air travel internationally, directly as well as through joint businesses, alliances, codeshare and similar arrangements to which we are a party. While our network is comprehensive, compared to some of our key global competitors, we generally have somewhat greater relative exposure to certain regions (for example, Latin America) and somewhat lower relative exposure to others (for example, China). Our financial performance relative to our key competitors will therefore be influenced significantly by macro-economic conditions in particular regions around the world and the relative exposure of our network to the markets in those regions, including the duration of declines in demand for travel to specific regions as a result of the continuing outbreak of COVID-19 and the speed with which demand for travel to these regions returns. In providing international air transportation, we compete to provide scheduled passenger and cargo service between the U.S. and various overseas locations with U.S. airlines, foreign investor-owned airlines and foreign state-owned or state-affiliated airlines. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, competition had been increasing from foreign state-owned and state-affiliated airlines in the Gulf region. These carriers have large numbers of international widebody aircraft in service and on order and had been increasing service to the U.S. from locations both in and outside the Middle East. Service to and from locations outside of the Middle East was provided by some of these carriers under so-called "fifth freedom" rights permitted under international treaties which allow service to and from stopover points between an airline's home country and the ultimate destination. Such flights, such as a stopover in Europe on flights to the United States, allow the carrier to sell tickets for travel between the stopover point and the United States in competition with service provided by us. We believe these state-owned and state-affiliated carriers in the Gulf region, including their affiliated carriers, benefit from significant government subsidies, which have allowed them to grow quickly, reinvest in their product and expand their global presence. We expect this to continue after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides. Our international service exposes us to foreign economies and the potential for reduced demand when any foreign country we serve suffers adverse local economic conditions or if governments restrict commercial air service to or from any of these markets. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a precipitous decline in demand for air travel, in particular international travel, in part as a result of the imposition by the U.S. and foreign governments of restrictions on travel from certain regions. In addition, open skies agreements, which are now in place with a substantial number of countries around the world, provide international airlines with open access to U.S. markets, potentially subjecting us to increased competition on our international routes. See also "Our business is subject to extensive government regulation,which may result in increases in our costs, disruptions to our operations, limits on our operating flexibility, reductions in the demand for air travel, and competitive disadvantages." Certain airline alliances, joint ventures and joint businesses have been, or may in the future be, granted immunity from antitrust regulations by governmental authorities for specific areas of cooperation, such as joint pricing decisions. To the extent alliances formed by our competitors can undertake activities that are not available to us, our ability to effectively compete may be hindered. Our ability to attract and retain customers is dependent upon, among other things, our ability to offer our customers convenient access to desired markets. Our business could be adversely affected if we are unable to maintain or obtain alliance and marketing relationships with other air carriers in desired markets. American has established a transatlantic joint business with British Airways, Aer Lingus, Iberia and Finnair, a transpacific joint business with Japan Airlines and a joint business relating to Australia and New Zealand with Qantas, each of which has been granted antitrust immunity. The transatlantic joint business benefits from a grant of antitrust immunity from the DOT and was reviewed by the EC in July 2010. In connection with this review, we provided certain commitments to the EC regarding, among other things, the availability of take-off and landing slots at LHR or LGW airports. The commitments accepted by the EC were binding for 10 years. In October 2018, in anticipation of the exit of the United Kingdom from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit, and the expiry of the EC commitments in July 2020, the CMA opened an investigation into the transatlantic joint business. We continue to fully cooperate with the CMA and, in September 2020, the CMA adopted interim measures that effectively extend the EC commitments for an additional three years until March 2024 in light of the uncertainty created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CMA plans to complete its investigation before the interim measures expire. The foregoing arrangements are important aspects of our international network and we are dependent on the performance and continued cooperation of the other airlines party to those arrangements. In 2020, we entered into an expanded marketing relationship with Alaska Airlines. This arrangement, once implemented, will expand our existing codeshare relationship, including codeshare on certain of our international routes from SEA and LAX, and will provide for reciprocal loyalty program benefits and shared lounge access. Pursuant to federal law, American and Alaska Airlines submitted this proposed arrangement to the DOT for review. After the DOT allowed the review period to expire with no further actions, American and Alaska Airlines commenced implementation of this arrangement. Also, in 2020, we announced our intention to enter into a marketing relationship with JetBlue. This arrangement, once implemented, will include an alliance agreement with reciprocal codesharing on domestic and international routes from New York (JFK, LGA, and EWR) and BOS, and will provide for reciprocal loyalty program benefits. The arrangement does not include JetBlue's future transatlantic flying. Pursuant to federal law, American and JetBlue submitted this proposed alliance arrangement to the DOT for review. After American, JetBlue and the DOT agreed to a series of commitments, the DOT terminated its review of the proposed alliance. The commitments include growth commitments to ensure capacity expansion, slot divestitures at JFK and at DCA near Washington, D.C. and antitrust compliance measures. Beyond this agreement with the DOT, American and JetBlue will also be refraining from certain kinds of coordination on certain city pair markets. In addition to the DOT review, the DOJ and the New York Attorney General, the Massachusetts Attorney General, and the Attorneys General of certain other state and local jurisdictions are investigating this proposed alliance, which remains ongoing. American and JetBlue intend to cooperate with those investigations, but are proceeding with plans to implement this alliance. Notwithstanding the DOT's termination of its reviews of the Alaska Airlines and JetBlue alliances, the DOT maintains authority to conduct investigations under the scope of its existing statutes and regulations, including conduct related to these alliances. No assurances can be given as to any benefits that we may derive from any of the foregoing arrangements or any other arrangements that may ultimately be implemented, or whether or not regulators will, or if granted continue to, approve or impose material conditions on our business activities. Additional mergers and other forms of industry consolidation, including antitrust immunity grants, may take place and may not involve us as a participant. Depending on which carriers combine and which assets, if any, are sold or otherwise transferred to other carriers in connection with any such combinations, our competitive position relative to the post-combination carriers or other carriers that acquire such assets could be harmed. In addition, as carriers combine through traditional mergers or antitrust immunity grants, their route networks will grow, and that growth will result in greater overlap with our network, which in turn could decrease our overall market share and revenues. Such consolidation is not limited to the U.S., but could include further consolidation among international carriers in Europe and elsewhere. Additionally, our AAdvantage loyalty program, which is an important element of our sales and marketing programs, faces significant and increasing competition from the loyalty programs offered by other travel companies, as well as from similar loyalty benefits offered by banks and other financial services companies. Competition among loyalty programs is intense regarding the rewards, fees, required usage, and other terms and conditions of these programs. In addition, we have used certain assets from our AAdvantage loyalty program as collateral for the secured loan under the Treasury Loan Agreement, which contains covenants that impose restrictions on certain amendments or changes to our AAdvantage loyalty program. These competitive factors and covenants (to the extent applicable) may affect our ability to attract and retain customers, increase usage of our loyalty program and maximize the revenue generated by our loyalty program.