Table of Contents • 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 Air traffic controllers rely on outdated procedures and technologies that routinely compel airlines, including ourselves, to fly inefficient routes or take significant delays on the ground.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 The outdated technologies also cause the ATC system to be less resilient in the event of a failure.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 42