LUV, §1A diff (2015 → 2016)

Item 1A. Risk Factors The airline industry is particularly sensitive to changes in economic conditions; in the event of unfavorable economic conditions or economic uncertainty, the Company’s results of operations could be negatively affected, which could require the Company to adjust its business strategies. The airline industry, which is subject to relatively high fixed costs and highly variable and unpredictable demand, is particularly sensitive to changes in economic conditions. Historically, unfavorable U.S. economic conditions have driven changes in travel patterns and have resulted in reduced spending for both leisure and business travel. For some consumers, leisure travel is a discretionary expense, and short-haul travelers, in particular, have the option to replace air travel with surface travel. Businesses are able to forego air travel by using communication alternatives such as videoconferencing and the Internet or may be more likely to purchase less expensive tickets to reduce costs, which can result in a decrease in average revenue per seat. Unfavorable economic conditions have also historically hampered the ability of airlines to raise fares to counteract any increases in fuel, labor, and other costs. Although the U.S. economy has experienced moderate economic growth over the course of the past three years, any continuing or future U.S. or global economic uncertainty could negatively affect the Company’s results of operations and could cause the Company to adjust its business strategies. The Company’s business can be significantly impacted by high and/or volatile fuel prices, and the Company’s operations are subject to disruption in the event of any delayed supply of fuel; therefore, the Company’s strategic plans and future profitability are likely to be impacted by the Company’s ability to effectively address fuel price increases and fuel price volatility and availability. Airlines are inherently dependent upon energy to operate, and jet fuel and oil represented approximately 23 percent of the Company’s operating expenses for 2015. Although 2015 fuel prices were lower than in 2014, and dropped significantly beginning in the second half of 2014, the cost of fuel continues to be volatile and unpredictable, and even a small change in market fuel prices can significantly affect profitability. Furthermore, volatility in fuel prices can be due to many external factors that are beyond the Company’s control. For example, fuel prices can be impacted by political and economic factors, such as (i) dependency on foreign imports of crude oil and the potential for hostilities or other conflicts in oil producing areas; (ii) limited domestic refining or pipeline capacity; (iii) worldwide demand for fuel, particularly in developing countries, which can result in inflated energy prices; (iv) changes in U.S. governmental policies on fuel production, transportation, taxes, and marketing; and (v) changes in currency exchange rates. If higher fuel prices were to return, the Company’s ability to effectively address fuel price increases could be limited by its ability to increase fares, which can be difficult in challenging economic environments when low fares are often used to stimulate traffic. The Company's ability to increase fares can also be limited by factors such as its historical low-fare reputation, the portion of its Customer base that purchases travel for leisure purposes, the competitive nature of the airline industry generally, and the risk that higher fares will drive a decrease in demand. The Company attempts to manage its risk associated with volatile jet fuel prices by utilizing over-the-counter fuel derivative instruments to hedge a portion of its future jet fuel purchases. However, as evidenced by the extreme decline in jet fuel prices during the fourth quarter of 2014 and early 2015, and again in late 2015, energy prices can fluctuate significantly in a relatively short amount of time. Because the Company uses a variety of different derivative instruments at different price points, the Company is subject to the risk that the fuel derivatives it uses will not provide adequate protection against significant increases in fuel prices and could in fact result in additional volatility in the Company’s earnings. The Company is also subject to the risk that additional cash collateral may be required to be posted to fuel hedge counterparties, which could have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position and liquidity. In addition, the Company is subject to the risk that its fuel derivatives will not be effective or that they will no longer qualify for hedge accounting under applicable accounting standards, which can create additional earnings volatility. Adjustments in the Company’s overall fuel hedging strategy, as well as the ability of the commodities used in fuel hedging to qualify for special hedge accounting, are likely to continue to affect the Company’s results of operations. In addition, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to cost-effectively hedge against increases in fuel prices. The Company’s fuel hedging arrangements and the various potential impacts of hedge accounting on the Company’s financial position, cash flows, and results of operations are discussed in more detail under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” and in Note 1 and Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company is also reliant upon the readily available supply and timely delivery of jet fuel to the airports that it serves. A disruption in that supply could present significant challenges to the Company’s operations and could ultimately cause the cancellation of flights and/or the inability of the Company to provide service to a particular airport. The Company’s low-cost structure has historically been one of its primary competitive advantages, and many factors have affected and could continue to affect the Company’s ability to control its costs. The Company’s low-cost structure has historically been one of its primary competitive advantages, as it has enabled it to offer low fares, drive traffic volume, and grow market share. The Company has limited control over fuel and labor costs, as well as other costs such as regulatory compliance costs. Jet fuel and oil constituted approximately 23 percent of the Company’s operating expenses during 2015, and the cost of fuel is subject to the external factors discussed in the second Risk Factor above. Salaries, wages, and benefits constituted approximately 41 percent of the Company’s operating expenses during 2015. The Company’s ability to control labor costs is limited by the terms of its collective-bargaining agreements, and increased labor costs have negatively impacted the Company’s low-cost competitive position. As discussed further under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” the Company’s unionized workforce, which makes up the majority of its Employees, has had pay scale increases as a result of contractual rate increases. Furthermore, as indicated above under “Business - Employees,” the majority of Southwest’s unionized Employees, including its Pilots; Mechanics; Ramp, Operations, Provisioning, and Freight Agents; Flight Attendants; Material Specialists; Facilities Maintenance Technicians; Flight Crew Training Instructors; and Source of Support Representatives, are in unions currently in negotiations for labor agreements, which could continue to put pressure on the Company’s labor costs. As discussed above under “Business - Regulation,” the airline industry is heavily regulated, and the Company’s regulatory compliance costs are subject to potentially significant increases from time to time based on actions by the regulatory agencies. Additionally, when other airlines reduce their capacity, airport costs are then allocated among a fewer number of total flights, which can result in increased landing fees and other costs for the Company. The Company is also reliant upon third party vendors and service providers, and its low-cost advantage is also dependent in part on its ability to obtain and maintain commercially reasonable terms with those parties. As discussed above under “Business - Insurance,” the Company carries insurance of types customary in the airline industry and, in the past, has also been provided supplemental, first-party, war-risk insurance coverage by the federal government. Since the government-provided supplemental coverage from the Wartime Act was set to expire on September 30, 2014, the Company proactively canceled its government provided war-risk insurance coverage prior to that date and purchased comparable coverage via the commercial insurance marketplace. Although the Company was able to purchase comparable coverage via the commercial insurance marketplace, available commercial insurance in the future could be more expensive and/or have material differences in coverage than is currently provided and may not be adequate to protect against the Company's risk of loss from future acts of terrorism. In addition, an accident or other incident involving Southwest aircraft could result in costs in excess of its related insurance coverage, which costs could be substantial. Any aircraft accident or other incident, even if fully insured, could also have a material adverse effect on the public’s perception of the Company. The Company cannot guarantee it will be able to maintain or improve upon its current level of low-cost advantage over many of its airline competitors. Some of the Company’s competitors have achieved lower employee pay scales through bankruptcy. Further, some competitors have continued to grow their fleets and expand their networks, potentially enabling them to better control costs per available seat mile. In addition, like Southwest, some competitors have plans to add a significant number of new aircraft to their fleets, which could potentially decrease their operating costs through better fuel efficiencies, and lower maintenance costs. Some of the Company’s competitors have taken advantage of reorganization in bankruptcy, and even the threat of bankruptcy, not only to lower employee pay scales, but also to decrease operating costs through renegotiated supply and financing agreements. In addition, some airlines have consolidated and reported significant cost synergies. The Company is increasingly dependent on technology to operate its business and continues to implement substantial changes to its information systems; any failure, disruption, or breach in the Company’s information systems could materially adversely affect its operations. The Company is increasingly dependent on the use of complex technology and systems to run its ongoing operations. In recent years the Company has been committed to technology improvements to support its ongoing operations and initiatives and, as discussed above under “Business - Technology Initiatives,” the Company has invested in significant technology changes. The Company is in the midst of a multi-year project to completely replace its reservation system. In 2014, the Company launched the Amadeus Altéa reservations solution to support the Company’s international service. The Company has since begun implementing Amadeus' Altéa reservations solution as the Company's future single reservation system for both domestic and international reservations. This single reservation system is expected to be implemented in 2017. The Company intends to continue to devote significant technology resources towards, among other things, (i) the continued development of systems to improve both revenue management and network optimization capabilities, (ii) the aforementioned replacement of Southwest's existing domestic reservation system with the comprehensive Amadeus' Altéa reservations solution, and (iii) tools to improve operational management. Integration of complex systems and technology presents significant challenges in terms of costs, human resources, and development of effective internal controls. Integration also presents the risk of operational or security inadequacy or interruption, which could materially affect the Company’s ability to effectively operate its business. The Company is also reliant upon third party performance for timely and effective completion of many of its technology initiatives. In the ordinary course of business, the Company’s systems will continue to require modification and refinements to address growth and changing business requirements, including requirements related to international operations. In addition, the Company’s systems may require modification to enable the Company to comply with changing regulatory requirements. Modifications and refinements to the Company’s systems have been and are expected to continue to be expensive to implement and may divert management’s attention from other matters. In addition, the Company’s operations could be adversely affected, or it could face imposition of regulatory penalties, if it were unable to timely or effectively modify its systems as necessary. The Company may occasionally experience system interruptions and delays that make its websites and services unavailable or slow to respond, which could prevent the Company from efficiently processing Customer transactions or providing services. This in turn could reduce the Company’s operating revenues and the attractiveness of its services. The Company’s computer and communications systems and operations could be damaged or interrupted by catastrophic events such as fires, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes, power loss, computer and telecommunications failures, acts of war or terrorism, computer viruses, security breaches, and similar events or disruptions. Any of these events could cause system interruptions, delays, and loss of critical data, and could prevent the Company from processing Customer transactions or providing services, which could make the Company’s business and services less attractive and subject the Company to liability. Any of these events could damage the Company’s reputation and be expensive to remedy. The Company’s business is labor intensive; therefore, the Company would be adversely affected if it were unable to maintain satisfactory relations with its Employees or its Employees’ Representatives or if the Company were unable to employ sufficient numbers of qualified Employees to maintain its operations. The airline business is labor intensive. Salaries, wages, and benefits represented approximately 41 percent of the Company’s operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015. In addition, as of December 31, 2015, approximately 83 percent of the Company’s Employees were represented for collective bargaining purposes by labor unions, making the Company particularly exposed in the event of labor-related job actions. Employment-related issues that may impact the Company’s results of operations, some of which are negotiated items, include hiring/retention rates, pay rates, outsourcing costs, work rules, and health care costs. The Company has historically maintained positive relationships with its Employees and its Employees’ Representatives. However, as indicated above under “Business - Employees,” the majority of Southwest’s unionized Employees, including its Pilots; Mechanics; Ramp, Operations, Provisioning, and Freight Agents; Flight Attendants; Material Specialists; Facilities Maintenance Technicians; Flight Crew Training Instructors; and Source of Support Representatives, are in unions currently in negotiations for labor agreements, which could continue to put pressure on the Company’s labor costs. Increasing labor costs could negatively impact the Company’s competitive position. The Company’s success also depends on its ability to attract and retain skilled personnel. Competition for skilled personnel may intensify if overall industry capacity increases and/or if high levels of current personnel reach retirement age. The Company may be required to increase existing levels of compensation to retain or supplement its skilled workforce. The inability to recruit and retain skilled personnel or the unexpected loss of key skilled personnel could adversely affect the Company’s operations. The Company is currently dependent on single aircraft and engine suppliers, as well as single suppliers of certain other parts; therefore, the Company would be materially adversely affected if it were unable to obtain additional equipment or support from any of these suppliers or in the event of a mechanical or regulatory issue associated with their equipment. The Company is dependent on Boeing as its sole supplier for aircraft and many of its aircraft parts and is dependent on other suppliers for certain other aircraft parts. Although the Company is able to purchase some aircraft from parties other than Boeing, most of its purchases are directly from Boeing. Therefore, if the Company were unable to acquire additional aircraft from Boeing, or if Boeing were unable or unwilling to make timely deliveries of aircraft or to provide adequate support for its products, the Company’s operations would be materially adversely affected. In addition, the Company would be materially adversely affected in the event of a mechanical or regulatory issue associated with the Boeing 737 aircraft type, whether as a result of downtime for part or all of the Company’s fleet, increased maintenance costs, or because of a negative perception by the flying public. The Company believes, however, that its years of experience with the Boeing 737 aircraft type, as well as the efficiencies Southwest has historically achieved by operating with a single aircraft type, outweigh the risks associated with its single aircraft supplier strategy. The Company is also dependent on sole suppliers for aircraft engines and certain other aircraft parts and would therefore also be materially adversely affected in the event of the unavailability of, or a mechanical or regulatory issue associated with, engines and other parts. Any failure of the Company to maintain the security of certain Customer-related information could result in damage to the Company’s reputation and could be costly to remediate. The Company must receive information related to its Customers in order to run its business, and the Company’s online operations depend upon the secure transmission of information over public networks, including information permitting cashless payments. This information is subject to the risk of intrusion, tampering, and theft. Although the Company maintains systems to defend against this from occurring, these systems require ongoing monitoring and updating as technologies change, and security could be compromised, confidential information could be misappropriated, or system disruptions could occur. In the ordinary course of its business, the Company provides certain confidential, proprietary, and personal information to third parties. While the Company seeks to obtain assurances that these third parties will protect this information, there is a risk the confidentiality of data held by third parties could be breached. A compromise of the Company’s security systems could adversely affect the Company’s reputation and disrupt its operations and could also result in litigation against the Company or the imposition of penalties. In addition, it could be costly to remediate. Although the Company has not experienced cyber incidents that are individually, or in the aggregate, material, the Company has experienced cyber attacks in the past, which have thus far been mitigated by preventative, detective, and responsive measures put in place by the Company. The Company’s results of operations could be adversely impacted if it is unable to grow or to effectively execute its strategic plans. Southwest has historically been regarded as a growth airline. However, organic growth remains challenging because (i) the opportunities for domestic expansion could be limited; (ii) the Company's international network is small and not yet developed; and (iii) the Company has faced an increased presence of other low-cost, low-fare carriers. As a result, the Company is reliant on the success of its revenue strategies to help offset certain increasing costs and to continue to improve Customer Service. The timely and effective execution of the Company's strategic plans could be negatively affected by (i) the Company’s ability to timely and effectively implement, transition, and maintain related information technology systems and infrastructure; (ii) the Company’s ability to effectively balance its investment of incremental operating expenses and capital expenditures related to its strategies against the need to effectively control costs; and (iii) the Company’s dependence on third parties with respect to its strategic plans. Instability of credit, capital, and energy markets can result in pressure on the Company’s credit ratings and can also negatively affect the Company’s ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms and the Company’s liquidity generally. While the Company’s credit rating is “investment grade,” factors such as future unfavorable economic conditions, a significant decline in demand for air travel, or instability of the credit, capital, and energy markets could result in future pressure on credit ratings, which could negatively affect (i) the Company’s ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms, (ii) the Company’s liquidity generally, and (iii) the availability and cost of insurance. A credit rating downgrade could subject the Company to credit rating triggers related to its credit card transaction processing agreements, the pricing related to any funds drawn under its revolving credit facility, and some of its hedging counterparty agreements. The potential effect of credit rating downgrades is discussed in more detail below under “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.” The airline industry has faced on-going security concerns and related cost burdens; further threatened or actual terrorist attacks, or other hostilities, could significantly harm the airline industry and the Company’s operations. Terrorist attacks, actual and threatened, have from time to time materially adversely affected the demand for air travel and also have resulted in increased safety and security costs for the Company and the airline industry generally. Safety measures create delays and inconveniences and can, in particular, reduce the Company’s competitiveness against surface transportation for short-haul routes. Additional terrorist attacks, even if not made directly on the airline industry, or the fear of such attacks or other hostilities (including elevated national threat warnings or selective cancellation or redirection of flights due to terror threats) would likely have a further significant negative impact on the Company and the airline industry. Airport capacity constraints and air traffic control inefficiencies could limit the Company’s growth; changes in or additional governmental regulation could increase the Company’s operating costs or otherwise limit the Company’s ability to conduct business. Almost all commercial service airports are owned and/or operated by units of local or state governments. Airlines are largely dependent on these governmental entities to provide adequate airport facilities and capacity at an affordable cost. Similarly, the federal government singularly controls all U.S. airspace, and airlines are completely dependent on the FAA operating that airspace in a safe and efficient manner. The air traffic control system, which is operated by the FAA, could continue to face airspace and/or airport congestion challenges in the future, which could limit the Company’s opportunities for growth. As discussed above under “Business - Regulation,” airlines are also subject to other extensive regulatory requirements. These requirements often impose substantial costs on airlines. The Company’s strategic plans and results of operations could be negatively affected by changes in law and future actions taken by domestic and foreign governmental agencies having jurisdiction over its operations, including, but not limited to: • increases in airport rates and charges; • limitations on airport gate capacity or use of other airport facilities; • limitations on route authorities; • actions and decisions that create difficulties in obtaining access at slot-controlled airports; • actions and decisions that create difficulties in obtaining operating permits and approvals; • changes to environmental regulations; • new or increased taxes or fees; • changes to laws that affect the services that can be offered by airlines in particular markets and at particular airports; • restrictions on competitive practices; • changes in laws that increase costs for safety, security, compliance, or other Customer Service standards; • changes in laws that may limit the Company's ability to enter into fuel derivative contracts to hedge against increases in fuel prices; • changes in laws that may limit or regulate the Company’s ability to promote the Company’s business or fares; and • the adoption of more restrictive locally-imposed noise regulations. Because expenses of a flight do not vary significantly with the number of passengers carried, a relatively small change in the number of passengers can have a disproportionate effect on an airline’s operating and financial results. Therefore, any general reduction in airline passenger traffic as a result of any of the factors listed above could adversely affect the Company’s results of operations. In addition, in instances where the airline industry shrinks, many airport operating costs are essentially unchanged and must be shared by the remaining operating carriers, which can therefore increase the Company’s costs. The airline industry is affected by many conditions that are beyond its control, which can impact the Company’s business strategies and results of operations. In addition to the unpredictable economic conditions and fuel costs discussed above, the Company, like the airline industry in general, is affected by conditions that are largely unforeseeable and outside of its control, including, among others: • adverse weather and natural disasters; • outbreaks of disease; • changes in consumer preferences, perceptions, spending patterns, or demographic trends (including, without limitation, changes in government travel patterns due to government shutdowns or sequestration); • actual or potential disruptions in the air traffic control system (including, without limitation, as a result of potential FAA budget cuts due to government shutdowns or sequestration); • changes in the competitive environment due to industry consolidation, industry bankruptcies, and other factors; • air traffic congestion and other air traffic control issues; and • actual or threatened war, terrorist attacks, and political instability. The airline industry is intensely competitive. As discussed in more detail above under “Business - Competition,” the airline industry is intensely competitive. The Company’s primary competitors include other major domestic airlines, as well as regional and new entrant airlines, surface transportation, and alternatives to transportation such as videoconferencing and the Internet. The Company’s revenues are sensitive to the actions of other carriers with respect to pricing, routes, frequent flyer programs, scheduling, capacity, Customer Service, comfort and amenities, cost structure, aircraft fleet, and code-sharing and similar activities. The Company’s future results will suffer if it does not effectively manage its expanded operations, including its international operations. As the Company expands its international flight offerings, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) will become an increasingly important federal agency. CBP personnel and CBP-mandated procedures can affect the Company’s operations, costs, and Customer experience. The Company has made, and is continuing to make, significant investments in facilities, equipment, and technologies at certain airports in order to improve the Customer experience and to assist CBP with its inspection and processing duties; however, the Company is not able to predict the impact, if any, that various CBP measures or the lack of CBP resources will have on Company revenues and costs, either in the short-term or the long-term. International flying requires the Company to modify certain processes, as the airport environment is dramatically different in certain international locations with respect to, among other things, common-use ticket counters and gate areas, local operating requirements, and cultural preferences. In addition, international flying exposes the Company to certain foreign currency risks to the extent the Company chooses to, or is required to, transact in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. To the extent the Company seeks to serve additional foreign destinations in the future, or to renew its authority to serve certain routes, it may be required to obtain necessary authority from the DOT and/or approvals from the FAA, as well as any applicable foreign government entity. The Company’s expansion of its operations into non-U.S. jurisdictions also expands the scope of the laws to which the Company is subject, both domestically and internationally. In addition, operations in non-U.S. jurisdictions are in many cases subject to the laws of those jurisdictions rather than U.S. laws. Laws in some jurisdictions differ in significant respects from those in the United States, and these differences can affect the Company’s ability to react to changes in its business, and its rights or ability to enforce rights may be different than would be expected under U.S. laws. Furthermore, enforcement of laws in some jurisdictions can be inconsistent and unpredictable, which can affect both the Company’s ability to enforce its rights and to undertake activities that it believes are beneficial to its business. As a result, the Company’s ability to generate revenue and its expenses in non-U.S. jurisdictions may differ from what would be expected if U.S. laws governed these operations. Although the Company has policies and procedures in place that are designed to promote compliance with the laws of the jurisdictions in which it operates, a violation by the Company’s Employees, contractors, or agents or other intermediaries, could nonetheless occur. Any violation (or alleged or perceived violation), even if prohibited by the Company’s policies, could have an adverse effect on the Company’s reputation and/or its results of operations. The Company is currently subject to pending litigation, and if judgment were to be rendered against the Company in the litigation, such judgment could adversely affect the Company’s operating results. A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees. On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The parties have submitted briefs on class certification, and the parties have filed motions to exclude the class certification opinions of each other’s expert. The parties engaged in extensive discovery, and discovery has now closed. On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta delayed further briefing on summary judgment. On August 5, 2015, the Court entered an order granting class certification, which was vacated on August 17, 2015, to permit further briefing on class certification and AirTran’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert. Thereafter, the parties filed motions to exclude the opinions of the other parties’ experts. On January 8, 2016, the parties completed briefing on defendants’ motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and the motions to exclude the opinions of experts, and those motions have been submitted to the Court for decision. While AirTran has denied all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend vigorously any and all such allegations, results of legal proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty. Also, on June 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) to the Company. The CID seeks information and documents about the Company’s capacity from January 2010 to the present including public statements and communications with third parties about capacity. In June 2015, the Company also received a letter from the Connecticut Attorney General requesting information about capacity; and on August 21, 2015, the Attorney General of the State of Ohio issued an investigative demand seeking information and documents about the Company’s capacity from December 2013 to the present. The Company is cooperating fully with the DOJ CID and these two state inquiries. Further, on July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaints seek treble damages for periods that vary among the complaints, costs, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District Court in the District of Columbia. The Court has not yet entered a scheduling order establishing a date for defendants to respond to the complaints. While the Company intends to vigorously defend these civil cases, results of legal proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty. In addition, on July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in putative class action filed in British Columbia, Canada alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and maintain higher fares for Canadian citizens traveling in the United States and for travel between the United States and Canada. Similar lawsuits were filed in Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. The time for the Company to respond to the complaints has not yet expired. While the Company intends to vigorously defend these civil cases, results of legal proceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty. Regardless of merit, these litigation matters and any potential future claims against the Company or AirTran may be both time consuming and disruptive to the Company’s operations and cause significant expense and diversion of management attention. Should AirTran and the Company fail to prevail in these or other matters, the Company may be faced with significant monetary damages or injunctive relief that could materially adversely affect its business and might materially affect its financial condition and operating results. The application of the acquisition method of accounting resulted in the Company recording a significant amount of goodwill in connection with the acquisition of AirTran, which could result in significant future impairment charges and negatively affect the Company’s financial results. The Company recorded goodwill on its Consolidated Balance Sheet as a result of its acquisition of AirTran. Goodwill is not amortized, but is tested for impairment at least annually. Future impairment of Goodwill could be recorded in the Company's results of operations as a result of changes in assumptions, estimates, or circumstances, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. Factors which could result in an impairment, holding other assumptions constant, could include, but are not limited to: (i) reduced passenger demand as a result of domestic or global economic conditions; (ii) significantly higher prices for jet fuel; (iii) lower fares or passenger yields as a result of increased competition or lower demand; (iv) a significant increase in future capital expenditure commitments; and (v) significant disruptions to the Company’s operations as a result of both internal and external events such as terrorist activities, actual or threatened war, labor actions by Employees, or further industry regulation. The Company can provide no assurance that a significant impairment charge will not occur in one or more future periods. Any such charges may materially negatively affect the Company’s financial results. See Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information. Item 1B.