
	Aircraft Commitments(a)		Capacity Purchase Agreements(b)
2021	$	873	$	166
2022	372		174
2023	238		179
2024	27		184
2025	16		189
Thereafter	13		690
Total	$	1,539	$	1,582

Aircraft purchase commitments include non-cancelable contractual commitments for aircrafts and engines. As of December 31, 2020, Alaska had commitments to purchase 32 Boeing 737-9 MAX aircraft with deliveries in 2021 through 2023. Horizon also has commitments to purchase three E175 aircraft with deliveries in 2023 and Alaska has cancelable purchase commitments for 30 Airbus A320neo aircraft with deliveries from 2024 through 2026. In addition, Alaska has options to purchase 37 737 MAX aircraft and Horizon has options to purchase 30 E175 aircraft. Alaska has an option to increase capacity flown by Skywest with eight additional E175 aircraft with deliveries in 2022. The cancelable purchase commitments and option payments are not reflected in the table above.

In December 2020, Alaska announced an agreement in principle with Boeing to restructure the existing aircraft purchase agreement. Upon execution of the agreement, Alaska will have commitments to purchase an additional 23 737-9 MAX aircraft with deliveries between 2023 and 2024. The agreement in principle also provides for an incremental 15 options to purchase aircraft, which are expected to be available for delivery between 2023 and 2026. The incremental purchase commitments per the agreement in principle, as well as renegotiated payment streams which will lower 2021 cash outflow requirements, are not contractually obligated at December 31, 2020, and are not reflected in the table above.

Through its acquisition of Virgin America, the Company has a separate maintenance-cost-per-hour contract for management and repair of certain rotable parts to support Airbus airframe and engine maintenance and repair. In 2017, Alaska entered into a similar contract for maintenance on its B737-800 aircraft engines. These agreements require monthly payments based upon utilization, such as flight hours, cycles and age of the aircraft, and, in turn, the agreement transfers certain risks to the third-party service provider. There are minimum payments under both agreements, which are reflected in the table above. Accordingly, payments could differ materially based on actual aircraft utilization.

Certain Airbus leases include contractually required maintenance deposit payments to the lessor, which collateralize the lessor for future maintenance events should the Company not perform required maintenance. Payments of such deposits follow contractual terms and timing, regardless of operating status of the respective aircraft. Most of the lease agreements provide that maintenance deposits are reimbursable upon completion of the major maintenance event in an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the amount qualified for reimbursement from maintenance deposits held by the lessor associated with the specific major maintenance event or (ii) the qualifying costs related to the specific major maintenance event.

In May 2019, we executed an amended lease agreement with Los Angeles World Airports, which includes an agreement to renovate and upgrade the fuel system, jet bridges and concourse facilities at Terminal 6 of LAX. Project terms and pre-construction readiness was approved and finalized in 2020. We expect construction will be completed by early 2024. Under the terms of the agreement, we expect to have total reimbursable cash outlays for the project of approximately $230 million. To date, we have made total cash outlays of $24 million and have received reimbursement for $8.7 million of that total.

The Company is a party to routine litigation matters incidental to its business and with respect to which no material liability is expected. Liabilities for litigation related contingencies are recorded when a loss is determined to be probable and estimable.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016. The Company believes the claims in this case are without factual and legal merit.

In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various damages and penalties sought by the class members. In February 2019, the Court entered final judgment against Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately $78 million. It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska Airlines. In February 2021, an appellate court reversed portions of the lower court decision and significantly reduced the judgment. The determination of total judgment has not been completed as of the date of this filing. The Company accrued its best estimate in the December 31, 2020 financial statements for this recognized subsequent event.

The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and federal law and for other employment law and improper class certification reasons. The Company remains confident that a higher court will respect the federal preemption principles that were enacted to shield inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and local wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case and agree with the Company's other bases for appeal.

In January 2019, a pilot filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent all Alaska and Horizon pilots for damages based on alleged violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Plaintiff received class certification in August 2020. The case is in discovery. The Company believes the claims in the case are without factual and legal merit and intends to defend the lawsuit.