COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Future minimum payments for commitments as of December 31, 2019 (in millions): Aircraft Commitments (a) Capacity Purchase Agreements (b) Aircraft Maintenance Deposits 2020 $ 531 $ 145 $ 73 2021 487 166 62 2022 347 174 51 2023 206 179 26 2024 31 184 6 Thereafter 26 880 2 Total $ 1,628 $ 1,728 $ 220 (a) Includes non-cancelable contractual commitments for aircraft and engines, buyer furnished equipment, and aircraft maintenance and parts management. (b) Includes all non-aircraft lease costs associated with capacity purchase agreements. Aircraft Commitments Aircraft purchase commitments include non-cancelable contractual commitments for aircrafts and engines. As of December 31, 2019, Alaska had commitments to purchase 32 Boeing 737 MAX9 aircraft with deliveries in 2020 through 2023. Future minimum contractual payments for these aircraft have been updated to reflect the most current anticipated delivery timing for 737 MAX aircraft, which has been delayed as a result of the grounding order mandated by the FAA on March 13, 2019, and is subject to change. Horizon also has commitments to purchase three E175 aircraft with deliveries in 2023 and has cancelable purchase commitments for 30 Airbus A320neo aircraft with deliveries from 2023 through 2025. 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. Aircraft Maintenance and Parts Management 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. Aircraft Maintenance Deposits 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. 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. Contingencies 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. On February 4, 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. 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. For these reasons, no loss has been accrued. The Company is involved in other litigation around the application of state and local employment laws, like many air carriers. Our defenses are similar to those identified above, including that the state and local laws are preempted by federal law and are unconstitutional because they impede interstate commerce. None of these additional disputes are material.