UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-K

Commission file number 1-8400.

AMR Corporation

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code            (817) 963-1234
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

NONE

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes   þ   No o.

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes   þ   No o.

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2004, was approximately $1.9 billion. As of February 18, 2005, 161,161,254 shares of the registrant’s common stock were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III of this Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain information from the Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held May 18, 2005.

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

AMR Corporation (AMR or the Company) was incorporated in October 1982. AMR’s operations fall almost entirely in the airline industry. AMR’s principal subsidiary, American Airlines, Inc. (American), was founded in 1934. On April 9, 2001, American (through a wholly owned subsidiary, TWA Airlines LLC (TWA LLC)) purchased substantially all of the assets and assumed certain liabilities of Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA), the eighth largest U.S. carrier at the time of the transaction.

American is the largest scheduled passenger airline in the world. At the end of 2004, American provided scheduled jet service to approximately 150 destinations throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe and the Pacific. American is also one of the largest scheduled air freight carriers in the world, providing a wide range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its system.

In addition, AMR Eagle Holding Corporation (AMR Eagle), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMR, owns two regional airlines which do business as “American Eagle” — American Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. (Executive) (collectively, the American Eagle carriers). American also contracts with three independently owned regional airlines, which do business as the “American Connection” (the American Connection carriers). The American Eagle carriers and the American Connection carriers provide connecting service from eight of American’s high-traffic cities to smaller markets throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.

AMR Investment Services, Inc. (AMR Investment), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMR, is responsible for the investment and oversight of assets of AMR’s U.S. employee benefit plans, as well as AMR’s short-term investments. It also serves as the investment manager of the American AAdvantage Funds, a family of mutual funds with both institutional and retail shareholders, and provides customized fixed income portfolio management services. As of December 31, 2004, AMR Investment was responsible for the management of approximately $36.5 billion in assets, including direct management of approximately $16.4 billion in short-term fixed income investments. The Company anticipates that, on March 1, 2005, the names of both AMR Investment Services, Inc. and the American AAdvantage Funds will change to American Beacon Advisors, Inc. and American Beacon Funds, respectively.

A. Recent Events

The Company has incurred very large operating and net losses during the past four years, as shown in the following table:

These losses reflect, among other things, a substantial decrease in the Company’s revenues in 2001 and 2002. This revenue decrease was primarily driven by (i) a steep fall-off in the demand for air travel, particularly business travel, primarily caused by weakness in the U.S. economy, (ii) reduced pricing power, resulting mainly from greater cost sensitivity on the part of travelers (especially business travelers), increasing competition from low-cost carriers (LCCs) and the continuing increase in pricing transparency resulting from the use of the Internet and (iii) the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (Terrorist Attacks), which accelerated and exacerbated the trend of decreased demand and reduced industry revenues. The Company believes that its reduced pricing power resulting from the factors listed in clause (ii) above will persist indefinitely and possibly permanently.

Passenger traffic rebounded in 2003 and 2004, reflecting a general improvement in the U.S. and several other economies served by the Company, the diminishing impact of the Terrorist Attacks on demand and lower fares. However, the Company’s pricing power remained depressed in 2003 due to a continuation of the factors listed in clause (ii) of the preceding paragraph, and declined in 2004 due to significant increases in overall industry capacity that exceeded the growth in demand, and more frequent and more deeply discounted fare sales initiated by competitors, including competitors currently operating under the protection of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

1

The Company’s 2004 operating and financial results were also adversely affected by the significant increases in the price of jet fuel. Fuel price increases during 2004 resulted in a year-over-year increase of 33.9 cents per gallon. This price increase negatively impacted fuel expense by $1.1 billion during the year. Continuing high fuel prices, additional increases in the price of fuel, and/or disruptions in the supply of fuel, would further adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and its results of operations.

In response to the challenges faced by the Company, during the past four years the Company has implemented several restructuring and other initiatives:

•	Following the Terrorist Attacks, the Company reduced its operating schedule by approximately 20 percent and reduced its workforce by approximately 20,000 jobs.

•

In 2002, the Company announced a series of initiatives to reduce its annual costs by $2 billion. These initiatives are being implemented through 2005, and involve: (i) scheduling efficiencies, (ii) fleet simplification, (iii) streamlined customer interaction, (iv) distribution modifications, (v) in-flight product changes, (vi) operational changes and (vii) headquarters/administration efficiencies. As a result of these initiatives, the Company reduced an estimated 7,000 jobs by March 2003.

•

In February 2003, American asked its employees for approximately $1.8 billion in annual savings through a combination of changes in wages, benefits and work rules. In April 2003, American reached agreements with its three unions (the Labor Agreements) and also implemented various changes in the pay plans and benefits for non-unionized personnel, including officers and other management (the Management Reductions). The Labor Agreements and Management Reductions resulted in $1.8 billion in annual savings including a workforce reduction of approximately 9,300 jobs. In addition, the Company and American reached concessionary agreements with certain vendors, lessors, lenders and suppliers (collectively, the Vendors, and the agreements, the Vendor Agreements), resulting in approximately $200 million in annual cost savings. Generally, under the terms of these Vendor Agreements, the Company or American received the benefit of lower rates and charges for certain goods and services, and more favorable rent and financing terms with respect to certain of its aircraft.

•

Subsequent to the April 2003 Labor Agreements the Company announced the Turnaround Plan. The Turnaround Plan is the Company’s strategic framework for returning to sustained profitability and emphasizes: (i) lower costs, (ii) an increased focus on what customers’ truly value and are prepared to pay for, (iii) increased union and employee involvement in the operation of the Company and (iv) the need for a more sound balance sheet/financial structure.

•

In the latter part of 2003 and throughout 2004, the Company continued to work – under the basic tenets of the Turnaround Plan – with its unions and employees to identify and implement additional initiatives designed to increase efficiencies and revenues and reduce costs. These initiatives included: (i) the return of under-used gate space and the consolidation of the Company’s terminal space, (ii) the de-peaking of its hub at Miami, the reduction in the size of its St. Louis hub and the simplification of its domestic operations, (iii) the acceleration of the retirement of certain aircraft and the cancellation or deferral of aircraft deliveries, (iv) the improvement of aircraft utilization across its fleet and an increase in seating density on certain fleet types, (v) the sale of certain non-core assets, (vi) the expansion of its international network, where the Company believes that higher revenue generating opportunities currently exist, (vii) the implementation of an on-board food purchase program and new fees for ticketing services and (viii) numerous other initiatives.

•

As part of its effort to build greater employee involvement, the Company has worked to make its labor unions and its employees, its business partners on the need for continuous improvement under the Turnaround Plan. Among other things, the senior management of the Company meets regularly with union officials to discuss the Company’s financial results as well as the competitive landscape. These discussions include: (i) the Company’s cost reduction and revenue enhancement initiatives and (ii) a review of initiatives, in-place or contemplated, at other airlines and the impact of those initiatives on the Company’s competitive posture.

2

The Company’s ability to become profitable and its ability to continue to fund its obligations on an ongoing basis will depend on a number of factors, some of which are largely beyond the Company’s control. Some of the risk factors that affect the Company’s business and financial results are discussed in the Risk Factors listed in Item 7. As the Company seeks to improve its financial condition, it must continue to take steps to generate additional revenues and significantly reduce its costs. Although the Company has a number of initiatives underway to address the cost and revenue challenges, the ultimate success of these initiatives is not known at this time and cannot be assured. It will be very difficult, absent continued restructuring of its operations, for the Company to continue to fund its obligations on an ongoing basis or to become profitable if the overall industry revenue environment does not improve and fuel prices remain at historically high levels for an extended period.

B. Competition

Major Competitors The domestic airline industry is fiercely competitive. Currently, any U.S. air carrier deemed fit by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is free to operate scheduled passenger service between any two points within the U.S. and its possessions. Most major air carriers have developed hub-and-spoke systems and schedule patterns in an effort to maximize the revenue potential of their service. American operates five hubs: Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW), Chicago O’Hare, Miami, St. Louis and San Juan, Puerto Rico. United Air Lines (United) also has a hub operation at Chicago O’Hare. Delta Air Lines (Delta) previously operated a hub at DFW. In January 2005, however, Delta ceased hub operations at DFW. The American Eagle carriers increase the number of markets the Company serves by providing connections at American’s hubs and certain other major airports — Boston, Los Angeles, Raleigh/Durham and New York’s LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy International Airports. The American Connection carriers provide connecting service to American through St. Louis. American’s competitors also own or have marketing agreements with regional carriers which provide similar services at their major hubs and other locations.

On most of its domestic non-stop routes, the Company faces competing service from at least one, and sometimes more than one, domestic airline including: AirTran Airways, Alaska Airlines, America West Airlines, ATA Airlines, Continental Airlines (Continental), Delta, Frontier Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Northwest Airlines (Northwest), Southwest Airlines, United and US Airways, and their affiliated regional carriers. Competition is even greater between cities that require a connection, where the major airlines compete via their respective hubs. In addition, the Company faces competition on some of its routes from carriers operating point-to-point service on such routes. The Company also competes with all-cargo and charter carriers and, particularly on shorter segments, ground and rail transportation. On all of its routes, pricing decisions are affected, in large part, by the need to meet competition from other airlines.

The Company must compete with carriers that have recently reorganized or are reorganizing, including under the protection of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. It is possible that one or more other competitors may seek to reorganize in or out of Chapter 11. Successful completion of such out-of-court or Chapter 11 reorganizations could present the Company with competitors with lower operating costs derived from renegotiated labor, supply and financing contracts.

International Air Transportation In addition to its extensive domestic service, the Company provides international service to the Caribbean, Canada, Latin America, Europe and the Pacific. The Company’s operating revenues from foreign operations were approximately 35 percent of the Company’s total operating revenues in 2004 and 27 and 28 percent of the Company’s total operating revenues in 2003 and 2002, respectively. Additional information about the Company’s foreign operations is included in Note 14 to the consolidated financial statements.

3

In providing international air transportation, the Company competes with foreign investor-owned carriers, state-owned carriers and U.S. airlines that have been granted authority to provide scheduled passenger and cargo service between the U.S. and various overseas locations. The major U.S. air carriers have some advantage over foreign competitors in their ability to generate traffic from their extensive domestic route systems. In some cases, however, foreign governments limit U.S. air carriers’ rights to carry passengers beyond designated gateway cities in foreign countries. To improve access to each other’s markets, various U.S. and foreign air carriers — including American — have established marketing relationships with other airlines and rail companies. American currently has marketing relationships with Aer Lingus, Air Pacific, Air Tahiti Nui, Alaska Airlines, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, China Eastern Airlines, Deutsche Bahn, EL AL, EVA Air, Finnair, Gulf Air, Hawaiian Airlines, Iberia, Japan Airlines, Lan Airlines, Mexicana, Qantas Airways, SN Brussels, SNCF, Southern Winds, Swiss International Air Lines, TACA Group, the TAM Group and Turkish Airlines. In the coming years, the Company expects to develop these programs further and to evaluate new alliances with other carriers.

American is also a founding member of the oneworld alliance, which includes Aer Lingus, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Finnair, Lan Airlines, Iberia, and Qantas. The oneworld alliance links the networks of the member carriers to enhance customer service and smooth connections to the destinations served by the alliance, including linking the carriers’ frequent flyer programs and access to the carriers’ airport lounge facilities. Several of American’s major competitors are members of marketing/operational alliances that enjoy antitrust immunity. To the extent that American and British Airways, the largest members of the oneworld alliance, are restricted in their relationship because they lack antitrust immunity, the carriers are at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis other alliances that have antitrust immunity. Following permission from the DOT to codeshare on a wide number of flights beyond the carriers’ gateways in the United Kingdom and the United States, American and British Airways implemented their first phase of codeshare services in 2003 and expanded this cooperation further in 2004.

Price Competition The airline industry is characterized by substantial and intense price competition. Fare discounting by competitors has historically had a negative effect on the Company’s financial results because the Company is generally required to match competitors’ fares because failing to match would provide even less revenue. In January 2005, Delta implemented a U.S.-wide simplified fare structure initiative, which the Company matched in most domestic markets. The Company expects this simplified fare initiative to initially have a negative impact on its 2005 revenues. The longer-term impact on revenues is unclear at this time.

During recent years, a number of new LCCs have entered the domestic market and several major airlines, including the Company, have implemented efforts to lower their costs. Lower cost structures enable airlines to offer lower fares. In addition, several air carriers have recently reorganized or are reorganizing under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, including United and US Airways. In the past, air carriers involved in reorganizations have undertaken substantial fare discounting in order to maintain cash flows and preserve their customer base. Further fare reductions, domestic and international, may therefore occur in the future. If fare reductions are not offset by increases in passenger traffic, changes in the mix of traffic that improve yields (passenger revenue per passenger mile) and/or cost reductions, the Company’s operating results will be negatively impacted.

Distribution Systems The growing use of electronic ticket distribution systems provides the Company with an opportunity to lower its distribution costs. However, the continuous increase in pricing transparency resulting from the use of the Internet has enabled cost-conscious customers to more easily obtain the lowest fare on any given route. The Company continues to expand the capabilities of its Internet website — AA.com — and the use of electronic ticketing throughout the Company’s network. In addition, the Company has marketing agreements with Orbitz and other Internet travel services.

4

The majority of the tickets for travel on American and the American Eagle carriers continue to be sold by travel agents. In 2002, American announced that it would no longer pay base commissions on tickets issued by travel agents in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada (which generally were five percent of the price of a ticket, capped at a maximum of $20 for a domestic roundtrip itinerary and $100 for an international roundtrip). As discussed in Item 3 Legal Proceedings, the Company is subject to legal challenges related to these changes. American continues, however, to pay certain commissions to travel agents in connection with special revenue programs. American believes that other domestic carriers also no longer pay base commissions on tickets issued by travel agents in the U.S., Puerto Rico and Canada, but pay certain commissions in connection with their own special revenue programs. Accordingly, airlines compete, not only with respect to the price of the tickets sold, but also with respect to the amount of special revenue program commissions that may be paid. In addition, American has been actively pursuing reducing base commissions for international points of sale.

The Company also establishes incentive programs with corporate customers to increase revenues. The Company believes that its network breadth and local market presence in key cities allow it to have some advantages over other competitors.

C. Regulation

General The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, as amended, eliminated most domestic economic regulation of passenger and freight transportation. However, the DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) still exercise certain regulatory authority over air carriers. The DOT maintains jurisdiction over the approval of international codeshare agreements, international route authorities and certain consumer protection and competition matters, such as advertising, denied boarding compensation and baggage liability.

The FAA regulates flying operations generally, including establishing personnel, aircraft and certain security standards. As part of that oversight, the FAA has implemented a number of requirements that the Company is incorporating into its maintenance programs. The Company is progressing toward the completion of over 100 airworthiness directives including McDonnell Douglas MD-80 metal-mylar insulation replacement, enhanced ground proximity warning systems, McDonnell Douglas MD-80 main landing gear piston improvements, Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 pylon improvements, Boeing 737 elevator and rudder improvements and Airbus A300 structural improvements. Based on its current implementation schedule, the Company expects to be in compliance with the applicable requirements within the required time periods.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has jurisdiction over airline antitrust matters. The U.S. Postal Service has jurisdiction over certain aspects of the transportation of mail and related services. Labor relations in the air transportation industry are regulated under the Railway Labor Act, which vests in the National Mediation Board (NMB) certain regulatory functions with respect to disputes between airlines and labor unions relating to union representation and collective bargaining agreements.

International International air transportation is subject to extensive government regulation. The Company’s operating authority in international markets is subject to aviation agreements between the U.S. and the respective countries or governmental authorities (such as the European Union), 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. Bilateral agreements between the U.S. and various foreign governments of countries served by the Company are periodically subject to renegotiation. 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, or otherwise adversely affect the Company’s international operations. In addition, at some foreign airports, an air carrier needs slots (landing and take-off authorizations) before the air carrier can introduce new service or increase existing service. The availability of such slots is not assured and the inability of the Company to obtain and retain needed slots could therefore inhibit its efforts to compete in certain international markets.

5

Security In November 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) was enacted. The ATSA created a new government agency, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for aviation security. The ATSA mandates that the TSA provide for the screening of all passengers and property, including U.S. mail, cargo, carry-on and checked baggage, and other articles that will be carried aboard a passenger aircraft. The ATSA also provides for increased security in flight decks of aircraft and requires federal air marshals to be present on certain flights.

Effective February 1, 2002, the ATSA imposed a $2.50 per enplanement security service fee ($5 one-way maximum fee), which is being collected by the air carriers and submitted to the government to pay for these enhanced security measures. Additionally, for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004, air carriers were required to submit to the government an amount equal to what the air carriers paid for screening passengers and property in 2000. After 2004, this fee may be assessed based upon some other allocation. However, air carriers will continue to submit to the government an amount equal to what the carriers paid for screening passengers and property in 2000 until further notice. The budget for fiscal year 2006 submitted by President Bush contains a spending proposal for the Department of Homeland Security that would increase the per enplanement security service fee to $5.50 ($8 one-way maximum fee for multiple segments). American and other carriers have announced their opposition to this proposal as there is no assurance that any increase in fees could be passed on to customers.

Airline Fares Airlines are permitted to establish their own domestic fares without governmental regulation. The DOT maintains authority over certain international fares, rates and charges, but applies this authority on a limited basis. In addition, international fares and rates are sometimes subject to the jurisdiction of the governments of the foreign countries which the Company serves. While air carriers are required to file and adhere to international fare and rate tariffs, substantial commissions, overrides and discounts to travel agents, brokers and wholesalers characterize many international markets.

Airport Access The FAA has designated New York John F. Kennedy, New York LaGuardia, and Washington Reagan airports as high-density traffic airports. The high-density rule limits the number of Instrument Flight Rule operations — take-offs and landings — permitted per hour and requires that a slot support each operation. In April 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21^st Century (Air 21 Act) was enacted. It will eliminate slot restrictions at New York John F. Kennedy and New York LaGuardia airports in 2007. The Company expects that the elimination of these slot restrictions could create operational challenges, but does not expect the elimination of these slot restrictions to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

As a result of agreements reached with the FAA in 2004, the Company reduced operations at Chicago O’Hare during certain peak times to improve dependability.

Currently, the FAA permits the purchasing, selling, leasing or transferring of slots except those slots designated as international, essential air service or Air 21 Act slots (certain slots at the New York John F. Kennedy, New York LaGuardia, and Washington Reagan airports). Trading of any domestic slot is permitted subject to certain parameters. Some foreign airports, including London Heathrow, a major European destination for American, also have slot allocations. Most foreign authorities do not officially recognize the purchasing, selling or leasing of slots.

In addition, the Wright Amendment restricts certain flight operations at Dallas Love Field to a limited geographic area. To the extent these flight restrictions are lifted in the future, it could have an adverse financial impact on the Company.

Although the Company is constrained by slots, it currently has sufficient slot authorizations to operate its existing flights. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be able to obtain slots to expand its operations and change its schedules in the future because, among other factors, slot allocations are subject to changes in government policies.

6

Environmental Matters The Company is subject to various laws and government regulations concerning environmental matters and employee safety and health in the U.S. and other countries. U.S. federal laws that have a particular impact on the Company include the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA), the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or the Superfund Act). Certain operations of the Company are also subject to the oversight of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) concerning employee safety and health matters. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), OSHA, and other federal agencies have been authorized to promulgate regulations that have an impact on the Company’s operations. In addition to these federal activities, various states have been delegated certain authorities under the aforementioned federal statutes. Many state and local governments have adopted environmental and employee safety and health laws and regulations, some of which are similar to or stricter than federal requirements.

The ANCA recognizes the rights of airport operators with noise problems to implement local noise abatement programs so long as they do not interfere unreasonably with interstate or foreign commerce or the national air transportation system. Authorities in several cities have promulgated aircraft noise reduction programs, including the imposition of nighttime curfews. The ANCA generally requires FAA approval of local noise restrictions on aircraft. While the Company has had sufficient scheduling flexibility to accommodate local noise restrictions imposed to date, the Company’s operations could be adversely affected if locally-imposed regulations become more restrictive or widespread.

American has been named as a potentially responsible party (PRP) for contamination at the former Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill in Monterrey Park, CA (OII). American’s alleged volumetric contributions at OII are small when compared with those of other PRPs. American is participating with a number of other PRPs in a Steering Committee that has conducted extensive negotiations with the EPA and state officials in recent years. Members of the Steering Committee, including American, have entered into a series of partial consent decrees with EPA and the State of California which address specific aspects of investigation and cleanup at OII. To date American has paid approximately $1.25 million toward its share of cleanup costs under those consent decrees. Together with a number of other small-volume PRPs at OII, American seeks a settlement that will enable it to resolve all of its remaining past and present liabilities at OII in exchange for a one-time, lump-sum settlement payment. The amount of American’s potential contribution towards such a settlement is not yet known but American expects that its payments will be immaterial.

American also has been named as a PRP for contamination at the Double Eagle Superfund Site in Oklahoma City, OK (Double Eagle). American’s alleged volumetric contributions are small when compared with those of other PRPs. American is participating with a number of other PRPs at Double Eagle in a Joint Defense Group that is actively conducting settlement negotiations with the EPA and state officials. The group is seeking a settlement on behalf of its members that will enable American to resolve its past and present liabilities at Double Eagle in exchange for a one-time, lump-sum settlement payment. American expects that its payment will be immaterial.

American, along with most other tenants at the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA), has been ordered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to engage in various studies of potential environmental contamination at the airport and to undertake remedial measures, if necessary. In 1997, the SFIA pursued a cost recovery action in the U.S. District Court of Northern California against certain airport tenants to recover past and future costs associated with historic airport contamination. American entered an initial settlement for accrued past costs in 2000 for $850,000. In 2004, American resolved its liability for all remaining past and future costs. Based on SFIA’s cost projections, the value of American’s second settlement is approximately $4 million payable over a 30 year period.

Miami-Dade County (the County) is currently investigating and remediating various environmental conditions at the Miami International Airport (MIA) and funding the remediation costs through landing fees and various cost recovery methods. American and AMR Eagle have been named PRPs for the contamination at MIA. See Item 3, Legal Proceedings, for additional information.

7

In 1999, American was ordered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to conduct remediation of environmental contamination located at Terminals 8 and 9 at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). American is seeking to recover a portion of the JFK remediation costs from previous users of the Terminals 8 and 9 premises. In 2004, American entered a Consent Order with NYSDEC for the remediation of a JFK off-terminal hangar facility. American expects that the projected costs associated with the JFK remediations will be immaterial.

In 1996, American and Executive, along with other tenants at the Luis Munoz Marin International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJU) were notified by the SJU Port Authority that it considered them potentially responsible for environmental contamination at the airport. In 2003, the SJU Port Authority requested that American, among other airport tenants, fund an ongoing subsurface investigation and site assessment. American denied liability for the related costs. No further action has been taken against American or Executive.

American Eagle Airlines, Inc. (American Eagle) has been notified of its potential liability under New York law at an inactive hazardous waste site in Poughkeepsie, New York. Pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent entered into with NYSDEC, American Eagle is implementing a final remedy to address contamination at the site. The costs of this final remedy are immaterial.

The Company does not expect these matters, individually or collectively, to have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. See Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information.

D. Labor

The airline business is labor intensive. Wages, salaries and benefits represented approximately 36 percent of the Company’s consolidated operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2004. The average full-time equivalent number of employees of the Company’s subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004 was 92,100.

The majority of these employees are represented by labor unions and covered by collective bargaining agreements. Relations with such labor organizations are governed by the Railway Labor Act. Under this act, the collective bargaining agreements among the Company’s subsidiaries and these organizations generally do not expire but instead become amendable as of a stated date. If either party wishes to modify the terms of any such agreement, it must notify the other party in the manner described in the agreement. After receipt of such notice, the parties must meet for direct negotiations, and if no agreement is reached, either party may request the National Mediation Board (NMB) to appoint a federal mediator. If no agreement is reached in mediation, the NMB may declare at some time that an impasse exists, and if an impasse is declared, the NMB proffers binding arbitration to the parties. Either party may decline to submit to arbitration. If arbitration is rejected by either party, a 30-day “cooling off” period commences. During that period (or after), a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) may be established, which examines the parties’ positions and recommends a solution. The PEB process lasts for 30 days and is followed by another “cooling off” period of 30 days. At the end of a “cooling off” period, unless an agreement is reached or action is taken by Congress, the labor organization may strike and the airline may resort to “self-help”, including the imposition of any or all of its proposed amendments and the hiring of new employees to replace any striking workers.

In April 2003, American reached agreements with its three major unions — the Allied Pilots Association (the APA), the Transport Workers Union of America (AFL-CIO) (the TWU) and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (the APFA) (previously described as the Labor Agreements). The Labor Agreements substantially reduced the labor costs associated with the employees represented by the unions. In conjunction with the Labor Agreements, American implemented various changes in the pay plans and benefits for non-unionized personnel, including officers and other management (the Management Reductions). While the parties may begin discussions in 2006, the Labor Agreements do not become amendable until 2008.

8

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which represents American Eagle pilots, reached agreement with American Eagle effective September 1, 1997, to have all of the pilots of the American Eagle carriers covered by a single collective bargaining agreement. This agreement lasts until October 31, 2013. The agreement provides to the parties the right to seek limited changes in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. If the parties are unable to agree on the limited changes, they also agree that the issues would be resolved by interest arbitration, without the exercise of self-help (such as a strike). ALPA and American Eagle negotiated a tentative agreement in 2000, but that agreement failed in ratification. Thereafter, the parties participated in interest arbitration. The interest arbitration panel determined the limited changes that should be made and these changes were appropriately effected. In 2004, the parties successfully negotiated limited changes that became effective on January 1, 2005.

The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), which represents the flight attendants of the American Eagle carriers, reached agreement with American Eagle effective March 2, 1998, to have all flight attendants of the American Eagle carriers covered by a single contract. The agreement became amendable on September 2, 2001. The parties agreed to commence negotiations over amendments to the agreement in March 2001. The mediation assistance of the NMB was requested and mediation commenced in November 2003. The mediated negotiations continue. The other union employees at the American Eagle carriers are covered by separate agreements with the TWU, which were effective April 28, 1998, and were amendable April 28, 2003. American Eagle and the TWU reached agreements with respect to the TWU-represented work groups at various times in late 2004 and early 2005. They have agreed that openers may be exchanged at least 60 days prior to October 1, 2007, for all of those agreements.

The non-union employees formerly with TWA LLC have been integrated into American’s work force. With respect to the integration of unionized employees formerly employed by TWA LLC, American reached integration agreements with the APA (with respect to pilot integration) and the APFA (with respect to flight attendant integration). American and the TWU participated in arbitration and resolved certain unionized ground employee integration issues in late February and early March 2002. In early April 2002, the NMB declared American and TWA LLC a single carrier for labor relations purposes and designated American’s incumbent unions as the collective bargaining representatives of the relevant work groups at both American and TWA LLC. Since American’s unions thereafter represented the relevant employees at both carriers, the integration mechanisms applicable to the unions at American could then begin to be effected. The integration of the unionized work groups has occurred in accordance with those mechanisms.

E. Fuel

The Company’s operations and financial results are significantly affected by the availability and price of jet fuel. The Company’s fuel costs and consumption for the years 2002 through 2004 were:

The impact of fuel price changes on the Company and its competitors depends on various factors, including hedging strategies. The Company has a fuel hedging program in which it enters into jet fuel, heating oil and crude oil hedging contracts to dampen the impact of the volatility of jet fuel prices. During 2004, 2003 and 2002, the Company’s fuel hedging program reduced the Company’s fuel expense by approximately $99 million, $149 million and $4 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2004, the Company had hedged, with option contracts, approximately 15 percent of its estimated first quarter 2005 fuel requirements and minimal amounts of its estimated fuel requirements thereafter. A deterioration of the Company’s liquidity position could negatively affect the Company’s ability to hedge fuel in the future. See the Risk Factors under Item 7 for additional information regarding fuel.

9

Additional information regarding the Company’s fuel program is also included in Item 7(A) – Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk and in Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements.

F. Frequent Flyer Program

American established the AAdvantage frequent flyer program (AAdvantage) to develop passenger loyalty by offering awards to travelers for their continued patronage. The Company believes that the AAdvantage program is one of its competitive strengths. AAdvantage members earn mileage credits for flights on American, American Eagle and certain other participating airlines, or by using services of other program participants, including bank credit card issuers, hotels, car rental companies and phone service companies. American sells mileage credits and related services to the other companies participating in the program. American reserves the right to change the AAdvantage program at any time without notice and may end the program with six months notice.

Mileage credits can be redeemed for free, discounted or upgraded travel on American, American Eagle or other participating airlines, or for other travel industry awards. Once a member accrues sufficient mileage for an award, the member may book award travel. Most travel awards are subject to capacity controlled seating. Mileage credit does not expire, provided a customer has any type of qualifying activity at least once every 36 months. See Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates under Item 7 for more information on AAdvantage.

G. Other Matters

Seasonality and Other Factors The Company’s results of operations for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of those for the entire year, since the air transportation business is subject to seasonal fluctuations. Higher demand for air travel has traditionally resulted in more favorable operating and financial results for the second and third quarters of the year than for the first and fourth quarters. Fears of terrorism or war, fare initiatives, fluctuations in fuel prices, labor actions, weather and other factors could impact this seasonal pattern. Unaudited quarterly financial data for the two-year period ended December 31, 2004 is included in Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements. In addition, the results of operations in the air transportation business have also significantly fluctuated in the past in response to general economic conditions.

No material part of the business of AMR and its subsidiaries is dependent upon a single customer or very few customers. Consequently, the loss of the Company’s largest few customers would not have a materially adverse effect upon the Company.

Insurance The Company carries insurance for public liability, passenger liability, property damage and all-risk coverage for damage to its aircraft.

As a result of the Terrorist Attacks, aviation insurers significantly reduced the amount of insurance coverage available to commercial air carriers for liability to persons other than employees or passengers for claims resulting from acts of terrorism, war or similar events (war-risk coverage). At the same time, these insurers significantly increased the premiums for aviation insurance in general.

The U.S. government has agreed to provide commercial war-risk insurance for U.S. based airlines until August 31, 2005 covering losses to employees, passengers, third parties and aircraft. In addition, the Secretary of Transportation may extend the policy until December 31, 2005, at his discretion. However, there is no assurance that it will be extended. If the U.S. government does not extend the policy beyond August 31, 2005, the Company will attempt to purchase similar coverage with narrower scope from commercial insurers at an additional cost. To the extent this coverage is not available at commercially reasonable rates, the Company’s results of operations would be negatively affected. While the price of commercial insurance has declined in recent years, in the event commercial insurance carriers further reduce the amount of insurance coverage available to the Company, or significantly increase its cost, the Company’s operations and/or financial position and results of operations would be adversely affected.

10

Other Government Matters In time of war or during a national emergency or defense oriented situation, American and other air carriers can be required to provide airlift services to the Air Mobility Command under the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program. In the event the Company has to provide a substantial number of aircraft and crew to the Air Mobility Command, its operations could be adversely impacted.

Available Information The Company makes its annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 available free of charge under the Investor Relations page on its website, www.aa.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are electronically filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the Company’s code of ethics, which applies to all employees of the Company including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Controller, is posted under the Investor Relations page on its website, www.aa.com. The Company intends to disclose any amendments to the code of ethics, or waivers of the code of ethics on behalf of the CEO, CFO or Controller, under the Investor Relations page on the Company’s website, www.aa.com. The charters for the AMR Board of Director’s standing committees (the Audit, Compensation, Diversity and Nominating/Corporate Governance Committees) as well as the Board of Director’s Governance Policies (the Governance Policies) are likewise available on the Company’s website, www.aa.com. Upon request, copies of the charters or the Governance Policies are available at no cost.

11

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

Flight Equipment – Operating

Owned and leased aircraft operated by the Company at December 31, 2004 included:

Of the operating aircraft listed above, 17 McDonnell Douglas MD-80s — 11 owned, four operating leased and two capital leased — and one operating leased Saab 340B Plus were in temporary storage as of December 31, 2004.

Flight Equipment – Non-Operating

Owned and leased aircraft not operated by the Company at December 31, 2004 included:

In the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company decided to permanently retire seven owned McDonnell Douglas MD-80s which were previously in temporary storage.

12

As part of the Company’s fleet simplification initiative, American has agreed to sell certain aircraft. As of December 31, 2004, remaining owned aircraft to be delivered under these agreements include three Boeing 767-200 Extended Range and one Boeing 767-200 aircraft.

AMR Eagle has leased its 10 owned Embraer 145s not operated by the Company to Trans States Airlines, Inc.

The Company is actively marketing its remaining Boeing 767-200 owned non-operating aircraft and does not anticipate bringing these aircraft back into service.

For information concerning the estimated useful lives and residual values for owned aircraft, lease terms for leased aircraft and amortization relating to aircraft under capital leases, see Notes 1 and 5 to the consolidated financial statements.

Lease expirations for the leased aircraft included in the preceding table of operating flight equipment as of December 31, 2004, are:

Substantially all of the Company’s aircraft leases include an option to purchase the aircraft or to extend the lease term, or both, with the purchase price or renewal rental to be based essentially on the market value of the aircraft at the end of the term of the lease or at a predetermined fixed amount.

A very large majority of the Company’s owned aircraft are encumbered.

Ground Properties

The Company leases, or has built as leasehold improvements on leased property: most of its airport and terminal facilities; its maintenance and training facilities in Fort Worth, Texas; its principal overhaul and maintenance bases at Tulsa International Airport (Tulsa, Oklahoma), Kansas City International Airport (Kansas City, Missouri) and Alliance Airport (Fort Worth, Texas); its regional reservation offices; and local ticket and administration offices throughout the system. American has entered into agreements with the Tulsa Municipal Airport Trust; the Alliance Airport Authority, Fort Worth, Texas; the New York City Industrial Development Agency; and the Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago O’Hare, Newark, San Juan, and Los Angeles airport authorities to provide funds for constructing, improving and modifying facilities and acquiring equipment which are or will be leased to the Company. The Company also uses public airports for its flight operations under lease or use arrangements with the municipalities or governmental agencies owning or controlling them and leases certain other ground equipment for use at its facilities.

For information concerning the estimated lives and residual values for owned ground properties, lease terms and amortization relating to ground properties under capital leases, and acquisitions of ground properties, see Notes 1 and 5 to the consolidated financial statements.

13

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On July 26, 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed, and in November 1999 an amended complaint was filed, against AMR Corporation, American Airlines, Inc., AMR Eagle Holding Corporation, Airlines Reporting Corporation, and the Sabre Group Holdings, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division (Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corp., et al.). The lawsuit alleges that requiring travel agencies to pay debit memos to American for violations of American’s fare rules (by customers of the agencies): (1) breaches the Agent Reporting Agreement between American and AMR Eagle and the plaintiffs; (2) constitutes unjust enrichment; and (3) violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO). The certified class includes all travel agencies who have been or will be required to pay money to American for debit memos for fare rules violations from July 26, 1995 to the present. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin American from enforcing the pricing rules in question and to recover the amounts paid for debit memos, plus treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Although the Company believes that the litigation is without merit, a final adverse court decision could impose restrictions on the Company’s relationships with travel agencies, which could have an adverse impact on the Company.

On May 17, 2002, the named plaintiffs in Hall, et al. v. United Airlines, et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, filed an amended complaint alleging that between 1995 and the present, American and over 15 other defendant airlines conspired to reduce commissions paid to U.S.-based travel agents in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The court granted class action certification to the plaintiffs on September 17, 2002, defining the plaintiff class as all travel agents in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands, who, at any time from October 1, 1997 to the present, issued tickets, miscellaneous change orders, or prepaid ticket advices for travel on any of the defendant airlines. The case was stayed as to US Airways and United Airlines, since they filed for bankruptcy. Defendant carriers filed a motion for summary judgment on December 10, 2002, which the court granted on October 30, 2003. The 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the order dismissing all claims against the Defendant carriers on December 9, 2004.

Between April 3, 2003 and June 5, 2003, three lawsuits were filed by travel agents some of whom have opted out of the Hall class action (above) to pursue their claims individually against American Airlines, Inc., other airline defendants, and in one case against certain airline defendants and Orbitz LLC. (Tam Travel et. al., v. Delta Air Lines et. al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California – San Francisco (51 individual agencies), Paula Fausky d/b/a Timeless Travel v. American Airlines, et. al, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division (29 agencies) and Swope Travel et al. v. Orbitz et. al. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division (6 agencies)). Collectively, these lawsuits seek damages and injunctive relief alleging that the certain airline defendants and Orbitz LLC: (i) conspired to prevent travel agents from acting as effective competitors in the distribution of airline tickets to passengers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (ii) conspired to monopolize the distribution of common carrier air travel between airports in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; and that (iii) between 1995 and the present, the airline defendants conspired to reduce commissions paid to U.S.-based travel agents in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. These cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division. American is vigorously defending these lawsuits. A final adverse court decision awarding substantial money damages or placing restrictions on the Company’s distribution practices would have an adverse impact on the Company.

On May 13, 2002, the named plaintiffs in Always Travel, et. al. v. Air Canada, et. al., pending in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, Montreal, fil