Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Legal Proceedings	Mar. 31, 2014
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Chapter 11 Cases. As previously disclosed, on the Petition Date, November 29, 2011, the Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code. On October 21, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Confirmation Order approving and confirming the Debtors' Plan. On the Effective Date, December 9, 2013, the Debtors consummated their reorganization pursuant to the Plan, principally through the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into US Airways Group, with US Airways Group surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AAG. From the Petition Date through the Effective Date, pursuant to automatic stay provisions under the Bankruptcy Code and orders granted by the Bankruptcy Court, all actions to enforce or otherwise effect repayment of liabilities preceding the Petition Date as well as all pending litigation against the Debtors generally were stayed. Following the Effective Date, actions to enforce or otherwise effect repayment of liabilities preceding the Petition Date, generally have been permanently enjoined. Any unresolved claims will continue to be subject to the claims reconciliation process under the supervision of the Bankruptcy Court. However, certain pending litigation related to pre-petition liabilities may proceed in courts other than the Bankruptcy Court to the extent the parties to such litigation have obtained relief from the permanent injunction. Pursuant to rulings of the Bankruptcy Court, the Plan has established a disputed claims reserve to hold shares of AAG Series A Preferred Stock and AAG Common Stock reserved for issuance to disputed claimholders that ultimately become allowed Single-Dip general unsecured claimholders after emergence. The shares provided for under the Plan are determined based upon a disputed claims reserve amount of approximately $755 million. As disputed claims are resolved, the claimants will receive distributions of shares from the reserve on the same basis as if such distributions had been made on or about the Effective Date. To the extent that any of the reserved shares remain undistributed upon resolution of the remaining disputed claims, such shares will not be returned to AAG but rather will be distributed by priority first, if necessary, to satisfy unsecured claims or labor-related obligations, and then to former AMR shareholders as of the Effective Date. AAG is not required to distribute additional shares above the limits contemplated by the Plan, even if the shares remaining for distribution are not sufficient to fully pay all allowed unsecured claims. However, resolution of disputed claims could have a material effect on Single-Dip creditor recoveries under the Plan and the amount of additional share distributions, if any, that are made to former AMR shareholders as the total number of shares of AAG Common Stock that remain available for distribution upon resolution of disputed claims is limited pursuant to the Plan. There is also pending in the Bankruptcy Court an adversary proceeding relating to an action brought by American to seek a determination that certain non-pension, post-employee benefits are not vested benefits and thus may be modified or terminated without liability to American. On April 18, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court granted American's motion for summary judgment with respect to certain non-union employees, concluding that their benefits were not vested and could be terminated. The summary judgment motion was denied with respect to all other retirees. The Bankruptcy Court has not yet scheduled a trial on the merits concerning whether those retirees' benefits are vested, and American cannot predict whether it will receive relief from obligations to provide benefits to any of those retirees. The Company's financial statements presently reflect these retirement programs without giving effect to any modification or termination of benefits that may ultimately be implemented based upon the outcome of this proceeding. Government Antitrust Actions. On August 13, 2013, the U.S. government, along with the States of Arizona, Florida, Tennessee and Texas, the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia (collectively, the plaintiff states), filed a complaint against US Airways Group and AMR in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the proposed Merger would substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and sought to permanently enjoin the transaction. On September 5, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding the State of Michigan as a plaintiff. On October 1, 2013, the State of Texas entered into an agreement with US Airways Group and AMR that resolved that state’s objections to the Merger, and its claims were dismissed with prejudice on October 7, 2013. On November 11, 2013, US Airways and American entered into agreements with the U.S. government and the plaintiff states resolving all claims in the litigation. The agreement with the U.S. government requires the carriers to divest assets at certain airports and remains subject to public comment and court approval. In the agreement with the United States government, among other things, we agreed to divest and not reacquire for 10 years certain rights and assets consisting of 52 slot pairs at DCA, and 17 slot pairs at LaGuardia Airport, in each case together with associated gates and related ground facilities necessary to operate those slot pairs, and two gates at each of Boston Logan International Airport, Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Dallas Love Field, Los Angeles International Airport and Miami International Airport. The agreement with the plaintiff states, which was entered by the court on November 12, 2013, requires American and US Airways, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, to maintain certain hub operations in a manner generally consistent with historical operations and to continue to provide scheduled daily service to certain specified communities, both for limited periods of time. In addition, the Company entered into a related settlement with the DOT related to small community service from DCA. Merger Class Action. On March 1, 2013, a complaint captioned Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 248 Pension Fund v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed as a putative class action on behalf of the stockholders of US Airways Group in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. On July 3, 2013, an amended complaint, captioned Dennis Palkon, et al. v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed with the same court. The amended complaint names as defendants US Airways Group and the members of its board of directors, and alleges that the directors failed to maximize the value of US Airways Group in connection with the Merger and that US Airways Group aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought in the amended complaint includes an injunction against the Merger, or rescission in the event it has been consummated. The court in the above-referenced action denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order that had sought to enjoin the US Airways Group Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The above-referenced action was stayed pending the outcome of the antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. government and various states on August 13, 2013 (described above). This stay has now been lifted and a motion to dismiss this action filed by US Airways Group is pending before the court. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations. Private Party Antitrust Action. On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Carolyn Fjord, et al., v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint names as defendants US Airways Group and US Airways, and alleges that the effect of the Merger may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. The relief sought in the complaint includes an injunction against the Merger, or divestiture. On August 6, 2013, the plaintiffs re-filed their complaint in the Bankruptcy Court, adding AMR and American as defendants, and on October 2, 2013, dismissed the initial California action. The Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin the Merger. On January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add additional factual allegations, a claim for money damages and a request for preliminary injunctive relief requiring the carriers to hold separate their assets. On March 14, 2014, the Court allowed plaintiffs to add certain allegations but denied plaintiffs' requests to add a damages claim or seek preliminary injunctive relief requiring the carriers to hold separate their assets. There is currently no trial date set. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations. US Airways Sabre Matter. On April 21, 2011, US Airways filed an antitrust lawsuit against Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre Inc. and Sabre Travel International Limited (collectively, Sabre) in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit, as amended to date, alleges, among other things, that Sabre has engaged in anticompetitive practices to preserve its market power by restricting the Company's ability to distribute its products to its customers. The lawsuit also alleges that these actions have permitted Sabre to charge supracompetitive booking fees and to use technologies that are not as robust and as efficient as alternatives in a competitive market. The lawsuit seeks both injunctive relief and money damages. Sabre filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the court denied in part and granted in part in September 2011, allowing two of the four counts in the complaint to proceed. On April 1, 2014, Sabre filed motions for summary judgment that are pending before the court. The Company intends to pursue its claims against Sabre vigorously, but there can be no assurance of the outcome of this litigation. General. The Company and its subsidiaries are also engaged in other legal proceedings from time to time. Legal proceedings can be complex and take many months, or even years, to reach resolution, with the final outcome depending on a number of variables, some of which are not within the control of the Company. Therefore, although the Company will vigorously defend itself in each of the actions described above and such other legal proceedings, their ultimate resolution and potential financial and other impacts on the Company are uncertain.
AA [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Chapter 11 Cases. As previously disclosed, on the Petition Date, November 29, 2011, the Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code. On October 21, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Confirmation Order approving and confirming the Debtors' Plan. On the Effective Date, December 9, 2013, the Debtors consummated their reorganization pursuant to the Plan, principally through the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into US Airways Group, with US Airways Group surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AAG. From the Petition Date through the Effective Date, pursuant to automatic stay provisions under the Bankruptcy Code and orders granted by the Bankruptcy Court, all actions to enforce or otherwise effect repayment of liabilities preceding the Petition Date as well as all pending litigation against the Debtors generally were stayed. Following the Effective Date, actions to enforce or otherwise effect repayment of liabilities preceding the Petition Date, generally have been permanently enjoined. Any unresolved claims will continue to be subject to the claims reconciliation process under the supervision of the Bankruptcy Court. However, certain pending litigation related to pre-petition liabilities may proceed in courts other than the Bankruptcy Court to the extent the parties to such litigation have obtained relief from the permanent injunction. Pursuant to rulings of the Bankruptcy Court, the Plan has established a disputed claims reserve to hold shares of AAG Series A Preferred Stock and AAG Common Stock reserved for issuance to disputed claimholders that ultimately become allowed Single-Dip general unsecured claimholders after emergence. The shares provided for under the Plan are determined based upon a disputed claims reserve amount of approximately $755 million. As disputed claims are resolved, the claimants will receive distributions of shares from the reserve on the same basis as if such distributions had been made on or about the Effective Date. To the extent that any of the reserved shares remain undistributed upon resolution of the remaining disputed claims, such shares will not be returned to AAG but rather will be distributed by priority first, if necessary, to satisfy unsecured claims or labor-related obligations, and then to former AMR shareholders as of the Effective Date. AAG is not required to distribute additional shares above the limits contemplated by the Plan, even if the shares remaining for distribution are not sufficient to fully pay all allowed unsecured claims. However, resolution of disputed claims could have a material effect on Single-Dip creditor recoveries under the Plan and the amount of additional share distributions, if any, that are made to former AMR shareholders as the total number of shares of AAG Common Stock that remain available for distribution upon resolution of disputed claims is limited pursuant to the Plan. There is also pending in the Bankruptcy Court an adversary proceeding relating to an action brought by American to seek a determination that certain non-pension, post-employee benefits are not vested benefits and thus may be modified or terminated without liability to American. On April 18, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court granted American's motion for summary judgment with respect to certain non-union employees, concluding that their benefits were not vested and could be terminated. The summary judgment motion was denied with respect to all other retirees. The Bankruptcy Court has not yet scheduled a trial on the merits concerning whether those retirees' benefits are vested, and American cannot predict whether it will receive relief from obligations to provide benefits to any of those retirees. American's financial statements presently reflect these retirement programs without giving effect to any modification or termination of benefits that may ultimately be implemented based upon the outcome of this proceeding. Government Antitrust Actions. On August 13, 2013, the U.S. government, along with the States of Arizona, Florida, Tennessee and Texas, the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia (collectively, the plaintiff states), filed a complaint against US Airways Group and AMR in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the proposed Merger would substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and sought to permanently enjoin the transaction. On September 5, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding the State of Michigan as a plaintiff. On October 1, 2013, the State of Texas entered into an agreement with US Airways Group and AMR that resolved that state’s objections to the Merger, and its claims were dismissed with prejudice on October 7, 2013. On November 11, 2013, US Airways and American entered into agreements with the U.S. government and the plaintiff states resolving all claims in the litigation. The agreement with the U.S. government requires the carriers to divest assets at certain airports and remains subject to public comment and court approval. In the agreement with the United States government, among other things, we agreed to divest and not reacquire for 10 years certain rights and assets consisting of 52 slot pairs at DCA, and 17 slot pairs at LaGuardia Airport, in each case together with associated gates and related ground facilities necessary to operate those slot pairs, and two gates at each of Boston Logan International Airport, Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Dallas Love Field, Los Angeles International Airport and Miami International Airport. The agreement with the plaintiff states, which was entered by the court on November 12, 2013, requires American and US Airways, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, to maintain certain hub operations in a manner generally consistent with historical operations and to continue to provide scheduled daily service to certain specified communities, both for limited periods of time. In addition, US Airways and American entered into a related settlement with the DOT related to small community service from DCA. Merger Class Action. On March 1, 2013, a complaint captioned Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 248 Pension Fund v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed as a putative class action on behalf of the stockholders of US Airways Group in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. On July 3, 2013, an amended complaint, captioned Dennis Palkon, et al. v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed with the same court. The amended complaint names as defendants US Airways Group and the members of its board of directors, and alleges that the directors failed to maximize the value of US Airways Group in connection with the Merger and that US Airways Group aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought in the amended complaint includes an injunction against the Merger, or rescission in the event it has been consummated. The court in the above-referenced action denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order that had sought to enjoin the US Airways Group Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The above-referenced action was stayed pending the outcome of the antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. government and various states on August 13, 2013 (described above). This stay has now been lifted and a motion to dismiss this action filed by US Airways Group is pending before the court. American believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations. Private Party Antitrust Action. On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Carolyn Fjord, et al., v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint names as defendants US Airways Group and US Airways, and alleges that the effect of the Merger may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. The relief sought in the complaint includes an injunction against the Merger, or divestiture. On August 6, 2013, the plaintiffs re-filed their complaint in the Bankruptcy Court, adding AMR and American as defendants, and on October 2, 2013, dismissed the initial California action. The Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin the Merger. On January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add additional factual allegations, a claim for money damages and a request for preliminary injunctive relief requiring the carriers to hold separate their assets. On March 14, 2014, the Court allowed plaintiffs to add certain allegations but denied plaintiffs' requests to add a damages claim or seek preliminary injunctive relief requiring the carriers to hold separate their assets. There is currently no trial date set. American believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations. General. American is also engaged in other legal proceedings from time to time. Legal proceedings can be complex and take many months, or even years, to reach resolution, with the final outcome depending on a number of variables, some of which are not within the control of American. Therefore, although American will vigorously defend itself in each of the actions described above and such other legal proceedings, their ultimate resolution and potential financial and other impacts on American are uncertain.