ATLAS AIR WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC - Annual Report: 2012 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

OR

Commission file number 001-16545

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (914) 701-8000

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 if the registrant is a well known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

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 at least the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form l0-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates based upon the closing price of Common Stock as reported on The NASDAQ Global Select Market as of June 30, 2012 was approximately $1,126,494,350. In determining this figure, the registrant has assumed that all directors, executive officers and persons known to it to beneficially own ten percent or more of such Common Stock are affiliates. This assumption shall not be deemed conclusive for any other purpose. As of February 1, 2013, there were 26,443,441 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Certain portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement relating to the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference into Part III.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Report”), as well as other reports, releases and written and oral communications issued or made from time to time by or on behalf of Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (“AAWW”), contain statements that may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Those statements are based on management’s beliefs, plans, expectations and assumptions, and on information currently available to management. Generally, the words “will,” “may,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “continue,” “believe,” “seek,” “project,” “estimate” and similar expressions used in this Report that do not relate to historical facts are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking statements in this Report are not representations or guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Such risks, uncertainties and assumptions include, but are not limited to, those described in Item 1A, “Risk Factors.” Many of such factors are beyond AAWW’s control and are difficult to predict. As a result, AAWW’s future actions, financial position, results of operations and the market price for shares of AAWW’s common stock could differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements. Readers are therefore cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. AAWW does not intend to publicly update any forward-looking statements that may be made from time to time by, or on behalf of, AAWW, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

Table of Contents

PART I

Glossary

The following represents terms and statistics specific to our business and industry. They are used by management to evaluate and measure operations, results, productivity and efficiency.

Maintenance

Block Hour

1

Table of Contents

Overview

AAWW is a holding company with a principal operating subsidiary, Atlas Air, Inc. (“Atlas”), which is wholly-owned. It also maintains a 49% interest in Global Supply Systems Limited (“GSS”) and has a 51% economic interest and 75% voting interest in Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. (“Polar”). AAWW is also the parent company of several wholly-owned subsidiaries related to our dry leasing services (collectively referred to as “Titan”). When used in this Report, the terms “we,” “us,” “our,” and the “Company” refer to AAWW and all entities in our consolidated financial statements.

We are a leading global provider of outsourced aircraft and aviation operating services. As such, we manage and operate the world’s largest fleet of 747 freighters. We provide unique value to our customers by giving them access to highly reliable new production freighters that deliver the lowest unit cost in the marketplace combined with outsourced aircraft operating services that we believe lead the industry in terms of quality and global scale. Our customers include airlines, express delivery providers, freight forwarders, the U.S. military and charter brokers. We provide global services with operations in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America.

Our primary service offerings include the following:

We believe that the scale, scope and quality of our outsourced services are unparalleled in our industry. The relative operating cost efficiency of our current 747-8F and 747-400F aircraft, including their superior fuel efficiency, range, capacity and loading capabilities, create a compelling value proposition for our customers and position us well for future growth.

Our growth plans are focused on the further enhancement of our ACMI market position with our new 747-8F aircraft. The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) delivered seven of these 747-8F aircraft to us through December 2012 and we expect to take two additional deliveries during 2013. We are currently the only operator

2

Table of Contents

offering these aircraft to the ACMI market. We also hold rights to purchase an additional 13 747-8F aircraft, providing us with flexibility to further expand our fleet in response to market conditions. Our growth plans also include the continued expansion of our CMI business, which we launched in 2010. In 2011, we began flying passenger charters for the AMC. In 2011 and 2012, we expanded our fleet with the purchase of two 747-400 and three 767-300ER passenger aircraft. We also use these aircraft to fly passengers for private charter customers, charter brokers and other airlines.

We believe that our current fleet represents one of the most efficient freighter fleets in the market. Our primary placement for these aircraft will continue to be long-term ACMI outsourcing contracts with high credit quality customers.

AAWW was incorporated in Delaware in 2000. Our principal executive offices are located at 2000 Westchester Avenue, Purchase, New York 10577, and our telephone number is (914) 701-8000.

Operations

Introduction.   We currently operate our service offerings through the following reportable segments: ACMI, AMC Charter, Commercial Charter and Dry Leasing. All reportable business segments are directly or indirectly engaged in the business of air transportation services but have different commercial and economic characteristics, which are separately reviewed by management. Financial information regarding our reportable segments can be found in Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of Part II of this Report (the “Financial Statements”).

ACMI.   Historically, the core of our business has been providing cargo aircraft outsourcing services to customers on an ACMI basis in exchange for guaranteed minimum revenues at predetermined levels of operation for defined periods of time. ACMI provides a predictable annual revenue and cost base by minimizing the risk of fluctuations such as Yield, fuel and demand risk in the air cargo business. Our ACMI revenues and most of our costs under ACMI and CMI contracts are denominated in U.S. dollars, minimizing currency risks associated with international business.

During 2010, we also began to offer CMI cargo and passenger services to customers, which is similar to ACMI flying except that the customer provides the aircraft. The aircraft are generally operated under the traffic rights of the customer. Certain direct operating expenses, such as fuel, overfly and landing fees and ground handling, are generally borne by the customer, who also bears the commercial revenue risk of Load Factor and Yield.

All of our ACMI and CMI contracts provide that the aircraft remain under our exclusive operating control, possession and direction at all times. The ACMI contracts further provide that both the contracts and the routes to be operated may be subject to prior and/or periodic approvals of the U.S. or foreign governments.

As a percentage of our operating revenue, ACMI revenue represented 41.4% in 2012, 45.2% in 2011 and 40.7% in 2010. As a percentage of our operated Block Hours, ACMI represented 70.2% in 2012, 74.9% in 2011 and 71.2% in 2010. We recognize ACMI revenue, which includes CMI, as we operate the actual Block Hours on behalf of a customer or according to the guaranteed minimum Block Hours defined in contracts. The original length of these contracts generally ranges from three to twenty years, although we do offer contracts of shorter duration. In addition, we have also operated short-term, seasonal ACMI contracts and we expect to continue to provide such services.

AMC Charter. Our AMC Charter business primarily provides full planeload passenger and cargo aircraft to the AMC. We participate in the U.S. Civil Reserve Air Fleet (“CRAF”) Program under contracts with the AMC, which typically cover a one-year period. We have made a substantial number of our aircraft available for use by the U.S. Military in support of their operations and we operate such flights pursuant to cost-plus contracts. Atlas bears all direct operating costs for both passenger and cargo aircraft, which include fuel, insurance, overfly,

3

Table of Contents

landing and ground handling expenses. However, the price of fuel used during AMC flights is fixed by the U.S. Military. The contracted charter rates (per mile) and fuel prices (per gallon) are fixed by the AMC generally for twelve-month periods. We receive reimbursements from the AMC each month if the price of fuel paid by us to vendors for the AMC Charter flights exceeds the fixed price. If the price of fuel paid by us is less than the fixed price, then we pay the difference to the AMC.

Airlines may participate in the CRAF Program either alone or through a teaming arrangement. There are currently four major groups of carriers (or teams), several smaller teams and independent carriers (that are not part of any team) that compete for AMC business. We are a member of the team led by FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”). We pay a commission to the FedEx team, based on the revenues we receive under our AMC contracts. The AMC buys cargo capacity on two bases: a fixed basis, which is awarded both annually and quarterly, and expansion flying, which is awarded on an as-needed basis throughout the contract term. While the fixed business is predictable, Block Hour levels for expansion flying are difficult to predict and thus are subject to fluctuation. The majority of our AMC business is expansion flying. We also earn commissions on subcontracting certain flying of oversized cargo and less than full planeload missions, or in connection with flying cargo into areas of military conflict where we cannot perform these services ourselves.

As a percentage of our operating revenue, AMC Charter revenue represented 29.7% in 2012, 31.7% in 2011 and 29.1% in 2010. As a percentage of our operated Block Hours, AMC Charter represented 14.7% in 2012, 14.0% in 2011 and 14.6% in 2010.

Commercial Charter.   Our Commercial Charter business segment provides full planeload cargo and passenger capacity to customers for one or more flights based on a specific origin and destination. The Commercial Charter business is generally booked on a short-term, as-needed, basis. In addition, Atlas provides limited airport-to-airport cargo services to select markets, including several cities in South America. The Commercial Charter business is similar to the AMC Charter business in that we are responsible for all direct operating costs as well as the commercial revenue risk. Atlas also bears direct sales costs incurred through our own sales force and through commissions paid to general sales agents.

As a percentage of our operating revenue, Commercial Charter revenue represented 27.4% in 2012, 21.4% in 2011 and 28.7% in 2010. As a percentage of our operated Block Hours, Commercial Charter represented 14.4% in 2012, 10.1% in 2011 and 13.7% in 2010.

Dry Leasing.   Our Dry Leasing business provides a specific aircraft and/or engine without crew, maintenance or insurance to a customer for compensation that is typically based on a fixed monthly amount. This business is primarily operated by Titan, which is principally a cargo aircraft dry lessor, but also owns and manages aviation assets such as passenger narrow-body aircraft, engines and related equipment. Titan also markets its expertise in asset management, passenger-to-freighter conversion and other aviation-related technical services. As a percentage of our operating revenue, Dry Leasing revenue represented 0.7% in 2012, 0.7% in 2011 and 0.5% in 2010.

Global Supply Systems

AAWW holds a 49% interest in GSS, a private company, which became a consolidated subsidiary of AAWW in 2009 (see Note 2 to our Financial Statements). During the fourth quarter of 2011, Atlas Dry Leased three of our new 747-8F aircraft to GSS, which pays for rent and a provision for maintenance costs associated with the aircraft. GSS, in turn, provides ACMI services for these aircraft to British Airways Plc (“British Airways”). Atlas previously Dry Leased three owned 747-400s to GSS.

DHL Investment and Polar

DHL Network Operations (USA), Inc. (“DHL”) holds a 49% equity interest and a 25% voting interest in Polar (see Note 3 to our Financial Statements). AAWW owns the remaining 51% equity interest in Polar and a 75% voting interest. Concurrent with the investment, under a 20-year blocked space agreement that was subsequently amended (the “BSA”), Polar provides air cargo capacity to DHL through Polar’s express network.

4

Table of Contents

In addition, Atlas and Polar have a flight services agreement, whereby Atlas is compensated by Polar on a per Block Hour basis, subject to a monthly minimum Block Hour guarantee, at a predetermined rate that escalates annually. Under the flight services agreement, Atlas provides Polar with crew, maintenance and insurance for the aircraft. Under separate agreements, Atlas and Polar supply administrative, sales and ground support services to one another. Deutsche Post AG (“DP”) has guaranteed DHL’s (and Polar’s) obligations under the various agreements described above. AAWW has agreed to indemnify DHL for and against various obligations of Polar and its affiliates. Collectively, these agreements are referred to in this Report as the “DHL Agreements”. The DHL Agreements provide us with a minimum guaranteed annual revenue stream from 747-400 aircraft that have been dedicated to Polar for DHL and other customers’ freight over the life of the agreements.

Polar provides full flying for DHL’s trans-Pacific express network and DHL provides financial support and also assumes the risks and rewards of the operations of Polar. In addition to its trans-Pacific routes, Polar has also flown between the Asia Pacific regions, the Middle East and Europe on behalf of DHL and other customers.

Polar operates six 747-400 freighter aircraft that are subleased from us. Atlas operates two additional 747-8F aircraft and one 747-400 aircraft to support the Polar network and DHL through an alliance agreement whereby Atlas provides ACMI services to Polar. We also provide incremental charter capacity to Polar on an as-needed basis.

In 2011, we signed a CMI agreement with DHL to operate five 767 freighters in DHL’s North American network. All five of these aircraft were placed in service during 2012.

In December 2012, we signed a CMI agreement with DHL to operate two new 767-300ERF aircraft owned by them. The aircraft were placed into service in their network during the first quarter of 2013.

Long-Term Revenue Commitments

The following table sets forth the guaranteed minimum revenues expected to be received from our existing ACMI (including CMI) and Dry Leasing customers for the years indicated (in thousands):

Sales and Marketing

We have regional sales offices in the United States, England and Hong Kong, which cover the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Asia Pacific regions. These offices market our ACMI (including CMI) and Dry Leasing services directly to other airlines and logistic companies. They also market our cargo and passenger Commercial Charter services to charter brokers, cruise-ship operators, freight forwarders, direct shippers and airlines. Additionally, we have a dedicated Government and Defense Group that directly manages our military cargo and passenger operations.

Maintenance

Maintenance represented our fourth-largest operating expense for the year ended December 31, 2012. Primary maintenance activities include scheduled and unscheduled work on airframes and engines. Scheduled maintenance activities encompass those activities specified in a carrier’s maintenance program approved by the

5

Table of Contents

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). The costs necessary to adhere to these maintenance programs may increase over time, based on the age of the equipment or due to FAA airworthiness directives (“ADs”).

Scheduled airframe maintenance includes daily and weekly checks, as well as heavy maintenance checks, involving more complex activities that can generally take from one to four weeks to complete. Unscheduled maintenance, known as Line Maintenance, rectifies events occurring during normal day-to-day operations. Scheduled maintenance activities such as C and D Checks, are progressively higher in scope and duration than Line Maintenance, and are considered “heavy” airframe maintenance checks. All lettered checks are currently performed by third-party service providers that are compensated on a time-and-material basis as we believe they provide the most reliable and efficient means of maintaining our aircraft fleet.

Our FAA-approved maintenance programs allow our engines to be maintained on an “on condition” basis. Under this arrangement, engines are sent to third-party maintenance providers for repair based on life-limited parts and/or performance deterioration.

Under the ADs issued pursuant to its Aging Aircraft Program, we are subject to extensive aircraft examinations and may be required to undertake structural modifications to our fleet from time to time to address any problems of corrosion and structural fatigue. As part of the FAA’s overall Aging Aircraft Program, it has issued increased inspection and maintenance requirements depending on aircraft type and ADs requiring certain additional aircraft modifications. We believe all aircraft in our fleet are in compliance with all existing ADs. It is possible, however, that additional ADs applicable to the types of aircraft or engines included in our fleet could be issued in the future and that the cost of complying with such ADs could be substantial.

Insurance

We maintain insurance of the types and in amounts deemed adequate and consistent with current industry standards. Principal coverage includes: liability for injury to members of the public, including passengers; damage to our property and that of others; and loss of, or damage to, flight equipment, whether on the ground or in flight.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we and other airlines have been unable to obtain coverage for claims resulting from acts of terrorism, war or similar events (war-risk coverage) at reasonable rates from the commercial insurance market. We have, as have most other U.S. airlines, purchased our war-risk coverage through a special program administered by the U.S. government. The FAA is currently providing war-risk coverage for hull, passenger, cargo loss, crew and third-party liability insurance through September 30, 2013. If the U.S. government insurance program were to be terminated, we would likely face a material increase in the cost of war-risk coverage, and because of competitive pressures in the industry, our ability to pass this additional cost on to customers may be limited.

Governmental Regulation

General.   Atlas and Polar are subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) and the FAA, among other U.S. and foreign government agencies. The DOT primarily regulates economic issues affecting air service, such as certification, fitness and citizenship, competitive practices, insurance and consumer protection. The DOT has the authority to investigate and institute proceedings to enforce its economic regulations and may assess civil penalties, revoke operating authority or seek criminal sanctions. Atlas and Polar each hold DOT-issued certificates of public convenience and necessity plus exemption authority to engage in scheduled air transportation of property and mail in domestic, as well as enumerated international markets, and charter air transportation of property and mail on a worldwide basis.

The DOT conducts periodic evaluations of each air carrier’s fitness and citizenship. In the area of fitness, the DOT seeks to ensure that a carrier has the managerial competence, compliance disposition and financial resources needed to conduct the operations for which it has been certificated. Additionally, each U.S. air carrier must remain a U.S. citizen by (i) being organized under the laws of the United States or a state, territory or

6

Table of Contents

possession thereof; (ii) requiring its president and at least two-thirds of its directors and other managing officers to be U.S. citizens; (iii) allowing no more than 25% of its voting stock to be owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by foreign nationals and (iv) not being otherwise subject to foreign control. The DOT broadly interprets “control” to exist when an individual or entity has the potential to exert substantial influence over airline decisions through affirmative action or the threatened withholding of consents and/or approvals. We believe the DOT will continue to find Atlas’ and Polar’s fitness and citizenship favorable and conclude that Atlas and Polar are in material compliance with the DOT requirements described above.

In addition to holding the DOT-issued certificate and exemption authority, each U.S. air carrier must hold a valid FAA-issued air carrier certificate and FAA-approved operations specifications authorizing operation in specific regions with specified equipment under specific conditions and is subject to extensive FAA regulation and oversight. The FAA is the U.S. government agency primarily responsible for regulation of flight operations and, in particular, matters affecting air safety, such as airworthiness requirements for aircraft, operating procedures, mandatory equipment and the licensing of pilots, mechanics and dispatchers. The FAA monitors compliance with maintenance, flight operations and safety regulations and performs frequent spot inspections of aircraft, employees and records. The FAA also has the authority to issue ADs and maintenance directives and other mandatory orders relating to, among other things, inspection of aircraft and engines, fire retardant and smoke detection devices, increased security precautions, collision and windshear avoidance systems, noise abatement and the mandatory removal and replacement of aircraft parts that have failed or may fail in the future. In addition, the FAA mandates certain record-keeping procedures. The FAA has the authority to modify, temporarily suspend or permanently revoke an air carrier’s authority to provide air transportation or that of its licensed personnel, after providing notice and a hearing, for failure to comply with FAA rules, regulations and directives. The FAA is empowered to assess civil penalties for such failures or institute proceedings for the imposition and collection of monetary fines for the violation of certain FAA regulations and directives. The FAA is also empowered to modify, suspend or revoke an air carrier’s authority on an emergency basis, without providing notice and a hearing, where significant safety issues are involved. We believe Atlas and Polar are in material compliance with applicable FAA rules and regulations and maintain all documentation required by the FAA.

In December 2011, the FAA adopted a rule to impose new flight and duty time requirements with the stated goal of reducing pilot fatigue. The rule’s effective date is January 14, 2014, resulting in a two year ramp-up period. The rule applies to our passenger operations but not to our all-cargo operations. Carriers with all-cargo operations have the option to conduct such operations under the new rules. The Independent Pilots Association, representing United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) pilots, have filed a judicial appeal, in which they are challenging the FAA decision not to include all-cargo operations in the rule. Should the appeal be successful or the FAA decide on its own initiative to change the final rule to include all-cargo operations, that would result in material increased crew costs for Atlas and Polar, as well as air carriers that predominately fly nighttime and long-haul flights. It could also have a material impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition by limiting crew scheduling flexibility and increasing operating costs, especially with respect to long-range flights.

International.   Air transportation in international markets (the vast majority of markets in which Atlas, Polar and GSS operate) is subject to extensive additional regulation. The ability of Atlas, Polar and GSS to operate in other countries is governed by aviation agreements between the United States and the respective countries (in the case of Europe, the European Union (the “EU”)) or, in the absence of such an agreement, by principles of reciprocity. Sometimes, as in the case of Japan and China, aviation agreements restrict the number of carriers that may operate, their frequency of operation, or the routes over which they may fly. This makes it necessary for the DOT to award route and operating rights to U.S. air carrier applicants through competitive route proceedings. International aviation agreements are periodically subject to renegotiation, and changes in U.S. or foreign governments could result in the alteration or termination of such agreements, diminish the value of existing route authorities or otherwise affect Atlas’ and Polar’s international operations. Foreign government authorities also impose substantial licensing and business registration requirements and, in some cases, require the advance filing and/or approval of schedules or rates. Moreover, the DOT and foreign government agencies typically regulate

7

Table of Contents

alliances and other commercial arrangements between U.S. and foreign air carriers, such as the ACMI and CMI arrangements that Atlas maintains. Approval of these arrangements is not guaranteed and may be conditional. In addition, approval during one time period does not guarantee approval in future periods.

A foreign government’s regulation of its own air carriers can also affect our business. For instance, the EU places limits on the ability of EU carriers to use ACMI aircraft from airlines of non-EU member states. The regulations have a negative impact on our ACMI business opportunities. Similarly, the European Aviation Safety Agency (“EASA”) has proposed new rules that would prohibit EU airlines from providing ACMI and CMI services through non-EU airlines without first satisfying their regulators that the aircraft to be used adhere to both international and EASA-imposed requirements. Finalization of the proposed regulations could increase costs and inhibit business opportunities.

Airport Access.   The ability of Atlas, Polar and our ACMI and CMI customers to operate is dependent on their ability to gain access to airports of their choice at commercially desirable times and on acceptable terms. In some cases, this is constrained by the need for the assignment of takeoff and landing “slots” or comparable operational rights. Like other air carriers, Atlas and Polar are subject to such constraints at slot-restricted airports in cities such as Chicago and a variety of foreign locations (e.g., Tokyo, Shanghai and Incheon). The availability of slots is not assured and the inability of Polar or Atlas’ other ACMI customers to obtain additional slots could inhibit efforts to provide expanded services in certain international markets. In addition, nighttime flight restrictions have been imposed or proposed by various airports in Europe, Canada and the U. S. Depending on their severity, these could have an adverse operational impact.

Access to the New York airspace presents an additional challenge. Because of congestion in the New York area, especially at John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”), the FAA imposes hourly limits on JFK operations of those carriers offering scheduled services.

As a further means to address congestion, the FAA allows U.S. airports to raise landing fees to defray the costs of airfield facilities under construction or reconstruction. Any landing fee increases implemented would have an impact on airlines generally.

Security.   The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) extensively regulates aviation security through rules, regulations and security directives that are designed to prevent unauthorized access to passenger and freighter aircraft and the introduction of prohibited items including firearms and explosives onto an aircraft. Atlas and Polar currently operate pursuant to a TSA-approved risk-based security program that, we believe, adequately maintains the security of all aircraft in the fleet. We work closely with the TSA to ensure that we have available security research and intelligence information to assist us. There can be no assurance, however, that we will remain in compliance with the existing and any additional security requirements imposed by TSA or by U.S. Congress without incurring substantial costs, which may have a material adverse effect on our operations. To mitigate any such increase, we are working closely with the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies to ensure that a risk-based management approach is utilized to target specific “at-risk” cargo. This approach will limit any exposure to regulation that would require 100% screening of all cargo at an excessive cost. Additionally, foreign governments and regulatory bodies (such as the European Commission) impose their own aviation security requirements and have increasingly tightened such requirements. This may have an adverse impact on our operations, especially to the extent the new requirements may necessitate redundant or costly measures or be in conflict with TSA requirements.

Environmental.   We are subject to various federal, state and local laws relating to the protection of the environment, including the discharge or disposal of materials and chemicals and the regulation of aircraft noise, which are administered by numerous state, local and federal agencies. For instance, the DOT and the FAA have authority under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 and under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 to monitor and regulate aircraft engine noise. We believe that all aircraft in our fleet materially comply with current DOT, FAA and international noise standards.

8

Table of Contents

We are also subject to the regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) regarding air quality in the United States. All of our aircraft meet or exceed applicable EPA fuel venting requirements and smoke emissions standards.

There is significant U.S. and international government interest in implementing measures to respond to the problem of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Various governments, including the United States, are pursuing measures to regulate climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

The EU enacted legislation to extend its emissions trading scheme (“ETS”) to aviation commencing January 1, 2012. Under the EU mechanism, airlines serving the EU must report flight activity on an ongoing basis. Following the end of every year, the legislation requires each airline to tender the number of “carbon emissions allowances” corresponding to the carbon emissions generated by its flight activity during the year. If the airline’s flight activity during the year has produced carbon emissions exceeding the number of carbon emissions allowances that it has been awarded, the airline must acquire carbon emissions allowances from other airlines in the open market. In November 2012, following strong objections from the U.S. and other governments to the EU’s unilateral implementation of the ETS, the European Commission announced that it would recommend that the European Council and the European Parliament suspend applicability of the emissions allowance requirements to flights to and from the EU during calendar year 2012, to allow time for multilateral action by the International Civil Aviation Organization (“ICAO”). The proposed ETS suspension is not intended to apply to intra-EU flights. Although the suspension appears likely to go into effect, there can be no assurance of that fact, or that the suspension legislation will take the form proposed by the European Commission.

ICAO also has begun to address the issue of controlling carbon emissions from civil aviation and is likely to reach agreement on some measures at some point in the future. Some of the measures under consideration, such as voluntary emissions targets, offer alternatives to an emissions trading mechanism.

In the United States, various constituencies have continued to advocate for controls on greenhouse gas emissions. Previously, both houses of the U.S. Congress passed legislation to impose a carbon-related tax on fuel sold to airlines and other entities. However, a bill has not been signed into law. Also, in September 2009, the EPA proposed regulations that would impose controls on greenhouse gas emissions. While the proposed regulations would not directly control greenhouse gas emissions by air carriers, a number of states and environmental organizations have asked the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft.

Other Regulations.   Air carriers are also subject to certain provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 because of their extensive use of radio and other communication facilities and are required to obtain an aeronautical radio license from the Federal Communications Commission. Additionally, we are subject to U.S. and foreign antitrust requirements and international trade restrictions imposed by U.S. presidential determination and U.S. government agency regulation, including the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. We endeavor to comply with such requirements at all times. We are also subject to state and local laws and regulations at locations where we operate and at airports that we serve. Our operations may become subject to additional international, U.S. federal, state and local requirements in the future. We believe that we are in material compliance with all currently applicable laws and regulations.

Civil Reserve Air Fleet.   Atlas and Polar both participate in the CRAF Program, which permits the U.S. Department of Defense to utilize participants’ aircraft during national emergencies when the need for military airlift exceeds the capability of military aircraft. Participation in the CRAF Program could adversely restrict our commercial business in times of national emergency.

Future Regulation.   The U.S. Congress, the DOT, the FAA, the TSA and other government agencies are currently considering, and in the future may consider, adopting new laws, regulations and policies regarding a wide variety of matters that could affect, directly or indirectly, our operations, ownership and profitability. It is impossible to predict what other matters might be considered in the future and to judge what impact, if any, the implementation of any future proposals or changes might have on our businesses.

9

Table of Contents

Competition

The market for ACMI services is competitive. We believe that the most important basis for competition in the ACMI market is the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the aircraft assets and the scale, scope and quality of the outsourced operating services provided. Atlas is currently the only provider of ACMI services with the new 747-8F aircraft. The primary providers presently in the 747-400F and 747-400 BCF/SF ACMI markets include the following: Atlas; Air Atlanta Icelandic; Evergreen International Aviation; Kalitta Air, LLC; Southern Air, Inc.; and Global Aviation Holdings, Inc. (World Airways, Inc. and North American Airlines, Inc.). In addition, Southern Air, Inc. provides 777 aircraft in the ACMI market.

While our AMC Charter business has been profitable each year since 2004, the formation of additional competing teaming arrangements, increased participation of other independent carriers, an increase by other air carriers in their commitment of aircraft to the CRAF program, the withdrawal of any of the current team members, or a reduction of the number of aircraft pledged to the CRAF program by our team, and the uncertainty of future demand for commercial airlift by the U.S. Military, could adversely affect the amount of AMC business awarded to us in the future. To the extent that we receive a reduction in our awards or expansion business, we intend to redeploy the available aircraft to our other business segments.

The Commercial Charter market is highly competitive, with a number of operators that include Evergreen International Aviation; Kalitta Air, LLC; Southern Air, Inc.; and passenger airlines providing similar services utilizing both 747-400s and 747-200s. We believe that we offer a superior aircraft in the 747-400, and we will continue to develop new opportunities in the Commercial Charter market for 747-400 aircraft not otherwise deployed in our ACMI or AMC business. Many of our ad hoc charter flights are one-way return flights from Asia or Europe, positioned by one-way AMC flights that originate from the United States and terminate in Europe or the Middle East.

The Dry Leasing business is competitive. We believe that we have an advantage over other cargo aircraft lessors in this business as a result of our relationships in the cargo market and our insights and expertise as an operator of aircraft. Titan also competes in the passenger aircraft leasing market to develop key customer relationships, enter strategic geographic markets, and/or acquire feedstock aircraft for future freighter conversion. The primary competitors in the aircraft leasing market include GE Capital Aviation Services; International Lease Finance Corp.; AWAS; Guggenheim Aviation Partners, LLC, CIT Aerospace; Aviation Capital Group Corp.; Air Castle Ltd.; AerCap Holdings N.V.; and RBS Aviation Capital, among many others.

Fuel

Historically, aircraft fuel is one of the most significant expenses for us. During 2012, 2011 and 2010, fuel costs represented 30.8%, 31.2%, and 27.1%, respectively, of our total operating expenses. Fuel prices and availability are subject to wide price fluctuations based on geopolitical issues, supply and demand, which we can neither control nor accurately predict. The following table summarizes our total fuel consumption and costs:

Our exposure to fluctuations in fuel price is limited to a portion of our Commercial Charter business only. For this business, we shift a portion of the burden of price increases to customers by imposing a surcharge. While we believe that fuel price volatility in 2012, 2011 and 2010 was partly reduced as a result of increased fuel surcharges, these surcharges did not completely offset the impact of the underlying increases in fuel prices on our Commercial Charter business. The ACMI segment has no direct fuel price exposure because ACMI and CMI contracts require our customers to pay for aircraft fuel. Similarly, we generally have no fuel price risk in the

10

Table of Contents

AMC business because the price is set under our contract, and we receive or make subsequent payments to adjust for price increases and decreases from the contractual rate. AMC fuel expense was $194.9 million in 2012, $221.3 million in 2011 and $155.5 million in 2010.

In the past, we have not experienced significant difficulties with respect to fuel availability. Although we do not currently anticipate a significant reduction in the availability of aircraft fuel, a number of factors, such as geopolitical uncertainties in oil-producing nations and shortages of and disruptions to refining capacity or transportation of aircraft fuel from refining facilities, make accurate predictions unreliable. For example, hostilities and political turmoil in oil-producing nations could lead to disruptions in oil production and/or to substantially increased oil prices. Any inability to obtain aircraft fuel at competitive prices would materially and adversely affect our results of operation and financial condition.

Employees

Our business depends on highly qualified management, operations and flight personnel. As a percentage of our consolidated operating expenses, salaries, wages and benefits accounted for approximately 20.7% in 2012, 21.0% in 2011 and 21.5% in 2010. As of December 31, 2012, we had 1,744 employees, 912 of whom were pilots. We maintain a comprehensive training program for our pilots in compliance with FAA requirements, in which each pilot regularly attends recurrent training programs.

Pilots and flight dispatchers of Atlas and Polar are represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “IBT”). These employees represented approximately 52.3% of our workforce as of December 31, 2012. We are subject to risks of work interruption or stoppage as permitted by the Railway Labor Act of 1926 (the “Railway Labor Act”), and may incur additional administrative expenses associated with union representation of our employees.

In September 2011, we completed, and have since implemented, a five-year collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), which will not become amendable until September 2016. The terms of the CBA result in a single workforce that serves both Atlas and Polar.

In November 2012, we completed, and have since implemented, a five-year collective bargaining agreement with the Atlas and Polar dispatchers. These dispatchers have been represented by the IBT since 2009.

Available Information

Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports, filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), are available free of charge through our corporate internet website, www.atlasair.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after we have electronically filed such material with, or furnished it to, the SEC.

The public may read and copy any materials that we file with SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov.

The information on our website is not, and shall not be deemed to be, part of this Report or incorporated into any other filings we make with the SEC.

You should carefully consider each of the following Risk Factors and all other information in this Report. These Risk Factors are not the only ones facing us. Our operations could also be impaired by additional risks and uncertainties. If any of the following risks and uncertainties develops into actual events, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

11

Table of Contents

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS

Risks Related to Our Business Generally

Deterioration in global economic conditions could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and ability to access capital markets.

Airfreight demand is highly dependent on global economic conditions, such as the recent global economic downturn, foreign currency fluctuations and the European debt crisis. If demand for our services or Yields significantly deteriorate due to macroeconomic effects, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We cannot accurately predict the effect or duration of any economic slowdown or the timing or strength of a subsequent economic recovery.

In addition, we may face significant challenges if conditions in the financial markets deteriorate. Our business is capital intensive and growth depends on the availability of capital for new aircraft, among other things. If today’s capital availability deteriorates, we may be unable to raise the capital necessary to finance the remaining two 747-8F aircraft on order from Boeing, finance Titan’s growth or other business initiatives. Our ability to access the capital markets may be restricted at a time when we would like, or need, to do so, which could have an impact on our flexibility to react to changing economic and business conditions.

We could be adversely affected if any of our existing aircraft or our new 747-8F aircraft are underutilized or we fail to redeploy or deploy aircraft with customers at favorable rates. We could also be adversely affected from the loss of one or more of our aircraft for an extended period of time.

Our operating revenues depend on our ability to effectively deploy all of the aircraft in our fleet and maintain high utilization of our aircraft at favorable rates. If demand weakens and, as a result, we have underutilized aircraft, we would seek to redeploy those aircraft in our other lines of business. If we are unable to successfully deploy our existing aircraft or our new 747-8F aircraft, when delivered, at favorable rates, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, if one or more of our aircraft are out of service for an extended period of time, our operating revenues would decrease and we may have difficulty fulfilling our obligations under one or more of our existing contracts. The loss of revenue resulting from any such business interruption, and the cost, long lead time and difficulties in sourcing a replacement aircraft, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We have significant contractual obligations associated with the two remaining 747-8F aircraft on order from Boeing. If we are unable to draw upon the financing obtained for these aircraft and/or make the required delivery payments, our growth strategy could be disrupted.

We currently have two remaining 747-8F aircraft on order from Boeing. We also hold rights to purchase up to an additional 13 747-8F aircraft. As of December 31, 2012, we had estimated remaining commitments of approximately $212.5 million associated with this aircraft order (including spare engines, estimated contractual escalations and purchase credits).

We expect to finance these aircraft through secured debt financing. We have obtained a term loan facility for the two remaining 747-8F aircraft and have standby commitments to finance those two aircraft deliveries in the event we are unable to draw upon the term loan facility. We cannot provide assurance that we will be able to meet the financing conditions contained in these commitments or to secure alternative financing on terms attractive to us or at all. If we are unable to obtain financing (even at a higher cost) and we are unable to meet our contractual obligations to Boeing, our financial condition could be impacted as we could be in default under the Boeing contract.

12

Table of Contents

We could be adversely affected if the deliveries of our remaining 747-8F aircraft are delayed further or if such aircraft do not meet expected performance specifications.

We currently have seven 747-8F aircraft in our fleet and two remaining 747-8F aircraft on order from Boeing. The addition of these new 747-8F aircraft is a material component of our growth and fleet renewal strategy. Since the initial date of our order, Boeing has announced several delays in the delivery schedule of the 747-8F aircraft. While Boeing has provided us with certain performance guarantees, the new aircraft may not meet the expected performance specifications, making it more difficult for us to deploy those aircraft in a timely manner or at expected rates. Any delay in Boeing’s production or delivery schedule could further delay the deployment of those aircraft or if such aircraft do not meet expected performance specifications, it could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our substantial lease and debt obligations, including aircraft lease and other obligations, could impair our financial condition and adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations or capital requirements, all of which could limit our financial resources and ability to compete, and may make us more vulnerable to adverse economic events.

As of December 31, 2012, we had total debt obligations of approximately $1.4 billion and total aircraft operating leases and other lease obligations of $1.4 billion. These obligations have increased significantly and will increase further as we accept delivery of the remaining two 747-8F aircraft in 2013, and if we enter into financing arrangements for other aircraft. Our outstanding financial obligations could have negative consequences, including:

Our ability to service our debt and meet our lease and other obligations as they come due is dependent on our future financial and operating performance. This performance is subject to various factors, including factors beyond our control, such as changes in global and regional economic conditions, changes in our industry, changes in interest or currency exchange rates, the price and availability of aircraft fuel and other costs, including labor and insurance. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurance that we will be able to meet our debt service, lease and other obligations as they become due and our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected under these circumstances.

Certain of our debt obligations contain a number of restrictive covenants. In addition, many of our debt and lease obligations have cross default and cross acceleration provisions.

Restrictive covenants in certain of our debt and lease obligations, under certain circumstances, could impact our ability to:

In certain circumstances, a covenant default under one of our debt instruments could cause us to be in default of other obligations as well. Any unremedied defaults could lead to an acceleration of the amounts owed and potentially could cause us to lose possession or control of certain aircraft.

13

Table of Contents

Our financial condition may suffer if we experience unanticipated costs as a result of ongoing lawsuits, claims and investigations related to alleged improper matters related to use of fuel surcharges and other rate components for air cargo services.

The Company, Polar and Polar LLC (“Old Polar”), formerly Polar Air Cargo, Inc., have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants, including the Company, Polar and Old Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of fuel and other surcharges, in violation of U.S. Federal, state and EU antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.

The Company and Old Polar, along with a number of other cargo carriers, have also been named in two civil class action suits in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, Canada, which are substantially similar to the U.S. class action suits described above. Moreover, we have submitted relevant information and documentation to certain foreign regulators in connection with investigations initiated by such authorities into pricing practices of certain international air cargo carriers. These proceedings are continuing, and additional investigations and proceedings may be commenced and charges may be brought in these and other jurisdictions. Other parties may be added to these proceedings, and authorities may request additional information from us. If Old Polar or the Company were to incur an unfavorable outcome in connection with one or more of the related investigations or the litigation described above, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition to the litigation and investigations described above, we are subject to a number of Brazilian customs claims, as well as other claims, lawsuits and pending actions which we consider to be routine and incidental to our business (see Note 12 to our Financial Statements). If we were to receive an adverse ruling or decision on any such claims, it could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Global trade flows are typically seasonal, and our business segments, including our ACMI customers’ business, experience seasonal variations.

Global trade flows are typically seasonal in nature, with peak activity occurring during the retail holiday season, which begins in September and lasts through mid-December. Our ACMI contracts have contractual utilization minimums that typically allow our customers to cancel an agreed-upon percentage of the guaranteed hours of aircraft utilization over the course of a year. Our ACMI customers often exercise those cancellation options early in the first quarter of the year, when the demand for air cargo capacity is historically low following the seasonal holiday peak in the fourth quarter of the previous year. While our revenues typically fluctuate seasonally as described above, a significant proportion of the costs associated with our business, such as aircraft rent, depreciation and facilities costs, are fixed and cannot easily be reduced to match the seasonal drop in demand. As a result, our net operating results are typically subject to a high degree of seasonality.

Fuel price volatility and fuel availability could adversely affect our business and operations.

The price of aircraft fuel is unpredictable and has been increasingly volatile over the past few years. While we have been able to reduce our exposure to fuel risk significantly, we continue to bear the risk of fuel exposure for our Commercial Charter operations.

In addition, while our ACMI contracts require our customers to pay for aircraft fuel, if fuel costs increase significantly, our customers may reduce the volume and frequency of cargo shipments or find less costly alternatives for cargo delivery, such as land and sea carriers. Such instances could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

14

Table of Contents

In the past, we have not experienced significant difficulties with respect to fuel availability. Although we do not currently anticipate a significant reduction in the availability of aircraft fuel, a number of factors, such as geopolitical uncertainties in oil-producing nations and shortages of and disruptions to refining capacity, make accurate predictions unreliable. For example, hostilities and political turmoil in oil-producing nations could lead to disruptions in oil production and/or to substantially increased oil prices. Any inability to obtain aircraft fuel at competitive prices could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are party to a collective bargaining agreement covering our U.S. pilots and a collective bargaining agreement covering our U.S. dispatchers, which could result in higher labor costs than those faced by some of our non-unionized competitors. This could put us at a competitive disadvantage, and/or result in a work interruption or stoppage.

Atlas pilots are represented by the IBT under a five-year collective bargaining agreement signed in 2011. In November 2012, we completed, and have since implemented, a five-year collective bargaining agreement with the Atlas and Polar dispatchers. These dispatchers have been represented by the IBT since 2009. We are subject to risks of increased labor costs associated with having a partially unionized workforce, as well as a greater risk of work interruption or stoppage. We cannot provide assurance that disputes, including disputes with certified collective bargaining representatives of our employees, will not arise in the future or will result in an agreement on terms satisfactory to us.

As a U.S. government contractor, we are subject to a number of procurement and other rules and regulations that affect our business. A violation of these rules and regulations could lead to termination or suspension of our government contracts and could prevent us from entering into contracts with government agencies in the future.

To do business with government agencies, including the AMC, we must comply with, and are affected by, many rules and regulations, including those related to the formation, administration and performance of U.S. government contracts. These rules and regulations, among other things:

These rules and regulations affect how we do business with our customers and, in some instances, impose added costs on our business. A violation of these rules and regulations could result in the imposition of fines and penalties or the termination of our contracts. In addition, the violation of certain other generally applicable rules and regulations could result in our suspension or debarment as a government contractor.

Our insurance coverage may become more expensive and difficult to obtain and may not be adequate to insure all of our risks.

Aviation insurance premiums historically have fluctuated based on factors that include the loss history of the industry in general, and the insured carrier in particular. Future terrorist attacks and other adverse events involving aircraft could result in increases in insurance costs and could affect the price and availability of such coverage. We have, as have most other U.S. airlines, purchased our war-risk coverage through a special program administered by the U.S. federal government. The FAA is currently providing war-risk hull and cargo loss, crew and third-party liability insurance through September 30, 2013. If the federal war-risk coverage program

15

Table of Contents

terminates or provides significantly less coverage in the future, we could face a significant increase in the cost of war-risk coverage, and because of competitive pressures in the industry, our ability to pass this additional cost on to customers may be limited.

We participate in an insurance pooling arrangement with DHL and their affiliates. This allows us to obtain aviation hull and liability and hull deductible coverage at reduced rates. If we were to withdraw from this arrangement for any reason or if other pool members have higher incidents, we could incur higher insurance costs.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain our existing coverage on terms favorable to us, that the premiums for such coverage will not increase substantially or that we will not bear substantial losses and lost revenue from accidents or other adverse events. Substantial claims resulting from an accident in excess of related insurance coverage or a significant increase in our current insurance expense could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, while we carry insurance against the risks inherent to our operations, which we believe are consistent with the insurance arrangements of other participants in our industry, we cannot provide assurance that we are adequately insured against all risks. If our liability exceeds the amounts of our insurance coverage, we would be required to pay the excess amount, which could be material to our business, financial condition and operations.

We rely on third party service providers. If these service providers do not deliver the high level of service and support required in our business, we may lose customers and revenue.

We rely on third parties to provide certain essential services on our behalf, including maintenance, ground handling and flight attendants. In certain locations, there may be very few sources, or sometimes only a single source, of supply for these services. If we are unable to effectively manage these third parties, they may provide inadequate levels of support which could harm our customer relationships and have an adverse impact on our operations and the results thereof. Any material problems with the efficiency and timeliness of our contracted services, or an unexpected termination of those services, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Some of our aircraft are periodically deployed in potentially dangerous situations, which may result in harm to our passengers, employees or contractors and/or damage to our aircraft/cargo.

Some of our aircraft are deployed in potentially dangerous locations and carry hazardous cargo incidental to the services we provide in support of our customers’ activities, particularly in shipments to the Middle East. Some areas through which our flight routes pass are subject to geopolitical instability, which increases the risk of death or injury to our passengers, employees or contractors or a loss of, or damage to, our aircraft and/or its cargo. While we maintain insurance to cover injury to our passengers, employees and contractors as well as the loss/damage of aircraft/cargo, except for limited situations, we do not have insurance against the loss arising from business interruption. It is difficult to replace lost or substantially damaged aircraft due to the high capital requirements and long delivery lead times for new aircraft or to locate appropriate in-service aircraft for lease or sale. Any injury to passengers, employees or contractors or loss/damage of aircraft/cargo could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We could be adversely affected by a failure or disruption of our computer, communications or other technology systems.

We are heavily and increasingly dependent on technology to operate our business. The computer and communications systems on which we rely could be disrupted due to various events, some of which are beyond our control, including natural disasters, power failures, terrorist attacks, equipment failures, software failures and computer viruses and hackers. We have taken certain steps to implement business resiliency to help reduce the risk of some of these potential disruptions. There can be no assurance, however, that the measures we have taken are adequate to prevent or remedy disruptions or failures of these systems. Any substantial or repeated failure of these systems could impact our operations and customer service, result in the loss of important data, loss of

16

Table of Contents

revenues, and increased costs, and generally harm our business. Moreover, a failure of certain of our vital systems could limit our ability to operate our flights for an extended period of time, which would have a material adverse impact on our business and operations.

Risks Related to Our ACMI Business

We depend on a limited number of significant customers for our ACMI business, and the loss of one or more of such customers could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our ACMI business depends on a limited number of customers, which has typically averaged between five and six. In addition, as a percentage of our total operating revenue, Polar accounted for 16.5% in 2012, 17.2% in 2011 and 14.7% in 2010. We typically enter into long-term ACMI contracts with our customers. The terms of our existing contracts are scheduled to expire on a staggered basis. There is a risk that any one of our significant ACMI customers may not renew their ACMI contracts with us on favorable terms or at all, perhaps due to reasons beyond our control. For example, certain of our airline ACMI customers may not renew their ACMI contracts with us as they take delivery of new aircraft in their own fleet. Select customers have the opportunity to terminate their long-term agreements in advance of the expiration date, following a significant amount of notice to allow for remarketing of the aircraft. Such agreements generally contain a significant early termination fee paid by the customer. Entering into ACMI contracts with new customers generally requires a long sales cycle, and as a result, if our ACMI contracts are not renewed, and there is a resulting delay in entering into new contracts, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

Our agreements with several ACMI customers require us to meet certain performance targets, including certain departure/arrival reliability standards. Failure to meet these performance targets could adversely affect our financial results.

Our ability to derive the expected economic benefits from our transactions with certain ACMI customers depends substantially on our ability to successfully meet strict performance standards and deadlines for aircraft and ground operations, which become increasingly stringent over time. If we do not meet these requirements, we may not be able to achieve the projected revenues and profitability from these contracts, and we could be exposed to certain remedies, including termination of the BSA in the most extreme of circumstances, as described below.

Risks Related to the BSA with DHL

Our agreements with DHL confer certain termination rights to them which, if exercised or triggered, may result in our inability to realize the full benefits of the BSA with DHL.

The BSA gives DHL the option to terminate the agreements for convenience by giving notice to us before the tenth or fifteenth anniversary of the agreement’s commencement date. Further, DHL has a right to terminate the BSA for cause following a specified management resolution process if we default on our performance or we are unable to perform for reasons beyond our control. If DHL exercises any of these termination rights, we would not be able to achieve the projected revenues and profitability from these contracts.

Risks Related to Our AMC Charter Business

We derive a significant portion of our revenues from our AMC Charter business, and a substantial portion of these revenues have been generated pursuant to expansion flying, as opposed to fixed contract arrangements with the AMC. We expect the revenues from our AMC Charter business to decline from current levels.

As a percentage of our operating revenue, revenue derived from our AMC Charter business was approximately 29.7% in 2012, 31.7% in 2011 and 29.1% in 2010. In each of these years, the revenues derived from expansion flights for the AMC significantly exceeded the value of the fixed flight component of our AMC contract.

17

Table of Contents

Historically, our AMC Charter business, especially expansion flights, has generated a significant amount of revenue. Future revenues and profitability from this business are expected to decline from historic levels as a result of reduced AMC demand. Revenues and profitability from our AMC Charter business are derived from one-year contracts that the AMC is not required to renew. Our current AMC contract runs from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. Changes in national and international political priorities can significantly affect the volume of our AMC Charter business. Any decrease in U.S. military activity could reduce our AMC Charter business. In addition, our share of the total AMC Charter business depends on several factors, including the total fleet size we commit to the CRAF program and the total number of aircraft deployed by our teaming arrangement partners and competitors in the program.

The AMC also holds all carriers to certain on-time performance requirements, which in 2011 were changed from departure-based standards to arrival-based standards with more stringent on-time requirements. To the extent that we fail to meet those performance requirements or if we fail to pass bi-annual AMC audits, revenues and profitability from our AMC Charter business could decline through a suspension or termination of our AMC contract. Our revenues and profitability could also decline due to a reduction in the revenue rate we are paid by the AMC, a greater reliance by the AMC on its own fleet or a reduction in our allocation of AMC flying. Any reduction in our AMC flying could also negatively impact our Commercial Charter revenue from the return trips of one-way AMC missions. We expect revenues and profitability from our AMC Charter business to decline from current levels as the U.S. Military continues to withdraw troops from areas of conflict around the world. If our AMC Charter business declines significantly and we are otherwise unable to effectively deploy the resultant capacity, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our AMC Charter business is sensitive to teaming arrangements, affecting our relative share of AMC flying and the profitability associated with it. If one of our team members reduces its commitments or withdraws from the program, and/or if other carriers on other teams commit additional aircraft to this program, our share of AMC flying may decline. In addition, any changes made to the commissions that we pay and/or receive for AMC flying or changes to the CRAF contracting mechanism could impact the revenues and/or profitability of this business.

Each year, the AMC allocates its air capacity requirements to different teams of CRAF participating airlines based on a mobilization value point system that is determined by the amount and types of aircraft that each team of airlines pledges to the CRAF program. We participate in the CRAF program through a teaming arrangement with other airlines, led by FedEx. Our team is one of four major teams participating in the CRAF program during our current contract year. Several factors could adversely affect the amount of AMC flying that is allocated to us, including:

Any changes to the CRAF program that would result in a reduction in our share of or profitability from AMC flying could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR INDUSTRY

The market for air cargo services is highly competitive and if we are unable to compete effectively, we may lose current customers or fail to attract new customers. We could also be adversely affected if a large number of long-haul freighter aircraft or freighter aircraft of different equipment types are introduced into the market.

Each of the markets we participate in is highly competitive and fragmented. We offer a broad range of aviation services and our competitors vary by geographic market and type of service and include other

18

Table of Contents

international and domestic contract carriers, regional and national ground handling and logistics companies, internal cargo units of major airlines and third party cargo providers. Competition in the air cargo and transportation market is influenced by several key factors, including quality, price and availability of assets and services. Both Southern Air, Inc. and Global Aviation Holdings, Inc. have filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 and could emerge from bankruptcy in a stronger, more competitive position. Regulatory requirements to operate in the U.S. domestic air cargo market have been reduced, facilitating the entry into domestic markets by non-U.S. air cargo companies. If we were to lose any major customers and/or fail to attract customers, it could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Additionally, an increase in the number of aircraft in the freight market could cause Yields and rates to fall and/or could negatively affect our customer base. If either circumstance were to occur, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

We are subject to extensive governmental regulations and our failure to comply with these regulations in the U.S. and abroad, or the adoption of any new laws, policies or regulations or changes to such regulations may have an adverse effect on our business.

Our operations are subject to complex aviation and transportation laws and regulations, including Title 49 of the U.S. Code, under which the DOT and the FAA exercise regulatory authority over air carriers. In addition, our business activities fall within the jurisdiction of various other federal, state, local and foreign authorities, including the U.S. Department of Defense, the TSA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and the U.S. EPA. In addition, other countries in which we operate have similar regulatory regimes to which we are subjected. These laws and regulations may require us to maintain and comply with the terms of a wide variety of certificates, permits, licenses, noise abatement standards and other requirements and our failure to do so could result in substantial fines or other sanctions. These U.S. and foreign aviation regulatory agencies have the authority to modify, amend, suspend or revoke the authority and licenses issued to us for failure to comply with provisions of law or applicable regulations and may impose civil or criminal penalties for violations of applicable rules and regulations. Such fines or sanctions, if imposed, could have a material adverse effect on our mode of conducting business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, U.S. and foreign governmental authorities may adopt accounting standards, taxation requirements, new regulations, directives or orders that could require us to take additional and potentially costly compliance steps or result in the grounding of some of our aircraft, which could increase our operating costs or result in a loss of revenues.

International aviation is increasingly subject to requirements imposed or proposed by foreign governments. This is especially true in the areas of transportation security, aircraft noise and emissions control, and greenhouse gas emissions. These may be duplicative of, or incompatible with U.S. government requirements, resulting in increased compliance efforts and expense. Even standing alone, foreign government requirements can be burdensome.

Foreign governments also place temporal and other restrictions on the ability of their own airlines to use aircraft operated by other airlines. For example, as a result of EU regulations finalized in 2008, EU airlines generally secure aircraft capacity from U.S. and other non-EU airlines for a maximum of two seven-month periods. This restriction could negatively impact our revenue and profitability. Additionally, the EASA is considering a proposal to require EU airlines to establish to the satisfaction of their regulatory agencies that the aircraft capacity secured from and operated by U.S. and other non-EU airlines meet internationally set standards and additional EASA requirements. These and other similar regulatory developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Initiatives to address global climate change may adversely affect our business and increase our costs.

Various governments, including the United States, are pursuing measures to regulate climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. These could result in substantial costs for us.

19

Table of Contents

The most advanced are those in legislation enacted by the EU to extend its emissions trading scheme to aviation that commenced on January 1, 2012. Under the EU mechanism, airlines serving the EU must report flight activity on an ongoing basis. Following the end of 2012 and subsequent years, each airline must tender the number of “carbon emissions allowances” corresponding to the carbon emissions generated by its flight activity during the year. If the airline’s flight activity during the year has produced carbon emissions exceeding the number of carbon emissions allowances that it has been awarded, the airline must acquire carbon emissions allowances from other airlines in the open market. Some airlines and organizations challenged the EU mechanism in court, but the European Court of Justice upheld its validity. In November 2012, following strong objections from the U.S. and other governments to the EU’s unilateral implementation of the ETS, the European Commission announced that it would recommend that the European Council and the European Parliament suspend applicability of the emissions allowance requirements to flights to and from the EU during calendar year 2012, in order to allow time for multilateral action by the ICAO. The proposed ETS suspension is not intended to apply to intra-EU flights. Although the suspension appears likely to go into effect, there can be no assurance of that fact, or that the suspension legislation will take the form proposed by the European Commission.

In the United States, various constituencies have continued to advocate for controls on greenhouse gas emissions. Previously, both houses of the U.S. Congress passed legislation to impose a carbon-related tax on fuel sold to airlines and other entities. However, a bill has not been signed into law. Also, in September 2009, the EPA proposed regulations that would impose controls on greenhouse gas emissions. While the proposed regulations would not directly control greenhouse gas emissions by air carriers, a number of states and environmental organizations have asked the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft.

Regardless of the outcome of these activities, it is possible that some type of climate change measures ultimately will be imposed in a manner adversely affecting airlines. The costs of complying with potential new environmental laws or regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The airline industry is subject to numerous security regulations and rules that increase costs. Imposition of more stringent regulations and rules than those that currently exist could materially increase our costs.

The TSA has increased security requirements in response to increased levels of terrorist activity, and has adopted comprehensive new regulations governing air cargo transportation, including all-cargo services, in such areas as cargo screening and security clearances for individuals with access to cargo. Additional measures, including a requirement to screen cargo, have been proposed, which, if adopted, may have an adverse impact on our ability to efficiently process cargo and would increase our costs and those of our customers. The cost of compliance with increasingly stringent regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our future operations might be constrained by new FAA flight and duty time rules.

In 2009, following expressions of concern about pilot fatigue on certain long-range flights, the FAA convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (“ARC”) comprised of various aviation stakeholders to recommend changes to the flight and duty time rules applicable to pilots. This was followed in 2010 by FAA issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking containing new proposed flight and duty time rules. In December 2011, following the completion of a lengthy rulemaking process intended to reduce pilot fatigue, the FAA adopted a final rule containing new flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements. The rule will go into effect January 14, 2014, resulting in more stringent scheduling requirements for pilots operating our passenger flights.

Finding that the costs of applying the new rule to all-cargo flights would greatly exceed the benefits, the FAA decided not to apply the rule to all-cargo operations. The Independent Pilots Association, representing UPS pilots, have filed a judicial appeal of the FAA decision to exclude all-cargo operations from the rule. The appeal

20

Table of Contents

remains pending. Separately, the FAA has issued a new economic analysis (finding an even greater disparity between the costs and benefits of including all-cargo operations) and invited supplemental comments about the new analysis and the legal question of whether it is permissible for the FAA to take the rule’s costs and benefits into account. Legislation to require the FAA to apply the rule to all-cargo operations has also been introduced in Congress. Application of the new flight and duty time rule to all-cargo operations pursuant to a court, FAA or Congressional directive would result in materially increased crew costs for Atlas and Polar, as well as air carriers that predominantly fly nighttime and long-haul flights, and could have a material impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition by limiting crew scheduling flexibility and increasing operating costs, especially with respect to long-haul flights.

RISKS RELATED TO OWNERSHIP OF OUR COMMON STOCK

U.S. citizenship requirements may limit common stock voting rights.

Under U.S. federal law and DOT requirements, we must be owned and actually controlled by “citizens of the United States,” a statutorily defined term requiring, among other things, that not more than 25% of our issued and outstanding voting stock be owned and controlled, directly or indirectly, by non-U.S. citizens. The DOT periodically conducts airline citizenship reviews and, if it finds that this requirement is not met, may require adjustment of the rights attendant to the airline’s issued shares.

As one means to effect compliance, our certificate of incorporation and by-laws provide that the failure of non-U.S. citizens to register their shares on a separate stock record, which we refer to as the “Foreign Stock Record,” results in a suspension of their voting rights. Our by-laws further limit the number of shares of our capital stock that may be registered on the Foreign Stock Record to 25% of our issued and outstanding shares. Registration on the Foreign Stock Record is made in chronological order based on the date we receive a written request for registration. As a result, if a non-U.S. citizen acquires shares of our common stock and does not or is not able to register those shares on our Foreign Stock Record, they may lose their ability to vote those shares.

Provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation and by-laws and Delaware law might discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of the Company and, therefore, depress the trading price of our common stock.

Provisions of our restated certificate of incorporation, by-laws and Delaware law may render more difficult or discourage any attempt to acquire our company, even if such acquisition may be believed to be favorable to the interests of our stockholders. These provisions may also discourage bids for our common stock at a premium over market price or adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our common stock share price has been subject to fluctuations in value.

The trading price of our common shares is subject to material fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including quarterly variations in our operating results, conditions of the air freight market and global economic conditions or other events and factors that are beyond our control.

In the past, following periods of significant volatility in the overall market and in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has been instituted against these companies in some circumstances. If this type of litigation were instituted against us following a period of volatility in the market price for our common stock, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

None.

21

Table of Contents

Aircraft

The following tables provide information about AAWW’s aircraft and customer-provided aircraft, not including retired or parked aircraft, as of December 31, 2012:

AAWW Aircraft

22

Table of Contents

Customer-provided Aircraft for our CMI Business

The following table summarizes AAWW’s aircraft as of December 31, 2012:

Lease expirations for our operating leased aircraft included in the above tables range from January 2014 to February 2025.

Ground Facilities

Our principal office is located in Purchase, New York, where we lease approximately 120,000 square feet under a long-term lease which current term expires in 2017. This office includes both operational and administrative support functions, including flight and crew operations, maintenance and engineering, material management, human resources, legal, sales and marketing, finance and information technology. In addition, we lease a variety of smaller offices and ramp space at various station and regional locations on a short-term basis.

The information required in response to this Item is set forth in Note 12 to our Financial Statements, and such information is incorporated herein by reference. Such description contains all of the information required with respect hereto.

Not applicable.

23

Table of Contents

PART II

Market Information

Since 2006, our common stock has been traded on The NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “AAWW”.

Market Price of Common Stock

The following table sets forth the closing high and low sales prices per share of our common stock for the periods indicated.

The last reported sale price of our common stock on The NASDAQ National Market on February 12, 2013 was $46.13 per share. As of February 6, 2013, there were approximately 26.4 million shares of our common stock issued and outstanding, and 63 holders of record of our common stock.

In January 2013, we announced that we intend to begin actively purchasing shares of our stock in the first quarter of 2013 under an existing stock repurchase program. The program, which was established in 2008, authorizes the repurchase of up to $100 million of our common stock. Purchases may be made at our discretion from time to time on the open market, through negotiated transactions, block purchases, accelerated share repurchase programs or exchange or non-exchange transactions. As of February 12, 2013, we have repurchased a total of 700,243 shares of our common stock for approximately $18.9 million, at an average cost of $26.99 per share under this program. We have not repurchased any shares under this program since 2008.

Equity Compensation Plans

See Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters” for information regarding our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2012.

Dividends

We have never paid a cash dividend with respect to our common stock and we do not anticipate paying a dividend in the foreseeable future. Moreover, certain of our financing arrangements contain financial covenants that could limit our ability to pay cash dividends.

24

Table of Contents

Foreign Ownership Restrictions

Under our by-laws, U.S. federal law and DOT regulations, we must be controlled by U.S. citizens. In this regard, our President and at least two-thirds of our board of directors and officers must be U.S. citizens and not more than 25% of our outstanding voting common stock may be held by non-U.S. citizens. We believe that, during the period covered by this Report, we were in compliance with these requirements.

Performance Graph

The following graph compares the performance of AAWW common stock to the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index, the Russell 2000 Index and the AMEX Airline Index for the period beginning December 31, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2012. The comparison assumes $100 invested in each of our common stock, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index, the Russell 2000 Index and the AMEX Airline Index and reinvestment of all dividends.

Total Return Between 12/31/07 and 12/31/12

The selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and the selected statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 have been derived from our audited Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Report. The selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, and selected statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 have been derived from our audited Financial Statements not included in this Report.

25

Table of Contents

Effective October 27, 2008, we began reporting Polar under the equity method of accounting. Previously, we accounted for Polar on a consolidated basis. This change reduces revenue, operating expenses, total assets, liabilities and equity related to Polar. Effective April 8, 2009, we began reporting GSS on a consolidated basis. Our Operating Statistics, Operating Revenue and Operating Expenses reflect the consolidation of GSS as of that date. Previously, GSS was accounted for under the equity method. In the following table, all amounts are in thousands, except for per share data.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this report.

Business Overview

We are a leading global provider of outsourced aircraft and aviation operating services. As such, we manage and operate the world’s largest fleet of 747 freighters. We provide unique value to our customers by giving them access to highly reliable new production freighters that deliver the lowest unit cost in the marketplace combined with outsourced aircraft operating services that we believe lead the industry in terms of quality and global scale. Our customers include airlines, express delivery providers, freight forwarders, the U.S. military and charter brokers. We provide global services with operations in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America.

We believe that the following competitive strengths will allow us to capitalize on opportunities that exist in the global airfreight industry:

Market leader with leading-edge technology and innovative, value-creating solutions:

We manage the world’s largest fleet of 747 freighters. The new 747-8F is the largest and most efficient long-haul commercial freighter currently available and we are currently the only operator offering these aircraft to the ACMI market. Our current cargo fleet includes seven 747-8F aircraft, twenty-four 747-400 freighters and

26

Table of Contents

our CMI customers provide us with two 747-400 passenger aircraft, five 767-200 aircraft and four Dreamlifters, which are included in our operating fleet statistics. This highlights our position as the preeminent provider of these highly desirable and scarce assets. In addition, we also have two 747-400 and three 767-300ER passenger aircraft. Our operating model deploys our aircraft to drive maximum utilization and value from our fleet. The scale of our fleet enables us to have aircraft available globally to respond to our customers’ needs, both on a planned and ad hoc basis. We believe that this provides us with a commercial advantage over our competitors that operate with smaller and less flexible fleets.

Since November of 2011, we have taken delivery of the first seven of our nine new 747-8F aircraft, which have improved operating performance relative to the 747-400. The new aircraft create additional operating leverage to drive growth and to help us maintain our industry leading position for the foreseeable future. Both the 747-8F and 747-400, the current core of our ACMI segment, are industry leaders for operating performance in the intercontinental air freighter market due to cost and capacity advantages over other freighters.

Stable base of contractual revenue and reduced operational risk:

Our focus on providing long-term contracted aircraft and operating solutions to customers stabilizes our revenues and reduces our operational risk. Typically, ACMI contracts with customers generally range from three to five years, although some contracts have a shorter duration. Under ACMI, CMI and Dry Leasing, our customers assume fuel, Yield and demand risk resulting in reduced operational risk for AAWW. ACMI and CMI contracts typically provide us with a guaranteed minimum level of revenue and target level of profitability.

Our contract with DHL includes the allocation of blocked space capacity on a long-term basis for up to 20 years. This arrangement eliminates Yield and demand risks, similar to the rest of our ACMI business, for a minimum of six 747-400 aircraft, with an additional two 747-8F aircraft and one 747-400 aircraft under separate ACMI agreements.

Our AMC Charter services are typically operated under an annual contract with the U.S. military, whereby the military assumes Yield and fuel price risk.

Focus on asset optimization:

By managing the largest fleet of 747 freighter aircraft, we achieve significant economies of scale in areas such as aircraft maintenance, crew efficiency, crew training, inventory management and purchasing. We believe the addition of the 747-8F aircraft further enhances our efficiencies as these new aircraft have operational, maintenance and spare parts commonality with our existing fleet of 747-400s, as well as a common pilot-type rating.

Our mix of aircraft is closely aligned with our customer needs. We believe that our new 747-8F aircraft and our existing 747-400 fleet are well-suited to meet the current and anticipated requirements of our ACMI customers.

We continually evaluate our fleet to ensure that we offer the most efficient and effective mix of aircraft. Our service model is unique in that we offer a portfolio of operating solutions that complement our freighter aircraft businesses. We believe this allows us to improve the returns we generate from our asset base by allowing us to flexibly redeploy aircraft to meet changing market conditions, ensuring the maximum utilization of our fleet. Our AMC and Commercial Charter services complement our ACMI services by allowing us to increase aircraft utilization during open time and to react to changes in demand and Yield in these segments. We have employees situated around the globe who closely monitor demand for commercial charter services in each region, enabling us to redeploy available aircraft quickly. We also endeavor to manage our portfolio to stagger contract terms to mitigate our remarketing risks and aircraft down time.

27

Table of Contents

Long-term strategic customer relationships and unique service offerings:

We combine the global scope and scale of our efficient aircraft fleet with high quality, cost-effective operations and premium customer service to provide unique, fully integrated and reliable solutions for our customers. We believe this approach results in customers that are motivated to seek long-term relationships with us. This has historically allowed us to command higher prices than our competitors in several key areas. These long-term relationships help us to build resilience into our business model.

Our customers have access to our solutions, such as inter-operable crews, flight scheduling, fuel efficiency planning, and maintenance spare coverage, which, we believe, set us apart from other participants in the aircraft operating solutions market. Furthermore, we have access to valuable operating rights to restricted markets such as Brazil, Japan and China. We believe our freighter services allow our customers to effectively expand their capacity and operate dedicated freighter aircraft without simultaneously taking on exposure to fluctuations in the value of owned aircraft and, in the case of our ACMI and CMI contracts, long-term expenses relating to crews and maintenance. Dedicated freighter aircraft enable schedules to be driven by cargo rather than passenger demand (for those customers that typically handle portions of their cargo operations via belly capacity on passenger aircraft), which we believe allows our customers to drive higher contribution from cargo operations.

We are focused on providing safe, secure and reliable services. Both Atlas and Polar successfully completed the International Air Transport Association’s Operational Safety Audit (IOSA), a globally recognized safety and quality standard.

We provide outsourced aviation services and solutions to some of the world’s premier airlines and largest freight forwarders. We will take advantage of opportunities to maintain and expand our relationships with our existing customers, while seeking new customers and new geographic markets.

Experienced management team:

Our management team has extensive operating and leadership experience in the airfreight, airline, aircraft leasing and logistics industries at companies such as United Airlines, US Airways, Lufthansa Cargo, GE Capital Aviation Services, Air Canada, Ansett Worldwide Aviation Services, Canadian Airlines, Continental Airlines, SH&E Air Transport Consultancy, ASTAR Air Cargo and KLM Cargo, as well as the United States Navy, Air Force and Federal Air Marshal Service. Our management team is led by William J. Flynn, who has over 30 years of experience in freight and transportation and has held senior management positions with several transportation companies. Prior to joining AAWW, Mr. Flynn was President and CEO of GeoLogistics, a global transportation and logistics enterprise.

Business Strategy

Our strategy includes the following:

Aggressively manage our fleet with a focus on leading-edge aircraft:

We continue to actively manage our fleet of leading-edge wide-body freighter aircraft to meet customer demands. The 747-8F aircraft are primarily utilized in our ACMI business while our 747-400s are utilized in our ACMI, AMC and Commercial Charter business. We aggressively manage our fleet and will evaluate potential opportunities for adding incremental aircraft to ensure that we provide our customers with the most efficient aircraft to meet their needs. We will also explore opportunities to invest in aircraft to expand our dry-leasing platform.

Focus on securing long-term contracts:

We will continue to focus on securing long-term contracts with customers, which provide us with stable revenue streams and predictable margins. In addition, these agreements limit our direct exposure to fuel and other costs and mitigate the risk of fluctuations in both Yield and demand in the airfreight business, while also improving the overall utilization of our fleet.

28

Table of Contents

Drive significant and ongoing efficiencies and productivity improvements:

We continue to enhance our organization through an initiative called “Continuous Improvement.” We created a separate department to drive the process and to involve all areas of the organization in the effort to reexamine, redesign and improve the way we do business. Our initial goal was to generate $100 million in cost savings on an annualized basis. We have met and exceeded this initial goal and our efforts to realize additional savings continue.

Our efforts thus far have resulted in initiatives in six principal areas: fuel, maintenance, crew and related costs, other aircraft operations, procurement and general and administrative costs.

Specific initiatives include:

Selectively pursue and evaluate future acquisitions and alliances:

From time to time, we explore business combinations and alliances with other cargo airlines, services providers, dry leasing and other companies to enhance our competitive position, geographic reach and service portfolio.

Business Developments

Our ACMI results for 2012, compared to 2011, were positively impacted by the following events:

In October and December 2012, we took delivery of our sixth and seventh 747-8F aircraft and placed them into ACMI service with Polar and DHL, replacing two 747-400 aircraft.

In December 2012, we signed a CMI agreement with DHL to operate two new 767-300ERF aircraft owned by them. The aircraft were placed in service in their network during the first quarter of 2013.

29

Table of Contents

In February 2013, we signed an ACMI agreement with Chapman Freeborn Airchartering Ltd. for a 747-400F, with network service expected to begin in April 2013. This will be the first dedicated 747-400F in their network.

In May 2011, we began flying passenger charters for the U.S. Military. These charters are generally similar to our AMC cargo charters in that the AMC pays a fixed charter fee that includes fuel, insurance, landing fees, overfly and all other operational fees and costs. In May 2012, we placed in service a third 767-300ER passenger aircraft. This increased the size of our passenger service for the AMC to two 747-400 and three 767-300ER passenger aircraft. The increase in AMC passenger Block Hours was due to flying more domestic and international AMC missions, which more than offset the decrease in demand for AMC cargo Block Hours during 2012.

Commercial Charter Block Hours have increased significantly during 2012, reflecting our redeployment of 747-400 aircraft from ACMI during remarketing periods and our deployment of an additional 747-400 cargo aircraft into South America. However, Commercial Charter Yields have been negatively impacted by increased air cargo capacity and softer demand. In addition to providing passenger charters to the AMC, we are utilizing our new passenger aircraft for both public and private Commercial Charter passenger flights.

In July 2012, Titan purchased a Boeing 737-300 cargo aircraft that is being dry leased to a customer on a long-term basis.

Results of Operations

Years Ended December 31, 2012 and 2011

Operating Statistics

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our Financial Statements and notes thereto and other financial information appearing and referred to elsewhere in this report.

The table below sets forth selected Operating Statistics in:

30

Table of Contents

Operating Revenue

The following table compares our Operating Revenue (in thousands):

31

Table of Contents

ACMI revenue increased $49.7 million, or 7.9%, primarily due to the entry of our 747-8F aircraft into service and increased CMI flying, partially offset by the redeployment of 747-400 aircraft into other segments. ACMI Block Hours were 107,130 in 2012, compared to 102,695 in 2011, an increase of 4,435 Block Hours, or 4.3%. The increase in Block Hours was primarily driven by the start-up of CMI flying of five 767 cargo aircraft for DHL during 2012 and an increase in CMI flying for Boeing. Partially offsetting these increases were the return of 747-400 cargo aircraft during 2012, which were temporarily redeployed to other segments. Two of these aircraft were subsequently redeployed in ACMI to Etihad in June 2012 and DHL in July 2012. ACMI Revenue per Block Hour was $6,368 in 2012, compared to $6,159 in 2011, an increase of $209 per Block Hour, or 3.4%. The increase in Revenue per Block Hour primarily reflects the impact of higher rates for 747-8F aircraft, which began flying during the fourth quarter of 2011, with additional aircraft beginning to fly in the second, third and fourth quarters of 2012. Partially offsetting this increase was the impact of lower rates for CMI flying in 2012.

AMC Charter revenue increased $45.3 million, or 10.2%, driven by increased AMC Charter Passenger flying that began in May 2011, partially offset by a reduction in AMC Charter Cargo revenue. AMC Charter Block Hours were 22,447 in 2012 compared to 19,208 in 2011, an increase of 3,239 Block Hours, or 16.9%. The increase in AMC Charter Block Hours was due to 10,656 incremental AMC Charter Passenger Block Hours from flying four additional passenger aircraft in 2012 resulting in $204.2 million of increased revenue, partially offset by a decrease of 7,417 AMC Charter Cargo Block Hours driven by reduced cargo demand from the AMC. AMC Charter Revenue per Block Hour was $21,743 in 2012 compared to $23,049 in 2011, a decrease of $1,306 per Block Hour, or 5.7%, due to a higher volume of passenger flying on smaller 767 aircraft, a decrease in the average “pegged” fuel price and a reduction in the number of one-way AMC missions. Partially offsetting these items were premiums earned on flying additional, more efficient 747-400 cargo aircraft during 2012 in place of less efficient 747-200 aircraft in 2011. During 2012, the AMC average “pegged” fuel price was $3.35 per gallon compared to $3.63 in 2011. The “pegged” fuel price is set by the AMC and the impact to revenue from changes in the “pegged” fuel price is generally offset by a corresponding impact to fuel expense.

Commercial Charter revenue increased $150.7 million, or 50.3%, due to an increase in Block Hours, partially offset by a decrease in Revenue per Block Hour. Commercial Charter Block Hours were 21,965 in 2012, compared to 13,879 in 2011, representing an increase of 8,086 Block Hours, or 58.3%. The increase in Block Hours was primarily due to the redeployment of 747-400 aircraft from ACMI during remarketing periods and the deployment of an additional 747-400 cargo aircraft in South America. In addition, we were able to utilize our passenger aircraft for sporting event, concert tour, VIP and other private charters. Revenue per Block Hour was $20,500 in 2012, compared to $21,581 in 2011, a decrease of $1,081 per Block Hour, or 5.0%, which reflects the impact of lower Yields on increased air cargo capacity and softer demand during 2012 compared to 2011 and the impact of a reduction in Commercial Charter return legs due to fewer AMC one-way missions.

Dry Leasing revenue was relatively unchanged.

32

Table of Contents

Operating Expenses

The following table compares our Operating Expenses (in thousands):

Aircraft fuel increased $48.0 million, or 12.4%, due to approximately $66.5 million in increased consumption, partially offset by $18.5 million from lower fuel prices. Commercial Charter fuel consumption increased by 22.0 million gallons, or 43.2%, primarily driven by the increase in Block Hours operated, partially offset by the use of more efficient 747-400 aircraft during 2012 in comparison to less efficient 747-200 aircraft used in 2011. The average fuel price per gallon for the Commercial Charter business was $3.32 in 2012, compared to $3.29 in 2011, an increase of 0.9%. AMC fuel consumption decreased by 2.8 million gallons, or 4.6%, reflecting the use of more efficient, twin-engine 767 passenger aircraft and 747-400 cargo aircraft during 2012 in place of less efficient 747-200 cargo aircraft in 2011, partially offset by the increase in Block Hours operated. The average fuel price per gallon for the AMC Charter business was $3.35 in 2012, compared to $3.63 in 2011, a decrease of 7.7%. We do not incur fuel expense in our ACMI or Dry Leasing businesses as the cost of fuel is borne by the customer.

Salaries, wages and benefits increased $32.0 million, or 12.2%, primarily driven by higher Block Hours, increased wages for crew and hiring additional employees to support our new aircraft.

Aircraft rent increased $2.1 million, or 1.3%, primarily due to subcontracting certain Commercial Charter and AMC flights with our ACMI customers during the second and third quarters of 2012, partially offset by the purchase of engines in 2012 that were previously leased.

Maintenance, materials and repairs decreased by $2.7 million, or 1.6%, driven by a reduction in maintenance expense of $27.8 million for 747-200 aircraft, partially offset by increases of $11.0 million for 747-400 aircraft and $14.1 million for other aircraft. Heavy Maintenance expense on 747-400 aircraft increased approximately $3.5 million due to an increase in the number of C Checks and additional maintenance expense on engines, partially offset by a reduction in D Checks compared to 2011. Heavy Maintenance expense on 747-200 aircraft decreased approximately $16.5 million due to the retirement of this fleet during the first quarter of 2012. Non-heavy Maintenance expense on 747-400 aircraft decreased $1.2 million. Line Maintenance expense increased $8.7 million for 747-400 aircraft and $14.1 million for 747-8F and 767 aircraft. Line Maintenance

33

Table of Contents

expense decreased $11.3 million on 747-200 aircraft due to the retirement of this fleet during the first quarter of 2012. The following table compares our heavy maintenance events and engine overhauls for 2012 and 2011: