SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 1574 words

COMMITTEE: SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION

HEADLINE: TESTIMONY INCREASING AIRLINE PILOT RETIREMENT AGE

TESTIMONY-BY: JOHN DARRAH , PRESIDENT

AFFILIATION: ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION

BODY:
MARCH 13,2001 STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOHN DARRAH PRESIDENT, ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ON AIRLINE AGE 60 RULE Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am John Darrah, President of the Allied Pilots Association (APA), which represents the I 1,000 pilots who fly for American Airlines. On behalf of the Allied Pilots Association, I thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony regarding S. 3 6 1, a bill that would raise the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots from the current age 60. Safety must always be the government's and the airline industry's first concern. For that reason, the Allied Pilots Association opposes not only S. 361 but any proposal to allow U.S. commercial airline pilots to continue flying past the current mandatory retirement age. The Age 60 Rule has remained unchanged for 42 years. The reason for that is simple. it works. Before Congress changes the status quo, please consider some of the critical issues that surround the Age 60 Rule. A higher retirement age will not make commercial air travel safer. The argument that the rule change might not threaten passenger safety is not, reason enough to take the risk. We have no means of determining how long past age 59 a pilot can continue to fly effectively. The FAA established the rule in 1959 based on a study that indicated pilots approaching 60 become more susceptible to heart attacks, strokes and other physical and mental effects of aging. Although Americans are living longer and healthier lives today 31 -3 than they did in 1959, and medical testing has advanced considerably, medical technology still cannot determine with certainty which pilots should fly and which should retire. Is the rule unfair to older pilots? We don't think so. Both the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have denied challenges to the rule, finding that mandatory retirement is legitimate when age is a bona fide occupational qualification. Other professions responsible for guarding the public's safety, such as police, firefighters and air traffic controllers, impose a mandatory retirement age. For the controllers, the age is 56. It is simply good judgment for individuals in safety-sensitive professions to conclude their careers before the natural process of aging becomes a problem. A vast majority of commercial airline pilots back the existing policy. More than 80 percent of our members supported the Age 60 Rule in a survey we conducted a few years ago. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) also has endorsed the existing rule. The notion currently being advocated by some is that, as we get older, our increased experience compensates for known degradation of physical and cognitive functions. In other words, their premise is that "the older a pilot becomes, the safer he or she is." If this premise is valid, both the flying public and the National Transportation Safety Board should be clamoring for older and older airline pilots. It is appropriate for the aviation industry to develop measures to increase its pilot hiring pool, such as increasing the availability for pilot-training scholarships. However, we do not believe that part of the solution is to al ter the Age 60 Rule. The Age 60 Rule represents the FAA's best determination of the point when a general decline in health- related functions and overall cognitive and performance capabilities may begin and reach a level where a pilot's judgment and physical ability could compromise safety. The Allied Pilots Association reiterates its belief that any discussion of the Age 60 Rule should center on safety, not economics. We strongly believe that any decision to alter the current rule must be based solely on solid research and conclusive findings from respected neutral scientific bodies. The reality of airline flying today is far different from the public perception. The most senior pilots typically fly the largest aircraft, and those aircraft are used to fly long-haul domestic and international routes. Most of these flights require all-night flights, either one or both ways, and these senior pilots fly as many as eight to 10 all-night flights per month. The resulting circadian rhythm disruption is severe, and the associated cumulative physical effects are both unpleasant and exhausting. NASA has conducted research proving that the effects of circadian upsets, sleep disruption and fatigue become increasingly acute with advancing age. NASA has reported that the negative effects are increasingly severe after the age of 50. These facts have been common knowledge to airline pilots for decades. Our position is firm. The Age 60 Rule is a well-established safety regulation that has been substantiated by medical science, has been reaffirmed repeatedly by the FAA and has worked effectively for more than 40 years. The justification for the rule is not now and never has been to enhance the careers of pilots who want to move up the seniority list faster, and it should not be changed for the sake of those who want to continue flying longer. Nor should it be used as a regulator of the pilot-supply pool for regional economic purposes. The Age 60 Rule is a safety regulation and should not be changed or repealed unless there is sufficient evidence to prove conclusively that such action would not have a negative effect on safety. That case has never been made. Since the rule was established, commercial airlines in this country haven't experienced a single age-related accident. Congress should not eliminate a regulation that has served us well. For safety's sake, we should keep the retirement age for pilots at 60.

LOAD-DATE: March 14, 2001, Wednesday