[Senate Hearing 108-733]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-733
A FRESH LOOK AT MANDATORY RETIREMENTS:
DO THEY STILL MAKE SENSE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WASHINGTON, DC
__________
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-42
Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
97-085 PDF WASHINGTON : 2004
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana, Ranking
SUSAN COLLINS, Maine Member
MIKE ENZI, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
GORDON SMITH, Oregon HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah RON WYDEN, Oregon
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas
TED STEVENS, Alaska EVAN BAYH, Indiana
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
Lupe Wissel, Staff Director
Michelle Easton, Ranking Member Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Senator Larry Craig......................... 1
Panel I
Abby L. Block, deputy associate director, Center for Employee and
family Support Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
Washington, DC................................................. 2
Eugene R. Freedman, policy counsel, National Air Traffic
Controllers Association, Washington, DC........................ 11
Russell B. Rayman, M.D., executive director, Aerospace Medical
Association, Alexandria, VA.................................... 31
Captain Joseph Eichelkraut, president, Southwest Airlines Pilots'
Association, Dallas, TX........................................ 36
Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior fellow, CATO Institute................. 42
Appendix
Prepared statement of Senator Elizabeth Dole..................... 67
Statement submitted by U.S. Congressman Jim Gibbons.............. 68
Testimony submitted by Captain Michael Oksner, Southwest
Airlines, Retired.............................................. 70
Letter submitted by Fraternal Order of Police.................... 74
Written statement submitted by Airline Pilots Against Age
Discrimination................................................. 77
Statement of Captain Ralph Hunter, president, Allied Pilots
Association.................................................... 83
(iii)
A FRESH LOOK AT MANDATORY RETIREMENTS: DO THEY STILL MAKE SENSE?
------------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Special Committee on Aging,
Washington, DC.
The committee convened, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room SD-628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Craig and Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG, CHAIRMAN
The Chairman. Good morning and welcome to the Senate
Special Committee on Aging. Today's hearing will reexamine
mandatory retirement age rules in an issue of growing concern
for employers and workers across the nation.
Federal, State, and local governments have mandatory
retirement rules for public safety-related jobs with physical
and cognitive fitness requirements. Public safety is clearly
the most important policy consideration in evaluating mandatory
retirement rules. But those of us who study this issue know
there has been a dynamic increase in longevity and a trend
toward healthy aging over the past half-century. Americans are
living longer and healthier than ever before. As a result,
chronological age is less often an indicator of physical and
cognitive age for many workers.
In six short years, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
projects a shortfall of ten million workers in the United
States due to an aging workforce. Much of the shortfall will be
among skilled workers, such as those covered by mandatory
retirement rules. For example, it is reported that nearly half
of the nation's air traffic controllers will reach the
mandatory age of 56 in the next decade. In order to prepare for
the future, it is important that lawmakers understand the
impact of changing demographics on our workforce.
Mandatory retirement age rules seem outdated to many
experts, and that is why we are here today, to examine specific
professions that are subject to Federal mandatory retirement
rules. Today's hearing will focus on mandatory retirement rules
with a Federal Government nexus. We will be looking at Federal
law enforcement, correction officers, fire fighters, air
traffic controllers, and commercial airline pilots. Our goal is
to better understand the dynamics of each profession and
whether 20th century mandatory retirement age rules still make
sense in the 21st century.
With that, let me say how pleased I am that all of our
distinguished witnesses are with us today. Abby Block will be
our lead witness, deputy associate director for the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management; Eugene Freedman, policy counsel for
the National Association of Air Traffic Controllers; Russell
Rayman, executive director of Aerospace Medical Association;
Captain Eichelkraut, president of Southwest Airlines Pilots'
Association; and Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior fellow at the CATO
Institute.
I must tell you all before we start something that happened
to me just a few moments ago as I was leaving my office. Every
Tuesday morning, I have a constituency coffee in the office and
folks who are here from Idaho visiting stop by to say hello and
we shoot some pictures and have a cup of coffee.
There were two couples from Huddleston, ID. That is between
Twin Falls and the Nevada border line of Jackpot, NV, down in
South Central Idaho. A couple had brought their son and
daughter-in-law to the capital city for the first time. This
gentleman, as I was leaving, said, ``Where are you going?'' I
said, ``Well, I am going to chair a hearing'' on--and I began
to laugh as I was looking at him, or smile, and say, mandatory
retirement with the Special Committee on Aging.'' He said, ``Oh
really?'' He said, ``I am 93,'' and still working his ranch in
South Idaho, and he had brought his son and daughter to
Washington for the first time and his son is 62. [Laughter.]
So I was thinking about that on the way down and thought,
well, yes, different professions, different jobs, different
realities. But here was a 93-year-old man who finally figured
he had got enough money saved up he could take time away from
the ranch to visit his nation's capital and he would bring his
son along with him. Isn't it great to be an American?
With that, Abby, we will start with you and your testimony.
Again, thank you for being with us this morning and please pull
that mike as close as possible.
STATEMENT OF ABBY L. BLOCK, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CENTER
FOR EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY SUPPORT POLICY, U.S. OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Block. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here
today on behalf of the director of the Office of Personnel
Management, Kay Coles James, to discuss the issue of mandatory
retirement age rules, is it time to reevaluate?
As I am sure you are aware, OPM administers the two largest
retirement systems for Federal employees. They are the Civil
Service Retirement System, also known as CSRS, and the Federal
Employees Retirement System, also known as FERS. CSRS, which
dates from 1920, is now a closed system that still covers about
a third of Federal employees. FERS was established in 1986 and
covers the majority of Federal employees. Before discussing the
current provisions of those systems relating to mandatory
retirement, I would like to take a few minutes to explain a
little of the history behind those provisions.
While we have come a long way in terms of applicability,
mandatory retirement age has been a factor in Federal
retirement systems since the very beginning. The original Civil
Service Retirement Act of 1920 established three automatic
retirement ages, 62, 65, or 70, classified according to the
type of position. Sixty-two was the age set for railway postal
clerks. Sixty-five was set for mechanics, city and rural letter
carriers, and post office clerks, while age 70 was applicable
to all other employees. Separation was mandatory at those ages,
even if the individual did not have the 15 years of service
required for an annuity. Renewable 2-year extensions were
permitted based upon certification by the agency head and Civil
Service Commission approval. There were no provisions for
retirement at any other time other than based upon disability.
For a number of years thereafter, these provisions were
subject only to rather minor modifications from time to time.
In 1926, the occupational group composition subject to
retirement at the various ages were changed and automatic
separations were deferred until individuals completed enough
service to qualify for an annuity. The occupational
classifications for the age groups were changed in 1930. All
previously granted exemptions were terminated by the so-called
Economy Act of 1932, which also limited future exemptions to
Presidential authorizations.
The first major change to mandatory retirement occurred in
1942. While a 1930 change in the retirement law had permitted
individuals with 30 years of service to retire 2 years prior to
the mandatory retirement age for their occupational
classification, the 1942 Act for the first time established the
concept of voluntary retirement at a much younger age, as early
as age 55. At the same time, the mandatory retirement age was
set at age 70 for all employees.
With the exception of minor technical changes and special
provisions applicable to limited groups, age 70 remained the
uniform Federal mandatory retirement age for the next three
decades. To be technically accurate, I must point out that
certain employees of the legislative and judicial branches,
Alaska Railroad, Panama Canal Company, and Canal Zone
government were subject to different rules, but these
exceptions were of limited applicability.
In 1972, Public Law 92-297 brought back the concept of a
separate mandatory retirement age for a specific occupational
group, air traffic controllers, who were required to retire at
age 56 with 20 years of service. In order to make this
economically feasible, the law provided for a minimum annuity
of 50 percent, the percentage that otherwise would have
required 26 years and 11 months of service. However, any air
traffic controller who worked for greater than that period
would receive their normal annuity computed under the same
formula applicable to employees generally. Coupled with
enhanced annuity provisions, the law also added authority to
set a maximum entry age to ensure that individuals would
complete the service needed to retire on time.
Three years later, Public Law 93-350 added a special
mandatory retirement provision for two more occupational
groups, this time law enforcement officers and fire fighters,
who were required to retire at age 50 with 20 years of service.
As with air traffic controllers, a maximum entry age was
provided for. This time, however, the Congress chose to use a
different mechanism to make early retirement economically
feasible. Instead of a guaranteed minimum annuity, an enhanced
annuity formula was provided. While other employees received
36.25 percent of average salary for their first 20 years of
service, these groups received 50 percent. Service in excess of
20 years continued to be credited at the same rate as generally
applicable.
With subsequent minor variations, this concept of a higher
computation rate for the first 20 years of service became the
basis for all future extension of mandatory retirement to
additional occupational groups.
As an aside, it is important to understand that the
retirement definition of law enforcement officer has a
statutory meaning that is substantially more restrictive than
the commonly understood concept of law enforcement officer. The
main element of the definition is that the employee's duties
must be primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention
of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the
criminal laws of the United States. Groups that generally do
not meet this definition today because they prevent or detect
violations instead of investigating them include police
officers, guards, and inspectors, including Customs inspectors
and Immigration inspectors.
In 1978, Public Law 95-256, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act Amendments of 1978, was enacted. This Act
repealed the requirement of mandatory retirement for employees
generally. From this time forward, only the special occupation
groups remained subject to mandatory retirement.
The Federal Employees Retirement System was established in
1986. The new retirement system retained the same scheme for
special occupational groups of a maximum entry age, enhanced
annuity computation, and mandatory retirement. Also under FERS,
air traffic controllers were brought under that scheme. Other
laws added additional occupational groups, including Capitol
Police, Supreme Court Police, and nuclear materials couriers.
These groups are subject to the same general scheme as law
enforcement officers and fire fighters.
Minor changes were also made to the retirement age by
various laws. At this time, air traffic controllers remain
subject to mandatory retirement age at 56, while other groups
subject to mandatory retirement must retire at age 57. In order
to be subject to mandatory retirement, an employee must be
eligible for retirement under the special provisions. An agency
head may retain an employee who is in one of these special
groups until age 60 or 61 for air traffic controller. That is
at the agency head's discretion. A CSRS/FERS special group
employee may be retained beyond age 60 or 61 with the
permission of the President.
As you are aware, director James recently transmitted an
important in-depth report to the Congress on law enforcement
classification pay and benefits. Among the matters considered
in that report was the issue of mandatory retirement. That
report was limited to the area of law enforcement. We have not
performed a separate examination of these other special
retirement groups with mandatory retirement in mind. However,
many of the factors discussed in the report are applicable to
the issue of mandatory retirement whether in the public or
private sector.
Before imposing, amending, or removing a mandatory
retirement provision, an organization must first determine if
such a change serves an organizational interest. In general,
the special retirement provisions under the Federal systems for
groups such as law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and air
traffic controllers were intended to permit the government to
maintain a younger workforce in these occupations through
youthful career entry, continuous service, and early
separation. This is because the duties of these occupations are
so demanding that it is in the government's interest to
maintain a younger workforce to ensure the effectiveness of
that workforce.
If it is determined that an occupation requires a younger
workforce, mandatory retirement is only one means of achieving
that goal for the Federal special group occupations. Several
provisions work in combination to maintain a younger workforce
in these occupations. These include a maximum entry age,
voluntary early retirement with an enhanced annuity
computation, and a mandatory retirement age. An organization
could use one or more of these provisions or other means to
help shape a more youthful workforce.
In addition, enhanced retirement benefits under the Federal
system were specifically established to permit an individual to
retire voluntarily at an early age or at the mandatory
retirement age with a sufficient annuity to make retirement
viable. By ensuring a benefit commensurate with that of an
employee who is not subject to mandatory retirement, the
benefit package allows the Federal Government to remain
competitive in hiring and retaining qualified employees. The
imposition of a mandatory retirement provision should balance
the public or private sector organization's need for a younger
workforce in certain demanding occupations against the
financial interests of employees working a shortened career.
One of the most important issues discussed in OPM's report
on law enforcement officers is the need for flexibility. The
demands of work and average effective career length vary by
occupation. A mandatory retirement age for one occupation is
not necessarily the right mandatory retirement age for other
groups. Mandatory retirement should take into account any
unique requirements associated with the duties of any given
occupation or even select groups within an occupation while
also preventing the imposition of overly restrictive hiring
barriers or forced retirements that unnecessarily constrain
staffing options. For example, setting too low a mandatory
retirement age for an occupation may result in the premature
loss of an organization's most experienced personnel.
Finally, ensuring that a workable process exists to
determine if mandatory retirement is necessary or desirable and
for setting mandatory retirement age is critical. The process
that is ultimately established should facilitate an objective
evaluation of the demands of a particular occupation and the
establishment of the appropriate mandatory retirement age based
on that evaluation. The process should be carefully crafted,
because if it is flawed, there is the risk that mandatory
retirement could operate to adversely affect an organization's
ability to carry out its functions in an effective manner.
In short, there is no simple rule of thumb that can be
applied across the board in determining if a mandatory
retirement provision should be imposed, and if so, at what age.
However, we believe that establishing an effective process for
making these determinations is achievable and is a necessary
first step.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of director James, I
thank you for inviting the Office of Personnel Management to
testify on this matter and I will be glad to answer any of your
questions.
The Chairman. Abby, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Block follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.004
The Chairman. Now, let us turn to Mr. Freedman, policy
counsel for the National Association of Air Traffic
Controllers. Eugene.
STATEMENT OF EUGENE R. FREEDMAN, POLICY COUNSEL, NATIONAL AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Freedman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
The United States air traffic control system is the safest
and most efficient system in the world. However, we face a
staffing crisis in the next few years and the only solution to
that crisis is to hire more controllers. Congress has already
directed the Federal Aviation Administration to develop a plan
to grant waivers to the mandatory retirement age.
Today's hearing asks the question, do the mandatory
retirement rules still make sense? We believe that the
mandatory age 56 requirement for our nation's air traffic
controllers continues to make sense. Moreover, the granting of
waivers or increasing of retirement age will not properly
address the staffing crisis. Extending the retirement age is
fraught with considerable problems of controller health,
manpower distribution, and the general safety of America's
flying public.
More than three decades after Congress set the mandatory
retirement age based upon initial studies of declining
performance among older controllers, Congress has directed the
FAA to allow controllers to work beyond the 56-year-old
retirement age. However, studies as recent as 1998 and 1999
warn of the same consequences as those initial studies.
Controller performance peaks because of job experience between
ages 38 and 45. However, despite increased experience,
controllers' performance declines beyond age 45. Those declines
become significant when controllers reach age 50, and the
studies have shown that even the most experienced controllers
over the age of 50 perform worse than controllers at the
beginning of their careers.
While NATCA welcomes further study on the subject, 30 years
of studies have shown one consistent result: Changing the
current mandatory retirement age is unwise.
Air traffic controllers are not alone in their daily
responsibilities. Rather, each individual is a critical element
in a system based upon teamwork. The teamwork occurs both
within and between airspace sectors. In many ways, the team can
compensate for differences in the performance of team members.
However, as with any network, there are limits to the amount
some team members can compensate for others before it will
cause consequences throughout the system.
With the ever-increasing level of air traffic, individual
controllers must remain efficient throughout their working
careers. Sporadic hiring patterns in the FAA over the last 20
years have resulted in a continuing increase in the average age
of air traffic controllers. An increase in the mandatory
retirement age will only further increase the average age,
placing greater limitations on the ability of the team to meet
the demands of the system.
Recent NATCA studies on retirement patterns show that
extending controllers' careers will not be enough to compensate
for the huge pending employment loss. More importantly, decades
of studies continue to warn that high stress levels and the
resulting health complications from those high stress levels,
along with declining cognitive abilities, make extending
controllers' careers extremely dangerous.
Flight traffic this summer is expected to surpass pre-
September 11 levels, and the Secretary of Transportation,
Norman Mineta, has established a goal of increasing flight
capacity threefold by 2010. Mr. Chairman, now is not the time
to extend the retirement age and jeopardize the most
productive, efficient system in the world. The safety of our
flying public and the integrity of our entire system will
depend upon a new generation of capable controllers, not the
ability to hold on to the ones we already have.
Our air traffic control workforce makes today's system a
global standard of excellence. Extending the retirement age
will tend to diminish that standard. Instead, we must make
investments for the future and hire more controllers. The risks
are simply too great to try dangerous shortcuts. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freedman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.022
The Chairman. Now, let us turn to Dr. Russell Rayman,
executive director for the Aerospace Medical Association.
Doctor?
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL B. RAYMAN, M.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AEROSPACE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA
Dr. Rayman. Thank you, sir. It is my pleasure to be here to
give testimony this morning.
The Aerospace Medical Association appreciates the
opportunity to submit this statement to the U.S. Senate Special
Committee on Aging on the important issue of the age 60 rule
for air transport pilots. I am Dr. Russell B. Rayman, executive
director of the Aerospace Medical Association, representing
approximately 3,300 physicians, scientists, and flight nurses
engaged in the practice of aerospace medicine or related
research.
The age 60 rule implemented by the Federal Aviation
Administration in 1959 does not allow persons engaged in
operations conducted under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations to serve as a pilot or copilot on reaching their
60th birthday. The rule was implemented under the premise that
the risks of incapacitation due to a medical cause after 60
years of age is unacceptably high. Despite a number of court
challenges since 1959, the rule remains in force, yet still
controversial.
This issue of the age 60 rule can be reduced to three
questions. After age 60, (1) will air transport pilots have a
higher aircraft accident rate; (2), will there be significant
performance decrement in the cockpit; (3), will there be an
unacceptable risk of in-flight sudden incapacitation due to
medical causes?
To answer the first question with reasonable certitude, one
would need to study a cohort of air transport pilots older than
age 60 over a period of time and compare its flying safety
record with a cohort of air transport pilots under age 60.
Unfortunately, no such study exists because there are no over-
age 60 air transport pilots certified by the FAA to fly Part
121 operations.
The best we can do is to study general aviation and
commercial pilots, both categories having no age limits. Many
such studies have indeed been published in the medical
literature focusing upon the relationship of age with aircraft
accidents. A review of these studies reveals many
contradictions and inconsistencies, making it impossible to
extract data to support the age 60 rule or to refute it. In any
event, the validity of these studies comes into question if one
attempts to extrapolate the findings from general aviation
pilots and commercial pilots to air transport pilots because of
significant differences in aircraft and operations. In that
alone, the studies are flawed.
Many countries today do permit air transport pilots to
continue flying beyond age 60. According to the International
Civil Aviation Organization, at least 24 countries have adopted
this more liberal policy, and to our knowledge, there has been
no adverse effect upon flying safety.
Regarding performance, many studies have been published
comparing motor skills, cognition, memory, attentiveness, as
well as simulator and flight performance between younger and
older pilots, the results of which were frequently mixed.
Furthermore, even when decrements were observed, there was no
compelling evidence that they were significant enough to
adversely affect flying safety.
Although medical sudden incapacitation is always a
possibility, I might add, at any age, we believe it is a
vanishingly small risk, even for air transport pilots who would
be over age 60, because the event would most likely have to
occur during those few minutes of a critical phase of flight
such as takeoff or landing. Even if there were such an
occurrence, there is always a second pilot in the cockpit who
could rapidly take control should the need arise. It might also
be added that there has never been a U.S. air carrier accident
due to medical causes.
Let us assume for a moment that the rule was changed and
air transport pilots were permitted to fly beyond age 60,
perhaps to age 65. Are there medical tests that could be added
to the biannual flight physical examination to detect cognitive
decrements or medical conditions that could cause sudden
incapacitation? There are some medical tests that could be
added, but for the most part, there is not much enthusiasm
because they are not adequately predictive. For example, many
lack sensitivity and there is the risk of false positive
results. A secondary factor is the cost to the airman. One
exception, however, might be testing for changes in cognition.
I would add that many countries which allow over-age 60 air
transport pilots to fly do not require any additional testing.
In conclusion, on review of existing evidence, the
Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient
medical evidence to suggest restriction of pilot certification
based on age alone. Thank you.
The Chairman. Doctor, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rayman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.025
The Chairman. Now, we turn to Captain Eichelkraut,
president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association.
Captain, welcome.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH EICHELKRAUT, PRESIDENT, SOUTHWEST
AIRLINES PILOTS' ASSOCIATION, DALLAS, TX
Capt. Eichelkraut. Chairman Craig, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today and to present the views of the
pilots of Southwest Airlines on the issue of mandatory
retirement rules. I will keep my remarks brief and ask that my
full written statement be entered into the record.
Current FAA rules require pilots flying large commercial
aircraft to retire by their 60th birthday. The 4,400-plus
pilots of Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association, which I
represent, oppose the age 60 rule and think the time for
reevaluation is now. In fact, our membership had a referendum
on the issue in 2003 and a clear majority of our pilots voted
to reform the rule.
The age 60 rule was made final on the basis of medical
facts in 1959. What may have passed for medical facts then,
today we know as age discrimination. The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission agrees and opposes the age 60 rule.
Regardless of the FAA's intent in 1959, surely today a rule
requiring the nation's most well-trained and experienced pilots
to retire at age 60 does not appear to have any scientific or
medical basis.
Though I am not a doctor, I do know that pilots, along with
the entire population, are living longer, healthier lives than
when the age 60 rule was enacted 45 years ago. I believe that
is one reason why Dr. Rayman from the Aerospace Medical
Association is here today, as you just heard.
Just look at our 41st President, George Bush. At 80 years
young, he not only wants to fly in airplanes, he is jumping out
of them. This summer, we were all thrilled when Spaceship One
became the first manned commercial vehicle to slip the surly
bonds of earth. The craft was flown by 63-year-old test pilot
Mike Melvill, who did have a very physical challenge bringing
that ship safely back to earth. However, the FAA maintains he
is unfit to safely fly a Boeing 737 for my airline.
Flying a commercial airliner is not physically demanding,
but it does require management skills and sound judgment. These
are talents that I have found come with age and experience.
The FAA already has the ideal mechanisms in place for
ensuring safe pilots at any age. For example, to retain my
license and fly as a pilot for Southwest Airlines, I must pass
semi-annual flight physicals administered by an FAA-licensed
medical examiner, to include an annual EKG. As a captain, I
must demonstrate in semi-annual check rides, complete knowledge
of systems and procedures, safe piloting skills, and multi-
tasking in advance simulators. There is no greater test of
cognitive ability and mental dexterity than these simulator
rides. Simulator failure rates among Southwest Airlines pilots
are low, but as the pilots approach age 60, they are at their
lowest. Across all age groups last year, there were about 31
failures out of 4,200 pilots.
I am also administered random in-flight check rides by FAA
inspectors and Southwest Airlines check airmen. The 59-year-old
captain arrives at this point in his career having demonstrated
successful performance following years of this kind of
scrutiny. On top of all this, the FAA adds one final layer of
safety, a fail-safe system which requires not one, but two
highly trained pilots to fly on all Southwest Airlines flights.
The sad truth is that every time an experienced pilot has
to retire because of his or her 60th birthday, Southwest
Airlines managers and the traveling public lose a seasoned
pilot who is quite capable of safely working. Adding a few
years to the career of the airline pilot is a win-win
situation. It even benefits Social Security and pension funds.
While many of the legacy carriers have historically offered
rich defined benefit plans, Southwest and newer carriers have
defined contributions, such as 401(k)s and profit sharing at
Southwest Airlines. These are similar to most Americans'
retirement benefits. If pilots could continue their careers
beyond age 60, they could continue contributing to retirement
accounts and postpone the withdrawal of pension funds, allowing
airlines more time to replenish pension accounts.
The airlines, the pilots, the traveling public, the
taxpayer all benefit if we are allowed to fly additional years
without sacrificing safety.
Last year, the Senate came very close to ending the
discriminatory age 60 rule with a vote on the Inhofe amendment
to the FAA bill. The Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association
strongly supported the amendment and is grateful to Senator
Inhofe, Congressman Gibbons, and fellow pilots for all their
hard work on this issue. I want to thank the Chair and the
other 44 members who voted with Senator Inhofe to raise pilots'
retirement age.
The pilots of Southwest Airlines thank you for holding this
hearing, which has shed some new light on this issue. Armed
with this new information, I encourage the Chair and his
colleagues in the Senate to hold another vote on the issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I
look forward to working in a bipartisan fashion to ensure a
legislative solution to provide relief from this arbitrary
rule.
The Chairman. Captain, thank you very much. In the spirit
of full disclosure, I voted for that Inhofe amendment.
[The prepared statement of Capt. Eichelkraut follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.029
The Chairman. Now, let us turn to our last panelist this
morning, Dr. Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior fellow at the CATO
Institute. Doctor, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JAGADEESH GOKHALE, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE
Mr. Gokhale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to testify at this hearing.
Mandatory retirement age rules have been eliminated in most
private sector occupations as a result of the anti-age
discrimination laws that were introduced beginning in the
1960's. Were they allowed, private sector employers would
likely use mandatory retirement age rules in employment
contracts designed for ensuring worker efficiency in different
occupations.
Instead, private employers structure long-term incentive
contracts and build in seniority rents in their compensation
schedules, including features such as defined benefit pensions
and other non-wage elements of compensation to achieve several
objectives. These incentive contracts promote worker
efficiency, they bond high-skilled workers to firms, because
those who prematurely quit would lose their opportunity to
collect seniority rents, and they also induce timely
retirements.
Retirement incentives incorporated in such long-term
contracts appear to have spurred the trend toward early
retirement in the United States. The recent surge in defined
contribution plans has not totally eliminated defined benefit
plans which incorporate such worker incentives, because both
workers and employers find defined benefit plans to be useful
in meeting these objectives.
Mandatory retirement age rules still prevail in certain
public sector occupations and these were introduced several
decades ago, primarily to ensure the safe and effective conduct
of these jobs. Under today's conditions, however, these
retirement age rules appear to be becoming obsolete because
they were instituted several decades ago. We need a revision of
these rules simply because many of these occupations are facing
impending worker shortages.
In part, these worker shortages have been created by
improving technology, which implies the need for a variety of
skilled workers. New technology, although it has made the
conduct of these jobs physically easier, has not proved to be
labor-saving in nature. We need a highly skilled and a larger
workforce to conduct these jobs efficiently.
The health and longevity of the U.S. population has
improved, which means competence in job performance may now
extend to older ages than was the case several decades ago.
Mandatory retirement age rules are increasingly unfair in some
occupations where workers have non-transferrable skills, such
as pilots and air traffic controllers.
Now, experience in the U.S. academic institutions suggests
that simply eliminating mandatory retirement age rules is not
the solution because that may create its own problems such as
making the workforce disproportionately old and reducing worker
turnover. Instead, I would recommend a two-pronged approach.
One is to raise the mandatory retirement ages in these
occupations to meet with the short-term worker shortage that we
are foreseeing and, second, adopt long-term incentive contracts
for younger workers and new hires, thereby increasing worker
efficiency and at the same time inducing timely retirements.
If this two-pronged approach is adopted, we would see that
the mandatory retirement age rules will automatically fall by
the wayside because the new incentive contracting, if it is
adopted appropriately, will ensure that employers will be able
to implement timely retirements among workers. We need a more
flexible system of retaining the most qualified workers, but
also making sure that the work is conducted efficiently in
these different occupations.
However, before we make the policy reforms, we need to more
closely investigate to what extent these private sector long-
term incentive contracts, if they are adopted in these
different occupations, will be effective in achieving different
objectives, both from the workers' and from the employers'
perspectives.
I would like to request that my written testimony be
submitted into the record and I am happy to answer any
questions you may have. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Doctor, thank you, and all of your full
statements will be a part of the committee record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gokhale follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.041
The Chairman. Again, let me thank you all for your
testimony this morning as we do build a record here in this
committee for the purpose of other committees examining this
issue as we arrive at having to deal with it, I think as
Captain Eichelkraut mentioned, as these issues come up and the
question of current policy is at hand.
Abby, you mentioned reform and proposals at OPM. What are
the principles OPM uses when thinking about reforming Federal
mandatory retirement age rules?
Ms. Block. Well, I think the primary principle that we have
used is flexibility. What we are looking at is how to develop
flexible systems that will help agencies to achieve their
mission and at the same time be fair and equitable to the
employees involved.
The Chairman. You have just heard a proposal from Dr.
Gokhale. Are those the kinds of examinations or approaches you
look at, not only changes based on ability and performance, but
also, obviously, I mean, we have to realize that once you
establish an age, you drive retirement programs toward those
ages, obviously to provide quality retirement. Is that a part
of that examination, or the flexibility that was proposed here?
Ms. Block. Yes. It is a very delicate balance because what
you are looking at are multiple factors, such as the maximum
entry age for an occupation, because if there is going to be a
mandatory retirement age, you want to be sure that people can
be employed long enough to at least achieve the minimum number
of years necessary to get the kind of annuity that will be
viable in their retirement years. You have to look at the
specific demands of the occupation in terms of what are the
physical and mental demands, and they are different for each
occupation and need to be carefully evaluated.
Then the retirement computation is really based on the
concept of a shortened career, and that is why in certain
occupations there is an enhanced retirement computation. There
is no justification for that enhanced retirement computation if
you are not dealing with a shortened career. There are pay
implications, as well, that tie in.
So you are looking at multiple factors in a very delicately
balanced system to make sure that all the components work
together to achieve the goal of, in our case, the agency and
meeting the agency's mission.
The Chairman. You talk about balance and factors involved.
What are the standards used to ensure the issue, I think that
Mr. Freedman has brought up, fitness in the performance, both
in law enforcement and in the traffic controllers? It is an
issue that I think all have expressed some concern about across
the board, how it fits or doesn't fit. How is that concern or
that standard factored into OPM's consideration?
Ms. Block. The provisions that we act under are all
statutory. We actually don't make those determinations. It is
the Congress that makes those determinations. None of the
provisions currently in place are administrative. They are all
legislative.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Freedman, you strongly caution Congress against
directing the Federal Aviation Administration to allow age
waivers that let controllers work beyond the mandatory
retirement age. Is there any reason the FAA might want to
consider exceptions to the mandatory retirement age rule?
Mr. Freedman. Well, first, let me start out by saying, no,
I don't think that there is any reason that FAA should consider
exceptions. I think in the present case, the primary reason
that FAA and Congress has directed FAA to consider exceptions
is because of the staffing crisis that is looming on the
horizon. The real answer to solving that problem is to hire new
controllers. The costs of the older controllers would allow for
the FAA, provided that the waivers were not granted, to hire at
almost a three-to-one ratio of new controllers versus those
leaving FAA service. So that, I think, is the best way to
resolve the issue of the staffing crisis.
The Chairman. I am not disagreeing with you as it relates
to the stress level and the sensitivity of this particular
concern and the performance of controllers in high-stress
areas, but in balancing out a workforce, is it possible, I
mean, under certain circumstances--there are a good many
airports across the Nation that don't face the traffic of a
Kennedy or an O'Hare or an Atlanta. Boise, ID, is probably a
perfect example, and there are a lot of Boise, Idahos, across
the country that are critical to aviation but don't have the
stress loads of sheer volume and probably won't for a good
number of years.
Is there reason in this balancing that we are talking about
and the need to hire substantially more, a reason to offer
flexibility within certain areas, maybe in lesser-congested,
lesser-stress environments? Is there any consideration or talk
within your organization about that?
Mr. Freedman. I think that the concern that that may create
is discrimination among those who reach a certain age. If you
are going to create different rules for those in different
parts of the country, that creates an opening for
discrimination. Then, also, it would be difficult to determine
the specifics of which are the highest-stress environments.
Just recently, I was at our national convention this past
weekend and I spoke to Randy Brindley from the Cincinnati
tower. He and I talked about his health problems. He is not yet
50 years old; he turns 50 in March 2005 and will be eligible to
retire at that time and plans to. Even though the Cincinnati
tower may not be as high-stress an environment as the Kennedy
tower that you talked about or various other places, he has
been hospitalized in the past year for high blood pressure. He
is required to take medication for that high blood pressure. He
had to have surgery for diverticulitis, requiring 14 inches of
his colon to be removed. He also is on diabetes medications.
These are all related, according to his doctor, to the stress
of his job. As controllers age, they have these various health
conditions that they are subject to. Therefore, I don't think
you can break it down geographically.
The Chairman. The data in Figure 1 of your testimony
suggests that cognitive ability begins to peak at age 30 and
begins to decline at about age 45. Can you elaborate on this
study and what it means for a mandatory retirement age rule?
Mr. Freedman. The study that is referred to is the Air
Traffic Control Specialists Age and Cognitive Test Performance
Study authored by Dr. Michael Heil for the Civil Aeromedical
Institute within FAA. That figure within my written testimony,
along with the other figures, were based upon a study where
over 1,000 air traffic controller were surveyed, were tested on
various cognitive tests, and the results all indicated that
cognitive abilities among air traffic controllers peaked
between 38 and 45 and then decline begins. The decline becomes
most severe after the age of 50.
The study also considered computer-based performance as
well as supervisor and peer review performance. Although that
was published under a separate title, it is also referenced in
my written testimony. That study revealed that performance
also, not just cognitive ability, but performance declines
after age 45, and very severely after age 50.
The Chairman. Let me ask one more question and then I will
turn to my colleague, Senator Carper, who has just joined us.
You heard the airline captain talk about experience and the
value of that as a pilot, and I am not in any way going to
dispute the stress environment of a controller, but I also know
that all people handle stress differently. Some cope with it
very well and it is not a factor in their lives, or if it is,
they handle it well. Is it possible that experience and
judgment might compensate for loss of cognitive ability in the
performance of a traffic air controller's job?
Mr. Freedman. Actually, the data that we have seen
indicates just the opposite.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Freedman. The experience does increase performance and
ability through about age 45. But once that cognitive ability
and the cumulative stress over many years of working in an air
traffic environment, then performance begins to decline despite
the increased experienced.
There is a study I referenced by Becker and Milke in the
Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine Journal that
basically states that older controllers with 13 or fewer years
experience had higher mean ratings than those with more job
experience. So it is the cumulative stress of the work over a
period of years that affects controllers' performance.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I am pleased that we have been joined by one of our
colleagues on this committee, Senator Tom Carper. Senator, do
you have any opening comments or questions of this panel?
Senator Carper. I do have something I would like to share
with you.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Carper. Not too long ago--do we have anybody here
from Southwest Airlines?
The Chairman. Right there.
Senator Carper. One or two.
The Chairman. Oh, just a few, yes.
Senator Carper. Early this year, Southwest Airlines began
operating flights out of Philadelphia to give us another option
to fly. I may have flown on Southwest someplace along the line,
I just don't recall, but I flew with them early this summer. I
had always heard that some of the crew members have a sense of
humor, but I had never experienced it myself.
You know how you are sitting there, getting ready to strap
in before the aircraft moves and how the attendants will give
the announcements and that kind of thing? Sometimes they do it
by recording, and in this particular instance, the--I don't
know if you remember the film ``Deliverance,'' the banjo duet--
--
The Chairman. Yes, of course. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I think you know where I am going. We are
sitting there kind of waiting for everybody to tell us to strap
in and turn off our cell phones and over the PA comes a
harmonica playing the theme song from ``Deliverance,'' a great
harmonica player. It turned out it is the pilot of the
aircraft. After he finished the song, you couldn't see him
playing the harmonica, but he stepped--he was up in the front
of the plane and he stepped out and played the very last few
notes in full view of everybody, to great applause, I might
add, and really broke things up.
You asked the question about cognitive abilities and
whether or not one's experience and judgment can overcome
diminishing cognitive abilities. I don't know how that applies
to harmonica playing, but putting a bunch of passengers at
ease. It was quite a hilarious moment.
It reminds me of one of my favorite TV commercials is the
one for Holiday Inn where they have the guy in the nuclear
power plant, in the control room of the nuclear power plant--do
you remember that one?--and all the bells and whistles are
going off and the place is in GQ, general alert. This one guy
steps forward and he is eating his jelly filled doughnuts and
he is saying, ``Turn this off, turn that on, turn this on,''
and finally everything calms down. The people who work there
say, ``How did you know how to do this?'' He says, ``I am with
the tour group out in the plant here. I did stay at a Holiday
Inn last night.'' [Laughter.]
I love that commercial. Having said all of that, I do have
a serious question I wanted to ask the folks here and it
relates to experience and to judgment.
My grandfather died at the age of about 85. He had worked
until he was 81. He was a butcher and he worked in my aunt and
uncle's mom-and-pop supermarket.
The Chairman. Did he die with ten fingers?
Senator Carper. I tell you, he had Parkinson's disease
really bad and his hands shook just like this. He would go to
work every morning, drive himself through the hills of West
Virginia to get to work, and you would walk into the
supermarket and you would say, there is no way this guy is
going to be a butcher, and you are sure he is going to lose a
finger or a thumb or something today. But he hung it up at 81
and never lost a single digit.
I think of my grandfather. You look at a guy like this,
there is no way he can do that job at the age of 81, but he did
it pretty well and it was always, I think, regarded as a real
loss when he finally stepped down.
I spent some time in the Navy as a Naval flight officer and
ended up getting to be a mission commander of a Navy P-3
airplane. I don't know if we have any Navy guys or gals out in
the--all right, good. Any P-3 people? At least one, good. ``The
Hunt for Red October,'' that was what our job was.
But a bunch of guys I used to fly with ended up flying with
the airlines. They are sort of like me. They are not on the
morning side of the mountain anymore, they are on the twilight
side of the hill. They are past that age of 45, where the
experience and judgment doesn't make up for our cognitive
abilities, I guess.
But let me ask, if I could. The question I want to ask all
the panelists is this. Where do you agree? On a big panel like
this, what I always look for is consensus on the issues that
are before us, so think about that. Where do you agree? I am
going to ask especially Captain Joseph Eichelkraut--did I get
that right?
Capt. Eichelkraut. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. Oh, good. Captain Eichelkraut, we have had
before us in the past the opportunity to vote on legislation
dealing with the mandatory retirement age. I think it is age 60
for pilots. I would just be interested in your views on that
particular issue. If you were in our shoes, how would you be
voting and why? Then I am going to ask the entire panel just to
tell me, where do you think you agree as a panel on the issue
that is before us, mandatory retirement ages? But that specific
issue for you, Captain.
Capt. Eichelkraut. I am certainly glad to hear that the
flight crew or the captain or the first officer, whoever it was
playing the harmonica, put you at ease. It is one of our
primary jobs, to make sure our passengers are relaxed and enjoy
the flight and come back again.
Senator Carper. I half expected the captain of the aircraft
to say, ``Well, I am not really the captain of the plane, but I
did spend last night in a Holiday Inn.'' [Laughter.]
Capt. Eichelkraut. Which is probably where he learned how
to play the harmonica, at the Holiday Inn. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. But he was really the captain, a great
landing. A good take-off, too.
Capt. Eichelkraut. We do a lot of those at Southwest
Airlines, a lot of landings, a lot of take-offs, and they all
equal each other, which is great.
Senator Carper. That is good. We like for that to happen.
Capt. Eichelkraut. The question you brought forward was,
what do we agree on? I heard Abby Block say that a lot of it
depends----
Senator Carper. No, before you answer where you agree on,
if you were in our shoes, what would be your position on
mandatory retirement age for pilots at age 60?
Capt. Eichelkraut. Well, if I were in your shoes, I would
be looking at it to raise it, to eliminate it, to relieve it in
some fashion, but to do it in a safety-conscious mode. I am
here to tell you today that I wouldn't be here if I didn't
believe honestly that we could do it safely beyond age 60.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Capt. Eichelkraut. As a former safety officer in the Air
Force, not the Navy----
Senator Carper. What did you fly?
Capt. Eichelkraut. F-16s. I know that the primary job of
every flight crew officer is the safety of that aircraft and
those passengers. If there was any doubt in our minds that
flying past age 60 was going to be a problem for any of us,
that is our brothers out there and we make sure that doesn't
happen. So that is one avenue that, from our standpoint, from
professionalism, we exhibit.
It is an internally controlled thing, and if there are
individuals who--we have individuals who get sick. I heard
people talk about high blood pressure. I will tell you right
now, I find flying very relaxing. I find the board room very
stressful, and I think that sitting in the board room has
caused me more stress than the flying over the past several
years, just being the chairman of the Board of Directors of
Southwest Pilots' Association, but I would approach it with
caution.
Senator Carper. Now, if you go to my other question, and
that is where do you see consensus from this panel, and feel
free to go ahead and proceed.
Capt. Eichelkraut. The consensus I see is that a lot of it
depends on the particular job. For instance, I just expressed
the fact that I think many pilots, if not all pilots, find
flying relaxing. On the other side, you talk about, or there
has been mention that the cognitive ability starts to decline
after 45 or 50, I am not sure which it is. I guess I am there.
But my point is, in our job, experience is the maker of the
day. So it depends on the career activity, how much stress it
is creating while you are doing that job. But I can honestly
say that flying an airliner today is not that stressful an
environment. There are other, more stressful things. Maybe that
is just because that is something I enjoy and love. But that is
one option.
But we have a couple examples in history here that has
shown us where experience and the age of the captain in this
case--in two cases, actually came to the day, and one was the
Sioux City United Flight 232. That aircraft lost all hydraulics
after the tail engine cut the lines and that plane was not
supposed to be able to land on a runway, and yet the experience
in that cockpit was able to land, at least get it to the
runway. Although there were some deaths involved, they saved
185 people on that flight in a situation that was not supposed
to happen. That captain was able to do that, I believe through
experience, and he had to retire 6 months later and take that
experience with him.
We have another example in a 747 taking off out of Hawaii
going to the Western part of the Pacific. It lost a cargo door
at altitude, took out two right engines on the right side. The
captain, within 4 weeks of retirement, overrode the checklist
and said, ``You know, if we do the checklist right now where it
says to put the gear down, we are not going to make it back.''
So, I mean, these are kind of judgments that come through
experience, and 4 weeks later, he was no longer flying because
of this rule. I dare say that he had a lot of experience to
take forward with him for many years.
Senator Carper. OK. Let me hear from others on the panel. I
want to try to say your name, sir. Jagadeesh Gokhale?
Mr. Gokhale. Gokhale.
Senator Carper. Please.
Mr. Gokhale. Sure.
Senator Carper. Where do you see consensus among the panel?
Mr. Gokhale. I agree with Captain Eichelkraut's comments,
actually. I think it depends on the job. For some jobs, for
example, police officers, certainly there is a lot of stress
and the job is physically demanding. Nevertheless, there have
been technological improvements over the past several decades
that reduce the physical exertion and make the conduct of the
job safer. Officers have better body armor. They have better
communications equipment. They have faster cars. There have
been technological improvements that facilitate the conduct of
these jobs in a safer and more efficient manner.
Of course, it varies from occupation to occupation, but
statistics indicate that the health of the U.S. population has
been increasing. People are living longer. In the age group of
55 to 65, mortality rates, for example, which is an indicator
of health, for both men and women have declined between 30 and
40 percent over the last four decades. There is research that
suggests that----
Senator Carper. Dr. Gokhale, what has declined by 30 or 40
percent?
Mr. Gokhale. Mortality rates for 55- to 65-year-old men and
women have declined----
Senator Carper. That is encouraging as I look toward my
58th birthday, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. I won't discuss what happened to me in July
of this year. [Laughter.]
Mr. Gokhale. There is evidence from surveys that ask
questions about the respondents' health. These are self-
reported data, and again, respondents in this age range report
being in good or better condition with greater frequency today
than they did even 20 years ago. If you extrapolated that by
another 20 years, which is when these mandatory retirement ages
were instituted, the improvement in quality of life and health
would be even more significant.
Finally, there is some evidence that compared to a few
decades ago, health issues are less relevant for retirement
decisions across the population because of better technology
making the conduct of jobs less stressful and less physically
taxing, as well as better health care and medical technology,
which has enabled us to deal with and treat chronic conditions
better so that people can continue in these jobs despite having
high blood pressure and being able to deal with high stress
situations because of better medication. So I just offer that
as my responses to your question.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks. Are there other members? Dr.
Rayman?
Dr. Rayman. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. Do you pronounce your last name Rayman?
Dr. Rayman. Yes, thanks to Ellis Island, my grandparents.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. But not like ``Everybody Loves Raymond.''
All right. Well, maybe they do, I don't----
Dr. Rayman. I just wish it were true, sir. [Laughter.]
Regarding consensus, with some exceptions, I think there is
a general trend in our sentiment toward more liberalization of
mandatory retirement ages in general. Regarding pilots, that is
the group I addressed in my testimony, I believe that we could
certainly be more liberal and open doors a bit, perhaps to age
63 or age 65 for air transport pilots, and they could be
followed quite easily, including their safety records and their
health and so forth. If after three to 5 years you find that
they are doing well or as good as the younger pilots, then you
could open it up to everybody or possibly even extend it beyond
age 65 some day.
So I would be in favor of extending it. I don't think that
something magical happens when you wake up in the morning of
your 60th birthday that disqualifies you.
Senator Carper. Mr. Freedman.
Mr. Freedman. Well, I think to answer the first part of
your question, NATCA's position is that the age 56 retirement
age should be maintained, and so on the second part of the
question, I think that the panel has really agreed that in
safety-related professions, there should be some caution. I
think the age is where we differ in our opinion, whether there
should be a strict age or whether it should be just open on an
individual by individual basis.
But for air traffic controllers, the age 56 mandatory
retirement has really been backed up by studies over the past
35 years. I don't think that some of the issues that were
raised in terms of technology have lessened the stress levels.
Furthermore, the FAA prohibits controllers from working the
boards if they are taking certain over-the-counter, much less
prescription, medications. So even though there are advances in
medication to treat physical problems, whether they be
allergies or something else, those medications preclude
controllers from working traffic. So that doesn't really apply
in the area of air traffic control.
Senator Carper. Ms. Block, the last word.
Ms. Block. The last word. Well, the administration has not
taken any position on mandatory retirement age in general. We
are looking currently at a very specific and limited group, the
law enforcement officer group, and we are in the midst of
looking very carefully at that group.
But the consensus that I have heard, and I think I have
heard a fairly clear consensus within the panel, is that there
really is no single rule of thumb, that you need to look at
every job and every situation individually, that the
requirements are different and that you need to do a careful
analysis and flexibility is important.
Senator Carper. Good point. Mr. Chairman, do you remember
back in 1983 when we were just pups in the House of
Representatives?
The Chairman. Yes. An interesting description, but I do
remember it. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. The Social Security Trust Fund was in dire
straits.
The Chairman. That is right. Two Irishmen wrestled
themselves to the floor on that one, as I recall.
Senator Carper. That is right. In the end, among the things
that we did, we began to gradually increase the full retirement
age.
The Chairman. Right.
Senator Carper. I think when we did it, it seems like we
raised it by a month, 1 month per year.
The Chairman. I believe that is right.
Senator Carper. In fact, I think we are going through that
process right now. Each year, we raise the full retirement age
by 1 month. It just was able to provide some consensus for
Congress a long time ago. Maybe as we face these issues in the
future, it will provide some value.
Well, this has been fun and informative.
The Chairman. Tom, I thank you for your questioning, and
out of that expression of consensus that I think we share about
looking at different occupations with some degree of
difference, let me go back to a medical doctor, then, Dr.
Rayman, and ask this of you.
In doing so, if we obviously move in that direction with
all of the statistical evidence that we now know, that we stand
to live a good deal longer than our parents or grandparents and
we will live healthier during that period of time, and let us
say in the coming years we decide to extend outward for airline
pilots the time in which there might be a mandatory retirement,
how do we get at the business, then, of making sure from a
given age forward that these people are capable of performing
those tasks? Certainly, there is an individual effort inside
different organizations, airlines, tests and simulator tests
and all of that and physicals, but does the current physical
exam required build the necessary record and evidence to
continue that person in a safe and successful profession?
Dr. Rayman. In this country, I believe the current physical
examination mandated by the FAA is adequate. I think it is
adequate for individuals below age 60 and I think it would be
adequate for individuals above age 60. If you ask me where I
draw the line, it becomes very fuzzy. But I would personally
feel comfortable with this exam up to age, as I said, 63 to 65.
Now, if you have to have absolute hard science in making a
decision on age retirement for pilots, it would be very, very
difficult. You would have to contrive a number of studies. You
would have to, for example, prove that an aging pilot has a
decrement, for example, in cognition and that that decrement
adversely affects performance in the cockpit. You would have to
do all of that. I think that would be very difficult, and
likewise with medical causes of incapacitation. You would have
to demonstrate that the older pilots are becoming incapacitated
at a greater rate than the younger pilots and this would have
to be done by a prospective study. That might be a little
easier to do.
The Chairman. Captain Eichelkraut, not every airline pilot
union shares your view on changing the 60 age rule. As you
know, in that last discussion that the Congress had, there was
a fair amount of push and shove on that issue from different
unions. Why is that the case?
Capt. Eichelkraut. Well, it may be a combination of
factors. I don't know that, honestly, that some of the other
unions have actually queried their members recently. I know
that in the past----
The Chairman. And you have?
Capt. Eichelkraut. We have. Last year, in 2003, we had a
whole referendum and a very high percentage of vote turnout and
a very favorable vote of pursuing relief of this particular
rule for our pilots.
So I don't know that the statement really is true today. It
might also have to do with some of the designed pension plans
of some of the other carriers. Like I specified, our particular
one is a defined contribution, so the longer we work, the more
we contribute to our own future and our own retirement and less
of a burden on the taxpayer, et cetera. Some of the pension
plans under the current legacy carriers are under a great deal
of stress today, as we are all aware, and----
The Chairman. So you are suggesting it may not be a factor
of performance, it may be a factor of purely financial----
Capt. Eichelkraut. I don't know that. It could be that way.
I don't know that they have honestly been asked recently, a lot
of the other carriers. I know there are some pilots from other
carriers who have approached me and said, ``What are you guys
doing on it? We would like to maybe follow suit.'' But I don't
have any hard numbers.
The Chairman. Dr. Gokhale, what are the market implications
of reversing mandatory retirement age rules and what would
happen?
Mr. Gokhale. Again, as Capt. Eichelkraut mentioned, there
are considerable incentives for workers in these professions
and occupations that are subject to mandatory retirement age
rules to have these retirement rules extended to higher ages.
Some of the incentive stem from the desire is to do better
financially because of the structure of their pension plans.
Some of them may have defined contribution plans, and therefore
working longer and being able to contribute for a longer time
would imply a better life in retirement.
Having to retire earlier than normal, say at age 60, when
workers still have some years of competence left but just
cannot work presents a difficult challenge. There is evidence
that suggests that middle-aged and older workers who are
terminated from their jobs prematurely find it more difficult
to find reemployment, and when they do find reemployment, they
have to take larger pay cuts. So employment opportunities for
workers who are terminated at age 60, let us say, are very few
especially so for those who have non-transferable skills.
Now, experience from the academic institutions in the U.S.,
which eliminated the age 70 mandatory retirement age in 1994,
suggests that people will not retire at such high rates if
mandatory retirement age rules are eliminated. In the
universities, once the age 70 rule was eliminated, retirement
rates among age 70 and 71 faculty declined from 90 percent to
50 percent, which meant that faculties are aging and worker
turnover in these institutions has declined. So eliminating
existing retirement age rules in the professions being
considered could result in a disproportionately larger
workforce consisting of older individuals.
So I don't think completely eliminating mandatory
retirement age rules in the short term is desirable, but given
the other evidence on the longevity and health of this
population these rules appear in need of a revision.
The Chairman. Is there any other comment that any one of
you would like to make before we adjourn this hearing? Yes,
please.
Mr. Freedman. To speak about what the Captain said
regarding polling of membership, NATCA did conduct a survey of
our membership on the issue of retirement and waivers, and 75
percent of our members have stated that they would not accept a
waiver if granted. Furthermore, of the group that would stay,
nearly 90 percent of that group plans to stay in a different
job within FAA and transfer to a different line of business
than actually working air traffic prior to the age 56 mandatory
retirement. So I don't think that it impacts the air traffic
industry similarly to the airline pilots.
The Chairman. You are suggesting that 25 percent wouldn't
take retirement, they would look for another job within FAA?
Mr. Freedman. Yes.
The Chairman. I see. So they would continue to work within
a similar structure, but not control. OK. Anyone else? Yes?
Capt. Eichelkraut. Sir, I have a comment. I would like to
reiterate that not only do the pilots of our company believe
that relief for the age 60 rule should be reviewed, so does our
management. Our management is strongly behind us. In fact, Herb
Kelleher, who is a popular name and figure in our company,
fully supports the pilots' views, as did the former CEO. So
there is a lot of support from the management side on this
issue, also.
The Chairman. Yes, Doctor?
Mr. Gokhale. Well, evidence from the private sector
suggests employers are able to achieve timely retirements among
their workforce through the use of long-term incentive
contracts. I think these types of contracts should be seriously
considered as a long-term reform for these occupations. Current
mandatory retirement age rules have a lot of inflexibility
built into them; they tend to be retained for a long time--we
have already had these rules in place for 40 years and they
seem to be obsolete now for a lot of good reasons. For the
long-term, if we adopt these type of incentive plans that
achieve timely retirements, we could build in more flexibility
in retirement decisions--good for the employers and for the
employees.
The Chairman. Anyone else? If not, let me thank you all
very much for your time and your testimony as we build this
record. This is an issue that I think Congress will face in the
near future. As I think you have clearly expressed, it is not a
singly faceted issue of simply adjusting age. A lot of things
follow as a result of that, as it relates to conditions of
employment and, as you have mentioned, retirement, physical
examination, other kinds of tests, and especially in the areas
where safety is critical and the performance of the individual
certainly enhances or detracts from the safety of the public
involved, that is important. I think we all understand that.
Thank you again very much, and the committee will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Senator Elizabeth Dole
Over forty years ago the Federal Aviation Administration
enacted the ``Age 60'' rule, which demanded that all pilots
retire by their 60th birthday. Initially, the FAA's intentions
were well-founded under the guise of safety. It was simply an
effort to protect the millions of men and women who fly
commercially every year. The FAA was concerned by the medical
facts citing the onset of cognitive decline by the age of 60
along with physical deterioration that physicians believed
could affect pilots' ability to fly safely. But than was then.
Today we live in a world where medical technology has helped to
prolong our lifespan and serve as a modern day fountain of
youth.
Even the National Institute on Aging of the National
Institutes of Health has reported to Congress that the age of
60 is not an age of ``particular significance'' in piloting.
This report isn't new--it dates as far back as 1981.
The ``medical facts'' once cited in the research that led
to the Age 60 rule are no longer serve as valid data, and the
time has come to reevaluate requiring pilots to retire at such
an early age. In fact, the Equal Opportunity Employment
Commission (EEOC) believes the Age 60 rule qualifies as age
discrimination. Such requirement apply an unequal standard
between pilots over the age of 59 and those who are younger.
Therefore, mandatory retirement violates the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1968. The FAA is not alone in this
violation. In fact, the EEOC has led the charge in encouraging
several other organizations to eliminate similar compulsory
retirement clauses.
I am familiar with the studies regarding the decline of
mental and psychical aptitudes of older employees. It is a
subject I know well from the tenure with the Department of
Labor. But in the time that has passed since I was the
Secretary of Labor, we have seen tremendous leaps in technology
that will afford those who are 60 and beyond the ability to
live their lives in a longer, healthier fashion.
How can we provide that a pilot, or any professional,
suffers from cognitive decline only at the age of 60? In order
to be certain, we would have to complete several far reaching
studies that may or may not yield successful results. However,
we do know that current airlines' tests effectively evaluate
their younger pilots' abilities. Twice a year, pilots are must
take FAA-administered tests in order to retain their licenses.
At Southwest Airlines, as with many others, pilots aged 40 and
older are required to undergo an EKG every other flight
physical. Pilots must also pass semiannual simulator training
and flight checks. Such exams are designed to assess pilots'
responses in emergencies as well as their adjustment to the
ever changing technologies of commercial flight. Every pilot's
aptitude, no matter what their age, is closely monitored.
Moveover, the benefits in allowing pilots to remain
employed past the age of 60 are far reaching. In fact, as
Americans, we all stand to profit from long-term captains of
commercial flights. First, the most obvious, the older a pilot,
the more experience. The knowledge and skilled judgment that
comes with piloting large aircrafts greatly increases with age.
Secondly, there are the economic benefits. Today's airline
economy is not what it was before September 11, 2001. Many
companies have had to cut back on their pilots' pensions. By
allowing employee to remain in flight past the age of 60,
airlines stand to save significant amounts by prolonging the
time before a retiring pilot dips into his or her pension.
The time has come, Mr. Chairman, to reassess the validity
of mandatory retirement for pilots turning 60. There simply is
no rationale for grounding healthy, capable flight engineers
simply because they are fortunate enough to reach their 60th
birthday.
------
Testimony of U.S. Congressman Jim Gibbons
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and Ranking Member
Breaux for inviting me to offer testimony before the Special
Committee today regarding the very important issue of mandatory
retirements.
While I understand the Committee is addressing this issue
as it affects a variety of industries, I would like to take my
time today to address mandatory retirements in one key sector
of our economy, namely: our nation's commercial airline
industry.
As a seventeen-year veteran of the commercial airline
industry approaching my own sixtieth birthday, this issue is
undoubtedly a personal one for me.
One of my top legislative priorities in Congress has long
been to overturn the outdated, unnecessary, and discriminatory
Federal Aviation Administration ``Age 60 Rule'', and see the
mandatory retirement age for pilots increased from 60 to 65.
Further, at a time when our nation's airline industry is
struggling to remain financially solvent and secure, the Age 60
Rule is an issue that affects all Americans, not just pilots.
Before I discuss the possible economic rationale for
overturning the Age 60 Rule, I will address the basic and most
fundamental flaw of the Rule: the fact that the Rule is not
based on sound science, public safety or medical facts.
The current FAA regulation that requires all commercial
airline pilots to retire the day they turn 60 years old is
blatant age discrimination and nothing more.
The Age 60 Rule is a nearly 50 year-old political ploy
originally designed to relieve one airline from its woes
resulting from a labor dispute.
The history of the Age 60 Rule is well-documented and I
will not waste the Committee's time delving any further into
the specifics, yet it is monumentally important to note that
the Rule was founded not out of a concern for public safety,
but as a ``quick-fix'' to a labor dispute and that continued
reference to a ``concern for public safety'' as a legitimate
reason for maintaining the Age 60 Rule is baseless.
There is no hard evidence that individuals, after their
60th birthday, become universally incapable of handling the
same important tasks they did at age 59 and 364 days.
Numerous scientific reports show that a pilot's capacity
for safely operating a commercial jetliner increases after age
60.
For example, in 1999, FAA flight safety data published in
the Chicago Tribune revealed that airline pilots aged 60 and
older, who are engaged entirely in less-safe Part 135 commuter
operations, had the lowest incident rate of any group except
for those pilots age 20-24.
Another study, presented by a group of scientists led by GW
Rebok to the American Psychological Association in 1999,
demonstrated that in general aviation crashes involving pilots
aged 40-63, the percentage of accidents caused by pilot error
was smaller in the age group 56-63.
The list of studies that conclude in favor of older pilots
to younger ones goes on and on, and I will leave it to today's
medical expert witnesses to address more of the specifics of
similar studies, in their professional opinion.
However, I believe the one fact far more convincing than
all of the study results combined is that all pilots, from age
16 on, have to pass serious physical exams twice a year, in
addition to annual flight physicals.
The rigorous physical examination requirements mandated by
the FAA should be enough evidence alone that age should not be
the sole determinant of an individual's capacity to fly a
commercial airliner.
If a 64.5 year old individual can out-perform a 56 year old
individual on a flight physical, the 64 year-old should be
allowed to continue to fly until 65.
The FAA's current Age 60 Rule is blatant age discrimination
and should be overturned.
Earlier in my statement, I alluded to the fact that
overturning the Age 60 Rule may also prove an economic benefit
to our nation's struggling airline industry.
Everyday, we hear new information regarding the financial
straits of many of our nation's airliners, and many of these
woes stem directly from the status of their defined benefit
pension plans.
For example, on September 9, Delta Airlines announced its
plans to eliminate over seven thousand jobs, cut employees'
wages, and do away with its Dallas hub, in part as a result of
their strong concern over the future of their pilots' pensions.
Just Sunday, US Airways filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for
the second time in two years--also citing troubles with their
pension plans.
Now, if Congress were to raise the mandatory retirement age
for commercial airline pilots from 60 to 65, we would allow
thousands of experienced, senior pilots to continue to fly
while also continuing to pay into their pensions and into
Social Security as opposed to being forced into early
retirement only to begin collecting from a quickly dwindling
pool of pension cash.
Finally, I firmly believe that it is a grave mistake to
force our most experienced pilots into early retirement when
they should be serving as the industry's leading experts on
operating procedures and emergency responders.
Through my seventeen years as a commercial airline pilot, I
can confidently attest to the fact the with experience comes
enhanced skills and increased knowledge on how to react to
stressful situations under pressure.
At a time when the federal government is dedicating
billions of taxpayer dollars to the goal of increasing security
for the nation's traveling public, it seems tremendously
counter-intuitive to force into early retirement the most
experienced pilots who will be, in essence, the first
responders in the sky.
In an effort to promote safer skies for all Americans, I
would strongly recommend that my colleagues support this
amendment.
For all of the above reasons, I continue to advocate for
passage of H.R. 1063, legislation I have introduced over the
past three Congresses, to increase the mandatory retirement age
for commercial airline pilots from 60 to 65.
Although the 108th Congress is quickly coming to a close, I
fully intend to re-introduce similar legislation once again
early of the 109th Congress.
I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Inhofe on
this important issue, and also with the thousands of
hardworking airline pilots who also support increasing the
retirement age for the benefit of the entire nation.
Working together we can ensure the FAA ends its policy of
age discrimination against pilots and abolish the antiquated
Age 60 Rule, once and for all.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7085.057