Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Rockefeller, and distinguished members of this subcommittee. On behalf of my 8,500 JetBlue Airways Crewmember colleagues and, in particular, my 1,000 pilot colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the important issue of the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots.

Today, under a rule first enacted in 1959 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), pilots flying commercial aircraft under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations must retire by their 60th birthday. Since its enactment more than forty-five years ago, this rule has been the source of great debate and at no time has it been of more intense debate than today.

JetBlue and its pilot corps oppose the current mandatory retirement age rule for many reasons. However, as I will explain below, the principle reason is that it is simply wrong.

JetBlue, established 2000, has already achieved the Department of Transportation (DOT) rank of a “major” carrier – the quickest this status has ever been achieved by an airline in the United States. JetBlue was built on five simple values: Safety, Caring, Integrity, Fun and Passion – with Safety always first and foremost in all that we do. These five values are the foundation of our airline and all of the blocks on which JetBlue are built are consistent with these values. With 77 aircraft today growing to 91 by year’s end, JetBlue’s safety value lights the path for our continued controlled-growth.

In keeping with our safety value and our integrity value, JetBlue has stood on the sidelines and watched as several key pilot leaders have been removed from active flying as a result of the Age 60 Rule. This alone and not any previous or pending economic impact to our healthy bottom line, is why I am here today. JetBlue has been profitable for 17 successive quarters at a time when 100,000 airline employees have lost their jobs, several carriers are in bankruptcy and others openly discuss bankruptcy. As an officer of JetBlue, a pilot who has been forced to retire under the Age 60 and as the leader of our pilot corps, this is a wrong that Congress now should right. Both S-65, along with HR-65, are the means by which to do so.

In 1959, the FAA promulgated its rule based on the “medical facts” of the day. It was believed then, and relied upon as the primary basis for the rule itself, that “significant medical defects” resulted from the progressive deterioration of physiological and psychological functions which occur normally with aging. These supposed “facts” from the last century are anything but accepted facts today and the rule based on these “facts” amounts to pure 21st Century age discrimination.

The facts of 2005 weigh in favor of eliminating the Age 60 Rule. As far back as 1985, The National Institutes of Health testified before the House Select Committee on Aging that the National Institute of Aging (part of the NIH) could no longer support the FAA’s retention of the Age 60 Rule. Similarly, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) has held the FAA Age 60 Rule violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1968. In the private sector, the EEOC has successfully ensured that private companies eliminate rules that required their pilots retire at age 60.

In the Senate, one of your most distinguished former colleagues, Ohio’s John Glenn, at age 77, flew for nine days in space. More recently, the first manned commercial vehicle to travel to space and back was piloted by test pilot Mike Melvill, winner of the X Prize, at age 63. Mr. Melvill, despite worldwide acclaim resulting from his historic achievement, would be barred by the law were he to try flying for JetBlue. Further, the American Association for Retired People, on behalf of their 35 million members over age 50, strongly supports HR-65 and S-65.

Throughout the developed world, the United States stands nearly alone by mandating retirement of pilots at age 60, with the notable exceptions of France and China. Most nations permit pilots to fly until age 65, such as Japan and Israel, and the European Joint Aviation Authority recently raised their age limit to 65 for commercial pilots. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) too has recommended that member states, including the United States, adjust to a maximum age of 65 for commercial pilots.

All JetBlue pilots, whether age 40 or age 59, must undergo rigorous FAA medical screening procedures to ensure they are fit to fly. This includes a semi-annual physical exam and, after age 40, an annual electrocardiogram. Beyond medical screening, all pilots must successfully pass a simulator training flight check twice yearly. Such testing ensures awareness and thorough knowledge of procedures, systems, piloting skills and the ability to safely manage emergency scenarios. These tests, which ensure the mental and physical health of pilots, are in addition to random in-flight check rides performed by both FAA inspectors and JetBlue check airmen. Almost no worker in America has more oversight when it comes to their medical ability and competency to fly and no one has more of an incentive to maintain safety for the flying public than airlines’ themselves.

Finally, in the current economic environment faced by most airlines, thousands of pilots have lost their jobs. Equally unfortunate, for many still employed, they have seen their pension plans virtually eliminated. Thus, while not at issue at JetBlue where we have defined contribution plans, many pilots must retire from flying at age 60 and they do not collect social security until age 65. The proposals in S-65 would allow these experienced pilots to continue fly, earn wages and contribute to their pension plans.

In this regard, JetBlue has only had a small number of pilots removed from the cockpit due to the Age 60 Rule. Of our more than 1,000 pilots, these few pilots have all remained employed as active Crewmembers, some flying non-revenue flights, some teaching and some serving as members of our leadership team. JetBlue’s values simply cannot allow us to disregard an individual’s decades of valuable experience merely because of an outdated rule. Not only does our airline benefit from the wisdom attained through decades of experience, but these pilots remain active contributors to their own retirement savings. This benefits JetBlue, our pilots and all taxpayers.

JetBlue believes that each pilot should be judged on the basis of his or her ability to fly and their competency – not an unsubstantiated rule based on outdated and mistaken medical assumptions. We strongly support Senator Inhofe, and Congressman Gibbons, both fellow pilots, for their tireless work on this important issue and urge this committee to make S-65, a bill to amend the age restrictions for pilots, the law of the land.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for today’s opportunity to testify.