At Southwest Airlines, we view the FAA Age 60 Rule as a solution in search of a problem. It is a government imposed restriction without a justifiable medical or safety explanation, and the rule is more indefensible today than it ever has been. In the current economically strained aviation industry, it seems that companies can renege on pension promises made to their pilots and leave them without a way to make a living and with reduced retirement benefits at age 60. And our government won’t let these pilots—many of whom are the safest, most experienced pilots in the skies—keep working until our national retirement age of 65 when they are eligible for social security and Medicare benefits. No one on this panel here today in support of changing the rule is looking for a handout. We are simply asking Congress to tell the FAA to allow us to work, to let us pay into social security and our own pension funds and to retire at an age more in line with current economic and social conventions.

Safety or Economics?

Safety is not now, and never has been the basis for this rule forcing commercial pilots flying under part 121 to retire before their 60th birthday. As Southwest pilots reach 60, like pilots of other airlines, they are usually the best pilots they have ever been. Pilots age 60 and over fly passengers safely in countries across the globe every day. There are millions of hours of flight time that have been logged by pilots over 60 all over the world, and there has never been a single accident attributed to a pilot’s age. In fact, the FAA routinely grants waivers to overseas pilots of foreign carriers over age 60, but not for the U.S. pilot operating under Part 121.

The FAA says the age restriction is only about safety, but recent and past actions on the part of the agency seem to point to economics and politics, rather than safety as the number one consideration on the age question. Similar age restrictions had been placed on air traffic controllers. Until this year, the FAA maintained that safety was the reason why controllers were forced to retire at 56. In the face of shortages of controllers, however, the FAA now permits them to work until 61 and says that safety is less of a concern.

The same logic must have applied when the FAA exempted a group of pilots from the age sixty rule between 1995 to 1999 that were flying aircraft carrying between 10 and 30 passengers. Prior to 1995, these passenger operations were conducted under FAR Part 135 but were shifted by the FAA in 1995 to come under compliance of Part 121 operations with its age 60 rule. If the FAA truly believed that the level of safety could not be maintained, then why grant the exception for these pilots to continue flying well past the age of 60? The FAA often cites its duty to ensure air carriers operate with the highest possible degree of safety. But this does not explain why the FAA applies the Age 60 Rule to some but not to all air carriers operating in the United States.

In a 1991 letter, Dr. Stanley Mohler, then Director of Aerospace Medicine at Wright State University in Dayton Ohio, references a meeting held in Congressman Edward Roybal’s office in the 1980’s on the same subject before us today in this hearing. According to Dr. Mohler, the FAA, represented at the meeting by Administrator Don Engen, Federal Air Surgeon, Frank Austin, and Deputy Federal Air Surgeon, Jon Jordan, stated that there was no longer a medical basis for the age 60 regulation. He goes on in his letter to say that the FAA was reluctant to delete or make exceptions to the rule primarily because of administrative burdens it believed would be placed on the airlines. It was pure economics.

Background on the Age 60 Rule

If it is not about safety, then what is the rule all about? The Age 60 rule came about in 1959, not due to any public outcry over safety concerns, but as a convenient way to settle a labor dispute at American Airlines over training pilots to fly new Boeing 707 jet aircraft. It took longer to train older pilots with no prior jet experience than younger, jet experienced, Korean War veterans, and therefore, it was more expensive to transition the older pilots. There were no safety or medical concerns expressed by either American Airlines or a panel of experts, convened in May 1959 by the Administrator, which recommended that age 55 become the maximum age for jet transition and age 60 become the federally mandated retirement age for airline piloting. The age 55 provisions went away due to comments at public hearings and written comments. The age 60 proposal was never publicly aired per the prescribed rule making process nor was there any medical or statistical evidence of reduced performance in older airline pilots. In the Q & A section of the FAA press release that announced the age rule, the first question asks: "Has it been demonstrated that age is a factor in the occurrence of air carrier accidents?" The Answer was, and remains, "No."

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) opposed age-based retirement as a matter of policy and challenged these company-imposed age-based retirements through the grievance process. In 1958-59, grievances were directed against American Airlines (whose pilots were represented by ALPA at the time), TWA and Western Airlines. In some cases the companies used medical and flight-safety arguments to support their positions; interestingly enough, ALPA succeeded in rebutting these points, which had no scientific or medical evidence back then either. Each of the grievances were decided in favor of the union and against the airline. C. R. Smith, American Airlines founder and CEO, unhappy with the arbitrator's decision, refused to reinstate the three pilots who had brought the retirement grievance. ALPA called for a strike against American. After the 21-day walkout, the company ceded most points to the pilot group and pilots returned to work.

Unable to hold back the pilots through normal collective bargaining, Smith turned to a longtime friend, Elwood R. (Pete) Quesada, who had been appointed administrator of the newly-created Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In a letter dated February 5, 1959, Smith asked the FAA to proclaim age 60 as a federally-mandated retirement age for pilots. Quesada obliged by proposing what we now know as the Age 60 Rule. The FAA issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) less than one month after Quesada received Smith's request. I am unaware of any Congressional or FAA hearing to debate the proposal at the time. The Final Rule, which was modified to pertain only to air carrier pilots, was published on December 5, 1959 and became effective on March 15, 1960. In January of 1962, Administrator Quesada retired from the FAA and was elected to American Airline's Board of Directors.

Today ALPA is opposed to allowing U.S. pilots to fly past 60. But they support flying up to the age of 65 for Canadian pilots. If safety were truly a concern of the ALPA leadership, why would ALPA President, Captain Duane Woerth, compromise those safety principles by affixing his signature to an agreement permitting Canadian Regional Jazz pilots to fly until age 65?

Time for a Change

The 4700+ pilots of the Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association and the management of Southwest Airlines strongly support changing the rule. In a recent Amicus Curiae brief to the Supreme Court, Southwest Airlines argued that FAA’s application of the Age 60 Rule without consideration of individual pilot abilities, health conditions or Medical data is purely arbitrary and not justified; moreover, the FAA’s rigid implementation of the rule deprives Southwest Airlines of some of its best pilots at the peak of their careers. SWA believes that the arbitrary rejection of all age exemption requests disserves the public interest by depriving commercial airlines of leadership and experience in the cockpit. At recent rally outside the Capitol, Southwest Airlines Founder and Chairman of the Board, Herb Kelleher, responded candidly to one reporter’s questions, “It’s the right moral thing to do!”

Experts Agree: It’s Age Discrimination

The rule amounts to nothing more than blatant age discrimination and needs to change. The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) agrees. The EEOC opposes the Age 60 rule and maintains that the FAA violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1968 (ADEA) because it unjustifiably applies a different standard to pilots over age 59 than younger pilots doing the same job. In fact, The EEOC has successfully forced private corporations to eliminate rules that required their pilots to retire at 60.

The American Association of Retired Persons agrees as well. In a letter of support to Senator James Inhofe for S. 65, they state… “Older workers, like all workers, should be judged on the basis of their individual competency and ability to do the job. There is no evidence that pilots over 60 perform worse than younger pilots. Indeed, there is reason to believe that lengthy experience is a good predictor of pilot competence.”

The NIH agrees too. In 1981, The National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health agreed saying, “The Age 60 Rule appears indefensible on medical grounds” and “There is no convincing evidence to support age 60, or any other specific age for mandatory pilot retirement.”

Safe Cockpits at Any Age

The FAA has stated that unless it can be assured that the level of safety is maintained or improved, it cannot support a change to the current age 60 rule. But this condition stated by the FAA is already and inherently attained by their own existing procedures—procedures which are the gold standard around the world. The FAA already has in place the ideal mechanisms for ensuring safe pilots at any age regardless of whether they are 35, 45, 55 or, frankly, 65 years old. The current system of checks and balances does not simply fall apart the day a pilot turns 60; given the chance to work, we know that the current system would continue to perform as well. In a perfect world, this system coupled with the choice of the pilot, would dictate when the proper age for retirement has been reached.

Let’s review the current system in place. To retain my license and fly as a pilot for Southwest Airlines, I must pass semi-annual flight physicals administered by a qualified (FAA licensed) Aero-Medical Examiner (AME). When a pilot turns 40 years of age, he must undergo an annual EKG every other flight physical, which is electronically transmitted by the AME directly to FAA headquarters where a computer program alerts if parameters dictate.

Pilots must also successfully pass semi-annual simulator training and flight checks designed to evaluate the crewmember's ability to respond to various aircraft emergencies and/or competently handle advances in flight technology and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) environment. Captains must demonstrate, twice yearly, complete knowledge of systems and procedures, safe piloting skills and multi-tasking by managing emergency and normal flight situations, typically in instrument flight conditions conducted in advanced simulators. There is no greater test of cognitive ability and mental dexterity than these simulator rides. Flight crews are also administered random in-flight check rides by FAA inspectors and Southwest check airmen. Further, we are subject to random alcohol and drug testing at any time while on duty.

There is no other profession in America today examined to this level. The 59 year old Captain arrives at this point in his career having demonstrated successful performance following years of this kind of scrutiny. This pilot is one of the fittest, and best trained pilots in the skies. Yet the FAA forces Southwest and other airlines to retire hundreds of their best every year because of the age 60 rule. These are the checks and balances that are in place today for every pilot: two pilots in a failsafe cockpit, twice yearly medicals, annual training, annual simulator evaluations, annual flight evaluations, Federal inspectors, Computer verified EKG’s, Chief Pilot supervision. The list goes on and on. The system works now. The system is self purging. It will continue to maintain the level of safety the FAA banks on everyday and says that it needs in order to consider a change in the current rule.

Today, simulator failure rates among Southwest pilots are low. But as pilots approach age 60 the failure numbers are at their lowest. The graph below shows this.

Experience is the key in this fact. As pilots get older, they know how to better handle the extreme situations they may have encountered in simulator checks. The mean failure rate declines at an even rate from a pilot’s thirties through his fifties. Of course, because of the Age 60 rule, I don’t have data to show that this trend would continue throughout a pilot’s sixties, but I suspect it would.

In 1993 the FAA itself released the Hilton Study, which backs up the simulator data above. The study found that “The data for all groups of Pilots were remarkably consistent in showing a modest decrease in accident rate with age [and] no sign of increase in accident rates as pilots near age 60.” That would suggest to me that by retiring these pilots at 60, the overall safety of the flying public is compromised.

Commercial flying under part 121 passengers requires a pilot and co-pilot, at least in the large commercial aircraft which SWA flies. It is uncommon for one of the pilots to become ill during flight but not unheard of. In such cases, the other pilot is present to safely conduct the flight to a conclusion at which point a replacement is obtained before continuing. Most of the illnesses encountered during the flight regime encompass pressurization changes or incompatible food ingestion (the latter is probably the greatest source of illnesses flying on line). Less frequent are the unwanted physiological responses to pressure changes but the most common is an inability to neutralize pressures in the sinuses or Eustachian tubes (ears) during climbs and descents.

Why Change Now?

Safety has never been anything more than a pretense for the rule. Political opposition to change is strong and comes from respected organizations like the FAA and ALPA. Age discrimination laws have been in place for decades and haven’t forced a change in the rule. Why should Congress act to change it now?

The rule has clearly been about economics all along. And economics are the reason to change the rule now. The airline industry is changing. Airline pension funds are migrating rapidly from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution plans (DC). At Southwest Airlines, my retirement benefits are quite like those that most Americans fortunate enough to have retirement benefits also have. I have a 401k plan that my company pays a defined contribution to every year. All but a handful of airlines now have similar benefits.

U.S. Airways and United pension funds were terminated and taken over by the PBGC this year. Delta, Northwest and Continental—essentially all DB plans—are at risk, and are likely to add significantly to the federal government’s unfunded pension liability. Pilots at these airlines have already lost significant portions of their retirement and face uncertain futures with a gap in retirement and health care benefits to carry them over to social security and Medicare age—which we all know is going up not down (as ALPA would like it to for pilots).

Working to 65 would help these pilots close that gap. DC plans also offer pilots and all Americans an opportunity to maximize retirement savings at little cost to the government, and no risk to the PBGC or the corporations. DC plans offer older legacy carrier pilots the only opportunity to recover from the loss of their defined benefit plans. But pilots must be able to work until full Social Security retirement age, as S.65 allows, to maximize these benefits. This will have a net positive impact on the federal budget, and will have a net positive impact on the safety of the flying public by keeping our most experienced pilots in the air for an additional few years.

Breaking Records Past 60

Today, it seems that sixty-plus year old pilots are breaking world aviation records with regular frequency. Just last summer the world was thrilled when SpaceShip One became the first manned commercial vehicle to slip the surly bonds of earth. The craft was piloted by 63 year old test pilot Mike Melvill, who had a very physical challenge bringing that ship safely back to earth. Then, we all watched this spring when 60 year old Steve Fossett became the first to complete a nonstop, solo airplane flight around the world.

Fossett and Melvill are clearly top pilots, out there “pushing the edge of the envelope.” Under the current FAA rules however, neither would be allowed to fly a Boeing 737 for my airline.

Today, July 19, is a fateful day in aviation history. Many of you will remember that sixteen years ago today, July 19, 1989, United Airlines flight 232 took off from Denver, CO. Captain Al Haynes reported to air traffic control that his DC-10 loaded with 285 passengers and 11 crew were without hydraulics and unable to turn the aircraft, and essentially doomed. By using throttle movements to control the paralyzed aircraft, Capt. Haynes and his crew began to slowly turn and control the aircraft and were able to get it to a runway in Sioux City, IA. Although 110 people were killed that day, the deaths of 186 people were averted due to the experience of fifty-nine year old Captain Al Haynes and his crew. In subsequent simulator tests other DC-10 crews were unable to repeat the effort of the crew of Flight 232. Investigators concluded that, in its damaged condition, it was not possible to land the aircraft on a runway. Al Haynes was forced to retire that year, not because he had been in a crash, but because the FAA told him he was too old.

Congress Should Act Now

The committee has before it the solution to the problem. S. 65, introduced by Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and its House companion, H.R 65 introduced by Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) would give those pilots the right to continue to work, safely flying passengers to their destinations should they chose to do so. In fact, it is our belief that safety is actually compromised by requiring our most experienced pilots to retire at the peak of their careers.

Mr. Chairman, the pilots of Southwest Airlines and all those here in uniform today appreciate your willingness to hold this important hearing and hope that it will be the first step in moving legislation to change the FAA’s antiquated and discriminatory Age 60 Rule once and for all.

Thank You.