![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
Captain Hobert A. Stone- 4 September 14, 1948 have, up to now, continued working for the air lines in some capacity; I would suppose that practice will continue. In the cost calculations so far it has been assumed that all such people would qualify for the annuity at the age of 60. If the age were lowered to 55 or 50, I doubt that that assumption would hold unless it was decided to begin the annuity at such lower age, irrespective of what former pilots were doing. If the latter is the case and the retirement age is 50, I estimate that the total cost, other things remaining unchanged, would be at least 21 1/2 per cent instead of 15 1/2 per cent applicable to the present plan. I have not changed the withdrawal rates which I used for age 60. To do that would require completely new service tables and would take some weeks. Doubtless a retirement age of 50 would lower the rate of withdrawal-and increase costs-perhaps to a total of 24 or 25 per cent. If, however, the requirement of actual retirement were retained, these increases in costs would be lowered I would guess- and in the nature of the case it can only be a guess-by half; that is, the 21 1/2 per cent estimate is reasonably valid for the total cost of a plan differing from that proposed in the substitution of age 50 for 60. It is to be taken for granted that the air lines would oppose any legislation creating an air line pilot’s retirement system. The higher the cost, the more vigorous the opposition. I would suppose that most members of Congress would look with sympathy on the payment of an annuity to a pilot who was compelled to retire because of disqualification for flying; and I would have no doubt that they would regard 60 as a reasonable maximum age at which a pilot might cease of his own volition. It may be that 58 or 59 will be regarded as equally reasonable. But there is equally little doubt that 50 would be regarded as too young an age for voluntary retirement for a pilot who was pronounced completely physically fit by competent examiners. Where the line would be drawn I do not know. Experience of many years in presenting legislation to Congress, however, has established in my own mind, beyond question, the validity of the proposition that Congress will not pass a law creating Utopia in one fell swoop. No law in a new field yet passed by Congress has been thought by anybody even remotely to approach perfection in its initial form. The chances of enacting a bill which the pilots thought met all their needs would not be worth a nickel. Congress doesn’t legislate like that. It wants to make a start, watch the experience, and make modifications on the basis of that experience. If the pilots don’t want to proceed on a modest basis and don’t expect to have to keep trying to improve the initial plan, they are wasting their time and, insofar as fees to me are concerned, their money. As for the comparison between the proposed plan and a “commercial” plan, take the case of the United. The average age of a newly engaged pilot is