Viewing page 123 of 200

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-2-

as the bill became law, and these men were pensioned. 

Again, this is intended to be something of a constructive criticism without undue prejudice, and it is hoped that receipt of this paper will bein the same spirit.

PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS

1.  Those most benefiting will be the older men, retiring immediately or very soon, who have no or insufficient private and/or company pension plans.  This is most evident from the retroactivity of service, to which no specific objection is lodged except as it necessarily increases the immediate load on all individuals concerned. 

Those suffering most will be that group which has taken the initiative and effort to protect themselves adequately.  These individuals would lose considerably by discontinuing their policies, annuities, etc.  It would be uneconomical, even to impossible, to carry both ones private policies in addition to the proposed plan.  The obligatory nature of the group plan, a conceded necessity for such a plan, would force the majority of this group to abandon the private policies with resulting heavy losses.  Further, as will be shown below, extant private coverage is much more economically efficient.  Hence, the group plan, which is inferior, must be accepted by the industrious group to benefit the less industrious.  

2.  The requirement of a complete disassociation with the air transportation industry,, prior to collection disability benefits, will automatically eliminate a most valuable source of experienced technical men of high calibre which the industry has always recognized as available.  One of the pilots' greatest complaints is against airline administration by those having little or no knowledge of the problems involved.  Even the airlines themselves agree to this.  The point in questions serves to accentuate this fault and would make for an overall less efficient industry, undesirable in peacetime as well as in a national emergency. 

3.  Most persons seek, and eventually maintain, a program which compromises between family protection, should the breadwinner become eliminated, and individual security after one's earning usefulness.  An efficient plan for security must be just such a compromise, and, although the point of compromise may well be subject to varied needs, creeds, and opinions, there should never be excessive consideration for either end.  

The proposed plan calls for undue emphasis on the retiring pilot.  Too much of the "premium" or "tax" is allotted to disability and retirement benefits, and the family protection must needs suffer for it.  Most critical are the benefits for the widow of the deceased, which leave the woman without assistance for a period of from five to twenty years.  For example, a woman of 50 would normally have her children grown over 21.  Hence, for a period of 10 years, or until she reaches 60, she would have no financial assistance under the plan.