Viewing page 124 of 200

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-3-

In addition to the above, taking dollar for dollar, the present insurance companies can match and/or better the benefits proposed under the plan. I have such a plan as proof (assuming my "tax" to be $90.00 per month). Further, when consideration is given to the fact that the "premiums" are actually doubled by the employer's contribution, this inequality becomes even more pronounced. How much insurance, annuities, etc., could you buy today for, say, $200 per month ($100 of your "tax" and $100 contributed by your employer)? Little knowledge of current insurance rates is necessary to realize approximate values, and this causes further consternation. All this presupposes current premium rates for private insurance companies. Surely a national plan would be a non-profit, which would mean more coverage for the same money.

To be sure, this is a group plan, where some necessarily pay relatively more to aid others. Also, certain benefits are universal; viz. disability benefits, etc. However, these benefits available to early contributors are not of such great consequence as to drain heavily upon the higher contributors. In fact, the man in the industry under 5 years, even 10 years, or the "partially covered" individual, has so many conditions bearing upon said benefits as to reduce the probabilities of receiving satisfactory compensation to a minor figure.

SUGGESTIONS

1. Some consideration must be given to the losses to be suffered by those already protected, but not "paid up" to the point of at least with drawing at par. Naturally, some must sacrifice for the many, but a severe penalty for foresight and individual initiative is certainly wrong and undemocratic. By the same token, those who have not worked towards security, and "brought the other Rolls-Royce" may well carry a bit extra of the initial burden of the plan.

2. Some allowance should be made for capable individuals re-entering air transportation where they may serve, not only themselves and some airline, but raise the standards of the airline industry. This proposal is, after all, another stride towards establishing air line piloting as a recognized profession other than work for "daring birdmen" and the like. We cannot demonstrate our rightful place in the present social economy if we throttle part of the industry we represent.

Perhaps a pilot who has served as such for a given minimum period could still retain rights to continue under the plan. In the main, an individual who has participated in the plan for such a minimum period will have passed the point where he receives more protection than that for which he has paid. Further, since the benefits are in accordance with the contributions, no unearned payments would be forthcoming.

3. A broader family protection is necessary and surely possible, perhaps at some expense to the disability benefits. Some continued assistance to unmarried widows is essential. It would seem unfair for