Viewing page 20 of 45

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-2-

Captain G. D. Goss   August 28, 1968

FAA rule) pilot employment, in an effort to anticipate and protect against any possible legal exposures to the Association under P.L. 90-202. Such exposures might, in my opinion, result if Eastern stated a position of willingness to employ such persons, but claimed inability to do so because of an agreement which the Association was unwilling to relax.

(3)  In response to a direct question from Mr. Harlan, I had made clear that my reference was not simply to flight instructor or check pilot employment, but rather to any and all pilot positions which were lawful for age-retired people under FAR Section 121.383 (c).  Mr. Harlan, indicated, during our meeting, a lack of familiarity with the agreement provision limiting flight instructor/check pilot positions to line eligible personnel, and I informed him of its existence, but indicated, at the same time, that the Committee deemed it wholly premature to consider the effect of that agreement at this time, before Eastern had responded to the specific question I had posed.  Up until the time of my appearance before the EAL-MEC, it had been my view that there was no legal or contractual obstacle to the utilization of age-retired pilots by Eastern in such positions as, for example, research or test piloting positions.  Indeed, I had urged on Mr. Harlan that Eastern seriously consider such utilization, as being in its own best economic interests and, as well, as being of advantage to the Association, to the Committee's efforts, and to the individuals themselves.  Captain Railsback, at the meeting, indicated, however, that the EAL-MEC opposed the utilization of such personnel in any pilot positions other than that of line pilot, whether or not such positions were covered by FAR Section 121.383 (c) or the specific provisions of the agreement.

4.  At no time during my chat with Mr. Harlan did I indicate or suggest that this Committee would encourage or sponsor litigation against Eastern Air Lines by an individual pilot. In addition, in response to any inquiry from Mr. Helms of the MEC, I made clear that I personally had no intention of participating as attorney for the plaintiff in any litigation arising under P.L. 90-202 in which the Association was a defendant, that I would not permit my files to be used for such purpose, and that I was certain that the Committee had no such intention in mind.  The only reference to litigation during my meeting with Mr. Harlan resulted from my apprehension that, in view of the increasing number of age-retired pilots (particularly on Eastern, which has, during the last eight months, produced more such retirements than any other airline) it was an obligation of prudent legal counsel to anticipate and protect against any legal exposures which might result to the Association from an individual proceeding brought under P.L. 90-202 by an age-retired pilot.  If Eastern intended, in such a situation, to shift the responsibility to the Association, I deem it important for the Association to be aware of that likelihood in advance.