Viewing page 31 of 91

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Harry Oraldy  Age 60 Committee         Page 3

You go on to list a group of developments specifically a development within ICAO, developments within the FAA, developments within the ATT, the ALPA program in Ohio state, a projected program at UAL, a program at BEA, and the ALPA program to gather information from ALPA retired pilots. All of these I believe you will have to agree are programs of projected scope and are not going to help us at this time, if in fact they help us at all at any future period. It is my estimation that if we are going to pursue this Age 60 program, we must do it with the information we have readily available now, and not wait for 1, 2, 3, or 4 years before the previously stated information is readily available to us. 

I am also fully aware of the responsibilities forced upon this Committee and specifically resting upon my position as Chairman inasmuch as if we would go out and try to preach "hell fire and brinestone [[brimstone]]" to these individuals to take a different position, I am fully cognizant of the fact that this could force them into a rigid position that would be next to impossible to change at any future date. It is my opinion, however, that we are not pursuing this in that manner, but rather going out and trying to enlist the aid and assistance of other individuals to see if this arbitrary and capricious ruling cannot be changed in some meaningful amicable manner to both organizations, specifically the FAA and ALPA.

On the last page of your letter, Harry, you refer again to the work of the Aeromedical Coordinating Committee has been pursuing and attempting to accomplish. Here again, I must say that I am fully supporting the Aerial Coordinating Committee in any and all work that they are attempting to do and I in no means wish to implant the idea that the Aeromedical Coordinating Committee work is being supplanted or circumvented or have cross purposes with the work of the Age 60 Committee. It is my opinion that these Committees must function hand in hand if they are going to pursue and realize any worthwhile action on the FAA on behalf of the Age 60 program along the aeromedical lines of thinking. I do not wish to have you or anyone else confuse this matter and things that the current Age 60 Committee is an outgrowth or a Committee to circumvent the Aeromedical Committee because it is certainly not. 

At the conclusion of your letter you go on to say that we should have a very high priority to keep people on the seniority lest past age 60 and continue with discussion as airline sources to see if we could not make inroads as was done with EAL Vice-President Mr. Higgenbottom. It is my earnest and forthright opinion, Harry, that if we pursue the Age 60 program along these lines, we will have done nothing more than the Association has done in the past and that is to furnish lip service to the individuals who are approaching age 60, at age 60, or who have gone past age 60 and are currently retired because of this capricious and arbitrary decision to force airline pilots to retire at age 60.

It is my opinion that we must make a stand on this problem and see if we cannot have it overturned in the near future and if it means pursuing some rather arbitrary areas, it is my opinion that we must do it at this time, in the opinion of our two very capable legal advisors this is the method of pursuit at this time. Harry, I most sincerely hope that you do not take this letter to be blasphemous on the opinion that you have formed, however, I did feel it necessary that I reply to you and give you my estimation and opinion of the position Age 60 Committee finds itself at this time, both in regard to the outlook for the Committee and in regard to the petition itself.

I sincerely trust that we can continue to count on your assistance on this Committee until we have indeed overturned the Age 60 program and enable pilots to continue to work at their