![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
Captain Michael A. Gitt Page Three January 11, 1968 petition on his behalf even though ALPA did not support the action. The petition was filed, and denied. Thereafter, the Lovelace Clinic data was received and furnished to the FAA who stated that they would reevaluate the case which they are presently doing. 7. Both applicants were employed by Eastern Airlines. On Captain Hunter's application, the FAA ruling indicated that he could be employed as a Line Check Pilot or Instructor after age 60; however, the ALPA agreement with the Eastern prevented that employment. Therefore, FAA officials told me personally that they felt that ALPA was not really behind these petitions since they had required their own members to quit flying in these check pilot and instructor positions after age 60. Also, the FAA Director of Flight Standard and the Federal Air Surgeon both stated orally that they had been informed that ALPA was not "really" in opposition to the Age 60 Rule. 8. On December 15, 1967, the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967" became a Federal law [Public Law 90-202, 81 STAT 602]. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION 1. Get the unqualified support of ALPA and require the national officers to support that position in all contacts with the industry and the regulatory agencies. 2. Immediately advise every carrier that the Association would have no objection to an Association member continuing employment beyond his 60th birthday as a line pilot, check pilot or instructor and inform the Administrator of the FAA of that action. 3. Follow through on the plan for specific test cases proposed above, or any other course of action which would prove that there was no medical basis for the application of the rule. 4. After establishing the foundation, petition for a new rule and/or take a specific case that has been denied and litigate it on the basis of its factual merit rather than on the basis of the government's authority to make such a rule. You asked that I give you a brief outline of my thoughts on this subject which I have attempted to do above. As you know, I had a rather unsatisfactory experience with ALPA on this subject in that I had to handle the second petition strictly as a "charity" case. As I said to you yesterday, I would handle your case, but I would advise against