Viewing page 6 of 99

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-ment which eliminates quite effectively any possibility of an over-sixty, otherwise qualified pilot from holding these positions. 
The fact that there is no reasonable necessity for such requirement was clearly demonstrated by the testimony elicited at the hearing in this matter. (1) Other than initially stating the bold conclusion that periodic on-line flights were necessary, not one witness could then continue on to give a satisfactory explanation as to the reasonable necessity why an instruction, or supervisory, test, check or ferry pilot must also fly these periodic on-line flights, or what it was about these additional flights that resulted in keeping current the pilots proficiency. (2) Also, not one witness could state one reason, other than Complainant's age, why he was not qualified for a position as instructor, or supervisory, check, test or ferry pilot. (3) To the contrary, the testimony of Complainant to his background and adequate qualifications for these positions was uncontradicted. (Captain Halliburton testified he was completely unaware of Complainant's qualifications in this regard, although they were contained within the records of the airline. And further, that he did not even bother to look for his qualifications because he reached sixty years of age and was automatically unqualified solely because of his age.) (4) The combination of the foregoing facts indicate that the policy of Respondent as incorporated into the agreement with the A.L.P.A.:
(a) does result in a loss of the right of employment
(b) based solely on age