U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–085 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–733

A FRESH LOOK AT MANDATORY RETIREMENTS:

DO THEY STILL MAKE SENSE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC

SEPTEMBER 14, 2004

Serial No. 108–42

Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging

(

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

MIKE ENZI, Wyoming 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana, Ranking 

Member 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

LUPE WISSEL, Staff Director 

MICHELLE EASTON, Ranking Member Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Larry Craig .......................................................... 1

PANEL I 

Abby L. Block, deputy associate director, Center for Employee and family 

Support Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Washington, DC ....... 2

Eugene R. Freedman, policy counsel, National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Washington, DC ........................................................................................... 11

Russell B. Rayman, M.D., executive director, Aerospace Medical Association, 

Alexandria, VA ..................................................................................................... 31

Captain Joseph Eichelkraut, president, Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association, 

Dallas, TX ............................................................................................................. 36

Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior fellow, CATO Institute .............................................. 42

APPENDIX

Prepared statement of Senator Elizabeth Dole ..................................................... 67

Statement submitted by U.S. Congressman Jim Gibbons ................................... 68

Testimony submitted by Captain Michael Oksner, Southwest Airlines, Retired ....................................................................................................................... 70

Letter submitted by Fraternal Order of Police ..................................................... 74

Written statement submitted by Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination ..... 77

Statement of Captain Ralph Hunter, president, Allied Pilots Association ......... 83

(III) 

(1)

A FRESH LOOK AT MANDATORY 

RETIREMENTS: DO THEY STILL MAKE SENSE? 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, Washington, DC. 

The committee convened, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

SD–628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Craig and Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG, CHAIRMAN 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning and welcome to the Senate Special 

Committee on Aging. Today’s hearing will reexamine mandatory 

retirement age rules in an issue of growing concern for employers 

and workers across the nation. 

Federal, State, and local governments have mandatory retirement rules for public safety-related jobs with physical and cognitive 

fitness requirements. Public safety is clearly the most important 

policy consideration in evaluating mandatory retirement rules. But 

those of us who study this issue know there has been a dynamic 

increase in longevity and a trend toward healthy aging over the 

past half-century. Americans are living longer and healthier than 

ever before. As a result, chronological age is less often an indicator 

of physical and cognitive age for many workers. 

In six short years, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 

a shortfall of ten million workers in the United States due to an 

aging workforce. Much of the shortfall will be among skilled workers, such as those covered by mandatory retirement rules. For example, it is reported that nearly half of the nation’s air traffic controllers will reach the mandatory age of 56 in the next decade. In 

order to prepare for the future, it is important that lawmakers understand the impact of changing demographics on our workforce. 

Mandatory retirement age rules seem outdated to many experts, 

and that is why we are here today, to examine specific professions 

that are subject to Federal mandatory retirement rules. Today’s 

hearing will focus on mandatory retirement rules with a Federal 

Government nexus. We will be looking at Federal law enforcement, 

correction officers, fire fighters, air traffic controllers, and commercial airline pilots. Our goal is to better understand the dynamics 

of each profession and whether 20th century mandatory retirement 

age rules still make sense in the 21st century. 

With that, let me say how pleased I am that all of our distinguished witnesses are with us today. Abby Block will be our lead 

2

witness, deputy associate director for the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management; Eugene Freedman, policy counsel for the National 

Association of Air Traffic Controllers; Russell Rayman, executive 

director of Aerospace Medical Association; Captain Eichelkraut, 

president of Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association; and Jagadeesh 

Gokhale, senior fellow at the CATO Institute. 

I must tell you all before we start something that happened to 

me just a few moments ago as I was leaving my office. Every Tuesday morning, I have a constituency coffee in the office and folks 

who are here from Idaho visiting stop by to say hello and we shoot 

some pictures and have a cup of coffee. 

There were two couples from Huddleston, ID. That is between 

Twin Falls and the Nevada border line of Jackpot, NV, down in 

South Central Idaho. A couple had brought their son and daughterin-law to the capital city for the first time. This gentleman, as I 

was leaving, said, ‘‘Where are you going?’’ I said, ‘‘Well, I am going 

to chair a hearing’’ on—and I began to laugh as I was looking at 

him, or smile, and say, mandatory retirement with the Special 

Committee on Aging.’’ He said, ‘‘Oh really?’’ He said, ‘‘I am 93,’’ and 

still working his ranch in South Idaho, and he had brought his son 

and daughter to Washington for the first time and his son is 62. 

[Laughter.] 

So I was thinking about that on the way down and thought, well, 

yes, different professions, different jobs, different realities. But here 

was a 93-year-old man who finally figured he had got enough 

money saved up he could take time away from the ranch to visit 

his nation’s capital and he would bring his son along with him. 

Isn’t it great to be an American? 

With that, Abby, we will start with you and your testimony. 

Again, thank you for being with us this morning and please pull 

that mike as close as possible. 

STATEMENT OF ABBY L. BLOCK, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE 

DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

POLICY, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. BLOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here 

today on behalf of the director of the Office of Personnel Management, Kay Coles James, to discuss the issue of mandatory retirement age rules, is it time to reevaluate? 

As I am sure you are aware, OPM administers the two largest 

retirement systems for Federal employees. They are the Civil Service Retirement System, also known as CSRS, and the Federal Employees Retirement System, also known as FERS. CSRS, which 

dates from 1920, is now a closed system that still covers about a 

third of Federal employees. FERS was established in 1986 and covers the majority of Federal employees. Before discussing the current provisions of those systems relating to mandatory retirement, 

I would like to take a few minutes to explain a little of the history 

behind those provisions. 

While we have come a long way in terms of applicability, mandatory retirement age has been a factor in Federal retirement systems since the very beginning. The original Civil Service Retirement Act of 1920 established three automatic retirement ages, 62, 

3

65, or 70, classified according to the type of position. Sixty-two was 

the age set for railway postal clerks. Sixty-five was set for mechanics, city and rural letter carriers, and post office clerks, while age 

70 was applicable to all other employees. Separation was mandatory at those ages, even if the individual did not have the 15 years 

of service required for an annuity. Renewable 2-year extensions 

were permitted based upon certification by the agency head and 

Civil Service Commission approval. There were no provisions for 

retirement at any other time other than based upon disability. 

For a number of years thereafter, these provisions were subject 

only to rather minor modifications from time to time. In 1926, the 

occupational group composition subject to retirement at the various 

ages were changed and automatic separations were deferred until 

individuals completed enough service to qualify for an annuity. The 

occupational classifications for the age groups were changed in 

1930. All previously granted exemptions were terminated by the socalled Economy Act of 1932, which also limited future exemptions 

to Presidential authorizations. 

The first major change to mandatory retirement occurred in 

1942. While a 1930 change in the retirement law had permitted individuals with 30 years of service to retire 2 years prior to the 

mandatory retirement age for their occupational classification, the 

1942 Act for the first time established the concept of voluntary retirement at a much younger age, as early as age 55. At the same 

time, the mandatory retirement age was set at age 70 for all employees. 

With the exception of minor technical changes and special provisions applicable to limited groups, age 70 remained the uniform 

Federal mandatory retirement age for the next three decades. To 

be technically accurate, I must point out that certain employees of 

the legislative and judicial branches, Alaska Railroad, Panama 

Canal Company, and Canal Zone government were subject to different rules, but these exceptions were of limited applicability. 

In 1972, Public Law 92–297 brought back the concept of a separate mandatory retirement age for a specific occupational group, air 

traffic controllers, who were required to retire at age 56 with 20 

years of service. In order to make this economically feasible, the 

law provided for a minimum annuity of 50 percent, the percentage 

that otherwise would have required 26 years and 11 months of 

service. However, any air traffic controller who worked for greater 

than that period would receive their normal annuity computed 

under the same formula applicable to employees generally. Coupled 

with enhanced annuity provisions, the law also added authority to 

set a maximum entry age to ensure that individuals would complete the service needed to retire on time. 

Three years later, Public Law 93–350 added a special mandatory 

retirement provision for two more occupational groups, this time 

law enforcement officers and fire fighters, who were required to retire at age 50 with 20 years of service. As with air traffic controllers, a maximum entry age was provided for. This time, however, 

the Congress chose to use a different mechanism to make early retirement economically feasible. Instead of a guaranteed minimum 

annuity, an enhanced annuity formula was provided. While other 

employees received 36.25 percent of average salary for their first 

4

20 years of service, these groups received 50 percent. Service in excess of 20 years continued to be credited at the same rate as generally applicable. 

With subsequent minor variations, this concept of a higher computation rate for the first 20 years of service became the basis for 

all future extension of mandatory retirement to additional occupational groups. 

As an aside, it is important to understand that the retirement 

definition of law enforcement officer has a statutory meaning that 

is substantially more restrictive than the commonly understood 

concept of law enforcement officer. The main element of the definition is that the employee’s duties must be primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States. 

Groups that generally do not meet this definition today because 

they prevent or detect violations instead of investigating them include police officers, guards, and inspectors, including Customs inspectors and Immigration inspectors. 

In 1978, Public Law 95–256, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1978, was enacted. This Act repealed the 

requirement of mandatory retirement for employees generally. 

From this time forward, only the special occupation groups remained subject to mandatory retirement. 

The Federal Employees Retirement System was established in 

1986. The new retirement system retained the same scheme for 

special occupational groups of a maximum entry age, enhanced annuity computation, and mandatory retirement. Also under FERS, 

air traffic controllers were brought under that scheme. Other laws 

added additional occupational groups, including Capitol Police, 

Supreme Court Police, and nuclear materials couriers. These 

groups are subject to the same general scheme as law enforcement 

officers and fire fighters. 

Minor changes were also made to the retirement age by various 

laws. At this time, air traffic controllers remain subject to mandatory retirement age at 56, while other groups subject to mandatory 

retirement must retire at age 57. In order to be subject to mandatory retirement, an employee must be eligible for retirement under 

the special provisions. An agency head may retain an employee 

who is in one of these special groups until age 60 or 61 for air 

traffic controller. That is at the agency head’s discretion. A CSRS/

FERS special group employee may be retained beyond age 60 or 61 

with the permission of the President. 

As you are aware, director James recently transmitted an important in-depth report to the Congress on law enforcement classification pay and benefits. Among the matters considered in that report 

was the issue of mandatory retirement. That report was limited to 

the area of law enforcement. We have not performed a separate examination of these other special retirement groups with mandatory 

retirement in mind. However, many of the factors discussed in the 

report are applicable to the issue of mandatory retirement whether 

in the public or private sector. 

Before imposing, amending, or removing a mandatory retirement 

provision, an organization must first determine if such a change 

serves an organizational interest. In general, the special retirement 

5

provisions under the Federal systems for groups such as law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and air traffic controllers were intended to permit the government to maintain a younger workforce 

in these occupations through youthful career entry, continuous 

service, and early separation. This is because the duties of these 

occupations are so demanding that it is in the government’s interest to maintain a younger workforce to ensure the effectiveness of 

that workforce. 

If it is determined that an occupation requires a younger workforce, mandatory retirement is only one means of achieving that 

goal for the Federal special group occupations. Several provisions 

work in combination to maintain a younger workforce in these occupations. These include a maximum entry age, voluntary early retirement with an enhanced annuity computation, and a mandatory 

retirement age. An organization could use one or more of these provisions or other means to help shape a more youthful workforce. 

In addition, enhanced retirement benefits under the Federal system were specifically established to permit an individual to retire 

voluntarily at an early age or at the mandatory retirement age 

with a sufficient annuity to make retirement viable. By ensuring 

a benefit commensurate with that of an employee who is not subject to mandatory retirement, the benefit package allows the Federal Government to remain competitive in hiring and retaining 

qualified employees. The imposition of a mandatory retirement provision should balance the public or private sector organization’s 

need for a younger workforce in certain demanding occupations 

against the financial interests of employees working a shortened 

career. 

One of the most important issues discussed in OPM’s report on 

law enforcement officers is the need for flexibility. The demands of 

work and average effective career length vary by occupation. A 

mandatory retirement age for one occupation is not necessarily the 

right mandatory retirement age for other groups. Mandatory retirement should take into account any unique requirements associated 

with the duties of any given occupation or even select groups within an occupation while also preventing the imposition of overly restrictive hiring barriers or forced retirements that unnecessarily 

constrain staffing options. For example, setting too low a mandatory retirement age for an occupation may result in the premature 

loss of an organization’s most experienced personnel. 

Finally, ensuring that a workable process exists to determine if 

mandatory retirement is necessary or desirable and for setting 

mandatory retirement age is critical. The process that is ultimately 

established should facilitate an objective evaluation of the demands 

of a particular occupation and the establishment of the appropriate 

mandatory retirement age based on that evaluation. The process 

should be carefully crafted, because if it is flawed, there is the risk 

that mandatory retirement could operate to adversely affect an organization’s ability to carry out its functions in an effective manner. 

In short, there is no simple rule of thumb that can be applied 

across the board in determining if a mandatory retirement provision should be imposed, and if so, at what age. However, we believe 

6

that establishing an effective process for making these determinations is achievable and is a necessary first step. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of director James, I 

thank you for inviting the Office of Personnel Management to 

testify on this matter and I will be glad to answer any of your 

questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Abby, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Block follows:]

7


97085.001
8


97085.002
9


97085.003
10


97085.004
11

The CHAIRMAN. Now, let us turn to Mr. Freedman, policy counsel 

for the National Association of Air Traffic Controllers. Eugene. 

STATEMENT OF EUGENE R. FREEDMAN, POLICY COUNSEL, 

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. FREEDMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. 

The United States air traffic control system is the safest and 

most efficient system in the world. However, we face a staffing crisis in the next few years and the only solution to that crisis is to 

hire more controllers. Congress has already directed the Federal 

Aviation Administration to develop a plan to grant waivers to the 

mandatory retirement age. 

Today’s hearing asks the question, do the mandatory retirement 

rules still make sense? We believe that the mandatory age 56 requirement for our nation’s air traffic controllers continues to make 

sense. Moreover, the granting of waivers or increasing of retirement age will not properly address the staffing crisis. Extending 

the retirement age is fraught with considerable problems of controller health, manpower distribution, and the general safety of 

America’s flying public. 

More than three decades after Congress set the mandatory retirement age based upon initial studies of declining performance 

among older controllers, Congress has directed the FAA to allow 

controllers to work beyond the 56-year-old retirement age. However, studies as recent as 1998 and 1999 warn of the same consequences as those initial studies. Controller performance peaks because of job experience between ages 38 and 45. However, despite 

increased experience, controllers’ performance declines beyond age 

45. Those declines become significant when controllers reach age 

50, and the studies have shown that even the most experienced 

controllers over the age of 50 perform worse than controllers at the 

beginning of their careers. 

While NATCA welcomes further study on the subject, 30 years 

of studies have shown one consistent result: Changing the current 

mandatory retirement age is unwise. 

Air traffic controllers are not alone in their daily responsibilities. 

Rather, each individual is a critical element in a system based 

upon teamwork. The teamwork occurs both within and between 

airspace sectors. In many ways, the team can compensate for differences in the performance of team members. However, as with 

any network, there are limits to the amount some team members 

can compensate for others before it will cause consequences 

throughout the system. 

With the ever-increasing level of air traffic, individual controllers 

must remain efficient throughout their working careers. Sporadic 

hiring patterns in the FAA over the last 20 years have resulted in 

a continuing increase in the average age of air traffic controllers. 

An increase in the mandatory retirement age will only further increase the average age, placing greater limitations on the ability of 

the team to meet the demands of the system. 

Recent NATCA studies on retirement patterns show that extending controllers’ careers will not be enough to compensate for the 

12

huge pending employment loss. More importantly, decades of studies continue to warn that high stress levels and the resulting 

health complications from those high stress levels, along with declining cognitive abilities, make extending controllers’ careers extremely dangerous. 

Flight traffic this summer is expected to surpass pre-September 

11 levels, and the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, 

has established a goal of increasing flight capacity threefold by 

2010. Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to extend the retirement 

age and jeopardize the most productive, efficient system in the 

world. The safety of our flying public and the integrity of our entire 

system will depend upon a new generation of capable controllers, 

not the ability to hold on to the ones we already have. 

Our air traffic control workforce makes today’s system a global 

standard of excellence. Extending the retirement age will tend to 

diminish that standard. Instead, we must make investments for 

the future and hire more controllers. The risks are simply too great 

to try dangerous shortcuts. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Freedman follows:]

13


97085.005
14


97085.006
15


97085.007
16


97085.008
17


97085.009
18


97085.010
19


97085.011
20


97085.012
21


97085.013
22


97085.014
23


97085.015
24


97085.016
25


97085.017
26


97085.018
27


97085.019
28


97085.020
29


97085.021
30


97085.022
31

The CHAIRMAN. Now, let us turn to Dr. Russell Rayman, executive director for the Aerospace Medical Association. Doctor? 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL B. RAYMAN, M.D., EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, AEROSPACE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Dr. RAYMAN. Thank you, sir. It is my pleasure to be here to give 

testimony this morning. 

The Aerospace Medical Association appreciates the opportunity 

to submit this statement to the U.S. Senate Special Committee on 

Aging on the important issue of the age 60 rule for air transport 

pilots. I am Dr. Russell B. Rayman, executive director of the Aerospace Medical Association, representing approximately 3,300 physicians, scientists, and flight nurses engaged in the practice of aerospace medicine or related research. 

The age 60 rule implemented by the Federal Aviation Administration in 1959 does not allow persons engaged in operations conducted under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to serve 

as a pilot or copilot on reaching their 60th birthday. The rule was 

implemented under the premise that the risks of incapacitation due 

to a medical cause after 60 years of age is unacceptably high. Despite a number of court challenges since 1959, the rule remains in 

force, yet still controversial. 

This issue of the age 60 rule can be reduced to three questions. 

After age 60, (1) will air transport pilots have a higher aircraft accident rate; (2), will there be significant performance decrement in 

the cockpit; (3), will there be an unacceptable risk of in-flight sudden incapacitation due to medical causes? 

To answer the first question with reasonable certitude, one would 

need to study a cohort of air transport pilots older than age 60 over 

a period of time and compare its flying safety record with a cohort 

of air transport pilots under age 60. Unfortunately, no such study 

exists because there are no over-age 60 air transport pilots certified 

by the FAA to fly Part 121 operations. 

The best we can do is to study general aviation and commercial 

pilots, both categories having no age limits. Many such studies 

have indeed been published in the medical literature focusing upon 

the relationship of age with aircraft accidents. A review of these 

studies reveals many contradictions and inconsistencies, making it 

impossible to extract data to support the age 60 rule or to refute 

it. In any event, the validity of these studies comes into question 

if one attempts to extrapolate the findings from general aviation pilots and commercial pilots to air transport pilots because of significant differences in aircraft and operations. In that alone, the studies are flawed. 

Many countries today do permit air transport pilots to continue 

flying beyond age 60. According to the International Civil Aviation 

Organization, at least 24 countries have adopted this more liberal 

policy, and to our knowledge, there has been no adverse effect upon 

flying safety. 

Regarding performance, many studies have been published comparing motor skills, cognition, memory, attentiveness, as well as 

simulator and flight performance between younger and older pilots, 

the results of which were frequently mixed. Furthermore, even 

32

when decrements were observed, there was no compelling evidence 

that they were significant enough to adversely affect flying safety. 

Although medical sudden incapacitation is always a possibility, 

I might add, at any age, we believe it is a vanishingly small risk, 

even for air transport pilots who would be over age 60, because the 

event would most likely have to occur during those few minutes of 

a critical phase of flight such as takeoff or landing. Even if there 

were such an occurrence, there is always a second pilot in the cockpit who could rapidly take control should the need arise. It might 

also be added that there has never been a U.S. air carrier accident 

due to medical causes. 

Let us assume for a moment that the rule was changed and air 

transport pilots were permitted to fly beyond age 60, perhaps to 

age 65. Are there medical tests that could be added to the biannual 

flight physical examination to detect cognitive decrements or medical conditions that could cause sudden incapacitation? There are 

some medical tests that could be added, but for the most part, 

there is not much enthusiasm because they are not adequately predictive. For example, many lack sensitivity and there is the risk of 

false positive results. A secondary factor is the cost to the airman. 

One exception, however, might be testing for changes in cognition. 

I would add that many countries which allow over-age 60 air transport pilots to fly do not require any additional testing. 

In conclusion, on review of existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to 

suggest restriction of pilot certification based on age alone. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Rayman follows:]

33


97085.023
34


97085.024
35


97085.025
36

The CHAIRMAN. Now, we turn to Captain Eichelkraut, president 

of the Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association. Captain, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH EICHELKRAUT, PRESIDENT, 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PILOTS’ ASSOCIATION, DALLAS, TX 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. Chairman Craig, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to present the views of the pilots of 

Southwest Airlines on the issue of mandatory retirement rules. I 

will keep my remarks brief and ask that my full written statement 

be entered into the record. 

Current FAA rules require pilots flying large commercial aircraft 

to retire by their 60th birthday. The 4,400-plus pilots of Southwest 

Airlines Pilots’ Association, which I represent, oppose the age 60 

rule and think the time for reevaluation is now. In fact, our membership had a referendum on the issue in 2003 and a clear majority 

of our pilots voted to reform the rule. 

The age 60 rule was made final on the basis of medical facts in 

1959. What may have passed for medical facts then, today we know 

as age discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agrees and opposes the age 60 rule. Regardless of the 

FAA’s intent in 1959, surely today a rule requiring the nation’s 

most well-trained and experienced pilots to retire at age 60 does 

not appear to have any scientific or medical basis. 

Though I am not a doctor, I do know that pilots, along with the 

entire population, are living longer, healthier lives than when the 

age 60 rule was enacted 45 years ago. I believe that is one reason 

why Dr. Rayman from the Aerospace Medical Association is here 

today, as you just heard. 

Just look at our 41st President, George Bush. At 80 years young, 

he not only wants to fly in airplanes, he is jumping out of them. 

This summer, we were all thrilled when Spaceship One became the 

first manned commercial vehicle to slip the surly bonds of earth. 

The craft was flown by 63-year-old test pilot Mike Melvill, who did 

have a very physical challenge bringing that ship safely back to 

earth. However, the FAA maintains he is unfit to safely fly a Boeing 737 for my airline. 

Flying a commercial airliner is not physically demanding, but it 

does require management skills and sound judgment. These are 

talents that I have found come with age and experience. 

The FAA already has the ideal mechanisms in place for ensuring 

safe pilots at any age. For example, to retain my license and fly 

as a pilot for Southwest Airlines, I must pass semi-annual flight 

physicals administered by an FAA-licensed medical examiner, to 

include an annual EKG. As a captain, I must demonstrate in semiannual check rides, complete knowledge of systems and procedures, 

safe piloting skills, and multi-tasking in advance simulators. There 

is no greater test of cognitive ability and mental dexterity than 

these simulator rides. Simulator failure rates among Southwest 

Airlines pilots are low, but as the pilots approach age 60, they are 

at their lowest. Across all age groups last year, there were about 

31 failures out of 4,200 pilots. 

I am also administered random in-flight check rides by FAA inspectors and Southwest Airlines check airmen. The 59-year-old captain arrives at this point in his career having demonstrated sucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Jan 04, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\97085.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
37

cessful performance following years of this kind of scrutiny. On top 

of all this, the FAA adds one final layer of safety, a fail-safe system 

which requires not one, but two highly trained pilots to fly on all 

Southwest Airlines flights. 

The sad truth is that every time an experienced pilot has to retire because of his or her 60th birthday, Southwest Airlines managers and the traveling public lose a seasoned pilot who is quite 

capable of safely working. Adding a few years to the career of the 

airline pilot is a win-win situation. It even benefits Social Security 

and pension funds. 

While many of the legacy carriers have historically offered rich 

defined benefit plans, Southwest and newer carriers have defined 

contributions, such as 401(k)s and profit sharing at Southwest Airlines. These are similar to most Americans’ retirement benefits. If 

pilots could continue their careers beyond age 60, they could continue contributing to retirement accounts and postpone the withdrawal of pension funds, allowing airlines more time to replenish 

pension accounts. 

The airlines, the pilots, the traveling public, the taxpayer all benefit if we are allowed to fly additional years without sacrificing 

safety. 

Last year, the Senate came very close to ending the discriminatory age 60 rule with a vote on the Inhofe amendment to the FAA 

bill. The Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association strongly supported 

the amendment and is grateful to Senator Inhofe, Congressman 

Gibbons, and fellow pilots for all their hard work on this issue. I 

want to thank the Chair and the other 44 members who voted with 

Senator Inhofe to raise pilots’ retirement age. 

The pilots of Southwest Airlines thank you for holding this hearing, which has shed some new light on this issue. Armed with this 

new information, I encourage the Chair and his colleagues in the 

Senate to hold another vote on the issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I look 

forward to working in a bipartisan fashion to ensure a legislative 

solution to provide relief from this arbitrary rule. 

The CHAIRMAN. Captain, thank you very much. In the spirit of 

full disclosure, I voted for that Inhofe amendment. 

[The prepared statement of Capt. Eichelkraut follows:]

38


97085.026
39


97085.027
40


97085.028
41


97085.029
42

The CHAIRMAN. Now, let us turn to our last panelist this morning, Dr. Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior fellow at the CATO Institute. 

Doctor, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JAGADEESH GOKHALE, SENIOR FELLOW, 

CATO INSTITUTE 

Mr. GOKHALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

testify at this hearing. 

Mandatory retirement age rules have been eliminated in most 

private sector occupations as a result of the anti-age discrimination 

laws that were introduced beginning in the 1960’s. Were they allowed, private sector employers would likely use mandatory retirement age rules in employment contracts designed for ensuring 

worker efficiency in different occupations. 

Instead, private employers structure long-term incentive contracts and build in seniority rents in their compensation schedules, 

including features such as defined benefit pensions and other nonwage elements of compensation to achieve several objectives. These 

incentive contracts promote worker efficiency, they bond highskilled workers to firms, because those who prematurely quit would 

lose their opportunity to collect seniority rents, and they also induce timely retirements. 

Retirement incentives incorporated in such long-term contracts 

appear to have spurred the trend toward early retirement in the 

United States. The recent surge in defined contribution plans has 

not totally eliminated defined benefit plans which incorporate such 

worker incentives, because both workers and employers find defined benefit plans to be useful in meeting these objectives. 

Mandatory retirement age rules still prevail in certain public sector occupations and these were introduced several decades ago, primarily to ensure the safe and effective conduct of these jobs. Under 

today’s conditions, however, these retirement age rules appear to 

be becoming obsolete because they were instituted several decades 

ago. We need a revision of these rules simply because many of 

these occupations are facing impending worker shortages. 

In part, these worker shortages have been created by improving 

technology, which implies the need for a variety of skilled workers. 

New technology, although it has made the conduct of these jobs 

physically easier, has not proved to be labor-saving in nature. We 

need a highly skilled and a larger workforce to conduct these jobs 

efficiently. 

The health and longevity of the U.S. population has improved, 

which means competence in job performance may now extend to 

older ages than was the case several decades ago. Mandatory retirement age rules are increasingly unfair in some occupations 

where workers have non-transferrable skills, such as pilots and air 

traffic controllers. 

Now, experience in the U.S. academic institutions suggests that 

simply eliminating mandatory retirement age rules is not the solution because that may create its own problems such as making the 

workforce disproportionately old and reducing worker turnover. Instead, I would recommend a two-pronged approach. One is to raise 

the mandatory retirement ages in these occupations to meet with 

the short-term worker shortage that we are foreseeing and, second, 

43

adopt long-term incentive contracts for younger workers and new 

hires, thereby increasing worker efficiency and at the same time inducing timely retirements. 

If this two-pronged approach is adopted, we would see that the 

mandatory retirement age rules will automatically fall by the wayside because the new incentive contracting, if it is adopted appropriately, will ensure that employers will be able to implement timely retirements among workers. We need a more flexible system of 

retaining the most qualified workers, but also making sure that the 

work is conducted efficiently in these different occupations. 

However, before we make the policy reforms, we need to more 

closely investigate to what extent these private sector long-term incentive contracts, if they are adopted in these different occupations, 

will be effective in achieving different objectives, both from the 

workers’ and from the employers’ perspectives. 

I would like to request that my written testimony be submitted 

into the record and I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, thank you, and all of your full statements 

will be a part of the committee record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gokhale follows:]

44


97085.030
45


97085.031
46


97085.032
47


97085.033
48


97085.034
49


97085.035
50


97085.036
51


97085.037
52


97085.038
53


97085.039
54


97085.040
55


97085.041
56

The CHAIRMAN. Again, let me thank you all for your testimony 

this morning as we do build a record here in this committee for the 

purpose of other committees examining this issue as we arrive at 

having to deal with it, I think as Captain Eichelkraut mentioned, 

as these issues come up and the question of current policy is at 

hand. 

Abby, you mentioned reform and proposals at OPM. What are 

the principles OPM uses when thinking about reforming Federal 

mandatory retirement age rules? 

Ms. BLOCK. Well, I think the primary principle that we have 

used is flexibility. What we are looking at is how to develop flexible 

systems that will help agencies to achieve their mission and at the 

same time be fair and equitable to the employees involved. 

The CHAIRMAN. You have just heard a proposal from Dr. 

Gokhale. Are those the kinds of examinations or approaches you 

look at, not only changes based on ability and performance, but 

also, obviously, I mean, we have to realize that once you establish 

an age, you drive retirement programs toward those ages, obviously 

to provide quality retirement. Is that a part of that examination, 

or the flexibility that was proposed here? 

Ms. BLOCK. Yes. It is a very delicate balance because what you 

are looking at are multiple factors, such as the maximum entry age 

for an occupation, because if there is going to be a mandatory retirement age, you want to be sure that people can be employed long 

enough to at least achieve the minimum number of years necessary 

to get the kind of annuity that will be viable in their retirement 

years. You have to look at the specific demands of the occupation 

in terms of what are the physical and mental demands, and they 

are different for each occupation and need to be carefully evaluated. 

Then the retirement computation is really based on the concept 

of a shortened career, and that is why in certain occupations there 

is an enhanced retirement computation. There is no justification for 

that enhanced retirement computation if you are not dealing with 

a shortened career. There are pay implications, as well, that tie in. 

So you are looking at multiple factors in a very delicately balanced system to make sure that all the components work together 

to achieve the goal of, in our case, the agency and meeting the 

agency’s mission. 

The CHAIRMAN. You talk about balance and factors involved. 

What are the standards used to ensure the issue, I think that Mr. 

Freedman has brought up, fitness in the performance, both in law 

enforcement and in the traffic controllers? It is an issue that I 

think all have expressed some concern about across the board, how 

it fits or doesn’t fit. How is that concern or that standard factored 

into OPM’s consideration? 

Ms. BLOCK. The provisions that we act under are all statutory. 

We actually don’t make those determinations. It is the Congress 

that makes those determinations. None of the provisions currently 

in place are administrative. They are all legislative. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Freedman, you strongly caution Congress against directing 

the Federal Aviation Administration to allow age waivers that let 

controllers work beyond the mandatory retirement age. Is there 

57

any reason the FAA might want to consider exceptions to the mandatory retirement age rule? 

Mr. FREEDMAN. Well, first, let me start out by saying, no, I don’t 

think that there is any reason that FAA should consider exceptions. I think in the present case, the primary reason that FAA and 

Congress has directed FAA to consider exceptions is because of the 

staffing crisis that is looming on the horizon. The real answer to 

solving that problem is to hire new controllers. The costs of the 

older controllers would allow for the FAA, provided that the waivers were not granted, to hire at almost a three-to-one ratio of new 

controllers versus those leaving FAA service. So that, I think, is 

the best way to resolve the issue of the staffing crisis. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not disagreeing with you as it relates to the 

stress level and the sensitivity of this particular concern and the 

performance of controllers in high-stress areas, but in balancing 

out a workforce, is it possible, I mean, under certain circumstances—there are a good many airports across the Nation that 

don’t face the traffic of a Kennedy or an O’Hare or an Atlanta. 

Boise, ID, is probably a perfect example, and there are a lot of 

Boise, Idahos, across the country that are critical to aviation but 

don’t have the stress loads of sheer volume and probably won’t for 

a good number of years. 

Is there reason in this balancing that we are talking about and 

the need to hire substantially more, a reason to offer flexibility 

within certain areas, maybe in lesser-congested, lesser-stress environments? Is there any consideration or talk within your organization about that? 

Mr. FREEDMAN. I think that the concern that that may create is 

discrimination among those who reach a certain age. If you are 

going to create different rules for those in different parts of the 

country, that creates an opening for discrimination. Then, also, it 

would be difficult to determine the specifics of which are the highest-stress environments. 

Just recently, I was at our national convention this past weekend 

and I spoke to Randy Brindley from the Cincinnati tower. He and 

I talked about his health problems. He is not yet 50 years old; he 

turns 50 in March 2005 and will be eligible to retire at that time 

and plans to. Even though the Cincinnati tower may not be as 

high-stress an environment as the Kennedy tower that you talked 

about or various other places, he has been hospitalized in the past 

year for high blood pressure. He is required to take medication for 

that high blood pressure. He had to have surgery for diverticulitis, 

requiring 14 inches of his colon to be removed. He also is on diabetes medications. These are all related, according to his doctor, to 

the stress of his job. As controllers age, they have these various 

health conditions that they are subject to. Therefore, I don’t think 

you can break it down geographically. 

The CHAIRMAN. The data in Figure 1 of your testimony suggests 

that cognitive ability begins to peak at age 30 and begins to decline 

at about age 45. Can you elaborate on this study and what it 

means for a mandatory retirement age rule? 

Mr. FREEDMAN. The study that is referred to is the Air Traffic 

Control Specialists Age and Cognitive Test Performance Study authored by Dr. Michael Heil for the Civil Aeromedical Institute withVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Jan 04, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\97085.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
58

in FAA. That figure within my written testimony, along with the 

other figures, were based upon a study where over 1,000 air traffic 

controller were surveyed, were tested on various cognitive tests, 

and the results all indicated that cognitive abilities among air traffic controllers peaked between 38 and 45 and then decline begins. 

The decline becomes most severe after the age of 50. 

The study also considered computer-based performance as well 

as supervisor and peer review performance. Although that was 

published under a separate title, it is also referenced in my written 

testimony. That study revealed that performance also, not just cognitive ability, but performance declines after age 45, and very severely after age 50. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask one more question and then I will 

turn to my colleague, Senator Carper, who has just joined us. 

You heard the airline captain talk about experience and the 

value of that as a pilot, and I am not in any way going to dispute 

the stress environment of a controller, but I also know that all people handle stress differently. Some cope with it very well and it is 

not a factor in their lives, or if it is, they handle it well. Is it possible that experience and judgment might compensate for loss of 

cognitive ability in the performance of a traffic air controller’s job? 

Mr. FREEDMAN. Actually, the data that we have seen indicates 

just the opposite. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Mr. FREEDMAN. The experience does increase performance and 

ability through about age 45. But once that cognitive ability and 

the cumulative stress over many years of working in an air traffic 

environment, then performance begins to decline despite the increased experienced. 

There is a study I referenced by Becker and Milke in the Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine Journal that basically 

states that older controllers with 13 or fewer years experience had 

higher mean ratings than those with more job experience. So it is 

the cumulative stress of the work over a period of years that affects 

controllers’ performance. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I am pleased that we have been joined by one of our colleagues 

on this committee, Senator Tom Carper. Senator, do you have any 

opening comments or questions of this panel? 

Senator CARPER. I do have something I would like to share with 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Senator CARPER. Not too long ago—do we have anybody here 

from Southwest Airlines? 

The CHAIRMAN. Right there. 

Senator CARPER. One or two. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, just a few, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Early this year, Southwest Airlines began operating flights out of Philadelphia to give us another option to fly. I 

may have flown on Southwest someplace along the line, I just don’t 

recall, but I flew with them early this summer. I had always heard 

that some of the crew members have a sense of humor, but I had 

never experienced it myself. 

59

You know how you are sitting there, getting ready to strap in before the aircraft moves and how the attendants will give the announcements and that kind of thing? Sometimes they do it by recording, and in this particular instance, the—I don’t know if you 

remember the film ‘‘Deliverance,’’ the banjo duet——

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, of course. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I think you know where I am going. We are sitting there kind of waiting for everybody to tell us to strap in and 

turn off our cell phones and over the PA comes a harmonica playing the theme song from ‘‘Deliverance,’’ a great harmonica player. 

It turned out it is the pilot of the aircraft. After he finished the 

song, you couldn’t see him playing the harmonica, but he stepped—

he was up in the front of the plane and he stepped out and played 

the very last few notes in full view of everybody, to great applause, 

I might add, and really broke things up. 

You asked the question about cognitive abilities and whether or 

not one’s experience and judgment can overcome diminishing cognitive abilities. I don’t know how that applies to harmonica playing, 

but putting a bunch of passengers at ease. It was quite a hilarious 

moment. 

It reminds me of one of my favorite TV commercials is the one 

for Holiday Inn where they have the guy in the nuclear power 

plant, in the control room of the nuclear power plant—do you remember that one?—and all the bells and whistles are going off and 

the place is in GQ, general alert. This one guy steps forward and 

he is eating his jelly filled doughnuts and he is saying, ‘‘Turn this 

off, turn that on, turn this on,’’ and finally everything calms down. 

The people who work there say, ‘‘How did you know how to do 

this?’’ He says, ‘‘I am with the tour group out in the plant here. 

I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.’’ [Laughter.] 

I love that commercial. Having said all of that, I do have a serious question I wanted to ask the folks here and it relates to experience and to judgment. 

My grandfather died at the age of about 85. He had worked until 

he was 81. He was a butcher and he worked in my aunt and uncle’s 

mom-and-pop supermarket. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did he die with ten fingers? 

Senator CARPER. I tell you, he had Parkinson’s disease really bad 

and his hands shook just like this. He would go to work every 

morning, drive himself through the hills of West Virginia to get to 

work, and you would walk into the supermarket and you would 

say, there is no way this guy is going to be a butcher, and you are 

sure he is going to lose a finger or a thumb or something today. 

But he hung it up at 81 and never lost a single digit. 

I think of my grandfather. You look at a guy like this, there is 

no way he can do that job at the age of 81, but he did it pretty 

well and it was always, I think, regarded as a real loss when he 

finally stepped down. 

I spent some time in the Navy as a Naval flight officer and ended 

up getting to be a mission commander of a Navy P–3 airplane. I 

don’t know if we have any Navy guys or gals out in the—all right, 

good. Any P–3 people? At least one, good. ‘‘The Hunt for Red October,’’ that was what our job was. 

60

But a bunch of guys I used to fly with ended up flying with the 

airlines. They are sort of like me. They are not on the morning side 

of the mountain anymore, they are on the twilight side of the hill. 

They are past that age of 45, where the experience and judgment 

doesn’t make up for our cognitive abilities, I guess. 

But let me ask, if I could. The question I want to ask all the panelists is this. Where do you agree? On a big panel like this, what 

I always look for is consensus on the issues that are before us, so 

think about that. Where do you agree? I am going to ask especially 

Captain Joseph Eichelkraut—did I get that right? 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, good. Captain Eichelkraut, we have had before us in the past the opportunity to vote on legislation dealing 

with the mandatory retirement age. I think it is age 60 for pilots. 

I would just be interested in your views on that particular issue. 

If you were in our shoes, how would you be voting and why? Then 

I am going to ask the entire panel just to tell me, where do you 

think you agree as a panel on the issue that is before us, mandatory retirement ages? But that specific issue for you, Captain. 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. I am certainly glad to hear that the flight 

crew or the captain or the first officer, whoever it was playing the 

harmonica, put you at ease. It is one of our primary jobs, to make 

sure our passengers are relaxed and enjoy the flight and come back 

again. 

Senator CARPER. I half expected the captain of the aircraft to 

say, ‘‘Well, I am not really the captain of the plane, but I did spend 

last night in a Holiday Inn.’’ [Laughter.] 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. Which is probably where he learned how to 

play the harmonica, at the Holiday Inn. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. But he was really the captain, a great landing. 

A good take-off, too. 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. We do a lot of those at Southwest Airlines, 

a lot of landings, a lot of take-offs, and they all equal each other, 

which is great. 

Senator CARPER. That is good. We like for that to happen. 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. The question you brought forward was, 

what do we agree on? I heard Abby Block say that a lot of it depends——

Senator CARPER. No, before you answer where you agree on, if 

you were in our shoes, what would be your position on mandatory 

retirement age for pilots at age 60? 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. Well, if I were in your shoes, I would be 

looking at it to raise it, to eliminate it, to relieve it in some fashion, 

but to do it in a safety-conscious mode. I am here to tell you today 

that I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t believe honestly that we could 

do it safely beyond age 60. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. As a former safety officer in the Air Force, 

not the Navy——

Senator CARPER. What did you fly? 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. F–16s. I know that the primary job of every 

flight crew officer is the safety of that aircraft and those passengers. If there was any doubt in our minds that flying past age 

60 was going to be a problem for any of us, that is our brothers 

61

out there and we make sure that doesn’t happen. So that is one avenue that, from our standpoint, from professionalism, we exhibit. 

It is an internally controlled thing, and if there are individuals 

who—we have individuals who get sick. I heard people talk about 

high blood pressure. I will tell you right now, I find flying very relaxing. I find the board room very stressful, and I think that sitting 

in the board room has caused me more stress than the flying over 

the past several years, just being the chairman of the Board of Directors of Southwest Pilots’ Association, but I would approach it 

with caution. 

Senator CARPER. Now, if you go to my other question, and that 

is where do you see consensus from this panel, and feel free to go 

ahead and proceed. 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. The consensus I see is that a lot of it depends on the particular job. For instance, I just expressed the fact 

that I think many pilots, if not all pilots, find flying relaxing. On 

the other side, you talk about, or there has been mention that the 

cognitive ability starts to decline after 45 or 50, I am not sure 

which it is. I guess I am there. 

But my point is, in our job, experience is the maker of the day. 

So it depends on the career activity, how much stress it is creating 

while you are doing that job. But I can honestly say that flying an 

airliner today is not that stressful an environment. There are 

other, more stressful things. Maybe that is just because that is 

something I enjoy and love. But that is one option. 

But we have a couple examples in history here that has shown 

us where experience and the age of the captain in this case—in two 

cases, actually came to the day, and one was the Sioux City United 

Flight 232. That aircraft lost all hydraulics after the tail engine cut 

the lines and that plane was not supposed to be able to land on 

a runway, and yet the experience in that cockpit was able to land, 

at least get it to the runway. Although there were some deaths involved, they saved 185 people on that flight in a situation that was 

not supposed to happen. That captain was able to do that, I believe 

through experience, and he had to retire 6 months later and take 

that experience with him. 

We have another example in a 747 taking off out of Hawaii going 

to the Western part of the Pacific. It lost a cargo door at altitude, 

took out two right engines on the right side. The captain, within 

4 weeks of retirement, overrode the checklist and said, ‘‘You know, 

if we do the checklist right now where it says to put the gear down, 

we are not going to make it back.’’ So, I mean, these are kind of 

judgments that come through experience, and 4 weeks later, he 

was no longer flying because of this rule. I dare say that he had 

a lot of experience to take forward with him for many years. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Let me hear from others on the panel. I 

want to try to say your name, sir. Jagadeesh Gokhale? 

Mr. GOKHALE. Gokhale. 

Senator CARPER. Please. 

Mr. GOKHALE. Sure. 

Senator CARPER. Where do you see consensus among the panel? 

Mr. GOKHALE. I agree with Captain Eichelkraut’s comments, actually. I think it depends on the job. For some jobs, for example, 

police officers, certainly there is a lot of stress and the job is physVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Jan 04, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\97085.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
62

ically demanding. Nevertheless, there have been technological improvements over the past several decades that reduce the physical 

exertion and make the conduct of the job safer. Officers have better 

body armor. They have better communications equipment. They 

have faster cars. There have been technological improvements that 

facilitate the conduct of these jobs in a safer and more efficient 

manner. 

Of course, it varies from occupation to occupation, but statistics 

indicate that the health of the U.S. population has been increasing. 

People are living longer. In the age group of 55 to 65, mortality 

rates, for example, which is an indicator of health, for both men 

and women have declined between 30 and 40 percent over the last 

four decades. There is research that suggests that——

Senator CARPER. Dr. Gokhale, what has declined by 30 or 40 percent? 

Mr. GOKHALE. Mortality rates for 55- to 65-year-old men and 

women have declined——

Senator CARPER. That is encouraging as I look toward my 58th 

birthday, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I won’t discuss what happened to me in July of 

this year. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GOKHALE. There is evidence from surveys that ask questions 

about the respondents’ health. These are self-reported data, and 

again, respondents in this age range report being in good or better 

condition with greater frequency today than they did even 20 years 

ago. If you extrapolated that by another 20 years, which is when 

these mandatory retirement ages were instituted, the improvement 

in quality of life and health would be even more significant. 

Finally, there is some evidence that compared to a few decades 

ago, health issues are less relevant for retirement decisions across 

the population because of better technology making the conduct of 

jobs less stressful and less physically taxing, as well as better 

health care and medical technology, which has enabled us to deal 

with and treat chronic conditions better so that people can continue 

in these jobs despite having high blood pressure and being able to 

deal with high stress situations because of better medication. So I 

just offer that as my responses to your question. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. Are there other members? Dr. 

Rayman? 

Dr. RAYMAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Do you pronounce your last name Rayman? 

Dr. RAYMAN. Yes, thanks to Ellis Island, my grandparents. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. But not like ‘‘Everybody Loves Raymond.’’ All 

right. Well, maybe they do, I don’t——

Dr. RAYMAN. I just wish it were true, sir. [Laughter.] 

Regarding consensus, with some exceptions, I think there is a 

general trend in our sentiment toward more liberalization of mandatory retirement ages in general. Regarding pilots, that is the 

group I addressed in my testimony, I believe that we could certainly be more liberal and open doors a bit, perhaps to age 63 or 

age 65 for air transport pilots, and they could be followed quite easily, including their safety records and their health and so forth. If 

after three to 5 years you find that they are doing well or as good 

63

as the younger pilots, then you could open it up to everybody or 

possibly even extend it beyond age 65 some day. 

So I would be in favor of extending it. I don’t think that something magical happens when you wake up in the morning of your 

60th birthday that disqualifies you. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Freedman. 

Mr. FREEDMAN. Well, I think to answer the first part of your 

question, NATCA’s position is that the age 56 retirement age 

should be maintained, and so on the second part of the question, 

I think that the panel has really agreed that in safety-related professions, there should be some caution. I think the age is where we 

differ in our opinion, whether there should be a strict age or 

whether it should be just open on an individual by individual basis. 

But for air traffic controllers, the age 56 mandatory retirement 

has really been backed up by studies over the past 35 years. I don’t 

think that some of the issues that were raised in terms of technology have lessened the stress levels. Furthermore, the FAA prohibits controllers from working the boards if they are taking certain over-the-counter, much less prescription, medications. So even 

though there are advances in medication to treat physical problems, whether they be allergies or something else, those medications preclude controllers from working traffic. So that doesn’t really apply in the area of air traffic control. 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Block, the last word. 

Ms. BLOCK. The last word. Well, the administration has not 

taken any position on mandatory retirement age in general. We are 

looking currently at a very specific and limited group, the law enforcement officer group, and we are in the midst of looking very 

carefully at that group. 

But the consensus that I have heard, and I think I have heard 

a fairly clear consensus within the panel, is that there really is no 

single rule of thumb, that you need to look at every job and every 

situation individually, that the requirements are different and that 

you need to do a careful analysis and flexibility is important. 

Senator CARPER. Good point. Mr. Chairman, do you remember 

back in 1983 when we were just pups in the House of Representatives? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. An interesting description, but I do remember it. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. The Social Security Trust Fund was in dire 

straits. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Two Irishmen wrestled themselves 

to the floor on that one, as I recall. 

Senator CARPER. That is right. In the end, among the things that 

we did, we began to gradually increase the full retirement age. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Senator CARPER. I think when we did it, it seems like we raised 

it by a month, 1 month per year. 

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that is right. 

Senator CARPER. In fact, I think we are going through that process right now. Each year, we raise the full retirement age by 1 

month. It just was able to provide some consensus for Congress a 

long time ago. Maybe as we face these issues in the future, it will 

provide some value. 

64

Well, this has been fun and informative. 

The CHAIRMAN. Tom, I thank you for your questioning, and out 

of that expression of consensus that I think we share about looking 

at different occupations with some degree of difference, let me go 

back to a medical doctor, then, Dr. Rayman, and ask this of you. 

In doing so, if we obviously move in that direction with all of the 

statistical evidence that we now know, that we stand to live a good 

deal longer than our parents or grandparents and we will live 

healthier during that period of time, and let us say in the coming 

years we decide to extend outward for airline pilots the time in 

which there might be a mandatory retirement, how do we get at 

the business, then, of making sure from a given age forward that 

these people are capable of performing those tasks? Certainly, 

there is an individual effort inside different organizations, airlines, 

tests and simulator tests and all of that and physicals, but does the 

current physical exam required build the necessary record and evidence to continue that person in a safe and successful profession? 

Dr. RAYMAN. In this country, I believe the current physical examination mandated by the FAA is adequate. I think it is adequate 

for individuals below age 60 and I think it would be adequate for 

individuals above age 60. If you ask me where I draw the line, it 

becomes very fuzzy. But I would personally feel comfortable with 

this exam up to age, as I said, 63 to 65. 

Now, if you have to have absolute hard science in making a decision on age retirement for pilots, it would be very, very difficult. 

You would have to contrive a number of studies. You would have 

to, for example, prove that an aging pilot has a decrement, for example, in cognition and that that decrement adversely affects performance in the cockpit. You would have to do all of that. I think 

that would be very difficult, and likewise with medical causes of incapacitation. You would have to demonstrate that the older pilots 

are becoming incapacitated at a greater rate than the younger pilots and this would have to be done by a prospective study. That 

might be a little easier to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Captain Eichelkraut, not every airline pilot 

union shares your view on changing the 60 age rule. As you know, 

in that last discussion that the Congress had, there was a fair 

amount of push and shove on that issue from different unions. Why 

is that the case? 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. Well, it may be a combination of factors. I 

don’t know that, honestly, that some of the other unions have actually queried their members recently. I know that in the past——

The CHAIRMAN. And you have? 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. We have. Last year, in 2003, we had a 

whole referendum and a very high percentage of vote turnout and 

a very favorable vote of pursuing relief of this particular rule for 

our pilots. 

So I don’t know that the statement really is true today. It might 

also have to do with some of the designed pension plans of some 

of the other carriers. Like I specified, our particular one is a defined contribution, so the longer we work, the more we contribute 

to our own future and our own retirement and less of a burden on 

the taxpayer, et cetera. Some of the pension plans under the curVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Jan 04, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\97085.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
65

rent legacy carriers are under a great deal of stress today, as we 

are all aware, and——

The CHAIRMAN. So you are suggesting it may not be a factor of 

performance, it may be a factor of purely financial——

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. I don’t know that. It could be that way. I 

don’t know that they have honestly been asked recently, a lot of the 

other carriers. I know there are some pilots from other carriers 

who have approached me and said, ‘‘What are you guys doing on 

it? We would like to maybe follow suit.’’ But I don’t have any hard 

numbers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Gokhale, what are the market implications 

of reversing mandatory retirement age rules and what would happen? 

Mr. GOKHALE. Again, as Capt. Eichelkraut mentioned, there are 

considerable incentives for workers in these professions and occupations that are subject to mandatory retirement age rules to have 

these retirement rules extended to higher ages. Some of the incentive stem from the desire is to do better financially because of the 

structure of their pension plans. Some of them may have defined 

contribution plans, and therefore working longer and being able to 

contribute for a longer time would imply a better life in retirement. 

Having to retire earlier than normal, say at age 60, when workers still have some years of competence left but just cannot work 

presents a difficult challenge. There is evidence that suggests that 

middle-aged and older workers who are terminated from their jobs 

prematurely find it more difficult to find reemployment, and when 

they do find reemployment, they have to take larger pay cuts. So 

employment opportunities for workers who are terminated at age 

60, let us say, are very few especially so for those who have nontransferable skills. 

Now, experience from the academic institutions in the U.S., 

which eliminated the age 70 mandatory retirement age in 1994, 

suggests that people will not retire at such high rates if mandatory 

retirement age rules are eliminated. In the universities, once the 

age 70 rule was eliminated, retirement rates among age 70 and 71 

faculty declined from 90 percent to 50 percent, which meant that 

faculties are aging and worker turnover in these institutions has 

declined. So eliminating existing retirement age rules in the professions being considered could result in a disproportionately larger 

workforce consisting of older individuals. 

So I don’t think completely eliminating mandatory retirement 

age rules in the short term is desirable, but given the other evidence on the longevity and health of this population these rules appear in need of a revision. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other comment that any one of you 

would like to make before we adjourn this hearing? Yes, please. 

Mr. FREEDMAN. To speak about what the Captain said regarding 

polling of membership, NATCA did conduct a survey of our membership on the issue of retirement and waivers, and 75 percent of 

our members have stated that they would not accept a waiver if 

granted. Furthermore, of the group that would stay, nearly 90 percent of that group plans to stay in a different job within FAA and 

transfer to a different line of business than actually working air 

traffic prior to the age 56 mandatory retirement. So I don’t think 

66

that it impacts the air traffic industry similarly to the airline pilots. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are suggesting that 25 percent wouldn’t take 

retirement, they would look for another job within FAA? 

Mr. FREEDMAN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I see. So they would continue to work within a 

similar structure, but not control. OK. Anyone else? Yes? 

Capt. EICHELKRAUT. Sir, I have a comment. I would like to reiterate that not only do the pilots of our company believe that relief 

for the age 60 rule should be reviewed, so does our management. 

Our management is strongly behind us. In fact, Herb Kelleher, who 

is a popular name and figure in our company, fully supports the 

pilots’ views, as did the former CEO. So there is a lot of support 

from the management side on this issue, also. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Doctor? 

Mr. GOKHALE. Well, evidence from the private sector suggests 

employers are able to achieve timely retirements among their 

workforce through the use of long-term incentive contracts. I think 

these types of contracts should be seriously considered as a longterm reform for these occupations. Current mandatory retirement 

age rules have a lot of inflexibility built into them; they tend to be 

retained for a long time—we have already had these rules in place 

for 40 years and they seem to be obsolete now for a lot of good reasons. For the long-term, if we adopt these type of incentive plans 

that achieve timely retirements, we could build in more flexibility 

in retirement decisions—good for the employers and for the employees. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else? If not, let me thank you all very 

much for your time and your testimony as we build this record. 

This is an issue that I think Congress will face in the near future. 

As I think you have clearly expressed, it is not a singly faceted 

issue of simply adjusting age. A lot of things follow as a result of 

that, as it relates to conditions of employment and, as you have 

mentioned, retirement, physical examination, other kinds of tests, 

and especially in the areas where safety is critical and the performance of the individual certainly enhances or detracts from the safety of the public involved, that is important. I think we all understand that. 

Thank you again very much, and the committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(67)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE

Over forty years ago the Federal Aviation Administration enacted the ‘‘Age 60’’ 

rule, which demanded that all pilots retire by their 60th birthday. Initially, the 

FAA’s intentions were well-founded under the guise of safety. It was simply an effort to protect the millions of men and women who fly commercially every year. The 

FAA was concerned by the medical facts citing the onset of cognitive decline by the 

age of 60 along with physical deterioration that physicians believed could affect pilots’ ability to fly safely. But than was then. Today we live in a world where medical 

technology has helped to prolong our lifespan and serve as a modern day fountain 

of youth. 

Even the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health has reported to Congress that the age of 60 is not an age of ‘‘particular significance’’ in 

piloting. This report isn’t new—it dates as far back as 1981. 

The ‘‘medical facts’’ once cited in the research that led to the Age 60 rule are no 

longer serve as valid data, and the time has come to reevaluate requiring pilots to 

retire at such an early age. In fact, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission 

(EEOC) believes the Age 60 rule qualifies as age discrimination. Such requirement 

apply an unequal standard between pilots over the age of 59 and those who are 

younger. Therefore, mandatory retirement violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1968. The FAA is not alone in this violation. In fact, the EEOC 

has led the charge in encouraging several other organizations to eliminate similar 

compulsory retirement clauses. 

I am familiar with the studies regarding the decline of mental and psychical aptitudes of older employees. It is a subject I know well from the tenure with the Department of Labor. But in the time that has passed since I was the Secretary of 

Labor, we have seen tremendous leaps in technology that will afford those who are 

60 and beyond the ability to live their lives in a longer, healthier fashion. 

How can we provide that a pilot, or any professional, suffers from cognitive decline only at the age of 60? In order to be certain, we would have to complete several 

far reaching studies that may or may not yield successful results. However, we do 

know that current airlines’ tests effectively evaluate their younger pilots’ abilities. 

Twice a year, pilots are must take FAA-administered tests in order to retain their 

licenses. At Southwest Airlines, as with many others, pilots aged 40 and older are 

required to undergo an EKG every other flight physical. Pilots must also pass semiannual simulator training and flight checks. Such exams are designed to assess pilots’ responses in emergencies as well as their adjustment to the ever changing technologies of commercial flight. Every pilot’s aptitude, no matter what their age, is 

closely monitored. 

Moveover, the benefits in allowing pilots to remain employed past the age of 60 

are far reaching. In fact, as Americans, we all stand to profit from long-term captains of commercial flights. First, the most obvious, the older a pilot, the more experience. The knowledge and skilled judgment that comes with piloting large aircrafts 

greatly increases with age. Secondly, there are the economic benefits. Today’s airline 

economy is not what it was before September 11, 2001. Many companies have had 

to cut back on their pilots’ pensions. By allowing employee to remain in flight past 

the age of 60, airlines stand to save significant amounts by prolonging the time before a retiring pilot dips into his or her pension. 

The time has come, Mr. Chairman, to reassess the validity of mandatory retirement for pilots turning 60. There simply is no rationale for grounding healthy, capable flight engineers simply because they are fortunate enough to reach their 60th 

birthday. 

68

TESTIMONY OF U.S. CONGRESSMAN JIM GIBBONS

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Breaux for inviting me to offer testimony before the Special Committee today regarding the very important issue of mandatory retirements. 

While I understand the Committee is addressing this issue as it affects a variety 

of industries, I would like to take my time today to address mandatory retirements 

in one key sector of our economy, namely: our nation’s commercial airline industry. 

As a seventeen-year veteran of the commercial airline industry approaching my 

own sixtieth birthday, this issue is undoubtedly a personal one for me. 

One of my top legislative priorities in Congress has long been to overturn the outdated, unnecessary, and discriminatory Federal Aviation Administration ‘‘Age 60 

Rule’’, and see the mandatory retirement age for pilots increased from 60 to 65. 

Further, at a time when our nation’s airline industry is struggling to remain financially solvent and secure, the Age 60 Rule is an issue that affects all Americans, 

not just pilots. 

Before I discuss the possible economic rationale for overturning the Age 60 Rule, 

I will address the basic and most fundamental flaw of the Rule: the fact that the 

Rule is not based on sound science, public safety or medical facts. 

The current FAA regulation that requires all commercial airline pilots to retire 

the day they turn 60 years old is blatant age discrimination and nothing more. 

The Age 60 Rule is a nearly 50 year-old political ploy originally designed to relieve 

one airline from its woes resulting from a labor dispute. 

The history of the Age 60 Rule is well-documented and I will not waste the Committee’s time delving any further into the specifics, yet it is monumentally important to note that the Rule was founded not out of a concern for public safety, but 

as a ‘‘quick-fix’’ to a labor dispute and that continued reference to a ‘‘concern for 

public safety’’ as a legitimate reason for maintaining the Age 60 Rule is baseless. 

There is no hard evidence that individuals, after their 60th birthday, become universally incapable of handling the same important tasks they did at age 59 and 364 

days. 

Numerous scientific reports show that a pilot’s capacity for safely operating a 

commercial jetliner increases after age 60. 

For example, in 1999, FAA flight safety data published in the Chicago Tribune 

revealed that airline pilots aged 60 and older, who are engaged entirely in less-safe 

Part 135 commuter operations, had the lowest incident rate of any group except for 

those pilots age 20–24. 

Another study, presented by a group of scientists led by GW Rebok to the American Psychological Association in 1999, demonstrated that in general aviation crashes involving pilots aged 40–63, the percentage of accidents caused by pilot error was 

smaller in the age group 56–63. 

The list of studies that conclude in favor of older pilots to younger ones goes on 

and on, and I will leave it to today’s medical expert witnesses to address more of 

the specifics of similar studies, in their professional opinion. 

However, I believe the one fact far more convincing than all of the study results 

combined is that all pilots, from age 16 on, have to pass serious physical exams 

twice a year, in addition to annual flight physicals. 

The rigorous physical examination requirements mandated by the FAA should be 

enough evidence alone that age should not be the sole determinant of an individual’s 

capacity to fly a commercial airliner. 

If a 64.5 year old individual can out-perform a 56 year old individual on a flight 

physical, the 64 year-old should be allowed to continue to fly until 65. 

The FAA’s current Age 60 Rule is blatant age discrimination and should be overturned. 

Earlier in my statement, I alluded to the fact that overturning the Age 60 Rule 

may also prove an economic benefit to our nation’s struggling airline industry. 

Everyday, we hear new information regarding the financial straits of many of our 

nation’s airliners, and many of these woes stem directly from the status of their defined benefit pension plans. 

For example, on September 9, Delta Airlines announced its plans to eliminate 

over seven thousand jobs, cut employees’ wages, and do away with its Dallas hub, 

in part as a result of their strong concern over the future of their pilots’ pensions. 

Just Sunday, US Airways filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy for the second time in 

two years—also citing troubles with their pension plans. 

Now, if Congress were to raise the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots from 60 to 65, we would allow thousands of experienced, senior pilots to 

continue to fly while also continuing to pay into their pensions and into Social SecuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Jan 04, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\97085.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
69

rity as opposed to being forced into early retirement only to begin collecting from 

a quickly dwindling pool of pension cash. 

Finally, I firmly believe that it is a grave mistake to force our most experienced 

pilots into early retirement when they should be serving as the industry’s leading 

experts on operating procedures and emergency responders. 

Through my seventeen years as a commercial airline pilot, I can confidently attest 

to the fact the with experience comes enhanced skills and increased knowledge on 

how to react to stressful situations under pressure. 

At a time when the federal government is dedicating billions of taxpayer dollars 

to the goal of increasing security for the nation’s traveling public, it seems tremendously counter-intuitive to force into early retirement the most experienced pilots 

who will be, in essence, the first responders in the sky. 

In an effort to promote safer skies for all Americans, I would strongly recommend 

that my colleagues support this amendment. 

For all of the above reasons, I continue to advocate for passage of H.R. 1063, legislation I have introduced over the past three Congresses, to increase the mandatory 

retirement age for commercial airline pilots from 60 to 65. 

Although the 108th Congress is quickly coming to a close, I fully intend to re-introduce similar legislation once again early of the 109th Congress. 

I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Inhofe on this important issue, 

and also with the thousands of hardworking airline pilots who also support increasing the retirement age for the benefit of the entire nation. 

Working together we can ensure the FAA ends its policy of age discrimination 

against pilots and abolish the antiquated Age 60 Rule, once and for all.

70


97085.042
71


97085.043
72


97085.044
73


97085.045
74


97085.046
75


97085.047
76


97085.048
77


97085.049
78


97085.050
79


97085.051
80


97085.052
81


97085.053
82


97085.054
83


97085.055
84


97085.056
85

Æ


97085.057