up with the spiraling costs of living, but members of the military service are far behind their contemporaries in civil life.

It is unreasonable to assume that military men will remain in the service unless their income bears more relationship to the cost of living. Accordingly, this bill has been called "a bill to promote career incentive in the services.' Furthermore, the cost to the Government resulting from the high military turnover is prohibitive-not only in dollars and cents but, more importantly in readiness of our military structure.

In the opinion of the Reserve Officers Association the enactment of such legislation is a must.

The association recognizes that the approach to these pay increases is unique and in that it provides increases in relation to the amount of service and the attained rank of an individual. It is probable that there will be those who offer other plans such as a flat salary increase for all hands.

It is not the intention of the association to enter into arguments as to how the pay is increased. It believes that a pay increase is vital, long overdue, and must be enacted.

Accordingly, it is fully supporting this bill as introduced, but if, in the wisdom of the Congress, some other plan to increase pay is deemed more appropriate then it will support that proposition with equal force.

There is one point in the bill as introduced which we believe requires attention and change. The emoluments of a military man include not only his pay while on active duty but, among other things, the delayed payment he receives in the form of retirement pay he receives after he leaves active status. It is intended that the increases in this bill extend to all retired officers, excepting those who were retired for physical disability prior to the enactment of the Career Compensation Act.

It is a fact that a very substantial percentage of those who were retired for physical disability were retired as a result of wounds received in action. It is our firm belief the increases in this bill should extend to all personnel, active or retired. The dubious benefits which would accrue to certain borderline cases if they are required to make an election as is suggested by this bill can only result in injustices more pronounced than those which took place when the Career Compensation Act was adopted in 1949.

Retired pay for disability is as old as armed forces.

Basically, it has always been available so that a man, if disabled, need not fear complete economic want. In one of the old statutes of England, and I do not intend to claim this is an exact quotation, it discusses the payment to disabled officers in the following language: "It is well that those who suffer loss of limb or injury in the service of their country be provided for so that others may be encouraged to do likewise."

We believe this bill should not discriminate against those who were disabled and therefore, it is the opinion of our association that the benefits of this bill should cover all retired personnel as well as those on active duty. We thank you for the opportunity of having submitted our position on this important legislation.

Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank you for allowing us to appear and underscore our belief that the continuous turnover of personnel within the armed services requires the enactment of a pay bill. We have watched with a great deal of alarm the decrease in reenlistments throughout the services and also the fact that it is apparently increasingly difficult for a man going through ROTC.

We believe the pay is only one of many things. It has to be done. to build up a career service to make it attractive. But we do think it is a most important one. We would also like to comment on the committee print in that in our prepared statement we had suggested also a change in the pay rates of those officers who were retired under laws in effect prior to October 1, 1949.

We are delighted that you have recognized the principle that something should be done. We do not believe you have gone far enough. Actually we think that the same percentage of increase that is given to people in the active service should apply to those officers, the same

percentage of increase. We recognize that it would vary within the various grades.

I think also the discussion this morning has been healthy and if and when this committee in its wisdom decides to consider again the question of whether or not an officer who meets minimum requirements for physical disability retirement shall again be entitled to 75 percent of his pay, the association will be delighted to testify and cooperate on

that.

I think at times we overlook the fact that 75 percent of the pay is really only about 50 percent of a man's pay and a 40- or 50-percent disability retirement particularly for those that have met the minimum qualifications for retirement, and frequently is less than they get under other programs.

That is all we have to say, sir, except that we do urge strongly that some pay bill be put through.

Mr. KILDAY. Thank you. Glad to have your statement.

Mr. BLANDFORD. May I say that the Uniformed Services Contingency Option Act was not in the Department measure, it was discussed during the drafting stage. I apologize to Mr. Bennett.

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Larry Cates, Air Line Pilots Association.

Mr. CATES. Mr. Sayen, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, is here and will make a statement.

Mr. KILDAY. Be glad to hear from you, sir. Come around.

Mr. SAYEN. My name is Clarence N. Sayen, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International, and International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations.

We have submitted to the committee here copies of our statement, so in the interest of brevity and to save time we would like to have that inserted into the record.

Mr. KILDAY. Without objection it will be included in the record. (The statement follows:)

My name is Clarence N. Sayen. We are very appreciative of the opportunity to appear here today and state our views on this important legislation. As background, in the event the committee should have any questions, the following is a short sketch of some of my current activities and those of the Air Line Pilots Association, International.

I am president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International. I am also president of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations, which is a federation of the pilot-representing organizations of some 22 countries: a member of the committee on operating problems of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics; a member of the executive committee of the National Air Transport Coordinating Committee; a member of the war air service pattern committee of the Defense Air Transportation Administration; a member of the Civil Aviation Air Defense Advisory Committee; a member of the National Aviation Noise Reduction Committee; a member of the Civil Aeronautics Administration Prototype Aircraft Advisory Committee; a member of the executive committee of the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics; and a member of the Chicago Aero Commission. I do not currently hold any reserve position in the armed services.

The Air Line Pilots Association is a voluntary representing organization for professional pilots of scheduled United States air carriers. It presently has a membership of over 12,000 active and inactive members employed by 41 United States certificated air carriers. The association represents professional airline pilots in all aspects of their professional life.

It is their bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act, maintains an extensive air safety organization in 116 councils scattered throughout the United States and a number of foreign countries, and is spokesman for the airline pilot in his relationship with municipal, State, Federal, and international organizations.

We appear before you today in support of the Department of Defense Career Incentive Act of 1955.

We would like to state at the outset the reasons for our interest in this problem. We are not here to represent any particular group. There is nothing in this legislation that will directly benefit our organization or its members except as such benefit is derived in the overall national interest. We support this legislation for the following reasons:

1. We believe that this legislation is in the national interest. It is our desire that the most capable people be drawn into the Defense Establishment of our country on a career basis. We believe further that this legislation will increase the efficiency of our armed services and will be an investment toward the solution of some of the current problems of the armed services.

2. We believe that our studies and experience in the fields of wage theory, incentive systems, collective bargaining, and so forth, qualify us to set forth an educated view on this subject. We, of course, are not here in connection with any project in collective bargaining and would not desire to have our appearance so construed. However, we hope that our testimony will be viewed with consideration for our experience in fields related to this legislation.

The proposed adjustments in compensation are justified by any normal measure employed in establishing rates of compensation.

In the establishment of rates of compensation, rules, and working conditions, normally an individual is entitled to at least the following considerations in the establishment of his level of income:

1. The maintenance of his purchasing power-he is entitled to keep his wages in line with the cost of living.

2. To share in the increased national productivity and thus enhance his standård of living accordingly. If the ability of our industrial system to produce increases at a rate of 2 to 3 percent annually, an individual is entitled to share in that increased productivity in terms of either lower prices or increased earnings.

3. To be compensated for any substantial change in job content or increased responsibility.

By any of the foregoing measure, the adjustments which have been requested in the Department of Defense Career Incentive Act of 1955 are justified.

However, in addition, there is an opportunity presented to the employer-in this case the Federal Government-in making the adjustments requested to aid in the solution of some urgent national problems.

The increasingly complex nature of the machines, technology, and procedures necessary to our national defense require that turnover of highly trained skilled, and experienced personnel be minimized. Such rapid turnover not only jeopardizes efficiency but is uneconomical and wasteful. A private enterprise faced with a similar turnover problem would be unable to compete with another enterprise maintaining a higher experience level. The orientation of the rates of compensation and incentives included in a pay system offer the best alternative available for minimizing turnover and inducing capable people to select a particular career and persist in it.

This legislation also offers an opportunity to reduce the high cost of training required by complexities of modern technology and the high cost of the machines employed.

Rapid turnover means that new individuals must be constantly trained. To provide such training today is very expensive. We would like to give a few examples of training costs in the field in which we are most experienced.

The Air Force has released figures estimating that it costs $120,000 to train an aviation cadet to the minimum experience level required in order that he may be assigned to a particular mission.

We believe this is a realistic figure. We know that a commercial airline operating today's large and complex transport aircraft may spend $400 an hour or more to operate an aircraft for pilot training. If, after having invested $120,000 in the training of a pilot, only 3 years' utilization is secured, the training cost alone is $40,000 per year. Since the individual may only be available for assignment to a particular mission for 1 year of that period, the cost for service may be $120,000 for one year.

If, on the other hand, the individual is retained in service for 10 years or more, the training cost is, of course, amortized over a longer period. It appears to us, therefore, that the problem is the simple one of trying to get as many years of

55066-55-No. 6-26

amortization of the training cost as possible from each individual. This has long been recognized in civil commercial aviation where training costs are also high but the very small turnover in pilot personnel makes possible amortization over a long period.

In the field of aviation, a pilot rapidly loses his competency unless he is kept either in training or in the performance of an assigned task. Retraining is very expensive. The national defense requires currently qualified people, and with the rapid changes today in the state of the art, this means people who are constantly keeping up with technological developments.

A reduction in the turnover will increase the level of experience, increase efficiency, and reduce accidents and waste. Any measure that will accomplish the foregoing must be viewed as an investment.

For practical examples of the foregoing, we turn again to the aviation field in which we feel most competent.

Accident statistics will demonstrate that there is a direct relationship between the level of experience of pilots and accidents. Figures released by the MATS First World-Wide Flight Safety Conference of July 21-23, 1954, showed that as of May 1954 the average level of experience of pilots in the Air Force was approximately 2,247 flying hours.

For the Military Air Transport Service, it was approximately 2,991. Commercial airline pilots' average experience was over 7,500 hours for first pilots and 4,000 hours for copilots.

At least one airline averaged 9,000 hours for first pilots and 4.000 hours for copilots. It was also demonstrated that there was a relationship between the number of accidents and the level of experience, with the larger number of accidents occurring in the lower experience levels. We all know that accidents, whether major or minor in nature, are extremely expensive, both in the destruction of equipment and personnel and in their indirect effects.

It is our opinion that the complex technology of today's aircraft and the procedures under which they are employed will require a higher level of experience. We do not subscribe to the theory that future aircraft will be flown only by extremely young men of high stamina. We believe that they will be best flown by pilots who are well trained and have long experience. The writer has just completed a course in instrument flying in jet aircraft and his view remains unchanged on this point.

As the level of experience increases, we believe that the efficiency will improve. Increased efficiency, of course, means a more effective national defense at a lower overall cost.

The efficiency of our uniformed services depends upon the retention of the most capable and best qualified personnel.

Our uniformed services are in direct competition for personnel with private enterprise. The rates of compensation, rules, working conditions, and prospects of advancement must be such that the uniformed services may attract adequate numbers of personnel and retain the most capable by encouraging them to make a career in the Defense Establishment.

We are all familiar with examples of professions and trades where inadequate compensation and career incentives have resulted in the most capable people people leaving and going into some other endeavor. The result is that the less competent and ambitious individuals remain and lesser standards of performance must be accepted.

This has been true, in our opinion, in the teaching profession where the rewards have been inadequate and, as a result, the most capable people, with the exception of those who are dedicated to their work have gone into other lines of endeavor, and communities have had to lower their standards to fill teaching positions. The results have certainly not been in the public interest. While the parallel is not directly comparable, it is believed that the uniformed services cannot afford such a situation.

In some instances, a capable representing organization has been capable of halting and reversing such a trend. In this case, the judgment and wisdom of Congress and the President must be the deciding factor.

Incentive and hazard pay is necessary and performs important functions. We believe that the incentive system and hazard pay are a good investment and that this element of compensation should be maintained at a level where it peforms its assigned functions.

These functions are several. First, it attracts qualified people to a certain type of service and encourages them to stay in it.

An example, of course, is flight duty where the extra pay for flying duty attracts people to an assignment which is often very hazardous and encourages them to stay in it.

Secondly, flight and hazard pay encourages an individual to keep currently qualified in his particular line of endeavor. We consider this very important. There are too many people in important policymaking positions and administrative jobs today who are not currently informed and qualified in their field. Too many people who have been assigned to a desk job because of their technical knowledge have remained in that assignment long enough so that they are no longer technically current. Their judgments are being formed as a result of experiences of past years. In this age of rapid technological change, it is imperative that our policymaking and administrative people keep currently qualified in their field. This can only be accomplished by periodic participation in their field. I have been away from active day-to-day flying for 5 years.

However, I have just completed the senior officers jet instrument familiarization course at Moody Air Force Base. This course enables individuals to familiarize themselves with current problems in instrument flying and traffic control in jet aircraft. It is amazing the misconceptions that can be formed in a few years of theoretical application to a subject rather than practical experience.

In this connection, we strongly support the efforts of the Air Force to keep their senior officers current on technical problems and their making such an opportunity also available to selected civilians. We believe such programs are an excellent investment which will pay high dividends.

I would also like to inject here that this most recent contact and conversations with the men in the Air Force impressed me very strongly on the need for this legislation.

Third, whatever separate elements of compensation may be labeled, the net result is a certain level of compensation required to accomplish a certain objective. Incentive and hazard pay has been incorporated in the compensation structure of the uniformed services to accomplish a certain objective and it should be kept at a level that will do the job. To alter the relationship in the pay structure would have undesirable consequences in vital segments of our armed services.

We have only a limited amount of airspace over our country which must be shared by the civil and the military. It is rapidly becoming more and more congested with resultant efficiency and safety problems. The solution of these problems and the efficient and safe utilization of the airspace require a high level of experience, morale, and training in the men who will be solving the problems and utilizing the airspace.

We have directed some of our remarks directly to aviation because that is our particular field. However, we believe that they are equally applicable in other fields with similar problems.

In closing, we would like to again express our appreciation to the members of this committee for making this presentation of our views possible. It is hoped that what we have had to say will be of help to you in your consideration of this important legislation.

Mr. KILDAY. Would you care to be seated, Mr. Sayen?

Mr. SAYEN. Thank you.

Mr. KILDAY. We will be glad to have any supplemental statement or amplification. It may be that some members of the committee may want to ask some questions.

Mr. SAYEN. I would like to make 1 or 2 brief remarks outlining the points in our statement and our reason for being here.

First, I would like to state that we strongly support this proposed legislation.

The Air Line Pilots Association is the representative of practically all the professional airlines pilots of the United States.

The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations is a pilot organization representing some 22 countries.

As head of the Air Line Pilots Association I am called upon from time to time to serve on various commissions and policymaking boards