Regarding the Des Moines News article, January 14, 2009: "Runway: To be "fully functional"

The Mayor of Des Moines was accurate in his understanding of the proposed usage of the third runway.

While Mayor Bob Sheckler was on the opposite side of the third runway debate and controversy, it is only fair to acknowledge that he has good reason to be indignant and, I hope, angry at what the port has done with a great display of arrogance.

Not knowing Mr. Mark Reis, I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not consciously lying about his understanding of how the third runway was to be used, and now is to be used.

My understanding of the ramifications of a third runway and its use as it pertains to Des Moines' population is very clear. Not only Des Moines, but also any neighborhood over which the existing runways create traffic were to be unaffected by the "occasional" overflights.

On many exchanges of e-mails with Bob Parker, I/we were assured that the third runway, when completed would only be used as an interim landing site during inclement weather.

The reasoning conveyed to all of us present at luncheons provided by the port, was that, while there is approximately 800 feet between the two runways already there, that it was insufficient for the clearance and landing of more than one aircraft at a time in rain and fog.

The new third runway was then going to be used for the sole purpose of providing a safer and better traffic flow when visibility was diminished. I understood, having spent a good deal of my own career on the flight line, that wing tip to wing tip clearance is a must for aircraft safety and incident control.

During my tenure as a Des Moines Chamber of Commerce member and officer, it was our collective view that our city had unfounded fears of a third runway being used as a regular approach and take off facility.

It is a strong sense of betrayal that is felt by the many of us who mistakenly trusted and believed in the integrity of someone who, as spokes man for the port, was very convincing.

We were taken on one or two tours of the runway as it was being prepared for construction, taken to lunch and barraged with "dog and pony shows" that were designed to lull us into a false sense of confidence in the port's intentions.

One more thing that should be mentioned here is that, in addition to the third runway only being used for difficult landing situations, it was never intended to be used for take offs; the reasoning given to us then and often, was that this runway was to be too short for take off activity. This was made to sound so reasonable and so acceptable that we were all hooked and deceived by the beautiful rhetoric.

So, when asked then, what else the runway would be used for, the response was that it would be used for cargo handling, layover for maintenance and idling.

Bob Parker, I'll bet you wore out a sleeve laughing it up!

On second thought, I believe the port was lying then and is lying now!

So I would like to ask Mr. Reis, "Do you think any of us would have supported the third runway if it meant, 'A fully function al flow of traffic' directly over our heads"?

Pat Nardo

Des Moines