May 8, 1998

Colonel James M. Rigsby
District Engineer
Seattle District, Corps of Engineers
Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255

Re: Wetlands, Third Runway Permit

Dear Colonel Rigsby,

Last Wednesday the legal team from the RCAa reported to members of CASE and the RCAA that they had met with you that day. They indicated that you were concerned regarding possible alternatives to placing the third runway at Sea-Tac

I am retired; however, I have become far more involved with this third runway fiasco than I had ever intended. Perhaps I could share some additional alternative with you.

I have children living in Las Vegas therefore I am down there frequently. Last year McCarran airport in Las Vegas opened its SECOND runway because the number of passengers was approaching 29 million. Sea-Tac already has two runways serving a claimed 26 million passengers. Alternative one appears to be NO RUNWAY. Improvements in staff productivity are needed.

The greatest air related loss of life in history happened when one 747 landed on a second 747 at Tenerife. Therefore the FAA is very sensitive regarding runway crossings. The idea of crossing TWO live runways has never made sense to me because the FAA imposed time restraints to cross two runways was greater than crossing only one and would delay flights rather than speed up flights. Especially since the third runway is short and 14 feet lower than the other two runways which greatly increases the human error potential. Two years ago while on a trip to Philadelphia, I arranged to visit the offices of all the Washington State congressional members in Washington D.C. On this visit I discovered that the intent of the third runway was for air CARGO. The State Representatives in Congress all had models of FEDEX and other cargo carriers in their offices which had been given to them by Port lobbyists. The intent of the third runway appears to be to take air freight business away from Boeing Field, Paine Field, and other competing airports. Cargo carriers would not need to risk crossing runways as all cargo operations would remain on the westside of the airport with no need to cross runways. The third runway was in fact a completely independent new airport for cargo being pushed by developers using public money and the political clout of the Port of Seattle. As all the competing air cargo airport have excess capacity, the need is not justified.

NEW TECHNOLOGY is another alternative.

Several major mergers in the airline industry were announced this week. Full aircraft and fewer flights produce more revenue

Boeing has a tilt wing passenger aircraft under development which will make many commuter aircraft using Sea-Tac obsolete.

The proposed 300 passenger Boeing built SST is planned to be off the drawing boards and in the air by 2006 if orders are placed. The long runways at Spokane and Moses Lake are required for refueling. Sea-Tacs runways are too short and lack adequate safety margins.

Two years ago in a Times feature, Gerald Greenwald, CEO of United Airlines, the Port's biggest air customer, expressed concern over the planned expansion and so forth.

I hope that my information is useful and will help you with your decision. I lived here when the SECOND runway was under construction. The rational was almost a carbon copy of third runway plans. The Port went belly up with that project also and severely damaged the infrastructure of south King County. The schools have never recovered from that fiasco.

Dan Caldwell
(Des Moines Resident)