THERE appears to be a missing element from the proposal detailed in your the article “Quay complaints lead to a change of plan” (WA Business News, July 27). All the major ports that I have visited throughout the world have undercover ferry terminals and many of these terminals are not exposed to the extreme weather conditions affecting Fremantle port. The current O’Connor Landing is affected not only by adverse weather conditions but also by wave patterns, which create dangerous loading/ disembarkation of passengers that use the river ferries as a means of transportation. The original proposal for O’Connor Landing was that it would be cut into the wharf with ferry operators recommending that it have a roof over the vessels and surrounding servicing landing areas. It appears from the plans currently submitted that Fremantle Ports and the city council have not had this brought to their attention and that the developer/architects have not had this included in their brief. I would hate to see the opportunity of a world-class venue be compromised by a lack of attention to the fundamentals in providing for the public with the opportunity thereby of making the development more user friendly thereby attracting more patronage and hence more profit. Please, let us not have another debacle like Barrack Square jetty complex. I bring this to your attention to my own business detriment as my vessels do not use O’Connor Landing for the aforementioned reasons, together with the extra costs involved in travelling into the harbour past East Street. Jetty, which is much more cost effective than O’Connor Landing.Bill Edgar - Golden Sun Cruises