James L. Buckley

“ The majority and the FAA respond to any suggestion that Fort Wayne might be a feasible alternative by emphasizing that the federal government can no longer tell carriers where to place hub airports. Maj. op. at 13-14 (slip op.) ; EIS APP. at C-16. They miss the point. While the agency cannot tell Burlington where to go, it can refuse to approve the Toledo project, or to provide any funding for it. ”

“ Thus the EIS informs us that whereas the proposed project would produce 750 new jobs and $ 17 million for the Toledo economy during the first full year of operation, EIS at 1-4, "the no-action alternative would mean foregoing . . . [these] economic benefits." Id. at 2-13.
This analysis suggests that the jobs and dollars will arise spontaneously from the Toledo soil. In reality, Toledo's gains will come at Fort Wayne's expense. Burlington's Fort Wayne payroll is $ 8 million, id. ”

“ The consultants told the FAA that their "overall business judgement . . . was to recommend Toledo"; they made no claim that Toledo was the only feasible site among the seventeen examined. EIS APP. at E-64. In its comments on the EIS, Burlington conceded that it "would obviously have preferred to remain at Fort Wayne." Id. APP. at E-28. A principal obstacle was money: "Fort Wayne was unable to compose a competitive funding package and development plan for a permanent hub," id., whereas Toledo "worked diligently" to produce a "creative" funding package, id. ”

“ See, e.g., Friends of the River v. FERC, 231 U.S. App. D.C. 329, 720 F.2d 93, 104-05 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (permit to operate hydroelectric plant; alternative of purchasing power from other producers) ; Mason County Med. ”