Bid on Brussels International Airport

[sn26567]

Brussels is a national airport and should remain so. The Belgian government has now a majority share in BIAC and will keep a minority (blocking) share. And that is how it should be.

BIAC is managing the airport correctly, mainly because the government is not interfering with the management of the airport. If the future (private) management of the airport wants to take a decision that goes against the interest of Belgium, the government will still be able to block it.

Why change this scheme that worked correctly until now and is likely to work even better in the future?

PS (and this is not a word game): @ Fons: socialists are now part of every federal and regional government of Belgium, not only in Wallonia.

[SN30952]

And I disagree fully. 8)

I didn't expected you to agree with us Chris

So to see, I made an ace in one, Chris. Can you prove the F-gov does not have the expertise? Your Top1000 proves only there are 1000 better! So the others went in politics. But basically they are produced in the same schools.

So what is the difference between a black and a white Toyota? You have to see the engine. But they leave the same factory...

[Flybe]

But basically they are produced in the same schools.

It's more their level of experience that counts. What i'm finding out right now (i'm just graduated) is that the school you come from doesn't mean that much, it's previous experience that is important.

And governments just don't have the experience in aviation matters compared to companies such as Ferrovial and others. Also the way of managing things isn't the same in governments and private companies. Just because the objectives and goals are different in those 2.

Greets,

Pieter

[SN30952]

The car industry in Flanders suffers the same inconvenient, decisions are taken in Koln, or elsewhere in Germany or Malmo.

But it is thanks to the billion injections, the car industry stays there where it is... But your future car maybe will come from .. Romania?
And owning shares does not mean manage? Strategy is what the manager has to implement.

Some international companies are more powerful than small nations such as Belgium. And that is a good thing*, because by giving us a hard time and threatening to leave, they keep the country competitive and with their feet on the ground (although it can be sometimes painful, e.g. DHL).

The world is not made of hard times for some and good times for others.
It is for good times for everyone. Wait until you get squeezed.
And I cannot see why that is a good thing*, it is not. imho.

....the risk is real that after the elections (so after 4 years) there is another government with different parties and ministers… with different views.

That's what democracy is like. But international companies threatening to leave are worse. They can fire you any day of the week! On what they base their decisions?

I do not see your point, Flybe (as in Fly belgian?) or are you an angry young man, kicking some establishment? Reading you, I may conclude there is nothing good left in Flanders, Belgium: all good things come from abroad?
Maybe you're planning a job with such a company? Maybe you want to be a person like that DHL guy?

[Flybe]

are you an angry young man, kicking some establishment?

I can assure you that i'm not an angry person, kicking some establishment. But i like a good discussion though. Ok, maybe i overemphasized (and for sure oversimplyfied) some things, but don't we all do that? For sure every "system" (state controlled, purely private or every system in between) has it's own merrits and faults. I was just trying to emphasize the positive points of private owned industry and the (in my opinion) negative points of public owned companies. This as a reaction to your own post that did exactly the opposite (if we all would agree, there wouldn't be a discussion). That does not mean that i don't recognise the good things about publicly owned companies (although in this discussion, it does not change my opinion about biac). I must say that i am at any time for a balanced economy, which also indicates a healthy mix of publicly owned and privatly owned companies. But a government doesn't need to have shares in a company to set the rules. I think setting the rules is much more efficient when putting them in laws.

The world is not made of hard times for some and good times for others.

It shouldn't be, but it is, historically and at present too. If not competition between (international or national) companies, then between countries as a whole (in a government driven economy).

What i meant to say with international companies that are more powerful than small countries, and that being a good thing is the following. In my own little theory (i do not say it is correct or not, but it is how i see it at the moment) there are more factors for establishing a stable economy then just the policy of 1 country. And in the EU, many countries now face problems, because many countries have a quite high wellfare status. Wellfare is good, up till a certain level. But when wellfare makes people act irrationally, it because a treath for that same society. Because when people live well, they forget that the nicely paid job they have isn't for free. They want to annually earn more and still work less, they want to get rid of nightflights, etc. And by doing that, they destroy jobs and their own wellfare.

Now throw in those international companies. They don't like this, and threaten to leave (their good right, they aren't charity after all). But because they threaten, people get more conscious of what the consequences are. And they hopefully realise what they are doing (to themselves) before the company leaves. Sometimes they don't, and it is indeed a very sad thing. But if those international companies do not threaten to leave, then nobody in Belgium would realise what is happening before it is too late. Now is still the time to do something about it, and i do have the impression that people in belgium start to think about work again, instead of wellfare (that they wouldn't be able to pay anyway if they are out of a job). Not so many companies leave, most end up staying, but they keep the local economy competitive be telling them that there are other options then staying in Belgium.

We have to stop looking at ourselves from a Belgan perspective, but more from a European and even global perspective.

Fons, do realise that my posts weren't aimed at you personally, but as you were untill now the only one with a different view (that i fully respect), i had to qoute mainly from your posts. That's all.

I just don't see the added value of the Flemish government owning a few shares of BIAC. Personally i think that they can better invest that money into other means to improve employment.

Greets,

Pieter

Flybe: well, i just liked the name, didn't even really know what kind of airline it was. No special meaning.

[Flybe]

One more small thing to add, sorry, i know that i'm ranting 8)

Flybe wrote:

....the risk is real that after the elections (so after 4 years) there is another government with different parties and ministers… with different views.

That's what democracy is like. But international companies threatening to leave are worse. They can fire you any day of the week! On what they base their decisions?

Here i was focussing on biac only: biac needs a long term strategy to implement. They need to get that strategy from somewhere. I was just trying to point out that it would be hard to implement a long term strategy that could change every 4 years. It's a democracy, but the average Joe doesn't elect a government specifically to change how BIAC is doing. But that new government can change it nevertheless. A company like Ferrovial can't relocate BRU 8) Firing everybody would also not be really possible. The only thing they could do is leave and sell their shares (maybe to the government). So the risk is quite limited and even more so because the federal government still has the right to block some desicions.

Pieter

[SN30952]

Fons, do realise that my posts weren't aimed at you personally, but as you were untill now the only one with a different view (that i fully respect), i had to qoute mainly from your posts. That's all.

Do not worry, Pieter, I like a good match of thai boxing...

A company like Ferrovial can't relocate BRU

That is so, but a government can. Since Belgium is so densely populated, (and people are still pouring in from all sides) a government could decide to move an airport into territorial waters, out at sea. Belgians are making islands, dams, reclaiming land elsewhere, maybe one day they will do that on the flemish coast. A government* could handle these matters better than any other body.
The North Sea International Airport. HST's would link the Chunnelport to the continent, the UK? Powered by windturbines. Cargo would then RoRo directly on HSFreight Trains. And check-in would still remain in the towns where these HST's stop. That's a perspective.!
Its a fact that 80% of the world population, lives within 200km of the sea or ocean. So airports will not find space nor environment there, so they will have to go at sea... because there is more sea than land.

Sometimes that's called an authority*. As in Port Authority.
The North Sea International Airport Authority

[Avro]

Sorry I'm replying so late in this topic, but I wasn't online the last few days.

Can you prove the F-gov does not have the expertise?

Why don't you prove me first that the flemish government has MORE international expertise than the other governments in Belgium.

I never said that they didn't had any expertise at all, but IMHO the governments whether flemish or wallon don't have the appropriate "knowledge" nor the appropriate determination to develop BRU on a long term basis to a reasonable big airport. I say reasonable big because BRU will never be a big international hub in my opinion, or at least the chance is very small.

I’m just someone who graduated in economics, nothing special. Every opinion is valuable and welcome!

Well, that's enough to say that you know more about economics than me

Chris

[SN30952]

I say reasonable big because BRU will never be a big international hub in my opinion, or at least the chance is very small. Chris

The vocation of BRU, EBBR is parochial. I said this long before this forum.
BRU will level with LCY. Serving the capital of Europe with excellent passenger services, and light courier air transport.
All the 'heavy' will leave it.
The dense agglomeration can not coop much longer with the environmental nuisance of such a thing as 24/7 airport.
So imho, there is no reasonably big, because big is not reasonable under the given situation.
It excellence will be its services, its human scale, its quality.
If Brussels wants to stay intercontinental, it has to go for executive travel, and businessmen oriented airlines.
With a reputation of multilingual staff, its gourmet catering, its top range boutiques EBBR will survive and even flourish.

Let the masses flock and hurdle in LHR, CDG, SPL BRU will be the place for what will become 'some elite of the skies' or die.

[sn26567]

Let the masses flock and hurdle in LHR, CDG, SPL. BRU will be the place for what will become 'some elite of the skies' or die.

That's a very pessimistic view, Fons. It shows a total lack of ambition. I would not let you run BIAC!

It is true that BRU airport is too close to Brussels to be an 7/24 airport. But this situation is inherited from the past and we have to live with it. It certainly does not mean that BRU has a parochial vocation. There is room for expansion within some limits imposed by the environment.

And if Belgium wants to keep a place on the map of international aviation, it should build a second national airport in a little inhabited area, e.g. in Chièvres, like Verhofstadt suggested. (At least he had one good idea...).

See in this latest newshow Germans are handling such cases in an efficient way.

[SN30952]

That's a very pessimistic view, Fons. It shows a total lack of ambition. I would not let you run BIAC!

And if Belgium wants to keep a place on the map of international aviation, it should build a second national airport

It is a not a dreamer's view. Its a realistic view.
Sabena dreamers woke up with a hang over. BIAC's will too.

Belgium, as a federal state, cannot build any airport, transport is not longer federal. Stop dreaming or change the law. All civil airports are regional in Belgium. As to EBBR, how long will it be tolerated in it actual status?
Only military installations of the kind are federal.

When I spoke about an authority higher in the forum, as the French tend to have and staff, with people coming in and out of the state apparatus, as people like Mr Spinetta who came to Air France, everybody in the forum seemed to say that was impossible in Belgium.
Now I concluded on your sayings: we don't have the people.
On my saying: we don't have the space, territorially nor legally.

And does the Walloon region have the money to build that 'castle in the air', near Chièvres?
So on my saying: there is no money for that.

That is not pessimistic, that is realistic.

PS About that Biac job, I do not like historical museums. (museum = a building where important cultural, historical or scientific objects are kept and shown to the public....)

[SN30952]

Eind deze maand presenteert Dirk Van Mechelen (VLD), Vlaams minister van Ruimtelijke Ordening, zijn beleidsnota aan het parlement.
Vlaanderen had vorig jaar een nettotekort van 965 hectare bouwrijpe terreinen had om een minimumaanbod te kunnen garanderen. Professor Wim Vanhaverbeke (Limburgs Universitair Centrum): "Het tekort houdt al een decennium aan... Daardoor heeft Vlaanderen tussen 1994 en 2001 tussen 20.000 en 25.000 potentiële jobs gemist. Voor de komende drie jaar schatten we het verlies op 8358 tot 11.212 banen. De huidige vraag tegen 2017 bedraagt 11.450 hectare. Als de overheid vasthoudt aan het Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen (RSV), komen we slechts aan 7124 hectare.

Groeipool Zaventem in gevaar
..ten slotte scoort zelfs de hoofdstad slecht wat ruimtelijke economie betreft.
Zo blijft de ontwikkeling van het gebied rond de luchthaven van Zaventem - dé poort van Vlaanderen - achterwege.
Lammens*: "Nochtans is 50 tot 75% van de particuliere werkgelegenheid in de regio - tussen 57.830 en 72.023 jobs - afhankelijk van de aanwezigheid van de luchthaven*.
Maar deze groeipool blijft kwetsbaar als gevolg van een slechte bereikbaarheid.
Jammer genoeg blijft de overheid ruzie maken over een strategisch plan voor de regio. Daarom stellen wij voor dat de Gom samen met luchthavenbeheerder Biac een nota opstelt, zodat de nodige beleidsmaatregelen genomen kunnen worden."

This week by Eric Pompen in Trends eric.pompen@trends.be
*Erwin Lammens is directeur ruimtelijke economie van de Gewestelijke Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij (Gom) voor Vlaams Brabant.

Herewith is the parochial role of Zaventem airport confirmed: 50 tot 75% of the jobs in private entreprise in the area depends on the airport.

[Badabing]

Belgians are making islands, dams, reclaiming land elsewhere, maybe one day they will do that on the flemish coast.

Good grief ! Do you have any clue about the cost that would be involved in that ?! The Dutch govt looked into the possibility a few years ago, and quickly shelved the suggestion when they saw the price tag.
I know you'll refer to Chek Lap Kok and Kansai and the likes, but such operations are only a last resort when no other (less expensive) alternatives are available. To make that work, you need huge volumes of passengers. Volumes that our market couldn't cough up at this moment... and for decades to come.
My 2 cts.

[SN30952]

To make that work, you need huge volumes of passengers. Volumes that our market couldn't cough up at this moment... and for decades to come.

Andre, would say you are a pessimist.... and you will not get the job at NSIAA, Babading. 8)

[Badabing]

Andre, would say you are a pessimist.... and you will not get the job at NSIAA, Babading. 8)

... maybe I'm happy with the job where I am now ???

[SN30952]

Vlaamse regering belast werkgroepen met plan luchthavenregio (29/10 19:52)
(Belga) De Vlaamse regering heeft vrijdag de oprichting goedgekeurd van een task force en een werkgroep die tegen 12 november een plan klaar moeten hebben gericht op de sociaal-economische ontwikkeling van de luchthavenregio. Dat meldt het kabinet van minister-president Yves Leterme vrijdagavond.

Gouverneur Lode De Witte van Vlaams-Brabant is aangewezen als voorzitter-coördinator van een werkgroep die bestaat uit alle betrokken administraties en diensten. Daarnaast is een "task force" in het leven geroepen die wordt geleid door Hugo Van Bever, gewezen directeur-generaal van de GOM Vlaams-Brabant. De task force bestaat uit vertegenwoordigers van de kabinetten van de minister-president en van de ministers Moerman, Vandenbroucke, Van Mechelen, Anciaux, Peeters en Van Brempt. Het plan moet gericht zijn op vijf concrete actiedomeinen: een stabiel kader voor uitbreiding van de luchthaven (onder meer inzake geluidsnormen), een strategische visie op de ontwikkeling van de luchthaven en de regio, de bereikbaarheid en ontsluiting, bedrijvenzones en vestigingsmogelijkheden voor bedrijven en de versterking van de arbeidsmarkt. Voorts zullen task force en werkgroep in een eerste fase alle dossiers aanwijzen "waarvoor de besluitvorming op korte termijn kan worden afgerond".

Meaning the flemish government is creating a Task Force, that will have to make a report for 12NOV, (this year?) on the socio-economical development of the airport region around Zaventem,
Five actions areas:
stable expansion window for the airport
strategic development view for the airport and the region
accessibility and decongestion
business & enterprise parks /zonings
reinforcement of labor market

As you will notice this is a strict flemish -, even Flemish Brabant-matter, confirming again the parochial aspect of Zaventem airport and the politicians on that plough across that electoral area....


PS
For the readers who do not know what "parochial" means, here is the definition:
only interested in the things that affect you and your local area, (and not interested in more important matters) and in this context NOT concerned with a parish - although sometimes I wonder if not!

[sn26567]

Where does our federal government stay with a long-range view on Belgian aviation? Are they only interested in short-term issues?

[Flybe]

The rumour was already reported here ( https://www.aviation24.be/postt6957.html ) a few days ago, but now it is confirmed: Macquarie acquired 70% of BRU. It is now being reported on Kanaal Z. In total they pay 735 Million €, a lot more then the initial 500€ that was hoped. 352 Millions of that amount go to the 30% share of the government. Although it is being reported that Macquarie acquires the full 70%, and a few private shareholders already agreed on selling their shares, KBC Bank, who has a share of more or less 5% has not decided yet, according to Kanaal Z.

Macquarie is happy, because of the high businesstraffic at BRU, and because of the huge capacity that could be used without expanding. Let's hope that they will do a good job with the airport!

Time to apply with Macquarie 8)

Greets,

Pieter

PS: on another note, i read a few days ago that the Flemish government decided not to buy a share of BIAC. This was said by Yves Leterme, president of the flemish government.

[Avro]

You've just beaten me by a few seconds Pieter, as I wanted to search up this topic to write the news

I'm quite happy that Macquarie is the winner.
And as you see let's now hope they'll be able to develop BRU by creating a better working environment

Chris

[blackhawk]

More info at their press release: http://www.macquarie.com.au/au/map/news/20041109.htm

a pfd file with the presentation: http://www.macquarie.com.au/au/map/acro ... tation.pdf

Tip: read the presentation, it's full of interesting stuff: Attracting LCC's, long hauls, secondary oneworld hub, ...