Brussels region noise regulation

[Acid-drop]

The hidden agenga as you call it is because you beleive BRU is a flemish airport with only flemish jobs, its obviously not that.
(Same goes for LGG which hires a lot of flemish)
So in the end...

[Passenger]

The hidden agenda as you call it is because you beleive BRU is a flemish airport with only flemish jobs, its obviously not that.

Nobody in Flanders believes that BRU is a Flemish airport with only Flemish jobs. At the contrary: me thinks that Flemish people regard BRU as a neutral, federal, communal and multilangual airport, with passenger traffic and cargo activities that are important for all Belgian regions (even though Flanders generates 70%).

But let me translated a few quotes from the previous posts in Dutch for you. Perhaps you will then understand that the north doens't believe that the Brussels government is of good faith:

Quote: Volgens VRT-journaliste Nina Verhaeghe... ... klinkt het een beetje als: "Ik zal jouw portefeuille niet stelen op voorwaarde dat je mij jouw portefeuille geeft."
Translated: VRT-journalist Niona Verhaeghe says that the latest latest proposal from the Brussels government sounds like "I will not steal your wallet if you give it to me".

Quote: Minister van Mobiliteit Ben Weyts (N-VA): ... de Brusselse gewestregering zegt eigenlijk 'We gaan onze geluidsnormen niet verstrengen vanaf het moment dat er geen vliegtuig meer over Brussel vliegt'.
Translated: the Flemish minister for Mobility Ben Weyts says that the latest proposal from the Brussels government sounds like "Brussels promises not to collect fines for aircraft flying above Brussels when there are no aircraft flying above Brussels".

- - -

Now, you said Flemish people suspect a "hidden agenda". We don't. It's not a hidden agenda. It's an open statement. Or do you think that we can't read this: Les responsables de l’aéroport de Liège et les responsables syndicaux liégeois viennent d’écrire au Premier ministre Charles Michel et à différents responsables du gouvernement pour proposer Liège comme solution... Nous invitons les autorités fédérales et régionales à se saisir des réelles opportunités que présente Liege Airport dans le cas d’une solution aux problèmes de bruit liés aux activités de l’aéroport de Zaventem... Dans le passé, les autorités fédérales ont déjà laissé partir DHL en Allemagne, alors que des solutions comme Liege Airport existent pour ces compagnies et permettent ainsi de conserver l’emploi dans notre pays... Plus globalement, l’aéroport de Liège plaide pour que les aéroports régionaux soient mieux pris en considération comme alternatives permettant d’assurer une solution plus durable pour l’aéroport de Zaventem. Source: http://mobile.lesoir.be/1440529/article ... -Bruxelles

Now tell me Acid-drop: who owns LGG Airport? Isn't it la Région Wallonne? And isn't la Région Wallonne represented by politicians from the same political parties who, in the Brussels government, try to hurt/damage Brussels Airport?

[Acid-drop]

Ask the cd&v and vld member of brussels gov if they are part of the hidden agenda of the PS
It would be so easy if it was that...
But no its just a lot of nimby's and very local and narrow minded politics.
Bit we both repeat ourselves here. We will never agree I guess ...

[sn-remember]

Looking at the chart in attachment, I ask myself why the aircrafts do not take off eastwards, meaning leaving the populous city center behind ?
Maybe a naïve question ?
https://images.lecho.be/view?iid=dc:100 ... 7334598000

[flightlover]

Looking at the chart in attachment, I ask myself why the aircrafts do not take off eastwards, meaning leaving the populous city center behind ?
Maybe a naïve question ?
https://images.lecho.be/view?iid=dc:100 ... 7334598000

In Belgium, winds are predominant from the north or west.

[sn-remember]

I see .. thank you
While I understand it's better to have a front wind, you mean a back wind (let's say mild as is predominant in B.) would be a no go ?

[luchtzak]

I see .. thank you
While I understand it's better to have a front wind, you mean a back wind (let's say mild as is predominant in B.) would be a no go ?

That might get dangerous ...

[galaxy]

Looking at the chart in attachment, I ask myself why the aircrafts do not take off eastwards, meaning leaving the populous city center behind ?
Maybe a naïve question ?
https://images.lecho.be/view?iid=dc:100 ... 7334598000

In Belgium, winds are predominant from the north or west.

Wind direction in Belgium in %

[sn-remember]

Thank you for the info
So in roughly 20% of cases, aircrafts would take off opposite to the city, right ?
Hmm of course the opposite would apply for landings
Yes the airport is definitely ill located but there is nothing to do ...
I think the 3 propositions as I read them are not that excessive ... (but I did not dig deeply on the subject as I did not take time to read the complete thread as I should have !
The 3 points in question :
→ suppression of flights on the canal route
→ suppression of flights veering left between 06h00 and 7h00
→ strict respect of wind norms mainly on the short runway 01

[Kris]

The latest statement from Vanhengel: We ( Brussels) will not change our mind, a good solution would be to move the airport 1800 meter backwards.

[lumumba]

I wil not translate it ,but I'm so agree with him.

http://www.demorgen.be/opinie/hoe-zaven ... -b2b1e39c/

[Conti764]

I wil not translate it ,but I'm so agree with him.

http://www.demorgen.be/opinie/hoe-zaven ... -b2b1e39c/

I don't. His comparison with LCY is ridiculous to start with, typically for somebody who doesn't have a lot of knowledge about a topic, wishes to express his opinion and starts building his opinion on the info he found... Yes, LCY is a city airport with only 4 million passengers and a curfew. But London has 3 other airports serving the city amongst which Europe's biggest airport LHR. Imagine BRU imposing a curfew on itself between let's say 23:00 and 07:00... It heavily limits operations for airlines and whether you like it or not, it are those airlines who decide where to fly too and at what times... No problem at London, they have Heathrow, Stansted and Luton for that. But overhere, airlines would just decide to skip BRU and fly to other airports.

[Conti764]

The latest statement from Vanhengel: We ( Brussels) will not change our mind, a good solution would be to move the airport 1800 meter backwards.

Like I said: then no new stadium on Flemish territory (a huge loss of credibility for Brussels), heavy penalty's for every litre of poluted water streaming from the Senne into Flanders, a move of the entire Flemish administration to (an) other city(/ies)... Halting of expansion of the railnetwork into and around Brussels,...

[lumumba]

I wil not translate it ,but I'm so agree with him.

http://www.demorgen.be/opinie/hoe-zaven ... -b2b1e39c/

I don't. His comparison with LCY is ridiculous to start with, typically for somebody who doesn't have a lot of knowledge about a topic, wishes to express his opinion and starts building his opinion on the info he found... Yes, LCY is a city airport with only 4 million passengers and a curfew. But London has 3 other airports serving the city amongst which Europe's biggest airport LHR. Imagine BRU imposing a curfew on itself between let's say 23:00 and 07:00... It heavily limits operations for airlines and whether you like it or not, it are those airlines who decide where to fly too and at what times... No problem at London, they have Heathrow, Stansted and Luton for that. But overhere, airlines would just decide to skip BRU and fly to other airports.

I understand that comparison is not ideal but facts are there.
Brussels Airport can not be a night airport....

[ZavCity]

There are only about 15 night flights.
As Ryanair CEO said, 7 AM is ridiculous to open an airport, everybody who has got to work sleeps max imum till about 6AM..So I think its reasonable to keepDHL here with so few night flights and to offer flights pax from6 AM..
Gtz
paul
PS:latest proposition fromBrussels is to move the airport 1800m backwards !!

[flightlover]

There are only about 15 night flights.
As Ryanair CEO said, 7 AM is ridiculous to open an airport, everybody who has got to work sleeps max imum till about 6AM..So I think its reasonable to keepDHL here with so few night flights and to offer flights pax from6 AM..
Gtz
paul
PS:latest proposition fromBrussels is to move the airport 1800m backwards !!

We'll send them the bill...

[lumumba]

There are only about 15 night flights.
As Ryanair CEO said, 7 AM is ridiculous to open an airport, everybody who has got to work sleeps max imum till about 6AM..So I think its reasonable to keepDHL here with so few night flights and to offer flights pax from6 AM..
Gtz
paul
PS:latest proposition fromBrussels is to move the airport 1800m backwards !!

That's not exactly what Vanhengel is proposing.
Like discussed before he wants the runway 25L to be stretched to the north they speak about 1800m but I think that even 1000m would be accept has well.

[Acid-drop]

The latest statement from Vanhengel: We ( Brussels) will not change our mind, a good solution would be to move the airport 1800 meter backwards.

Exactly what I said 1 week ago also.

My idea on THE solution ?
A new track further east and stop flying over brussels.
We had a very interesting pdf posted a while ago
http://www.bruairlibre.be/_wp-balb/wp-c ... roport.pdf

From page 38 they talk about the options of BRU.
A must see.

A new track is a very reasonable solution. In fact its the ONLY solution if you want to close the problem for good and not until the next election...
Its a small investment compare to the scale of the problem.

No problem at London, they have Heathrow, Stansted and Luton for that. But overhere, airlines would just decide to skip BRU and fly to other airports.

Its just the same as London : we have a lot of alternative in the 100km radius. Just the same. The comparison is valid.

As Ryanair CEO said, 7 AM is ridiculous to open an airport, everybody who has got to work sleeps max imum till about 6AM..So I think its reasonable to keepDHL here with so few night flights and to offer flights pax from6 AM..

Brussels will negociate and we will get a compromise as always in this country...
I'm pretty sure the 6 to 7 range will be part of that compromise.
But there will be something else to equilibrate the balance...

Like I said: then no new stadium on Flemish territory (a huge loss of credibility for Brussels), heavy penalty's for every litre of poluted water streaming from the Senne into Flanders, a move of the entire Flemish administration to (an) other city(/ies)... Halting of expansion of the railnetwork into and around Brussels,...

Don't be ridiculous. Flanders can't profit the aura and the economics of Brussels without giving some back. The airport exists because of brussels, never forget that.

[lumumba]

The latest statement from Vanhengel: We ( Brussels) will not change our mind, a good solution would be to move the airport 1800 meter backwards.

Exactly what I said 1 week ago also.

My idea on THE solution ?
A new track further east and stop flying over brussels.
We had a very interesting pdf posted a while ago
http://www.bruairlibre.be/_wp-balb/wp-c ... roport.pdf

From page 38 they talk about the options of BRU.
A must see.

A new track is a very reasonable solution. In fact its the ONLY solution if you want to close the problem for good and not until the next election...
Its a small investment compare to the scale of the problem.

No problem at London, they have Heathrow, Stansted and Luton for that. But overhere, airlines would just decide to skip BRU and fly to other airports.

Its just the same as London : we have a lot of alternative in the 100km radius. Just the same. The comparison is valid.

As Ryanair CEO said, 7 AM is ridiculous to open an airport, everybody who has got to work sleeps max imum till about 6AM..So I think its reasonable to keepDHL here with so few night flights and to offer flights pax from6 AM..

Brussels will negociate and we will get a compromise as always in this country...
I'm pretty sure the 6 to 7 range will be part of that compromise.
But there will be something else to equilibrate the balance...

Like I said: then no new stadium on Flemish territory (a huge loss of credibility for Brussels), heavy penalty's for every litre of poluted water streaming from the Senne into Flanders, a move of the entire Flemish administration to (an) other city(/ies)... Halting of expansion of the railnetwork into and around Brussels,...

Don't be ridiculous. Flanders can't profit the aura and the economics of Brussels without giving some back. The airport exists because of brussels, never forget that.

Thx this is a reasonable and a good summary.

[Conti764]

No problem at London, they have Heathrow, Stansted and Luton for that. But overhere, airlines would just decide to skip BRU and fly to other airports.

Its just the same as London : we have a lot of alternative in the 100km radius. Just the same. The comparison is valid.

Are you really going to compare LGG, CRL, OST or ANR with Luton, Stansted, let alone LHR? In London LHR is the main airport as LCY serves a small niche... In Belgium they'd do it the other way around, make BRU the niche airport and have the rest fly to the middle of nowhere...

Like I said: then no new stadium on Flemish territory (a huge loss of credibility for Brussels), heavy penalty's for every litre of poluted water streaming from the Senne into Flanders, a move of the entire Flemish administration to (an) other city(/ies)... Halting of expansion of the railnetwork into and around Brussels,...

Don't be ridiculous. Flanders can't profit the aura and the economics of Brussels without giving some back. The airport exists because of brussels, never forget that.

I thought BRU was the national airport? You make it sound like 'we' should be thankful to Brussels for 'giving' us an airport