15 October 2005: D-day BRU

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 22 Sep 2005, 20:08

Time has come to start up a topic around the future of BRU.

Not about the actionsgroups, juridical, etc. But about the "plan's" the government have with BRU. The crucial date will be 5 October, at that date every party, companies, BIAC, airlines, etc have to know which direction the airport will go.

I have read some interesting articles on the net. One of those plan's are about the use of the two parallel runways 25R and 25L. One for the East bound and the other for the North bound. Runway 20 will be used when the wind allowed it. But runway 25L is now using for landings, if they want to used it for a lot more departings they have to build more taxi runways and the extension of 25L is necessary.

Every news, thoughts are welcome

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 22 Sep 2005, 20:17

That might be a solution, but a very expensive one. I guess that extending the taxiway to the beginning of 25L and extending the runway will ve very expensive! And who will pay for that?

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 22 Sep 2005, 21:05

killerwhale65 wrote:That might be a solution, but a very expensive one. I guess that extending the taxiway to the beginning of 25L and extending the runway will ve very expensive! And who will pay for that?

I rather pay for that than see the airport partly or fully close.

Mavke · Post by **Mavke** » 22 Sep 2005, 21:13

hi,

Are you sure about 15 October ??

wel i realy hope so.....then we finaly know if we have to look for another job and so on ...

IF ... and i say IF no one of the ministers making some stunt work with hes car, like when the DHL story was hot news ...

Ken

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 22 Sep 2005, 21:22

Yep, from 15 October there are penalties of 25000 euro's per aircraft that fly over Brussels capital and neighbours. That's the really end of the airport.

So, I hope that they will come with reasonable suggestions and everybody has to take some part of noise, overflying aircrafts, ...
I thought that the different workgroups are finished now their investigations and proposals. They have worked for weeks and months to get a solution for economics, environment, social life.

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 23 Sep 2005, 13:35

There has again been a court ruling that forbids the use of 02/20 on Saturday afternoons.

OO-VEX · Post by **OO-VEX** » 23 Sep 2005, 17:47

Atlantis wrote:I have read some interesting articles on the net. One of those plan's are about the use of the two parallel runways 25R and 25L. One for the East bound and the other for the North bound. Runway 20 will be used when the wind allowed it. But runway 25L is now using for landings, if they want to used it for a lot more departings they have to build more taxi runways and the extension of 25L is necessary.

Using 25L as a real alternative for take-off's is rather stupid. Zaventem village is just at the end of 25L, much closer than Diegem to the end of 25R. Which means that airplanes will be much lower when taking off.
People in Zaventem do not really have problems with the airport, they know the airport is there and don't mind a number of flights taking off from 25L. But they also know that 25L is mainly used for landings, which means that living in Zaventem is better (=less noise) than in other villages around the airport. There are also people who made their decision to live somewhere based on the flight plans. Now changing those routes would mean that even in Zaventem people will dislike the situation and also start an action group.
In fact I believe that a dispersion plan is no solution at all. You only disturb more people and those who were disturbed when flights were concentrated are still not happy with less flights, as they are only happy with zero flights.
I would prefer to go back to the situation like it was before 1999. In that time there were more flights at BRU and less complaints than we see today.
25L should be mainly used for landings. Take-off's are ok (personally I even like them), but don't let 50% of the traffic depart from 25L. As this is not a solution at all.

OO-VEX

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 23 Sep 2005, 18:05

OO-VEX wrote:Using 25L as a real alternative for take-off's is rather stupid. Zaventem village is just at the end of 25L, much closer than Diegem to the end of 25R.
OO-VEX

That is what the dispersion plan has done (flying over areas that were not flown before.

Anyway, I do not thing that is a so stupid decision from operational point of view: if zaventem wants to be an airport, it should have at least two parallel runways continuously in use at the same time. 25L 25R for takeoffs-landings, and 07L 07R when winds allows it. In rare case use of 02/20. But using 02/20 is causing many delays. That's why I think that if airport activity is growing in the future, the two parallel runways must be privileged. However landing on 07 is over brussels (like 02) so I do not think it is politically possible...

That is what I think that there is another airport, growing very well, that could be a nice international airport replacement.... Look at the direction of Lieges Lol

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 23 Sep 2005, 19:59

In the last weekend edition of Het Nieuwsblad, there was a two page article of TNT and the airport Liege.

Very interesting. They can, TNT and the airport, expand as much as they want. Everything is political arranged. They have also no troubles with the weather. The airport is 200 m above sealevel, in that case they have practical no fog. Of a whole year, TNT could not land on one night. Very good if you asked me.

Other very, very interesting cas was about the noise problems. They have create 3 sections. Section 1 is a total move of all the habitants, section 2 isolate all the houses, section 3 they look each case apart.

You could not do this at BRU. But it's again a sign how important LGE will be in the future.

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 23 Sep 2005, 20:07

Why couldnt they do this at BRU? I think they will have to, it sounds like an ideal solution to me. They HAVE to make a political decision that things like in the past years cannot happen anymore.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 23 Sep 2005, 20:38

They can not do this at BRU because in that case thousands of people have to move and the second part have to go isolate. The second step you can do that but not the first one. Here you can see how communities and government handle. For BRU they have allowed that people can build their houses till the runways. Also Lodewijck De Witte said that a buildingstop at BRU is not at the order. Can you imagine.

I was forgot to say one thing in my other post. At LGE they concentrate all the flights.

The recent hours a lot of articles are coming on the net. Some groups are saying that the community of Hundelgem will disappear because of the build of the new taxiway for the extension of runway 25L with 900 meter.

Behind the scenes they are working very hard to get a solution for the airport. I'm very curious.

But I had read also something else. Yesterday with the pressconference of the companies on the airport and around the airport, SNBA said that for the moment at least one big airline will not come anymore to BRU, it was a new airline for the airport. I have no clue which it could be. Jet Airways? But they have only posponed their flights till spring 2006. Or could it be Hainan. I know that there was at the beginning of this year a delegation of Hainan at BRU. Also the prime minister and other were very pleased to announce the arrive of a new Asian airline. So, in that case it could be Hainan, because there second plan was to create from BRU their European hub.

Vinnie-Winnie · Post by **Vinnie-Winnie** » 23 Sep 2005, 21:03

Will there ever be a solution to this problem?

I'm really personally thinking about creating a new airport from scratch... Cause whatever solution will be taken, there is always gonna be one nimby around! He will go to court and most probably win his case!

the uncertainty around this problem is really dangerous for brussels, since one day a court might decide to close Brussels for a week or so! That might lead to several airlines deciding to leave Bru, because it's just such an unreliable airport where you can never be sure of what will happen next! I know that for the 60000 people working in or around the airport this might mean losing a job, but carefully planned a move might actually create more jobs! Since the logistics business will still carry on booming in the future, we could actually bring new companies around! Or even steal some from our neighboring countries!

Belgium would need to pump billions and billions in new infrastructure. Does it have the necessary resources to do that? I personally think that in a country like Belgium some bold decisions need to be taken sometimes!

Fair enough it will disruptive, sad tragic and costly, but this is called creative destruction!!!!

[harsh language removed by admin sn26567]

Stij · Post by **Stij** » 24 Sep 2005, 09:56

I have a proposition for a solution for BRU:

The government plays real-estate agent.

1. You abolish any limit there is on night and day flights.
2. You design a runway-utilization-scheme that, making use of the existing runwaysystem, is the most performant and safe their is, not taking into account the neighborhoods.
3. You decide wich neighborhood suffers from our runway-utilization-scheme.
4. Our government offers to ALL the inhabitants of these suffering neighborhoods to buy their house at real-estate-prices as if the airport wasn't there. If the owner doesn't want to sell (fair enough), he has to sign a contract that we won't protest anymore against the airport.
5. If complete neighborhoods sell: destroy the houses and create businessparks: they LOVE to be close to the airport.
6. The government ends up with a lot of houses and terrains in the vicinity of the airport that can't be redeveloped. Now the government sells the houses again on the market. The buyers know that the airport is there and have to sign the same contract as in point 4: that they have lost the right to complain.

I bet our government wouldn't loose a lot of money in this project. Of course, it's not very politically correct.

Fly them,

Stijn

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 24 Sep 2005, 10:24

Hi Stijn,

A remark on point 4: that situation is for the moment reality at AMS. If people want to live near the airport they have to sign a paper that they do not complain about traffic or noise.

It's political indeed not a good solution but when it is? Next year it are again elections, so they do for the moment everything for the people.

cherdt · Post by **cherdt** » 24 Sep 2005, 11:46

I just read at "the standard online" (belgian newspaper) that the Belgian Minister is running out of propositions to keep BRU operational. All propositions in the past have been shut down by court.

Is it really possible that thay are going to close BRU??? I jus't can't believe that. But on the other hand there's nobody who comes with a plan and time is running out fast. I don't understand why nobody seems to bother. (Except for the people @ luchtzak offcourse).

Even the people that work at the airport (colleagues) don't seem to care very much. The way I see it. It's going to be over very soon if there's no solution. Or are my fears unfounded?

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 24 Sep 2005, 13:17

How many ministers have done the job of "Mobility" the few past years. Durant, Anciaux and Landuyt. But not only those federal ministers hove done it, you have them also regional.

If they don't get a solution for BRU then it's war in Belgium. 60.000 people loosing their jobs, not only at the airport but also a lot of other companies have to close their doors.

Also new elections because the VLD promised to create 200.000 new jobs. The last months every big company in our country has to fired employees.

If BRU will disappear, then we have only our seaports as biggest market.
Poor, poor Belgium. I think some members of Luchtzak have to go in politics. But the problem is you our not alone, you have to deal with a lot of other meanings.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 24 Sep 2005, 13:23

There is also an other serious problem.

Macquarie Airports don't find a new CEO for BRU. They are searching now for a year. The actual Board is also leaving, person by person is leaving the Board and beginning at an other company as CEO. That's not normal, but the rules are very strict. They need a person with authorization and have to do what the Aussies say. That's maybe the problem.

Actual, Macquarie Airports are now introducing a third round to find a new CEO.

Post by **sn26567** » 26 Sep 2005, 09:28

Atlantis wrote:They can not do this at BRU because in that case thousands of people have to move and the second part have to go isolate.

They can do at Brussels what they do at Liège. They only lack political will. Stijn made the right suggestion: determine the least poplutated areas (easy: it is actually the Noordrand with 25,000 people) and make most flights take off over that area, except when wind is unfavourable. Pay those people enough money to correctly insulate their homes. It will not cost more than at Bierset.

But it will meet strong political opposition: Chabert and the brother of Anciaux live there...

It brings us back to what I said: lack of political will...

By the way, our minister of (im)mobility is already thinking of reducing the number of night flights from currently 25,000 to less than 18,000 in 2008, when DHL will have left...

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 26 Sep 2005, 16:56

I think he will do this under pressure of those actiongroups like Sterrebeek 2000, they even have asked the resign of minister Landuyt

xeno · Post by **xeno** » 27 Sep 2005, 12:46

sn26567 wrote: determine the least poplutated areas (easy: it is actually the Noordrand with 25,000 people)

I'm very interested to know what's your definition of "the Noordrand"

FYI: Vilvoorde alone, which is located at the Noordrand I do believe, has a population of + 37.000!

I think that if we would literally follow this solution, an other area would be determined. (is not what I'm suggesting though).

For me, imho, the best solution would be an combined use of both 25R and 25 L for departures.

Aviation24.be

15 October 2005: D-day BRU

15 October 2005: D-day BRU

BRU

Re: 15 October 2005: D-day BRU

Re: 15 October 2005: D-day BRU