Conflicting opinions about the dispersion plan of BRU

Post by **sn26567** » 11 Oct 2005, 08:55

Yes, but...

The number of night flights will be reduced from 25,000 to 18,000 after the departure of DHL.

A new scale down for BRU

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 11 Oct 2005, 16:52

I agree with you André, but I see this also positive.

With the move of DHL in 2008, BRU will have less nightflights. That's very obvious. But with the move there are still 13000 effective nightflights and they have decided to let 5000 nightflights for other carriers = economical grow.

Better BRU can begin low and have a grow in the future then no agreement with all the Belgian governments.

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 12 Oct 2005, 08:48

Atlantis wrote:I agree with you André, but I see this also positive.

From my point of view, negotiations will never succeed. The last proposition of the flemish government is completely silly (all landing on
07 over Brussels). There are many landings on 02 and we know the problem it brings. So on 07 it is completely unbelievable.

Pascal

regi · Post by **regi** » 12 Oct 2005, 09:59

The Flemish proposal was considered to be silly because it would cause many penalties. If the Brussels administration would not have implemented the stringent noise regulations in favour of the inhabitants of the eastern part, there would be less problems.
The solutions are very simple: make the noise regulations equal all over the country. I assume that the ears of people in Ostend, Watermaal Bosvoorde, or Kampenhout are the same.

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 12 Oct 2005, 10:06

regi wrote:I assume that the ears of people in Ostend, Watermaal Bosvoorde, or Kampenhout are the same.

Keep it easy! Use OMS recommendations, concentrate flights over less populated areas, expropriate and insulate houses inside these areas, convert them to offices or parks, and the problem will be definitely fixed !

Moving the noise from one runway to the another one because of laws is not a long term solution. But what I see is that the Flemish government is playing a dangerous game, if I were him, I would accept to go back to the 99 situation, or I would accept the brussels proposition.

I don't understand the goal of their proposition, because they knew it is an unacceptable one !

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 12 Oct 2005, 12:10

I read the Flemish note.

In fact, their new dispersion plan requires installation of:

Mandatory 2 new ILS

+ ILS CAT III or II runway 7R
+ ILS CAT III or II runway 7L
+ New Taxiway 25L and extension of runway 25L (07R)

Optional upgrade if you want to make the dispersion plan reliable

+ Upgrade to ILS CAT III 02 / 20 / 25R (because of the new single runway procedure)

Dispersion plan:

For night, single runway in use for departing and arrivals (25L, 25R, 02, 20, 07L and 07R) => each day another runway (no longer split night)

Week-ends (day)

One strange thing is that they want to use 3 runways during we at the same time: for example 02, 07L and 07R and 25L, 25R and 20 (for landing and departing)... Woww it is not a little bit complex to manage 3 non-parallel runways at the same time...

And it will cost a lot of money (2 new ILS + new taxiways + runway extension)

Week (day)

like today

xeno · Post by **xeno** » 12 Oct 2005, 12:31

pascal-air wrote: And it will cost a lot of money (2 new ILS + new taxiways + runway extension)

pascal-air wrote: concentrate flights over less populated areas, expropriate and insulate houses inside these areas, convert them to offices or parks, and the problem will be definitely fixed !

I wonder what would trigger the highest costs...

And what "less populated area" do you intend to find in the vicinity of BRU?

xeno

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 12 Oct 2005, 12:54

xeno wrote:
And what "less populated area" do you intend to find in the vicinity of BRU?

xeno

I don't know but less populated area can be easily determined. It is arithmetic.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 12 Oct 2005, 16:22

Wouldn't it be nice if BIAC and the Flemish government could make a deal with all anti-committees (including Brussels Capital Region): accept our dispertion plan, and we promise you that the DHL-slots will not be replaced by other night flights when DHL leaves BRU in 2008.

If BRU is not profitable without those extra night flights, it will never be. Just look at the strict curfew at LHR and FRA, they can live without night flights.

Last months have proven that the federal government is unable to settle this dispute. Deadline is Saturday 15th October, and it will now be discussed on the Board of ministers (Ministerraad) on Friday 14th October...

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 12 Oct 2005, 16:47

LX-LGX wrote:Last months have proven that the federal government is unable to settle this dispute. Deadline is Saturday 15th October, and it will now be discussed on the Board of ministers (Ministerraad) on Friday 14th October...

It is remembering me what happened one year ago with DHL and we all know what were the consequences. I don't know why Flemish government does not go forward into the direction of the BRU proposition, because I think it is more realistic and equilibrated.

At last, I do not think it is possible to find an agreement before 15th october. The Verofstadt method does not work and under the pressure of the time, each camp holds its position.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 12 Oct 2005, 17:16

Mister Landuyt is also not for the proposal of the Flemish government.
Tomorrow he will give his point of view and then we will see what happened.

regi · Post by **regi** » 12 Oct 2005, 23:20

It is getting very uneasy. The large CDV is in power in the flemish government, but in opposition in the federal government. CDV will not allow Zaventem to disappear. CDV keeps its mouth shut, for the time being. It is the last possebility for the opposition to tackle the government over an unsolved issue before the planned 2007 elections. Is Zaventem the box of Pandora, the end of Belgium as a nation?

Post by **sn26567** » 16 Oct 2005, 09:38

The simplest and safest solution is easy: allow planes to take-off and land in function of the wind. This was the situation before 1999, and nobody complained. But then politics came in and we all see the results

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 24 Oct 2005, 17:29

The "Oostrand" started again a new trial against the use of runway 20. This time they don't want anymore that one single airplane departed on runway 20.

According to me they are very scared about the negociations and the possible more airplanes the will get in the future.

According to Landuyt it will make no difference about the vision the different governments have at this moment. They know that 60.000 employees are working direct and in-direct at the airport.

With this move the "Oostrand" show how selfish they are. :pang: :dammit:

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 24 Oct 2005, 19:47

Atlantis wrote:
With this move the "Oostrand" show how selfish they are. :pang: :dammit:

I agree! I mean, you can't just live in a x-mile radius of an airport and expect that no single airplane flies over your house! I live only a few kilometres down 25R and used to get airplanes over my roof every single minute...we didn't complain!
Anyway, I hope they can agree on this matter, somewhere this week...for the sake of the airport

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 31 Oct 2005, 13:29

Hi everybody.
Just for you info there is a very intresting aticle in De Morgen of today.
Regards
Pat

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 31 Oct 2005, 13:51

Is this also available on the site of De Morgen?

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 31 Oct 2005, 14:02

Hi atlantis.
No or you have to pay for it.
Regards
Pat

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 31 Oct 2005, 14:05

ok, thanks for the info