Hello Guy's,
Just for history: The actual Zaventem airport was build on the old Melsbroek military airport some times after the war period,everybody know that. But do you know that this place was not the first idea to build the international airport... No the first idea was to build this airport in St Hubert, a lot of place, a micro climate(it's true the weather is better there) and easy access by road(not yet TGV,lol), the decision was almost taken when they changed all the plans, you know why? .... Yep political interest.
Have a nice day,
Oli
Minister Anciaux wants to close Brussels Airport at Zaventem
Moderator: Latest news team
Although some here agree with the honourable minister, it is still impossible for me to believe it's possible to move an airport some 40 kms further.
Because the honourable minister asked me so, I really have thaught about his plan. And I have to confess to you all: my mind is too narrow to understand it is possible.
I can understand one can move the luggage trolleys and the pushback trucks and the signs "no smoking", but I had a few sleepless nights, finding out how one can move the brand new A-Pier, the new ATC-tower, the Airport Sheraton Hotel, the Novotel Hotel Diegem, the Brussels Sofitel Hotel, the Carhotel, the transit centre, the parkings, all Brucargo buildings, etc.
Therefore my reply to the honourable minister and those who believe in his plan: would it not be easier to move the whole Noordrand, Dilbeek and Meise (including Miss Peggy) to the Beauvechain/Bevekom area?
Because the honourable minister asked me so, I really have thaught about his plan. And I have to confess to you all: my mind is too narrow to understand it is possible.
I can understand one can move the luggage trolleys and the pushback trucks and the signs "no smoking", but I had a few sleepless nights, finding out how one can move the brand new A-Pier, the new ATC-tower, the Airport Sheraton Hotel, the Novotel Hotel Diegem, the Brussels Sofitel Hotel, the Carhotel, the transit centre, the parkings, all Brucargo buildings, etc.
Therefore my reply to the honourable minister and those who believe in his plan: would it not be easier to move the whole Noordrand, Dilbeek and Meise (including Miss Peggy) to the Beauvechain/Bevekom area?
-
EBAW_flyer
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 29 Sep 2003, 00:00
Not to mention Denver (new international iso Stapleton), Washington (IAD to relieve Reagan airport), Seoul (new Incheon iso old Kimpo), Nagoya (new airport opened this year), Hiroshima, Osaka (new Kansai iso Itami), Bangkok (opens end 2006), Helsinki (Vantaa iso Malmi), Guangzhou (new Baiyun opened august 2004) and probably forgot a few. It's done everywhere around the world, but does Belgium has the funds for it?
Its nice to see an overview of countries who did replace an airport, but those countries has the place to do it. Belgium is too small to replace an international airport some km further. Don't forget that we have, for a small country a real luxe, airports in Flanders: Ostend-Bruges and Antwerp and for Walloon: Liege and Charleroi. And in the middle of it we have Brussels.
Making a new airport in the Nordsea, could be, but its the most busiest searoute of the world.
My proposal, and its also the meaning of most of the members, is going back to the situation before 1999. In that time we had more flights and more noisier flights than current. And there were less complaints, but then you need the coorporation of all the governments.
But its also the attitude of the people: NIMBY. People complaining about noise cars, highways, railways, kindergardens, public places were children can play. For all those things they are going to court and the result is the judge decide to close kindergardens and public places for children. Its all in the head of the people.
We all have to pay for the development of our country.
Making a new airport in the Nordsea, could be, but its the most busiest searoute of the world.
My proposal, and its also the meaning of most of the members, is going back to the situation before 1999. In that time we had more flights and more noisier flights than current. And there were less complaints, but then you need the coorporation of all the governments.
But its also the attitude of the people: NIMBY. People complaining about noise cars, highways, railways, kindergardens, public places were children can play. For all those things they are going to court and the result is the judge decide to close kindergardens and public places for children. Its all in the head of the people.
We all have to pay for the development of our country.
-
Zenfookpower
- Posts: 158
- Joined: 25 Sep 2005, 00:00
- Location: The Great Lakes (USA)
Very well stated...!!!!!.Atlantis wrote:Its nice to see an overview of countries who did replace an airport, but those countries has the place to do it. Belgium is too small to replace an international airport some km further. Don't forget that we have, for a small country a real luxe, airports in Flanders: Ostend-Bruges and Antwerp and for Walloon: Liege and Charleroi. And in the middle of it we have Brussels.
Making a new airport in the Nordsea, could be, but its the most busiest searoute of the world.
My proposal, and its also the meaning of most of the members, is going back to the situation before 1999. In that time we had more flights and more noisier flights than current. And there were less complaints, but then you need the coorporation of all the governments.
But its also the attitude of the people: NIMBY. People complaining about noise cars, highways, railways, kindergardens, public places were children can play. For all those things they are going to court and the result is the judge decide to close kindergardens and public places for children. Its all in the head of the people.
We all have to pay for the development of our country.
Question... Can this issue, in the event it doesn't get resolved, finds its way into the European parlement and courts.... Does it not affect the EU as well..?
I don't know for sure, but thought there were some who went to the European court. I don't know that result.
But in the case the judge decide that the complainers has right, what could they do? The judge can only ask the federal government to take the decisions and not the Brussels or Flanders government.
That's what I think.
PS: Schiphol and LHR has at this moment the same problems, at also no solution for the near future.
But in the case the judge decide that the complainers has right, what could they do? The judge can only ask the federal government to take the decisions and not the Brussels or Flanders government.
That's what I think.
PS: Schiphol and LHR has at this moment the same problems, at also no solution for the near future.
Aviation 2006 is nothing for dreamers, and surely not for utopists. It’s a business.
1. There is no budget for a new airport. The "Infrastructure" commission of the Belgian parliament has done the research few years ago: investment needed is some 4.000.000.000 euro's. That’s a lot of money, specially because Belgium already has a foreign debt of well over 250 mio euro’s and there are other infrastructure priorities (= the Port of Antwerp).
2. Will hospitality also invest in Beauvechain/Bevekom? Hotels there will only get airport passengers, with maximum stay one night. Hotels need tourists and business men, staying over for several nights. Hotels need meeting rooms for business presentations. Even most airlines will probably accommodate their long haul staff elsewehere.
3. One of the reasons why Australians have invested in BRU is because it's an existing airport, well structured, with growing potential and close to Brussels (capital of Belgium, capital of Europe's administration, main business centre of this country, starting point for tourists). Who will invest in an airport with a maximum potential of 20 mio pax?
4. BRU = 62.000 jobs (source: Dirk Van Mechelen, Flemish minister, 19th February 2004). How many of them have bought a house between Antwerp and Brussels? What will happen to them?
5. Beauvechain/Bevekom is not able to transfer it's passengers to Brussels. There is no railway connection and no decent freeway connection. The closest freeway, the E40 from Liège via Leuven/Louvain to Brussels is already Belgian's worst traffic congestion. Imagine we're going to add some thousands of passengers onto that road each day. How long will it take to drive from one of the European Union buildings to Beauvechain airport around 5 p.m.: two hours?
6. Most of the Flemish tourists today use BRU, but their touroperators will use other airports if departure has to be frm B/B : Ostend, Antwerp, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Eindhoven. In the south of Belgium, there is no potential for Beauvechain/Bevekom: Liège and Charleroi are already well known. B/B therefore will never get the same number of pax as BRU.
7. Take a close look on http://earth.google.com (google's references: 50°45'21.70" N and 4° 46'10.02" E), and tell me if it's possible to construct 3 runways, some taxixways, terminal buildings, maintenance buildings, lots of parkings and a Cargo division. Forget it.
8. The noise problems around BRU will also occure at Beauvechain / Bevekom: Dilbeek, Meise, Sterrebeek will be replaced by Grez-Doiceau, Meldert, Jodoinge/Geldenaken, Hamme-Mille and even Tienen/Tirlemont.
These are all actual facts. No political remarks, no wishful thinking.
1. There is no budget for a new airport. The "Infrastructure" commission of the Belgian parliament has done the research few years ago: investment needed is some 4.000.000.000 euro's. That’s a lot of money, specially because Belgium already has a foreign debt of well over 250 mio euro’s and there are other infrastructure priorities (= the Port of Antwerp).
2. Will hospitality also invest in Beauvechain/Bevekom? Hotels there will only get airport passengers, with maximum stay one night. Hotels need tourists and business men, staying over for several nights. Hotels need meeting rooms for business presentations. Even most airlines will probably accommodate their long haul staff elsewehere.
3. One of the reasons why Australians have invested in BRU is because it's an existing airport, well structured, with growing potential and close to Brussels (capital of Belgium, capital of Europe's administration, main business centre of this country, starting point for tourists). Who will invest in an airport with a maximum potential of 20 mio pax?
4. BRU = 62.000 jobs (source: Dirk Van Mechelen, Flemish minister, 19th February 2004). How many of them have bought a house between Antwerp and Brussels? What will happen to them?
5. Beauvechain/Bevekom is not able to transfer it's passengers to Brussels. There is no railway connection and no decent freeway connection. The closest freeway, the E40 from Liège via Leuven/Louvain to Brussels is already Belgian's worst traffic congestion. Imagine we're going to add some thousands of passengers onto that road each day. How long will it take to drive from one of the European Union buildings to Beauvechain airport around 5 p.m.: two hours?
6. Most of the Flemish tourists today use BRU, but their touroperators will use other airports if departure has to be frm B/B : Ostend, Antwerp, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Eindhoven. In the south of Belgium, there is no potential for Beauvechain/Bevekom: Liège and Charleroi are already well known. B/B therefore will never get the same number of pax as BRU.
7. Take a close look on http://earth.google.com (google's references: 50°45'21.70" N and 4° 46'10.02" E), and tell me if it's possible to construct 3 runways, some taxixways, terminal buildings, maintenance buildings, lots of parkings and a Cargo division. Forget it.
8. The noise problems around BRU will also occure at Beauvechain / Bevekom: Dilbeek, Meise, Sterrebeek will be replaced by Grez-Doiceau, Meldert, Jodoinge/Geldenaken, Hamme-Mille and even Tienen/Tirlemont.
These are all actual facts. No political remarks, no wishful thinking.
And don't forget Brussels, as we know it know, is big bacause of the existing airport of Zaventem. Put the airport away and Brussels is really nothing.
Take the airport away and also the NATO will leave and some other European institutions.
They will not drive the American President from Bevekom to Brussels in the traffic jam. Currently, today it's a 5 min. drive from Abelag, were the VIP's land, to the NATO.
Like LX-LGX said, it's not a dream but big business.
Take the airport away and also the NATO will leave and some other European institutions.
They will not drive the American President from Bevekom to Brussels in the traffic jam. Currently, today it's a 5 min. drive from Abelag, were the VIP's land, to the NATO.
Like LX-LGX said, it's not a dream but big business.
seriously:
I have risen this possebility a long time ago: erase the Zonienforrest and cover it with 2 nice concrete strips.
All the problems with the brussels administration are immediately solved.
It is exactly the same problem of 40 years ago. The ring road around Brussels was not completed to protect the hyper rich french speaking people in the south of Brussels. Now it is pay back time. Zaventem closed and replaced by a nice forrest. Zonien forrest gone and replaced by a new airport.
I have risen this possebility a long time ago: erase the Zonienforrest and cover it with 2 nice concrete strips.
All the problems with the brussels administration are immediately solved.
It is exactly the same problem of 40 years ago. The ring road around Brussels was not completed to protect the hyper rich french speaking people in the south of Brussels. Now it is pay back time. Zaventem closed and replaced by a nice forrest. Zonien forrest gone and replaced by a new airport.
I agree with you. The airport is there since the forties so almost all the pople living around came in AFTER the airport. Didn't they know that A/C make noise? Or did they move there because the land/houses where cheaper BECAUSE of the airport?Atlantis wrote: But its also the attitude of the people: NIMBY. People complaining about noise cars, highways, railways, kindergardens, public places were children can play. For all those things they are going to court and the result is the judge decide to close kindergardens and public places for children. Its all in the head of the people.
It's just like getting a mansion on the coast and then complaining about the noise of waves.
There are a lot of investments made in BRU, this also makes a difference in moving an airport. I know that all over the world they moved airports out of the city center. But then they made the choice, instead of doing all kinds of heavy investments, we build a new airport elswhere. But in BRU they allready invested a HUGE amount of money. This is a BIG difference with other airports that have moved out of the city center.
I am also pretty sure that the location of the airports plays a big role in the choice of all these NATO and EU buildings in Brussels. I think a lot of EU ministers of NATO staff will be pretty angry if the airport is moved.
I am also pretty sure that the location of the airports plays a big role in the choice of all these NATO and EU buildings in Brussels. I think a lot of EU ministers of NATO staff will be pretty angry if the airport is moved.
-
Airbus330lover
- Posts: 889
- Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 00:00
- Location: Rixensart
I think this is imposible here, given the density of population, industrial zonse, surroundings of railways, motorrunways, ...earthman wrote:They could always just add a new runway at BRU a bit remote from the current ones, takes a long way to taxi, but at least it's a bit further. Like the Polderbaan at AMS, takes 15 minutes to taxi to the gate after touchdown.
The Brussels-Antwerpen motorway has lots of space in the middle and to the sides, why not move the road to the side a bit, and construct the runway parallel to it? Or on top of it.teddybAIR wrote:And where would you put that runway. The very minute there is even the slightest rumour about the airport expanding one square inch, at least a few interest groups are fighting the decision...
Another idea is to install a lot of wind turbines at the north side and apply power so they generate wind not electricity, to create a wind that allows planes to take off in a different direction. Just watch out for windshear.
Yet another idea would be to increase the traffic on the airport to the point where it's just totally overcrowded, and it actually makes sense to build a second airport somewhere to offload BRU, connect it to the capital with a maglev train, and make it big enough to handle the traffic from the old airport as well, then slowly move everything over to the new site. In the mean time, send everybody living in the area a free set of earplugs.
Here's my suggestion (It's possible I mentioned this before):
1. Make a list of ALL the houses and appartments that suffer from BRU.
2. Estimate the value of these houses and appartments.
3. Offer the owners of these houses and appartments the choice of selling there house or appartment at the estimated value or signing a document that they accept the airport with all its noise etc.
4. Some owners will sign others will sell.
5. Offer the sold houses again to the market at the estimated price. Those who buy have to sign the document that they accept the airport with all its noise etc.
6. Some will be sold, others will not. Those who are not sold will be those closest to the airport, directly under the runways.
7. Redevelop these areas into office buildings.
8. Sell these offices.
In the end this shouldn't cost to much and will solve the problem in the long term. For sure it will cost less then moving the airport to Beauvechain.
Think about it.
Stij
P.S. Anciaux actually thinks NIMBY, he thinks Beauvechain is in Wallonia and thus no Flemish people will suffer, He ignores the fact that a lot of Flemish people moved from Leuven to the Beavechain area to find cheaper houses.
P.S.S. A few things should be moved to Beauvechain: the government aircraft and maybe some C and D maintenance facilities. This could create space for future developments at BRU. However, our ministers will never accept that they have to drive to Beauvechain to board their ERJ or A310.
P.S.S.S. Would Anciaux read this forum? I hope the idea BLOWS him away!
1. Make a list of ALL the houses and appartments that suffer from BRU.
2. Estimate the value of these houses and appartments.
3. Offer the owners of these houses and appartments the choice of selling there house or appartment at the estimated value or signing a document that they accept the airport with all its noise etc.
4. Some owners will sign others will sell.
5. Offer the sold houses again to the market at the estimated price. Those who buy have to sign the document that they accept the airport with all its noise etc.
6. Some will be sold, others will not. Those who are not sold will be those closest to the airport, directly under the runways.
7. Redevelop these areas into office buildings.
8. Sell these offices.
In the end this shouldn't cost to much and will solve the problem in the long term. For sure it will cost less then moving the airport to Beauvechain.
Think about it.
Stij
P.S. Anciaux actually thinks NIMBY, he thinks Beauvechain is in Wallonia and thus no Flemish people will suffer, He ignores the fact that a lot of Flemish people moved from Leuven to the Beavechain area to find cheaper houses.
P.S.S. A few things should be moved to Beauvechain: the government aircraft and maybe some C and D maintenance facilities. This could create space for future developments at BRU. However, our ministers will never accept that they have to drive to Beauvechain to board their ERJ or A310.
P.S.S.S. Would Anciaux read this forum? I hope the idea BLOWS him away!
I agree. Unfortunatly it's nice as a politician to have always someone to blame all problems on. In most European countries they blame everything on the EU, in Belgium they blame everything on the other part of the country.Acid-drop wrote:As exeptect, this turns again north against south.
This country is pathetic.
Cheers,
Stij