Wathelet dispersion plan for Brussels Airport

[Acid-drop]

If you are so sure this issue is a region/language issue, then i guess the flemish party will block everything once more, and nothing will change. No need to stress much.

[sean1982]

Wathelet wants that the night curfew at BRU is extended from 06h00 till 07h00, and he also wants that cargo flights and low cost flights move from BRU to a "more suitable airport".

How else would you interpret that then? This is purely a move to move flightplan from a flemish airport to a walloon one and in the mean time crippeling the belgian economy, because airlines simply don't care about our regional issues and they will simply move to a much more convenient airport than CRL and LGG.

It's to state that N-VA is extreme, but the walloon parties are just as extreme. Off course the flemish are accused of "blocking" issues just because they don't unilaterally accept everything. And btw, "madame Non" did not get that name for nothing

[chineseboy]

Brussels airport only open during office hours

[Passenger]

Just to make sure we're all taking about the same issue, it's perhaps necessary to take a look at the main source = the statement by mr Wathelet and mr Milquet on their cdH-website. Surprisingly, their proposal is not only to amend the night curfew from the 06h00 into 07h00, but also to amend 23h00 into 22h00! So indeed, we're coming close to business hours (or at least supermarket opening hours):

http://www.lecdh.be/nous-et-vous/actual ... ger-bruxel

Survol de Bruxelles: M Wathelet et J Milquet proposent des solutions pour soulager les Bruxellois

Joëlle Milquet, Vice-Première ministre et Melchior Wathelet, Secrétaire d’Etat à la Mobilité, ont reçu, ce 10 avril 2014, les différentes organisations de riverains sensibles à la lutte contre les nuisances aériennes à Bruxelles (Pas Question !, BRUAIRLIBRE, UBCNA-BUTV, AWACSS, WAKEUP, EPURES-TROP de bruit Brabant Wallon).

I. Ils ont bien reprécisé les éléments suivants :

A/ Les nouvelles routes ne font en aucun cas partie d’un soi-disant « plan Wathelet » puisque ces routes ont été fixées en 2008 et 2010 lorsque Melchior Wathelet n’était pas encore Secrétaire d’Etat à la Mobilité.

Les accords aéroportuaires ont en effet été conclus lors des Conseils des ministres du 19 décembre 2008 et du 26 février 2010. Tous les partis francophones qui faisaient alors partie du gouvernement, à savoir le FDF, le MR, le PS et le cdH, ont approuvé ces accords que Didier Gosuin met en cause aujourd’hui - contrairement à ses collègues FDF satisfaits des changements opérés par ce plan - alors qu’il avait écrit, le 4 juillet 2012, au Secrétaire d’Etat à la Mobilité pour lui en demander l’application.

Comme pour la mise en œuvre des réformes institutionnelles, le Secrétaire d’Etat - Melchior Wathelet - n’a eu donc aucune marge de manœuvre dans l’exécution de ces accords. Ils ont rappelé qu’aucun parti francophone au gouvernement et notamment le MR n’a à ce stade demandé le retrait ou le moratoire du plan. Ils ont reproché l’instrumentalisation politicienne de différentes personnalités (chaque fois non suivies par l’entièreté de leur parti).

B/ Ces accords de 2008-2010 reposent sur le principe d’une meilleure répartition des vols au départ principalement des pistes préférentielles 25R (plutôt qu’une dispersion utilisant toutes les pistes en fonction de plages horaires) en privilégiant si possible le survol des zones les moins densément peuplées et des zones d’équipements (Canal, Ring, zoning industriel, autoroute, forêt, etc.) par des trajectoires qui permettent de survoler les premières habitations que quand l’avion est le plus haut possible. Ces principes permettent, globalement, de réduire les nuisances sur l’ensemble du territoire et aussi de diminuer les nuisances qui étaient concentrées exclusivement sur les mêmes zones notamment l’Est de Bruxelles avec 43% des décollages de la 25 R.

C/ L’application de ces accords a pour effet que - tous décollages et atterrissages confondus sur toutes les pistes -, l’Est de Bruxelles conserve 19% des survols, le Sud est concerné par 12% des vols, le Canal 5% (dont tous les gros porteurs), l’Ouest (Ring) 5% et le Nord 13% (les 46% restants étant principalement des atterrissages au-dessus des zones non édifiées à l’Est des pistes parallèles 25).

D/ A côté de ces accords, des avancées considérables ont déjà été réalisées afin de diminuer l’impact sonore global du trafic aérien : fin de la route forte réduction du trafic de nuit (de 35.000 à 25.000 en 2007 puis à 15.000 vols annuels de nuit en 2013), limitation du niveau de bruit individuel des avions (QC-Quota de Bruit) de nuit, le matin, en journée et en soirée, instauration de plages horaires sans aucun décollage de nuit principalement le week-end, amélioration technique des appareils (diminution du bruit produit par chaque avion), sans parler de la réduction globale du trafic aérien (de 325.000 vols annuels en 2000 à 215.000 aujourd’hui).

E/ Par ailleurs, ils ont rappelé la grande complexité du dossier en raison des contraintes communautaires.

II. Les ministres ont dit leur ouverture et reconnaissent que la mise en œuvre de l’accord soulage certes un grand nombre de personnes, mais entraîne de nouvelles nuisances sur certains autres

Leur but est de ne pas opposer les intérêts des Bruxellois entre eux mais de trouver des solutions consensuelles entre tous et de soulager les nouvelles nuisances. Ils ont affirmé leur volonté de trouver de nouvelles solutions consensuelles à court et moyen termes sans pour autant revenir à la situation antérieure pour l’Oostrand.

La réunion a en tous cas démontré que la majorité des organisations représentatives des citoyens sont contre le moratoire car il ferait perdre tous les avantages octroyés (retour route Chabert, retour des atterrissages sur Brabant wallon, survol de l’Oostrand, route du ring repasse sur Bruxelles, fin des normes de vent, etc.). Par contre, le but est de soulager les nouvelles nuisances mais la quasi-totalité des organisations ne veut pas que ce soit en renvoyant les contraintes sur d’autres localités proches, ce qui montre que le problème est complexe.

Melchior Wathelet et Joëlle Milquet ont mis sur la table plusieurs propositions à court et moyen termes :

1. A court terme :

- renforcer le contrôle interne du respect des routes assorti de sanctions via l’adaptation du projet de loi sur les procédures aériennes;

- aboutir le plus rapidement possible à un allongement du dispositif de la nuit sur la tranche horaire de 22h à 7h au lieu de 23h-6h ;

- demander à la Ministre du Gouvernement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, chargée de l’Environnement d’installer urgemment des sonomètres dans les communes les plus exposées pour objectiver les nuisances dans les communes les plus touchées et permettre des solutions équitables et consensuelles ;

- renforcer la transparence en temps réel des informations relatives aux survols à l’égard des riverains via le site internet du médiateur ; c’est d’ores et déjà inclus dans le contrat de gestion conclu ce 4 avril 2014 avec Belgocontrol.

Melchior Wathelet déposera déjà pour le prochain Conseil des ministres des propositions pour soulager les nuisances à savoir l’allongement du dispositif de nuit de 22h à 7h au lieu de 22h à 6h, certaines propositions d’adaptations techniques et le projet de loi sur l’organe de contrôle.

2. A moyen terme :

Les ministres ont proposé de mettre sur pied dès maintenant un groupe de travail réunissant toutes les associations de riverains en présence du médiateur et du Président du comité de direction du SPF Mobilité afin de préparer des pistes consensuelles entre Bruxellois à moyen et long termes en vue notamment de la négociation des prochains accords de gouvernement. Les associations ont accepté et la première réunion aura lieu jeudi avec un timing, une méthode et la liste des thèmes.

Les ministres ont dit qu’ils voulaient faire de la stratégie de diminution du survol de Bruxelles une condition d’accord de gouvernement notamment suite au résultat du groupe de travail cité ci-dessus et des nuisances y associées une condition d’accord de gouvernement, ce qui impliquera notamment l’adoption de la législation relative à l’organe de contrôle, une amélioration des plans de survol, la diminution des nuisances, des normes de bruits de QC par avion, des solutions structurelles notamment en matière d’allongement des pistes ainsi que la pérennisation des points cités ci-dessus, le déplacement de l’activité cargo, charter et low cost vers les aéroports spécialisés en la matière.

[Bruspotter]

Hi

Yes indeed I hope it's just to win voters (which I sincerely hope he does not, just like the majority of present 'klungelaars' in the Government Di-Rupo).

It's really these kind of things that make we think sometimes "in what shithole we actually live..?" for the rest great country over here, but really sometimes I have these moments ... I really have doubts about what way we are going as a country, and it's sad to say here (despite we always comment about dictatorship how that should not be...) it's all about some persons who make it difficult to get any improvement in anything at all if it comes to taking the right steps to make something true here ...

Greets,

[Passenger]

Yes indeed I hope it's just to win voters (which I sincerely hope he does not, just like the majority of present 'klungelaars' in the Government Di-Rupo).

Don't think so.

It's not just another statement for the anonymous public, meant to be forgotten after 25th May (election day). Let's not underestimate those action groups. They will keep on reminding Milquet and Wathelet to the above promise, and they've proven before that they know how to force implementation of noise restrictions through court.

Luckily the Flemish parties have a block off right in the Brussels Capital Region, because I have to agree with most here: le cdH just wants to move traffic (and employment) from BRU to CRL and LGG.

[Acid-drop]

because I have to agree with most here: le cdH just wants to move traffic (and employment) from BRU to CRL and LGG.

For me, it's all made to win votes from Brussels regions.
If you have to remember the whole thing with one key word it's "curfew".
So who will be the main winners ? The people who complain about the noise, and that's a LOT of them.

[teddybAIR]

So he want's to close one of our country's most valuable assets for 9 hours per day...some great thinking now that the economy is showing early signs of careful recovery. Why not relocate shipping from the ports of antwerp and zeebrugge to Charleroi? I'm sure that diving clubs in the Westerschelde will be happy to hear the news!

[Acid-drop]

You think too local.
Moving some flights 80km away will not change much.
Most jobs will stay, look how many jobs in LGG are not from Liege...
(And look how many people like me come from Liege to work in flanders)
And if wallonia is doing better you have less money transfer, makes you happy no ?
Anyway this will never happen, its only a pre-election talk.

[teddybAIR]

Too logical? That must be the first time that argument is used against a statement.

Here's one of the consequences of Mr. Wathelets proposal: just like about 1,5million belgians, I live in close proximity to the national aiport. The only occasion when I fly is for holiday travel. Now, if this guy makes his mark, I'll need to drive for more than an hour because he fancies the charter business that is located in BRU for pure business reasons and because customers are there! But yeah, I'm too logical so don't listen to me. Let's also relocate all retailers in Wallonia and have the flemish drive to Liege to do their grocery shopping. super for the economy!

[Acid-drop]

So what... 50% of the people in maasmechelen village are from Liège. And 80% of tourist in the ardennes are not from wallonia.
I dont find it so strange.

[MD-11forever]

Maybe a stupid question, but why should this rule only apply to BRU, and not to other airports in the country, like LGG or CRL?
You should be consequent, but that's only my humble opinion...

[teddybAIR]

Ok, then let's locate major logistical hubs in the middle of nowhere based on the fact that Maasmechelen village is a 44 minute drive from Liege...rock solid business case!

[teddybAIR]

I dont find it so strange.

Would you find it strange to keep the situation as is?

[airazurxtror]

The European Parliement is to vote and presumably adopt today a text concerning the noise at airports in the EU. I don't know if it concerns the problem at Brussels, but it is perhaps worth taking it in account.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popu ... 9&l=en&t=D

The Regulation further harmonises, clarifies and strengthens the common rules on how decisions on noise related operating restrictions at EU airports, such as bans on night flights, are to be taken. The rules, which are based on principles agreed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and known as "Balanced Approach", cover in particular the assessment and management of aircraft noise and are designed to identify the most cost-efficient way of tackling aircraft noise at each individual airport. The Regulation only applies to larger airports, with more than 50 000 civil aircraft movements per year and does not establish specific noise thresholds, which remain within the competence of national or local authorities.

At the initiative of the EP, the local authorities would retain their powers to decide on noise related measures at airports, such as bans on night flights. Moreover, the Commission has been obliged to address health-related aspects of aviation noise by revising the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC. The Parliament's objectives have been, to a large extent, met in the negotiations with the Council and the Commission.

[sn26567]

Not everybody in Flanders is against the proposals of Wathelet. One of his predecessors, Bert Anciaux (who lives in Neder-over-Heembeek), followed by the people of the "Noordrand", also approve his proposals, both on an extension of the night curfew and on the dispersion of the routes.

And in the Brussels area, people are divided according to the NIMBY syndrome: those who have more flights (Auderghem/Oudergem, Watermaal, Ixelles/Elsene, etc.) are against and those who have less flights (Schaarbeek, Woluwe, Wezembbek-Oppem, etc.) are for the proposal.

There is no simple solution, because the reasons for disagreement are multiple: economy, noise, employment, .... Let's hope that common sense will prevail after the elections.

[teddybAIR]

Here is a suggestion: how about moving the military out of BRU? Including 10W? Let's see of the gents from the Wetstraat like that idea...or is it a convenient solution as long as it does not impact them?

[sn26567]

Here is a suggestion: how about moving the military out of BRU? Including 10W?

There has been a proposal on the table to move them to Beauvechain/Bevekom. But Defence Minister De Crem was against: he wanted to build new hangars for the upcoming A400s in Melsbroek (the current hangars can only accommodate the Hercules C-130s) for a huge number of million euros. De Crem's proposal has been blocked.

For this issue also the decision will rest on the future government coming out of the elections.

[Passenger]

Not everybody in Flanders is against the proposals of Wathelet. One of his predecessors, Bert Anciaux (who lives in Neder-over-Heembeek), followed by the people of the "Noordrand", also approve his proposals, both on an extension of the night curfew and on the dispersion of the routes.

André, allow me to disagree with this:

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail ... 1_01064086
and, more important,
http://www.politics.be/persmededelingen/38492/

Anciaux wants no cargo flights, no charters flights and no low cost flights at BRU - leaving the airport with just business flights and scheduled flights (and only 07h-22h). But Anciaux' party goes much further. Jef Van Damme, SPa chief for the Brussels Capital Region, rejects Wathelet's proposal because it's too soft. The SPa wants "no flights above Brussels-19 (even not during day time), and no flights at all to/from BRU during the night".

Although Wathlelet probably just wants to gain souls for the next elections, his move is another step to kill Brussels Airport. Because let's remain serious: it's too late to change Brussels Airport into a "business/scheduled flight only" airport. Too much money has been invested recent years. If cargo flights will have to move from BRU to LGG, what will then happen to the cargo buildings at Brucargo? Same applies if there are no more charter flights and low cost flights: this will cause empty parking buildings at BRU, empty restaurants, empty shops, empty hotels.

It's about time that Brussels start to understand that the airport, although causing lots of discomfort, is its lifeline. Without Brussels Airport, there will be no international conferences, no tourists, no taxis.

And for those hoping for a move from BRU to LGG and CRL: don't forget that traffic could well move to Amsterdam, Köln, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Eindhoven, Lille. Do you think that airlines will trust Belgian politicians who say that they're wellcome at LGG? No: they will think that Wathelet will soon do the same with LGG as he does with BRU.

[Acid-drop]

Forget the lgg and crl part... Of course it could go anywhere. And crl does follow a curfew also.
The discussion here is about bru. And only bru.