Wathelet dispersion plan for Brussels Airport

[Airbus330lover]

Well, BRU is on flemish territory, I dont see the difference. The real problem is that the bilingual thing usually only comes from one group of people, the same group who has to endure all flights over their heads now by rule of the judge. I still have to meet the first walloon who orders his drink or icecream in flemish at the belgian coast.

I'm and without problem.
Same for a beer or... een pintje

BRU is national and as special rules.
ANR, LGG CRL are regional
You (as FR crew) know that all advertising and much more are done in FR, NL and EN in CRL.... It's simply business and respect for the PAX.

And everywhere, I try to speech local (maar geen dialecten....)

[lumumba]

Well, BRU is on flemish territory, I dont see the difference. The real problem is that the bilingual thing usually only comes from one group of people, the same group who has to endure all flights over their heads now by rule of the judge. I still have to meet the first walloon who orders his drink or icecream in flemish at the belgian coast.

By the way Flemish does not existe Flemish people speaks Dutch!!!

[sn26567]

Could we PLEASE try to stick to the topic. topic is about the dispersion plan, not about the languages spoken at the Belgian airports.

I had archived this topic because too many people were turning it into a feud between communities. I don't want to do it again. I had reopened the topic because there was fresh news. Don't compel me to close it again.

PLEASE

[lumumba]

Could we PLEASE try to stick to the topic. topic is about the dispersion plan, not about the languages spoken at the Belgian airports.

I had archived this topic because too many people were turning it into a feud between communities. I don't want to do it again. I had reopened the topic because there was fresh news. Don't compel me to close it again.

PLEASE

But you have to admit that it's first a problem between de regions here.
Means first a political problem so it's difficult not to enter in it!!!!

[sn26567]

Above, White Light showed how to deal with the problem in a objective way:

1. The is no "Wathelet Plan". At best you can speak of the "So-called Wathelet Plan", because Wathelet applied the decisions made by the Leterme governments in 2008 and 2010 when Etienne Schouppe was in charge of Mobility (both Leterme and Schouppe were CD&V = Flemish Christian-democrats), but to be complete I shall add that these decisions were also approved by the French-speaking parties in those governments.

2. Although I don't accept that people who decide to live in communes that have in the past traditionally been overflown by aircraft complain about the noise, It seems logical to me that people who have rented or bought appartments or houses in communes which were never overflown by aircraft now bitterly complain.

3. It seems logical to me that you try to avoid that aircraft fly over densely populated areas when other options exist.

4. Imho, the only REAL (non political) way out is for the federal governement to ask ICAO to appoint and send to Brussels a group of independent (non European) experts to recommend when and how take offs and landings should take place from/to BRU and that all political parties, regions, governments and citizens accept that these recommendations become binding.

5. At last, I really despise those luchtzak members who find nother better to do than to drift off topic and turn the whole question into a linguistic communities question. How petty and horribly Belgian !

[sean1982]

You know as well as anyone else André, that white light his post is pure Utopia.
If you don't want language or community to be discussed than you better close because it's the root of this problem

[lumumba]

Above, White Light showed how to deal with the problem in a objective way:

1. The is no "Wathelet Plan". At best you can speak of the "So-called Wathelet Plan", because Wathelet applied the decisions made by the Leterme governments in 2008 and 2010 when Etienne Schouppe was in charge of Mobility (both Leterme and Schouppe were CD&V = Flemish Christian-democrats), but to be complete I shall add that these decisions were also approved by the French-speaking parties in those governments.

2. Although I don't accept that people who decide to live in communes that have in the past traditionally been overflown by aircraft complain about the noise, It seems logical to me that people who have rented or bought appartments or houses in communes which were never overflown by aircraft now bitterly complain.

3. It seems logical to me that you try to avoid that aircraft fly over densely populated areas when other options exist.
I'm agree I said the same before and maybe other people before us so the debate is closed .
4. Imho, the only REAL (non political) way out is for the federal governement to ask ICAO to appoint and send to Brussels a group of independent (non European) experts to recommend when and how take offs and landings should take place from/to BRU and that all political parties, regions, governments and citizens accept that these recommendations become binding.

5. At last, I really despise those luchtzak members who find nother better to do than to drift off topic and turn the whole question into a linguistic communities question. How petty and horribly Belgian !

I'm agree I said the same before and maybe other people before us so the debate is closed.

[sean1982]

So 4 posts ago you were complaining about the noise above your house and now you agree?
I will tell you why you agree: because you think that independent ICAO representatives would route those airplanes over less dense populated (flemish) area anyway.
But imagine that they take the more ecological route and say: all this flying around in Belgium for nothing is ridiculous. We recommend that they take the shortest route a.k.a. over de city of Brussels and we recommend precision approaches to rwy 07 L and R for easterly winds.
Would you still agree???

[lumumba]

So 4 posts ago you were complaining about the noise above your house and now you agree?
I will tell you why you agree: because you think that independent ICAO representatives would route those airplanes over less dense populated (flemish) area anyway.
But imagine that they take the more ecological route and say: all this flying around in Belgium for nothing is ridiculous. We recommend that they take the shortest route a.k.a. over de city of Brussels and we recommend precision approaches to rwy 07 L and R for easterly winds.
Would you still agree???

Ok let see,now I live in Brussels but I'm Flemish originally.
At the end we will have to find a solution.

[White Light]

So 4 posts ago you were complaining about the noise above your house and now you agree?I will tell you why you agree: because you think that independent ICAO representatives would route those airplanes over less dense populated (flemish) area anyway.But imagine that they take the more ecological route and say: all this flying around in Belgium for nothing is ridiculous. We recommend that they take the shortest route a.k.a. over de city of Brussels and we recommend precision approaches to rwy 07 L and R for easterly winds.Would you still agree???

Let ICAO experts do their job and let it be binding for all and let all BELGIANS concerned accept the binding character of their recommendations. And let for once perhaps technical criteria and common sense take precedence over petty political and linguistic quarrels that have led us NOWHERE and will lead us nowhere.

If you have airports located close to cities like also LHR and ZRH to name of few, inevitably there will be people inconvenienced by aircraft noise. Wasn't the best option in the first place not to go and live there ?

And please stop imagining that ICAO, a technical organisation also concerned with safety, would in any slightest way take your ridiculous hyptheses into consideration.

[FlightMate]

God forbid, if one day BRU is regionalized, or if Belgium splits, you can expect no airplane from BRU is gonna fly over either wallonia or Brussels anymore.
Then you'll be sure all the noise will be for the north.

Is that what you want, both Flemish and Walloons?

[Passenger]

God forbid, if one day BRU is regionalized, or if Belgium splits, you can expect no airplane from BRU is gonna fly over either wallonia or Brussels anymore. Then you'll be sure all the noise will be for the north. Is that what you want, both Flemish and Walloons?

If an independent Brussels indeed wants no more noise from aircraft at all, Flanders will have to amend plan B for the airport. But can we remain a bit realistic please? What is Brussels without an airport? The number of foreign tourists in Brussels hotels will be limited to Dutch and French one day tourists, using Eurostar/Thalys. Hundreds of taxi drivers will loose their jobs. Thousands of employees in the incentive, conference and hospitality business will loose their jobs. Hundreds of souvenir shops will close. International companies will leave Brussels because of the absence of an airport within normal reach. The European Union will be forced to move some offices elsewehere.

You see : actually, the Brussels Capital Region has more benefits from Brussels Airport then Flanders has. So isn't it normal that Brussels, apart from the advantages of an airport, also accepts the disadvantages of an airport? Which, in this case, is an equal dispersion plan (with flight safety as first guide line for the routes).

[lumumba]

God forbid, if one day BRU is regionalized, or if Belgium splits, you can expect no airplane from BRU is gonna fly over either wallonia or Brussels anymore. Then you'll be sure all the noise will be for the north. Is that what you want, both Flemish and Walloons?

If an independent Brussels indeed wants no more noise from aircraft at all, Flanders will have to amend plan B for the airport. But can we remain a bit realistic please? What is Brussels without an airport? The number of foreign tourists in Brussels hotels will be limited to Dutch and French one day tourists, using Eurostar/Thalys. Hundreds of taxi drivers will loose their jobs. Thousands of employees in the incentive, conference and hospitality business will loose their jobs. Hundreds of souvenir shops will close. International companies will leave Brussels because of the absence of an airport within normal reach. The European Union will be forced to move some offices elsewehere.

You see : actually, the Brussels Capital Region has more benefits from Brussels Airport then Flanders has. So isn't it normal that Brussels, apart from the advantages of an airport, also accepts the disadvantages of an airport? Which, in this case, is an equal dispersion plan (with flight safety as first guide line for the routes).

But you don't have to close the airport if you can not fly over Brussels Capital Region!!!
I think we have to make choses and yes an airport is important but a smaller one.
With no night flights, we can bring those flights to other airports Ex: maybe Oostende or Liege,Cologne...
Also a good idea will be to close the airport for take off from 23:00 to 07:00.

[Squelsh]

1. The is no "Wathelet Plan". At best you can speak of the "So-called Wathelet Plan", because Wathelet applied the decisions made by the Leterme governments in 2008 and 2010 when Etienne Schouppe was in charge of Mobilty (both Leterme and Schouppe were CD&V = Flemisch christian-democrats), but to be complete I shall add that these decisions were also approved by the French-speaking parties in those governments.

I found this a weird opening point when reading it at first a few days ago and didn't check into it, but after having read below linked article today, I really can't follow anymore. Are you sure of your point 1?

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Binnenland ... -BHV.dhtml

Eric Van Rompuy (CD&V) orakelt: "Vliegroutes zijn het nieuwe BHV"
(..)
Als gevolg van de invoering van het plan-Wathelet op 6 februari dit jaar werden een pak meer starts uitgevoerd over het Brussels Kanaal (via Laken en Schaarbeek) en via een traject over Etterbeek, Elsene en Watermaal-Bosvoorde, de zogenaamde 'linkerbocht'. Sindsdien regende het klachten van bewoners over fors toegenomen nachtelijk lawaai.
(..)
Voor Van Rompuy is er geen andere mogelijkheid dan het plan-Schouppe van 2009: "Dat plan had geen enkele mankementen tenzij van enkele humanistische inwoners uit de twee Woluwes, het kiespubliek van Wathelet nota bene."

So basically what is being said by this politician, is that the plan-Wathelet (which according to you is the plan-Schouppe) should be replaced by the plan-Schouppe?

Anyways, despite not really liking this particular politican, in this case, he is 100% right. This altering of flying routes has again opened a pandora's box, hence the occasional stirr in this forum topic probably

[regi]

There is a real problem now with this court verdict.
The Brussels region has another legislation than Flanders, and the law is the law.
Flanders will not change its noise limits. ( fearing that more business would go to Liege and Charleroi )

I proposed in the past a legaly acceptable solution: keep on flying above Brussel and pay the fines. Thoses fines could be financed by an increased airport tax.
Everybody who books a ticket living in a postal code outside Brussels receives a discount.
This is 100 % legally acceptable after I have found out about the ferry and Chunnel crossings, cheaper for UK citizens than for continentals. ( there is an European declaration about this: you are free to give a discount to who you want, you are not free to increase the price depending on origin )

So, inhabitants from Flanders ( and maybe Walloon as well, I don't know their legislation and noise level ) will pay less than the inhabitants from the region that allowed this stringent legislation to be implemented.
Again, it is no discrimination. It is legally acceptable. And the funny thing: it can be implemented immediately.

Before all dear members denounce me crazy: I live in Bruges. A visit to the Belfort Tower costs 8 €. But inhabitants of Bruges get in for free, by showing their ID with the address. It is legally accepted because it is anounced as a discount ( and guess who complained about this "discrimination" )
http://cultuur.brugge.be/nieuwsbrieven/ ... ltuur.html

[Passenger]

If politicians say that this Wathelet dispersion plan is a political problem, who are we to contradict them? Eric Van Rompuy, senior CD&V member of parliament, states that Wathelet has started a new problem that will surpass BHV. "The recent court decision sends more flights above Flanders then before", Van Rompuy says.

Seems there was an article in Le Soir, but I didn't find it. Or perhaps its in the Monday edition?

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Binnenland ... -BHV.dhtml

[Magiktrix]

For Passenger the french version was in the week-end edition of Le Soir on page 4.
Clearly just another Nimby. For info he lives in Sterrebeek.

None of those plans where good for aviation. And the Schouppe one was not better.
Politicians should accept that everybody in the bussines is REALLY doing its best effort.
But here, we sometimes have to fly for miles in the wrong direction.
Take the CIV6J from 07R you fly for 7 min before coming abeam of your point of departure.
4 min more than before, for nothing.

About precision approches on 07L and 07R, if i remenber well a few years ago the flemish region get the permissions to do it, technically on paper. If they don't its only for political reason.
And i already landed on both, flying non precision approches, and it was always in good weather.
The only problem is that the capacity is reduced in npa.

For Regi, if my informations are correct the rate of those fines is around 50000 Euro PER violation.
You better stay on the ground and cancel your flight.

[regi]

For Regi, if my informations are correct the rate of those fines is around 50000 Euro PER violation.
You better stay on the ground and cancel your flight.

Hm, yes, airport tax won't compensate that.

[airazurxtror]

Everybody who books a ticket living in a postal code outside Brussels receives a discount.
So, inhabitants from Flanders ( and maybe Walloon as well, I don't know their legislation and noise level ) will pay less than the inhabitants from the region that allowed this stringent legislation to be implemented.

Thus, the Brusselaars will not only suffer the noise, but also pay more to fly !
A good joke, Regi !

[FlightMate]

The big advantage of BRU compared to other airports in Europe (or in the world), is that it is close to the city.

But that's its big disadvantage as well, as far as noise is concerned.

Ultimate solution is maybe to build another airport further away?
BUT... where?
And what about people living there...

Or maybe, if we go back to the pre-2002? routes, offer sound-proofing to inhabitants under the flight path.