Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

[Bralo20]

*I seem to remember "acts of war" and similar phrases to figure in the small print of insurance contracts, and have every confidence the insurance companies will try and get the maximum out of them - meaning they'll pay as little as they absolutely must. And who can blame them?

Since 2008 terrorism (on Belgian soil) is a mandatory coverage in the normal insurances (including the regular fire insurance) so the insurance will have to pay out to the full scale of damages.

It's up to the insurances to reclaim the money from the terrorists.

[Atlantis]

About the insurance: this will take really a very long time. But I believe that for sea ports, airports, nucleair plants have maybe a part in it who can protect them against terror. So who knows. But that will be stuff for specialists.

But the terminal is in a worse condition than at first sight.

To build a new one will take too long as the first priority is to be operational again. Don't forget that it is an airport of more than 23 million of pax and they can't wait.

[Wohowbagger]

*I seem to remember "acts of war" and similar phrases to figure in the small print of insurance contracts, and have every confidence the insurance companies will try and get the maximum out of them - meaning they'll pay as little as they absolutely must. And who can blame them?

Working as claims handler, I can confirm this.
Though if acts of war or terroristic actions are the cause of the damage, there are limitations on the compensation if I'm not mistaken.

As in the case of Brussels Airport there is no doubt there is co-insurance. Which means more than 1 insurance company has insured the site, from 1% - ... until 100% or more is achieved.

We still haven't received any official claim however.
There have been meetings and there are meetings planned if there'll be a more flexible compensation towards our clients (persons). Meaning we won't be asking every little detail, and refunding is possible even the same day.

[jan_olieslagers]

@Treeper: thanks for inside information - always the most valuable! And yes, I was thinking of co-insurance, too, but that is only a matter of sharing the sour grapes among many sufferers; it doesn't change anything basic.

@Bralo: thanks, too, this is new to me. If indeed terrorism is mandatory coverage than the insurers will not pay out until terrorism is confirmed in a judgement - which, again, may take a long time to finalise. And they'll do all they can to disprove terrorism, by all means available.

[Wohowbagger]

@Bralo: thanks, too, this is new to me. If indeed terrorism is mandatory coverage than the insurers will not pay out until terrorism is confirmed in a judgement - which, again, may take a long time to finalise. And they'll do all they can to disprove terrorism, by all means available.

This may offer more information:
http://www.tripvzw.be/en/home/about.asp

I can say that fire, explosion, smoke,and soot are covered in most insurance polices. Also 'acts of thirds participating in an assault' is insured.

Which basically means that insurance companies don't have to wait for a committee to call an act of terrorism an act of terrorism and to find a suitable opposite party, but that they can already reimburse you under other warranties/guaranties than 'terrorism'. They can later on try and go claim their compensation.

[Airbus330lover]

*I seem to remember "acts of war" and similar phrases to figure in the small print of insurance contracts, and have every confidence the insurance companies will try and get the maximum out of them - meaning they'll pay as little as they absolutely must. And who can blame them?

Since 2008 terrorism (on Belgian soil) is a mandatory coverage in the normal insurances (including the regular fire insurance) so the insurance will have to pay out to the full scale of damages.

It's up to the insurances to reclaim the money from the terrorists.

Terrorism is always covered for personal insurance (assurance de risque simple AR 1994 ?) for non retail or specific coverages (like BRU) it is not automatically covered. If covered, surely reinsured in a pool.

TRIP convention is prioritary for injuries.....and eventually for phsyical damage. TRIP is also limited... in this cas, insuffisant

[Conti764]

No need to say that all planned infrastructure plans, expanding of the airport, is postponed as budget will be used for the rebuilding of the terminal. So all other projects are very uncertain at this moment.

I'd honestly find this a mistake. Unless the airport expects a dramatic drop of passengers, they can't really hold back on expanding, because they'll still be close to max capacity in a few years. If they aren't already running it in the morning...

From what I have seen Tuesday, the repair of the terminal does 't even come close to the cost of e.g. A pier West or T2... Unless ofcourse they expect structural damage. But at first sight electricity was still up except for the blast area's... All in all, the renovated terminal was in worst shape...

[Conti764]

*I seem to remember "acts of war" and similar phrases to figure in the small print of insurance contracts, and have every confidence the insurance companies will try and get the maximum out of them - meaning they'll pay as little as they absolutely must. And who can blame them?

Since 2008 terrorism (on Belgian soil) is a mandatory coverage in the normal insurances (including the regular fire insurance) so the insurance will have to pay out to the full scale of damages.

It's up to the insurances to reclaim the money from the terrorists.

Terrorism is always covered for personal insurance (assurance de risque simple AR 1994 ?) for non retail or specific coverages (like BRU) it is not automatically covered. If covered, surely reinsured in a pool.

TRIP convention is prioritary for injuries.....and eventually for phsyical damage. TRIP is also limited... in this cas, insuffisant

I assume (hope) BAC kept a potential terrorist attack in mind when closing insurance deals. After all, despite everybody hoping it would never come to this, an airport is a high profile target...

[Jetter]

I'd honestly find this a mistake. Unless the airport expects a dramatic drop of passengers, they can't really hold back on expanding, because they'll still be close to max capacity in a few years. If they aren't already running it in the morning...

Common sense makes me think you can expect a drop in passengers. These attack didn't only damage the building, but the reputation of Belgium as well. It has once again been established as ISIS capital of Europe, not competent enough to handle terroristic threats. Ironically CNN was airing a series named 'Frontline Belgium' just before the attacks happened. Then it's easy to imagine what extra harm these attacks will do to the image of Brussels.

[Conti764]

I'd honestly find this a mistake. Unless the airport expects a dramatic drop of passengers, they can't really hold back on expanding, because they'll still be close to max capacity in a few years. If they aren't already running it in the morning...

Common sense makes me think you can expect a drop in passengers. These attack didn't only damage the building, but the reputation of Belgium as well. It has once again been established as ISIS capital of Europe, not competent enough to handle terroristic threats. Ironically CNN was airing a series named 'Frontline Belgium' just before the attacks happened. Then it's easy to imagine what extra harm these attacks will do to the image of Brussels.

Maybe... How many people do fly to BRU to come to Belgium as a tourist? How many are transferring through the SN/S*-hub and how many have BRU as a mandatory destination for their job? Will Belgians who depart from BRU for their holidays suddenly choose a (foreign) alternative?

That BRU will have a decline in pax numbers seems like a certainty, but if there's one thing history has shown us, it is that people tend to bounce back up after a (major) setback. People will mentally heal from what happened, everyday life wil resume and over time, BRU too will recover from this disaster... I can understand the airport postponing the actual start of the works, but I'd keep the tredmill running. After all, when everything is back on its place and repaired, some positive news would do good to the airports reputation like 'we move on and do not let some backwards pricks determine our course...'

[Boavida]

I know it's still early, but I'm wondering how the 'new' departures hall will look like. I've read in an interview with the CEO of Brussels Airport that it won't be a 'copy-paste' of the old terminal - so that the new terminal will be entirely renewed. What does this exactly mean?

I'm really hoping they're gonna rethink the terminal entirely and that they'll integrate the 'old' part (the part where the touroperators check-in was) with the 'new' (main terminal) part. Meaning a completely new front of the departures area. Something like this:



If there's a time to do it, it's NOW.

[Acid-drop]

You need 18 months to get the permit, this is belgium, not dubai
If only we could dream, I'd dream with you.

[Freken]

Do you mean the current terminal, or the yet to be constructed one at the old DHL building? As for the current one, doesn't seem to be their top priority, which is reopening the facilities as fast as possible.

[Airbus A330]

Hello everybody,

I have 2 little questions (in case the different construction companies involved were allowed to reach their site).

Did the construction works of the new Deloitte building and the new building next to it restarted?
What about the renovation of the arrivals hall which was underway before the attacks?

[brusselsairlinesfan]

BRU CEO Arnaud Feist talked about a "future new terminal"... Any information on the matter? Are there still plan for a brussels airlines/Star alliance dedicated terminal?

[RoMax]

BRU CEO Arnaud Feist talked about a "future new terminal"... Any information on the matter? Are there still plan for a brussels airlines/Star alliance dedicated terminal?

He has been slightly misinterpreted I think, what he means is that BAC is working on a (new) "terminal of the future", not a new future terminal. That doesn't mean it will be 100% only the existing terminal building, but neither expect a whole new terminal.

[Yuqu12]

I think RoMax is right. They'll rebuild the current departure hall, but they have the plan to modernise it (so more self check-in etc). It will be something between both, I guess.

[lumumba]

It's crazy the old train station looks like the new one...
In fact they have 6 tracks with this station it's perfectly operational .

[Conti764]

What do you mean with that last sentence? Both the current station as the old station both need quite impressive expansion works to have more tracks passing through... Even more so since they both share the same platforms of course...

The problem with the temporary station is that it is a bit too far out for normal operations. The 'new' one is much better suited for the job since it has direct access to the Diamant. And even more so if one day BRU might build T2.

But I still see a role to be played for the old station, in fact is perfectly located for both the Passport and Gateway buildings...

[lumumba]

Ok I understand now THX .