Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

[Inquirer]

IMHO,
the main problem of BRU's Pier A is that ever since Brussels Airlines started its explosive expansion, the terminal is simply too small to host all the Schengen flights during those times the Brussels planes are all on the ground. It has happened several times to me too that upon arrival, the plane I was on had to wait for a gate to become free and was ultimately sent off to some other position if the waiting took too long.
I don't know if the extension of Pier A is still planned (and when it will materialise), but I'd say it's high time to start looking into moving all those low service airlines away from their current gates at the very beginning of the terminal to some other places further down the tarmac, so the Pier A can be extended at those positions and match the needs again.
Any news on that, Atlantis?

[Atlantis]

IMHO,
the main problem of BRU's Pier A is that ever since Brussels Airlines started its explosive expansion, the terminal is simply too small to host all the Schengen flights during those times the Brussels planes are all on the ground. It has happened several times to me too that upon arrival, the plane I was on had to wait for a gate to become free and was ultimately sent off to some other position if the waiting took too long.
I don't know if the extension of Pier A is still planned (and when it will materialise), but I'd say it's high time to start looking into moving all those low service airlines away from their current gates at the very beginning of the terminal to some other places further down the tarmac, so the Pier A can be extended at those positions and match the needs again.
Any news on that, Atlantis?

The extension of Pier A is still planned and in progress. By next year more news will follow after the tender is closed and a decision is made how the extension will look like and who will build it.
The extension of Pier A is for sure priority

[Inquirer]

The extension of Pier A is still planned and in progress. By next year more news will follow after the tender is closed and a decision is made how the extension will look like and who will build it.
The extension of Pier A is for sure priority

Thanks you for this swift response; much appreciated!
I do hope they will go ahead with it and make it possible for Brussels Airlines and its partners to have all their flights in one terminal: that will make live so much easier for everybody flying them, as well as for all other airlines at BRU too. Maybe the low cost airlines will have to park at less convenient positions then as a consequence, but isn't that somehow inherent to their low quality product anyway?

[Atlantis]

The extension of Pier A is still planned and in progress. By next year more news will follow after the tender is closed and a decision is made how the extension will look like and who will build it.
The extension of Pier A is for sure priority

Thanks you for this swift response; much appreciated!
I do hope they will go ahead with it and make it possible for Brussels Airlines and its partners to have all their flights in one terminal: that will make live so much easier for everybody flying them, as well as for all other airlines at BRU too. Maybe the low cost airlines will have to park at less convenient positions then as a consequence, but isn't that somehow inherent to their low quality product anyway?

No problem Inquirer.

The project will go ahead, don't worry. It's even on top of the list and very important for the airport and the users of it (airlines and passengers)

There are two options. And extension with a lot of gates, +20, for narrow body airplanes or a second one with less gates but for wide body. But the last one can be also a mix.

For sure the Star Alliance will have a prominent place in this one with smoothly connection times.

Double air bridges can be for the B777 and A350 but not a triple air bridge. This is only for the B concourse when they want to accomodate the A380 of Emirates.

It is a brilliant move of SN to open this new route to Mumbai next year as they will show the their other partners that they are a solig player with very good connections in Europe, Africa and The States. This will make it a bit easier of other future Star Alliance members to come to BRU as Singapore Airlines and South African Airways.

[OO-ITR]

Strange announcement by the cabin crew on my last SN flight:
"Ladies and gentlemen, the airport decided to assign A24 as our parking position, this involves a shuttle bus to join the terminal. Our apologies for this inconvenience, which is totally beyond our control"

So SN blaming the airport because they want to optimise the use of their aircraft??
That said, why on earth do passenger have to lose another 10 minutes by walking through the shopping connector?

Because probably most pax prefer an air bridge to board and disembark. Most people have to carry luggage up and down stairs, in summer it is nice when the weather is nice but when it is raining or snowing, people are not really happy to board and/or disembark in open air.
Also people have to be cramped in a bus, no fun neither.

THAT is why SN makes an announcement that the pax will be brought to the terminal by bus. Better than no communication don't you think so?
And also I don't know which way you take to go to arrivals but you skip the duty free shop when you return from a flight...

[Conti764]

IMHO,
the main problem of BRU's Pier A is that ever since Brussels Airlines started its explosive expansion, the terminal is simply too small to host all the Schengen flights during those times the Brussels planes are all on the ground. It has happened several times to me too that upon arrival, the plane I was on had to wait for a gate to become free and was ultimately sent off to some other position if the waiting took too long.
I don't know if the extension of Pier A is still planned (and when it will materialise), but I'd say it's high time to start looking into moving all those low service airlines away from their current gates at the very beginning of the terminal to some other places further down the tarmac, so the Pier A can be extended at those positions and match the needs again.
Any news on that, Atlantis?

The extension of Pier A is still planned and in progress. By next year more news will follow after the tender is closed and a decision is made how the extension will look like and who will build it.
The extension of Pier A is for sure priority

How it will look? I hope like the rest of the A-pier

There is a lot of room in Western direction so I hope they'll make it big enough to accomodate both NB's and WB's. I'd give priority to WB's, because it would mean a very convenient switch between flights in times when transfer pax become more and more important. If necessary, they'll have to allocate remote stands to all non-*A flights to free up space for SN and partners...

[Atlantis]

It will be a mix for sure. But if they focus on long haul you can accomodate less air bridges. When it will be more for NB, than of course you will have +20 air bridges. But the mix you will have for sure

[Poiu]

If necessary, they'll have to allocate remote stands to all non-*A flights to free up space for SN and partners...

[/quote][/quote]

No problem as long as SN, partners and their passengers pay for the new A pier. ...

[Homo Aeroportus]

It will be a mix for sure. But if they focus on long haul you can accomodate less air bridges. When it will be more for NB, than of course you will have +20 air bridges. But the mix you will have for sure

I think A Pier West was intended to have a number of MARS positions, no?

So either two NB (Code C, max wingspan 36m) each using its bridge, or one WB (Code E, Wingspan up to 65m) then served by two boarding bridges.
Flexible solution that copes with the various traffic during the day and speedier service on WBs.

The current solution on A Pier implies that when a WB is positioned on 145, 149, 153, 161, 165 or 169 (Left), the stand on their left (143, 147, ...) is u/s.

H.A.

[Poiu]

Strange announcement by the cabin crew on my last SN flight:
"Ladies and gentlemen, the airport decided to assign A24 as our parking position, this involves a shuttle bus to join the terminal. Our apologies for this inconvenience, which is totally beyond our control"

So SN blaming the airport because they want to optimise the use of their aircraft??
That said, why on earth do passenger have to lose another 10 minutes by walking through the shopping connector?

Because probably most pax prefer an air bridge to board and disembark. Most people have to carry luggage up and down stairs, in summer it is nice when the weather is nice but when it is raining or snowing, people are not really happy to board and/or disembark in open air.
Also people have to be cramped in a bus, no fun neither.

THAT is why SN makes an announcement that the pax will be brought to the terminal by bus. Better than no communication don't you think so?
And also I don't know which way you take to go to arrivals but you skip the duty free shop when you return from a flight...

Don't get me wrong, the announcement itself is highly appreciated. The fact that the airline blames the airport is surprising though.

[Passenger]

Strange announcement by the cabin crew on my last SN flight: "Ladies and gentlemen, the airport decided to assign A24 as our parking position, this involves a shuttle bus to join the terminal. Our apologies for this inconvenience, which is totally beyond our control".

So SN blaming the airport because they want to optimise the use of their aircraft??

The above quote is not "blaming the airport". It's just saying to the passengers that the airline didn't choose that parking space because it's cheaper. That's all.

...why on earth do passenger have to lose another 10 minutes by walking through the shopping connector?

Because the investment in the Brussels Airport terminals is partially paid off by a commission on the sales that the shops make. The more visitors to the shops, the more turnover they make, the more revenue for the airport. (During my last return, I don't think I had to walk for 10 minutes there. But then, it wasn't from A24).

(quote edited -> italic)

[Conti764]

If necessary, they'll have to allocate remote stands to all non-*A flights to free up space for SN and partners...

[/quote]

No problem as long as SN, partners and their passengers pay for the new A pier. ...[/quote]

Why would that be?

[Poiu]

If necessary, they'll have to allocate remote stands to all non-*A flights to free up space for SN and partners...

No problem as long as SN, partners and their passengers pay for the new A pier. ...[/quote]

Why would that be?[/quote]

Obvious, no? You want to reserve the new terminal for some airlines, so let them pay for it. When they don't need the space they can rent parking positions to others.
But at the moment its the opposite, with the unfair subsidies, those who pay less get more...

[convair]

Obvious, no? You want to reserve the new terminal for some airlines, so let them pay for it. When they don't need the space they can rent parking positions to others.
But at the moment its the opposite, with the unfair subsidies, those who pay less get more...

Which planet are you coming from, Poiu? Haven't you noticed that LCC pax usually get cheaper tickets than e.g. "legacy airlines" pax?

[sean1982]

Obvious, no? You want to reserve the new terminal for some airlines, so let them pay for it. When they don't need the space they can rent parking positions to others.
But at the moment its the opposite, with the unfair subsidies, those who pay less get more...

Which planet are you coming from, Poiu? Haven't you noticed that LCC pax usually get cheaper tickets than e.g. "legacy airlines" pax?

They do, eventhough the airline pays the same handeling cost to BRU as anyone else

[Conti764]

No problem as long as SN, partners and their passengers pay for the new A pier. ...

Why would that be?[/quote]

Obvious, no? You want to reserve the new terminal for some airlines, so let them pay for it. When they don't need the space they can rent parking positions to others.
But at the moment its the opposite, with the unfair subsidies, those who pay less get more...[/quote]

Subsidies? tBAC is a private company and should be free to negotiate whatever terms they want with airlines. And it is only logical they give priority to the most important client.

[Poiu]

Obvious, no? You want to reserve the new terminal for some airlines, so let them pay for it. When they don't need the space they can rent parking positions to others.
But at the moment its the opposite, with the unfair subsidies, those who pay less get more...

Which planet are you coming from, Poiu? Haven't you noticed that LCC pax usually get cheaper tickets than e.g. "legacy airlines" pax?

Ticket price has nothing to do with it, nor the planet I am coming from. A tip though: there are no high horses on my planet.

Conti- at the moment the governement subsidises SN through the airport charges.

[Inquirer]

We're talking about a privately held company (Brussels Airport) investing in additional infrastructure (a Pier extension) to meet massively increased commercial demand by its biggest privately held customer (Brussels Airlines): i think it's only logical such investment will pay for itself through the customary commercial terms of use foreseen in the service contract between the to parties, or BAC wouldn't have labeled this extension a top investment/expansion priority, like Atlantis has informed us yesterday, one that is urgently needed indeed as I have already repeatedly noticed, as did Poiu.

[Inquirer]

It is a brilliant move of SN to open this new route to Mumbai next year as they will show the their other partners that they are a solig player with very good connections in Europe, Africa and The States. This will make it a bit easier for other future Star Alliance members to come to BRU as Singapore Airlines and South African Airways.

I agree with you on this one: finding their home carrier willing to step out so far out of their comfort zone is a potentially game changing move both for the airport as well as for the airline, yet it also comes with a risk (notably to the later), so I assume that the former has gone to extremely great lengths to help minimize that. The potential from successfully upgrading BRU from just a modest hub focused on EU-linked traffic plus some ethnic routes to Africa to a truly globally oriented hub is a once in a decade strategic occasion BRU simply can't afford to forego on.

[convair]

Obvious, no? You want to reserve the new terminal for some airlines, so let them pay for it. When they don't need the space they can rent parking positions to others.
But at the moment its the opposite, with the unfair subsidies, those who pay less get more...

Which planet are you coming from, Poiu? Haven't you noticed that LCC pax usually get cheaper tickets than e.g. "legacy airlines" pax?

Ticket price has nothing to do with it, nor the planet I am coming from. A tip though: there are no high horses on my planet.

Conti- at the moment the governement subsidises SN through the airport charges.

The government has nothing to do with the airport charges imho. And when an LCC parks its planes away from the pier, it pays a lower charge to BRU, and this can be transfered to the pax as a lower fare ( I'm quite sure you could get this info from the horse's mouth if you like ).