Brussels region noise regulation

[Acid-drop]

What a pathetic answer.
BRU is the NATIONAL airport of belgium, remember ?
And if a limit needs to be forced, any other national airport should be prefered. (Even though I dont beleive airlines will like that solution)

Of course it would be easier if BRU was part of brussels territory or if the region of brussels was big as both brabant... but i'm dreaming here

[gumblebee]

To have any effect, such noise restrictions will have to be a lot stricter than the ones Brussels imposes. Just compare the distances on the map you posted (more than 25km before airplanes are above Flanders, 20 more before they are above Tongeren, more than 50kms before they are above Riemst) with the distance between Brussels Airport and Brussels (3 to10km).

That's about the impact Brussels would have from an airport at Beauvechain.

Flanders may also install noise restrictions for our rural areas near the language border. We thus can avoid that people Riemst and Tongeren suffer from 747 cargo aircraft taking off from LGG and climbing out over their houses:

[korvo]

What a pathetic answer.
BRU is the NATIONAL airport of belgium, remember ?
And if a limit needs to be forced, any other national airport should be prefered. (Even though I dont beleive airlines will like that solution)

Of course it would be easier if BRU was part of brussels territory or if the region of brussels was big as both brabant... but i'm dreaming here

Nothing pathetic about it. You just gave the real goal of the Francophone politicians. Nous sommes quand-même tous des belges - as long as it serves their purpose. And of course Céline Frémault who wants to be re-elected. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Passenger]

What a pathetic answer. BRU is the NATIONAL airport of belgium, remember?

Brussels Airport a "National Airport"? The airport is privatized for 75%. The Kingdom of Belgium owns only 25% of Brussels Airport Company nv/sa. If we have to call Brussels Airport a "national" airport, then it's Canadian or Australian.

And if a limit needs to be forced, any other national airport should be prefered. (Even though I dont beleive airlines will like that solution)

"Needs to be forced": wrong. There is no need to force whatever. There is a much easier solution: the Brussels Government accepts the inviation from Flanders and the airport to talk about noise restrictions and a dispertion plan. And meanwhile, the Brussels Government orders their incasso firm not to fine airlines.

[Passenger]

Indeed, both reactions are pathetic. Legal decisions from the past or by the Belgian "Council of State" do not count. Trump has a few followers in our country, too, apparently.

I'm not aware that Trump is involved with Brussels Airport. And I have never said that the noise restrictions are illegal. At the contrary: last week, I've posted a link to an indept article about the legal status of the noise restrictions. The noise restrictions are dirty play but legal, because confirmed by (the French chamber of) the Conseil D'Etat/Raad van State. Even if the Dutch chamber of the same Conseil D'Etat/Raad van State would now conclude differently, the article states, the noise restrictions remain legal because the French chamber was first with its decision - see article from Law.KULeuven.be below.

Reminder:

In 2006-2007, a reseacher (then student?) Constitutionial Right at the KU Leuven University has published an essay (his thesis then?) about the noise regulations. It's too long to translate and it's not possible to give a summary, but the first phrase of the chapter Conclusions says it all: "Uit dit onderzoek blijkt dat de grondwetgever en de bijzondere wetgever historische fouten hebben gemaakt bij de bevoegdheidsverdeling naar aanleiding van de opeenvolgende staatshervormingen. Uit een vergelijkende studie met andere federale staten, namelijk Duitsland, Zwitserland en Oostenrijk, is gebleken dat de bevoegdheid op het gebied van de strijd tegen geluidshinder m.b.t. luchtverkeer is toegewezen aan het federale niveau." My translation: The constitutional reformers in Belgium have failed by giving the authority for the aviation-noise-regulations to the regions. Other federal states like Germany, Switserland and Austria haven't, and they don't have the problems Belgium has.

Full text:
https://www.law.kuleuven.be/jura/art/43n2/keyaerts.htm

Who-is David Keyaerts:
http://www.kuleuven.be/wieiswie/nl/person/00081324

[korvo]

"Needs to be forced": wrong. There is no need to force whatever. There is a much easier solution: the Brussels Government accepts the inviation from Flanders and the airport to talk about noise restrictions and a dispertion plan. And meanwhile, the Brussels Government orders their incasso firm not to fine airlines.

² Common sense.

[Passenger]

To have any effect, such noise restrictions will have to be a lot stricter than the ones Brussels imposes. Just compare the distances on the map you posted (more than 25km before airplanes are above Flanders, 20 more before they are above Tongeren, more than 50kms before they are above Riemst) with the distance between Brussels Airport and Brussels (3 to10km).

That's about the impact Brussels would have from an airport at Beauvechain.

When a fully loaded 747-400 cargo climbs over your head at 6.500-7.000 ft at 03h a.m., it will surely wake up. This one below took off from runway 23. Sometimes they take off from 05 and then head west: that makes them climb over a very low altitude above Flanders.

[Kris]

I'm also afraid that it's a highly political issue right now. The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that not one airline will start paying fines. If they are forced to pay, they will move their operations.

[lumumba]

Imho, both parties to the dispute have valid arguments, although one party has more legal arguments on its side. "Celine Fremaut wants to be re-elected" (says Korvo), Ben Weyts, too. And since the federal minister apparently has no competence, we are in a stalemate.
I'll refrain from any other comments, since this thread is highly political and does not have its place on luchtzak (imho).

Thanks Ansett for this input....

[korvo]

Imho, both parties to the dispute have valid arguments, although one party has more legal arguments on its side. "Celine Fremaut wants to be re-elected" (says Korvo), Ben Weyts, too. And since the federal minister apparently has no competence, we are in a stalemate.
I'll refrain from any other comments, since this thread is highly political and does not have its place on luchtzak (imho).

Everything in this failed state is political. Point is that Zaventem is the second economic motor of the country and Flanders delivers more than 2/3 of the GNP/Export. Second rate politicians of a provincial town should know their place.
In the meantime it seems that they are backing off- or is it tactics?
http://www.demorgen.be/politiek/brussel ... -beb3f018/


http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/polit ... =1.2893465
Volgens VRT-journaliste Nina Verhaeghe zijn de voorwaarden niet zomaar te realiseren. "Eigenlijk vormen ze net de kern van het probleem. Het klinkt een beetje als: "Ik zal jouw portefeuille niet stelen op voorwaarde dat je mij jouw portefeuille geeft."

Verhaeghe denkt dan ook dat het eerder een tactische zet is van de Brusselse regering. "De regering wil de indruk geven dat ze een geste doet."

[lumumba]

Imho, both parties to the dispute have valid arguments, although one party has more legal arguments on its side. "Celine Fremaut wants to be re-elected" (says Korvo), Ben Weyts, too. And since the federal minister apparently has no competence, we are in a stalemate.
I'll refrain from any other comments, since this thread is highly political and does not have its place on luchtzak (imho).

Everything in this failed state is political. Point is that Zaventem is the second economic motor of the country and Flanders delivers more than 2/3 of the GNP/Export. Second rate politicians of a provincial town should know their place.
In the meantime it seems that they are backing off:
http://www.demorgen.be/politiek/brussel ... -beb3f018/

When they propose a solution it's backing off when they propose nothing they are irresponsible politicians...

This is positive step that's what it is!

[korvo]

Imho, both parties to the dispute have valid arguments, although one party has more legal arguments on its side. "Celine Fremaut wants to be re-elected" (says Korvo), Ben Weyts, too. And since the federal minister apparently has no competence, we are in a stalemate.
I'll refrain from any other comments, since this thread is highly political and does not have its place on luchtzak (imho).

Everything in this failed state is political. Point is that Zaventem is the second economic motor of the country and Flanders delivers more than 2/3 of the GNP/Export. Second rate politicians of a provincial town should know their place.
In the meantime it seems that they are backing off:
http://www.demorgen.be/politiek/brussel ... -beb3f018/

When they propose a solution it's backing off when they propose nothing they are irresponsible politicians...

This is passive step that's what it is!

It is sheer blackmail.
http://www.tijd.be/politiek_economie/be ... 3-3139.art
Maar het voorstel lijkt weinig of geen kans te maken aan Vlaamse kant. Minister van Mobiliteit Ben Weyts (N-VA) noemt het compromis een 'louter tactisch spel'. 'Op basis van de eerste voorwaarde, de afschaffing de kanaalroute, zegt de Brusselse gewestregering eigenlijk zoveel als: 'We gaan onze geluidsnormen niet verstrengen vanaf het moment dat er geen vliegtuig meer over Brussel vliegt', zei Weyts donderdagavond aan Belga. 'Laat ons zeggen dat mij dit niet bepaald een doorbraak in het hele dossier lijkt'.

[lumumba]

Everything in this failed state is political. Point is that Zaventem is the second economic motor of the country and Flanders delivers more than 2/3 of the GNP/Export. Second rate politicians of a provincial town should know their place.
In the meantime it seems that they are backing off:
http://www.demorgen.be/politiek/brussel ... -beb3f018/

When they propose a solution it's backing off when they propose nothing they are irresponsible politicians...

This is passive step that's what it is!

It is sheer blackmail.
http://www.tijd.be/politiek_economie/be ... 3-3139.art
Maar het voorstel lijkt weinig of geen kans te maken aan Vlaamse kant. Minister van Mobiliteit Ben Weyts (N-VA) noemt het compromis een 'louter tactisch spel'. 'Op basis van de eerste voorwaarde, de afschaffing de kanaalroute, zegt de Brusselse gewestregering eigenlijk zoveel als: 'We gaan onze geluidsnormen niet verstrengen vanaf het moment dat er geen vliegtuig meer over Brussel vliegt', zei Weyts donderdagavond aan Belga. 'Laat ons zeggen dat mij dit niet bepaald een doorbraak in het hele dossier lijkt'.

I don't know but it's moving...

[Passenger]

The Vlaamse Gemeenschap (Flanders) has officially called a new conflict of interest. A meeting between all parties involved is set for next Monday. If that meeting ends without a deal (compromis), a new 60 day term starts, during which the Brussels Government cannot fine airlines.

[Acid-drop]

So they could do 300 of them in a row to fix it for 100 years ?

[Passenger]

So they could do 300 of them in a row to fix it for 100 years ?

Nope. "They" (= the paysants from the north) only can do 2. And the federal government can do one. It's article 1 from the Belgian Constitution: België is een federale Staat, samengesteld uit de gemeenschappen en de gewesten. La Belgique est un État fédéral qui se compose des communautés et des régions. Therefore, both "het Vlaams Gewest" (la Région Flamande) and "de Vlaamse Gemeenschap" (the Flemish Community) can call a conflict of interest.

[Acid-drop]

Ah yeah i missed that trick, 2 differents entities.

[Passenger]

Ah yeah i missed that trick, 2 differents entities

Yep, and we handle the two entities with one government and one parliament in the north. In the south of Belgium, you have less habitants, but yet you need three governments and three parliaments to do the same: Région Wallonne, Communauté Française and the Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft Belgien. All three with a parliament and a government... Thus 3 possibilities to call a conflict of interest...

[korvo]

Ah yeah i missed that trick, 2 differents entities.

Yeah, the same trick used to stall BHV for ever. Even the Ménapiens can get angry once in a while.
And this has been part of the hidden agenda:
De cargoluchthaven van Luik hoopt munt te slaan uit de verstrengde geluidsnormen voor Brussels Airport.
http://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/luchtvaar ... 0-3085.art

[Passenger]

Official statement Flemish Government: "Conflict of interest"

"...De Brusselse Hoofdstedelijke Regering voorziet geluidsemmissiegrenswaarden voor luchtvaartmaatschappijen die boven het grondgebied van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest vliegen. Tot nu toe werd er een tolerantiemarge toegepast voor kleine overschrijdingen, waarbij luchtvaartmaatschappijen een waarschuwing kregen. De minister van leefmilieu van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest wil het toepassen van deze tolerantiemarge nu stopzetten. Om deze reden machtigt de Vlaamse Regering de minister-president opnieuw om een belangenconflict in te dienen bij het Overlegcomité. Een exponentiële stijging van de administratieve geldboeten heeft drastische economische gevolgen voor het Vlaamse Gewest aangezien de toepasselijkheid van de Brusselse geluidsnormen, bij ontstentenis aan tolerantiedrempels, zal leiden tot een massale afbouw van het aantal vluchten vanop de luchthaven Brussel-Nationaal waardoor de werkgelegenheid zwaar getroffen zal worden en de leefbaarheid in de Vlaamse rand rond Brussel in het gedrang zal komen..."

Source:
https://www.vlaanderen.be/nl/vlaamse-re ... seregering
Translation:
https://translate.google.com/