Brussels region noise regulation

[Crosswind]

So sad, but true. Wait and see... !

[Passenger]

Ok, but what can we do except to find a solution ? Mine looks balanced. We just need goodwill from either part.

If one reads what the Brussels Government, represented by its minister for Finance, today tells in La Libre Belgique, there is very little hope that Brussels shows goodwill. I don't think I need to translate this: "...A Bruxelles, il ne va rien se passer. Les normes de bruit sont là. Point à la ligne. La Flandre prépare un nouveau conflit d’intérêts mais nous, on ne bougera pas... L’exagération par rapport aux amendes n’est pas très intelligente de la part de Brussels Airport. C’est contraire à leurs intérêts. Manifestement, comme dans tous les dossiers, la N-VA joue aussi un rôle "anti-Brussel"...."

The only way out is a new federal Aviation Law. However, both Jacqueling Galant and François Bellot haven't done anything yet for that. Maybe because their party objects? Anyway, the above statements from Vanhengel leave the Flemish government no other choice then to go for the Belgian solution. To call conflicts of interest for other and non related files. Untill Vanhengel, Vervoort & co understand that both Flanders and Brussels benefit from the airport, and thus both have to undergo the less pleasant consequences.

Source for the above quotes:
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique/guy ... 98154910cd

[Crosswind]

and thus both have to undergo the less pleasant consequences.

Yes, that's the point, the real problem : in what proportion ? The only way, in my opnion, is to propose facts and figures to decide. How much earns Brussels, how much earns Flanders ?

[lumumba]

You can only use the conflict of interest 2 times so in 3 months it's over.

If everybody is agree to stretched the runway 25L to the north east I'm sure that Brussels will be less strict with the noise regulation.

So we can spread the take off ...

[Crosswind]

Lumumba, the problem then would be a massive concentration of flights on Flanders only. Not acceptable.

[lumumba]

Lumumba, the problem then would be a massive concentration of flights on Flanders only. Not acceptable.

Why 25R will still be used for take off but 25L also.

So you spread it ,today 80% of the take off go over Brussels if you now that it's the most populated area and that only 10 to 15% of people from Brussels work at the airport it's not fair.

But anyway with 25L becoming also a take off runway to the south west you can spread flights.

[flightlover]

Lumumba, the problem then would be a massive concentration of flights on Flanders only. Not acceptable.

Why 25R will still be used for take off but 25L also.

So you spread it ,today 80% of the take off go over Brussels if you now that it's the most populated area and that only 10 to 15% of people from Brussels work at the airport it's not fare.

But anyway with 25L becoming also a take off runway to the south west you can spread

Now, let's see how many % pax originate from Brussels and the Walloon region...
And if normal linguistic regulations would be taken into account that 10 - 15% of workers would be even lower.

[Crosswind]

Now, let's see how many % pax originate from Brussels and the Walloon region...
And if normal linguistic regulations would be taken into account that 10 - 15% of workers would be even lower.

The number of pax using BruAir., originating from Brussels, cannot be taken into account for this subject because it's a pure Brussels Airport economic relationship.

At contrary, workers must be taking in. In relation to a more global economic advantage calculated by region.

[jan_olieslagers]

Following other discussions, and without wishing to enter politics, I see a somewhat urgent need for the creation of a new large airport in Northern Belgium; to take the place of Zaventem/Brussels National that has obviously become unworkable.

Criteria:
* have at least two parallel runways
* good passenger connections by road and by rail/light rail/...
* be in easy reach of the major centres of economy, i.e. Brussels and Antwerp
* be far enough from Brussels, who have made it clear they do not want any airport nearby
* minimal hindrance for the present population
* minimal ecological impact
* minimal cost

Of course those criteria are mutually exclusive. As the least unfortunate compromise, I see the ex-military fields of Zoersel and Ursel. They both have two runways, though I think they are too close to allow parallel operations, they are not near major centres of habitation, and not too far from a motorway.

Sint Truiden could also be considered but is very very near Liège.

On second thoughts, such an airport
* need not handle cargo, for a beginning, there are specialised airports at OST and LGG;
* need not handle low-cost traffic, EBCI does that excellently;
* need not handle business flights, ANR could serve those well, and perhaps even a reduced BRU;
* could take over the passenger operations from ANR;

[Crosswind]

Could be an option. What about the cost of a brand new install vs a move to a bit farther to the east of the existing one ?

[jan_olieslagers]

It would be a much more definitive solution. Give the @#$%^& a finger today and they'll want an arm tomorrow. No long-term solution that way.

[luchtzak]

There is no more space left to build an airport near Brussels. Even in Belgium.

Removing an entire village like in Munich ? Don't think so ...

[Crosswind]

It would be a much more definitive solution. Give the @#$%^& a finger today and they'll want an arm tomorrow. No long-term solution that way.

Okay, but moving the 25's (runways) as little as a kilometer farther to the right let Brussels regio absolutely un-overflown, hence no more complain from them. Cheaper than building a new airport from scratch, imho. For sure, no more job for brusseleirs. Après tout, we are in Belgium

[jan_olieslagers]

There is no more space left to build an airport near Brussels. Even in Belgium.
Removing an entire village like in Munich ? Don't think so ...

I am aware it can never be easy. But something needs to be done, right now. And think of the awful opportunities for real-estate development at the present BRU site... that would make up for a good deal of the cost.

[jan_olieslagers]

hence no more complain from them

Forget it. They have made it amply clear they'll always find something to cry about.

[Crosswind]

hence no more complain from them

Forget it. They have made it amply clear they'll always find something to cry about.

Without airplanes above their heads ? No sense. Nevertheless, in this country no one regio can do anything of importance without the will of the others. That's it.

[jan_olieslagers]

As if they cared. Their present position is senseless too.
Just for one thing: with easterly winds, landings are naturally on the 07's so approaches are over their city. What will an easterly move change to that?

[Crosswind]

Not so. They get most of nuisance for a little of money and job.

[jan_olieslagers]

That is exactly why I should like to them earnestly confronted with the alternative of having no airport nearby.

[Crosswind]

But again : what about cost ? Money needed to build a new international airport is HUGE. What about the transition period, full of opportunities for EBCI and EBLG ? Senseless.