Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

[fcw]

Voka already voted in favor of the new environmental permit for BRU. This is a very important vote.
It will be closed on the 10th of January.

Why would Voka ever be against?

Why we can't place it here if one of the organisations is in favor???? It's related regarding the permit and why it should be all the time negative info here?

It’s not a vote but an advice.
Why would that be an important advice? As PttU pointed out VOKA giving a negative advice would be the same as turkeys voting for Christmas.

[Atlantis]

Why would Voka ever be against?

Why we can't place it here if one of the organisations is in favor???? It's related regarding the permit and why it should be all the time negative info here?

It’s not a vote but an advice.
Why would that be an important advice? As PttU pointed out VOKA giving a negative advice would be the same as turkeys voting for Christmas.

And we are free to post it. If you don't like it, don't read it.

[fcw]

Why we can't place it here if one of the organisations is in favor???? It's related regarding the permit and why it should be all the time negative info here?

It’s not a vote but an advice.
Why would that be an important advice? As PttU pointed out VOKA giving a negative advice would be the same as turkeys voting for Christmas.

And we are free to post it. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Indeed you are free to post, but so are others, especially if your post is wrongly worded and just stating the obvious.

[Conti764]

And here we go... BBL (Bond Beter Leefmilieu) strongly opposes the permit for Brussels Airport, they criticise the lack of ambition of BAC to evolve towards a more ecologicaly friendly operation, and not caring about people living around the airport. They lament about the rising nitrogen exaust due to a rising number of flights and traffic around the airport.

They urge minister Demir to force BAC into a more ambitious future, banning nightflights and short haul flights, and compensate lost employment by retraining people into railways etc...

Like VOKA, it's an advice and I very much doubt Zuhal Demir will take these remarks into cosideration.

[Lux_avi]

And here we go... BBL (Bond Beter Leefmilieu) strongly opposes the permit for Brussels Airport, they criticise the lack of ambition of BAC to evolve towards a more ecologicaly friendly operation, and not caring about people living around the airport. They lament about the rising nitrogen exaust due to a rising number of flights and traffic around the airport.

They urge minister Demir to force BAC into a more ambitious future, banning nightflights and short haul flights, and compensate lost employment by retraining people into railways etc...

Like VOKA, it's an advice and I very much doubt Zuhal Demir will take these remarks into cosideration.

Perhaps BBL should read this: https://luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/cate ... 4_uuQzJf8Q

[longwings]

Perhaps BBL should read this: https://luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/cate ... 4_uuQzJf8Q

The argument that another source pollutes more as an excuse for inaction is only that, an excuse. It has never made sense and still does not. For one thing, this is not a problem that will be solved by treating just one source of pollution, for another that argument never ever considers whether reducing other sources is technologically, financially, or socially doable. Not to mention politically - it should not be a factor, but it is.

That doesn't mean the BBL is on the right track, it is not in fact. France has already demonstrated that banning short-haul flights is counter-productive. Passengers on short-haul flights are mostly connecting to/from somewhere. If they're told they suddenly cannot fly, passengers who connect to BRU via CDG, AMS, or FRA will not take the train, drive, or ride a horse carriage, they will connect in LHR, ZRH, MAD, IAD, JFK...

What can/should be done is stop adjusting landing charges based on noise (most aircraft are very quiet compared to just 20 years ago) and start assessing a surcharge based on the age of the aircraft. It is a better correlation as to how polluting an aircraft is.

Coordinated EU action over tradable carbon credits is another step. Reward airlines with more fuel-efficient engines and penalize the others. That gets us right back to what is politically doable, because it will raise the costs of fly-away vacations to Spain, Turkey, the Dominican Republic, etc.

The bigger problem with BRU is that it is too close to urban areas, while at the same time badly connected to public transportation networks. Not relocating the airport when they decided to build new terminals instead was yet another opportunity falling victim to the Belgian regions' parochial concerns. Unfortunately, that time has come and gone and we have to live with the consequences.

[lumumba]

Perhaps BBL should read this: https://luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/cate ... 4_uuQzJf8Q

The argument that another source pollutes more as an excuse for inaction is only that, an excuse. It has never made sense and still does not. For one thing, this is not a problem that will be solved by treating just one source of pollution, for another that argument never ever considers whether reducing other sources is technologically, financially, or socially doable. Not to mention politically - it should not be a factor, but it is.

That doesn't mean the BBL is on the right track, it is not in fact. France has already demonstrated that banning short-haul flights is counter-productive. Passengers on short-haul flights are mostly connecting to/from somewhere. If they're told they suddenly cannot fly, passengers who connect to BRU via CDG, AMS, or FRA will not take the train, drive, or ride a horse carriage, they will connect in LHR, ZRH, MAD, IAD, JFK...

What can/should be done is stop adjusting landing charges based on noise (most aircraft are very quiet compared to just 20 years ago) and start assessing a surcharge based on the age of the aircraft. It is a better correlation as to how polluting an aircraft is.

Coordinated EU action over tradable carbon credits is another step. Reward airlines with more fuel-efficient engines and penalize the others. That gets us right back to what is politically doable, because it will raise the costs of fly-away vacations to Spain, Turkey, the Dominican Republic, etc.

The bigger problem with BRU is that it is too close to urban areas, while at the same time badly connected to public transportation networks. Not relocating the airport when they decided to build new terminals instead was yet another opportunity falling victim to the Belgian regions' parochial concerns. Unfortunately, that time has come and gone and we have to live with the consequences.

First question BRU is well connected with public transportation!?
The other question I'm not sure you will find another space in Belgium far enough from urban areas and suitable to build a new airport we are one of the most populous countries in the world.
There was a plan if I remember well end of the 90s to build a big airport between Paris and Brussels in France well connected by high speed trains from them the 2 capital's.

[Lux_avi]

Perhaps BBL should read this: https://luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/cate ... 4_uuQzJf8Q

The argument that another source pollutes more as an excuse for inaction is only that, an excuse. It has never made sense and still does not. For one thing, this is not a problem that will be solved by treating just one source of pollution, for another that argument never ever considers whether reducing other sources is technologically, financially, or socially doable. Not to mention politically - it should not be a factor, but it is.

That doesn't mean the BBL is on the right track, it is not in fact. France has already demonstrated that banning short-haul flights is counter-productive. Passengers on short-haul flights are mostly connecting to/from somewhere. If they're told they suddenly cannot fly, passengers who connect to BRU via CDG, AMS, or FRA will not take the train, drive, or ride a horse carriage, they will connect in LHR, ZRH, MAD, IAD, JFK...

What can/should be done is stop adjusting landing charges based on noise (most aircraft are very quiet compared to just 20 years ago) and start assessing a surcharge based on the age of the aircraft. It is a better correlation as to how polluting an aircraft is.

Coordinated EU action over tradable carbon credits is another step. Reward airlines with more fuel-efficient engines and penalize the others. That gets us right back to what is politically doable, because it will raise the costs of fly-away vacations to Spain, Turkey, the Dominican Republic, etc.

The bigger problem with BRU is that it is too close to urban areas, while at the same time badly connected to public transportation networks. Not relocating the airport when they decided to build new terminals instead was yet another opportunity falling victim to the Belgian regions' parochial concerns. Unfortunately, that time has come and gone and we have to live with the consequences.

For sure changes need to happen. Informing people correctly might be where it has to start (like publishing that luchtvaartnieuws in traditional media, share how important aviation is to the worldwide and local economy, how aviation is investing massively in less polluting technologies,...).

People see aviation as the number one climate enemy (while it is far from being the case) and (some) politicians would destroy our economy for those selfish i***s who are more willing to move the airport than their own house. There is still plenty of space in Belgium to live in peace. And plenty of people who do not complain about aircraft noise.

Brussels Airport is a little airport, far from being busy. I hope it will expand up 100% of its capacity.

[longwings]

First question BRU is well connected with public transportation!?

Badly connected, not well connected. Public transport at BRU is designed solely for passengers from Brussels and its immediate vicinity and employees.

The other question I'm not sure you will find another space in Belgium far enough from urban areas and suitable to build a new airport we are one of the most populous countries in the world. There was a plan if I remember well end of the 90s to build a big airport between Paris and Brussels in France well connected by high speed trains from them the 2 capital's.

I thought it was Lille, not Paris, but either would have been suitable. It could have been built on, or near, a high-speed rail line, away from the 20-years plus homeowners, however many there are left, and the most recent homeowners who decided to move in the vicinity despite the airport... As I wrote, the opportunity is probably gone.

[ezis_bis]

Badly connected, not well connected. Public transport at BRU is designed solely for passengers from Brussels and its immediate vicinity and employees.

Badly connected?
There's from STIB line 12 which is very frequent (minimum 4 per hour from Schuman)
There's De Lijn all around, even a night line coming from Anderlecht
NMBS/SNCB connects to all directions in Belgium and even NL
And they're building a new tram line continuing from Eurocontrol

Public Transport in and around Brussels is really good tbh

[Atlantis]

Badly connected, not well connected. Public transport at BRU is designed solely for passengers from Brussels and its immediate vicinity and employees.

Badly connected?
There's from STIB line 12 which is very frequent (minimum 4 per hour from Schuman)
There's De Lijn all around, even a night line coming from Anderlecht
NMBS/SNCB connects to all directions in Belgium and even NL
And they're building a new tram line continuing from Eurocontrol

Public Transport in and around Brussels is really good tbh

It's a typical case of BRU bashing. Regarding busses, there are more than 1.000 busses per day who are serving BRU. The new tram is coming, train connections are there from each angle of the country, new bike routes to the airport, etc etc

[fcw]

… there are more than 1.000 busses per day who are serving BRU. The new tram is coming, train connections are there from each angle of the country, new bike routes to the airport, etc etc

Indeed!
A couple of things could be improved though: later and especially earlier trains and busses, high speed trains and decrease the diabolo surcharge.
The cost of these measures could be, partly, covered by implementing a 2 or 3€ toll for cars.

[Atlantis]

… there are more than 1.000 busses per day who are serving BRU. The new tram is coming, train connections are there from each angle of the country, new bike routes to the airport, etc etc

Indeed!
A couple of things could be improved though: later and especially earlier trains and busses, high speed trains and decrease the diabolo surcharge.
The cost of these measures could be, partly, covered by implementing a 2 or 3€ toll for cars.

I agree on the fact that there should be more earlier and later trains to the airport. This according to the first coming in and last flight of the day.

Busses can do the same but adapt to the workforce/shifts on the airport.

Regarding the toll. This is excisting on certain airports, e.g. Warsaw, where the first 7 mins are free. After that you have to pay or you can decide to use the car park towers who will charge you also.
Or you can decide for a toll for each car who is entering the land side with exception for those who are working on the airport or the Corporate Village. There it can be the employer who will pay for it.

[longwings]

Badly connected, not well connected. Public transport at BRU is designed solely for passengers from Brussels and its immediate vicinity and employees.

Badly connected?
There's from STIB line 12 which is very frequent (minimum 4 per hour from Schuman)
There's De Lijn all around, even a night line coming from Anderlecht
NMBS/SNCB connects to all directions in Belgium and even NL
And they're building a new tram line continuing from Eurocontrol

Public Transport in and around Brussels is really good tbh

And where is the signage that helps arriving passengers who are not from the Brussels area make sense of those options and figure out which one to take? Badly connected does not mean insufficiently connected (except for direct trains from the airport to most large cities around), it means it is not user-friendly for anyone who does not already know how to use the system. Start with a signage to help pick an option from the list...

[ezis_bis]

And where is the signage that helps arriving passengers who are not from the Brussels area make sense of those options and figure out which one to take? Badly connected does not mean insufficiently connected (except for direct trains from the airport to most large cities around), it means it is not user-friendly for anyone who does not already know how to use the system. Start with a signage to help pick an option from the list...

What you're trying to say here is 'Badly signposted', not badly connected;

And I even disagree with that

The pictograms in arrival hall indicate where to go for which mode of transport.
In Arrivals hall, live screen show the next train departures (and I believe there's even one for De Lijn buses)

Like with every public transport system, be it Brussels or Warsaw or Tallinn, you need to inform yourself about where you're going to.
I suppose car drivers also know in advance where they're going to, and don't wander around aimlessly.
In Warsaw there are signs to City Center, but if you need to be elsewhere you also need to figure it out.
In Fiumicino there are signs to the railway, in Tallinn signs to the trams, but as always it's up to the individual to know where they're going to and at which station to connect.
To claim otherwise is folly.

[travellover]

For sure changes need to happen. Informing people correctly might be where it has to st
Brussels Airport is a little airport, far from being busy. I hope it will expand up 100% of its capacity.

The term little is overkill, even if not at 100% of its PAX capacities, if we consider that it is the second economic zone of the country, and that it belongs to the category of the medium-sized European airports such as ARN , ZRH, VIE, CPH.

[brabel]

De Standaard published an article trying to find a reason why BRU isn't recovering as fast as other airports.
* It says - as many here already said too - that business is recovering way slower than leisure. This is why CRL is already above the 2019 figures.
* Also long distance has not come back fully. I do hope they can attract more carriers.
* Next to that, the after 2019 shrink of SN made sure way less passengers fly from BRU. SN used to have about 40% of the passengers. Not anymore.
* BRU is only 25% owned by government, while the other 75% is privatised which causes those share holders to focus more on the income. That s why so much is being built on airport grounds: offices that attract Microsoft and KPMG.
Interesting to know is that the government can appoint the chairman of the board, but this seat has been empty since 2021.

[longwings]

To claim otherwise is folly.

This is obviously not about a few pictograms pointing passengers to the train station. If this is all you retained, no wonder you can't understand how unfriendly to non-locals the public transport options are. It would be foolish to think anyone would land unprepared. It is equally foolish to expect them to know how to read routes and schedules as well as a regular user. I don't need a long list of airports to make a point, though I certainly could, the nearest foreign one to BRU suffices, and you can even start on their web site...

This forum is slowly becoming one of extremes, where either BRU does nothing wrong, or nothing right, and dissent less and less tolerated from either side.

[Established02]

The new multi-storey parking tower.

[JOVAN2]

The new multi-storey parking tower.

Parking for managers and staff.
Any project for PAX?
To improve convenience and facilities forpeoplewho pay airporttaxes.