Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

[Atco EBBR]

From Linkedin :

Looking at the schematics, it looks like the furthest narrowbody is blocked by the other one. How does pushback work then?

[lumumba]

Singapore Airlines, in the photo, isn't even using a dual jet bridge, as seen in this official image on LinkedIn. It's sad, some airlines do, others don't.
I imagine the flight wasn't very full to justify using both jet bridges during this off-peak period...

Was wondering the same even Thai is using only 1 and there are full?!

There are two different types of MARS gates, both allow the choice between 1 wide body or 2 narrow body aircraft, but only one type allows using both bridges on a wide body.

So in Brussels there is no possibility to use 2 bridges for one plane?

[fcw]

Was wondering the same even Thai is using only 1 and there are full?!

There are two different types of MARS gates, both allow the choice between 1 wide body or 2 narrow body aircraft, but only one type allows using both bridges on a wide body.

So in Brussels there is no possibility to use 2 bridges for one plane?

Don’t jump to conclusions! I know there are two different types which both have advantages and disadvantages, but I don’t know which of the two is installed at BRU. Could as well be a mix.

[Atlantis]

Was wondering the same even Thai is using only 1 and there are full?!

There are two different types of MARS gates, both allow the choice between 1 wide body or 2 narrow body aircraft, but only one type allows using both bridges on a wide body.

So in Brussels there is no possibility to use 2 bridges for one plane?

Jesus Maria, can you just think for a moment!! There are for the moment 3 brand new types installed at the B pier. The single bridge, the double bridge and the latest MARS. What for you think that the double bridge is installed?????? Exactly, to serve long haul with 2 bridges at the same time.

And I can confirm to you that the MARS at BRU will use 2 bridges too for long haul. One for first/business class and the second for economy. There was only one pic used for this with the SQ. It's the airline and ops who decide if they will use one or 2 bridges. If your plane is not full, it's more economical to use only 1 bridge

Capito???!!!

[Atlantis]

And to add also, it double your gate capacity. With the MARS concept now available at BRU, B pier, with changing the ramp around the new gates, new lines, structure, not all parked on the same line, etc they can accommodate more planes at the same time. That's the purpose of MARS.

It looks a lot like the French system (NCE, LYS, ...), which can also be found at CMN or IST: either two single-aisle short-haul aircraft or one long-haul aircraft, which I’ve always found clever, versatile, and space-efficient

Singapore Airlines, in the photo, isn't even using a dual jet bridge, as seen in this official image on LinkedIn. It's sad, some airlines do, others don't.
I imagine the flight wasn't very full to justify using both jet bridges during this off-peak period...

Why didnt they do this for the entire B pier? seems like a wasted opportunity?

Quite some airports are using the MARS concept but not for a full concourse. Do you know how much more it costs? Really a lot.
We can be really happy and proud that we have it in BRU.

[Airbus330lover]

And to add also, it double your gate capacity. With the MARS concept now available at BRU, B pier, with changing the ramp around the new gates, new lines, structure, not all parked on the same line, etc they can accommodate more planes at the same time. That's the purpose of MARS.

It looks a lot like the French system (NCE, LYS, ...), which can also be found at CMN or IST: either two single-aisle short-haul aircraft or one long-haul aircraft, which I’ve always found clever, versatile, and space-efficient

Singapore Airlines, in the photo, isn't even using a dual jet bridge, as seen in this official image on LinkedIn. It's sad, some airlines do, others don't.
I imagine the flight wasn't very full to justify using both jet bridges during this off-peak period...

Why didnt they do this for the entire B pier? seems like a wasted opportunity?

Less PAX in the TG flight (788 - 359)

[Matt]

It looks a lot like the French system (NCE, LYS, ...), which can also be found at CMN or IST: either two single-aisle short-haul aircraft or one long-haul aircraft, which I’ve always found clever, versatile, and space-efficient

Singapore Airlines, in the photo, isn't even using a dual jet bridge, as seen in this official image on LinkedIn. It's sad, some airlines do, others don't.
I imagine the flight wasn't very full to justify using both jet bridges during this off-peak period...

Why didnt they do this for the entire B pier? seems like a wasted opportunity?

Quite some airports are using the MARS concept but not for a full concourse. Do you know how much more it costs? Really a lot.
We can be really happy and proud that we have it in BRU.

Hey, don't get me wrong here, I am happy that they are doing these projects, thumbs up!

I just like uniformity and have them all the same type

[Kapitein]

From Linkedin :

Looking at the schematics, it looks like the furthest narrowbody is blocked by the other one. How does pushback work then?

It's not blocked, pushback can be done as always.

[Kapitein]

There are two different types of MARS gates, both allow the choice between 1 wide body or 2 narrow body aircraft, but only one type allows using both bridges on a wide body.

So in Brussels there is no possibility to use 2 bridges for one plane?

Jesus Maria, can you just think for a moment!! There are for the moment 3 brand new types installed at the B pier. The single bridge, the double bridge and the latest MARS. What for you think that the double bridge is installed?????? Exactly, to serve long haul with 2 bridges at the same time.

And I can confirm to you that the MARS at BRU will use 2 bridges too for long haul. One for first/business class and the second for economy. There was only one pic used for this with the SQ. It's the airline and ops who decide if they will use one or 2 bridges. If your plane is not full, it's more economical to use only 1 bridge

Capito???!!!

Tests are done at this moment with only 1 BB, later stadium the second one will be tested also.

In the final stage the airliner decides if they gone take 2 BB's or not. Only EK is big fan of it for the moment, that's why they use the 233L.

[Atco EBBR]

From Linkedin :

Looking at the schematics, it looks like the furthest narrowbody is blocked by the other one. How does pushback work then?

It's not blocked, pushback can be done as always.

Ok, thx for the info. I assume that narrowbody stands are up to 36m wingspan. If so, what's the minimum wingtip clearance?

[SLM]

Why are there no flights between BRU and LGW? Any reason for that?

[lumumba]

Why are there no flights between BRU and LGW? Any reason for that?

Eurostar and not enough connecting flights with BA.

[longwings]

And to add also, it double your gate capacity. With the MARS concept now available at BRU, B pier, with changing the ramp around the new gates, new lines, structure, not all parked on the same line, etc they can accommodate more planes at the same time. That's the purpose of MARS.

It looks a lot like the French system (NCE, LYS, ...), which can also be found at CMN or IST: either two single-aisle short-haul aircraft or one long-haul aircraft, which I’ve always found clever, versatile, and space-efficient

Singapore Airlines, in the photo, isn't even using a dual jet bridge, as seen in this official image on LinkedIn. It's sad, some airlines do, others don't.
I imagine the flight wasn't very full to justify using both jet bridges during this off-peak period...

Was wondering the same even Thai is using only 1 and there are full?!

Cost? I suspect two bridges come at a higher fee than one.

[Homo Aeroportus]

Quite some airports are using the MARS concept but not for a full concourse. Do you know how much more it costs? Really a lot.
We can be really happy and proud that we have it in BRU.

+1

As member Atlantis rightly said, MARS stands have been in use for decades. The first time I worked on a project with such configuration was more than 25 years ago and the (probably) last one at LSGG for their West Wing.
There are two types : MARS D and MARS E. The former to accommodate either 2 Code C aircraft or one code D ; the latter for 2C or 1E.
ICAO defines Code C aircraft as having a wingspan of up to 36m, e.g. A32S and 73’s, and all other “Narrow-bodies” or better referred to as “single aisle” aircraft.
Code D (with wingspan of 36m and up to 52m) includes A300/310, B752-3 (though at 38.10m they are sometimes “squeezed” in a Code C stand), and B762-3-4.
Code E, wingspan up to 65m, includes all Wide-bodies except the A380 and the B747-8. The future B777x, that according to Boeing is due to enter service in 2026 (probably in the late afternoon), will be a Code F in flight (wingspan 72m) but thanks to folding wings becomes a Code E (64.8m) on ground.

MARS stands are especially useful if your fleet mix is not constant throughout the day, e.g. mostly WB in the morning then more NBs for the rest of the day. You cannot park “more aircraft” but rather optimize your investment with a “variable geometry” design, using either one boarding bridge for each NB or two PBBs for the WB. If you cannot use both PBBs on a WB it is either because you face a B762 (or the 763 type with only one front door), or because you hired the wrong consulting firm.

ICAO recommends that a minimum clearance distance be provided between aircraft and surrounding obstacles such as buildings or other aircraft. This means 4.50m for Code C and 7.50m for all larger planes. So, you can park two Code C in almost the same footprint as a Code E while maintaining these clearances and it is the case at EBBR.

As Atlantis said, this is a heavy investment. The boarding bridges need to be long enough to reach the NB parked on the right centreline but must retract short enough to reach 1L on the WB. This typically requires a PBB with 3 tunnels which is more expensive than a 2-tunnel such as on the A Pier. 3-tunnels are also often needed to reach the left NB that has a lower door sill and must be parked far enough so that the slope complies with IATA requirement of max 1-in-12, 8.3%.

Other costs items.
The position of the fuel hydrants must be in number and positioned such as to serve all cases. Same for the Grd Pwr when provided via service pits including the underground routing of the feeder cables from the frequency converters at the head of the stand. PCA, Pre-Conditioned Air, when provided from under the PBB is another interesting and costly challenge as the unit(s) must supply all configurations from a single small NB to a big WB (and yes the 787-8 takes only one hose, ask Doha)

I think that BAC makes smart and heavy investments to optimize present and future Ops in the most efficient way.

MARS stands were not envisaged in the design of the A Pier (late 90’s) considering the type of traffic (Schengen). WB positions were only provided at every other stand on the south apron by setting up a second centreline, shifted to the left, using the same PBB as a NB would. When a WB is parked at say 149L, no aircraft can occupy 147.
It was not considered to park WB on the Northern part of Pier A as the Outer 5 was not yet decided.

H.A.

[JOVAN2]

Quite some airports are using the MARS concept but not for a full concourse. Do you know how much more it costs? Really a lot.
We can be really happy and proud that we have it in BRU.

+1

As member Atlantis rightly said, MARS stands have been in use for decades. The first time I worked on a project with such configuration was more than 25 years ago and the (probably) last one at LSGG for their West Wing.
There are two types : MARS D and MARS E. The former to accommodate either 2 Code C aircraft or one code D ; the latter for 2C or 1E.
ICAO defines Code C aircraft as having a wingspan of up to 36m, e.g. A32S and 73’s, and all other “Narrow-bodies” or better referred to as “single aisle” aircraft.
Code D (with wingspan of 36m and up to 52m) includes A300/310, B752-3 (though at 38.10m they are sometimes “squeezed” in a Code C stand), and B762-3-4.
Code E, wingspan up to 65m, includes all Wide-bodies except the A380 and the B747-8. The future B777x, that according to Boeing is due to enter service in 2026 (probably in the late afternoon), will be a Code F in flight (wingspan 72m) but thanks to folding wings becomes a Code E (64.8m) on ground.

MARS stands are especially useful if your fleet mix is not constant throughout the day, e.g. mostly WB in the morning then more NBs for the rest of the day. You cannot park “more aircraft” but rather optimize your investment with a “variable geometry” design, using either one boarding bridge for each NB or two PBBs for the WB. If you cannot use both PBBs on a WB it is either because you face a B762 (or the 763 type with only one front door), or because you hired the wrong consulting firm.

ICAO recommends that a minimum clearance distance be provided between aircraft and surrounding obstacles such as buildings or other aircraft. This means 4.50m for Code C and 7.50m for all larger planes. So, you can park two Code C in almost the same footprint as a Code E while maintaining these clearances and it is the case at EBBR.

As Atlantis said, this is a heavy investment. The boarding bridges need to be long enough to reach the NB parked on the right centreline but must retract short enough to reach 1L on the WB. This typically requires a PBB with 3 tunnels which is more expensive than a 2-tunnel such as on the A Pier. 3-tunnels are also often needed to reach the left NB that has a lower door sill and must be parked far enough so that the slope complies with IATA requirement of max 1-in-12, 8.3%.

Other costs items.
The position of the fuel hydrants must be in number and positioned such as to serve all cases. Same for the Grd Pwr when provided via service pits including the underground routing of the feeder cables from the frequency converters at the head of the stand. PCA, Pre-Conditioned Air, when provided from under the PBB is another interesting and costly challenge as the unit(s) must supply all configurations from a single small NB to a big WB (and yes the 787-8 takes only one hose, ask Doha)

I think that BAC makes smart and heavy investments to optimize present and future Ops in the most efficient way.

MARS stands were not envisaged in the design of the A Pier (late 90’s) considering the type of traffic (Schengen). WB positions were only provided at every other stand on the south apron by setting up a second centreline, shifted to the left, using the same PBB as a NB would. When a WB is parked at say 149L, no aircraft can occupy 147.
It was not considered to park WB on the Northern part of Pier A as the Outer 5 was not yet decided.

H.A.

As always, engineers make it complicated.
Let us hope their will be no accidents with WB and NB getting confused ...

[Kapitein]

Looking at the schematics, it looks like the furthest narrowbody is blocked by the other one. How does pushback work then?

It's not blocked, pushback can be done as always.

Ok, thx for the info. I assume that narrowbody stands are up to 36m wingspan. If so, what's the minimum wingtip clearance?

Indeed, code C aircraft only.
Minimum is 4,5m.

[Matthias]

Some interesting news today. Brussels Airport requested an environmental permit to build a temporary bus terminal on the other side of where the old DHL building used to be. According to the permit, this is needed as the current bus terminal will be used as a construction zone for the first phase of the new Airport Business District, which will also be home to a new, permanent bus, flixbus (and other operators) and tram terminal.

For those interested in the permit: https://omgevingsloketinzage.omgeving.v ... 3Sji2IdjKQ

The explanation was also accompanied with a render of how the first phase of the new Airport Business District will look like. Looks very promising and will be a big improvement. Of course, the permit is only for the temporary bus terminal and not the new Business District, so for now little details of that.

[lucas]

Some interesting news today. Brussels Airport requested an environmental permit to build a temporary bus terminal on the other side of where the old DHL building used to be. According to the permit, this is needed as the current bus terminal will be used as a construction zone for the first phase of the new Airport Business District, which will also be home to a new, permanent bus, flixbus (and other operators) and tram terminal.

For those interested in the permit: https://omgevingsloketinzage.omgeving.v ... 3Sji2IdjKQ

The explanation was also accompanied with a render of how the first phase of the new Airport Business District will look like. Looks very promising and will be a big improvement. Of course, the permit is only for the temporary bus terminal and not the new Business District, so for now little details of that. Printscreen ABD.jpg

Interesting detail: pier A West is in the render too!

[Atlantis]

Some interesting news today. Brussels Airport requested an environmental permit to build a temporary bus terminal on the other side of where the old DHL building used to be. According to the permit, this is needed as the current bus terminal will be used as a construction zone for the first phase of the new Airport Business District, which will also be home to a new, permanent bus, flixbus (and other operators) and tram terminal.

For those interested in the permit: https://omgevingsloketinzage.omgeving.v ... 3Sji2IdjKQ

The explanation was also accompanied with a render of how the first phase of the new Airport Business District will look like. Looks very promising and will be a big improvement. Of course, the permit is only for the temporary bus terminal and not the new Business District, so for now little details of that. Printscreen ABD.jpg

To be correct, the temporary bus station will NOT be on the ground of the previous DHL building. It it be constructed on the tarmac next to that piece of ground

And a render is not always accurate regarding detail or how the environment will look like.
But, what is visible here, and what I have said already 2 years ago is that the Diamond will disappear

[Conti764]

Some interesting news today. Brussels Airport requested an environmental permit to build a temporary bus terminal on the other side of where the old DHL building used to be. According to the permit, this is needed as the current bus terminal will be used as a construction zone for the first phase of the new Airport Business District, which will also be home to a new, permanent bus, flixbus (and other operators) and tram terminal.

For those interested in the permit: https://omgevingsloketinzage.omgeving.v ... 3Sji2IdjKQ

The explanation was also accompanied with a render of how the first phase of the new Airport Business District will look like. Looks very promising and will be a big improvement. Of course, the permit is only for the temporary bus terminal and not the new Business District, so for now little details of that. Printscreen ABD.jpg

To be correct, the temporary bus station will NOT be on the ground of the previous DHL building. It it be constructed on the tarmac next to that piece of ground

And a render is not always accurate regarding detail or how the environment will look like.
But, what is visible here, and what I have said already 2 years ago is that the Diamond will disappear

The terminal expansion is also off the table?