Matthias wrote: ↑19 Jan 2025, 15:57
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.
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?
No, that's not off the table. The Diamant will disappear with the moving stairs where everybody comes together who is taking public transport. That whole part will move more to the front to make the terminal bigger. This means that the front of the airport, the square in front of it, will become smaller.
The drop off will also disappear, finally, bcs this will become green space. But no idea how far those plans are.
The first building on the render, the smaller one, is the new hotel and the second building the new office building
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?
No, that's not off the table. The Diamant will disappear with the moving stairs where everybody comes together who is taking public transport. That whole part will move more to the front to make the terminal bigger. This means that the front of the airport, the square in front of it, will become smaller.
The drop off will also disappear, finally, bcs this will become green space. But no idea how far those plans are.
The first building on the render, the smaller one, is the new hotel and the second building the new office building
So the lower ceiling building adjacent to the hotel will be the terminal expansion?
No, that's not off the table. The Diamant will disappear with the moving stairs where everybody comes together who is taking public transport. That whole part will move more to the front to make the terminal bigger. This means that the front of the airport, the square in front of it, will become smaller.
The drop off will also disappear, finally, bcs this will become green space. But no idea how far those plans are.
The first building on the render, the smaller one, is the new hotel and the second building the new office building
So the lower ceiling building adjacent to the hotel will be the terminal expansion?
Correct, but it has the same hight as the terminal, but it will make the terminal much larger.
What is not visible here, that's why I have said that the render is not fully correct, is that the full front of the terminal will be pushed to the front.
Second, it's weird that a not involved company is releasing this render. It had to be done or by BAC or the architect who designed it.
Also said before, they are still searching for the needed funds and about the hotel are still negotiations ongoing
No, that's not off the table. The Diamant will disappear with the moving stairs where everybody comes together who is taking public transport. That whole part will move more to the front to make the terminal bigger. This means that the front of the airport, the square in front of it, will become smaller.
The drop off will also disappear, finally, bcs this will become green space. But no idea how far those plans are.
The first building on the render, the smaller one, is the new hotel and the second building the new office building
So the lower ceiling building adjacent to the hotel will be the terminal expansion?
Correct, but it has the same hight as the terminal, but it will make the terminal much larger.
What is not visible here, that's why I have said that the render is not fully correct, is that the full front of the terminal will be pushed to the front.
If the front of the terminal will be pushed forward, would it still be possible to have a drop-off area in front of the terminal? Because the space will become quite small if this happens, no? ....
Second, it's weird that a not involved company is releasing this render. It had to be done or by BAC or the architect who designed it.
Also said before, they are still searching for the needed funds and about the hotel are still negotiations ongoing
Still searching for funds? Are they still at this (early) stage? It takes really long to be honest. I'm waiting for the day BAC will finally present the new projects with full details and images. Including the renovation plans for the current (outdated) terminal. This year? Next year?
So the lower ceiling building adjacent to the hotel will be the terminal expansion?
Correct, but it has the same hight as the terminal, but it will make the terminal much larger.
What is not visible here, that's why I have said that the render is not fully correct, is that the full front of the terminal will be pushed to the front.
If the front of the terminal will be pushed forward, would it still be possible to have a drop-off area in front of the terminal? Because the space will become quite small if this happens, no? ....
Second, it's weird that a not involved company is releasing this render. It had to be done or by BAC or the architect who designed it.
Also said before, they are still searching for the needed funds and about the hotel are still negotiations ongoing
Still searching for funds? Are they still at this (early) stage? It takes really long to be honest. I'm waiting for the day BAC will finally present the new projects with full details and images. Including the renovation plans for the current (outdated) terminal. This year? Next year?
Keep in mind that the main shareholder is selling its shares in all their European airports. Then it's normal that you hold a bit till you know when and how.
Atlantis wrote: ↑27 Jan 2025, 18:57Second, it's weird that a not involved company is releasing this render. It had to be done or by BAC or the architect who designed it.
Also said before, they are still searching for the needed funds and about the hotel are still negotiations ongoing
Atlantis wrote: ↑27 Jan 2025, 18:57Second, it's weird that a not involved company is releasing this render. It had to be done or by BAC or the architect who designed it.
Also said before, they are still searching for the needed funds and about the hotel are still negotiations ongoing
Correct, but it has the same hight as the terminal, but it will make the terminal much larger.
What is not visible here, that's why I have said that the render is not fully correct, is that the full front of the terminal will be pushed to the front.
If the front of the terminal will be pushed forward, would it still be possible to have a drop-off area in front of the terminal? Because the space will become quite small if this happens, no? ....
Second, it's weird that a not involved company is releasing this render. It had to be done or by BAC or the architect who designed it.
Also said before, they are still searching for the needed funds and about the hotel are still negotiations ongoing
Still searching for funds? Are they still at this (early) stage? It takes really long to be honest. I'm waiting for the day BAC will finally present the new projects with full details and images. Including the renovation plans for the current (outdated) terminal. This year? Next year?
Keep in mind that the main shareholder is selling its shares in all their European airports. Then it's normal that you hold a bit till you know when and how.
To add regarding the sale of shares. It's the Australian Macquarie who's is again in the picture and very interested in taking over.
Atlantis wrote: ↑31 Jan 2025, 00:22
To add regarding the sale of shares. It's the Australian Macquarie who's is again in the picture and very interested in taking over.
Did they not invest around €1 billion during their previous ownership? That could be a good shareholder for the airport.
Atlantis wrote: ↑31 Jan 2025, 00:22
To add regarding the sale of shares. It's the Australian Macquarie who's is again in the picture and very interested in taking over.
Did they not invest around €1 billion during their previous ownership? That could be a good shareholder for the airport.
Yes indeed. Plus 30% increase in route development and 60% increase in pax
Atlantis wrote: ↑31 Jan 2025, 00:22
To add regarding the sale of shares. It's the Australian Macquarie who's is again in the picture and very interested in taking over.
Did they not invest around €1 billion during their previous ownership? That could be a good shareholder for the airport.
Yes indeed. Plus 30% increase in route development and 60% increase in pax
Isn’t Macquarie a financial services group which previously owned shares of BAISA who are the main shareholder of Brussels Airport Company? Whilst Macquarie invested in shares I am not sure they had a great impact on how Brussels Airport was managed.
The passenger growth of 60% and route development, during their previous ownership, aren’t exceptional as aviation was booming worldwide during the period 2004-2019.
I don’t think shareholders of a shareholder have a lot of influence on the management of the airport, but it’s only a personal impression.
longwings wrote: ↑01 Feb 2025, 00:47
Did they not invest around €1 billion during their previous ownership? That could be a good shareholder for the airport.
Yes indeed. Plus 30% increase in route development and 60% increase in pax
Isn’t Macquarie a financial services group which previously owned shares of BAISA who are the main shareholder of Brussels Airport Company? Whilst Macquarie invested in shares I am not sure they had a great impact on how Brussels Airport was managed.
The passenger growth of 60% and route development, during their previous ownership, aren’t exceptional as aviation was booming worldwide during the period 2004-2019.
I don’t think shareholders of a shareholder have a lot of influence on the management of the airport, but it’s only a personal impression.
If you invest a lot of money, you also want to have to say something . You also need at least one person in the board. The biggest shareholder has to be represented.
Even when LH takes only 10% in Air Baltic, they have one seat in the board.
A private investor wants to simply earn, which is fair. Macquarie did really a lot for BRU.
Yes indeed. Plus 30% increase in route development and 60% increase in pax
Isn’t Macquarie a financial services group which previously owned shares of BAISA who are the main shareholder of Brussels Airport Company? Whilst Macquarie invested in shares I am not sure they had a great impact on how Brussels Airport was managed.
The passenger growth of 60% and route development, during their previous ownership, aren’t exceptional as aviation was booming worldwide during the period 2004-2019.
I don’t think shareholders of a shareholder have a lot of influence on the management of the airport, but it’s only a personal impression.
If you invest a lot of money, you also want to have to say something . You also need at least one person in the board. The biggest shareholder has to be represented.
Even when LH takes only 10% in Air Baltic, they have one seat in the board.
A private investor wants to simply earn, which is fair. Macquarie did really a lot for BRU.
Don’t get me wrong, I welcome every investment in the airport. But, the aim is to make money on a participation in the majority shareholder of Brussels Airport company, not an investment which goes straight into a new facilities! That, majority, shareholder will of course have an influence on the decision making, but buying a participation in BAISA is not the same as buying a share of Brussels Airport Company. The day Macquarie can sell their participation with a big profit they won’t hesitate and they won’t care about the impact that sale would have on the airport itself.
As for the seat in the board, that can be classified as scratching each other’s back, just like remuneration committees are often deciding about each other’s salaries.
fcw wrote: ↑01 Feb 2025, 12:48Isn’t Macquarie a financial services group which previously owned shares of BAISA who are the main shareholder of Brussels Airport Company? Whilst Macquarie invested in shares I am not sure they had a great impact on how Brussels Airport was managed.
Macquarie injected €1B in fresh capital. They took a long-term investment approach that set them apart from typical PE firms focused on 3-5 year returns and aggressive value extraction. While past performance doesn't guarantee future results, their track record shows willingness to invest substantially - exactly what the airport needs. Though likely not involved in daily operations, they probably maintained strong oversight of management given the investment represented >1% of their AUM at the time, if 25 seconds of research are accurate.
longwings wrote: ↑01 Feb 2025, 18:01
Macquarie injected €1B in fresh capital. They took a long-term investment approach that set them apart from typical PE firms focused on 3-5 year returns and aggressive value extraction.
Did they inject 1B in airport facilities or did they buy BAISA shares worth 1B which they sold again in 2019? Two quite different things! Compare it with buying a share in your partner’s house for 100k which they use for a renovation or investing 100k in the renovation itself.
I remember a statement from Brussels Airport Company in 2019, after Macquarie sold their participation, stating it was just a change of shareholder which wouldn’t have any impact on the strategy or philosophy.
longwings wrote: ↑01 Feb 2025, 18:01
Macquarie injected €1B in fresh capital. They took a long-term investment approach that set them apart from typical PE firms focused on 3-5 year returns and aggressive value extraction.
Did they inject 1B in airport facilities or did they buy BAISA shares worth 1B which they sold again in 2019? Two quite different things! Compare it with buying a share in your partner’s house for 100k which they use for a renovation or investing 100k in the renovation itself.
I remember a statement from Brussels Airport Company in 2019, after Macquarie sold their participation, stating it was just a change of shareholder which wouldn’t have any impact on the strategy or philosophy.
The most successful Airports in Europe are owned by local (national, regional, ..) authorities . They see airports as a strategic and important
Instrument. Important for economic development and job creation. Also to attract foreign investment.
If the front of the terminal will be pushed forward, would it still be possible to have a drop-off area in front of the terminal? Because the space will become quite small if this happens, no? ....
Still searching for funds? Are they still at this (early) stage? It takes really long to be honest. I'm waiting for the day BAC will finally present the new projects with full details and images. Including the renovation plans for the current (outdated) terminal. This year? Next year?
Keep in mind that the main shareholder is selling its shares in all their European airports. Then it's normal that you hold a bit till you know when and how.
To add regarding the sale of shares. It's the Australian Macquarie who's is again in the picture and very interested in taking over.
In meantime we can add that it's almost certain that Macquarie will take over from the Canadians.
BekEBBR wrote: ↑15 Feb 2025, 19:43
Should be Sabena Engineering...
I would think so as well. However I recently asked a (middle management?) guy from Orizio and he seemed to indicate that it was still unclear. https://www.orizio-group.com/
. You also need at least one person in the board. The biggest shareholder has to be represented.