BrightCedars wrote: 01 Oct 2025, 16:53
A bit off topic but I didn't input the change of course
I guess with Pier A West it would be possible to make the current T gates area permanently long-haul/non-Schengen for use by all Star Alliance airlines and dedicate pier B to all other carriers for long-haul/non-Schengen traffic.
It's not that simple to use a schengen terminal as a full non schengen terminal.
I mean, you only can use it for departures, like the way it is now. Because you can't mix arriving and departing non schengen passengers. Only exception is if the flights comes from a OSS origin (One stop security) JFK/IAD/SIN... All from Africa aren't OSS.
BrightCedars wrote: 01 Oct 2025, 16:53
A bit off topic but I didn't input the change of course
I guess with Pier A West it would be possible to make the current T gates area permanently long-haul/non-Schengen for use by all Star Alliance airlines and dedicate pier B to all other carriers for long-haul/non-Schengen traffic.
No, move this to the new A Pier West. 14 to 15 gates will be there. Much better to accommodate the Star Alliance long haul.
I thought that the idea of an extension of Pier A West had been abandoned...if there are 14 or 15 new doors is that the idea is not abandoned?
It won't be 14 - 15 widebody's, I believe in previous plans it was 6 widebody stands and in total 14-15 stands (MARS).
crew1990 wrote: 02 Oct 2025, 02:03
One thing for sure, in 2027, with a fleet of 13 aircraft, the T-terminal will not have the capacity to accomodate all the brussels airlines African departure if there is not a sencond wave in the planning.
Things can be changed in the meantime, but with the first idea of the flight expansion they where thinking to have a second wave (1300 - 1400).
BrightCedars wrote: 01 Oct 2025, 16:53
A bit off topic but I didn't input the change of course
I guess with Pier A West it would be possible to make the current T gates area permanently long-haul/non-Schengen for use by all Star Alliance airlines and dedicate pier B to all other carriers for long-haul/non-Schengen traffic.
It's not that simple to use a schengen terminal as a full non schengen terminal.
I mean, you only can use it for departures, like the way it is now. Because you can't mix arriving and departing non schengen passengers. Only exception is if the flights comes from a OSS origin (One stop security) JFK/IAD/SIN... All from Africa aren't OSS.
No, move this to the new A Pier West. 14 to 15 gates will be there. Much better to accommodate the Star Alliance long haul.
I thought that the idea of an extension of Pier A West had been abandoned...if there are 14 or 15 new doors is that the idea is not abandoned?
It won't be 14 - 15 widebody's, I believe in previous plans it was 6 widebody stands and in total 14-15 stands (MARS).
crew1990 wrote: 02 Oct 2025, 02:03
One thing for sure, in 2027, with a fleet of 13 aircraft, the T-terminal will not have the capacity to accomodate all the brussels airlines African departure if there is not a sencond wave in the planning.
Things can be changed in the meantime, but with the first idea of the flight expansion they where thinking to have a second wave (1300 - 1400).
Since A-pier West would have been a completely new building, a seperation between departing en arriving passengers could have been foreseen.
BrightCedars wrote: 01 Oct 2025, 16:53
A bit off topic but I didn't input the change of course
I guess with Pier A West it would be possible to make the current T gates area permanently long-haul/non-Schengen for use by all Star Alliance airlines and dedicate pier B to all other carriers for long-haul/non-Schengen traffic.
It's not that simple to use a schengen terminal as a full non schengen terminal.
I mean, you only can use it for departures, like the way it is now. Because you can't mix arriving and departing non schengen passengers. Only exception is if the flights comes from a OSS origin (One stop security) JFK/IAD/SIN... All from Africa aren't OSS.
I thought that the idea of an extension of Pier A West had been abandoned...if there are 14 or 15 new doors is that the idea is not abandoned?
It won't be 14 - 15 widebody's, I believe in previous plans it was 6 widebody stands and in total 14-15 stands (MARS).
crew1990 wrote: 02 Oct 2025, 02:03
One thing for sure, in 2027, with a fleet of 13 aircraft, the T-terminal will not have the capacity to accomodate all the brussels airlines African departure if there is not a sencond wave in the planning.
Things can be changed in the meantime, but with the first idea of the flight expansion they where thinking to have a second wave (1300 - 1400).
Since A-pier West would have been a completely new building, a seperation between departing en arriving passengers could have been foreseen.
It's not that simple to use a schengen terminal as a full non schengen terminal.
I mean, you only can use it for departures, like the way it is now. Because you can't mix arriving and departing non schengen passengers. Only exception is if the flights comes from a OSS origin (One stop security) JFK/IAD/SIN... All from Africa aren't OSS.
It won't be 14 - 15 widebody's, I believe in previous plans it was 6 widebody stands and in total 14-15 stands (MARS).
Things can be changed in the meantime, but with the first idea of the flight expansion they where thinking to have a second wave (1300 - 1400).
Since A-pier West would have been a completely new building, a seperation between departing en arriving passengers could have been foreseen.
And why only 6 gates? A waste of money imho...
Because it wouldn't go further than taxiway J
Is pier A West back on the table?
It's not on the table, but it's also not in the trash.
But, as I said before, when the Satellite will be free again, it would be a good idea to create from it a leisure Pier. Move TUI and others there to free up the A Pier
Since A-pier West would have been a completely new building, a seperation between departing en arriving passengers could have been foreseen.
And why only 6 gates? A waste of money imho...
Because it wouldn't go further than taxiway J
Is pier A West back on the table?
It's not on the table, but it's also not in the trash.
But, as I said before, when the Satellite will be free again, it would be a good idea to create from it a leisure Pier. Move TUI and others there to free up the A Pier
Two questions for those who work internally here or there! Are we going to build an extension of Pier A to the West? Yes or no...If we don't know yet, the work will never be completed in 2032. When will the Satellite be freed from its current function? Thanks.
It's not on the table, but it's also not in the trash.
But, as I said before, when the Satellite will be free again, it would be a good idea to create from it a leisure Pier. Move TUI and others there to free up the A Pier
Two questions for those who work internally here or there! Are we going to build an extension of Pier A to the West? Yes or no...If we don't know yet, the work will never be completed in 2032. When will the Satellite be freed from its current function? Thanks.
For the moment, clearly no bcs it's not part of the environmental permit. Only existing infrastructure can be used and renovated or to increase the capacity with the new airbridges at the B Pier.
The Satellite will be free when the police will have their new and big police building at the airport.
It's not on the table, but it's also not in the trash.
But, as I said before, when the Satellite will be free again, it would be a good idea to create from it a leisure Pier. Move TUI and others there to free up the A Pier
Two questions for those who work internally here or there! Are we going to build an extension of Pier A to the West? Yes or no...If we don't know yet, the work will never be completed in 2032. When will the Satellite be freed from its current function? Thanks.
For the moment, clearly no bcs it's not part of the environmental permit. Only existing infrastructure can be used and renovated or to increase the capacity with the new airbridges at the B Pier.
The Satellite will be free when the police will have their new and big police building at the airport.
Thank you Atlantis for this very clear answer. The new environmental permit will perhaps shake up the projects. Why not dedicate the Satellite to SN's future long-haul operations... as I remember there were 11 gates, which more or less corresponds to the current or even future fleet.
Better to discuss this in the BRU infrastructure topic, but I will answer your question.
Two reasons why it cannot be used for SN long haul. Let's say 11 gates, bcs all gates are removed, for long haul is a huge crowd for that place. In the past we had a long haul there but not to that extent. It would not be safe, not pleasant and you don't have any Lounge there.
The other reason is the distance. A lot of those pax has a connection flight. Imagine them running from the Satellite to the B-Pier and A-Pier. Good for your condition but not for the satisfaction of the Passengers.
As I proposed, and this is my own idea, not of the airport, is to reform the Satellite into a leisure Pier. We have already the leisure terminal in the direction of the satellite. They only need to pass the Skyhall and office building via a passerel like it was in the past. On this way you can partially devide leisure pax from business pax. Not all, but still
It's not that simple to use a schengen terminal as a full non schengen terminal.
I mean, you only can use it for departures, like the way it is now. Because you can't mix arriving and departing non schengen passengers. Only exception is if the flights comes from a OSS origin (One stop security) JFK/IAD/SIN... All from Africa aren't OSS.
It won't be 14 - 15 widebody's, I believe in previous plans it was 6 widebody stands and in total 14-15 stands (MARS).
Things can be changed in the meantime, but with the first idea of the flight expansion they where thinking to have a second wave (1300 - 1400).
Since A-pier West would have been a completely new building, a seperation between departing en arriving passengers could have been foreseen.
And why only 6 gates? A waste of money imho...
Because it wouldn't go further than taxiway J
Is pier A West back on the table?
Then I'd move taxiway J as well. The buildings next to it don't look too important to me...
Maybe we can move the interesting conversation of BRU 2026 here. Moderators, maybe an idea to move it here.
To answer the question of member Conti764, it would make sense to remove/demolish those extremely old buildings in the middle of the airport. This is partially a scrapyard and parking/maintenance of trolleys and cargo transport.
You could move the Pier A West further till the road who is going under runway 25R/07L. That can create more or less 10 airbridges on each side. This is a mature expansion.
Taxiway J you can move further West till the first parking stands of General Aviation. There are still a lot of grass fields which can be new parking stands.
Regarding the expansion of Pier B. Many years ago they decided to close 2 gates on the South side. Also those airbridges are removed. Insane decision bcs they created less capacity while it was full in the morning.
Regarding the satellite. We had there in the past also Pier C. I would build there again a very modern Pier C who is also connected with the Satellite. This could be fully used by TUI, Transavia, Corendon and Vueling. This could free up drastically Pier A who starts to be congested.
Parking stands for SQ, HU, ET, etc could be between the satellite and the TUI maintenance building and where now the temporary bus station will be build
Once again, this is my personal idea, not the airport idea. But we are still free to have our own ideas.
Atlantis wrote: 14 Jul 2025, 12:23
Today was the inauguration of this new Sabena Engineering building with the A400M in it.
Lots of guests and prominents were invited. The A400M will have here their maintenance
First aircrafts for maintenance were expected in August / September. However no visible activity so far.
Atlantis wrote: 14 Jul 2025, 12:23
Today was the inauguration of this new Sabena Engineering building with the A400M in it.
Lots of guests and prominents were invited. The A400M will have here their maintenance
First aircrafts for maintenance were expected in August / September. However no visible activity so far.
What I've heard is this (take this with a massive grain of salt):
Sabena Engineering is currently renting out Hangar 7 to the Belgian Defence for A400M maintenance, but the Belgian Defence is simply not doing anything with it. There are probably reasons for that, but I have not heard much more than this.
Apparently it is supposed to be put to use starting February 2026 by Sabena Engineering themselves, I assume for A-Checks, although I'm not sure if this would be for the KLM Embraer A-Checks or their A330 A-Checks.
Atlantis wrote: 14 Jul 2025, 12:23
Today was the inauguration of this new Sabena Engineering building with the A400M in it.
Lots of guests and prominents were invited. The A400M will have here their maintenance
First aircrafts for maintenance were expected in August / September. However no visible activity so far.
What I've heard is this (take this with a massive grain of salt):
Sabena Engineering is currently renting out Hangar 7 to the Belgian Defence for A400M maintenance, but the Belgian Defence is simply not doing anything with it. There are probably reasons for that, but I have not heard much more than this.
Apparently it is supposed to be put to use starting February 2026 by Sabena Engineering themselves, I assume for A-Checks, although I'm not sure if this would be for the KLM Embraer A-Checks or their A330 A-Checks.
It's crazy for the moment. A400M are from time to time half parked in the old C130 hangars for maintenance, while in their state-of-the-art hangar is space.
Atlantis wrote: 28 Oct 2025, 21:40
It's crazy for the moment. A400M are from time to time half parked in the old C130 hangars for maintenance, while in their state-of-the-art hangar is space.
Belgian Army forgot to include in their budget cost of moving equipment into the new hangar. Is it really crazy?
Or they don't need the hangar just yet but getting it when they needed it was the only way to secure it when it was needed, and it was cheaper than the alternative.
For several years, Qantas was leasing maintenance bays full-time even though they were at best used half the year.... But the annual cost ended up being lower than not having the maintenance bays when needed.
After many years of frustration of ex-Shengen PAX ,and very bad comments and reputation for Belgium,it has been decided to hire more police people for the passport controls.
Waiting times for more than 3.hours were considered normal in the minds and brains of BRU management.
At no point in time that management has tried to improve this ridiculous and unprofessional situation.
Blaming politicians and the police for not solving this problem,and hoping the problem would disappear by itself was the only "action"..
Now Mr. Quintin, interior minister is about to solve the problem by hiring or putting 60 more agents.
I blame BRU management for hurting Belgium's reputation and not making serious efforts.
Amateurism and incompetence are still the standard.
BRU is about the last airport in Europe who has not yet reached pre-covid PAX figures.
Not surprising. BRU is airport to avoid.
JOVAN2 wrote: 03 Nov 2025, 21:37
After many years of frustration of ex-Shengen PAX ,and very bad comments and reputation for Belgium,it has been decided to hire more police people for the passport controls.
Waiting times for more than 3.hours were considered normal in the minds and brains of BRU management.
At no point in time that management has tried to improve this ridiculous and unprofessional situation.
Blaming politicians and the police for not solving this problem,and hoping the problem would disappear by itself was the only "action"..
Now Mr. Quintin, interior minister is about to solve the problem by hiring or putting 60 more agents.
I blame BRU management for hurting Belgium's reputation and not making serious efforts.
Amateurism and incompetence are still the standard.
BRU is about the last airport in Europe who has not yet reached pre-covid PAX figures.
Not surprising. BRU is airport to avoid.
Zever, gezever.... the last airport, really?? Inform yourself. Figures available till mid August.
CDG still 7.7% below
AMS still 6.8% below
BRU around 8% below
FRA drastically below
All Scandinavian airport are recovering slowly.
More or less 44% of the European airports are not recovered. And this is the last airport?
Mister, we have even more long haul than before 2019 and more will follow in 2026
JOVAN2 wrote: 03 Nov 2025, 21:37
After many years of frustration of ex-Shengen PAX ,and very bad comments and reputation for Belgium,it has been decided to hire more police people for the passport controls.
Waiting times for more than 3.hours were considered normal in the minds and brains of BRU management.
At no point in time that management has tried to improve this ridiculous and unprofessional situation.
Blaming politicians and the police for not solving this problem,and hoping the problem would disappear by itself was the only "action"..
Now Mr. Quintin, interior minister is about to solve the problem by hiring or putting 60 more agents.
I blame BRU management for hurting Belgium's reputation and not making serious efforts.
Amateurism and incompetence are still the standard.
BRU is about the last airport in Europe who has not yet reached pre-covid PAX figures.
Not surprising. BRU is airport to avoid.
60 more agents who are free to leave again in a few months, so no solution at all. BAC is not to blame for the mess at the border control.
Luckily for you it doesn't require knowledge to post here.
JOVAN2 wrote: 03 Nov 2025, 21:37
After many years of frustration of ex-Shengen PAX ,and very bad comments and reputation for Belgium,it has been decided to hire more police people for the passport controls.
Waiting times for more than 3.hours were considered normal in the minds and brains of BRU management.
At no point in time that management has tried to improve this ridiculous and unprofessional situation.
Blaming politicians and the police for not solving this problem,and hoping the problem would disappear by itself was the only "action"..
Now Mr. Quintin, interior minister is about to solve the problem by hiring or putting 60 more agents.
I blame BRU management for hurting Belgium's reputation and not making serious efforts.
Amateurism and incompetence are still the standard.
BRU is about the last airport in Europe who has not yet reached pre-covid PAX figures.
Not surprising. BRU is airport to avoid.
60 more agents who are free to leave again in a few months, so no solution at all. BAC is not to blame for the mess at the border control.
Luckily for you it doesn't require knowledge to post here.
JOVAN2 wrote: 03 Nov 2025, 21:37
After many years of frustration of ex-Shengen PAX ,and very bad comments and reputation for Belgium,it has been decided to hire more police people for the passport controls.
Waiting times for more than 3.hours were considered normal in the minds and brains of BRU management.
At no point in time that management has tried to improve this ridiculous and unprofessional situation.
Blaming politicians and the police for not solving this problem,and hoping the problem would disappear by itself was the only "action"..
Now Mr. Quintin, interior minister is about to solve the problem by hiring or putting 60 more agents.
I blame BRU management for hurting Belgium's reputation and not making serious efforts.
Amateurism and incompetence are still the standard.
BRU is about the last airport in Europe who has not yet reached pre-covid PAX figures.
Not surprising. BRU is airport to avoid.
60 more agents who are free to leave again in a few months, so no solution at all. BAC is not to blame for the mess at the border control.
Luckily for you it doesn't require knowledge to post here.
Luckily not many people share your sympathy for the agent-saboteurs..
JOVAN2 wrote: 03 Nov 2025, 21:37
After many years of frustration of ex-Shengen PAX ,and very bad comments and reputation for Belgium,it has been decided to hire more police people for the passport controls.
Waiting times for more than 3.hours were considered normal in the minds and brains of BRU management.
At no point in time that management has tried to improve this ridiculous and unprofessional situation.
Blaming politicians and the police for not solving this problem,and hoping the problem would disappear by itself was the only "action"..
Now Mr. Quintin, interior minister is about to solve the problem by hiring or putting 60 more agents.
I blame BRU management for hurting Belgium's reputation and not making serious efforts.
Amateurism and incompetence are still the standard.
BRU is about the last airport in Europe who has not yet reached pre-covid PAX figures.
Not surprising. BRU is airport to avoid.
60 more agents who are free to leave again in a few months, so no solution at all. BAC is not to blame for the mess at the border control.
Luckily for you it doesn't require knowledge to post here.
Why would they leave again in a few months ?
Most of them didn't request to go to the airport, so they are free to apply for other functions within the police. Some chose to stay, but especially those who come straigth from the police academy are often opting for a position closer to home, or closer to what they're trained for.
