Brussels Airport wins two awards

Boeing767copilot · Post by **Boeing767copilot** » 15 Oct 2004, 18:26

Brussels Airport was rewarded twice during the presentation ceremony of the “AETRA Awards 2003” for quality that took place in Lisbon on Thursday as part of the annual ACI World Assembly.
Brussels Airport is in the Top 3 of best performing airports in Europe. Of all European airports Brussels progressed most in terms of passenger satisfaction. It now occupies second place in the world ranking, preceded only by the airport of Cape Town.
This recognition rewards the joint efforts made by the entire airport community in order to improve the quality of the services offered at Brussels Airport and to better meet the needs of the passenger.
The AETRA rankings are established on the basis of the results of standardized surveys designed to measure passengers satisfaction.
The assessment takes account of 31 parameters. The AETRA program is a joint initiative of IATA and ACI. Airports from all over the world participate in the AETRA surveys.

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 15 Oct 2004, 19:40

Without being biased in any way, I think that Brussels is a fantastic airport. It is certainly my favourite, and beats the sh*t out of CDG in every way.

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 15 Oct 2004, 19:43

Hi everybody.
Comet:that's right BRU is a great airport.
Regards
patrice

Jense · Post by **Jense** » 15 Oct 2004, 20:00

Nice to hear that BRU won something...

However, it isn't that difficult to BRU to make this airport so good:
- low traffic; minor chance on delays
- new buildings; easier to keep them clean
- motivated people; I think they're happy to have a job if you see what is happening at the moment with DHL and what happened with CityBird, Sabena, Constellation, ...

Tough, good job BIAC

greettzzz

Post by **speedbird1** » 15 Oct 2004, 20:05

Comet wrote:Without being biased in any way, I think that Brussels is a fantastic airport. It is certainly my favourite, and beats the sh*t out of CDG in every way.

But Brussels and CDG are completly different animals. A better comparison would be to somewhere like Dusseldorf in that one I think the Germans win over BRU. Better to compare to LHR to CDG then it's a close race. But Brussels to CharlesDG no way!
Rant over!

Emirates

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 15 Oct 2004, 20:09

Yihaaa, congratulations BRU

:mexwave:

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 15 Oct 2004, 21:31

Emirates wrote:
Comet wrote:Without being biased in any way, I think that Brussels is a fantastic airport. It is certainly my favourite, and beats the sh*t out of CDG in every way.
But Brussels and CDG are completly different animals. A better comparison would be to somewhere like Dusseldorf in that one I think the Germans win over BRU. Better to compare to LHR to CDG then it's a close race. But Brussels to CharlesDG no way!
Rant over!

Emirates

I am comparing two airports I have been in. I have never visited Dusseldorf so I cannot liken it to anything. And my last visit to LHR was in 1998, so I cannot compare that very well either. LCY is better served for shops and restaurants than CDG is! CDG is the worst hub airport I have ever been in, and I don't want to use it again.

B744skipper · Post by **B744skipper** » 15 Oct 2004, 22:37

Congratulations to BRU from me also, keer up the good work

VC10 · Post by **VC10** » 16 Oct 2004, 16:38

Hardly surprising that BRU has won an award, it is a fantastic airport, with good facilities.

I love BRU too

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 16 Oct 2004, 19:11

The walk to the A pier is long though, and is one of the reasons I´ve heard why AA is doubting about making BRU a hub.

For passengers connecting from B pier to a flight on the end of the A pier.. ouch. Maybe BRU should build an underground train (like those in ATL) which goes from the mid section of Apier to mid section of B pier and then on to (once BRU would become big again) the C pier.

Nevertheless Brussels is a good airport

Flybe · Post by **Flybe** » 16 Oct 2004, 20:09

Maybe BRU should build an underground train (like those in ATL) which goes from the mid section of Apier to mid section of B pier

I would say that a "moving carpet" would be enough, as it is in the other tunnel. A train would be expensive and the distance isn't big enough to make a train much quicker. But indeed, i also think that a tunnel in half between the 2 piers would be great.

Although i wonder if BIAC would think that it is worth it. Look at the number of transfer passengers ( http://www.brusselsairport.be/statistics/ and then click on the passengers chart and scroll to the bottom). That really isn't much, especially compared to what it used to be. And... this year the number of transfer passengers is even going down compared to last year! (anyone else who thinks this is very strange?)

But it would be for sure a good investment of the future. But then i think BIAC would want that there is already a contract signed with for example AA for a hub. Then the investment would be worthwhile.

Does anyone have some ideas on how difficult it would be to make a tunnel there? I guess it wouldn't be too easy... And both the B and A pier aren't foreseen on a tunnel there (gates in the way, and so on).

But it is indeed good to see that BRU has won those awards. Why don't they put it on their website!? BRU, too big for it's present league, but with an eye for the future (i may hope 8) )!

Greets,

Pieter

Post by **sn26567** » 17 Oct 2004, 09:53

Flybe wrote:I would say that a "moving carpet" would be enough, as it is in the other tunnel.

A moving carpet is too slow. Right now the moving carpet between the main building and the A Pier combined with all the escalators and elevators make the trip endless. I also think that a train like in FRA, but underground, would be much better.

Flybe · Post by **Flybe** » 17 Oct 2004, 14:08

Would a train really make economical sense for those 200-250m underground? I guess a train is much more expensive then a moving carpet. Plus, would it be so much faster? Boarding the train and deboarding also takes some time. And waiting for the train if it is at the other side. Also if the train brakes down, you have a problem. If a carpet brakes down, you can still walk over it and cut a large part of the original route (as it is now, going totally around).

I see 2 options:

A normal moving carpet, with a large enough tunnel so you can put some shops in it. If there are some places where you can go off the moving carpet and then shopping, it doesn't seem that far. 8)

Or 2 moving carpets (i've heard once that it exists in some airports, but don't know anymore in which one): 1 normal speed at the beginning and the end of the tunnel and 1 faster in the middle. Like that the transition from the normal speed one onto the faster one would be the same as from the ground on the normal one. But the speed would be double

In the second case, you could change the escalators and elevators into a downward/upward sloping moving carpet (the slower one). Those things already exsist in the South station in Brussels (Thalys tracks) and they allow everyone with luggage to go on them. That would streamline things very much, although you need more space to implement those things.

But once again, where would those tunnels emerge in the A and B pier? There is no place for that... A pity.

Greets,

Pieter

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 19 Oct 2004, 15:31

For the B pier I was thinking at the section where you can go outside to take a bus (don´t remember which gates are near that place though).

Boarding and getting of the train takes 40seconds probably. The train would speed up to 30-40kmh and in less then a minute you´re at the next pier. If you have 2-3 trains you could have certainly every 1.5minutes a train in each direction.

Currently it takes probably minimum 5-10min to go from the terminal to the A pier and even longer to get from the B pier (and certainly where the US planes arrive) to the A pier, and then if your plane is at the end of the A pier ... you have another 10min walk ahead.

Now if like many on this board you like walking in airports and watching planes this might not be that annoying. But for people who just want to get out of the airport or on their connecting flight asap...

JetB · Post by **JetB** » 19 Oct 2004, 17:17

Almost every day I walk from the "Pier A" security checkpoint to the US Outbound section located @ Pier B, gate 32 to 40. I enjoy the walk every time but it is long !.

You cant believe how many Americans arrive every day sweating there ass off 8O , just walking from check inn to the US area. So I don't think there going to survive walking all the way to the A pier :laugh: .

Why not a bus from the tent ? gate 90 (Pier B) to pier A, fast and simple.

I always say "it is a good work out especially if you have to sit still the next 9 hours", so keep on walking people and stay away from the marshmallows

.

waldova · Post by **waldova** » 19 Oct 2004, 18:27

Flybe wrote: Or 2 moving carpets (i've heard once that it exists in some airports, but don't know anymore in which one): 1 normal speed at the beginning and the end of the tunnel and 1 faster in the middle. Like that the transition from the normal speed one onto the faster one would be the same as from the ground on the normal one. But the speed would be double

I have seen this in Schiphol airport and it works really good! You don't realize you are going so fast. It really shortens time if you are to walk a long way.

Flybe · Post by **Flybe** » 19 Oct 2004, 18:36

You cant believe how many Americans arrive every day sweating there ass off... don't think there going to survive walking all the way to the A pier

Hehe indeed, especially because majority of the Americans are rumoured to be... ehh, slightly overweight. (don't want to upset our American friends here). But does the number of Americans (or other people) connecting into the A pier justify such an investment?

For the train, hmm, getting to 40km/h and braking again over a distance of 200/250m... I haven't calculated the acceleration, but i think that that wouldn't be too healthy. Also don't forget that with 1 train, you need only 1 track (cheapest), but with 2 trains, you need 2 tracks, and with more than 2 trains you need to make it even possible that the trains can change tracks (such as a subway system) (whereas 2 trains can just stay at their own track), which requires some more space.

It's not a bad idea, the train, but i don't see it happening because it would be too expensive and the distances are too short for that (between the 2 terminals, i mean).

I don't think that the underground part takes 10 minutes to walk, and with the system of 2 moving carpets (faster one in the middle and slower ones at the endings), it would go even faster. Also for a train, you'll need again elevators and so on, while with moving carpets you can just replace the slower moving carpets by slightly tilted ones.

It's a long time ago since i've been in the B pier, so i don't know exactly if there is enough space available at the section of the B pier where you can take a bus (BTW, wasn't that supposed to be a temorary lounge (at the BIAC site they call it "interim lounge"), but i don't see where you would find the space to let the tunnel emerge at the A pier. A pity that such a new pier wasn't designed for that...

I agree fully that if BRU wants to become an airport again with many connecting pax, that they'll have to find an option. A bus could be interesting, but how frequent then? Every 15 minutes? And how many people would be on it? At times maybe only 1 person? Can't that person walk then, would be more economical. But i agree, a bus is a good start.

Greets,

Pieter

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 19 Oct 2004, 21:05

An electric train with no driver would be relatively cheap to operate. A bus every 15minutes is not good .. because the point was too minimize the travel time between the concourses. If a person has to wait 15min or can walk 15min than you don´t win anything.

Something else .. would an walking bridge with fast moving carpets be an option (something like in Denver between the terminal and concourse A). (a bridge which is high enough to let at least A330/777s pass underneath).

But maybe that wouldn´t look too good (architecture wise at BRU)

rwy25r · Post by **rwy25r** » 19 Oct 2004, 21:29

In short, BRU airport is completely built the wrong way : the entrance/exit is in front of the long haul pier (non-schengen), whereas the pier used by the vast majority of the passengers is 10 to 15 mins walking distance ...

Flybe · Post by **Flybe** » 20 Oct 2004, 01:11

A bus every 15minutes is not good .. because the point was too minimize the travel time between the concourses.

I agree, but then again, you can't put a bus there every 2 minutes. It would congest the tarmac (although they don't need drive very far) and more then 50% of the busses would probably be empty.

One more problem that i thought about: If you want a tunnel in the middle (train or carpets doesn't matter even here) you need to put customs, passportcontrol, security and so on overthere before you can go into the tunnel. That takes up a huge amount of place... So i guess we won't see a tunnel in BRU for a long time.

A bridge could be interesting, but how entering the A pier with it's unusual shape?

I agree that BRU isn't built in the best way, but then again most airports aren't. It's because something like that grows historically, and most of the time they search for the cheapest options to expand. With the C and B pier, everything was quite good reachable, if i remember correctly (i was still very young then, so i didn't visit the airport that much then, plus i wasn't so focussed on it then 8) ). But of course you can't destroy the C pier to put a new terminal at the same place, what would you do with all the passengers then? I think that eventually BIAC assumed that they would work with 3 piers after some years: A, B and a (new) C pier, where maybe all non-shengen could be transferred from the B pier (that's at least how i would do that, if i would work with 3 piers). If Sabena would still be here, the airport would have much more passengers, so it is likely that biac had a scenario like this in their mind.

An electric, fully automated train could work, but i guess that it would only be an option if the number of transferpassengers picks up. Now it is at all time lows (look at the link i provided earlier in this topic), and even worse: probably many passengers transfer in between shengen flights: so they arrive and leave from the A pier...

And the main problem of an electric train remains: what if it brakes down? People trapped in a narrow tunnel, and al other transfer passengers having to do the whole walk again. With moving carpets you can still walk over them (thus taking the shorter route) even if they stop working.

The situation at BRU really doesn't justify any system for transferring pax quickly from the B to the A pier right now. There are more important decisions to take. Trying to get an Asian carrier to BRU is one of them.

Greets,

Pieter