Conflicting opinions about the dispersion plan of BRU

jal · Post by **jal** » 31 Oct 2005, 16:32

sn26567 wrote:The simplest and safest solution is easy: allow planes to take-off and land in function of the wind. This was the situation before 1999, and nobody complained. But then politics came in and we all see the results

I do have to agree with you sn26567, people really seem to be getting crazy, it is a shame and very sad for all those people(=us) who work in the aviation industry.

Post by **luchtzak** » 31 Oct 2005, 21:08

lumumba wrote:Hi everybody.
Just for you info there is a very intresting aticle in De Morgen of today.

It's indeed a very interesting article about the many new houses that are still build around the airport of Zaventem. However Minister Landuyt wants a 'building-stop' you still see construction yards all over the place. The reporter calls it: not real, fiction, ...

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 31 Oct 2005, 23:44

It was a while ago that I was at Steenokkerzeel. Today I drove in that village and it was remarkable, new houses, new streets for a whole new place for new houses. And it will be that kind of people who complain afterwards or worse before they even live there.
I was also reading that article, it's in meanwhile published on different sites, and they can only call a build stop if the plans of mister Landuyt will be effective. But we know that Francis Vermeiren said that's impossible, but we also know that this brother run an brokersoffice in that region.

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 15 Feb 2006, 13:11

Time for some updates:

1. As already mentioned in the Ducth forum, a judge had decided that there will be no prohibition to fly above the Brussels area. Some actiongroups, together with some inhabitants want to forbid all flights above Brussels for many years. But their request has now been rejected by the court.

2. 235 families from Kortenberg had gone to court to request the cancellation of the dispertion plan. The court now has rejected the request.

Again some decisions in favour of the airport. Looks like after all the decisions in favour of the actiongroups, we are finally getting some smarter decissions, that also take the economical consequences into consideration.

To be continued for sure ...

afterburner · Post by **afterburner** » 16 Feb 2006, 17:36

After all good nieuws !

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 21 Mar 2006, 18:49

again some good news:

The Court of Appeal has claimed that the noise restrictions in Brussels are illegal. Brussels noise restrictions are much higher then in Flanders.

Story in Dutch: http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail. ... 032006_088

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 21 Mar 2006, 19:41

Indeed good news but it says also nothing!!

The penalty's are staying and the airliners are the victims. A while ago I posted that on an other topic about the very high penalty's they have to pay and two carriers have left BRU for that reason.

It's a half miracle that we will receive 8 new carriers in 7 months because you can't explain this nonsense in a foreign country.

If politics don't take action very soon the companies on the airport are going to move to other one's.

Post by **airbuske** » 21 Mar 2006, 22:28

Atlantis wrote:Indeed good news but it says also nothing!!

The penalty's are staying and the airliners are the victims. A while ago I posted that on an other topic about the very high penalty's they have to pay and two carriers have left BRU for that reason.

It's a half miracle that we will receive 8 new carriers in 7 months because you can't explain this nonsense in a foreign country.

If politics don't take action very soon the companies on the airport are going to move to other one's.

Atlantis , about the penalty's.
See here , an article that has been published today : Luchtvaartmaatschappijen luiden alarmbel over boetes ( Sorry only in Dutch)

Post by **sn26567** » 22 Mar 2006, 09:13

killerwhale65 wrote:again some good news

You call that good news?

Transport Minister Landuyt is caught in an impossible dilemma: if he does not disperse more, he gets penalties; if he disperses more, he also gets penalties. And the decisions come from the same court of appeals!

Why not start from square one again: back to pre-1999 situation!

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 22 Mar 2006, 11:13

Indeed like sn26567 said the judge decided two things:

First, it says that the brussels noise norms are not constitutional. (May be the good news for penalty),

Second, it says that the flights must be more spread than now. In other words, 25R must not be used every days of the week (because 25R is not used some nights and week ends).

But this does not cancel another judgement that is forbidding to use more
runway 02/20...

So how to spread flights without using runway 25R and runway 02/20...
For me there is only two possible solutions now :

use 07L for landing (and yes a ILS must be installed) and 07R for takeoff... But even if this is done, how much time it will be acceptable without having new complainers below 07 path ?

Another solution, use the six runways one each day (so the two 07 ILS must be installed and there will be one configuration in use each day, and configuration cycling)

A never ending situation, and the situation becomes more and more complex, and the solutions becomes more and more rare.

sn26567 wrote:
killerwhale65 wrote:again some good news
You call that good news?

Transport Minister Landuyt is caught in an impossible dilemma: if he does not disperse more, he gets penalties; if he disperses more, he also gets penalties. And the decisions come from the same court of appeals!

Why not start from square one again: back to pre-1999 situation!

cherdt · Post by **cherdt** » 22 Mar 2006, 12:12

I can't remember why, but the situation before 1999 was also impossible a judge has decided allready a long time ago.

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 22 Mar 2006, 12:48

In fact, the problems started because of Durant. In 2000, she wanted to concentrate all flights over Noordrand, without insulation, etc.

Of course, Noordrand goes to court, and then a judge decided to spread all the flights => this was the beginning of the dispersion plan.

This judgement was broken in cassatie, but Landueyt decided to continue with the dispersion plan rather than cancelling it.

At this time, there was absolutely no constraint preventing from going back to 1999 situation. But, for politiocal reason, federal government refuses it (while noise associations and brussels government asked for it).

Now, with this new judgement, I don't know and I think that this is completely unclear.

What does it mean spreading : routes ? runway usage, on a day basis, hour basis ? That is the problem with such judgement, because the judge knows nothing about airports, and then he rules an abstract thing, that sometimes is un-implementable.

cherdt wrote:I can't remember why, but the situation before 1999 was also impossible a judge has decided allready a long time ago.

Post by **sn26567** » 22 Mar 2006, 13:36

killerwhale65 wrote:Story in Dutch: http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail. ... 032006_088

... and in French: http://www.lalibre.be/article.phtml?id= ... _id=275801

Sorry, no English yet!

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 22 Mar 2006, 15:12

If this is true what LaLibre is saying:

"En clair: chaque piste et chaque zone devrait avoir le même quota de décollages et d'atterrissages (16,66pc sur chaque zone)"

This means clearly that in order to do it you have to install ILS on runways 07L and 07R, and to create a new taxiway...

You have 30 days to do all that stuff (ILS installation and calibrate) and to create a new taxiway. At work immediately otherwise 25000€ per day...

Crazy world.

sn26567 wrote:
killerwhale65 wrote:Story in Dutch: http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail. ... 032006_088
... and in French: http://www.lalibre.be/article.phtml?id= ... _id=275801

Sorry, no English yet!

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 22 Mar 2006, 17:10

I think the battle will begin soon, Leterme wants to talk with the different governments to get a solution. The same court says months ago less dispersion and yesterday the same court says more dispersion. Where is the logic???

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 22 Mar 2006, 18:54

Tonight on VRT news: Piqué wants the situation before 1999 for nightflights because they are not capable to get a solution a this very short period.

Eric Van Rompuy will freeze this situation for two years. There are elections this year and next year. After those two years they will create a long term solution for the airport.

Zenfookpower · Post by **Zenfookpower** » 23 Mar 2006, 16:06

It is quite pathetic to see how narrow minded this isue is.. The free market will take care of this.. Airline companies are not in business to serve political groups and hence they will make their own decission s.a leaving and set up camp in other EU airports.. I feel sorry for all the people who will loose their jobs. I understand that there are elections in Belgium later on this year.. may be this will be the answer.. I don't know..

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 23 Mar 2006, 19:53

Today there was a two pages article in Het Nieuwsblad about the current problems.

60% of the companies on the airport are thinking to leave Zaventem and move to Schiphol or Frankfurt. 46% of them don't want to invest in expansion at this time. These are figures of Voka.

Other foreign airlines hesitate to come to BRU because of the uncertain situation.

One of the difficult problems is the start between 06.00h and 08.00h. The charters are taxiing till the end of the runway and start with full power because they want to reach high altitude when they come at the border of Brussels. This means that they use a lot of fuel and this is not good for the engines.

Can you imagine when the START-project is finished and there is no airport any more. Who has to pay, yes, we.

Post by **airbuske** » 23 Mar 2006, 20:57

Atlantis wrote:Today there was a two pages article in Het Nieuwsblad about the current problems.

60% of the companies on the airport are thinking to leave Zaventem and move to Schiphol or Frankfurt. 46% of them don't want to invest in expansion at this time. These are figures of Voka.

Other foreign airlines hesitate to come to BRU because of the uncertain situation.

60 % 8O that's a lot !

What is the reaction of Biac , SNBA , VEX , TCW , TUB ?
It is very important that BRU can grow ! Not only for the people that work at the airport but also for the economy !

For me this is a political game nothing else !

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 23 Mar 2006, 21:43

Hi Airbuske,

60% is indeed big but it's reality. We have no security about the future for our companies. Can we expand or not, can we fly between 6.00 and 8.00h and what about nightflights for charters? If we can get a solid base on an other airport we take that change and we leave Zaventem. That's at this moment the spirit. That's why we also offer from April new pax flights from LGG. That's not so simple because our ops group for pax flights is at our headquarters at Brucargo.

About your question about BIAC, SNBA, etc. I was asking myself the same question. I hear nothing of BIAC, the "big" airlines and the trade unions. Nevertheless last year they said that they had the intention to do something. Yeah, we saw it: some stickers with "I love my airport job" and some flyers.
The reaction of the shareholders of TCW and TUB was simple, they say "what we can not do at BRU, we can do at an other airport". That's hard, but reality.

This is indeed a political game for just to have a minister mandatory for only four years. But they don't think about the people who are working at the airport and Brucargo. We have to work whole our life - and I took the whole picture from manager to housekeeper.

In the study, made by a university, they predict that between 2008 and 2015 when some airlines leaving Zaventem and with less jobs this means a crash for the federal government with 1 billion euro's.

That means that the only big industry will be our seaports. This means that Belgium will become a third world country.

Who's going to pay that when 60.511 people loss their job? One job on the airport = two jobs outside the airport.