Brussels Airport delays extension of A pier

[BrightCedars]

NL: http://www.tijd.be/nieuws/ondernemingen ... .art?ckc=1
FR:
http://www.lesoir.be/277764/article/act ... sion-jetee

Brussels Airport will go ahead with the new connector but delay the extension of the A-pier.

I guess this settles things as far as Jet Airways' move is concerned. Wonder if the T-gates will remain or if SN's operations will be concentrated back at the B-pier now that there are Africa<>America connections.

[Anonymous320]

SN Long Haul operations will stay concentrated around the T-gates, even in the case of a complete exit of Jet Airways.

[Conti764]

Understandable position of the airport, but immediately delaying the construction with 5 years to 2020 is a bit harsh imho and doesn't show much ambition to become a true Star Alliance hub in the near future.

[Flanker2]

I think that this is common sense.

They were throwing with money all over the place, perhaps they have come to the realisation that the ROI is too long to afford such a huge expense. With the uncertainty regarding 9W (or maybe certainty given that BRU will know more) and the uncertainty of SN, there is no point in extending terminal A at such a huge cost.

Why don't they add a few gates at the connector, so that the connector doesn't become a huge waste of money by itself? 71 millions.... it will take a lot of rent to earn that money back. Not everyone is looking at opening a shop in this economy.

In fact, Europe is experiencing a record amount of empty shopping and office space. With the development of E-commerce, there is nothing to suggest that this trend will be reversed anytime soon.

How hard could it be to make a few holes in the wall, draw some lines on the ground and add jetbridges? Just do it!

71 millions for a bunch of shops doesn't make sense but 71 millions and a bit more for shops and 5 or 6 gates, while reducing the walk to terminal A for a lot of people? Makes perfect sense, just do it.

[Airbusvsboeing]

It might well be that by adding 2 medium stands on the connector, 2 or 3 stands from pier A and B need to be removed... Don't forget that aircraft need to be pushed out of the gate...
I do believe that the one designing the pier have tought about this...
This does not make me a 'fan' of the connector, it does not make taxi easier and expeditious at ebbr...

[Lamal]

Guys,

Do note that the T-zone will be extended with two more gates.
Till now stand 171 and 174 were stands used to park our 330's till the gates at T-zone become available. (To be honest with you, I've only seen this on rare occasions)

Now ground works are almost finished, in order to foresee these two positions with fingers. As a result of this, the Sunrise lounge will be lifted to a mezanine level at the same location it is located now.

Guess that BAC took this decision in order to compensate for the delay of Pier A West, and the expansion of SN's lonhaul fleet next year (10 A330 by summer 2014).

A total move back to Pier B for our longhaul ops is never gone happen. The use of the T-zone has already proven to be very useful regarding transfer pax and bags (e.g SN3632 and SN3634, short con, etc.)

If we could we'd even had IAD depart from T.

Kind regards,

Dries

[cnc]

How hard could it be to make a few holes in the wall, draw some lines on the ground and add jetbridges? Just do it!

how will you manage the pushbacks from 204, 206, 143, 145, 147 + the new connector stands?
not to mention you'll increase the risk for the handlers dramatically in that area

[AirOpinion]

The same way you push out on stand 201?

[cnc]

The same way you push out on stand 201?

hmm no because between 201 and 310 are no gates and the situation between Apron 1 south - apron 2 north is different then apron 2 south - apron 3

[Flanker2]

There is plenty of room, if they build it above the current tunnel and as much as possible to the West as possible. You can actually put many more gates on the West side, 2 gates on the East side and you still have plenty of room left for pushback.
They may have to re-draw the lines on the ramp there, but what's that compared to building a 100+ million terminal.

Just a simple example:



For handling, they could just extend the way it is along terminal A and B, with a blast-shield right around where the two main taxiways come together, between the black dots you see there.

If you ask me, it looks much better like this.

[airazurxtror]

Not to extend the Pier A is a sound decision. Another one would be to build an LCC Terminal.

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

The LCC terminal is situated below in the A terminal, left side.. enjoy your footpath to the airplane easy no?
More terminals is just a longer footpath and a extra glass door and a little desk...
They can go to LCC terminal CRL how to paint the lines, even longer then getting to the A pier nowadays when parked a the last stand,thank you had it twice already, luckily in fresh and wet air
No need for extra expensive piers, give the AirLingus,Easys,... a tent like three years ago and bus them to the last stands in the back,LCC people are used to this no?

CXB
and yes airazur I count myself also in this group for fifty percent of my flights no meaning to get you upset or so... but withnthe leaving of Jet guess BRU airport can have a little growth without when these busses are again operated from a tent for the LCC... no need to attract more of this,we have CRL for this, I like to see more SN,more staralliance or even norwegian,easy.. who likes to fly to the real/main airports...

[airazurxtror]

Dear Lex,
At Brussels, the real travellers, the fat cats, the businessmen, have to mix with the LCC passengers, thus chancing to catch lice or another repugnant disease; would you believe that a few LCC pax have even be known to enter a fashion boutique ? Truly incredible but true.
A specific LCC terminal would be the solution to that unbearable situation, wouldn't it ?
A number of airports have already implemented that solution : Marseille, Bordeaux, Lyon, Malpensa ...

[Kapitein]

How hard could it be to make a few holes in the wall, draw some lines on the ground and add jetbridges

It's not that easy like you write it here.

There is plenty of room, if they build it above the current tunnel and as much as possible to the West as possible. You can actually put many more gates on the West side, 2 gates on the East side and you still have plenty of room left for pushback.
They may have to re-draw the lines on the ramp there, but what's that compared to building a 100+ million terminal.

Just a simple example:



For handling, they could just extend the way it is along terminal A and B, with a blast-shield right around where the two main taxiways come together, between the black dots you see there.

If you ask me, it looks much better like this.

What you show in your drawing is completly not possible.
If I see it well you want to put blastfence between pos 204-206L/R and between 145R-147 and 147-149L/R?
What about minimum safety distances you have to respect between a aircraft and an other aircraft/object? It's already sometimes on the legal minimum. Like it's drawn now these stands are never usable again. So your are cutting capacity by 6 stands to create 2 extra?
If it would already be possible, maximum 1 aircraft can stand on the east-side. West-side would be more possible, but not easy either.
It isn't that easy, probably that's the reason why they never gave the option to park aircrafts overthere.

[Flanker2]

No, the blastfence comes in the middle East side of the connector.
No positions would be lost, but only one of both taxiways can be operated simultaneously, from the point where they converge. This principle is used in many airports across the USA.

Flanker2 wrote:
How hard could it be to make a few holes in the wall, draw some lines on the ground and add jetbridges
It's not that easy like you write it here.

It's not rocket science, especially for a new-build. That's what you have architects for.

At Brussels, the real travellers, the fat cats, the businessmen, have to mix with the LCC passengers, thus chancing to catch lice or another repugnant disease; would you believe that a few LCC pax have even be known to enter a fashion boutique ? Truly incredible but true.

That's pretty good. I can see the picture already. Chewing gum ruining the Spanish granite, spitting on the floors, crap in the corners...

[cnc]

and again you have to play the clown heh airazurxtror?

[Airbusvsboeing]

Here you see the the approx minima needed to have an aircraft parked at the East side of the connector...
You will loose more than you will gain...


greetings

[Flanker2]

Your configuration is totally different from mine. Your configuration won't work, mine will.
In more detail, with the blast shields in blue, to avoid that the engines would rock vehicles driving along the connector.



The only restriction I see is that the 2 gates will have to be reserved for RJ's.
Notice also that you don't need a 180° push-back, the aircraft can apply thrust and turn by its own, without rocking other aircraft.

Most importantly, look at the West side: how many gates you can win. Like this you can extend terminal T to the West, most pax still pass through most of the shopping mall, and you get a pretty neat airport. Many pax will be able to board directly in the connector, making the walk much shorter for every single pax!

What are they thinking in the project room at BRU

[flightlover]

Your configuration is totally different from mine. Your configuration won't work, mine will.
In more detail, with the blast shields in blue, to avoid that the engines would rock vehicles driving along the connector.



The only restriction I see is that the 2 gates will have to be reserved for RJ's.
Notice also that you don't need a 180° push-back, the aircraft can apply thrust and turn by its own, without rocking other aircraft.

Most importantly, look at the West side: how many gates you can win. Like this you can extend terminal T to the West, most pax still pass through most of the shopping mall, and you get a pretty neat airport. Many pax will be able to board directly in the connector, making the walk much shorter for every single pax!

What are they thinking in the project room at BRU

Nice rendering, however, if they place blast shields at those positions they will have to be huge. The blast shields they use while working on taxiways will not do. And even if they would do the job they still have to be placed far back from the actual starting position. A long push/tow will always be necessary.

Real live example (at BRU):
-Due to runway works stand 901 and 902 are unavailable and 902 is even half blocked by blast fences. Standard push back procedure is to push it partly onto stand 902 and then tow till 905 where the engines can be started.

-If the a/c has a non working apu this is no option as the blast will just go over the installed blast fences. In this case the a/c has to be pushed till stand 908 where it can start taxiing.

Note that in both cases it is just a building site behind those fences and not a glass facade with people behind it.

[Airbusvsboeing]

@flanker...

In your design, just take an aircraft, place it onto the newly designed stands and then place other aircraft onto the existing stands... You will see, the necessary space isn t available...
My personal opinion of course