Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

[nordikcam]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl-htkAIQrk[/youtube]

And for those speaking french

[Airbus A330]

An amazing master plan

[RoMax]

Maybe that's the real reason they want to extend the landing runway?
By extending it, planes departing from the new beginning have a little bit more time to climb out before they will have to make a sharp left (?) turn to avoid 'no go' BXL, but then they will overfly Flemish towns which have never been affected by airplane noise before!
I doubt that's going to go down very well over there, or indeed in Flanders as a whole, especially knowing that region already takes the full burden from all of the departures from the other runway, and I could understand that: IMHO, it's time BXL finally accepts a fair share of all the noise of its airport by simply allowing planes departing from its airport to overfly its city centre.

Both options have the same impact on capacity, so indeed a longer runway doesn't further increase capacity (although a runway can extension can do that, but then you need a much longer extension; it has been an option at LHR as well, but it just doesn't make much sense in most cases and its definitely not the case with this relatively small extension).

What it will do is indeed as you say avoid flying low over Brussels (and Zaventem in smaller extent). It indeed impacts new areas of Flanders which haven't been influence before, but in terms of impacted people (and especially heavily impacted people) in terms of noise, this is the more beneficial solution.
Is it the prefered option of BRU? Wouldn't say so, it delivers the same capacity as the simple taxiway extension at a much lower cost. However, using 25L for mixed-use take-off and landing (without doing that, there simply is no way of further increasing peak capacity in the longer term future, until 2025 things can be done in terms of optimisation, but eventually you run out of physical capacity) without an extension will impact a bigger/different public than with extension which allows more flexibility in terms of flight routes.

This is a decision that will not and cannot be taken by BAC. In the end this will be a decision of the federal government (inflluenced by mainly the Flemish and Brussels governments). Forum 2040 needs to provide the platform for the community, but also independent experts, etc. to discuss which option makes the most sense for Belgium.

[Inquirer]

Using 25L for mixed-use take-off and landing without an extension will impact a bigger/different public than with extension which allows more flexibility in terms of flight routes.

Do I read that correctly RoMax, that you agree the runway extension is indeed not a very productive piece of infrastructure by itself, but merely a smart way to be able to use the landing runway for departures too, even when it turns out Brussels can indeed not be overflown in future too?

By doing so, won't the towns of Zaventem-Sterrebeek, Kraainem, Wezembeek-Oppem and Tervuren be turned into a second Diegem, Grimbergen, Meise on a daily basis then?

IMHO, using a runway which until now is used only for landings also for departures is going to have a very big impact on whatever town/city will be overflown: Needless to say there's also a huge communitarian discussion brewing there and knowing each side already have their action groups in place too, I say there's good business for lawyers in view, that much is a given.

If BRU really wants that second runway for departures, then the cheapest solution would be to just add some taxiways to its landing runway and overfly Brussels IMHO then, but I agree that will likely impact a lot of people and BXL will never allow it, simple as that.

However, in order to cope with that refusal, a very costly and pointless runway extension thus seems to be considered as alternative, one which impacts people in Flanders already being 'hit' whenever BRU uses its cross runway as well as calls for the destruction of some other Flemish towns to the east like Erps-Kwerps etc. That's a huge environmental and social cost to take!

In all fairness however, but BRU is saturated 2 times a day for about an hour in my own observation.
Spreading new flights over the rest of the (empty) day will go a long way in allowing politicians avoiding having to make any choice at all. Knowing how things are normally solved in Belgium whenever they are politically blocked, that may be the most likely decision taken, and BRU may know that too, I bet.
Additional terminal infrastructure: yes.
Additional runway infrastructure (be it just the taxiway or also the runway extension): no.
Anyone taking bets this will be the outcome, one that even BRU can live with?

[RoMax]

Do I read that correctly RoMax, that you agree the runway extension is indeed not a very productive piece of infrastructure by itself, but merely a smart way to be able to use the landing runway for departures too, even when it turns out Brussels can indeed not be overflown in future too?

A runway extension will be mainly a tool to improve the spreading of flights and has no other influence on capacity compared to just the taxiway extension.
It's difficult to put one option before the other as it will always impact people no matter what. The neutral answer is that research (mainly by the KU Leuven) shows that the option with the runway extension impacts fewer people than the option with only the taxiway extension.

One very important remark that has to be made. In terms of 'heavily impacted' people, the impact of noise has almost halved since 2000 and even with the expected growth, this will again half by 2040 (with one option having a more positive impact than the other). Smarter procedures and newer aircraft types will have a very important role in that.
Of course there are many ways to interpret noise impact and the actual perception by people living near the airport and flight routes can be very different from the numbers. Not because they are wrong or want to be negative by definition, but because the impact of noise remains to a certain extent a subjective matter.

BTW, in all fairness, but BRU is saturated 2 times a day for about an hour in my own observation.
Spreading new flights over the rest of the (empty) day will go a long way in politicians avoiding having to make any choice at all. Knowing how things are normally solved in Belgium whenever they are politically blocked, that may be the most likely result. Additional terminal infrastructure: yes. Additional runway infrastructure (be it just the taxiway or also the runway extension): no.
Anyone taking bets this will be the outcome?

The current maximum capacity of BRU is 74 flight movements per hour (arrivals and departures combined) that is also more or less the current peak hour demand. Yes that means that for most of the day, that peak capacity is not needed. That's something that most airports need to cope with. There are very very few airports that can fill their day so well as LHR can (simply because the whole world wants to fly there, no matter the times). With terminal infrastructure you never built for the absolute peak, you sweat the assets during the biggest peaks of the year. However with airfield capacity (stands, runways, taxiways) you simply can't do that without refusing business in the peaks (you have the capacity or not, you can't put an aircraft where there is no place for it). For some airports that may work, simply because the local demand is so dominant (e.g LHR). For others, that just means that airlines go to other airports where they can operate in the attractive peaks and BRU is surrounded by though competitors and for non O&D based routes, there are even more large, medium-sized and even small hubs very willing to take BRU's overflow traffic.

So although the peak capacity in itself won't be needed for the whole day, you can't simply say that BRU doesn't need it. Optimising the use of the current runway/taxiway system can probably delivery an increase to 80 movements/hour (and important, increasing capacity in ALL weather conditions as in the current situation, BRU's capacity dramatically drops in alternate runway mode in bad weather conditions, causing delays by definition), but beyond 2025 that will no longer be sufficient for the peaks and that simply means damaging the hub position of BRU. In that, you probably won't need all the additional pier/gate capacity either and even the commercial development of the airport might be impacted by a lower competitiveness of BRU as a 'hub'. I intentially say hub, but that doesn't mean that with a Eurowings scenario (because I can see those comments coming as well) the peak demand will be significantly lower. Especially as although Lufthansa doesn't say much about SN becoming Eurowings, partly, or not, they do say BRU will continue to play 'a hub role' (whatever that might mean in a Eurowings scenario). Of course it adds uncertainty, but you can't base long term masterplanning on such uncertainties.

Does that mean that you invest in a runway and/or taxiway extension only for that peak? No it doesn't. Also outside the peaks this will allow a more ideal mixed-use operation of the parallel runways and although indeed 07R-25L is not ideally positioned to avoid populated areas in case of departures from 25L, it can reduce the noise impact on areas now by definition always impacted by 25R departures. Dual-use 25L and 25R departures (even though purely from a capacity point of view it is not necessary) and especially with a longer 25L can enable a much better spread of flights. But again that's also a trad-off that needs to be made, do you want to impact certain areas very heavilly or do you want to impact a broader area but with a lower 'average' impact.

Again, BAC is offering the options, indicating the necessity of an increased peak capacity, but it can't be BAC making these decisions in the end.

[PjVangerven]

It might be too simplistic, but why not extend the taxiway at the other side (south) of the runway. This means that the planes cross the runway while taxiing, but that is very common on a lot of airports. Then no houses will need to dissapear?

[BRUpilot]

It might be too simplistic, but why not extend the taxiway at the other side (south) of the runway. This means that the planes cross the runway while taxiing, but that is very common on a lot of airports. Then no houses will need to dissapear?

What about the asylum centre and its surrounding buildings? There's no room between them and the runway for a taxiway...

[PjVangerven]

I think it is easier to move the asylum center than expropriate citizens (at least politically).

[Airbus A330]

Hello!
I don't know how concrete are the images of the master plan at this stage but it seems that the Lufthansa Technik hangar would be demolished for a "monobloc" cargo area (current BRUcargo on West side) & the new DHL building(s) (on East side)

[Yuqu12]

Hello!
I don't know how concrete are the images of the master plan at this stage but it seems that the Lufthansa Technik hangar would be demolished for a "monobloc" cargo area (current BRUcargo on West side) & the new DHL building(s) (on East side)

The DHL building is build, no idea how the inside is looking. More to the military airport, a new building is being constructed, but not for DHL. And given the fact that LH takes over SN, it doesn't seem so likely that they will allow their building to be sacrificed for DHL with their increased influence (just my opinion/prediction)

[sn26567]

Going through the departure hall around noon, I saw stickers on a wooden palisade saying that the Starbucks café would soon be rebuilt at its former place. Good news for the coffee addicts!

[luchtzak]

Brussels Airport has designed the spotters area, for 2040 ....

https://www.aviation24.be/airports/brussel ... area-2040/

[Inquirer]

In an interesting opinion in De Morgen, several spokesmen of Flemish action groups explain in a clear and fairly facts based way their main objectives against the expansion plans of the airport.

http://www.demorgen.be/opinie/brussels- ... -b29ddcbc/

A few questions I'd like to learn more on:
why does BRU not have a 'proefdraaihangar' (I suppose this is a covered enginetest site???)?
Why does the new expansion plan aims to avoid Brussels city as much as it can?
Why does BRU refuse to draw up a MER?

Seems like all BRU proposes in their 'new' plans has been discussed with officials 2 years ago and all got refused, and this is nothing but a PR offensive to try to get ta second attempt at it?

[teddybAIR]

It might be too simplistic, but why not extend the taxiway at the other side (south) of the runway. This means that the planes cross the runway while taxiing, but that is very common on a lot of airports. Then no houses will need to dissapear?

1) safety: why would you build-in runway crossings by design if it is as easy to avoid them
2) capacity

[sn26567]

Why does the new expansion plan aims to avoid Brussels city as much as it can?

That seems logic to me: to inconvenience the lowest possible number of people. And then help the peopple who are still in flight paths to insumate their homes or move elsewhere. That is what is done at most airports in the world. And Liège is a good example for that.

But the actual policy of sharing the burden is the best way to inconvenience a maximum of people and get a maximum number of lawsuits.

[lumumba]

Why does the new expansion plan aims to avoid Brussels city as much as it can?

That seems logic to me: to inconvenience the lowest possible number of people. And then help the peopple who are still in flight paths to insumate their homes or move elsewhere. That is what is done at most airports in the world. And Liège is a good example for that.

But the actual policy of sharing the burden is the best way to inconvenience a maximum of people and get a maximum number of lawsuits.

This is so really true....

[luchtzak]

Plans for 2017: https://www.aviation24.be/airports/brussel ... ntiemaker/

Albeit already talked about in this topic.

[BRUpilot]

Plans for 2017: https://www.aviation24.be/airports/brussel ... ntiemaker/

Albeit already talked about in this topic.

The redevelopment of Pier B... what's that about?
I've heard sth about a new duty free walkthrough to enter the pier, but that's already finished.

[Established02]

Drop-off Area https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... 401&type=3
Demolition https://www.facebook.com/pg/Brussels-Ai ... 6710855372

[Sonho1985]

Why don't they put it on the Grand Place of Brussels?
Better bring your hiking shoes when flying from BRU...