Wathelet dispersion plan for Brussels Airport

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Locked
Passenger
Posts: 6479
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Wathelet dispersion plan for Brussels Airport

Post by Passenger » 11 Apr 2014, 18:35

Wathelet wants that the night curfew at BRU is extended from 06h00 till 07h00, and he also wants that cargo flights and low cost flights move from BRU to a "more suitable airport".

The chief editor of Knack has put this cynical article online:
http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/verki ... 38015.html

Knack is, for sure, not an extremist Flemish magazine. So I'm just wondering: do French speaking aviation people also think that Wathelet is talking nonsense?


(edited : title amended)
Last edited by Passenger on 01 Aug 2014, 14:23, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
RoMax
Posts: 4424
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 16:32

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by RoMax » 11 Apr 2014, 18:55

Passenger wrote:"more suitable airport".
I believe he said "specialised airports" which is quite a difference. CRL: LCC/charter, LGG: Cargo, etc. don't mean they are more suitable than BRU.

But about the whole idea of Wathelet...simply nonsense. Taking away traffic at an airport which is not even close to its maximum amount of flights (and even saw decreasing air traffic movements over the past years instead of an increase) because of some people complaining about noise... :roll:

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36092
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by sn26567 » 11 Apr 2014, 19:04

What I hear from Wathelet himself is that he did not create the current plan, but that he only implemented the plan devised by all the parties in 2010 and 2012.

What I see (and hear) in this plan is that more people are inconvenienced now (with large densely populated parts of Brussels overflown by aircraft) than previously (with less populated areas overflown by aircraft). Do we have to wait until a plane crashes into Brussels (like a few years ago in Amsterdam) before changing the routes?

The ideal solution? There is none: there will always be concerned citizens, airline people, atcos, politicians, ... to complain.

The best solution from an aviation point of view? Selection of runways dictated by direction of wind and then shortest possible route.

The best solution from a population point of view? Selection of routes flying over the least populated areas, taking into account safety.

And the ultimate solution, probably too costly, would be to have an airport further away from Brussels with a high-speed link to the city.
André
ex Sabena #26567

Acid-drop
Posts: 2648
Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 00:00
Location: Liège, BE
Contact:

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by Acid-drop » 11 Apr 2014, 21:51

In a normal country without a language stress you would simply move the airport away or simply use routes with the least population impacted. Just basic common sense...

Whatelet has always strongly defended BRU and Brussels Airlines. The last msg is probably not made to contradict that.
More intersting : Anciaux agree with most Wathelet ideas.
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.

User avatar
RoMax
Posts: 4424
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 16:32

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by RoMax » 11 Apr 2014, 23:12

Acid-drop wrote:In a normal country without a language stress you would simply move the airport away or simply use routes with the least population impacted. Just basic common sense...
Using routes that have the lowest noise-to-ground impact in combination with simply common sense and safety regarding that routes: indeed. But I wouldn't call moving the airport away simple or common sense. At least not because BRU is not restricted in it's growth (still quite some room for growth with the current airside infrastructure) and not actually in the city (so that's a different case as what many airports in other countries experience(d) which resulted in a new airport further away from the city).

cnc
Posts: 1325
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:14

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by cnc » 12 Apr 2014, 01:42

Acid-drop wrote:In a normal country without a language stress you would simply move the airport away or simply use routes with the least population impacted. Just basic common sense...
right! look at the LHR saga... its not that simple, language difference or not

sean1982
Posts: 3183
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by sean1982 » 12 Apr 2014, 11:50

RoMax wrote:
Passenger wrote:"more suitable airport".
I believe he said "specialised airports" which is quite a difference. CRL: LCC/charter, LGG: Cargo, etc. don't mean they are more suitable than BRU.

But about the whole idea of Wathelet...simply nonsense. Taking away traffic at an airport which is not even close to its maximum amount of flights (and even saw decreasing air traffic movements over the past years instead of an increase) because of some people complaining about noise... :roll:
Well fortunatly for us, politicians cannot choose which airline operates at which airport. At least that is 1 thing they can't f*ck up

User avatar
Bruspotter
Posts: 2006
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: (Antwerp/Belgium)
Contact:

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by Bruspotter » 12 Apr 2014, 12:06

Hi

-down the drain- with the dude just like most of the current government ... ;)

It's clear that with 'a more suitable airport' he wants to attract traffic to his own 'wallonia' airports (not that there is something wrong with that ... but not this way and not only in his mind his selfish idea's ...), Charleroi (low cost) and Liège (cargo).

Btw moving to 'another' NEW airport is way to costly (even as an aviation passionate I would even not be happy to contribute my money to that simply because it's absolute nonsense) and total bull****. You don't have to be running away from the problem but solving it instead of rusting their asses for already 20 years ... if it wans't because of electoral issues there would have been a government solving this issue but everyone is just to damn chicken to take a decission, I will certainly not vote anymore for anyone with the 'hands-off' mentality, all I can say.

Have a look at other countries and airports in Europe, there the problem is AT LEAST as big (or bigger) as in BRU and they manage the problem there as well ... AND they florish ... so where is the problem actually ... oh yeah ... exactly ... that they listen to these few little people who always and always complain about truly everything like it unfortunatly is in our, nowadays, non-tolerant and 'verzuurde' society unfortunatly (and then I'm not talking about the noise of aircraft alone but also about many other things (child-chrèces, playing grounds ...)..

Greets,

User avatar
Established02
Posts: 1594
Joined: 16 Oct 2002, 00:00

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by Established02 » 12 Apr 2014, 14:17

Bruspotter wrote:moving to 'another' NEW airport is way to costly
Even if money is not an issue, good luck in finding a suitable location.

No space for a new 4-runway airport anywhere in Flanders, unless we go for a Chep Lap Kok concept on the North Sea or the Westerschelde.

Building it in Wallonia would unavoidably put this new airport even closer to CRL and LGG, creating a tremendous overlap.

So we're kind of destined to keep BRU where it is.

User avatar
Bruspotter
Posts: 2006
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: (Antwerp/Belgium)
Contact:

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by Bruspotter » 12 Apr 2014, 14:58

Hello,

Established02:
Even if money is not an issue, good luck in finding a suitable location.

No space for a new 4-runway airport anywhere in Flanders, unless we go for a Chep Lap Kok concept on the North Sea or the Westerschelde.

Building it in Wallonia would unavoidably put this new airport even closer to CRL and LGG, creating a tremendous overlap.

So we're kind of destined to keep BRU where it is.
Indeed if that is the case (which I can't see differently) the only place is in the norhtsea (and the location is not even close to 'almost' attractive for a country like Belgium , the majority of the people travelling from BRU comes from far away from the coast. Putting it in 'Wallonia' is not even an option for me, why you ask ..., Well simple ... there is not so much space that 'allows' good operation of airport (must be relativly flat area) and there are not so much spots in Wallonia where the surfice allows a flat area the size of an airport (unless you are planning to 'dig out' whole mountains). Leaving it only to be where there ARE already 2 big airports, CRL and LGG. So no use of that ...

Besides, another thing, the only fact that BRU is where it is now is being close to Brussels town center which (apart from the Belgians departing on holiday) is in fact for both travellers and business people THE reason to fly to BRU anyway, otherwise they would just fly in from just anywhere across europe or Belgium...

So it is just the fact that BRU is so close to the city center (just like Antwerp airport is, and London City for instance in London, and many other exaples available troughout the world) that makes it attractive to tourists/travellers/business people and for a number of people the only reason to visit (if they where to be arriving far away from touristic activities many of them might not even consider/find it worth doing a detour to visit Belgium, after all ... ).

So if some politicians can't even see that ... some of them might be even more stupid then I already think they are (forgive me that I think this but I really do so)..

Greets,

BRU
Posts: 199
Joined: 06 Jan 2013, 15:35

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by BRU » 12 Apr 2014, 15:06

sean1982 wrote:
RoMax wrote:
Passenger wrote:"more suitable airport".
I believe he said "specialised airports" which is quite a difference. CRL: LCC/charter, LGG: Cargo, etc. don't mean they are more suitable than BRU.

But about the whole idea of Wathelet...simply nonsense. Taking away traffic at an airport which is not even close to its maximum amount of flights (and even saw decreasing air traffic movements over the past years instead of an increase) because of some people complaining about noise... :roll:
Well fortunatly for us, politicians cannot choose which airline operates at which airport. At least that is 1 thing they can't f*ck up
But they can make life difficult at an airport (curfews, noise limitations, fines brussels region, ... ) and chase away airlines. But very narrow minded thinking that all these airlines leaving BRU would end up in CRL or LGG...

sean1982
Posts: 3183
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by sean1982 » 12 Apr 2014, 15:13

Indeed, knowing FR they would pull out of BRU AND CRL if the government would play such tricks and move capacity to cologne, Eindhoven and Lille.

And what with out belgian charter airlines who's big first wave is before 07.00? These regulations would drive BRU (and SN too) to bankruptcy.
Wathelet proves once again that he does not live on planet earth.

Inquirer
Posts: 2019
Joined: 14 Feb 2012, 14:30

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by Inquirer » 12 Apr 2014, 15:30

sean1982 wrote: And what with out belgian charter airlines who's big first wave is before 07.00? These regulations would drive BRU (and SN too) to bankruptcy.
Not if they are somehow allowed to keep using their "night" operations, similar to how DHL was allowed to keep operating all of its night flights once the original night curfew was introduced at BRU several years ago.

If the same 'soft' method is used to also extend the night hours this time round, then they effectively will prevent anybody new from basing his planes at BRU, unless he wants to start off with a significant efficiency handicap and only start flying as from 7 AM (at the very best, maybe even 8 or later, who knows when there are slots are going to be available then?)

No idea if this effect is indeed another aim of the proposal, but just saying that Wathelet may not be so stupid as he's made to look by some here.

Acid-drop
Posts: 2648
Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 00:00
Location: Liège, BE
Contact:

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by Acid-drop » 12 Apr 2014, 16:26

Dont forget that the most likely goal is to kick away those companies who are causing dumping so big international players, sn included, would live better. Making BRU a big hub. I guess they are trying hard to no see malev story in BRU.
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.

User avatar
Bruspotter
Posts: 2006
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: (Antwerp/Belgium)
Contact:

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by Bruspotter » 12 Apr 2014, 17:21

Hi

Yes as if 'curfews' and 'noise abatment' isn't already one of the strictest in Europe...?
Look at AMS and LHR, it's far worse there then here in BRU ... and saying there are very very quiet periods of the day at BRU (which is almost not the case in neither of the other mentioned airports) so how do they do it there ... or wait... ? Maybe that is just the backworths and selfish mentality of quite some Belgians (sorry I have to say that being one myself but you know this is true for a number of people for sure, of course not all...).

And another aspect of that 'lame' mentality is proven in the lack of will to 'push trough' difficult topics, if they take a decision there will always be a number of people left with 'a bad mood' but it is so for every decision, so make up your mind politicians ... but mind this: it's far from the best time to be 'cutting' in possibilities of carriers at BRU as it is still one of the worst times of the past decades (already better since a few years but if you consider the total flight movements not so very much changed and not to mention the freight wich is even MORE dying out at BRU ... in favour of AMS and LGG it seems recently , both are having an explosive 'booming' of their business...).

So, be carefull what you do is my advice to them.
If you really want to be carefull, do nothing, do nothing pro but also nothing contra, then it still has a chance at least, if they start to restrict things even more, you can 'cross-out' Brussels out of the list of airports with potential to survive in the next 10 years or so...

BY THE WAY - small footnote - the same goes for ANR and OST even more ... they are really on the virge of 'DYING' for real ... unless something happens FAST. Comparing this with LGG and CRL I don't see why in Wallonia it's possible and here not ... hmm well ... maybe I have to admit politicians from over there DO are willing to do something what is good for the region, only wish I could say that from the Flemish region as well ... or yeah ... that's right, they always are being counteracted ...

Greets,

flightlover
Posts: 639
Joined: 12 Aug 2008, 08:26

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by flightlover » 12 Apr 2014, 17:36

Acid-drop wrote:Dont forget that the most likely goal is to kick away those companies who are causing dumping so big international players, sn included, would live better. Making BRU a big hub. I guess they are trying hard to no see malev story in BRU.
In that case they are taking a wrong position on this. Chasing away the cargo carriers is not the way to go to make sure these full fare clients will be more profitable. The steady income freight can provide on less frequent used routes is absolutely necessary to make these routes profitable.

When there are no full freighter or integrator flights at BRU it will not take to long for other services will go as well. If the goal of Whatelet is to protect airport jobs, it is only aimed at those at the French speaking airports.

sean1982
Posts: 3183
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by sean1982 » 12 Apr 2014, 17:52

Inquirer wrote:
sean1982 wrote: And what with out belgian charter airlines who's big first wave is before 07.00? These regulations would drive BRU (and SN too) to bankruptcy.
Not if they are somehow allowed to keep using their "night" operations, similar to how DHL was allowed to keep operating all of its night flights once the original night curfew was introduced at BRU several years ago.

If the same 'soft' method is used to also extend the night hours this time round, then they effectively will prevent anybody new from basing his planes at BRU, unless he wants to start off with a significant efficiency handicap and only start flying as from 7 AM (at the very best, maybe even 8 or later, who knows when there are slots are going to be available then?)

No idea if this effect is indeed another aim of the proposal, but just saying that Wathelet may not be so stupid as he's made to look by some here.
You cannot make one set of rules for one and another for another.
That's one easy win for the european comission away.
No matter how much that would be the wet dream of "some" here.

Inquirer
Posts: 2019
Joined: 14 Feb 2012, 14:30

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by Inquirer » 12 Apr 2014, 18:06

What different set of rules do you see?

Currently the night hours at BRU end at 6AM and the number of nightflights is legally limited at 16,000 if I am not mistaken (which accidentally was the number needed to allow DLH to continue their operations as they were when the night hours were introduced).

In the new plan the night time in BRU ends at 7 o clock, yet if they simultaneously also re-calculate the number of nightflights allowed in order to include of all those who currently operate between 6AM and 7AM and will thus also become nightflights under the new rule, there's only ONE set of new rules, AND it does indeed put a brake on expansion.

Just saying that some politicians are not to be underestimated and there may be much more than meets the eye at first! Or am I just too suspicious?

sean1982
Posts: 3183
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by sean1982 » 13 Apr 2014, 05:13

It will put a brake on expansion indeed, BUT not only from LCC carriers but also future expansion from JAF, FQ, SN and any future alliance carrier that is willing to have an early or late departure out of BRU!! They will favour one of the other big hubs around us. If you think that that is good for our country, our economy or current ops at BRU, then you need help.

Imagine, belgium's national airport, the ONLY one in europe that would "open" for day operations at 7 am! Just because some french speaking politicians THINK it will make their airport bigger. What a fool we would make of ourselves as a country, AGAIN! Arm belgie.

BRU
Posts: 199
Joined: 06 Jan 2013, 15:35

Re: Elections 2014: Wathelet wants less flights at BRU

Post by BRU » 13 Apr 2014, 10:28

Sean1982: 100% agree with you. Even b.air would not benefit from this in the long term. Most of taffic, both pax and cargo, will be lost to airports outside Belgium. Only small part will go to other Belgian airports. But overall loss will be significant. Hope he is not serious and that is part of all the other political pre election ideas...

Locked