Brussels region noise regulation

[Crosswind]

Now let's be fair, Sean. Flanders has most of the jobs at the airport (WAL: 2400, BRU: 3000, VL:14600, data from Brussels Airport); Flanders has most of the economic benefits; Flanders represents probably also most of the Belgian travellers. Why wouldn't Flanders have most of the noise as well, in proportion with the benefits? The "hautain" Brusseleirs have also the right to have a quiet night.

What bothers me the most (reading an older post on p. 15): if we follow this reasoning, this means that if more Brussels inhabitants worked at the airport, if more economic benefits would go to Brussels, if more passengers from Brussels used the airport .... there would be less of a problem (!!!) I saw the same rhetoric in the comments of a newspaper (in short: it's not our airport; if it was, it would be another story)

Yes, and no (as usual !). What would you do if you never got something attractive but, in lieu, you received day by day, all the garbage from it ? You would complain, and it's purely natural. That was the first point. Now imagine a neighbour, farmer, who sends over your hedge all his old pig manure under the pretext that your garden is beside his fields ? You would complain again. That was the second point.

Purely Belgium sh*t.

[Fairfax]

Now let's be fair, Sean. Flanders has most of the jobs at the airport (WAL: 2400, BRU: 3000, VL:14600, data from Brussels Airport); Flanders has most of the economic benefits; Flanders represents probably also most of the Belgian travellers. Why wouldn't Flanders have most of the noise as well, in proportion with the benefits? The "hautain" Brusseleirs have also the right to have a quiet night.

What bothers me the most (reading an older post on p. 15): if we follow this reasoning, this means that if more Brussels inhabitants worked at the airport, if more economic benefits would go to Brussels, if more passengers from Brussels used the airport .... there would be less of a problem (!!!) I saw the same rhetoric in the comments of a newspaper (in short: it's not our airport; if it was, it would be another story)

Yes, and no (as usual !). What would you do if you never got something attractive but, in lieu, you received day by day, all the garbage from it ? You would complain, and it's purely natural. That was the first point. Now imagine a neighbour, farmer, who sends over your hedge all his old pig manure under the pretext that your garden is beside his fields ? You would complain again. That was the second point.

Purely Belgium sh*t.

Really? Any idea why only +/- 3000 Brussels residents work at the airport? (at least we could give them a job and are happy to employ them. We will hire more, if they satisfy the conditions). You know that this rhetoric could be turned around? Traffic to from Brussels on motorways, water quality of the Senne, Euro-stadium, etc ... In fact Brussels is in a really bad bargaining position here and opened Pandora's box, although they still deny it for themselves.

[Crosswind]

Really? Any idea why only +/- 3000 Brussels residents work at the airport? (at least we could give them a job and are happy to employ them. We will hire more, if they satisfy the conditions). You know that this rhetoric could be turned around? Traffic to from Brussels on motorways, water quality of the Senne, Euro-stadium, etc ... In fact Brussels is in a really bad bargaining position here and opened Pandora's box, although they still deny it for themselves.

Ok. About 3000 people living in Brussels get a job by Brussels Airport (by the way, all are low skilled) on a total of 20000 direct jobs. Do I really need to translate on percentage figures ? In 1990's, massive investments done by... the federal (I paid for that) before the sale to a private company. Actual returns ? To Flanders, mainly (BNB report, 2014).

Now let's talk about Brussels. Every day, around 340000 people enter the city to work from which approximately 240000 solely from Flanders Regio. Do you really represent yourself this huge amount of people using infrastructures, water, warming, toilets, producting garbage ? Who pay for that ? Me, mainly, and since a long time... Return ? All to Flanders because those fellow workers pay their taxes where they lives. So please stop with the pollution coming from Brussels because it's a pure senseless argument.

[pilot_gent]

As well as Brussels REgio has the right to fine all aircraft overflying his terriroty (the dB limit is really soft, by the way). But is this a solution ?

I hope all airlines refuse to pay the fines (like they did in the past). Just imagine you are driving along a road which has a sign with a speed limit of 70. Yet everyday you receive fines because you were driving 70 km/h... Don't fine companies that just follow procedures laid down by a governmental institute...

About the noise itself, my opinion. Instead of the endless discussions "about who gets what noise", the discussion should be "how can we reduce the noise":
- invest in insulation
- procedures to reduce the noise made by aircraft (an aircraft using a long runway with headwind --> less thrust = less noise).
- review ATC procedures (e.g. to allow an earlier left turn for departures on 25R)
- etc

[quixoticguide]

In a normal country the best solution is to avoid the most people by flying over less populated areas.

But the main problem is that the Flemish can't vote for the politicians in Brussels and vice versa.

[Crosswind]

As well as Brussels REgio has the right to fine all aircraft overflying his terriroty (the dB limit is really soft, by the way). But is this a solution ?

I hope all airlines refuse to pay the fines (like they did in the past). Just imagine you are driving along a road which has a sign with a speed limit of 70. Yet everyday you receive fines because you were driving 70 km/h... Don't fine companies that just follow procedures laid down by a governmental institute...

It's a very risky choice for them, 'cause the bill wil grow every day, and they know for sure that, soon or later, they will be condemned to pay, hence the tax is completely legal.

For the rest of your props I do fully agree.

[flightlover]

Everyone defending these new noise regulations should look up to what it compares.

45 to 55 dB comes in under the noise made by conversations. So it is going to be pretty quiet anyway.
When your house is not insulated enough to keep out that kind of noise and you complain about it is short off criminal neglect. If you want to sleep with an opened window, living in the city is a bad idea.

But it always comes down to the same thing: people are not responsible enough to think about their own responsibilities.

[Fairfax]

Really? Any idea why only +/- 3000 Brussels residents work at the airport? (at least we could give them a job and are happy to employ them. We will hire more, if they satisfy the conditions). You know that this rhetoric could be turned around? Traffic to from Brussels on motorways, water quality of the Senne, Euro-stadium, etc ... In fact Brussels is in a really bad bargaining position here and opened Pandora's box, although they still deny it for themselves.

Ok. About 3000 people living in Brussels get a job by Brussels Airport (by the way, all are low skilled) on a total of 20000 direct jobs. Do I really need to translate on percentage figures ? In 1990's, massive investments done by... the federal (I paid for that) before the sale to a private company. Actual returns ? To Flanders, mainly (BNB report, 2014).

Now let's talk about Brussels. Every day, around 340000 people enter the city to work from which approximately 240000 solely from Flanders Regio. Do you really represent yourself this huge amount of people using infrastructures, water, warming, toilets, producting garbage ? Who pay for that ? Me, mainly, and since a long time... Return ? All to Flanders because those fellow workers pay their taxes where they lives. So please stop with the pollution coming from Brussels because it's a pure senseless argument.

Imagine that these 240K stay away (purely hypothetical) and there are no taxes to be levied, but that's off topic. Pandora! - this will backfire and Brussels has not the best bargaining position since they produce ... nothing. Your politicians know this. But again this is off-topic.

[lumumba]

In a normal country the best solution is to avoid the most people by flying over less populated areas.

But the main problem is that the Flemish can't vote for the politicians in Brussels and vice versa.

That's a good point.

[pilot_gent]

As well as Brussels REgio has the right to fine all aircraft overflying his terriroty (the dB limit is really soft, by the way). But is this a solution ?

I hope all airlines refuse to pay the fines (like they did in the past). Just imagine you are driving along a road which has a sign with a speed limit of 70. Yet everyday you receive fines because you were driving 70 km/h... Don't fine companies that just follow procedures laid down by a governmental institute...

It's a very risky choice for them, 'cause the bill wil grow every day, and they know for sure that, soon or later, they will be condemned to pay, hence the tax is completely legal.

For the rest of your props I do fully agree.

Risky yes, but less risky than paying it and making losses from the start. Profit margins on flights are so low these days, the entire profit of the flight is lost by paying the fine.

[Fairfax]

As well as Brussels REgio has the right to fine all aircraft overflying his terriroty (the dB limit is really soft, by the way). But is this a solution ?

I hope all airlines refuse to pay the fines (like they did in the past). Just imagine you are driving along a road which has a sign with a speed limit of 70. Yet everyday you receive fines because you were driving 70 km/h... Don't fine companies that just follow procedures laid down by a governmental institute...

It's a very risky choice for them, 'cause the bill wil grow every day, and they know for sure that, soon or later, they will be condemned to pay, hence the tax is completely legal.

For the rest of your props I do fully agree.

What if the Flemish allowance towards the Federal government is cut by the part that Brussels receives from the same Federal government and used to compensate the fines for those companies? as I said - very bad bargaining position towards the next elections.

[sn-remember]

Unbelievable... sad politics theater... There is no such debate @ AMS although this is also a high density populated area!

You are wrong, those surprising Dutch manage to have significantly less noise impact at AMS which is 3 times more busy than BRU ... Order of nuisance magnitude delta around 5 ?
And there is a constant policy (and therefore a debate) to control noise nuisance present and future WITHOUT hampering too much the business requirements.
To be fair, AMS is better located than BRU ito urban environment, which is not very surprising.
..
Excerpts from the attached doc:
"The statutory norm for the maximum number of people experiencing severe noise disturbance is 180,000. In the operating year 2015, the number of people experiencing severe noise disturbance as a result of the actual noise impact was calculated to be 119,000. "
..
BTW is a similar noise amplitude map - available for bru ? I can try to find one if I have time ..

http://www.annualreportschiphol.com/res ... ults/noise

[Fairfax]

As well as Brussels REgio has the right to fine all aircraft overflying his terriroty (the dB limit is really soft, by the way). But is this a solution ?

I hope all airlines refuse to pay the fines (like they did in the past). Just imagine you are driving along a road which has a sign with a speed limit of 70. Yet everyday you receive fines because you were driving 70 km/h... Don't fine companies that just follow procedures laid down by a governmental institute...

It's a very risky choice for them, 'cause the bill wil grow every day, and they know for sure that, soon or later, they will be condemned to pay, hence the tax is completely legal.

For the rest of your props I do fully agree.

You know what Crosswind? We’ll give in. We’ll totally follow the proposal of the Brussels government. We’ll even try to figure out a way to shift 25L to the east and we will – of course- pay for everything ourselves. But do note that in this case the airport will become “Flanders International” and will only serve our purposes without any benefits for Brussels. A thrice-daily autocar from the Grande Place to Charleroi/Brussels-south will be sufficient for the needs of “our” capital.
If we start tomorrow, we could have a North Sea airport within a few years (we have the know-how and means with Deme and De Nul) connected to Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges and Mechelen by high speed rail. When it’s ready we’ll transform Brussels airport into a big park and forest. Free entrance from the east side, but taxed from the west side. I’ll talk to my MP this afternoon.

[Crosswind]

Imagine that these 240K stay away (purely hypothetical) and there are no taxes to be levied, but that's off topic. Pandora! - this will backfire and Brussels has not the best bargaining position since they produce ... nothing. Your politicians know this. But again this is off-topic.

Question is not to know if those people could be replaced by others (such a question is by far more difficult to answer that you seems to think) but in which proportion they should participate in the global effort of the city to fix the correlated problems (pollution, infrastructure, etc).

What if the Flemish allowance towards the Federal government is cut by the part that Brussels receives from the same Federal government and used to compensate the fines for those companies? as I said - very bad bargaining position towards the next elections.

If Flemish allowance does this, it's the start of an end. And everybody has a great chance to loose a lot.

You know what Crosswind? We’ll give in. We’ll totally follow the proposal of the Brussels government. We’ll even try to figure out a way to shift 25L to the east and we will – of course- pay for everything ourselves. But do note that in this case the airport will become “Flanders International” and will only serve our purposes without any benefits for Brussels. A thrice-daily autocar from the Grande Place to Charleroi/Brussels-south will be sufficient for the needs of “our” capital.
If we start tomorrow, we could have a North Sea airport within a few years (we have the know-how and means with Deme and De Nul) connected to Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges and Mechelen by high speed rail. When it’s ready we’ll transform Brussels airport into a big park and forest. Free entrance from the east side, but taxed from the west side. I’ll talk to my MP this afternoon.

Again, you seems to choose a brutal mean for something evident : each part of this country should receive their counter-part in a balanced way. What is not the case when we talk about Brussels Airport nuisance vs advantages. Of course you can opt for a kind of "hard way", but Flanders is completely, as well as Brussels and Wallonia, dependent of third parties and has a lot to loose by launching a real fight.

[lumumba]

Imagine that these 240K stay away (purely hypothetical) and there are no taxes to be levied, but that's off topic. Pandora! - this will backfire and Brussels has not the best bargaining position since they produce ... nothing. Your politicians know this. But again this is off-topic.

Question is not to know if those people could be replaced by others (such a question is by far more difficult to answer that you seems to think) but in which proportion they should participate in the global effort of the city to fix the correlated problems (pollution, infrastructure, etc).

What if the Flemish allowance towards the Federal government is cut by the part that Brussels receives from the same Federal government and used to compensate the fines for those companies? as I said - very bad bargaining position towards the next elections.

If Flemish allowance does this, it's the start of an end. And everybody has a great chance to loose a lot.

You know what Crosswind? We’ll give in. We’ll totally follow the proposal of the Brussels government. We’ll even try to figure out a way to shift 25L to the east and we will – of course- pay for everything ourselves. But do note that in this case the airport will become “Flanders International” and will only serve our purposes without any benefits for Brussels. A thrice-daily autocar from the Grande Place to Charleroi/Brussels-south will be sufficient for the needs of “our” capital.
If we start tomorrow, we could have a North Sea airport within a few years (we have the know-how and means with Deme and De Nul) connected to Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges and Mechelen by high speed rail. When it’s ready we’ll transform Brussels airport into a big park and forest. Free entrance from the east side, but taxed from the west side. I’ll talk to my MP this afternoon.

Again, you seems to choose a brutal mean for something evident : each part of this country should receive their counter-part in a balanced way. What is not the case when we talk about Brussels Airport nuisance vs advantages. Of course you can opt for a kind of "hard way", but Flanders is completely, as well as Brussels and Wallonia, dependent of third parties and has a lot to loose by launching a real fight.

Thx a good and balanced summary....

[Desert Rat]

I hope all airlines refuse to pay the fines (like they did in the past). Just imagine you are driving along a road which has a sign with a speed limit of 70. Yet everyday you receive fines because you were driving 70 km/h... Don't fine companies that just follow procedures laid down by a governmental institute...

It's a very risky choice for them, 'cause the bill wil grow every day, and they know for sure that, soon or later, they will be condemned to pay, hence the tax is completely legal.

For the rest of your props I do fully agree.

You know what Crosswind? We’ll give in. We’ll totally follow the proposal of the Brussels government. We’ll even try to figure out a way to shift 25L to the east and we will – of course- pay for everything ourselves. But do note that in this case the airport will become “Flanders International” and will only serve our purposes without any benefits for Brussels. A thrice-daily autocar from the Grande Place to Charleroi/Brussels-south will be sufficient for the needs of “our” capital.
If we start tomorrow, we could have a North Sea airport within a few years (we have the know-how and means with Deme and De Nul) connected to Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges and Mechelen by high speed rail. When it’s ready we’ll transform Brussels airport into a big park and forest. Free entrance from the east side, but taxed from the west side. I’ll talk to my MP this afternoon.

A good news at least...but don't build the airport too close to the shore, water is raising fast...

[Crosswind]

A good news at least...but don't build the airport too close to the shore, water is raising fast...

Oh, take it easy. One can understand an epidermic reaction from people hearing for years from their representatives that Brussels is the one and only ugly duckling.

What is admirable in this country is that, nevertheless where the money is since its beginning in 1830, in Wallonia, Brussels or Flanders, each stands others "by the chin" and needs them to keep his position onto the chess game. Furthermore, some people have a short memory, and should remember where they come from, and why they benefits now from a performant industry tool. Without Belgium and effort from everybody for decades, no "Haven van Antwerpen", no railtracks, no navigation channel, no Zeebrugge, no "Brussels Airport", no industry transfer, no autostrade, no, no...

Things will find a solution, as usual, because there is no alternative. There will be less noise above Brussels, no jobs cuts, and everybody will be happy. Till the next "we are the best" syndrom (from any part of the country).

[sn-remember]

As an aside, I must state that I disapprove the way this debate is conducted by some on this tread and some in the political sphere ... although not everybody thanksfully !
1. It's not relevant to distinguish which human category is impacted by the nuisance. A human is a human whatever his/her race, religion, culture, wealth and should be treated equally. This 'ethnic' divide in the politics is rotten.
2. It's not relevant to differenciate among workers origin at the airport to conclude which patterns of air trafic nuisance to adopt. The airport would employ an all Indian manpower, what would you say then he ?
3. It's not relevant to compare which category is most using the airport facility either .. Indeed lets think and act as if we were all the same 'colour' or value ?
..
Those types of arguments are simply insane (and unacceptable in these days and age .. me think) !
I say there must be an undiscriminating way to handle the nuisance issue around the airport, and no, I do NOT want to check the 'colour' of the people bothered (or not) in their sleep.
EDIT Grammar issue

[Fairfax]

It's a very risky choice for them, 'cause the bill wil grow every day, and they know for sure that, soon or later, they will be condemned to pay, hence the tax is completely legal.

For the rest of your props I do fully agree.

You know what Crosswind? We’ll give in. We’ll totally follow the proposal of the Brussels government. We’ll even try to figure out a way to shift 25L to the east and we will – of course- pay for everything ourselves. But do note that in this case the airport will become “Flanders International” and will only serve our purposes without any benefits for Brussels. A thrice-daily autocar from the Grande Place to Charleroi/Brussels-south will be sufficient for the needs of “our” capital.
If we start tomorrow, we could have a North Sea airport within a few years (we have the know-how and means with Deme and De Nul) connected to Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges and Mechelen by high speed rail. When it’s ready we’ll transform Brussels airport into a big park and forest. Free entrance from the east side, but taxed from the west side. I’ll talk to my MP this afternoon.

A good news at least...but don't build the airport too close to the shore, water is raising fast...

We have a project for that; just google "Vlaamse Baaien".

[Fairfax]

A good news at least...but don't build the airport too close to the shore, water is raising fast...

Oh, take it easy. One can understand an epidermic reaction from people hearing for years from their representatives that Brussels is the one and only ugly duckling.

What is admirable in this country is that, nevertheless where the money is since its beginning in 1830, in Wallonia, Brussels or Flanders, each stands others "by the chin" and needs them to keep his position onto the chess game. Furthermore, some people have a short memory, and should remember where they come from, and why they benefits now from a performant industry tool. Without Belgium and effort from everybody for decades, no "Haven van Antwerpen", no railtracks, no navigation channel, no Zeebrugge, no "Brussels Airport", no industry transfer, no autostrade, no, no...

Things will find a solution, as usual, because there is no alternative. There will be less noise above Brussels, no jobs cuts, and everybody will be happy. Till the next "we are the best" syndrom (from any part of the country).

Short memory. Right. I know that some people try to re-write history but this is off-topic. Do know that - seeing the reactions in Flemish newspapers - Brussels really made a bad appearance and the perception of Brussels by Flemings is going down the drain. If that is the way that Brussels wants to go - by all means. I will no longer post in this forum, but I know enough now.