Brussels region noise regulation

[Established02]

Some B737's are observed requesting full runway length from runway 25R as a standard operating procedure.

I'm in a 738 heading to the further B1 to depart for a 2 hour flight, while this EY A332 is departing from B3 for a 6 hour flight.

[Hue]

Every airline decides indepently how to operate with current noise regulations, fuel prices et cetera. Lots of variables are in play.

[luchtzak]

Coeur Europe, a new action group has filed a complaint against CEO Arnaud Feist and chairman of Brussels Airport Marc De Scheemaecker.

https://www.aviation24.be/airport-action-g ... complaint/

[Acid-drop]

Impressive list

[korvo]

This begins to smell like total sabotage by the PS/Défi, who see BRU as a "Flemish" airport in which they have no interest:
"Het is zover gekomen dat Brussel zelfs niet meer wil overleggen. Ze zeggen gewoon dat het gaan doen"
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2874369
It is up to the Prime Minister now, to defuse the problem, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Bellot (Minister of Mobility, MR) already says that a "federal law" will not solve the issue:
http://www.demorgen.be/binnenland/gelui ... -b08bd0da/
Or maybe, it is - again - a money question?
http://www.demorgen.be/binnenland/-zave ... -b345c018/
Anyhow, if this soap continues, big opportunities will be lost:
http://www.demorgen.be/buitenland/ryana ... -bb97aa63/

[Passenger]

This begins too smell like total sabotage by the PS/Défi, who see BRU as a "Flemish" airport in which they have no interest:
...
It is up to the Prime Minister now, to defuse the problem, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Bellot (Minister of Mobility, MR) already says that a "federal law" will not solve the issue:
http://www.demorgen.be/binnenland/gelui ... -b08bd0da/
...

Quote from the above article in De Morgen: "...De Brusselse regering wil volgens Vervoort vooral dat de federale regering initiatief neemt en werk maakt van "een globale oplossing", met daarin ook de federale vliegwet. Maar die vliegwet alleen zal het probleem niet oplossen, reageerde federaal minister van Mobiliteit François Bellot meteen. "De geluidsnormen zijn al decennia een gewestelijke bevoegdheid", aldus de MR-minister..." Translated in brief: a federal aviation will not solve the problem because noise restrictions are regional competence..."

That's indeed correct: noise restrictions are regional. However, most (but not all) courts accept the principe "lex specialis derogat legi generali": a specialized law prevails to a general law. A new federal aviation law would then prevail to the existing general Brussels environmental law.

Anyway, Bellot (MR) knows he has to make a general aviation law. But apparently he needs some political pressure first, which means for this beloved Belgium: a media show. My prediction: Bellot won't present his aviation law before the ongoing cool-off term of 60 days ends = end of February. Brussels will then announce they're going to collect the fines, and the federal government will react immediately with an official conflict of interest. This call will then start a new cool off period of 60 days, and Bellot will then be forced by Charles Michel to finalize his Aviation Law. By mid April, the federal parliament will vote a new Aviation Law...

[jan_olieslagers]

That sounds like an able and realistic analysis, @Passenger, thanks. As others have said: how deplorable, our beloved Belgium . Those undermining the national solidarity today will be the first to cry if/when things finally break up tomorrow...

[korvo]

That's indeed correct: noise restrictions are regional. However, most (but not all) courts accept the principe "lex specialis derogat legi generali": a specialized law prevails to a general law. A new federal aviation law would then prevail to the existing general Brussels environmental law.

Thanks Passenger - didn't know that; very interesting!

[sn26567]

That's indeed correct: noise restrictions are regional. However, most (but not all) courts accept the principle "lex specialis derogat legi generali": a specialized law prevails to a general law. A new federal aviation law would then prevail to the existing general Brussels environmental law.

A general aviation law issued by the federal government will only be valid for issues in which the Federal government is competent, e.g. air routes. However it will be void for issues that have been attributed to the regions, e.g. noise. Thus it might not solve the problem.

On the other hand, all the arguments described above reflect the point of view of one region. To be fair one should also analyse the arguments of other regions. I don't know them in detail, but they might have valid points. Examples:

http://www.lecho.be/dossier/mobilite/Le ... 3-8327.art

1. The air traffic over Brussels has a cost of 64 million euros in health care, more than in Paris which has two major airports in its vicinity.
2. The Council of State (Conseil d'Etat, Raad van State) has approved the position of the Brussels region.

http://trends.levif.be/economie/entrepr ... 04005.html

The economic fallout is for Flanders, the nuisance for Brussels.

This is not necessarily my own position: I have lived in Neder-over-Heembeek when every night between 1 and 4 am a lot of DHL flights were taking off above my head. I could live with it by closing the windows during the hot summer nights... But an avgeek does not represent the general population!

But at the end of the day, the parties will have to come to some sort of compromise in which they will gain something and lose something.

[sn26567]

A supposedly neutral view from The Brussels Times

The Brussels and Flemish governments continue to clash over the issue of aeroplane noise nuisance at Brussels Airport.

Flanders has raised a conflict of interest against the Brussels Government's decision to enforce compliance with its noise standards.

A meeting upon this subject today (Wednesday) was indeed of no effect for the Conciliation Commission.

The Flemish Minister of Transport confirmed following the meeting, “We have gone backwards with Brussels simply refusing any form of dialogue.” The Brussels government denies this, mentioning that it has been requesting a dialogue for more than two years. The Prime Minister, Charles Michel, will bring all parties together in February to try and find a solution.

The meeting of the Conciliation Commission, the organisation that is pulling together the various governments of the country, emphasised heavily today the thorny issue of noise nuisance.

If no solution is found by February 21st, the conflict of interest procedure will terminate and the Brussels Government's decision to apply noise nuisance standards, with no tolerance margin, will come into full force and effect.

No solution emerged from the meeting. On the contrary, the deadlock between the parties seems greater than previously. The Flemish Minister of Transport, Ben Weyts, is accusing the Brussels government of refusing any form of conciliation. “We are not even ready to sit around the table to reach a consensus,” he commented, stating that he wished to “exhaust all legal means” to counter the Brussels Government’s decision.

The Brussels Minister-President, Rudi Vervoort, and the Minister for the Environment, Céline Fremault, deny that Brussels is refusing all forms of conciliation. They stress, “We have requested conciliation for two years.” In particular the Brussels government would like the federal government to take the initiative and work on “an overall solution” (notably resuming the issue of the law upon air routes, editor's note).

The Prime Minister Charles Michel intends to bring the two governments together swiftly to speak about the matter. The next meeting of the Conciliation Commission is scheduled for February 22nd, that is to say after the “conflict of interest” time limit has expired.

The current objective is to move the meeting forward in an attempt to break the deadlock.

Oscar Schneider
The Brussels Times

[Acid-drop]

This is just a classic left minded quality of life above all vs right minded economy above all. The fact that they come from different regions is almost secondary here...
(Groen is on brussels side for example)

A compromise is the only solution indeed. But dont fool yourself : a compromise means everybody looses a bit.

[Yuqu12]

I really can't see an aviation law before the summer: Bellot hasn't done a single bit in this area, he hasn't even started. So I don't expect a law in 4 months. The only solution in my opinion is "herfederaliseren", so make the federal government competent for the noise norms and incorporate that piece in a federal aviation law. And if this Brussels norm becomes reality: don't forget the court (Raad van State). Maybe Flanders can go to the court because they have more planes flying over because of the planes avoiding Brussels as much as possible.

[lumumba]

Anyway Brussels Airport is surrounded by very populated areas so it's logic to close the airport at night.
No matter if it's Vlaams Brabant or Brussels they are very densely populated.
And they we can start negotiating about the details.

[korvo]

The fact that they come from different regions is almost secondary here...
(Groen is on brussels side for example)

This is a typical communautarian discussion and a classic example of "Flanders-bashing". If the airport were located on Brussels territory, all aircraft would be flying over Flanders (and to a lesser extent over Wallonia) and they (Brussels francophone politicians) would call this "loyalty" or "solidarity". Brussels politicians are only "Belgian" if it serves their purposes (and wallets). Of course Groen sides with Brussels; they are known "aviophobes" and use everything they can to bash the Flemish government.

The only solution in my opinion is "herfederaliseren", so make the federal government competent for the noise norms and incorporate that piece in a federal aviation law. And if this Brussels norm becomes reality: don't forget the court (Raad van State). Maybe Flanders can go to the court because they have more planes flying over because of the planes avoiding Brussels as much as possible.

Not "herfederaliseren" but moving this to a European level. Lost of airports are located on borders (e.g. BSL, MST, ...). Going to the Raad van State to delay the Brussels norm is indeed a step they can take, but maybe we need to put pressure on Brussels as well by introducing taxes on polluted water for example. It is about time that these second-rate politicians from a - face it, on world scale - provincial town know their place and stop biting the hand that feeds them.

[Yuqu12]

Well, the noise restricions are regulated on European level, but every Member State of the EU has the right to implement this with a margin of appreciation. One problem: the EU cannot react if Brussels decides to get rid of this margin. That's why the federal government should be the one to regulate the norm restrictions. Than they can decide what the restrictions are.

[luchtzak]

http://www.cgslb.be/fr/transport-terres ... 1485558535

La situation ne fait que s’aggraver dans les discussions entre la Flandre et la Région bruxelloise en ce qui concerne les normes de bruit pour l’aéroport de Zaventem. Le temps presse et des centaines d’emplois se retrouvent dans la tourmente !

La Région de Bruxelles-Capitale voulait, à partir du 1er janvier, encore renforcer les normes de bruit pour le survol de la capitale. Certaines infractions tolérées jusqu’ici seraient sanctionnées, entraînant une augmentation des amendes pour les compagnies aériennes, sauf si leurs vols passent au-dessus du territoire flamand. La Flandre a introduit un conflit d’intérêts contre ce renforcement des normes, reléguant ainsi la mesure au frigo jusqu’au 21 février. Si la Flandre et Bruxelles n’arrivent pas à un compromis avant cette date, la mesure entrera en vigueur, avec tout ce que cela implique.

Nombre de compagnies aériennes quitteront Zaventem si les différents niveaux politiques ne se mettent pas d’accord, pour certaines, c’est déjà chose faite.

Pour l’activité cargo, cela se traduit par 7.000 emplois qui risquent de disparaître dans les mois à venir, non seulement auprès des compagnies de cargo, mais aussi chez les bagagistes et les fournisseurs comme les entreprises de transport. En ce qui concerne les vols de passagers, nous ne disposons pas encore de chiffres.

Le message des travailleurs de l’aéroport est clair : "Il est totalement irresponsable que l’avenir de milliers de familles se trouve menacé par cette dispute communautaire." Dans ce dossier, il faut une concertation dans le respect de l’emploi et de l’environnement !

http://www.aclvb.be/nl/vervoer-en-lucht ... uidsnormen#

In het dispuut tussen het Vlaams en Brussels Gewest over de geluidsnormen voor de luchthaven van Zaventem gaat het van kwaad naar erger. De tijd dringt en er staan duizenden jobs op het spel!

Het Brussels Gewest wou zoals bekend vanaf 1 januari zijn geluidsnormen voor vluchten boven Zaventem nog verstrengen. Bepaalde geluidsovertredingen die tot dan getolereerd werden, zouden afgevoerd worden, waardoor vliegmaatschappijen meer geldboetes zouden moeten betalen, tenzij de vluchten over Vlaams grondgebied gaan. Het Vlaams gewest diende een belangenconflict in tegen die verstrenging, de maatregel belandde aldus tot 21 februari in de koelkast. Hebben Vlaanderen en Brussel tegen die datum geen compromis gevonden, dan treedt de maatregel in werking, met alle gevolgen vandien.

Tal van luchtvaartmaatschappijen zullen uit Zaventem wegtrekken als de verschillende politieke niveaus het niet eens geraken, bepaalde maatschappijen hebben dat overigens al gedaan.

Voor cargo gaat het over honderden jobs die de komende maanden kunnen verdwijnen, jobs bij de cargomaatschappijen zelf, maar ook bij de afhandelaars en de toeleveranciers, zoals transportondernemingen. Voor het gedeelte passagiersvluchten is nog geen berekening gemaakt.

De boodschap van de werknemers op de luchthaven is duidelijk: "Het is toch totaal onverantwoord dat de toekomst van duizenden gezinnen op de helling staat door dit communautair gebekvecht." In dit dossier moet er overleg zijn met respect voor de tewerkstelling en het milieu!

[Conti764]

The fact that they come from different regions is almost secondary here...
(Groen is on brussels side for example)

This is a typical communautarian discussion and a classic example of "Flanders-bashing". If the airport were located on Brussels territory, all aircraft would be flying over Flanders (and to a lesser extent over Wallonia) and they (Brussels francophone politicians) would call this "loyalty" or "solidarity". Brussels politicians are only "Belgian" if it serves their purposes (and wallets). Of course Groen sides with Brussels; they are known "aviophobes" and use everything they can to bash the Flemish government.

The only solution in my opinion is "herfederaliseren", so make the federal government competent for the noise norms and incorporate that piece in a federal aviation law. And if this Brussels norm becomes reality: don't forget the court (Raad van State). Maybe Flanders can go to the court because they have more planes flying over because of the planes avoiding Brussels as much as possible.

Not "herfederaliseren" but moving this to a European level. Lost of airports are located on borders (e.g. BSL, MST, ...). Going to the Raad van State to delay the Brussels norm is indeed a step they can take, but maybe we need to put pressure on Brussels as well by introducing taxes on polluted water for example. It is about time that these second-rate politicians from a - face it, on world scale - provincial town know their place and stop biting the hand that feeds them.

Let them pay taxes on their water polution, halt the construction of their Eurostadium,... Enough ways of putting pressure on the Bxl government...

[sn26567]

The feud is not a communitarian one, but a regional one. Some people here seem to that the Brussels government is not only PS-Défi-cdH but also CD&V-sp.a-OpenVLD.

[Yuqu12]

The feud is not a communitarian one, but a regional one. Some people here seem to that the Brussels government is not only PS-Défi-cdH but also CD&V-sp.a-OpenVLD.

Flemish parties don't have to say that much with only 17 seats on 89 in the Brussels parliament and their ministers aren't the competent one: Fremault is minister for environment and the noise restrictions fall under environment.

[sn26567]

The feud is not a communitarian one, but a regional one. Some people here seem to that the Brussels government is not only PS-Défi-cdH but also CD&V-sp.a-OpenVLD.

Flemish parties don't have to say that much with only 17 seats on 89 in the Brussels parliament and their ministers aren't the competent one: Fremault is minister for environment and the noise restrictions fall under environment.

Sure, but the government is "paritair" and has a collective responsibility