A 2nd National Airport in Belgium, a good idea?

Post by **sn26567** » 20 Jun 2005, 09:18

AFApresident wrote:You would be crazy to start a new cargo hub in Brussels, you´re almost 100% sure to have trouble in the end and worst that you could be forbidden to continue to operate night flights in the next comming months. No airline who makes rational decisions would ever with this uncertainty invest a lot in Brussels.

That's why Verhofstadt's idea to build a second national airport in a quiet area further away from Brussels (e.g. Chièvres) is attractive. The noisiest and largest aircraft could use that airport, while European traffic on quiet planes could stay at Zaventem. There is also another major advantage: two airports, one in each of the regions, would damp linguistic criticism.

Ozzie1969 · Post by **Ozzie1969** » 20 Jun 2005, 09:32

sn26567 wrote:
AFApresident wrote:You would be crazy to start a new cargo hub in Brussels, you´re almost 100% sure to have trouble in the end and worst that you could be forbidden to continue to operate night flights in the next comming months. No airline who makes rational decisions would ever with this uncertainty invest a lot in Brussels.
That's why Verhofstadt's idea to build a second national airport in a quiet area further away from Brussels (e.g. Chièvres) is attractive. The noisiest and largest aircraft could use that airport, while European traffic on quiet planes could stay at Zaventem. There is also another major advantage: two airports, one in each of the regions, would damp linguistic criticism.

Chièvres? I thought Wallonia already had a "Brussels South"? I'm also surprised to learn that there is "linguistic criticism" concerning Zaventem! I thought aircraft made the same noise over Flanders as they do over Brussels or Wallonia, or anywhere else in the world. Oh, and by the way, I don't think that was an idea of Verhofstadt's : the man is far too busy creating his promised 200.000 new jobs (he's about 100.000 in the red so far since making that promise

).

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 20 Jun 2005, 10:47

I personally think it is a bad idea for Belgium to have 2 "big" airports because in the end we´ll have none. London, Paris, New York etc are big enough for 2 or more major airports. But belgium is unfortunately not. If we put all long hauls in 1 airport and all short hauls in the other. How are people going to connect? First take a train between the 2 airports? Yeah right. What if you have a flight to a destination which alternates between Avros, Airbuses and 757s (Iberia and Sn Brussels to Madrid)? A 737 to Africa would have to fly out of airport B why the same 737 to Barcelona out of airport A. (they make the same noise).

Unless we want to have a hub we need 1 airport, so than you would need to move the entire airport. But given the fact that BRU just has a new A and B pier. It would be a shame to just move it all together to somewhere else. Especially since there is nowhere room for it.

In Charleroi, Bierset and Ostend nimbys are already complaining as well. So I´m sure that they ll complain even more if you add more flights and Chievres .. I thought that option was already dead because NATO doesnt want to share it with pax or cargo traffic.

Just return to the pre 99 situation and get used to the noise. And don´t allow anyone to build his house near the airport or under the approach or departure path. Furthermore give all complainers who live in the "noisiest" area the option to sell their house to A) a person who is not bothered and signs a contract that he will not whine or B) if you don´t find such a person make it a light industry area or a park.

Ozzie1969 · Post by **Ozzie1969** » 20 Jun 2005, 12:32

AFApresident wrote:I personally think it is a bad idea for Belgium to have 2 "big" airports because in the end we´ll have none. London, Paris, New York etc are big enough for 2 or more major airports. But belgium is unfortunately not. If we put all long hauls in 1 airport and all short hauls in the other. How are people going to connect? First take a train between the 2 airports? Yeah right. What if you have a flight to a destination which alternates between Avros, Airbuses and 757s (Iberia and Sn Brussels to Madrid)? A 737 to Africa would have to fly out of airport B why the same 737 to Barcelona out of airport A. (they make the same noise).

Unless we want to have a hub we need 1 airport, so than you would need to move the entire airport. But given the fact that BRU just has a new A and B pier. It would be a shame to just move it all together to somewhere else. Especially since there is nowhere room for it.

In Charleroi, Bierset and Ostend nimbys are already complaining as well. So I´m sure that they ll complain even more if you add more flights and Chievres .. I thought that option was already dead because NATO doesnt want to share it with pax or cargo traffic.

Just return to the pre 99 situation and get used to the noise. And don´t allow anyone to build his house near the airport or under the approach or departure path. Furthermore give all complainers who live in the "noisiest" area the option to sell their house to A) a person who is not bothered and signs a contract that he will not whine or B) if you don´t find such a person make it a light industry area or a park.

I agree 100% with this opinion.

Andries · Post by **Andries** » 20 Jun 2005, 13:51

Ozzie1969 wrote:
AFApresident wrote:I personally think it is a bad idea for Belgium to have 2 "big" airports because in the end we´ll have none. London, Paris, New York etc are big enough for 2 or more major airports. But belgium is unfortunately not. If we put all long hauls in 1 airport and all short hauls in the other. How are people going to connect? First take a train between the 2 airports? Yeah right. What if you have a flight to a destination which alternates between Avros, Airbuses and 757s (Iberia and Sn Brussels to Madrid)? A 737 to Africa would have to fly out of airport B why the same 737 to Barcelona out of airport A. (they make the same noise).

Unless we want to have a hub we need 1 airport, so than you would need to move the entire airport. But given the fact that BRU just has a new A and B pier. It would be a shame to just move it all together to somewhere else. Especially since there is nowhere room for it.

In Charleroi, Bierset and Ostend nimbys are already complaining as well. So I´m sure that they ll complain even more if you add more flights and Chievres .. I thought that option was already dead because NATO doesnt want to share it with pax or cargo traffic.

Just return to the pre 99 situation and get used to the noise. And don´t allow anyone to build his house near the airport or under the approach or departure path. Furthermore give all complainers who live in the "noisiest" area the option to sell their house to A) a person who is not bothered and signs a contract that he will not whine or B) if you don´t find such a person make it a light industry area or a park.
I agree 100% with this opinion.

Same here !

TWA · Post by **TWA** » 20 Jun 2005, 13:59

No, 200%.

More than one national airport will result into death of these airports, which will make the Thalys the biggest "carrier" operating out of Brussels, connecting the Belgians via CDG and AMS with the rest of the world.

Post by **sn26567** » 20 Jun 2005, 14:02

We had already that discussion two years ago. Remember? https://www.aviation24.be/postx1177-0-0.html

Ozzie1969 wrote:I'm also surprised to learn that there is "linguistic criticism" concerning Zaventem! Oh, and by the way, I don't think that was an idea of Verhofstadt's : the man is far too busy creating his promised 200.000 new jobs.

I think you misunderstood me. Zaventem is truly quadri-lingual and I have no criticism on how the four languages are (well) spoken in Zaventem. However, you know very well that most jobs at Zaventem are Flemish jobs (no criticism here!). A second national airport in the other part of the country would bring some equilibrium.

And, by the way, the idea is well Verhofstadt's: see the above link.

Post by **luchtzak** » 20 Jun 2005, 14:03

Why creating a second National airport for such a small country?

Besides terminal A is newly build and is still way below its max. capacity!

sn26567 wrote:We had already that discussion two years ago. Remember? https://www.aviation24.be/postx1177-0-0.html

I can't remember this topic, but in that poll 95% of the members voted against a second airport

regi · Post by **regi** » 20 Jun 2005, 15:13

The only linguistic problems I have at Zaventem airport- still 100 % located on flemish territory as a part of Vlaams Brabant - is that most service staff, such as waiters and coffee ladies, doesn't speak dutch at all.
A second airport on 100% wallon territory is no solution to that language problem at Zaventem.
If somebody works at the national airport and comes in contact with customers, it is a simple matter of politeness to speak the language of 60% majority in this country.
Check inn staff speaks dutch because they depend on satisfied customers.
(no protection from the FGTB)

regi · Post by **regi** » 20 Jun 2005, 15:14

Zaventem may be our national airport. Besides of that we handle quite some cargo and passenegrs on Bierset, Ostend and Charleroi.

liebensd · Post by **liebensd** » 20 Jun 2005, 16:36

A second national airport isn't an option. If you will place far away of Brussels, you need to around Brussels is no place, you can better close the airport. Because there will be a lot of Brussels customers go to Fra and Ams because it is closer and you have more possible destinations. What we, Belgian residents and politicians, need to do is thinking about what are we doing. Last year when I was spotting at Brussels saw that there were still some places for sale under runway 20 for building houses. What are we doing is sometimes we says here Belgium is a monkey land but If you see that you will gone to believe it.
A lot of the problems with the noise at night will be solved in a couple of years, when DHL will move. Putting the night cargo to an other airport is not a real option, you will only move the problem to another area.

Greetz,

Dave

Ozzie1969 · Post by **Ozzie1969** » 20 Jun 2005, 16:50

sn26567 wrote:I think you misunderstood me. Zaventem is truly quadri-lingual and I have no criticism on how the four languages are (well) spoken in Zaventem. However, you know very well that most jobs at Zaventem are Flemish jobs (no criticism here!). A second national airport in the other part of the country would bring some equilibrium.

And, by the way, the idea is well Verhofstadt's: see the above link.

Oh dear, most jobs in Zaventem are Flemish jobs! Well, get used to it : Zaventem is located in Flanders. As long as there are so many French-speaking Belgians who simply refuse to learn to speak Dutch, they have no right to complain about not getting a job in Zaventem. The days of "pour les Flamands la même chose" are long gone, my friend! and what's this about equilibrium? I thought Zaventem was supposed to remain NATIONAL? Are you going to cut Zaventem in three? One piece for Flanders, one for Wallonia, one for Brussels? Maybe we could build a huge harbour somewhere in the Ardennes : why should the big harbours all be located in Flanders? Let's have some equillibrium. Meanwhile let's rip out half the trees in the Ardennes and re-plant them in Flanders somewhere (we haven't got that many trees over here, after all.) Maybe we can divert part of the North Sea so that people in Namur and Dinant can go to the beach in their own town too? Does everything have to be cut into 3 pieces in this country? If Liège, Gosselies, Antwerp or Ostend manage to attract new airlines (passenger, charter or cargo), because they can offer good and competitive conditions, will you give divert half of that traffic to Zaventem? I think not. That would simply be crazy. Politicians have to decide what they want with Zaventem. Will it remain a national airport for the whole country, or are they going to take this (internationally speaking) rather small airport and make it even smaller by cutting it into 3 pieces? Get real. The way things are going now, political ignorance is preventing Zaventem from becoming an airport that actually matters in the world of aviation. Schiphol has managed to become a major airport, well-known throughout the world. Why not Zaventem?

SAB-OM · Post by **SAB-OM** » 20 Jun 2005, 17:22

take zaventem away and Brussels will also loose the European Community !
without a good, fast and nearby airport all those big money spending European Community people will leave brussels for another country (and a lot of candidates are waiting.....)

After DHL... EU....

Maybe the brussels selfish politicians should think about that one ....

about the noise... return to 99 situation and pay the complainers a small fee as compensation for moving to another area (as being done in London, Amsterdam, ...) where they only hear french talk... (its cheap living there... and room enough

SR89 · Post by **SR89** » 20 Jun 2005, 17:50

sn26567 wrote:
AFApresident wrote:You would be crazy to start a new cargo hub in Brussels, you´re almost 100% sure to have trouble in the end and worst that you could be forbidden to continue to operate night flights in the next comming months. No airline who makes rational decisions would ever with this uncertainty invest a lot in Brussels.
That's why Verhofstadt's idea to build a second national airport in a quiet area further away from Brussels (e.g. Chièvres) is attractive. The noisiest and largest aircraft could use that airport, while European traffic on quiet planes could stay at Zaventem. There is also another major advantage: two airports, one in each of the regions, would damp linguistic criticism.

Oh please, noooooo!!!!! We tried that here in Montréal (more or less for the same reasons, except the language issue perhaps) and failed patently.

The reasons mentionned above do not justify a new (second airport) IMO. Unless all activities are transferred to the new facility, chances are that it won't work.

We learned it the hard way.

Rayman · Post by **Rayman** » 20 Jun 2005, 18:07

Ozzie1969 wrote:....Schiphol has managed to become a major airport, well-known throughout the world. Why not Zaventem?

Schiphol has grown up parallel to home carrier size and her heavy hub & spoke activities. The rest is domino effect.

Zaventem should first host a substantially sized home carrier.

ATC · Post by **ATC** » 20 Jun 2005, 20:55

A 2nd National Airport in Belgium, a good idea?

When I thought I heard it all... belgian politicians are always surprising me. 8O

Good idea ? I don't know. Maybe for people who solve a problem by not solving it. Belgium should realise that a country these days can't work without an airport. An airport has positive sides and negative sides.

just some wild thoughts...

- If our government should decide to close BRU this will be catastrophic for the belgian economy.

- The budget for building an airport like BRU is approximately 2,5 billion €. 8O
(Belgium is virtually bankrupt since the 70's.)
- Putting an airport 40km further wont solve the noise pollution. There will always be people who are in favor off an airport and some (the minority)who are against an airport. I always thought a democracy represented the majority of the people.

- What about the airlines ? Do you think they'll follow blindly ? They've already made it clear it will be BRU or nothing.

I hope this pointless thinking will finally stop and our government(s) should think about a long term BRU strategy that will hopefully create a stable aviation climate. A climate whit a good balance between ecology and economy.

Thank you...

greetings,
ATC

Flybe · Post by **Flybe** » 20 Jun 2005, 21:58

A 2nd National Airport in Belgium, a good idea?

I wonder what Macquarie thinks of this...

First paying a lot of money for a good and stable airport, and then hearing that the government wants to move part of the traffic somewhere else...

Macquarie took a big risk investing in a political unstable country (when it comes about aviation i mean), knowing that the noise discussion was going on in full force, but i think that this scenario even didn't appear in their worst nightmares. I hope they covered themselves somehow against this risk when they took over the airport.

Thanks government, finally you send a uniform message abroad to all investors over the world: Don't come to Belgium, they'll screw you over and over again!

Anyway, i don't think that this (making a second national airport and moving traffic) will happen, to many people will wake up on time (i hope), but the message to the outher world is send...

Expect the economical decline of Belgium in the next years, with only the EU and federal/regional/local governmental network to produce jobs. Foreign investors would be crazy to invest here, with small profitmargins and huge risks, while at least in Asia, you have potential huge profitmargins and turnover (not only Asia, suffice to see to central and eastern europe).

Greets,

Pieter

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 20 Jun 2005, 22:13

luchtzak wrote:Why creating a second National airport for such a small country?...... in that poll 95% of the members voted against a second airport

I would certainly not say no to second. <---- Second as in CARGO.

Move all cargo out of EBBR to an area where you can come in and fly out 24/7. Link EBBR with the (Fedreral) Euro Cargo Port with hi-speed cargo trains. Make it a daring project, that moves ULD's at hi-speed eventually on a revolutionary, unmanned electro-magnetic system to the cargo terminals.

The federal state that accepts the Euro Cargo Port, will have to accept also the identical conditions as for EBBR: a federal space.

But,
Keep all and only passenger traffic @EBBR.
Passenger aircraft will get modernised, fleets will be renewed and noise will be reduced on this types of passenger aircraft.
When I say all and only passenger flight, I mean also military flights out of Melsbroek.

A federal and innovating project, that should be decided asap, including a time-line and a roadmap. Meanwhile, in order not to harm business, a moratorium on restrictions in EBBR leaves it develop all activities, in order to enable the federal Euro Cargo Port to start more competitive (and put pressure on achieving the project asap).

The federal Euro Cargo Port should combine Air, Road and Rail cargo transport and be equipped with polyvalent terminals and all that goes with it (IT etc).
Linked to the HiSpeed railnet, (Iron Rhine) including the Chunnel and Antwerp Port.
And of course to the highways network.

Such a polyvalent Euro-port can drain cargo traffic from other airports as well as develop new markets and traffics.

Think big (not as a solution for a disturbing noise problem, but as a rocket engine for economical development)
And create jobs gvd

(And make from the Melsbroek Airport a nice living museum! with nice spotters terraces)
And vote me, for president!

Post by **luchtzak** » 20 Jun 2005, 22:24

I like your ideas Fons, I hope one of the 'ministers' will read your propositions and work this out in a good project, hopefully before they take summer-holidays!

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 20 Jun 2005, 22:57

luchtzak wrote:I like your ideas Fons, I hope one of the 'ministers' will read your propositions and work this out in a good project, hopefully before they take summer-holidays!

If they cannot work it out, they can just PM us....
Or better, let them decide to go for it, that is what the people want them to do and leave the project to professionals, that is what they do best.

Aviation24.be

A 2nd National Airport in Belgium, a good idea?

A 2nd National Airport in Belgium, a good idea?

Re: A 2nd National Airport in Belgium, a good idea?

A polyvalent Euro-port

just PM us....