It’s not a vote but an advice.
Why would that be an important advice? As PttU pointed out VOKA giving a negative advice would be the same as turkeys voting for Christmas.
Moderator: Latest news team
It’s not a vote but an advice.
Indeed you are free to post, but so are others, especially if your post is wrongly worded and just stating the obvious.Atlantis wrote: ↑04 Jan 2024, 14:23And we are free to post it. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Perhaps BBL should read this: https://luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/cate ... 4_uuQzJf8QConti764 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2024, 21:49 And here we go... BBL (Bond Beter Leefmilieu) strongly opposes the permit for Brussels Airport, they criticise the lack of ambition of BAC to evolve towards a more ecologicaly friendly operation, and not caring about people living around the airport. They lament about the rising nitrogen exaust due to a rising number of flights and traffic around the airport.
They urge minister Demir to force BAC into a more ambitious future, banning nightflights and short haul flights, and compensate lost employment by retraining people into railways etc...
Like VOKA, it's an advice and I very much doubt Zuhal Demir will take these remarks into cosideration.
The argument that another source pollutes more as an excuse for inaction is only that, an excuse. It has never made sense and still does not. For one thing, this is not a problem that will be solved by treating just one source of pollution, for another that argument never ever considers whether reducing other sources is technologically, financially, or socially doable. Not to mention politically - it should not be a factor, but it is.Lux_avi wrote: ↑11 Jan 2024, 09:21 Perhaps BBL should read this: https://luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/cate ... 4_uuQzJf8Q
First question BRU is well connected with public transportation!?longwings wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024, 01:02The argument that another source pollutes more as an excuse for inaction is only that, an excuse. It has never made sense and still does not. For one thing, this is not a problem that will be solved by treating just one source of pollution, for another that argument never ever considers whether reducing other sources is technologically, financially, or socially doable. Not to mention politically - it should not be a factor, but it is.Lux_avi wrote: ↑11 Jan 2024, 09:21 Perhaps BBL should read this: https://luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/cate ... 4_uuQzJf8Q
That doesn't mean the BBL is on the right track, it is not in fact. France has already demonstrated that banning short-haul flights is counter-productive. Passengers on short-haul flights are mostly connecting to/from somewhere. If they're told they suddenly cannot fly, passengers who connect to BRU via CDG, AMS, or FRA will not take the train, drive, or ride a horse carriage, they will connect in LHR, ZRH, MAD, IAD, JFK...
What can/should be done is stop adjusting landing charges based on noise (most aircraft are very quiet compared to just 20 years ago) and start assessing a surcharge based on the age of the aircraft. It is a better correlation as to how polluting an aircraft is.
Coordinated EU action over tradable carbon credits is another step. Reward airlines with more fuel-efficient engines and penalize the others. That gets us right back to what is politically doable, because it will raise the costs of fly-away vacations to Spain, Turkey, the Dominican Republic, etc.
The bigger problem with BRU is that it is too close to urban areas, while at the same time badly connected to public transportation networks. Not relocating the airport when they decided to build new terminals instead was yet another opportunity falling victim to the Belgian regions' parochial concerns. Unfortunately, that time has come and gone and we have to live with the consequences.
For sure changes need to happen. Informing people correctly might be where it has to start (like publishing that luchtvaartnieuws in traditional media, share how important aviation is to the worldwide and local economy, how aviation is investing massively in less polluting technologies,...).longwings wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024, 01:02The argument that another source pollutes more as an excuse for inaction is only that, an excuse. It has never made sense and still does not. For one thing, this is not a problem that will be solved by treating just one source of pollution, for another that argument never ever considers whether reducing other sources is technologically, financially, or socially doable. Not to mention politically - it should not be a factor, but it is.Lux_avi wrote: ↑11 Jan 2024, 09:21 Perhaps BBL should read this: https://luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/cate ... 4_uuQzJf8Q
That doesn't mean the BBL is on the right track, it is not in fact. France has already demonstrated that banning short-haul flights is counter-productive. Passengers on short-haul flights are mostly connecting to/from somewhere. If they're told they suddenly cannot fly, passengers who connect to BRU via CDG, AMS, or FRA will not take the train, drive, or ride a horse carriage, they will connect in LHR, ZRH, MAD, IAD, JFK...
What can/should be done is stop adjusting landing charges based on noise (most aircraft are very quiet compared to just 20 years ago) and start assessing a surcharge based on the age of the aircraft. It is a better correlation as to how polluting an aircraft is.
Coordinated EU action over tradable carbon credits is another step. Reward airlines with more fuel-efficient engines and penalize the others. That gets us right back to what is politically doable, because it will raise the costs of fly-away vacations to Spain, Turkey, the Dominican Republic, etc.
The bigger problem with BRU is that it is too close to urban areas, while at the same time badly connected to public transportation networks. Not relocating the airport when they decided to build new terminals instead was yet another opportunity falling victim to the Belgian regions' parochial concerns. Unfortunately, that time has come and gone and we have to live with the consequences.
Badly connected, not well connected. Public transport at BRU is designed solely for passengers from Brussels and its immediate vicinity and employees.
I thought it was Lille, not Paris, but either would have been suitable. It could have been built on, or near, a high-speed rail line, away from the 20-years plus homeowners, however many there are left, and the most recent homeowners who decided to move in the vicinity despite the airport... As I wrote, the opportunity is probably gone.lumumba wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024, 06:13The other question I'm not sure you will find another space in Belgium far enough from urban areas and suitable to build a new airport we are one of the most populous countries in the world. There was a plan if I remember well end of the 90s to build a big airport between Paris and Brussels in France well connected by high speed trains from them the 2 capital's.
Badly connected?
It's a typical case of BRU bashing. Regarding busses, there are more than 1.000 busses per day who are serving BRU. The new tram is coming, train connections are there from each angle of the country, new bike routes to the airport, etc etcezis_bis wrote: ↑15 Jan 2024, 08:30Badly connected?
There's from STIB line 12 which is very frequent (minimum 4 per hour from Schuman)
There's De Lijn all around, even a night line coming from Anderlecht
NMBS/SNCB connects to all directions in Belgium and even NL
And they're building a new tram line continuing from Eurocontrol
Public Transport in and around Brussels is really good tbh
Indeed!
I agree on the fact that there should be more earlier and later trains to the airport. This according to the first coming in and last flight of the day.
And where is the signage that helps arriving passengers who are not from the Brussels area make sense of those options and figure out which one to take? Badly connected does not mean insufficiently connected (except for direct trains from the airport to most large cities around), it means it is not user-friendly for anyone who does not already know how to use the system. Start with a signage to help pick an option from the list...ezis_bis wrote: ↑15 Jan 2024, 08:30Badly connected?
There's from STIB line 12 which is very frequent (minimum 4 per hour from Schuman)
There's De Lijn all around, even a night line coming from Anderlecht
NMBS/SNCB connects to all directions in Belgium and even NL
And they're building a new tram line continuing from Eurocontrol
Public Transport in and around Brussels is really good tbh
What you're trying to say here is 'Badly signposted', not badly connected;longwings wrote: ↑18 Jan 2024, 01:17 And where is the signage that helps arriving passengers who are not from the Brussels area make sense of those options and figure out which one to take? Badly connected does not mean insufficiently connected (except for direct trains from the airport to most large cities around), it means it is not user-friendly for anyone who does not already know how to use the system. Start with a signage to help pick an option from the list...
The term little is overkill, even if not at 100% of its PAX capacities, if we consider that it is the second economic zone of the country, and that it belongs to the category of the medium-sized European airports such as ARN , ZRH, VIE, CPH.Lux_avi wrote: ↑ For sure changes need to happen. Informing people correctly might be where it has to st
Brussels Airport is a little airport, far from being busy. I hope it will expand up 100% of its capacity.
This is obviously not about a few pictograms pointing passengers to the train station. If this is all you retained, no wonder you can't understand how unfriendly to non-locals the public transport options are. It would be foolish to think anyone would land unprepared. It is equally foolish to expect them to know how to read routes and schedules as well as a regular user. I don't need a long list of airports to make a point, though I certainly could, the nearest foreign one to BRU suffices, and you can even start on their web site...
Parking for managers and staff.