Federal Minister of Mobility Jean-Luc Crucke (Les Engagés) has proposed a series of operational and structural measures to reduce noise pollution around Brussels Airport.

The minister had his back against the wall: he had to submit a proposal to the court by October 1, or risk a penalty of 10,000 euros for each new noise violation.

Crucke emphasizes that the new measures will reduce the nuisance experienced by all residents, but initial reactions have been skeptical. What’s more, Flemish Minister Ben Weyts (N-VA) warns of a conflict of interest if the noise is once again shifted toward the Flemish periphery. He calls Crucke’s move “transparent.”

RNP 07L approach route

Among the measures taking effect today, some relate to landings on the new, GPS-guided RNP 07L approach route, which has been the source of many complaints in northern Brussels since last summer. To reduce this disturbance, incoming aircraft will continue to fly at a higher altitude for longer and then make a steeper descent.

It is worth noting, however, that a study commissioned by Crucke finds that this steeper landing approach is among the least effective measures for reducing noise pollution.

Other proposals on the table

So, a pike in a poke? We’ll have to wait and see, because Crucke still wants to explore or negotiate several options.

For example, he wants to spread out landings in Runway 07L more in the future, as was the case in the past. Skeyes air traffic controllers are studying an alternative approach route that lies farther north than RNP 07L and curves over the northern part of Jette; flights would then alternate between the two routes.

However, to make this possible, the taxiway along that runway would have to be extended. Until that happens, takeoffs from the runway threshold can only occur outside peak hours, when the airport is not too busy. Crucke is therefore asking the airport operator, Brussels Airport Company, to include this extension in its investment plans.

In addition, the minister also wants to expand “green landings” at Brussels Airport to all runways. In this approach, airplanes descend in a sort of gliding flight, which means they make less noise, consume less kerosene, and emit less CO2. Many landings at Brussels Airport already follow this principle.

Relaxing of wind standards

The minister also wants to relax the wind standards, which determine the maximum wind speeds at which the preferred runways can be used. Currently, for runways 25R and 25L, the limit is 7 knots of tailwind (including gusts), but Crucke wants to raise that to an average of 8 knots.

This was the standard at Brussels Airport for many years, and Charleroi Airport also uses this standard. With such an adjustment, there will be less need to switch to alternative runways.

Another proposal: the time between the decision to use alternative runways or return to the preferred runways and the implementation of that decision should not exceed 30 minutes. According to Crucke, that time is often longer now. And air traffic controllers no longer must take wind at altitude into account when selecting which runways to use. According to international rules, it is “not relevant.”

Finally, the minister also wants to reduce the number of flights in the morning and evening. He therefore intends to negotiate with the Flemish Region and Brussels Airport to reduce the number of flights between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. and between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m.

He also plans to negotiate with the airlines about using quieter aircraft, although that seems like a futile move. Without an enforceable legal framework, strict (financial) sanctions, or direct economic benefits, a political “call” or “negotiation” in the aviation sector had virtually no effect. In any case, the order books of aircraft manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing are already packed for the coming years.

No agreement with the federal government

With his proposals, Crucke aims to “maintain a balance between the airport’s economic interests and the health of nearby residents.” The point is that, due to legal pressure, Crucke has not had time to reach an agreement with the federal government on the measures, so he spoke in his own name.

Some of the measures may also be included in the new federal aviation law, which Crucke hopes to pass in the first half of 2027 and that establishes uniform, legally binding flight paths and noise standards for all of Belgium, but, politically speaking, the matter is already all but settled.

Flanders wants to invoke a conflict of interest

Both Flemish Minister-President Matthias Diependaele (N-VA) and Minister Ben Weyts (N-VA°), who is responsible, among other things, for the Flemish Periphery, want to block measures that would immediately divert traffic routes to Flanders.

Neither of them rules out the possibility that a conflict of interest could be raised. And in Brussels, too, the measures are considered insufficient to reduce long-term nuisance.

Crucke himself calls it “not a miracle solution” and wants to proceed step by step, without getting caught up in political games and community debates.

The hardest-hit areas, with the highest decibel peaks, are located in Flanders; however, because the Canal Route and the route through northern Brussels pass through densely populated municipalities, the number of people experiencing the noise in Brussels is disproportionately high.

But because Flanders, as the airport’s largest shareholder, now serves as both the environmental and permitting authority (through the Flemish environmental permit) and the commercial shareholder seeking purely dividends from the airport’s growth, the conflict of interest is significant. It will be particularly difficult to reach a compromise in which all parties make concessions.

In other words, the institutional stalemate—a situation in which everyone has the power to block a solution proposed by the other side, since Brussels, too, can invoke a conflict of interest—seems to be one step closer.

And a real breakthrough could only come if, for example, Europe imposes strict rules on nighttime quiet hours, CO₂ emissions, or noise pollution around urban airports, compelling the federal government to intervene.

If that doesn’t happen, it will likely remain a case of “kicking the can down the road,” unless the issue is linked to other, larger government reforms of the state.