The Brussels government will support appeals filed by municipalities and residents with the Council of State against the federal decision to make the much-discussed RNPO7L flight path at Brussels Airport permanent.

At the same time, it will file a separate appeal with the Council of State through the Joint Community Commission (CGC), based on the Council of State’s authority over welfare.

The fact that the Brussels government has opted for this runway and is not itself appealing to the Council of State to challenge the flight path, which disturbs the sleep of more than 100,000 Brussels residents, is the result of an error in the office of Mobility Minister Elke Van den Brandt (Groen), which caused the deadline to file an appeal to expire.

Meanwhile, pressure is mounting on Minister Jean-Luc Crucke (Les Engagées) to decide on this tricky issue. However, a structural solution is not likely to be reached anytime soon.

A sustainable solution depends on a new federal aviation law, and that won’t happen immediately because of the zero-sum game between the regions and because the De Wever government has other fish to fry amid the budget-negotiation crisis.

Tensions due to letter incident

On July 17, Crucke informed Van den Brandt of the “future permanent implementation” of the RNP 07L approach route. This was to be formalized on September 16 in an official aviation publication, effective November 1. Following that official notification, the Brussels government had 60 days to file an appeal for annulment with the Council of State.

However, because Van den Brandt’s cabinet considered the wording too vague and ambiguous to constitute an official notification of a challengeable decision, it did not inform the competent State Secretary for Environment and Climate, Ans Persoons (Vooruit), or the rest of the Brussels government of the letter.

Persoons herself apparently learned of it only on November 6, by which time the deadline for filing a petition with the Council of State had already passed. Too little, too late, in other words.

Naturally, the letter incident caused tensions between Persoons and Van den Brandt, and yesterday it also led to a crisis meeting within the Brussels government.

During that meeting, they resolved the issues. In addition to the measures mentioned above, the government decided to conduct further legal analyses to determine whether it can still file its own appeal with the Council of State, while also exploring whether it could challenge the notion that the letter in question constitutes a so-called official notification.

Meanwhile, the Brussels government is also calling for an objective, transparent, and health-focused decision-making process regarding air traffic. That position will also be defended at the Consultation Committee meeting on November 16.

Groen fights back

In response, Van den Brandt argues it was misleading from the start to pretend the solution to aircraft noise depends entirely on a vaguely worded letter. “That’s a red herring and obscures the heart of the matter: the lack of an agreement on aviation legislation that would reduce the nuisance for all residents,” says the Groen minister, who was told everywhere that she had botched this matter.

She points out that her party is positioning itself as an ally at the federal and Flemish levels, where the truly crucial levers for resolving aircraft noise pollution lie.

“Both governments bear the real responsibility: the Flemish government can use the environmental permit to limit the number of flights, while the federal government must urgently work on a new aviation law. That is where the real solution lies. The people of Brussels have been victims of unbearable nuisance for far too long; they deserve better,” says Van den Brandt.

Community issue

And Crucke – how does he himself respond to all the fuss surrounding the letter and the controversial RNP-07L flight path, which has since been renamed the “Crucke route”?

Was that letter indeed a single A4 page sent “on the sly,” as Van den Brandt puts it, or a devious attempt to permanently enshrine this “air highway,” as the Mayor of Koekelberg claims?

Crucke says the route has existed since 2016 and was already used by his predecessors Jacqueline Galant (MR) and François Belot (MR). According to him, the air traffic control agency Skeyes also mandated the approach route.

According to Skeyes, the VOR route – a radio beacon in Steenokkerzeel, used primarily for approaches via Runway 07 Left – and the associated approach procedures posed several problems that compromised aviation safety. That is why the decision was made to use the new satellite-guided approach route RNPO7L, which, until a few years ago, was rarely, if ever, used.

How often the route is used depends on the wind and on decisions made by Skeyes and the federal government. Crucke wants to keep the route but limit its use by implementing steeper approaches and more flexible wind standards.

But the minister also argues that this is a community matter. Flanders opposes shifting the burden to Flemish municipalities and has cited a conflict of interest regarding Crucke’s plan.

Meanwhile, it has also come to light that, in addition to the City of Brussels, the Brussels municipalities of Sint-Jans-Molenbeek, Koekelberg, Schaarbeek, Anderlecht, Sint-Gillis, and Evere are also taking their case to the Council of State.

The issue will therefore remain deadlocked until a new federal aviation law is enacted. According to Crucke, this law is expected to be enacted in early 2027. However, the interests involved in this matter are so divergent – Flanders is also the largest shareholder in Brussels Airport Company – that only lawsuits or a miraculous compromise will be able to bring about a breakthrough.