The mayors of three Brussels communes - Schaerbeek, Molenbeek-Saint-Jean and Koekelberg - have voiced concern about increased air traffic from Brussels Airport, particularly during the night.
There's two entirely different things at play here: one, the changed 07L approach used which is now a straight in approach as opposed to one with a 15° turn at the very end. This is something that's been announced for a long time - there's documentation freely shared by the Ombudsman on this (as well as several other threads on Reddit). This is what causes noise over areas, when and if 07L is used, that had not been overflown under the older, offset approach. This is what any valid discussion should focus on.
Then there's wind directions indicating the use of said 07L approach. These are quite obviously not under anyone's control, and since wind changes over time and these are arriving flights, nothing much you can realistically do. Complaining about intensity of use is hence... quite ridiculous and in a way, the materialisation of the Simpsons meme "old man yells at cloud". Mayors focusing on this point either did not do their homework, or they deliberately chose to take a populist stance of incorrectly putting blame against the (Flemish-territory) airport. Spoiler alert: aerial routes are a federal competence.
Luckily, we have westerlies at Brussels airport for the vast majority of the year.
they deliberately chose to take a populist stance of incorrectly putting blame against the (Flemish-territory) airport. Spoiler alert: aerial routes are a federal competence.
Which isn't entirely correct.
The article highlights the following:
have voiced concern about increased air traffic from Brussels Airport, particularly during the night.
What stands out most is the number of flights, which increased overnight.
And this aspect is solely the responsibility of the Flemish Region.
Despite the logical issues associated with an airport, the Flemish Region retains responsibilities that it does not fulfill (environmental standards).
As a result, citizens complain (and, logically, the mayors of the municipalities follow suit), while the federal government and the Region continue to bury their heads in the sand and pay fines following various court decisions.
Edit: there are several points that are incorrect and that were exchanged in the discussion with u/StellaArtois3000
Ignoring the whole argumentation that 07L isn't even a preferential runway and is chosen based upon wind directions for a minute, let's look at some numbers on the intensity of nighttime traffic in general, across all runways.
Extrapolating 2025 results (December data is still missing) data shows very similar results to 2024. If we extrapolate just the departing flights (i.e. considering that, for instance, a flight originally scheduled to land at 22:00 local (day)time but suffering a massive hour-long delay will end up landing during nighttime) we see a decreasing trend.
Also, your statement that the Flemish region is somehow the sole responsible for nighttime operations at EBBR is outright false. Federal legislation mandates the use of coordinated slots, of which a cap is placed at 16 000 nighttime slots with reduced hours on weekends.
At best, the Flemish environmental permit influences the number of available nighttime slots, but the actual operational usage is not a direct Flemish decision.
In fact, I'd argue Flemish influence is positive in terms of noise abattement. The environmental permit that was approved by Flanders in 2024 imposed even stricter nighttime restrictions than what we saw till then - see Environmental permit granted for Brussels Airport. It was cancelled after the permit was found to be in breach with EU regulations and a grand total of 21 appeals - among which Brussels municipalities, for instance, with several calling for a complete ban of nighttime flights, instead of a reduction. Brussels Environment minister appeals against airport permit
When you look at the use of 07L and 07R during nighttime, it's increasing though, even with missing data for December 2025.
Your second point is interesting. Even though I was not aware of the federal frame, it sounds to me that it is only a frame and that it don't really absolve the Flemish government from its responsibility of setting such a high (from the point of view of the cities, not of the airport of course) number of nighttime slots. But again, I don't know this particular point so I might be wrong.
The "Airport movements" link is really interesting.
It allows for great analysis.
Also, your statement that the Flemish region is somehow the sole responsible for nighttime operations at EBBR is outright false. Federal legislation mandates the use of coordinated slots, of which a cap is placed at 16 000 nighttime slots with reduced hours on weekends.
You're right, but I was mainly referring to the Flemish Region, as responsible for flights operating at the airport and therefore for environmental standards.
Moreover, the quota of 16,000 nighttime slots is often not respected by the Airport and so the Flemish Region.
Did the number of night flights actually increase?
It's indeed wrong to claim that, given the figures of the Airport.
However, while the number of flights varies, the figures show that cargo flights are increasing steadily and, above all, that they are becoming increasingly noisy.
Since 2016, categories R1 to R4 have been steadily declining, while categories R5 to R8 have been increasing.
Finally, the problem did not just start in 2024.
Although the mayors of the northern municipalities have finally decided to voice their criticism, the problem has been around for much longer and has been brought before the courts by more vocal municipalities (Woluwé, Auderghem).
The result remains the same: many levels of government are burying their heads in the sand and prefer to continually pay fines for regulatory violations, causing continuous nuisance for residents in the municipalities concerned.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that it is very interesting to talk with you, and I greatly appreciate your knowledge on the subject. :)
Winds conditions are indeed out of anyone's control but the wind norms to decide if a runway can be used are not.
Of course, they should be based on security only but this is Belgium... When Bert Anciaux became minister of transport in 2003, he realized that his administration was in charge of these rules and by tweaking the max allowed tailwind, he could move a lot of flights away from the Flemish area North of Brussels. Ever since technical parameters that should be driven by safety only have become toys in a twisted political game.
If there is too much tailwind to use the 25L, then 01 should be used instead (and I say this living in WSP directly under the 01 approach but I've lived in Ganshoren and can testify how a 1000x worse the plane noise was). But Kraainem and WSP have been very successful on the judicial side while Western communes went for a conciliatory strategy and are now screwed.
In a normal country, Zaventem would have been closed a long time ago as it's way too close to the city but the only available replacement spots are in Wallonia and Flemish politicians will never agree to such move.
Not true, people do complain, but no one can do anything to change that.
Source: used to live in Avenida do Brasil, right under the landing route. I can still tell you the times at which planes landed at night. My room used to get lit up as if it was day light whenever a plane was landing
There's two entirely different things at play here: one, the changed 07L approach used which is now a straight in approach as opposed to one with a 15° turn at the very end. This is something that's been announced for a long time - there's documentation freely shared by the Ombudsman on this (as well as several other threads on Reddit). This is what causes noise over areas, when and if 07L is used, that had not been overflown under the older, offset approach. This is what any valid discussion should focus on.
Then there's wind directions indicating the use of said 07L approach. These are quite obviously not under anyone's control, and since wind changes over time and these are arriving flights, nothing much you can realistically do. Complaining about intensity of use is hence... quite ridiculous and in a way, the materialisation of the Simpsons meme "old man yells at cloud". Mayors focusing on this point either did not do their homework, or they deliberately chose to take a populist stance of incorrectly putting blame against the (Flemish-territory) airport. Spoiler alert: aerial routes are a federal competence.
Luckily, we have westerlies at Brussels airport for the vast majority of the year.
Landing is not really a problem imo, it's the departures. Sit on the canal in Molenbeek when a cargo 747 is departing and you'll see what I mean.
A few details to add to what you said about this
Which isn't entirely correct.
The article highlights the following:
What stands out most is the number of flights, which increased overnight.
And this aspect is solely the responsibility of the Flemish Region.
Despite the logical issues associated with an airport, the Flemish Region retains responsibilities that it does not fulfill (environmental standards).
As a result, citizens complain (and, logically, the mayors of the municipalities follow suit), while the federal government and the Region continue to bury their heads in the sand and pay fines following various court decisions.
Edit: there are several points that are incorrect and that were exchanged in the discussion with u/StellaArtois3000
Ignoring the whole argumentation that 07L isn't even a preferential runway and is chosen based upon wind directions for a minute, let's look at some numbers on the intensity of nighttime traffic in general, across all runways.
Did the number of night flights actually increase? It's public data for a reason: Airport movements - Brussels Airport Traffic Control.
Extrapolating 2025 results (December data is still missing) data shows very similar results to 2024. If we extrapolate just the departing flights (i.e. considering that, for instance, a flight originally scheduled to land at 22:00 local (day)time but suffering a massive hour-long delay will end up landing during nighttime) we see a decreasing trend.
Also, your statement that the Flemish region is somehow the sole responsible for nighttime operations at EBBR is outright false. Federal legislation mandates the use of coordinated slots, of which a cap is placed at 16 000 nighttime slots with reduced hours on weekends.
Créneaux horaires | Mobilité Créneaux horaires|SPF Mobilité et Transports
Frequently asked questions for neighbours | Brussels Airport
At best, the Flemish environmental permit influences the number of available nighttime slots, but the actual operational usage is not a direct Flemish decision.
In fact, I'd argue Flemish influence is positive in terms of noise abattement. The environmental permit that was approved by Flanders in 2024 imposed even stricter nighttime restrictions than what we saw till then - see Environmental permit granted for Brussels Airport. It was cancelled after the permit was found to be in breach with EU regulations and a grand total of 21 appeals - among which Brussels municipalities, for instance, with several calling for a complete ban of nighttime flights, instead of a reduction. Brussels Environment minister appeals against airport permit
When you look at the use of 07L and 07R during nighttime, it's increasing though, even with missing data for December 2025.
Your second point is interesting. Even though I was not aware of the federal frame, it sounds to me that it is only a frame and that it don't really absolve the Flemish government from its responsibility of setting such a high (from the point of view of the cities, not of the airport of course) number of nighttime slots. But again, I don't know this particular point so I might be wrong.
Oh thanks for the detailed reply :)
The "Airport movements" link is really interesting.
It allows for great analysis.
You're right, but I was mainly referring to the Flemish Region, as responsible for flights operating at the airport and therefore for environmental standards.
Moreover, the quota of 16,000 nighttime slots is often not respected by the Airport and so the Flemish Region.
It's indeed wrong to claim that, given the figures of the Airport.
However, while the number of flights varies, the figures show that cargo flights are increasing steadily and, above all, that they are becoming increasingly noisy.
Since 2016, categories R1 to R4 have been steadily declining, while categories R5 to R8 have been increasing.
Finally, the problem did not just start in 2024.
Although the mayors of the northern municipalities have finally decided to voice their criticism, the problem has been around for much longer and has been brought before the courts by more vocal municipalities (Woluwé, Auderghem).
The result remains the same: many levels of government are burying their heads in the sand and prefer to continually pay fines for regulatory violations, causing continuous nuisance for residents in the municipalities concerned.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that it is very interesting to talk with you, and I greatly appreciate your knowledge on the subject. :)
lol it's funny it is exactly that "old man yells at clouds" meme that I had in mind when clicking on this topic 😂
Winds conditions are indeed out of anyone's control but the wind norms to decide if a runway can be used are not.
Of course, they should be based on security only but this is Belgium... When Bert Anciaux became minister of transport in 2003, he realized that his administration was in charge of these rules and by tweaking the max allowed tailwind, he could move a lot of flights away from the Flemish area North of Brussels. Ever since technical parameters that should be driven by safety only have become toys in a twisted political game.
If there is too much tailwind to use the 25L, then 01 should be used instead (and I say this living in WSP directly under the 01 approach but I've lived in Ganshoren and can testify how a 1000x worse the plane noise was). But Kraainem and WSP have been very successful on the judicial side while Western communes went for a conciliatory strategy and are now screwed.
In a normal country, Zaventem would have been closed a long time ago as it's way too close to the city but the only available replacement spots are in Wallonia and Flemish politicians will never agree to such move.
As of 2014, 07L/R and 01 have a much stricter tailwind allowance (up to 3 knots) than 25L/R (up to 7 knots). Z-18_Informatie_Fiches_nl.pdf
The noise has increased in Uccle as well.
I remember when the "Plan Wathelet" started in 2013 or 2014 and Cargo was flying low above Uccle at night... Absolutely insane.
[deleted]
Not true, people do complain, but no one can do anything to change that.
Source: used to live in Avenida do Brasil, right under the landing route. I can still tell you the times at which planes landed at night. My room used to get lit up as if it was day light whenever a plane was landing
Note that they plan to move this airport south of the city.
Among all the things to complain about the mayors chose airlines. Lmao