One major area of interest was knowing what residents need to accept the airport as a neighbour or what an ideal relationship with the airport looks like in general. On the one hand, the participants mentioned noise reduction. For example, at Cologne-Bonn Airport, this referred explicitly to night flights and replacing old, noisy aircraft.
The second category of answers related specifically to airports' information and communication. To be accepted as a neighbour, the airport should fulfil the following points – actively approach affected residents and take responsibility as a real neighbour would; the airport should be respectful, open to criticism and transparent. A neighbourly airport should be fair with residents and care, cooperate and communicate honestly.
When asked what kind of information was needed for residents, the answers were diverse. In areas where night flights are allowed, the information requested was related to the latter. For example, residents do not understand how it is possible that night flights are not banned at the airport, while they are no longer permitted at many German airports. Furthermore, information on the effects of aviation and aircraft noise was requested. It is related to people, animals, nature and the environment, specifically climate change. This information should be scientific and up to date.
In general, the participants also wanted to know global information on the functioning of the airport, such as flight route distribution, how measurements work, but also on changes in the summer months' schedule.
Another mentioned topic was related to transparent future plans. Which technical improvements are to be expected, what changes are planned and what the airport's general growth strategy is? This topic was related to predictability for the citizens.
Last but not least, residents wanted to know more information on noise protection and noise protection claims. The consensus on how information should be communicated included variety of communication ways at the same time – in addition to the usual methods such as radio, internet, post or flyers, new ways were also mentioned, for example, airport's own YouTube or radio channel.
However, an important topic was the personal exchange with the airport – such as a citizens' information centre, general information events, discussion rounds were addressed (focus groups or open citizens' dialogue). Participants also wanted an "open day" at the airport.
Overall, participants emphasised that the information should be presented factually and comprehensively. The time interval for communication should depend on the subject area. Of course, communication should also take place when changes occur, but there should also be a continuous and regular exchange of information.