Talk:Zona da Mata Regional Airport

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Bagunceiro in topic Busiest Airports

Location of Pres. Itamar Franco Airport edit

According to the National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil, Pres. Itamar Franco Airport is located in Goianá and not in Rio Novo (see reference in article). Furthermore, the main destination is Juiz de Fora and its metropolitan area. The same situation is found with CGB (serves Cuiabá and located in Várzea Grande), CWB (serves Curitiba and located in São José dos Pinhais), NAT (serves Natal and located in Parnamirim), or more internationally, with GRU (serves São Paulo and located in Guarulhos) or CDG (serves Paris and located in Roissy-en-France), among others. (Brunoptsem (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC))Reply

Page Name edit

Should this page be renamed (as the airport itself has been) to "Presidente Itamar Franco Airport" - with a redirect from its current name? Bagunceiro (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Redirect already exists. It is better to leave the page as Zona da Mata because this is the name by which the airport is commonly referred to. (Brunoptsem (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC))Reply

Busiest Airports edit

Is the "See Also" link to List of the busiest airports in Brazil meant to be ironically humorous? ;-) Bagunceiro (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no irony or humor meant, just a numbers. (Brunoptsem (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC))Reply
It doesn't make a lot of sense referring the list of busiest airports when discussing Zona da Mata, which currently has no commercial traffic at all! It's like referring out to the worlds largest cities from an article on an uninhabited island, or to a list of the fastest creatures on the planet from an article on a snail. I can only think it was added by someone with a sense of humour and a nod at yet another Brazilian white elephant. But since I see it was yourself then presumably not as you would know.
I think it ought to be removed for the reasons above.

Bagunceiro (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply