Talk:São Paulo–Congonhas Airport

International?
It's not an international airport. It's a domestic one. 201.26.87.207 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition is used very loosely, and it generally applies to any airport that has the capability of customs and immigration clearing. Congonhas has that ability (Federal Police and Customs on the premises), but no international flights fly out of it. So if, for example, you're flying in on a private jet from abroad, you could in theory make Congonhas your port-of-entry.Dali-Llama 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Accidents and Incidents
It may be undue weight to put one incident (even a recent one) on the page for the airport. JFK's page does, as does London Heathrow Airport, but if we're going to start, let's make sure we document ALL of them and put them in a historical manner, NOT a current events approach. See those pages for examples.--Dali-Llama 01:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, give us some time to evaluate situation - this is not right time to do harsh deletionist moves to enforce your specific wikipedian attitude.....there should be some voting before such important move. Thank you for your patience and generosity. --Bluewind 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way it would be bigger challenge to change that policy with accidents on Heathrow, JFK or any other bigger airport articles rather than on this tiny little airport....go there and persuade them in discussion...and when you win their support come back here and delete the same things as you were allowed to do in Heathrow or JFK. Thank you very much. --Bluewind 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The same argument you make for "harsh deletionist moves" and "evaluate the situation" can be made for NOT including the information until we're in a position to include information on all incidents at Congonhas. I'm not saying we should not include accident information. I'm saying if we are to include it, it should be done when it has moved beyond "current events" and can be addressed in a historical perspective. Certainly not when we're including statements such as "No information on casualties has been made available yet" (A sentence which I wrote, actually on another article and has already been changed multiple times). And honestly, "specific wikipedian attitude"? I'm not the most by-the-book Wikipedian, but I do try to follow policy. I may misquote policy occasionally, but I do try to make sure that it's being followed. Nothing wrong with that. And please, tone down the ironic commentary and try to assume good faith--I'm trying to make the article better, not thrown down the rules against each other. I've added my compromise edit, and pitched in to make my point: OTHER and ALL incidents should be included, in a HISTORICAL context, not current events--leaving as much information as possible to each incidents' page.--Dali-Llama 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dalillama about listing the accidents and incidents as a whole. Those improvements have been made (thank you) and are very good. But please, don't lose sight of the fact that 200 people died! Your arguments over format look petty and childish in light of that. Wikipedia is not top priority here, so relax a bit. Goeverywhere 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not top priority here"? I don't know if you misspoke, but we're IN Wikipedia. Other projects have other policies and have different goals. Wikinews has an article on this and their policies are different--they're a repository for news. We're an encyclopedia, and we need a few rules (as few as possible) to make it one. Why does the fact that 200 people died make a difference in how we write an encyclopedia? I don't think it does. We don't bend or break rules for individual incidents. And trust me, I'm not losing sight of the fact that nearly 200 people died a horrible death landing on an airport I've used dozens of times and crashed into a building I've been in myself a couple of times. Pretty hard to do that. Bottom line, we want everyone to contribute, but we have norms to make sure that this becomes a useful and relevant source for encyclopedic knowledge, not a hodgepodge of data.--Dali-Llama 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia vs. 200 dead? Even on Wikipedia, the fact that 200 are dead is more important than a website. As I said, your original point was correct but it devolved into a turf war -- one that looked petty in light of 200 deaths. It was SO petty that I felt the need to address it. You and Bluewind were arguing with each other, and now you want to argue with me. Silly, cuz the article looks good. Indeed, I came here for some good info and got it. Great job! That's my last word. Have a great day. Goeverywhere 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I didn't understand... who is the petist in all this discussion??? 200.140.5.85 03:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? What's a petist? Do you mean "petista"?--Dali-Llama 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

About new airport
I don't see Wikipedia as place for futurology. If somebody sais it will build a new airport 1) it's not part of airport's history 2) It doesn't happenned, so it can be placed in an Encyclopedia. 201.1.181.100 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In case such plan(s) were mentioned by someone influential and implementation seemed relatively realistic, it would seem important to me to describe any such plan(s) on this page. I believe that under those circumstances a description of it would also appear in an old-fashioned paper edition encyclopedia, including at least one valid reference of course. Vovtz (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Related link #2
Politics talk, delete it, please. 201.1.181.100 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Infraero logo.png
Image:Infraero logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 767 at Congonhas
The mention to former Boeing 767 operations at Congonhas Airport by Transbrasil has been repeatedly deleted and reintroduced. For once and for all: Transbrasil's first Boeing 767-200 was actually received at a ceremony at Congonhas. Not only that, in the 1980s Transbrasil operated frequent charter flights from Orlando, Florida nonstop to Congonhas using the 767, in what were the only nonstop long-haul flights to the airport ever (in the other direction, Congonhas' short runways did not allow a 767 takeoff with full fuel tanks for a nonstop flight to the U.S., so the plane stopped in Rio de Janeiro first for refueling). Transbrasil also operated regular shorter-haul domestic flights to Congonhas using the 767.

For those who can read Portuguese, on the talk page of Jetsite, a prestigious Brazilian web site about aviation, the site's owner, Gianfranco Beting, answers a visitor's question attesting that indeed Transbrasil operated the 767 at Congonhas, and testifies that he even was in one of the Orlando-Congonhas nonstop flights. He should know: Beting was an executive with Transbrasil for many years. I was unable to locate a story I remember having seen on that site, also by Beting, mentioning that the plane was so big for the airport's old and modest facilities that it had to use the auxiliary apron so as not to clutter and obstruct the main one. On the same talk page, there are other visitors' comments mentioning being on 767 flights to Congonhas. On YouTube there is also a video of the first 767 landing at Congonhas. I have added both pages as references, hoping to end this little edit war.

I also know of at least one Douglas DC-8 operation at Congonhas. The DC-8 is not a widebody jet, but it is a long-haul four-engine jet normally not allowed to land on Congonhas' short runways. The instance I know of was a millionaire's private jet which was very light, with very little payload and fuel in the tanks, so the landing was exceptionally authorized because the Brazilian government was interested in doing business with the owner. I did not add the mention to it because I could not find any references to substantiate it. --UrsoBR (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

4rd? 3rd or 4th?
^ Airport Statistics for 2008 4rd busiest Brazilian airport

--91.15.235.15 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:POV-statement
I put it in per WP:SUBJECTIVE. Listroiderbobtalk'tribs▆ 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move the page to São Paulo–Congonhas Airport, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 22:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Congonhas-São Paulo Airport → São Paulo/Congonhas Airport – per airport naming conventions, the operator use this as the English language name of the airport. Hack (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – I do agree that the page needs to be moved, not least because the title includes the wrong dash. That said, how do the page's references refer to the airport, and what is the common name by which the airport is known? It does seem like most of the first page of Google results (and the name listed in the current article lead section) support the target title. I was worried that the slash in the article title might cause problems, but this doesn't seem to be the case; see here (and see GNU/Linux naming controversy as an example; the page itself is fine, and though the talk page is interpreted by Wikipedia as a subpage of Talk:GNU, this is not a real problem). --V2Blast (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose MOS:SLASH, WP:SUBPAGE -- avoid slashes whenever possible, they cause problems. They cause talkpages to become subpages of other articles, and look like subpages in URL constructions. São Paulo–Congonhas Airport / São Paulo&mdash;Congonhas Airport / São Paulo-Congonhas Airport are possible alternatives WP:OFFICIALNAME -- we do not use official names just because they are official. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:SUBPAGE says "Some topics have a slash in the name, and should be named accordingly". If there is a consensus to use the ndash instead of the slash, I'm not bothered, as long as the order is changed. Hack (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * EMTU - Symbol logo.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1985CongonhasAirport-01.jpg