On 22 May, 12:19, Michael Hoffman wrote:
If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed.

U.S. airports are fine. On the whole, far easier than the ones in the
London area, and far more amenable to the needs of business travelers.
They are operated by public authorities or by airlines to encourage
travel rather than to shortsightedly maximize profit as BAA tries to do.

Sorry, have you ever been to the US? That may be true for places such
as Phoenix or Detroit, which are desperately trying to persuade
businesses to relocate there (indeed, DTW is very nice). But for the
places people have to go - New York, Chicago, Washington DC and Los
Angeles, it's complete and utter nonsense.

I
don't think it's dawned on the US government how much that's going to
put people off studying or working in the states, which over the
medium term is going to do some pretty nasty things to its economy

Frankly, I don't think they care.

I suspect you're right, but that's out of arrogance more than it is
out of not *needing* to care.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
On 22 May, 12:19, Michael Hoffman wrote:

I didn't actually write this bit:

If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed.

U.S. airports are fine. On the whole, far easier than the ones in the
London area, and far more amenable to the needs of business travelers.
They are operated by public authorities or by airlines to encourage
travel rather than to shortsightedly maximize profit as BAA tries to do.

Sorry, have you ever been to the US?

I lived there for 23 years.

But for the
places people have to go - New York, Chicago, Washington DC and Los
Angeles, it's complete and utter nonsense.

I've flown through the largest international airports in all four of
those airports within the last four years. In fact, I think I've flown
through three of them within the last year. I was even in New York two
weeks ago. There, I reflected on how pleasant American Airlines's new
terminal was, how short the queues for check-in and security were, and
how seamless the transition from their old terminal was, especially when
compared to BA's recent T5 fiasco.

I'd much prefer a U.S. domestic flight to a intra-European flight, any
day. If, for no other reason, than the greater cabin baggage allowance,
which makes it much easier to do a lot of traveling.

I
don't think it's dawned on the US government how much that's going to
put people off studying or working in the states, which over the
medium term is going to do some pretty nasty things to its economy
Frankly, I don't think they care.

I suspect you're right, but that's out of arrogance more than it is
out of not *needing* to care.

I didn't say it was a good thing...
--
Michael Hoffman

On 22 May, 11:34, John B wrote:
On May 22, 11:13 am, Boltar wrote:

Though most ex-gymnasium scholars speak English, they are in a minority.

Most germans high up in the finance sector will speak english as a
necessity.

Yes, but if you're a Yank expat living in Germany for two years you
might occasionally want to chat to people who aren't bankers.

Sounds most implausible, based on most of the Americans I've met in
Germany.

Ian

On 22 May, 16:07, Michael Hoffman wrote:
John B wrote:
On 22 May, 12:19, Michael Hoffman wrote:

I didn't actually write this bit:

If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed.

Hence the extra attribution marks, and the fact that I only responded
to the bits that you wrote. I find endless tirads of "x wrote, y
wrote" unedifying; YMMV.

U.S. airports are fine. On the whole, far easier than the ones in the
London area, and far more amenable to the needs of business travelers.
They are operated by public authorities or by airlines to encourage
travel rather than to shortsightedly maximize profit as BAA tries to do.

Sorry, have you ever been to the US?

I lived there for 23 years.

Apologies for cheap sarcasm.

But for the

places people have to go - New York, Chicago, Washington DC and Los
Angeles, it's complete and utter nonsense.

I've flown through the largest international airports in all four of
those airports within the last four years. In fact, I think I've flown
through three of them within the last year. I was even in New York two
weeks ago. There, I reflected on how pleasant American Airlines's new
terminal was, how short the queues for check-in and security were, and
how seamless the transition from their old terminal was, especially when
compared to BA's recent T5 fiasco.

This is a whole world of YMMV. The only US airports I've been to in
the last year are O'Hare, which was typically awful, and Detroit Fort
Wayne, which was very nice indeed. It's possible that the New York
airports have massively improved since I did that trip regularly, but
I'm sceptical. For my money, most European airports are better than
O'Hare, JFK or Newark - and that includes Heathrow except for
transfers between T123 / T4 / T5.

I'd much prefer a U.S. domestic flight to a intra-European flight, any
day. If, for no other reason, than the greater cabin baggage allowance,
which makes it much easier to do a lot of traveling.

Is there a greater cabin baggage allowance on US domestic? I've never
noticed a difference in practice, for full-fare flights at least.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On May 22, 1:56*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 21 May, 19:11, 1506 wrote:

Against these advantages US CEOs and CFOs have to consider the
following:

London's expensive second rate hotels.

Dumb UK airport rules. *One can deplane with two pieces of hand
luggage, but enplane with only one.

The almost complete inability to move about within London. *Taxis are
very expensive compared with US cities and move at walking pace.
London's subway is overcrowded uncomfortable and unreliable.

Ok, so you think that having marginally easier journeys from a small
number of town near London to a small number of places within London
will suddenly overcome all other perceived problems?

"Waal, Hiram, the airports are crap, the hotels are overpriced, the
city is filthy and taxis are exhorbitant but, hey, it takes ten
minutes less to get from Slough to Tottenham Court Road than it did
before, so London wins."

Err,

Ease of transit between Heathrow, West End, City and Docklands.

Relief for the Central and Bakerloo Lines.

Step change in the capacity of London's transit system giving
increased ability.

On May 22, 2:40*am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 22 May, 09:56, The Real Doctor wrote:

Ok, so you think that having marginally easier journeys from a small
number of town near London to a small number of places within London
will suddenly overcome all other perceived problems?

You seem to miss that the purpose of Crossrail has nowt to do with the
outer branches. It's all about the tunnel in the middle relieving
existing tube lines to the City, Docklands, Stratford, etc. The GWML
is simply a convenient way to add Heathrow to the scheme, and they
only go to Maidenhead and Shenfield because it's easier than not doing
so.

U

--http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Thank you "U". Well said. Yeah, you "get it".

Boltar wrote:
On May 22, 7:36 am, Martin Edwards wrote:
Ok, but you'll first have to learn German and then Rhineland German.

Whats the difference?


A lot, believe me.

Though most ex-gymnasium scholars speak English, they are in a minority.

Most germans high up in the finance sector will speak english as a
necessity.

B2003




--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

John B wrote:
On May 22, 11:13 am, Boltar wrote:
Though most ex-gymnasium scholars speak English, they are in a minority.
Most germans high up in the finance sector will speak english as a
necessity.

Yes, but if you're a Yank expat living in Germany for two years you
might occasionally want to chat to people who aren't bankers. Even if
it's just your cleaner and the people in the local shop...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Na.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

wrote:
On 21 May, 19:11, 1506 wrote:
On May 21, 10:19 am, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 21 May, 17:05, 1506 wrote:
On May 21, 7:55 am, The Real Doctor wrote:
Nope. People with a financial interest in having it built have
proposed a very modest benefits to cost ration. Even then, we'd do
rather better, as I recall, sticking the money in a building society
account.
One wonders if you will still think this is true when Europe's
fianancial center has moved to Frankfurt?
Ridiculous scaremongering. If Europe's financial centre moves to
Frankfurt, it won't be because the commute in from Maidenhead hasn't
been reduced by ten minutes.
Ian
Allow me to appraise you of some facts.

Many US companies favor London as a European base of operations.

For several years now US companies have been under the thumb of a
nasty piece of Legislation called Sarbanes Oxley. One partial
solution to this is to de-list on the US stock exchanges and list on
an oversea exchange. London has until now been the exchange of
choice.

Another method of reducing the impact of state and federal legislation
is the creation of upstream, offshore holding companies. Again
England & Wales is the obvious choice. Although Dubai seems to be
competing well for offshore incorporation and banking.

Against these advantages US CEOs and CFOs have to consider the
following:

London's expensive second rate hotels.

Dumb UK airport rules. One can deplane with two pieces of hand
luggage, but enplane with only one.


If poor airports are capable of wrecking an economy then the US is
screwed. In my experience any foreigner is made to feel entirely
unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion as you enter the country,
thanks to those nice chaps at the Department of Homeland Security. I
don't think it's dawned on the US government how much that's going to
put people off studying or working in the states, which over the
medium term is going to do some pretty nasty things to its economy

Jonn

That was certainly true the first time I went via New York. The second,
via Atlanta, was much easier, and people at the regional airports are
usually quite nice.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

John B wrote:
On 22 May, 16:07, Michael Hoffman wrote:
John B wrote:
But for the
places people have to go - New York, Chicago, Washington DC and Los
Angeles, it's complete and utter nonsense.
I've flown through the largest international airports in all four of
those airports within the last four years. In fact, I think I've flown
through three of them within the last year. I was even in New York two
weeks ago. There, I reflected on how pleasant American Airlines's new
terminal was, how short the queues for check-in and security were, and
how seamless the transition from their old terminal was, especially when
compared to BA's recent T5 fiasco.

This is a whole world of YMMV.

That's a change from "complete and utter nonsense."

It's possible that the New York
airports have massively improved since I did that trip regularly, but
I'm sceptical.

Despite being owned by the same governmental entity, the terminals are
run by different groups.

For my money, most European airports are better than
O'Hare, JFK or Newark - and that includes Heathrow except for
transfers between T123 / T4 / T5.

Hmm. I assume by "European airports" you mean the ones that have
transatlantic flights. Maybe. I wouldn't include Heathrow.

I'd much prefer a U.S. domestic flight to a intra-European flight, any
day. If, for no other reason, than the greater cabin baggage allowance,
which makes it much easier to do a lot of traveling.

Is there a greater cabin baggage allowance on US domestic? I've never
noticed a difference in practice, for full-fare flights at least.

Well, chiefly I find that they are less strict about excluding bags that
are slightly larger than the limit. Until earlier this year, you could
not take an additional "personal item" in the UK. I'm not sure if you
can yet at all airports.
--
Michael Hoffman