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