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."

Ian

Ian

On 21 May, 22:12, 1506 wrote:

But, London baddly needs an infrastructure upgrade. Crossrail is
needed.

The whole bloody country needs an infrastructure upgrade. If Crossrail
could be done at a reasonable cost it would be fine - but the
expenditure proposed is just ridiculous.

Ian

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

On 21 May, 23:23, 1506 wrote:

At speeds, and comfort levels, that would be entirely unacceptable in
Atlanta, Berlin, New York, or Paris.

In my experience travel in London tends to be faster than in New York;
comfort varies greatly in both places. Each city has advantages over
the other.

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?

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

On May 22, 7:38 am, Martin Edwards wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
1506 wrote:
Allow me to appraise you of some facts.
...
The almost complete inability to move about within London.

Rubbish. Over 1 billion passenger journeys are made on London Underground
every year, and nearly twice that number on the buses.

I suspect he means that you have to mix with oiks, and people of
excessive skin pigmentation.

Is it an obsession with some people that they must accuse or imply
racism in someone no matter what the comment? Is there some quota that
has to be fullfilled by all paid up members of the right-on losers
club?

B2003

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

On Wed, 21 May 2008, 1506 wrote:

On May 21, 3:04*pm, "Richard J." wrote:
1506 wrote:

Allow me to appraise you of some facts.
...
The almost complete inability to move about within London.

Rubbish. *Over 1 billion passenger journeys are made on London Underground
every year, and nearly twice that number on the buses.

At speeds, and comfort levels, that would be entirely unacceptable in
Atlanta, Berlin, New York, or Paris.

I've been to New York. The subway there is no better when it's crowded.

You need to get out more.

You need to shut up more.

tom

--
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -- Mark Twain

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

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.

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.
--
Michael Hoffman