TimB wrote:
On May 22, 6:15 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
wrote:
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
Chap I know is off to Boston or somewhere on business next week, and
reckons he was entirely unwelcome and treated with intense suspicion
just getting to the stage of the visa interview, never mind actually
going...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight. The interview took about two minutes. So a total
waste of time, money and carbon emissions (this is a guy who cycles/
trains everywhere and doesn't have a car, so was annoyed by this) -
but at the end of the day, once he got through all the bureaucratic
obstructionism, he was welcomed with open arms. So, a bit of both.
They risk affecting their universities as well as the economy.
Tim

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half ago,
you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

--
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”

In message , at 07:35:52 on Sat, 24
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
Funnily enough, a chap I know went to Boston a couple of months ago,
for a six-month fellowship at Harvard. Couldn't get a visa appointment
in London within any reasonable time-scale so had to fly to Belfast
and stay overnight.

The last time I went to the States, only about a year and a half ago,
you didn't need a visa. Has this changed?

Were you going as a tourist or to a business meeting, and for no more
than three months?

Those are the usual qualifications for not needing a Visa.
--
Roland Perry

On May 22, 3:45*am, 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

You are confusing airports and their employees, with US federal
government functionaries. At some airports, some USCIS enforcers can
be brusque. These people are outwith the control of the airport.

On May 22, 7:33 pm, 1506 wrote:
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

You are confusing airports and their employees, with US federal
government functionaries. At some airports, some USCIS enforcers can
be brusque. These people are outwith the control of the airport.

If every Underground train contained a violent drunk who stole your
wallet, then even if said violent drunk wasn't employed by London
Underground and London Underground had no control over the violent
drunks, it would be fair to say that they made journeys on London
Underground substantially less pleasant than journeys on the New York
Subway or Paris Metro.

The same applies for security screeners and immigration personnel at
US airports.

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

On May 22, 12:08*pm, John B wrote:
On May 22, 7:33 pm, 1506 wrote:

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

You are confusing airports and their employees, with US federal
government functionaries. *At some airports, some USCIS enforcers can
be brusque. *These people are outwith the control of the airport.

If every Underground train contained a violent drunk who stole your
wallet, then even if said violent drunk wasn't employed by London
Underground and London Underground had no control over the violent
drunks, it would be fair to say that they made journeys on London
Underground substantially less pleasant than journeys on the New York
Subway or Paris Metro.

The same applies for security screeners and immigration personnel at
US airports.

You argued this very clearly. I cannot disagree with your point.

On 22 May, 19:33, 1506 wrote:
On May 22, 3:45*am, 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

You are confusing airports and their employees, with US federal
government functionaries. *At some airports, some USCIS enforcers can
be brusque. *These people are outwith the control of the airport.


Doesn't matter even one little bit who they work for. The point is
that flying into New York or Washington is a pretty nasty experience,
and over time that's going to have an impact - just as the nightmare
that is Heathrow is putting Londons's economy at risk.

Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell. But I
resent this implication that it's a one way street. The US needs to
sort its house out too.

Jonn

wrote:
On 22 May, 19:33, 1506 wrote:
On May 22, 3:45 am, 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
You are confusing airports and their employees, with US federal
government functionaries. At some airports, some USCIS enforcers can
be brusque. These people are outwith the control of the airport.


Doesn't matter even one little bit who they work for. The point is
that flying into New York or Washington is a pretty nasty experience,
and over time that's going to have an impact - just as the nightmare
that is Heathrow is putting Londons's economy at risk.

I hate to say it, but it's not that nasty for U.S. citizens. Heathrow is
nasty for everyone.
--
Michael Hoffman

"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message

wrote:
On 22 May, 19:33, 1506 wrote:
On May 22, 3:45 am, 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
You are confusing airports and their employees, with US federal
government functionaries. At some airports, some USCIS enforcers
can be brusque. These people are outwith the control of the
airport.

Doesn't matter even one little bit who they work for. The point is
that flying into New York or Washington is a pretty nasty experience,
and over time that's going to have an impact - just as the nightmare
that is Heathrow is putting Londons's economy at risk.

I hate to say it, but it's not that nasty for U.S. citizens. Heathrow
is nasty for everyone.

Good point -- the immigration queues for EU arrivals at Heathrow are now
as long as non-EU arrivals. Not so long ago, EU arrivals had almost no
queues. Of course, it doesn't make much difference overall, as baggage
comes through so slowly at Heathrow, that you just waste the time in the
immigration queue, instead of in the baggage hall.

On Fri, 23 May 2008 02:25:49 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell.

No. Flying into *Heathrow* is, by any reasonable definition, hell.
There are, however, many other airports in the London area, and all of
them are orders of magnitude better.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In message , at 09:13:26 on Sat,
24 May 2008, Neil Williams remarked:
Flying into London is, by any reasonable definition, hell.

No. Flying into *Heathrow* is, by any reasonable definition, hell.
There are, however, many other airports in the London area, and all of
them are orders of magnitude better.

I'm not sure Gatwick's much better, especially if your flight is using
the "joke" north terminal extension (which they seem to be so ashamed of
I have tried half a dozen sites and none of them even show it) or you
are going through the South terminal security.

--
Roland Perry