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

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, 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

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