On 23 May, 12:28, "Recliner" wrote:
"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.


Biggest thing they could do, I suspect, would be to break up BAA. The
idea that a monopoly was fine as long as it was a private monopoly has
turned out to be just as ludicrous as it sounds.

Jonn