In message
, at
04:01:41 on Sun, 25 May 2008, TimB remarked:
I thought the deal used to be that if you had a
new passport you could also bring the old one with the unlimited visa
and it'd be accepted.

You are correct. The other story wasn't quite right.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:49:36 on
Sun, 25 May 2008, Recliner remarked:

I also had 'unlimited' visas in the old days, but it turns out they
weren't.

They weren't unlimited, the were "indefinite", which doesn't mean "lasts
for ever" but actually means "we can't tell when they will end". And one
day they simply decided to end them all!

My 10-year UK passport was extended (because of a strike in the UK
passport office), but when I next went to the US, the immigration
officer cancelled my visa as it was over ten years old. Apparently
'unlimited' visas actually lasted ten years. I don't know if they still
do that.

I think you are conflating your experience with the fact that having
decided to end all the "indefinite" Visas (ie come to a definite
decision on when they would end, once the VWP had proven itself), they
cancelled them in your passport the next time you went to the USA.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 25 May 2008, Martin Edwards wrote:

Goalie of the Century wrote:
In message , Roland Perry
writes
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.

So there are many reasons why someone might need a visa.

Civis Britannicus sum.

Gens una summus.

tom

--
Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream.

On Sun, 25 May 2008, Martin Edwards wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
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.

I imagine you have to be of high net worth to use City Airport.

I'm flying from Zurich to City in the summer. It was something like 20
quid more expensive than BA to Luton. Once you'd factored in the train
fare, it was only about a tenner more, and it's so much easier to get home
from there that it's worth it.

tom

--
Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream.

On Fri, 23 May 2008, 1506 wrote:

On May 23, 4:05*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 22 May, 20:06, 1506 wrote:

On May 22, 3:40*am, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2008, 1506 wrote:
You need to get out more.

You need to shut up more.

Manners.

"You need to get out more" was rather rude too, old boy. We don't need
another Polson here.

You certainly know how to grab a guy?s attention. The last thing I
want to do is look into a mirror and see THAT sort of anger.

Mr. Anderson, please know that I regret my acerbic response to your
post.

And i mine to yours. There was something to it that tripped my troll
detector, and i abandoned politeness. I shall try to avoid such false
positives in the future.

tom

--
Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream.

In message
MIG wrote:

On May 25, 7:53*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:46:19 on Sun, 25
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:

Also it is debatable whether Luton or Stanstead are actually in the
London area. *The names are a product of London's self-obsession and
the international obsession with it.

Luton qualifies under your description (even though it's as well
connected to London as Gatwick and arguably better than Stansted) but
Stansted is the official "third London Airport".

Which is the second?

There I was thinking it was Biggin Hill. At least that's in
London ...

I am sure I remember a colleague having to fly from there at some
point. I think it's mainly corporate, chartered, air-taxi and other
one-off things.

And Formula 1, Bernie Ecclestone owns it.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

MIG wrote:
On May 25, 7:53 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:46:19 on Sun, 25
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:

Also it is debatable whether Luton or Stanstead are actually in the
London area. The names are a product of London's self-obsession and
the international obsession with it.
Luton qualifies under your description (even though it's as well
connected to London as Gatwick and arguably better than Stansted) but
Stansted is the official "third London Airport".

Which is the second?

There I was thinking it was Biggin Hill. At least that's in
London ...

No, its in Sussex.

I am sure I remember a colleague having to fly from there at some
point. I think it's mainly corporate, chartered, air-taxi and other
one-off things.


--
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”

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...
MIG wrote:

There I was thinking it was Biggin Hill. At least that's in
London ...

No, its in Sussex.

No. Biggin Hill is in London (London Borough of Bromley), and was formerly
in Kent.

Peter

Martin Edwards wrote:
MIG wrote:
On May 25, 7:53 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:46:19 on Sun, 25
May 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:

Also it is debatable whether Luton or Stanstead are actually in the
London area. The names are a product of London's self-obsession and
the international obsession with it.
Luton qualifies under your description (even though it's as well
connected to London as Gatwick and arguably better than Stansted) but
Stansted is the official "third London Airport".

Which is the second?

There I was thinking it was Biggin Hill. At least that's in
London ...

No, its in Sussex.

Kent/Bromley/Greater London, according to preference.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Sun, 25 May 2008 07:46:19 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]
I imagine you have to be of high net worth to use City Airport.

You'd be surprised. The last few trips I've made to Switzerland,
flying LCY - ZRH has been markedly cheaper than using the other big
London airports, and has even been cheaper than the supposedly budget
airlines' flights to other Swiss airports.

It gets a bit cramped when it's busy, though, does LCY.

--
Ross.
* Opinions are my own; my employer has disowned me again.
* Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my first name to e-mail me.

AD: http://www.merciacharters.co.uk for rail enthusiast tours in Europe