new york in a day?

> I always work on the
> principle that if the time I spend somewhere exceeds the total travelling
> time then it's usually not worth going or too tiring.
>

Can you run that one by us again? Or is it just me missing something?

Res

"resenär" <resenar@REMOVETHISmccoid2.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4mdndY1GuXec5LdSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
> > I always work on the
> > principle that if the time I spend somewhere exceeds the total
travelling
> > time then it's usually not worth going or too tiring.
> >
>
> Can you run that one by us again? Or is it just me missing something?
>
> Res

I think he was travelling faster than light - and time was moving backwards

In message <d4mdndY1GuXec5LdSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk>, resenär
<resenar@REMOVETHISmccoid2.karoo.co.uk> writes
>> I always work on the
>> principle that if the time I spend somewhere exceeds the total travelling
>> time then it's usually not worth going or too tiring.
>>
>
>Can you run that one by us again? Or is it just me missing something?

Sounded OK to me. eg. If your [leisure] journey is 6 hours each way,
then spend at least 12 hours at the destination.

Assuming that flying hours at Heathrow are 6am to midnight, then that
leaves 18 hours in between. If the actual flights are 7 hrs, plus 2 hrs
checkin at New York, 1hr for immigration, that's a total of 17 hours,
leaving just one hour to look round the city (perhaps just enough to
squeeze in a cab ride to Manhatten and straight back).

Delay arrival home until 6am the following day (did the OP want a *day*
trip, or a 24hour trip?) and you might get 6 hours of shopping. Assuming
that I can add up, and that suitably times flights are indeed available.

But 6hrs << 20hrs (allowing for checkin at Heathrow and re-immigration
as part of the whole travelling 'experience').
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HBpeZmVLO$DAFAj5@perry.co.uk...
> In message <d4mdndY1GuXec5LdSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk>, resenär
> <resenar@REMOVETHISmccoid2.karoo.co.uk> writes
> >> I always work on the
> >> principle that if the time I spend somewhere exceeds the total
travelling
> >> time then it's usually not worth going or too tiring.
> >>
> >
> >Can you run that one by us again? Or is it just me missing something?
>
> Sounded OK to me. eg. If your [leisure] journey is 6 hours each way,
> then spend at least 12 hours at the destination.
>
> Assuming that flying hours at Heathrow are 6am to midnight, then that
> leaves 18 hours in between. If the actual flights are 7 hrs, plus 2 hrs
> checkin at New York, 1hr for immigration, that's a total of 17 hours,
> leaving just one hour to look round the city (perhaps just enough to
> squeeze in a cab ride to Manhatten and straight back).
>
> Delay arrival home until 6am the following day (did the OP want a *day*
> trip, or a 24hour trip?) and you might get 6 hours of shopping. Assuming
> that I can add up, and that suitably times flights are indeed available.
>
> But 6hrs << 20hrs (allowing for checkin at Heathrow and re-immigration
> as part of the whole travelling 'experience').
> --
> Roland Perry

Mark said if the time in destination exceeds the time spent travelling to
and from destination, then it's NOT worth it.

Res

In message <j8acnX4Kc5zra5LdSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk>, resenär
<resenar@REMOVETHISmccoid2.karoo.co.uk> writes
>Mark said if the time in destination exceeds the time spent travelling to
>and from destination, then it's NOT worth it.

Which is what I confirmed.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HBpeZmVLO$DAFAj5@perry.co.uk...
> In message <d4mdndY1GuXec5LdSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk>, resenär
> <resenar@REMOVETHISmccoid2.karoo.co.uk> writes
> >> I always work on the
> >> principle that if the time I spend somewhere exceeds the total
travelling
> >> time then it's usually not worth going or too tiring.
> >>
> >
> >Can you run that one by us again? Or is it just me missing something?
>
> Sounded OK to me. eg. If your [leisure] journey is 6 hours each way,
> then spend at least 12 hours at the destination.

No, he said if the time spent in the destination exceeds it e.g. at least 12
hours, as you said, then it's not worth it. He's saying you shouldn't be
there more than 12 hours.

As I see it anyway,

Res

In message <LcGcnYbXh7lTZ5LdSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk>, resenär
<resenar@REMOVETHISmccoid2.karoo.co.uk> writes
>No, he said if the time spent in the destination exceeds it e.g. at least 12
>hours, as you said, then it's not worth it. He's saying you shouldn't be
>there more than 12 hours.

Ok! (I had read it the other way round - which is what I expect he
meant!)
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qCwlJQYv+$DAFAmX@perry.co.uk...
> In message <LcGcnYbXh7lTZ5LdSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk>, resenär
> <resenar@REMOVETHISmccoid2.karoo.co.uk> writes
> >No, he said if the time spent in the destination exceeds it e.g. at least
12
> >hours, as you said, then it's not worth it. He's saying you shouldn't be
> >there more than 12 hours.
>
> Ok! (I had read it the other way round - which is what I expect he
> meant!)
> --
> Roland Perry

Just checking it was a typo and not a mental block on my part. :-)

Res