I haven't looked at the data but I imagine foreign tourists mostly go to London and a few venture out to nearby hotspots. People within the UK seem to be branching out to every half-beauty spot we have in every corner of the Isles.
Sample of 1 but my last 3 vacations in the UK have skipped London.
My impression is anybody visiting for more than a week will likely do a few days in London then move on to someplace else (of my friends, that’s usually Scotland for camping/hiking).
Clearly you have never been to Oxford, Bath, York, Edinburgh, Lake District, Cornwall etc etc which are teeming with visitors from the US, China, Japan and many other countries during the summer...
I've been to most of them but teeming isn't a word I'd really use. They're also the most obvious hotspots outside London, I was mostly attempting to make a point about all the 2nd-tier and 3rd-tier locations that are currently very busy with UK staycationers.
We did the North Coast 500 this year (we live in NE Scotland, but obviously aren't going to get anywhere further afield for now!), and it was really difficult to find accommodation because so much was fully booked.
This is a very interesting topic and I feel very hard to make ends of.
For example, you can compare local money (brits spending money in UK) vs foreign money (foreigners coming to UK for holidays) and get a part of the picture. On the other hand, local money are going to be spent in smaller towns, but the foreign money mostly go to large centres, London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow etc. Then there are the amounts involved, 500gbp in London will buy say, a weekend for a couple, therefore employing not really that many people (cook, bartender, server, cleaner etc). The same amount will buy a weekend on the east coast for quite a few more people, therefore requiring more support personnel (hence, more jobs).
> That video does not show the removal of the harness.
This article includes that video and also pics of the removed harness. Apparently the buckle is marked with the brand "Equipment St. (logo) Petersburg."
According to Yahoo Finance, it was 10.06 on the NYSE the day before he became the CEO. Went up a bit to 11.06 a couple of times in the next two quarters, but otherwise not good, and 3.94 in pre-market trading today.
That is not completely fair, though. At the time of his arrival Nokia was a desperately sinking ship. The price would drop before rising no matter what direction the company took at the time.
At the time of his arrival, Nokia was a stagnating dinosaur, with a tiny bit of hope in an innovative operating system that was mismanaged, buggy, and couldn't ship on time. Elop accidentally announced that they were discontinuing support on horrible Symbian, which was at the time the most popular smartphone operating system in the world, and turned Nokia into a desperately sinking ship.
Elop wasn't the worst CEO possible, but he was the worst CEO available.
That's why I gave an overview of the behavior starting with him becoming CEO. He got a couple of quarters of flat stock prices, perhaps suggesting investors were giving him a chance to show he was turning it around, and after that it's essentially all downhill.
You mean a sunk ship is rising - 40%! ? What percentage of the mobile market does Nokia have? Hint: Was Samsung selling anything 5 years ago in this market? Not to mention QT is having a tough time.
See my other comment in this subthread: it rose a bit, then sunk a whole lot. That it's up from its nadir $1.71 a bit more than a year ago is cold comfort when it was doing around $9 3 years ago summer through spring 2011.
Nokia is like a ship with a hole in it, and Elop's job is to get it pointed in the right direction.
Except he hasn't. He's just bailed water a little faster, and slightly reduced the sink rate.
I give them credit for doing something daring and different (betting on Windows when they knew noone else would). It was a big gamble, though, and at least so far, it hasn't paid off. Android would have been a far safer bet in the short-term at the very least.
