Peter wrote:
It is doubly funny, with the 2nd half being the type and quantity of booze consumed
I’m so far out of touch of these things that until your, and Peter_Mundy’s explanation, I hadn’t even cottoned on that the first two lines were drinks, and alcoholic ones at that.
It must also have been a huge bar for 63 pints to be consumed with everyone at 2m distance, which is why we have what we have…
Peter wrote:
It must also have been a huge bar for 63 pints to be consumed with everyone at 2m distance, which is why we have what we have…
Perhaps people each drink more than you imagine :-)
On the right hand side of the chit is “GST = 9” which means nine at the table.
It looks like nine people had a glass of prosecco each, three of them had a second glass, and then they all went on to consume an average of seven pints of Peroni each. It is quite a session, but perfectly possible. Perhaps started at lunchtime, given the timestamp on the chit.
Perhaps started at lunchtime, given the timestamp on the chit.
Back in the day of exchange controls, pre Euro, with some European countries having commercial and financial exchange rates, it was not unusual for the arbitrageurs to close the day trading at around 11am and go to the Jamaica Inn. Then ‘eating was cheating‘ and 9 pints would be lunch.
The poor Japanese convertible bond desk would take up the reins in the evening, whiskey and sake being a particular nightmare not taking any prisoners.
Not sure how the markets operate without lubrication in these Tier three days, but rolling sterling short with zero interest rates doesn’t require too much skill.
Peter wrote:
It must also have been a huge bar for 63 pints to be consumed with everyone at 2m distance, which is why we have what we have…
I know the bar which is part of the refinery hotel the place I usually stay when in NY a couple times a year. It’s rooftop, quite nice and trendy. (But not massive)
If the CAA use this to prosecute me for being below 10,000’ altitude, when I flew at this speed I will fight it, and I am entitled to do so in Elgin Sheriff Court, from a letter from the current Minister for Aviation.
Maoraigh wrote:
If the CAA use this to prosecute me for being below 10,000’ altitude, when I flew at this speed I will fight it, and I am entitled to do so in Elgin Sheriff Court, from a letter from the current Minister for Aviation.
I don’t see why they would prosecute you? Is there something in the picture I’m missing?
SERA speed limit
Yeah, but IAS vs ground ?
(funny multilat results on these websites aside)
Met deny there was a 90kt tailwind at 3,000’.☹️
VNE is 176kts. Cruise is 117kts.
