Sorry mate, but I do have to jump in here, as this is just plain wrong. No one has suggested we use unnecessary, additional phrasing, only ICAO standards.
As someone who has operated into your old home town of BOS, as well as JFK, EWR, LAX, ORD, etc, but most importantly London Heathrow, I can unequivocal say the ATC experience in London is well beyond anything I’ve experienced in the US.
The fast paced, abbreviated, slang used in the US works for native US pilots. Whilst not an American myself, english is my first and only language, (I’m not British either, so no bias), and as such I can adapt to the US style relatively easily. Not everyone has that luxury.
London handles the same traffic levels as NewYork, yet ATC there manage to use a more controlled pace, and phraseology that’s less ambiguous and more aligned with international norms. For foreign crews who don’t speak english as a first language, this is incredibly important.
ATC in London is quite simply a level above what you get in the US. It’s more orderly, predictable, less rushed and has a sense of calm and control that you don’t feel in the US.
Granted, in the UK I’ve never got a slam dunk that puts me 5,000ft above profile, or a last min sidestep runway change. The type of things that are normal in the US, (and the most fun when your proficient with these ops.
)
Edit: I think we can all agree that the best solution would be to model the regional differences in ATC & airspace. However, in the absence of that, I’d much prefer that ICAO standards be adapted world wide, rather than cherry pick bits from all over the place in an unorganised and incoherent fashion, even if than means shifting away from an FAA type ATC system.