On the original question.... .A340 - we also get the option to put in the abeam points when cleared direct or not, it's our choice. Personally I always select the "with abeam points" option for just the reason you're asking about - I can then put in a speed/altitude constraint if you give it to me. So I would prefer you to give me the constraint as "abeam Tiger" rather than "25 before BIG". However, lots of my colleagues don't use "abeams", so I guess it's a moot point.. .. .The point raised by Vector Pushtin..... Pontius is correct, it's up to us pilots to make sure that the new routing makes sense - the trainers in my mob are quite hot on drilling that into us (anyway, it's basic good airmanship.) Unfortunately, mistakes do happen.... However, there's another aspect to using a VOR's name, rather than it's identifier, on the RT - different pronunciations of the same name by different nationalities. After 15 years of flying through French airpsace I still do not recognise the way a French controller pronounces "Agen" - it's totally different to the way I pronounce it!! (Yes, yes, yes, I know his is the correct way, I'm just an ignorant Englishman <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> ). If he just cleared me to "AGN" it would help me tremendously. On the same topic, how many Yanks call STU "St Rumble"?! I know it's ICAO procedure to use the name, rather than the identifier, but that's one procedure I think should be amended.