Have to comment on a few points raised. Overall, some of the comments raised here seem to show a lack of understanding regarding SOPs - Elemts of the Operations Manual that are approved by the CAA - the same CAA that publishes the R/T Manual.
An example being;
ATC - (Callsign) Descend FL200
A/C - Descend FL200 (Callsign) CONFIRM.
Many commercial operators using multi crew have very specific Ops manual requirments regarding who replies to the R/T, who sets the cleared level in the altitude window and what callouts and responses are made. Thus you have a 3 person crosscheck - the controller and both pilots
When the other crewmember is on the other radio - often obtaining the ATIS - a single crewmember is left as Pilot Flying, Radio operator and the sole person who acknowledges the clearance and sets the altitude window.
Relying on the lack of a correction to a mistaken call is not seen as being suficiently robust and double confirmation is required as per the CAA approved ops manual.
Thus, you have the "Descend FL200 (Callsign) CONFIRM to which ATC simply say - AFIRM. Simple short very safe check in the absence of the normal crosschecking procedures.
---------
Callsign passing FL140 Climbing FL160 (when passing level not requested)
Is often translated as - we are climbing at 2000ft per minute - if you want us to keep going give us higher otherwise we are going to have to reduce that to 1000ft per minute or less - Ops manuals require 1000ft per minute or less in last 1000ft.
Also linked to the many European ATC units where you are for example cleared climb to fl270. Nothing happens until a few seconds after leveling you report so and you are either given further climb or you are transferred to the next sector who immediately issue climb.
------------
London, we're routing direct to point XXX, can you tell us the next waypoint on our flightplan after point XXX". (Why ask ATC? Why don't you check what it says on your own copy of the flightplan? I mean, you do have a copy with you, don't you?)
Often happens when the point we are going direct to is not on the flight plan.
Pilots do not want to do legs 5nm long at 90 degrees to the direction of travel simply because the next position in our flight plan is almost abeam the point ATC sent us to.
A very good example - since when has LAM become part of the London City Arrival route...................vectors and then "direct LAM to leave on a heading of xxx"
Perhaps ATC would prefer..........do you have our flight plan? do you know the points on the XXX arrival..........or simply LAM not on our flight plan response?
Most of the other points I agree with but as I said, some of the complaints display a lack of knowledge of what the CAA has operators put in the ops manual.
Regards,
DFC