Re: [81attendees] are we getting complacent? Good job!

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

Disclaimer:

      I have not noticed a groundswell (or, even, /any/) support from others 
about the concerns I've raised with venues in secondary cities.  That appears to 
make this thread entirely academic.  I'm pursuing it because of the degree of 
mythology about hubs-vs-secondaries and about the risks of new venues.)


On 8/3/2011 8:49 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> plus transit time /in/ ORD. Changing planes typically adds at least 2-3
>> hours to the total trip time, counting landing and takeoff and in-airport
>> transfer.
>
> I do about six conferences a year and I can't remember the last time I was
> given a layover anywhere close to that long.  Mine are typically anywhere
> from 50 to 90 minutes, assuming no delays or missed connections.  Sometimes I
> actually wish they were longer.

Sorry I wasn't clear.

I am citing the aggregate cost, not just the time on the ground.  Over the 
years, my sense of of the incremental flight cost, in having to land and take 
off for a connection, is that it seems to add about an hour.  Then there is the 
time on the ground.

Also, the less planned time on the ground, the less robustness against delays in 
the first leg of the flight.  Planning only for best-case scenarios is typically 
not terribly good project management.  However, given the suggestion on another 
thread that we shouldn't worry about dropped packets, perhaps the IETF's new 
mission is only to consider best-case scenarios...

(Special additional circumstance:  a transition that includes 
Immigration/Customs, such as QC -> ORD -> home, needs quite a bit of additional 
time.  United allocated 1.5 hours and it wasn't enough.)


>> On a good trip, the extra hop to a non-hub location typically costs 4-8
>> hours round-trip, often also costing more money.
>
> Conversely, a flight to a hub rather than through one is itself often more
> expensive.

often?  I don't think so.

Orbitz shows a flight from SFO to Quebec City, one month from now, costing 
US$550 and having no non-stops (of course.)  From SFO to Toronto is $514 with a 
non-stop.  (To Montreal, there is a non-stop, at a massive premium.  A 1-stop 
costs $524.)

That's not a huge difference, of course.  My recollection for Hiroshima vs. 
Tokyo was that the difference was around US$300.

Hubs have more servicing airlines which means more competition. There's a theory 
that competition among providers is better for the consumer.  But it's only a 
theory.


>> I have never understood why we are so cavalier about the aggregated cost.
>
> When I weigh the potential costs of a layover against the idea of only ever
> going to a handful of major transit cities, I'll take the former.

That's a tourism argument.  I recently heard someone comment that we officially 
do not count tourism in our planning model, but when there is a choice, it is 
always a strong (dominant?) factor.

My point was not that new cities aren't interesting, but that constantly going 
to new cities carries quite a bit of risk and cost and that going to secondary 
cities costs more time and money.  Not just transit time or airline dollars, but 
site visits to inspect new locations, site planning for wifi, and then all the 
fun of discovering unknowns, such as the secondary hotel in Maastricht only 
allowing Internet through port 80...  All of that required, additional research 
and planning increases the meeting fee, as well as increasing the likelihood of 
a serious, unanticipated problem.

Over the recent three-year period, we seemed to experience a significant problem 
at least one site per year.  These were unanticipated problems inherent to the 
place.  That's a 1/3 rate of significant problems.


>  The entire experience
> would begin to get dull; to me, then, the layover risk you've described is
> ultimately worth it.

As I said, we tailor our planning for experienced, frequent travelers.



On 8/3/2011 11:26 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
 > * Limiting ourselves to "hubs" will further limit our ability to find
 >    suitable meeting venues,

That's why we are moving to lining up sites earlier.  (Roughly 15 years ago, we 
were told that we should plan international sites roughly 3 years ahead, 
specifically to ensure choice.)


 > * While it may be easy to define a hub on paper, reality tends to make
 >    things a lot more complicated. A fair number of our attendees are
 >    "locked in" with certain air carriers and are thus forced to travel

You are suggesting this as a rationale for requiring /everyone/ to make plane 
changes?


 > * Hubs (assuming we agree on the definition) tend to be in expensive
 >    locations,

You are suggesting that Quebec was inexpensive?


d/

ps. There was a question about the definition of a hub.  A simple one is 
multiple carriers with non-stop flights to another content, although I seem to 
recall a stricter one requiring multiple carriers with non-stop flights to /two/ 
continents.  I suspect the latter is more useful.

pps.  Just in case the disclaimer, at the start of the message, has been 
forgotten after wading the fog of the message content, I'll repeat that I'm not 
seeing any base of support for my concerns but /am/ seeing strong support for 
secondary cities.


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net