Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ hub airport discussion (was: Re: are we getting complacent? Good job!)

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> Sun, 07 August 2011 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5725B21F8801 for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <XYt8B2vaHmYP>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.695, BAYES_00=-2.599, PLING_QUERY=1.39, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XYt8B2vaHmYP for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7CD821F87FC for <81attendees@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=rg+ietf@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1312756028; x=1344292028; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:date:to:from: subject:content-type:x-random-sig-tag; z=Message-Id:=20<p06240607ca64c02e8cbc@loud.pensive.org> |In-Reply-To:=20<1833618D9DF8CFFC27A79918@PST.JCK.COM> |References:=20<4E34C3A9.2020502@att.com>=0D=0A=20<A5B9F0 59BE69461F8008EBECD84A1E67@china.huawei.com>=0D=0A=20<80A 0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A6402713C27@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intr a.net>=0D=0A=20<3DA9637F-1C72-43CB-B040-49F2A6FF26D9@soft armor.com>=0D=0A=20<alpine.OSX.2.01.1108011727420.20499@1 73-11-110-132-sfba.hfc.comcastbu=0D=0A=20siness.net>=09<4 E398F03.1000806@dcrocker.net>=0D=0A=20<F5833273385BB34F99 288B3648C4F06F13512DF56E@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com=0D=0A =20>=20<1833618D9DF8CFFC27A79918@PST.JCK.COM>|X-Mailer: =20Eudora=20for=20Mac=20OS=20X|Date:=20Sun,=207=20Aug=202 011=2015:26:42=20-0700|To:=20John=20C=20Klensin=20<john-i etf@jck.com>,=0D=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20"Murray=20S. =20Kucherawy"=20<msk@cloudmark.com>,=20<81attendees@ietf. org>|From:=20Randall=20Gellens=20<rg+ietf@qualcomm.com> |Subject:=20Re:=20[81attendees]=20The=20perennial=20air =20connection/=20hub=20airport=0D=0A=20discussion=20=20(w as:=20Re:=20are=20we=20getting=20complacent?=20Good=20job !)|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-ascii" =20=3B=20format=3D"flowed"|X-Random-Sig-Tag:=201.0b28; bh=oELlwtie8aecvOww0TvROZDsaYwrMVoWqFi0Fbxh7PY=; b=OXivNMZJy+wdsBfUFNnmMsWahXLE+7Ij6Pg5MAaC/07rr3S7lTofCaDl B0YDVLSzh5nvClxygiyvvhNM/ChbCTq27vxgfzFd0sN739BE5zm7nL7TE RcUO+byZRU8OPp43zhXQJ5dJx9M/qs8sI5t+LW/VogdYdl9o9jqg2haT3 Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6431"; a="108680952"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2011 15:27:06 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,333,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="59401244"
Received: from warlock.qualcomm.com ([129.46.50.49]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 07 Aug 2011 15:27:07 -0700
Received: from loud.pensive.org (myvpn-r-710.ras.qualcomm.com [10.64.2.198]) by warlock.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id p77MR4gE001670; Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:27:05 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240607ca64c02e8cbc@loud.pensive.org>
In-Reply-To: <1833618D9DF8CFFC27A79918@PST.JCK.COM>
References: <4E34C3A9.2020502@att.com> <A5B9F059BE69461F8008EBECD84A1E67@china.huawei.com> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A6402713C27@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <3DA9637F-1C72-43CB-B040-49F2A6FF26D9@softarmor.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1108011727420.20499@173-11-110-132-sfba.hfc.comcastbu siness.net> <4E398F03.1000806@dcrocker.net> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF56E@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com > <1833618D9DF8CFFC27A79918@PST.JCK.COM>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 15:26:42 -0700
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, 81attendees@ietf.org
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Subject: Re: [81attendees] The perennial air connection/ hub airport discussion (was: Re: are we getting complacent? Good job!)
X-BeenThere: 81attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 81 Attendee List <81attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/81attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:81attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 22:26:49 -0000

At 9:36 AM -0400 8/4/11, John C Klensin wrote:

>  I've
>  often had to insist on earlier flights out to provide what I
>  consider a reasonable margin of safety against missing a
>  connection if the inbound flight is delayed but, at that point,
>  I'm to blame for the longer layover, not the airline or airport.

I wouldn't say you were to blame, even though the longer layover may 
be by your choice, since your choice is driven by the risks of late 
inbound flights and the costs of running through airports.  I usually 
select flights with longer layovers because the risk is too great 
otherwise (and of course, I prefer different safety margins depending 
on the airport).

>  I think it is reasonable to be _much_ more concerned about
>  intermodal changes.   Not only are, e.g., plane-> train changes
>  often time-consuming but, because there is rarely any schedule
>  coordination between carriers, it is hard to sort tickets out
>  remotely for some countries (but not others), and the change
>  often involves dragging luggage around (not merely collecting it
>  and redepositing it some meters away).  Note that is an
>  objection to the transfer process (especially when exhausted
>  after a long trip), not to trains (which are usually great in
>  countries in which they actually work -- opinions about which
>  countries those are differ somewhat).

Absolutely agree.  I love taking trains in general (and found the 
Quebec-Montreal trip very pleasant), but connecting from an 
international flight to a train is a different matter (especially 
when one has to lug suitcases up or down stairs).

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I hold that the very purpose of existence is to reconcile the
glowing opinion we have of ourselves with the terrible things
that other people say about us.               --Quentin Crisp