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

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Personally, I prefer not to have meetings in secondary cities.  I was in the
30% that voted for Vancouver over Quebec City for this meeting as I knew
what a hassle it would be to get to Quebec based on a previous
trip.  However, I'm not fussing because my travel there went very well - I
flew direct to Montreal and rented a car and drove to Quebec (a 3 hour
drive).   While I think we should give preference to cities with large
international airports, if a secondary city is reachable in one additional
hop from a large airport via plane, train, bus, or automobile then it
shouldn't necessarily not be considered *if* the other criteria are met.
 The other criteria in my mind are a variety of hotels near the venue,
accessiblity to food for everyone (i.e., including those of us with
restricted diets) near the venue and adequate meeting space.  The first two
usually require that the venue be located near a city center.   I think
since QC met all the other criteria, the additional hop to get there wasn't
unreasonable.  On the other hand, Maastricht did not meet any of the
criteria and it was more than two hops for the majority of attendees - it
was 5 hops (2 air and 3 train) for me and I live 15 minutes from one of the
largest international airports in the U.S.   I think that's why there was
significantly more concerns raised about secondary cities last year.  In
hindsight, of course, I should have just rented a car in Brussels and drove
to Maastricht, which is why I made that choice for Quebec city (based on a
bad experience flying out of Quebec city when I was there previously).

That all said, I am very much of the mindset that we should find 6 locations
that work well and just rotate amongst those for x years and then
re-evaluate.  I'd be perfectly happy if we met in Minneapolis once every two
years.  And, I think the other 5 could easily be determined based on past
meetings.  Of course, I am biased in that I don't have time to sight see
during the meeting week, so I don't consider the tourism appeal of a city as
an important factor in choosing a venue for a business meeting.

Mary.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
> ______________________________**_________________
> 81attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/81attendees<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees>
>