Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Whoops, sorry. I meant the upcoming weekend when I wrote the message (the weekend after the IEEE meeting). On 7/22/06, Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/19/2006 20:08 PM, Clint Chaplin allegedly wrote: Another data point; San Diego is hosting Comic-Con this weekend: they're expecting on the order of 100,000 attendees. The weekend before the IETF? Hey, that's an advantage! -- Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Wireless Security Technologist Wireless Standards Manager ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
On 07/19/2006 20:08 PM, Clint Chaplin allegedly wrote: Another data point; San Diego is hosting Comic-Con this weekend: they're expecting on the order of 100,000 attendees. The weekend before the IETF? Hey, that's an advantage! ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Andrew G. Malis wrote: Dave, Actually, airline hubs increase the risk of depending on a single airline, since most hubs (at least in the US) are dominated by a single airline, such as Northwest in Minneapolis and Detroit, US Airways in Philly and Pittsburgh, American in Dallas, Delta in Altanta and Salt Lake City, America West in Phoenix, United in Denver, and so on. Chicago is one of the few major US airports that is a dual hub (American and United). And yes, Minneapolis is a hub. I failed to distinguish which type of 'hub' I meant. You are, of course, correct that an airline's hub will tend towards monopolistic fragility. I mean international hub. These are serviced by a wide range of airlines, with direct flights all the heck over the place. There are relatively few of these in the world, and they have the major benefits of a) lots of capacity and b) lots of alternatives, should a given airline have a problem. For example in the US, who dominates LAX, SFO, JFK or ORD for international? Elsewhere even with a national airline, there is massive variety for getting to places like LHR, AMS, SIN, HKG, and so on. Total numbers of passengers is probably a useful heuristic, but note that it is not sufficient. What we need are places that have high passenger numbers AND good distributions of passengers/airline. This latter ensures minimal dominance. d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Starting from Europe, San Diego seems to be no harder to reach than any other major US city. The SPF route from Geneva has two hops (e.g. via EWR or JFK). I agree that major hub airports are a little easier to reach, but maybe that's why we can get meeting space more easily in non-hub cities? Brian Burger, Eric wrote: I would offer that it is easier for me to get to London, Paris, or Frankfurt from New Hampshire than it is to get to San Diego. LAX is marginally better. Chicago, Boston, New York, Toronto, Atlanta, and Las Vegas (!) are my easy, one-hop cities. That said, it was fun driving to Montreal :-) -Original Message- From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 8:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Meetings in other regions Hello; On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John C Klensin wrote: It also means such things as: * picking places within those countries or regions that have good airports with easy (and multiple) international connections. Even San Diego is a little marginal in that regard. Based on experience in the last year or so, I'd suggest that Cape Town and Marrakech (suggested in another posting) should be utterly disqualified (although J-berg and Casablanca are more plausible on this dimension). Some data about San Diego: Today, the flight information page on San Diego International Airport web site shows a couple of flights to/from Mexico and a couple to/from Canada -- all the others are within US. When meeting in North America, I would strongly prefer cities that have several direct flight connections from both Europe and Asia. Of the recent IETF meeting places, San Diego is the only one that clearly fails this criteria... so why are we going there again? Even direct flights within the US can be hard to find. Depending on where you are coming from, and when you purchase your tickets, you may find it faster / cheaper / better to fly to LAX or Long Beach and drive down to San Diego. (LAX - San Diego is ~ 200 km, and LAX is basically on the San Diego Freeway.) I did this for the one San Diego IETF. If you do that, be aware that there is a permanent immigration checkpoint on the San Diego freeway Northbound, which can cause backups returning. Regards Marshall Best regards, Pasi ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Starting from Europe, San Diego seems to be no harder to reach than any other major US city. The SPF route from Geneva has two hops (e.g. via EWR or JFK). I agree that major hub airports are a little easier to reach, but maybe that's why we can get meeting space more easily in non-hub cities? Meeting space is gotten more easily at hub cities when planning is done farther in advance. If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous facilities, or some other strong justification, it makes sense to go there. Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of attendees to: 1. Experience an extra flight, each way, with its attendant inconveniences and risks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.) 2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the airline competition that major hubs do. 3. Experience a higher risk of losing access completely, because of that lack of airline competition... The primary airline to the non-hub might go on strike, for example, as (nearly) happened to us in Minneapolis one time. 4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity and the concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together usually has a noticeable impact on their flights. d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Dave, A few points: If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous facilities, or some other strong justification, it makes sense to go there. Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of attendees to: 1. Experience an extra flight, each way, with its attendant inconveniences and risks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.) This is a something of a fair point, but if we were to limit our conferences to hub cities when in the U.S., that would mean San Francisco, LA, Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Washington D.C, and maybe Boston. There's a trade off. My absolute favorite location for an IETF these many years was Santa Fe. It was beautiful. Aside from the conference there was art, scenery, and history, including Bandelier National Monument and the Sandia Mountains. Santa Fe required most of us to change planes, land in Albuquerque, and then drive for an hour or so. In as much as our size permits us to visit such locales, it's a nice change of pace. And honestly I think we all get along a little better when we can see and do some fun things together outside of work. 2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the airline competition that major hubs do. This is not necessarily true. Sometimes airfares are actually CHEAPER for those spoke cities. For instance, I have seen airfares to San Diego that are cheaper than those to Los Angeles. It's counter-intuitive and demonstrates that one really has to be some sort of a clairvoyant to understand airfares, but there it is. My recollection is that the Savvy Traveler and the Wall St. Journal have reported on this phenomenon. 3. Experience a higher risk of losing access completely, because of that lack of airline competition... The primary airline to the non-hub might go on strike, for example, as (nearly) happened to us in Minneapolis one time. Minneapolis *is* a hub for Northwest. 4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity and the concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together usually has a noticeable impact on their flights. This is unlikely to be a problem, because we're merely the next 1200-1400 attendees that fly in, and in an area like San Diego we're one of several conferences that will go on at the same time, I'm sure. What's more, the next 1200-1400 will begin to fly in as we depart. So the capacity is probably there. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Dave, Actually, airline hubs increase the risk of depending on a single airline, since most hubs (at least in the US) are dominated by a single airline, such as Northwest in Minneapolisand Detroit, US Airways in Philly and Pittsburgh, American in Dallas, Delta in Altanta and Salt Lake City, America West in Phoenix, United in Denver, and so on. Chicago is one of the few major US airports that is a dual hub (American and United). And yes, Minneapolis is a hub. Cheers, Andy -- On 7/19/06, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: Starting from Europe, San Diego seems to be no harder to reach than any other major US city. The SPF route from Geneva has two hops (e.g. via EWR or JFK). I agree that major hub airports are a little easier to reach, but maybe that's why we can get meeting space more easily in non-hub cities?Meeting space is gotten more easily at hub cities when planning is done fartherin advance.If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous facilities, orsome other strong justification, it makes sense to go there. Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of attendees to:1. Experience an extraflight, each way, with its attendant inconveniences andrisks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.) 2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the airlinecompetition that major hubs do.3. Experience a higher risk of losing access completely, because of that lack ofairline competition... The primary airline to the non-hub might go on strike, for example, as (nearly) happened to us in Minneapolis one time.4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity andthe concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together usually has a noticeable impact on their flights.d/___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Eliot Lear wrote: Minneapolis *is* a hub for Northwest. 4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity and the concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together usually has a noticeable impact on their flights. This is unlikely to be a problem, because we're merely the next 1200-1400 attendees that fly in, and in an area like San Diego we're one of several conferences that will go on at the same time, I'm sure. What's more, the next 1200-1400 will begin to fly in as we depart. So the capacity is probably there. Sand Diego is the busiest single runway commercial airport in the United states. it handles approximately 40,000 passenger arrivals/departures per day with about 300 commercial flights arriving per day. 1/3 of all flights are southwest which is the part that doesn't really help folks connecting internationally. If the entire IETF were to fly in Lindberg field on the same day that would be approximately 5% of the seats. I would suspect that more people than that fly in to visit seaworld on a given day. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
On 19-jul-2006, at 15:45, Dave Crocker wrote: I agree that major hub airports are a little easier to reach, but maybe that's why we can get meeting space more easily in non-hub cities? If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous facilities, or some other strong justification, it makes sense to go there. Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of attendees to: 1. Experience an extra flight, each way, with its attendant inconveniences and risks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.) 2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the airline competition that major hubs do. I certainly don't fly as much as the next IETF-er, but in my experience, direct flights are almost always more expensive than indirect ones. Obviously a direct flight is much more convenient, but some indirect ones are actually pretty good while others are terrible and some direct flights are also pretty bad. Based on my experience past few years I would be happy to change planes again in Iceland (and probably in any other Schengen country where you only go through immigration when entering the Schengen zone initially) but not in the US if I can avoid it because either you have to build in ridiculous amounts of extra time or you run the risk of missing a connection because of the lines at immigration, especially at large airports such as JFK and LAX. As a rule, smaller is better, upto a point. This seems to go for the planes too, those 747 air-dinosaurs aren't very convenient, particularly with (un)boarding. Another issue is ground transportation. I guess most people don't mind using a taxi, but having to stand in line for one isn't exactly what I need after an intercontinental flight... All in all, San Diego seems like a pretty bad choice for a meeting place: it's even hard to get to from inside the US, and it's as far as you can get from Europe without leaving the continental US. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
On 7/19/06 1:47 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All in all, San Diego seems like a pretty bad choice for a meeting place: it's even hard to get to from inside the US, and it's as far as you can get from Europe without leaving the continental US. I'm not crazy about it either, but not because it's difficult to get to. Accessibility is a question of travel facilities, and there are very nice places in the US that are a heck of a lot harder to get to than San Diego, even on the east coast. I live in one of those places on the US east coast, and there are very few places I can get to in Europe or Asia or even Canada without having to change planes at least twice. So, in terms of reachability San Diego isn't that bad. My disagreement with San Diego is that the meeting facilities there have been consistently lousy. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Another data point; San Diego is hosting Comic-Con this weekend: they're expecting on the order of 100,000 attendees. On 7/19/06, Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, A few points: If a non-hub venue offers dramatic net price savings, fabulous facilities, or some other strong justification, it makes sense to go there. Otherwise, a non-hum city forces virtually the entire set of attendees to: 1. Experience an extra flight, each way, with its attendant inconveniences and risks (higher risk of lost luggage, missed connections, etc.) This is a something of a fair point, but if we were to limit our conferences to hub cities when in the U.S., that would mean San Francisco, LA, Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Washington D.C, and maybe Boston. There's a trade off. My absolute favorite location for an IETF these many years was Santa Fe. It was beautiful. Aside from the conference there was art, scenery, and history, including Bandelier National Monument and the Sandia Mountains. Santa Fe required most of us to change planes, land in Albuquerque, and then drive for an hour or so. In as much as our size permits us to visit such locales, it's a nice change of pace. And honestly I think we all get along a little better when we can see and do some fun things together outside of work. 2. Pay higher air fares, since secondary venues do not have the airline competition that major hubs do. This is not necessarily true. Sometimes airfares are actually CHEAPER for those spoke cities. For instance, I have seen airfares to San Diego that are cheaper than those to Los Angeles. It's counter-intuitive and demonstrates that one really has to be some sort of a clairvoyant to understand airfares, but there it is. My recollection is that the Savvy Traveler and the Wall St. Journal have reported on this phenomenon. 3. Experience a higher risk of losing access completely, because of that lack of airline competition... The primary airline to the non-hub might go on strike, for example, as (nearly) happened to us in Minneapolis one time. Minneapolis *is* a hub for Northwest. 4. More generally, secondary venues have less total airline seating capacity and the concentration of our 1200-1400 attendees flying in and out close together usually has a noticeable impact on their flights. This is unlikely to be a problem, because we're merely the next 1200-1400 attendees that fly in, and in an area like San Diego we're one of several conferences that will go on at the same time, I'm sure. What's more, the next 1200-1400 will begin to fly in as we depart. So the capacity is probably there. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Wireless Security Technologist Wireless Standards Manager ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Diego (was RE: Meetings in other regions)
Eric, All I can say is that you're not looking very hard - I just spent all of5 mniutes searching for tickets and found a nonstop between Boston and San Diego for $418 on Alaska (this flight is also an American codeshare), and single-connection flights from Manchester NHstarting at $315 on Northwest, Delta, and United. These prices are all extremely reasonable for flights that areabout as far as you can go within the continental US. These prices are for flying out on Sunday 11/5 and returning on Saturday 11/11, so they don't require a Saturday night stayover. Cheers, Andy -- On 7/18/06, Burger, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would offer that it is easier for me to get to London, Paris, orFrankfurt from New Hampshire than it is to get to San Diego.LAX is marginally better.Chicago, Boston, New York, Toronto, Atlanta, and Las Vegas (!) are myeasy, one-hop cities.That said, it was fun driving to Montreal :-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
