The only reason why a RT direct airfare would not have exceeded hotel costs was because I came early as I attended another meeting in San JOse just prior to IETF and I was attending a workshop on Saturday. If I had arrived on Saturday the direct RT airfare would have exceeded hotel costs.
Mary. On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < [email protected]> wrote: > Those prices still sound like a week's hotel costs would exceed them. > And I would expect the cost of your time to your employer to exceed even > that. I'm not suggesting airfare prices don't matter, not by any stretch of > the imagination, just that they are third if you stay a whole week. Or > maybe fourth, there's also the IETF charge to consider, but that's less > flexible (week or day) and not highly location dependent. Of course if you > go for just a day the airfare is quite likely to be number one on the list, > unless the location is relatively local.**** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > Christopher Dearlove**** > > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124**** > > [email protected] | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, > Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Mary Barnes [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 06 August 2012 15:42 > *To:* Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > *Cc:* Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew > Sullivan; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > **** WARNING **** > > *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an > external partner or the internet.*** > * > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > * > *Please see this > process<http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>on > how to deal with suspicious emails. > ***** > > Flights to Vancouver from some cities were extremely expensive. It > would have cost me more than twice as much as it did to fly to Beijing, for > example, if I had taken a direct flight from DFW - it would have been by > far my most expensive IETF airfare ever. I didn't because I was trying to > be cost conscious. However, I could have flown to London in the same time > it took me to get to/from Vancouver and for about the same price. This is > a typical problem when we go somewhere when tourists go (for some reason, > flying to cities in Canada is very popular when the temp in Texas is 110 > degrees F). Orlando will most likely be just as bad since it is > scheduled during a time where many schools in DFW area have Spring Break - > flight costs right now are over $500 ($560). I can usually fly anywhere in > the U.S. for around $300 when I book early. And, of course, I can't book > early as my company won't re-imburse unless I use their travel company and > have approval (which I won't get for at least another 5-6 months). > Hopefully, the IETF negotiated hotel rate won't reflect that it is Spring > Break. **** > > ** ** > > If we were to choose one place in the U.S. to meet, Minneapolis is the > best choice IMHO. It's very reasonably priced, easy for many to get to and > the hotel has adequate space for us (even back when we had many more > attendees). Personally, the weather is not critical to me, since I spend > the vast majority of my time in the hotel meeting rooms, so I'm very happy > if we meet there in March and November. **** > > ** ** > > Mary**** > > ** ** > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) < > [email protected]> wrote:**** > > I've never been to an IETF meeting where the plane fare has exceeded the > hotel cost for a week. Caveats to that are that I have mostly gone for IETF > recommended hotels, so may have missed particularly cheap hotels, and that > I have only been to North American and Europe (but that statistic includes > Vancouver and the even further away western US cities down to San Diego). > And of course I fly economy, and it's much cheaper including a Saturday > night in your trip, even at the cost of an extra night in a hotel (at least > it is from here). An almost exception was Paris this year where I was > staying fairly cheaply, but that was a cost-shared trip between me and my > employer, and I didn't fly (I went by train - though that's not cheaper, > just better). Paris has cheap(er) hotels and a metro I understand, so I > felt less location constrained.**** > > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > [email protected] | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, > Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > -----Original Message-----**** > > From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [mailto: > [email protected]] > Sent: 06 August 2012 15:07 > To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)**** > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- > This message originates from outside our organisation, > either from an external partner or from the internet. > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > When you are not close (time), flight cost may become higher in the > priority (over hotem).... > Flying to Vancouver for me for example is the most expensive trip....even > though the city is amazing and the host was wonderful! > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > ext Dearlove, Christopher (UK) > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:56 PM > To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Andrew Sullivan; [email protected] > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity) > > Dublin's problem was that the venue was isolated from the city. This has > also been the case with e.g. San Diego. (I'm assuming no personal car.) > Contrast with Minneapolis (and several other places) where you were right > in the city. Being in a city is better for lunch and dinner options, taking > a break to go to a bookshop (or to buy something you forgot to bring) and > so on. (I'm deliberately not including tourism here.) > > However at the moment my priorities to make being able to attend possible > would be time (so the closer to me the better - I realise that's impossible > globally), cost (hotel first, flight second, rest is noise) and the ability > to plan ahead to only attend part of the week. This is the current economic > reality. Dublin actually scores quite well on those for me. > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > [email protected] | http://www.baesystems.com > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, > Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Daniele Ceccarelli > Sent: 06 August 2012 13:24 > To: Andrew Sullivan; [email protected] > Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity) > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- > This message originates from outside our organisation, > either from an external partner or from the internet. > Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Dublin panned? I thought it was one of the best venues and locations of > the last meetings. > > What about Italy or Spain? I've never heard about an IETF in Italy. I'm ok > with meetings outside Italy since i like traveling very much, but i was > wondering why it has never been taken into account in the past meetings. Is > it expensive? I think Italy and Spain are much cheaper than France, UK or > Sweden, aren't they? > > BR > Daniele > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > >Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan > >Sent: lunedì 6 agosto 2012 14.06 > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity) > > > >On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 11:58:19AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> enough merely to have excellent staff. We need to go back to the > >> better places and benefit from the learning curve. This > >doesn't mean > >> "no new venues" but it means fewer. > > > >As a practical matter, may I ask about which venues you want > >to return to? I get your argument in principle, but it seems > >to me that there has been quite a lot of complaining in the > >past. The one factor that seems to me most likely to reduce > >complaints -- weather -- is evidently beyond the Secretariat's > >or IAOC's control. > > > >People seem inclined to return to the Hyatt in Vancouver, > >elevators notwithstanding. We're going to do that. (I don't > >understand why the previous Vencouver venue was less desirable > >-- to me, these venues were very similar, and not very far > >apart. I note, however, that the previous two Vancouver > >visits were near the end of the year, when it rains all the > >time in Vancouver.) > > > >People complained at length about the venue in Paris, so I > >presume it's out. > > > >Some people complained about the hotel room prices and travel > >expense in Taipei, though I heard remarks that it was a good venue. > >Should we try to return there? > > > >People complained in advance about getting to Québec, although > >afterwards I heard lots of good noises about that venue. I > >note that the weather was great. Should we try to return? > > > >I don't recall much complaining about the Prague venue in > >2011, which was striking to me because very little seemed > >different to me compared to our first visit there. Perhaps > >this is evidence of the "tuning" > >you suggest (ensuring the water bottles were plastic, for instance). > >But I note the weather was excellent. > > > >Beijing? I guess Maastricht is out. Anaheim (FWIW, I thought > >that was an example of a terrible location, but many people > >seemed happy with it)? Hiroshima? Stockholm? San Francisco > >(we thought the crime at Paris was bad, yet didn't complain > >about being smack up against the Tenderloin)? Or there's the > >old standby, Minneapolis; perhaps we could do it in March. > >The Dublin venue was panned by large numbers of people. > >Philadelphia, people complained about expense. Chicago, too > >(combined with hotel renovations). > > > >That gets us back through 2007. Which of the venues do you > >think we should return to, to which we already haven't > >returned or planned to return? And why? > > > >For what it's worth, I would not complain about returning to > >any of those venues; I personally had good meetings at all of > >them except Hiroshima, which I missed due to other > >commitments. That includes both Maastricht and Dublin, which > >were both apparently trials for large numbers of others. > > > >Best, > > > >A > > > >-- > >Andrew Sullivan > >[email protected] > > > > > > ******************************************************************** > This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended > recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. > You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or > distribute its contents to any other person. > ******************************************************************** > > **** > > ** ** >
