At what point will air travel become too cumbersome?

In the business where I am employed there are approximately thirty on
the staff who fly on a regular basis. By a regular basis I mean three
or four times a month with each trip lasting around four days.

Those of us who travel recently discussed with our supervisors
allowing vehicle travel for trips of further than 500 miles -- a limit
is stated in the travel policy. Because those of us who fly no longer
have patience for the efforts required just to board a flight. Enough
already. A number of us decided that when we can no longer carry on our
coffee, a bottle of water, or a suitcase with shampoo inside, it's time
to rethink our transportation. For airline travel, things can only get
worse.

Our business is now allowing an additional days travel to/from our
sites, and those of us making the trips have agreed to our usual rental
of midsize high-mileage automobiles, and have also agreed to leave on
Sunday if necessary in order to meet our obligations. There is also no
longer a 500 mile (one way) limit on reaching the destination.

If we choose to fight it out with the restrictions necessary to fly,
at least it is now by choice.

There will always be a need for air travel for long distance and
overseas journeys. I recently saw a note that traditionally in Europe
trains were competitive with air travel for trips up to three hours.
However with slower ground handling for flights, the break even point
was approaching 4 1/2 hours (which can mean trips up to 450 miles in
Europe).

Another competitor to air travel is video conferencing.
The equipment has much improved and the process could replace some
business travel.

Harry Dodsworth Ottawa Canada - af877@freenet.carleton.ca

> Hotels have shampoo and airlines have drinks onboard.
> So, since you can't live with this, your business is going
> to spend $$$$ more in lost efficiency by having their
> employees spending days driving places. Good luck on
> your trips across the Atlantic, Pacific, etc.

Be reasonable. I was not suggesting taking a canoe to cross the ocean.
Our HR department determined that any lost efficiency would be
countered by much less sick time. Those of us who fly during the season
of flu and colds always get caught in this condition.

> Much of my business travel is done by car - although I
> cannot understand why "Fly Steerage" wants to rent
> rather than to use his already depreciating vehicle and
> receive a standard mileage reimbursement. That's how I pay
> (or rather how my clients pay for my cars) for cars.

The business has a good deal with a major Car Rental Agency, and we are
satisfied with that arrangement. Not to mention that my personal
transportation is not particularly road-worthy.


> The ability to haul along food, drink, unlimited wardrobe, spouse
> occasionally, associates, spontaneous travel companions, etc.,
> makes the trips more enjoyable.

Very true.


> My flying decision threshold used to be 600 miles, but has
> with age dropped to 400 or so. Living where any destination
> requires two flights, even the minimum time spent "flying"
> turns out to be counting leaving home in time to comply with
> security, boarding, flight time, connection time, ...

Well said.

> So, for every hour you don't fly, your company saves money
> by having you spend an extra day on the road?

You bet. There is more to the equation than travel v time.

One locaton to which I travel is ~10 hours away. The flight I take
home is a 3:00pm. This last time I drove. When a follow-up morning
meeting was not necessary, I checked out of the motel and started
towards home at 0600. With a call from the office I was able to drop
off material to a potential customer located on my route. I spent about
an hour there answering questions. At about 1730 I pulled into the
office. In the middle of the afternoon I also located a rest area -
where I could park - and was then able to participate in a conference
call.

Travel options are a trade-off.