Hacker News Reader

Comment by Misdicorl | Hacker News Reader

People seem confused, but this seems very reasonable to me. Consider flying to some far away location. Would you rather

A) A short flight from your local airport to a nearby hub and then transfer to a long haul flight to the far away location

B) A long flight from your local airport to a far away hub and then transfer to a short flight to get to your final destination.

If something goes wrong, its likely to happen at the transfer point. If something goes wrong, you want to be in a place where you have the most resources available to you. Usually being close to home affords you the most resources/options. Stakes are much lower for commuter train travel, but it still rings true for me.

View on HN

I think you're on the right track, but I'd argue it's even more abstract than this. Assuming a transfer represents uncertainty in arrival time, do you want it early or later in your trip? If the transfer is near the end of your journey, it means the uncertainty is ahead of you for most of the trip. Even if the early part of your trip is going smoothly, you still don't know if you'll arrive on time. On the other hand, if you get your transfer over with early in your trip, you can experience the rest of your journey with more confidence you'll arrive as expected. It's not so much that you have more options closer to home, it's that less of your trip is in the uncertainty zone.

For me it's more about emotional fatigue broadly. Transfers are annoying for any number of reasons, risk of lateness being only one of many. I would much rather front-load the annoyance and then get to relax, than to have to deal with annoyance after already traveling a long time.

For me it's that I want the most inflexible leg of the trip first. I'll often get a local bus to a railway station then get a long distance train. The trains are infrequent and it's cheaper to book a specific train in advance, so if a journey is bus then train I have to get an early bus to ensure that bus delays won't make me miss my train. Whereas going the other way I can step off the train and get whichever bus happens to be next, so train then bus is a shorter journey time.

exactly this.

it is easier to sort out alternatives if i am already close to the destination. when i have transfers near the start i have to be very careful to ensure that i don't miss the main part of the trip. where as i often don't even bother to look up transfers at the destination until i arrive. i'll just take whatever is available.

on a recent long flight where i was in a different city than the airport i actually spent a night in the airport city to avoid troubles on the way to the city.

but the problem in the article seems to be just about this: very inflexible transfer options at the destination.

I can relate to what you describe from personal experience. I definitely want to mitigate earlier than later on my trip, even for a train ride from the suburbs where i live and downtown where I work, which is about 2 hours now (the train schedule is messed up with a new train line that is late on delivery and way over budget (public budget)). That's why I really enjoy remote work, I don't have to think about that stuff anymore.

I think its anxiety. A transfer near home is safe maybe even familiar. A transfer far away feels risky, even dangerous, where mishaps could be more likely.

On international flights, it’s not just familiarity, but the fact that I’ll be sleep-deprived and jet lagged at the end of a long flight. Making decisions about how to fix problems in unfamiliar circumstances with my brain half-functional is not fun. At least near home I’ve thought about alternative transit beforehand.

I live my life by front-loading the work. I work hard early in the day so that in the evening I can relax. I tackle the complicated part of projects first. Traveling isn’t any different. Is it anxiety? Maybe.

But I don’t think it’s about distance from home. I’ve got nearly as many options in Cincinnati as I do in Denver.

I think that there is something else at play - something like arrival anticipation paradox - the final descent and taxi to the terminal feel a lot more tense than the 8 hours in flight before.

Its also that the longer journey increases the variation in arrival time thus increasing the risk of not making the transfer.

You both make good points, and they're not mutually exclusive. You're both right!

100% of my flights from Europe to the SF are A) and 100% of my flights from the SF to Europe are B). Quite frankly the deciding factor here is that the factor that outweighs everything is that transferring at a European airport is speedy, luggage stays checked and I don't need to go through security. Transferring in most of the US from an international to a regional flight is a much more involved undertaking.

The same kind of thinking for me applies to a lot of public transport too. I pick based on how annoying transferring is.

But you are also in SF, so you are already at a Hub of sorts that is well connected and is going to get you at least to a close by airport in Europe. If you were living in Seattle which is less connected to Europe than SF, you would be doing B more often.

In scheduling a trip from Seattle to Tokyo, direct in the way there (as it should be!) but on the way back I have to transfer in Minneapolis. I don’t think I could have flown to Osaka or something to get direct at a reasonable price.

Do you have Global Entry? It’s open to citizens of many countries and you can feasible get off the plane and be going through security (past immigration) in under 10 minutes. I wish other countries offered a Global Entry experience.

I think programs like Global Entry are one of the main reasons American airports are usually so bad. When most frequent flyers can avoid the default experience, nobody really cares about fixing it. In a well-run airport, everyone gets an experience similar to Global Entry by default.

most other countries have a customs/security process that is as fast as global entry. So everyone gets a good treatment most of the times. It's not pay for convenience, its a fair treatment for all. I honestly think global entry is a backwards solution to the problem, and only makes it worse for non paying people

Other countries have a more straightforward entrance protocol, I've never been stuck too long (I mean, except in case of strikes) in a customs queue in Europe

(though ETIAS might make this more annoying)

I’m not eligible for it.

I take your point for long-distance travel, but the same argument doesn't really make sense to me in the commuter context. if something goes wrong with the second leg of my commute, I probably want to figure out a different way to get to work, not turn around and go home. either way, I'd just end up taking a taxi, bus, or both. as long as it doesn't happen often, it's not a big deal.

personally, I am primarily optimizing my commute for low average travel time and variance. I'll always pick the fastest option that allows me to walk out of my door at the same time every day and get to work on time for >90% of trips. practically, that equates to planning transit where the second leg has very short headways, regardless of where the transfer happens.

Actually, with the week divided between in-office and wfh nowadays, my most common reaction to something going wrong with my commute is to turn around and go home to work from there.

Most people don't have this luxury.

What's your intuition for how many people do have this luxury, and what context do you think it holds in?

My company has fully embraced flexibility, so even though many do work in the office it is completely accepted that some days they just won't. Other people in my social circles seem to have similar setups, but I've got no idea how far that extends outside of my bubble - not even in the rest of my city let alone the country or wordlwide.

Something like 60% of jobs can't be performed remotely. And of the 40% remaining, I think it's safe to say not all of them are allowed to be remote (due to office politics / management bullshit).

A couple potentially relevant sources for that:

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_White-Paper_...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2020/04/24/what-per...

Given that not all jobs that can be remote are remote, and that the majority of jobs can't be remote (retail, manufacturing, agriculture, etc), I see good reasons to believe the vast majority of people don't have the option of working remote at their current job, anywhere in the world.

I think the flip side is you have more time to react / find an alternative if the transfer is early.

I don't think this analogy hold up all that well.

For the commuter example (at least in the US), often the first leg is a drive (in a car) to the train station. When the commuter-rail train gets to its destination, you don't have the car anymore, so you want to be as close to your destination as possible. Even then, if I have to take a local train from there, and something goes wrong with it, at least I can probably get a taxi or something.

Regardless, in your airline example, I would probably want (B), not (A). If I were to choose (A), and there was a problem with my short-haul local flight, I'm probably missing my long-haul connection, which will be more difficult to re-arrange. If I take the long-haul flight first, and something gets messed up with the short-haul connection at the destination, I likely have more options, possibly even including a train or car. Sure, the worst case might be worse (I get stuck at the connecting airport and need to get a hotel overnight), but I think the average case is probably better.

Sure, if I want to bail on my trip if anything goes wrong, the short-haul-first approach works better, but I don't think there are many situations where I'd want to bail rather than finding another way to get there.

But overall I'm not sure the main issue is when things go wrong. For commuting, there are still benefits to the happy path when the connection is closer to the origin. If the train station is next door to my house, but the station on the other end is 15 miles from the office, that's still a pain to deal with. The opposite is much easier.

Transfer can also be exhausting. I would rather have it done early so when I get out of the long haul flight I can directly go to the hotel.

For all my EU->US (and back) flights, if I have to transfer I always do it in Frankfurt/Zurich/Heathrow, rather than US. The fact the airports and lounges are nicer helps.

Yeah but US airports are ridiculous. There’s nowhere in the world with worse processing.

I’d take Indonesia and Heathrow during a lockdown over LAX on the quietest day of the year.

If you're just talking about immigration lines, that seems not correct at all. I've definitely seen much longer wait times at quite a few non-US airports than the non-citizen lines at most US airports.

Aside from that, at least you don't have to clear immigration to leave the US. I always thought it was super weird that you need "permission" to leave many other countries, which adds a bunch more unpredictable time to the airport experience, beyond what's already there with the security lines.

And LAX is not exactly a great example; it's one of the worst airports in the US. SFO, EWR, IAD, and even JFK (to name a few) aren't anywhere near as bad, and are just-fine to good at some of them.

And Indonesia... having to pay cash in the airport in order to be allowed to leave the country? And if you're out of rupiah by that point, they charge you much more in USD? Hell, I'd probably take LAX over that garbage.

And Heathrow! Oh man, Heathrow. It's been years since I flew into, out of, or through Heathrow, so maybe things have gotten better, but what a terrible airport it was! Transferring between terminals was a pain in and of itself, not to mention the need to go through security again if you need to make a connection between certain terminals.

> Indonesia... having to pay cash in the airport in order to be allowed to leave the country?

They've had card payments since before 2019.

LAX is maybe the worst one in the US though with its constant construction.

Maybe it’s different for non citizens, but I’ve had easy international transfers through SEA, SFO, ATL, DTW, JFK, and MCO.

ATL, SFO, JFK are just as bad - just less claustrophobic.

What makes European airports nicer to you? I'm usually annoyed by them due to the larger number of duty free shops and fewer seating at the gate. My experience with US airports is mostly with west coast airports plus main hubs like DFW and ATL.

Airports in the rest of the world tend to be more impressive and have better services (restaurants, lounges, bars, shopping). It largely comes down to different ownership models where the airport is trying to get you to spend money on entertainment. US airports may have more seating by the gate but I don't want to spend my time sat by the gate... Especially if I have a few hours between planes.

I think in practice there are reasonable and bloody awful airports in both Europe and the US.

One thing I do find to be better, in general, in European airports is that they have thought more about how people will actually get to and from the airport; generally, you get there, you follow a sign, and you get on a bus, train, or get to a taxi rank. US airports (my sample's relatively small, but at least SFO and SEA) seem to enjoy making this awkward. For instance, when you get off the train to SEA, you seem to have to walk about a kilometre _through a parking garage_; bizarre arrangement. If you want to get an Uber/Lyft from there, you go to a random poorly signposted place in said parking garage.

Actually, now I think of it, last time I was in SF I got a bus to the airport, and that _also ended up in a random parking garage_.

My guess is they’re referring to the business lounges as being better in Europe than the US, which agrees with my experience (to your point, yes, often the gate seating is lacking).

And chances are high something goes wrong during a transfer on public transit. I don’t know how anyone manages to use transit in Seattle effectively without some sort of backup plan (Uber, bike, walking, etc.) because I often found the buses would never show up, often due to undocumented/poorly documented route adjustments. Also, buses would very frequently not stop unless I basically jumped up and down to get their attention (just standing right next to the stop marker in broad daylight was not sufficient).

Make sure you report every such instance when they happen. If nothing else they need to get statistics about how many people are really annoyed by their failing. Likely they have options to fix things, but need complaints to back them up.

> Also, buses would very frequently not stop unless I basically jumped up and down to get their attention (just standing right next to the stop marker in broad daylight was not sufficient).

Does more than one route stop at that stop? If so, that's expected, surely?

Blind? ADHD? Guess there’s no bus for you. You’re trading accessibility for very minor gains in efficiency.

I think it's because we want to transfer while feeling fresh, and then relax for the remainder of the trip.

Traveling is exhausting, and probably a factor is increased stress, and the stress of an upcoming transfer, and a transfer when exhausted just seems so much worse.

I would rather muster the effort at the beginning as well. After a long flight i want to be done.

Does that matter, given you'll do the trip in reverse on your return?

With airplanes in particulart , that's not a given.

Even when it is, returning home is less stressful than leaving for a foreign place, so the effect is not cancelled out. Almost anyone would prefer being stranded in a different city in their home country than being stranded on anther continent.

People are confused because the article doesn't explain what it's talking about. Seems like SEO babble.

This doesn't make any sense to me in your scenario or in the commuting scenario.

I don't have any "more resources" in a city that's a 2 hr flight from where I live vs. 10 hours away. I use the same app to find a hotel and the same credit card to pay for it. The only relevant thing is which one interrupts my sleep schedule more.

And in daily commuting it makes no sense to me either. Whether you drive 10 min to the train station and take it straight to work, or live next to the train station and then take a subway 10 min (including wait time) to the office, I find it hard to believe anybody cares much at all, or that people's random preferences don't cancel each other out.

Plus for a commute aren't you always doing the reverse as well? If you have an "origin transfer" in the morning it becomes a "destination transfer" in the evening. So wouldn't any preference become entirely moot?

For an American, being unexpectedly stuck at JFK or Atlanta may be less disorienting than an unplanned day in Amsterdam or Paris.

Entering the EU at a smaller airport is probably smoother as well.

(Obviously not a rail or commuter example, but same principal.)

Or for an American, being stuck at JFK or Atlanta is boring and sucks.

While an unplanned day in Amsterdam or Paris is a lovely start to your trip, just from the food and architecture alone! I don't know a lot of people who would complain about being stuck in Paris for a day. ;)

Moreso having to deal with the Paris airport.

With extra time at JFK I could visit https://www.twahotel.com/

> Obviously not a rail or commuter example, but same principal.

Not really, unless it's international rail, which is a bit of an edge case; it certainly exists, but the vast majority of rail journeys do not cross a national border.

For me that's the opposite.

Long flights are usually more expensive and require more advance booking. If you miss the transfer after the long flight, there are usually plenty of alternatives to get to your final destination.

Commuter trains are different because they usually don't require booking in advance. And in this case, I think I prefer origin transfers, because if there is a big problem, I would just go back home and take a day off, work remote, take the car, ...

I'd personally take B. If something goes wrong on the trip, I'd much rather be almost there, as there will be more ways to complete the journey.

But I think it flips for me when commuting, in that a short local ride is easier for me to mentally discount as it's part of my routine. E.g. I used to live one MUNI stop from BART, and I came to see that first leg as negligible in the same way that walking to the MUNI station did.

I initially felt the same as you, but then I thought about some of the times this has actually happened. After 18hrs on a plane I just want to be home or in my hotel. I’m not in a headspace where dealing with any level of inconvenience is welcomed even if the the rational response is “well at least you’re close to where you want to be and have a range of options to choose from, some of them possibly quite familiar if you’re coming home”. I don’t want options. I don’t want to think. I just want to collapse into a bed.

Sure, I too want to just get there. I'd rather it just worked.

But if I compare the disappointment of having a problem when I'm almost there versus one where I've just started, I'd definitely take the former. In either case I've already gone to the trouble of starting a long trip. A failure at the 90% point means I'm almost there and just have the work of finishing it, and short trips have many more options than long ones (e.g., short-hop flight vs transit vs renting a car vs taking a Lyft). But a failure at the 10% point means that I've gone to a lot of trouble, gotten very little out of it, and will have fewer options for finishing.

I get people's preferences are different here, and maybe this is just me making use of whatever drives the sunk cost fallacy to keep momentum up and not get discouraged. But I'd definitely prefer B.

Quite the opposite for me. I would start with the long haul segment, because missing the long haul flight because of a late local flight would mean more trouble than being already near my final destination which gives me more options for the final segment in case problems arising.

I feel like from experience I'd much rather (B). The things usually go wrong in a fixable way, and it's much better to be close to your destination where you have more options, like more local flights with more space vs daily long haul flights; ability to give up on a leg of a trip and drive there; etc.

Especially across countries, where there may also be visa/document shenanigans.

E.g. going to Venice from Seattle, in terms of getting there it's much better to be stranded in Amsterdam or Paris than in I dunno, Atlanta.

(B) Long flight first

When transferring I can do things like visit the restroom or get dinner or even update people I am meeting in my final destination. Those have far more value to me after I've been traveling for a while.

Meanwhile, I don't feel like I have "more resources" in a close location to a far destination.

Airplanes have toilets on board.

Airplanes do, but the ones on the ground are bigger and not moving. Long-distance trains do, subways don't and commuter trains are "sometimes".

I don't truly get it. If I really want to get to my destination, I'd rather be as close to it as possible when things go wrong, rather than being farther away. If I'm nearly there it feels there would be more resources available to make the last stretch.

This analogy doesn’t resonate with me at all. Based out of the US I’d rather have a misconnection in Europe than in the US (EU261 is amazing). Also I like the connection after the long flight as it gives me a chance to shower and freshen up before continuing on to my final destination.

(EU261 = the very powerful compensation laws for delays/cancellations on flights departing from an EU airport)

Also flights arriving into EU if operated by an airline licensed in an EU member state.

This was very helpful this winter while Lufthansa’s ground handling was in full meltdown mode. On three separate occasions Lufthansa failed to get my luggage to its final destination on time so I was able to get reimbursed for replacement clothes and toiletries while Lufthansa tracked down my bags.

There is no such guaranteed compensation in the US.

Sure, but my point was to make sure readers understood 'EU261' is a law, not just one flight.

Yes it's much stronger than the USDOT ones.

In my ideal commute I'd be sleeping, so I would prefer the long first, short second option. That way I can get in a longer period of shut-eye before transferring and waking up for the destination.

If I have significantly more resource available in one side of the trip than other, it almost always a round trip. So the effect according to your logic will cancel out.

Why presume you transfer in the same place both ways?

To me it's the opposite. I prefer to be as close to destination as possible so if I have to arrange an alternative it's shorter and probably cheaper.

I’d add another factor, safety (perceived or real). Most people are going to prefer a transfer to their car in a quiet suburban parking lot, than transferring to another form of transit in an urban city where there might be a high level of homelessness/vagrancy/drug use/ crime/harassment

Not sure if your experience is common inside the US, but in most of the world, most people, by far, don't live in the suburbs. And most cities in the world don't have an appreciable amount of homelessness/vagrancy/drug use/crime/harassment in the areas most businesses exist.

The article is in reference to American commuter rail preferences…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com