Hacker News Reader

Comment by wayne | Hacker News Reader

The article touches a little on flight costs, but as someone who'd love to visit sometime and never has, it annoys me how flights to Guam work. Given its location most airlines don't fly direct from the mainland, so many flights to Guam are from Asia. But, you can't buy a ticket from the US with a layover in Japan from JAL or with a layover in Korea from Korean Air because any flight with a US origin to a US destination can only be sold by a US carrier. That eliminates all Asian competition and the US airlines get a monopoly even though they barely fly there and many of these flights are codeshares being operated by Asian airlines!

View on HN

Flight costs are a pain, and the flight durations are nothing to sneeze at either. I live out in Guam (my wife is stationed here with the Navy) and the two most common ways to get back to the mainland are via Tokyo (Narita) and Honolulu.

I would definitely encourage visiting if you have the means! I find there are two types of people here: those who feel limited by the island and its infrastructure (no Target, no Starbucks, etc.) and those who enjoy its incredible outdoor environment. Some of the best snorkeling and scuba diving in the world is right here, and as for hiking: we've been hiking very frequently for the two years since we arrived and haven't gotten bored yet. Depending on where you go on the island, the terrain and plant life looks very different.

My family and I loved our time there (Navy as well).

We almost retired there, but my son's health condition(s) precludes that.

Space-A is how we flew back during our tour there, and if you know the tricks it work great. If you don't it's a nightmare.

My father was stationed in Guam for a couple of years during the Korean War but he was in the Navy. And then when I was getting mustered out of the Navy 40 years ago I landed on Guam briefly on a flight out of Kobe Japan, on my way to Hawaii

> those who feel limited by the island and its infrastructure (no Target, no Starbucks, etc.)

I hate those people. I live in a city of 1.5 million (there's everything here), and it's a constant background radiation talking point for a significant number of my highschool friends: how unfortunate they are that they don't live in the nearby city of 15 million. IME this constant moping has everything to do with the amount of social media one consumes daily.

There is quite a bit of difference between the inconvenience of not having a Target that gets frequent shipments of a wide variety of goods which help ease daily life, and not having the amenities of a 15M person city versus a 1.5M person city.

My biggest pain point of remote island life is not having access to a variety of affordable dairy foods.

I understand. That's why I wrote "(there's everything here)". To clarify, I don't like those people because of their thankless and complaining attidude to the life.

I mean some like hyperdense megacities and everything that comes with it bleeding edge/underground scene for X, 24 hours life, close proximity to people. It's completely alien to me as well but why look down on people liking different things?

Nobody wants to be the only gay in the village.

It's interesting. I live in London UK, which some might think of as a megacity - though when I look at the biggest cities in the orient (Singapore, Shenzhen etc) London feels like Hobbiton in comparison. I suppose what you're used to becomes your "zero line", and one inevitably assesses other places relative to that.

> it's a constant background radiation talking point for a significant number of my highschool friends: how unfortunate they are that they don't live in the nearby city of 15 million. IME this constant moping has everything to do with the amount of social media one consumes daily.

Well, you've managed to one-up them in how tiresome and cliched your talking point is.

Guam’s population is 169 thousand, about 10% of the city where you live. It is an island 3,800 miles from Hawaii. I doubt that this situation is comparable to yours.

169.000 ? Funny, I live in a city of 15.000, not even in the city, and think its way too crowded. So much that i'm actually thinking of moving to a 100 ppl village, closest "city" 3000 ppl. Never even been in a starbucks, nor wanting to, I guess preferences differ. Remote work is a blessing.

>>guess preferences differ.

That is a very important realization and self awareness, alaways :)

Fwiw I lived in 600k-2m cities most of my life. I now moved to a 50k city (for love :) ,but problem is it's a satellite city - a 50k city in rural Minnesota or Manitoba will be a local centre with many amenities and a certain vibe. A 50k city on the greater Toronto area is just a commute residential park.

Anyhoo, I always enjoy people complaining about city becoming bigger because... They themselves moved here! If you moved to that 100ppl place you would be the problem, the 101st person- while likely complaining about other people moving in and ruining it for everyone :). It's like when I'm stuck in traffic and people in the car with me get annoyed "where do all these people think they have to be on a Sunday morning???" - erm, just like us you mean? :)

I've visited Charleston and Huntington, WV. I went to all the 'hippy' spots (the only festival in the area, the farmer's market, bar with gigs, a museum on the outskirts). US 50k cities have less infrastructures and cultural events than 10k cities in my country to be honest, i can quite understand your peers (you also have really good small towns like Fayetteville, WV, if you like outdoorsy stuff and physical activities, but I guess when I was 15, kayaking and rock climbing would have gotten old quite fast).

Picking metro areas in a state that has suffered prolonged economic malaise is a bizarre way to make conclusions about the amenities of a typical U.S. midsized city.

Funny thing, I'm originally from Huntington, WV. My fiance has never been to WV, and we're thinking of skipping the trip to Huntington and just meeting my family in Fayetteville for a weekend trip.

It is an interesting idea to explore: Why do humans predominantly want to live in bigger and bigger groups. Sure, there are a few people that want to live out in the country, but cities are big because people want to be there. Humans like groups.

Bigger groups of people allow for better economies of scale and allow for a wider variety of businesses and interests to be catered to.

And more bars, restaurants, theaters. It isn't just economics that drive people to be together. People also like to be together, and bigger groups allow more group activities. Kind of both, in a feedback loop. Economics, jobs, and fun.

For the vast majority of city dwellers, they are there either because 1) they grew up there and that's where most of their social connections are, or 2) that's where the jobs are. The reason why cities even grew to the size in the first place is because of the economics of the Industrial Revolution - and, in some places like the USSR, deliberate policies to force the rural population into the cities to man all those factories. We don't actually know the real preferences until those factors are out of the equation.

I thought about retiring in Guam someday since Medicare would actually work there. But I can’t imagine it is much nicer than Bali or some parts of Thailand I’m also thinking about (if my health is good 20 years later), and it’s definitely more expensive than.

OTOH I would guesstimate Guam to be much more politically stable than Bali or Thailand.

Thailand perhaps (although I'd note that political instability in Thailand is carefully done to avoid disturbing the tourism industry in anyway).

But it's been many years (25? If you count Timor crisis?) since any significant political disturbance in Bali/Indonesia and only 3 years since a coup attempt in Guam/USA.

I visited Thailand multiple times just after military coups, and the only thing I noticed was more things getting poached from my checked luggage. Oh, and sometimes the big shopping malls in Bangkok are closed.

Bali did have that bombing just after 9/11 a while back. Sort of ancient history anyways, but I've loved my trips there.

The Bali bombing was in 2002. I don't think that counts as political instability unless 9/11 counts as political instability.

Bali is a victim of it's success unfortunately.

Bali is incredibly hot and humid

Is it really that different from Guam? It seems to have a similar hot and humid climate, they are both islands of similar size, Bali is just closer to the equator.

It may not be that different from Guam, but I was comparing it (I guess, without making that clear, my bad) to more temperate retirement areas, than Guam.

I'm sure it's based on preference and tolerance, but very hot humid heat just saps all the enjoyment of life out of me when I'm outside, unless I'm on a sailboat or in a pool with a cold drink in my hand.

Bali has a bunch of weird microclimates, so it isn't that bad. Like, you can just go up to the volcano and the temperature is really different.

I get the feeling that Hawaii takes all the US tourism for tropical islands. In a hypothetical scenario where Hawaii didn't exist maybe Guam would be more popular?

But maybe it's better this way.

It’s so much farther than Hawaii that my guess is that overall tourism numbers would be much less.

No Target, but there's a very good Kmart! Plus, anyone with a military connection has access to the exchanges, which are effectively tax-free Targets.

Most of the domestic tourists I saw around Guam (I was stationed there for a stretch) were divers. I don't know that I'd recommend it for the average non-diving traveler over cheaper-to-get-to alternatives unless it's someone who's specifically looking for the remote character of Guam (and in that case, there are less developed islands that can be gotten to more cheaply).

Yes, under current airline treaties it's actually more complicated and takes longer to fly mainland US to Guam, than mainland US to the Philippines. Even though Guam is only a short 1500ml from the Philippines, and:

Philippine Airlines flights from west-coast US (SF, LA) refuel in Guam, since a 2006 "technical stop" agreement [0] (not allowed to pick up passengers on Guam, but can refuel and pick up supplies); at least during the winter headwinds, Nov-Mar [1]. Passengers can't even get out of the plane, you get to sit on the tarmac and watch the fuel tankers out the window for 45min in the predawn. I wanted to at least get out and see the inside of the terminal but absolutely not. ("Guam: the ultimate skiplagged challenge")

So you won't see this arrangement show up on any ticket engines, and they're not allowed say "Philippine Airlines flies to Guam". Are there any good articles on how current airline treaties affect routes and pricing in the Pacific?

[0]: "Guam replaces Honolulu as stop for PAL flights" https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2006/01/06/315333/guam-re...

[1]: "The one-hour technical stops are required during certain times of the year, particularly during the winter months of November to March, when headwinds are strong enough to affect aircraft flying westward across the Pacific." (to avoid exceeding MTOW)

[2]: discussed on https://www.pprune.org/south-asia-far-east/374507-pal-techni...

I'm sure Gordon Lightfoot (RIP) could have sung about treaties...

What if you had a medical emergency while on the tarmac in Guam?

I'm sure they'd treat you locally (I wonder if air-rage cases get dropped there unscheduled, too, although I don't think so). It's not like the border is hermetically sealed; just disembarking on those particular flights is not available to passengers or skiplaggers. (To be clear, that's because it's a non-US (Philippine Airlines) flight on a technical stopover in a US territory (Guam)). The limitation is purely legal. The airline treaties distort pricing and competition, otherwise it should be possible to do a 24/48h stopover in Guam, Taipei etc., and even lower your overall ticket price if you're flexible about dates.

If not, a creative itinerary with multiple stopovers like Manila-Guam-Honolulu-Anchorage-Seattle could be interesting.

If you're looking for 'cool itineraries that end in Guam' there's nothing more interesting IMO than the United Island Hopper, a single flight number with 5 stops operated by a 737. Service is between Honolulu and Guam, taking around 14-16 hours, with stops in:

- Majuro in the Marshall Islands (MAJ)

- Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands (KWA)

- Kosrae in the Federated States of Micronesia (KSA)

- Pohnpei in the Federated States of Micronesia (PNI)

- Chuuk in the Federated States of Micronesia (TKK)

I believe passengers aren't allowed off in at least one, if not two, of the stops because they're basically just a US military base on a rock. [1, 2]

> The limitation is purely legal. The airline treaties distort pricing and competition, otherwise it should be possible to do a 24/48h stopover in Guam, Taipei etc., and even lower your overall ticket price if you're flexible about dates.

Note that you can do this, it just has to be on separate tickets if connections are under 24h. For a connection over 24h, the world is your oyster, so to speak, from a ticketing perspective. Unless you plan to stay at the airport (and only an option in some places with sterile transit) you may need a visa for the intermediate point.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Hopper

[2] http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=HNL-MAJ-KWA-KSA-PNI-TKK-GUM

Same as if there was a medical emergency anywhere along the flight path. The plane pulls into the nearest gate where you'd be looked after and you get off. The prohibition is on transporting passengers between two domestic points as a single flight or as a single ticket / with stops under 24h - but note that there's nothing to stop you for instance buying a ticket from SFO-NRT and then a separate NRT-GUM ticket both on ANA.

Cabotage is also referred to as the 9th air freedom, for the curious. [1]

The prohibition on cabotage also applies to passenger and cargo ships. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabotage

This is because of 'cabotage' rules, where foreign carriers aren't allowed to sell tickets between two domestic destinations, and except for EU carriers flying within EU countries, this is standard practice all over the world.

Qantas has historically had a similar stop in LAX en route to JFK, although new aircraft will allow them to start making the trip non-stop, in an initiative called 'project sunrise.' [1] I believe they are currently routing that flight with a stop in Auckland as QF3, although they are running AKL-JFK as a 5th freedom with pick-up rights in AKL.

I don't think it's true that it's faster to get to Philippines than Guam from the mainland - you just have to transit in Honolulu. SFO-HNL-GUM on United is 14h15, whereas the non-stop SFO-MNL is 14h35. Philippines only offers limited non-stop options to Manila - just LAX, SFO and JFK - so much of the time you'd be connecting either way, and that eliminates any advantages. After all, Honolulu is pretty much on the way to Guam based on the great circle arc. [2]

[1] https://www.qantas.com/au/en/about-us/our-company/fleet/new-...

[2] http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-HNL-GUM,+SFO-MNL

I wish we'd get rid of this rule entirely. Just seems like naked protectionism, no?

If a non-US carrier abides by local regulations, I don't see an issue with letting them run domestic flights.

You make it sound like that's a US-specific rule, but there's an equivalent rule in basically every country (with some exceptions, the main one being between EU member states).

Two wrongs don't make a right?

No, but they often add up to a stable Nash equilibrium.

It's better than that. Those are IATA rules, and IATA has been functioning as a cartel more or less since it has been founded..

They‘re actually defined by ICAO, a UN agency with states as members. And the actual restrictions are of course a matter of domestic legislation stemming out countries sovereignty over their airspace. These restrictions largely don‘t exist among European Union member states and between Australia and New Zealand.

IATAs cartel like behavior was due to them regulating airline prices and services. This started at a time when governments where still regulating domestic prices thinking that competition on price or service would lead to cutting corners on safety.

Given that many foreign airlines are at least in part government owned, this could be problematic. Do we really want Air China to come in and drastically undercut US based carriers in order to drive them out of business?

Sure? If the Chinese government (or more realistically Qatar or UAE etc) wants to subsidize US business and tourism by making it cheaper to fly within the US it seems like a good thing for the US.

As we've seen, anytime an airline raises prices it is pretty easy for another carrier (or even a brand new carrier) to come in and replace them. So it isn't like a hypothetical foreign government owned carrier could somehow make long term sustained profits.

Let them spend their money on that if they are that dumb!

We don’t want to be in a situation where Beijing can turn off American flights because someone said mean things about Xi.

Unless they are the only option - which should be a matter for the antitrust regulators - it's not really a threat, just an inconvenience.

If there was a monopoly situation (which of course is a big "if") then it's reasonable to have laws requiring specific levels of service from the airline. It's fairly easy to write those laws to force the airline to fly.

If the Chinese state intervenes in US domestic travel affairs then the US has the option to nationalize their fleet. All their assets and operational staff are in the US and the staff aren't going to oppose keeping their jobs...

I guess I just don’t get it then. What’s wrong with the following scenario:

1) China comes in and undercuts US prices.

2) US carriers are unable to compete with a business subsidized by one of the largest economies in the world, and China Air forms a monopoly as it drives competitors out of business.

3) China Air folds, leaving the US with no means of air travel at all.

I’m pretty sure China could outlast any airline in the US in a price war, given how thin the margins that US carriers already operate on are. They don’t have to care about making profits—their only goal is to damage the US economy, as on the world stage it’s a zero-sum game. Any damage to the US is a benefit to China.

So yeah, let them. And what effect do you think it will have on the economy when there are literally zero air carriers left in the United States?

Firstly, the US has a bunch of existing laws to deal with monopolies already. Use them.

And if China Air suddenly folds then the US nationalizes their fleet or some similar intervention. Similar has been done during crises in the banking sector, and similar has been done in other countries when an airline went bust.

>Firstly, the US has a bunch of existing laws to deal with monopolies already. Use them.

That seems to be impossible these days.

I think you are probably mostly familiar with high profile cases in the tech space. Outside that the DoJ has a pretty strong record of success in antitrust cases.

Recent examples include:

* A case involving wage suppression by a secret agreement of poultry procesors in Georgia (May 2023)

* A divestment agreement for ASSA ABLOY AB to take over Spectrum Brand Holding Inc.’s Hardware and Home Improvement division

* An antitrust lawsuit against Activision for esport wage surpression.

See https://www.justice.gov/news/press-releases?f%5B0%5D=facet_t... if you want more

I suspect antitrust action against a Chinese-owned entity that had shutdown travel in the US would be fairly broadly supported.

Very informative. I guess I'm still bitter about what happened with the Microsoft antitrust case in 2001.

If it's price dumping or heavily government subsidized I suppose not, but if they're just more competitive then I don't see the issue.

Realistically I just don't think that's gonna happen, if they have to abide by local labor laws.

I mean, in principle I agree with you. If Qantas or Lufthansa can come in and run things cheaper and better, I have no problem with letting them try to compete on the open market. But just like I wouldn’t want a US government owned airline to operate in competition with private carriers, I think it would be unfair competition to allow foreign governments to come in and operate any sort of ostensibly private company in the US, particularly one that provides a critical infrastructure service.

The even more difficult question is how to tell whether a foreign company is truly private or is secretly receiving government funding. With no way to collect tax information or audit the books of foreign companies operating in the US, there’s no way to tell.

I don’t think it’s inconceivable that China could set up a shell company to operate super cheap flights on, say, the west coast, with the express purpose of causing that market to collapse, leading to a domino effect as US carriers start to fold. Maybe it would work, and maybe it wouldn’t, but consider that the annual revenue for domestic carriers in 2022 was about $160 billion, and profit was about 1% of that. Given that China’s military budget is estimated at $230 billion, it doesn’t seem at all out of the realm of possibility to me that they might well try, entirely legally, undermine the US economy.

I’m not saying cabotage laws are the only thing preventing this scenario, or that it couldn’t be dealt with should it become apparent that it’s happening, but I think it’s definitely something to be consider when discussing the possibility of opening up any domestic market to foreign competition.

> I wouldn’t want a US government owned airline to operate in competition with private carriers

Why not? Ironically, that is the ultimate solution to the problem you're describing - if we consider this market so critical and so easily disrupted, then having a government-owned service provider that focuses on long-term availability of basic services over profits is a sensible precaution. Private airlines can still compete by offering more/better service for more money, or cheaper service due to less overhead.

>Do we really want Air China to come in and drastically undercut US based carriers in order to drive them out of business?

Given just how horrifically awful the American carriers are, I don't see how this would be a bad thing: Air China couldn't possibly be any worse.

In the past you could have made an argument about foreign airlines not being held to FAA standards.

But today, FAA knows exactly which jurisdictions regulate airlines to a comparable standard and which don’t. Denying cabotage and other higher rights to those airlines is 100%, as you say, naked protectionism.

United goes direct from Honolulu

You can also take the scenic route from HI to RMI to FSM. I can’t think of any reason to hang out in Majuro, but two of the FSM stops are great sightseeing destinations. On Pohnpei you can visit Nan Madol. If you’re into diving, there’s a huge number of Japanese warships sunk near Chuuk.

This. Used for American Samoa...just make damn sure to make your connection. If it's anything like American Samoa, there are only a few flights a week. The smart move is to arrive a day early in Hawaii and spend the night

Can't you buy 2 separate tickets?

The issue then is if you have checked luggage.

So get your luggage? Deboarding, going through immigration, getting luggage, and going through customs takes no more than 45 minutes at Narita. Give yourself a 2 hour layover to be safe.

Or pack like Rick Steves and just bring a backpack with the essentials.

I don't think they ever meant it's impossible to get there, just unnecessarily difficult (or expensive) due to a regulation that is bring unnecessary hassle (which is exactly what you are describing, but, somehow, using a tone that it's something smooth).

A backpack and a production crew :)

You don’t need to go through immigration at Narita if you are just transferring planes at the airport.

You don't get a transfer if you've bought two separate flights. You have to pick up your luggage and put it on the next flight.

If the airlines have agreements, you can often get your luggage automatically routed to your next flight. I used to do that between Alaska Airlines and Hainan. Not sure if you can get that done in Tokyo, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it were actually possible.

They don't let you check bags right before the plane takes off - AFAIK it's either 30 minutes or an hour before depending on what airline and airport[0] you change at. So a 2 hour layover "to be safe" would at best give you a grand total of 15 minutes to get all the way back to departures, recheck your bags, go through security, the immigration checkpoint, get to your new gate, etc.

If there's any delay, you miss your next flight, and the airline will not rebook you because your layover's a self-connection, not an actually ticketed thing. So your Guam trip just became a Japan trip.

3 hours would actually have some safety margin in it for short delays. Personally I don't get how people manage really short connections, and I hear plenty of people getting screwed over because of them.

Also, I'm not entirely sure how this works with immigration. The visitor form for Japan asks you about your hotel you plan to stay at - which you won't have since you aren't intending this to become a Japan trip. I have no clue if the immigration officer actually checks that field or if it's purely just for keeping records on tourists.

[0] I heard an hour at LAX. This is the same airport that universally refuses to store luggage overnight - a fact that even people in the airport industry don't seem to understand - so perhaps this is just a rule specific to that tire fire of an airport.

That's going to be at least twice as expensive as one ticket with a layover.

you can but you're going to pay more in general. There are a lot of pricing rules around layovers that make it cheaper than buying tickets separately (basically to give the airlines flexibility to utilize all their planes).

> because any flight with a US origin to a US destination can only be sold by a US carrier.

That's not exactly true. It just requires the USA and the other country to have negotiated a Fifth Freedom agreement.

There are lots of foreign-owned airlines flying from the US with layovers and stopovers in other countries. For instance, I recently flew JFK->FRA->SIN on Singapore Airlines. And United even operates their Island Hopper route, Honolulu-Majuro-Kwajalein Atoll-Kosrae-Pohnpei-Truk-Guam, among many others.

I think you misunderstood. They said US->US destination has to be operated by a us carrier. JFK->FRA->SIN doesn’t have a US designation and United is a US carrier.

Nevertheless, notice the other example I gave is a United flight originating in Honolulu, Hawaii, transiting Micronesia, and ending in Guam.

It’s the same rule.

That is an American airline flight that starts and ends in the US, therefore complying with the rule.

The rule is simply that foreign-owned airlines can’t fly point-to-point routes between US destinations.

I’m in Chicago, and I can book a Korean Air, non-codeshare ORD-ICN-GUM right now. You can find it on Kayak.

Kayak may offer it, but if you try to book that on the Korean Air website you get:

"This is based on the regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation and you cannot make a reservation for an itinerary from the mainland U.S. to Guam (GUM) via a third country"

The rule is not that foreign-owned airlines can't fly point-to-point routes between US destinations - Air Canada can't sell SFO→JFK via Toronto, for instance. You may somehow be able to cause something to be ticketed, but that doesn't mean that you'd be able to check in.

It's not a componentized ticket from the airline, but singular tickets that Kayak has joined together. Or, it's simply ignoring the regulation, and will be denied by the airline once you attempt to book it.

As the other poster mentioned, try grabbing a componetized ticket from the airline and they will not book it.

There used to be direct flights on Continental before they were acquired/merged by United

Sounds similar to the article's mention of the Jones Act and the issues it causes.

Dude. Just buy two separate round trip tickets.

And pray neither is delayed, causing you to miss the next leg.

Just space them out out or even take a couple days to visit Japan. Some airports even have programs where they'll take you on a field trip during your layover

These suggestions are cognitive load on the person making the trip. Most people break out in sweats thinking about organizing a trip to begin with, booking something with any complexity or risk is unbearable to them. My parents are both like this.

I had a partner like that. Would freak out if I started driving without our destination already in the GPS.

I think at least half of travel should be an adventure. Adventures are uncomfortable - but they make the best stories. Nobody has ever said, "Man, remember that time we went on that perfectly planned trip where nothing out of the ordinary happened? How exciting!"

Sure I remember the adventure in Denver that one time, but we barely made it to the funeral the trip was about, and we missed a lot of time with family.

If you just want to travel randomly, then no plan is fine. However we laid out plans can ensure you get to the must sees that are farther from home. Also many close to home things have wierd hours They are open so if you don't plan you won't see them that trip.

When you have a kid and a stressful job and adventures shooting out your ears in day to day life, sometimes the idea of going to Guam and swimming in the beautiful waters and relaxing is what you want out of travel. Adventures don’t have to be exotic, I live adventures daily, and I spend a lot of my life uncomfortable. Many people do. The idea of the adhoc adventure trip i think resonated a lot more with me when I was single or newly married. Now, I love a trip to Bora Bora - my wife is very organized and loves travel planning, and we have perfectly executed trips where the excitement is snorkeling with sharks and mantarays rather than spending 48 hours laying on the floor in a foreign airport with a 9 year old.

Heck, I enjoy a good adventure. But I want the adventure at my destination. There is nothing relaxing or exotic about missing connections and spending the night on a dirty concrete floor.

It's not impossible to do. It just sounds silly that the best way to take a 5 day trip in Guam is to take a 2 day trip in Japan and a 3 day trip in Guam.

I wonder if there's a big list of places that take unintuitively long to get to? Friend of mine flew from California to South America a few years ago by way of Paris (which I think is a requirement for French Guiana?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com