Flight shaming

[coppercapped]

Until technology gets around to usable 3d holographic projections, or Jedi force ghosts become an actual thing, people will travel in order to spend quality face-to-face time with colleagues and contacts to get their jobs done. Teams, Zoom and Skype all fulfil a specific purpose and they have their part to play in reducing the need to travel but they can only go so far.

Exactly.

I used to work in hardware product engineering for a northern California-based personal computer manufacturer. With all the facilities for high quality tele-working it was still more effective to meet face-to-face quite frequently. Sometimes small changes needed design, cost and marketing inputs from a range of people - not just those in engineering. Trying to arrange this at a distance - with the complication of an 8 hour time shift - was extraordinarily difficult, even though all the participants were confident users of teleconferencing.

The conclusion that I came to was that teleconferencing works well for day-to-day management issues and for much software development. For hardware product development it has severe limitations.

Horses for courses.

 

[radamfi]

I can't see why you need to travel to far flung corners of the earth, unless it's to tick a few boxes off your bucket list and impress your friends with how well-travelled you are. Here in the UK we already have the best countryside, culture and history on the planet so why do you need to go abroad? Yes the weather may be sunnier but there's only so much lying on a beach and getting tanned that you can do!

What if you want experience world class integrated transport? You won't get it in the UK. At least the places where that is on offer are close to the UK and can be reached by rail or coach.

 

[edwin_m]

Definitely check out MS Teams. It does everything.

There are rumblings on the Intranet of that appearing, but it's not in our neck of the woods yet.

I agree that there is a limit to what audio/video conferences can achieve, however if cheap speakerphones and poor connections are getting in the way of a reasonable conversation or meeting, then surely the thing to do is to upgrade that equipment (which has a life of several years at least) rather than to spend a similar sort of sum on a one-off flight.

Unfortunately the people that use it aren't the people that buy it. Nor do they ever provide enough rooms or booths so lots of people have calls at their desks with attendant background noise. Also certain countries have much poorer phone systems than ours (though these tend to be countries I have no desire to have personal meetings in, for other reasons as well as the cost of the flight).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Unfortunately the people that use it aren't the people that buy it. Nor do they ever provide enough rooms or booths so lots of people have calls at their desks with attendant background noise.

Sounds like the rail industry. "We could fix this problem through a one-off investment of 3X. But let's just pay X a month to make it continue working the way it always has" ...

 

[jagardner1984]

I’ll try and find the link later, but I read an interesting report recently about radically rethinking the world and place of work.

It referred to some of the following as solutions to the climate emergency:

1. Full scale roll out of Fibre to the Home to allow video conferencing of the speed, quality and robustness of a conversation inside the same office / meeting room. (The limitations to this quality are basically, I’m told, due to the limitations of adaptive streaming responding to inconsistent internet connectivity, and poor quality audio and video equipment)
2. Tax incentives for home working.
3. A network of rentable Meeting rooms (like hotel rooms) with integrated high quality video conferencing
4. A network supporting the above services at the quality required (via an existing or new provider).
5. Taxation policy aimed at restricting frequent flying and business travel (the 15% accounting for 70%), thus incentivising more innovative ways of remote working / conferencing.

With anticipated investment in transport running into the hundreds of billions of pounds over the next few decades, mainly to handle rapid growth of services, one could argue that any measures taken to temper demand, and thus reduce the investment required, would be money very well spent.

 

[Mojo]

...And how much did this Norwegian kid chalk up mileage pollution wise? It`s all nonsense. How many holidays do her quite wealthy family incidentally jet off to every year whilst telling us we should all stop flying, burning tyres and buy electric cars etc at prices most cannot afford. It`s just another inquisition with a hidden agenda.

That is exactly the point. For decades governments have been telling us, that it is up to mere individuals to make a difference, however without giving us the means to do it. The step change we are seeing now as a result of campaigning is the people who care, saying that no we cannot do this on our own, we cannot afford this and the only way forward is for government to take regulatory and other action, else nothing will change.

 

[JohnB57]

That is exactly the point. For decades governments have been telling us, that it is up to mere individuals to make a difference, however without giving us the means to do it. The step change we are seeing now as a result of campaigning is the people who care, saying that no we cannot do this on our own, we cannot afford this and the only way forward is for government to take regulatory and other action, else nothing will change.

This is a genuine question and I'm not saying your point is wrong.

However, I don't see a "step change" in actual resultant action, only in the campaigning itself. I'm genuinely interested in what you refer to as step change, if you could elucidate please?

 

[Mojo]

However, I don't see a "step change" in actual resultant action, only in the campaigning itself. I'm genuinely interested in what you refer to as step change, if you could elucidate please?

Well see for example the announcement yesterday on the banning of unnecessary plastics, other pieces of genuine consideration in implementing larger scale plastic bans, and so on.

 

[JohnB57]

Well see for example the announcement yesterday on the banning of unnecessary plastics, other pieces of genuine consideration in implementing larger scale plastic bans, and so on.

Ok - and that is eminently sensible, although I wouldn't describe it as a "step change", more a "small step" (or it will be when the legislation comes in) as was charging for carriers.

Changing consumer habits large scale is going to be an uphill struggle. I work in the plastics industry and finding viable alternatives for the majority of applications is a serious challenge.

 

[Mojo]

Ok - and that is eminently sensible, although I wouldn't describe it as a "step change", more a "small step" (or it will be when the legislation comes in) as was charging for carriers.

Changing consumer habits large scale is going to be an uphill struggle. I work in the plastics industry and finding viable alternatives for the majority of applications is a serious challenge.

That may be true and I can think of a few items that are not suited to a traditional method, but there are also thousands of items that could move over to plastic alternatives if they were banned, I’m especially thinking of items here that already exist as a plastic free alternative but cost significantly more money.

 

[Clip]

Bad screen hit detection in my case, time for a new phone.

Your clients attitude has to change.

And until they do that i have to keep travelling - its that simple

 

[Clip]

Agree.

Tele/video conferencing definitely has its place but for larger groups and meetings longer than a couple of hours face to face is still so much better. I agree about accents and how frustrating the teleconference process can be sometimes.

Yup because you have to factor in PNB and eating and all that good stuff too which is a right pain with any teleconferencing.

 

[dcbwhaley]

Yup because you have to factor in PNB and eating and all that good stuff too which is a right pain with any teleconferencing.

Another problem arises with teleconferencing when you try to do it across time zones.
In my final job I worked in a collaborative project that included teams on the American west coast, Arizona, New Mexico, central Europe as well as England. It required a great deal of flexibility in bed times to get us all together at the same time As well as nightmares with the daylight saving times. But we made it work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yup because you have to factor in PNB and eating and all that good stuff too which is a right pain with any teleconferencing.

You can go for a wee during a teleconference and have your dinner. I've done both

Almost no business uses videoconf, it seems to be a solution looking for a problem.

 

[edwin_m]

You can surf UK Rail Forums during a teleconference too - just don't forget to unshare your screen if you were previously sharing!

Another problem arises with teleconferencing when you try to do it across time zones.
In my final job I worked in a collaborative project that included teams on the American west coast, Arizona, New Mexico, central Europe as well as England. It required a great deal of flexibility in bed times to get us all together at the same time As well as nightmares with the daylight saving times. But we made it work.

Best I've done is US East Coast with a Gulf state - there's about a two hour window in the middle of the day UK time in summer, less in winter as the country in question doesn't daylight save. But if you tried to do the same meeting in person, it would result in a huge amount of jet lag for nearly everyone.

 

[Ianno87]

Yup because you have to factor in PNB and eating and all that good stuff too which is a right pain with any teleconferencing.

Easily arranged with the statement "shall we take a 5 minute break before we carry on?"

 

[Indigo Soup]

You can surf UK Rail Forums during a teleconference too - just don't forget to unshare your screen if you were previously sharing!

You can also mute the call and ask your colleague if they know what on earth the people on the other end are talking about, because they forgot to send you the information beforehand....

Teleconferences are perfectly fine where all participants in the meeting have equal prominence. When it's a meeting of the team based in Office A, with a couple of people from Offices B and C dialling in because they can't get to Office A without unreasonable time and cost, the latter are liable to get forgotten about.

 

[Bald Rick]

This springs to mind (it’s safe!)

 

[Clip]

Almost no business uses videoconf, it seems to be a solution looking for a problem.

Another statement that has no truth in it Neil!!

Easily arranged with the statement "shall we take a 5 minute break before we carry on?"

Yes but then people get a call on their phone or get accosted by someone else and then are late back and you end up sat around twiddling your thumbs and by which time you will finish it late and it could go into something else planned. We never plan one in for more than an hour simply because of that issue

 

[Clip]

Oh and whoever mentioned Teams by Microsoft is right - its a brilliant tool...

 

[Mogster]

Almost no business uses videoconf, it seems to be a solution looking for a problem.

Yes, we have audio/video available but no one uses the video even though we are encouraged to. Screen sharing yes, video no. Most people seem to hate it...

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, we have audio/video available but no one uses the video even though we are encouraged to. Screen sharing yes, video no. Most people seem to hate it...

We do it in meetings where there is a "main" meeting for most people in one room (with camera built into the screen equipment) but a few others are dialling in. The room video is shared by default, but there is no expectation (nor any real point) of individuals sharing their video.

 

[Reliablebeam]

There's certainly some interesting perspectives in this thread. As I said upthread the 'anti-flight' movement seems to flare up politically every few years. I personally am not sure punitive taxes and the like on flying are going to work - the onus should be on making alternatives more attractive. I'm really not sure when push comes to shove UK governments are going to tell people they can't have their foreign holiday - they have to be elected after all and it's difficult to gauge how much sustained support extra taxes would generate.... There's also an international element to this - if other countries don't follow suit (and aviation tends to be governed by bilateral treaties and charters) we end up damaging British airlines and will likely end up with flights run by various offshore 'flag of convenience' style operations.

As for video conferencing - I'm a big user of it and it has it's place, but as other posters have pointed out, at many industrial/academic/business meetings, the most important and useful business is often done in the pub or coffee shop at the periphery!!!

 

[edwin_m]

There's certainly some interesting perspectives in this thread. As I said upthread the 'anti-flight' movement seems to flare up politically every few years. I personally am not sure punitive taxes and the like on flying are going to work - the onus should be on making alternatives more attractive. I'm really not sure when push comes to shove UK governments are going to tell people they can't have their foreign holiday - they have to be elected after all and it's difficult to gauge how much sustained support extra taxes would generate.... There's also an international element to this - if other countries don't follow suit (and aviation tends to be governed by bilateral treaties and charters) we end up damaging British airlines and will likely end up with flights run by various offshore 'flag of convenience' style operations.

The problem here is that without "punitive taxes and the like" the no-frills carriers have made flying so cheap (for those that are prepared to book well ahead and suffer other inconveniences) that other modes struggle to compete. I can't really believe that this pricing is sustainable if aviation pays all its external costs, so I consider as a minimum these externals should be correctly assigned, taking account of scientific opinion on things like the consequences CO2 emission at altitude versus at ground level. Another area to be looked it is airports offering very good value to airlines because they get their income from state subsidy, or (harder to address) by revenue from ancillary services such as parking and retail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We do it in meetings where there is a "main" meeting for most people in one room (with camera built into the screen equipment) but a few others are dialling in. The room video is shared by default, but there is no expectation (nor any real point) of individuals sharing their video.

Indeed. I suspect one reason is that people who work from home tend not to dress for work, and nobody wants to see me in a scruffy T-shirt and shorts (or worse, as I've actually done crack of dawn teleconferences from bed before).

What is useful, and we use it on almost every meeting, is sharing a "whiteboard" or presentation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh and whoever mentioned Teams by Microsoft is right - its a brilliant tool...

TBH I hate it, I find it overcomplicated and confusing. For me, Sharepoint for document storage, Skype for Business for meetings and quick chats, and if you happen to want a social media type tool Yammer is a very effective "Facebook for Business" type tool assuming you're sticking with the Office suite.

Integrating them all is a great idea but in my view Teams doesn't do it at all well. I haven't used it heavily, but I think (if you're willing to leave the M$ ecosystem) Slack does that concept far, far better.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Teleconferences are perfectly fine where all participants in the meeting have equal prominence. When it's a meeting of the team based in Office A, with a couple of people from Offices B and C dialling in because they can't get to Office A without unreasonable time and cost, the latter are liable to get forgotten about.

If it's that, it's probably best not to actually book a meeting room in A, and have everyone dial in.

 

[Wombat]

Indeed. I suspect one reason is that people who work from home tend not to dress for work, and nobody wants to see me in a scruffy T-shirt and shorts (or worse, as I've actually done crack of dawn teleconferences from bed before).

A few months ago I attended a teleconference in which everyone except me shared video of themselves. I received a barrage of good-natured ribbing urging me to do likewise, and I eventually agreed to hook up a webcam if they were really so eager to see me naked. They unanimously reversed their position and assured me that that wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Meerkat]

I wouldn’t want video as then we wouldn’t be able to mute it and get some real work done, nor mute it and make faces at each other suggesting the client doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Teleconferences need to be strongly run by someone who follows procedures and actively chivvies things along.
One head of at our place totally stopped the messy late starts by insisting that the last manager to join the call had to sing a song - and he really made them do it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Teleconferences need to be strongly run by someone who follows procedures and actively chivvies things along.

Yes, I agree, they do need to be conducted rather more formally than a meeting in a meeting room. That said, meetings in person often waste a lot of time for this very reason.