Post a quote, that could have just been text but instead for some stupid reason is an image, entertain me!

JLS wrote:
Serengeti wrote:

14 hours driving is 1. probably way cheaper than a flight, especially for multiple people and 2. far, far less annoying than dealing with airports. I resemble this meme!

And, depending on the flight, can take less time door-to-door.

This is pretty much the reason why the husband and I are driving from Winnipeg to Palmetto, Louisiana this August. Last time we flew, the closest airports were either Houston or New Orleans. Both of which are 3 or 4 hours away from Palmetto. With the length of the flights and our layovers our travel day was about 16 hours.

It'll take us 20 hours to drive down there, and we'll have our own vehicle so we don't need to rent one. Which means we can escape the family whenever we want to And we can have a fun road trip on the way home; we're going south to New Orleans for a few days (I've never been) then north to Chicago on the way home (also a place I've never been).

Serengeti wrote:
farley3k wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/GBfmlfr.jpeg)

14 hours driving is 1. probably way cheaper than a flight, especially for multiple people and 2. far, far less annoying than dealing with airports. I resemble this meme!

No it isn't and no it isn't.

I regularly fly from Seattle to San Francisco.

860 miles, give or take. At $5/gallon and 30 mpg, that's $143 in gas, and more in wear and tear/depreciation on the vehicle, each way, and takes 14+ hours.

My return flight costs < $200, and takes 4-5 hours including travel to the airport and waiting around at the gate quietly reading a book or playing Switch for an hour.

You'll break even with two people in that car. In money, not in time.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/ttjo1wr.jpeg)

Also possibly because the nearest airport with direct flights would be like four hours away...

JLS wrote:
Serengeti wrote:

14 hours driving is 1. probably way cheaper than a flight, especially for multiple people and 2. far, far less annoying than dealing with airports. I resemble this meme!

And, depending on the flight, can take less time door-to-door.

Coming off 2 trips this month that were 11 hour travel plus stops this month I hate that I am in this meme

Jonman wrote:
Serengeti wrote:

14 hours driving is 1. probably way cheaper than a flight, especially for multiple people and 2. far, far less annoying than dealing with airports. I resemble this meme!

No it isn't and no it isn't.

I regularly fly from Seattle to San Francisco.

Gonna have to stop ya right there, city slicker! A direct flight from one major city to another isn't really what "ppl from the midwest" (as per the meme) deal with. Add in multiple hours of layovers and plane switching, regional flights whose schedules can be wonky as all get out, and it's totally different calculation!

Jonman wrote:
Serengeti wrote:
farley3k wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/GBfmlfr.jpeg)

14 hours driving is 1. probably way cheaper than a flight, especially for multiple people and 2. far, far less annoying than dealing with airports. I resemble this meme!

No it isn't and no it isn't.

I regularly fly from Seattle to San Francisco.

860 miles, give or take. At $5/gallon and 30 mpg, that's $143 in gas, and more in wear and tear/depreciation on the vehicle, each way, and takes 14+ hours.

My return flight costs < $200, and takes 4-5 hours including travel to the airport and waiting around at the gate quietly reading a book or playing Switch for an hour.

You'll break even with two people in that car. In money, not in time.

2 people you say? Obviously you don't have kids. We have 3 kids and unless we drive to Chicago we aren't getting flights for what you're getting them for. In most cases there's not a direct flight it's a flight with a long layover. For me to fly from Cedar Rapids to San Francisco it's going to cost $228 per person. Multiply that by 5. It's also going to require a 15 hour layover in Denver so the total flight time is going to be over 20 hours. If I only want to stay in denver for a 6 hour layover (15 hour total time) it's going to cost me 300 per person. If I pay 475 per ticket I can cut that time down to a 9 hours (with an hour layover in Dallas).

Sure, if you're flying solo from a major city to another major city your situation is going to be different but the meme is a midwest meme not a big cities on the west coast meme.

Serengeti wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Serengeti wrote:

14 hours driving is 1. probably way cheaper than a flight, especially for multiple people and 2. far, far less annoying than dealing with airports. I resemble this meme!

No it isn't and no it isn't.

I regularly fly from Seattle to San Francisco.

Gonna have to stop ya right there, city slicker! A direct flight from one major city to another isn't really what "ppl from the midwest" (as per the meme) deal with. Add in multiple hours of layovers and plane switching, regional flights whose schedules can be wonky as all get out, and it's totally different calculation!

Those can all be a problem flying from city to city as well. The last time I flew somewhere was from Minneapolis to Columbus. I had to switch planes in Chicago. I can't remember why but I couldn't get a direct flight. My bag got delayed two days (I was only there for four and for some reason they wouldn't let me gate check my fairly small garment bag). This is apparently common if you have to switch from Delta to United because they are on opposite ends of O'Hare so if you have a short layover your luggage probably isn't getting to your plane. You could say that's on me for not knowing that but whatever. I'm 6'2" which isn't that tall but is still about 6" too tall to fit in the small planes used for regional flights.

If I had to go again, I would just make the 12 hour drive instead.

I want more trains in this country...

Vargen wrote:

I want more trains in this country...

Canada agrees and wishes for the same.

I feel like if automobiles weren't invented for another 50 to 100 years before they were, we'd have an amazing network of railroads across both our countries. But, unfortunately, they got cheaper to manufacture right as both our countries middle classes had more disposable incomes?

Vargen wrote:

I want more trains in this country...

Costs as much as the airplane but takes as long as the car.

Nevin73 wrote:
Vargen wrote:

I want more trains in this country...

Costs as much as the airplane but takes as long as the car.

That wasn't my experience taking the train to PAX East ~5 years ago. I mean, the travel time was there, but I got to sit at a table in business class and play Switch and cards with my friends for the whole trip. Couldn't really have done that on either a drive or a flight. And parking in Roanoke was much cheaper than it would have been in Boston. Roanoke traffic was a lot easier to deal with too.

I can't speak to the average costs, but I know that train ticket was a lot less than flying in and out of Roanoke ever is. Maybe the math is different if you're closer to a more significant airport.

Of the 22,000 miles of track used by Amtrak, they own around 620 miles of it. The rest are rented from freight companies on track designed for trains to only go certain speeds because they are hauling goods instead of people. Most Amtrak travel times have to include slowdowns or stops due to giving freight trains the right of way. The amount of money needed for a cross-country high speed rail system would be in the tens of billions per state, but once finished would see faster times and lower prices depending on popularity. There's no way the airlines will ever let that happen, though.

JLS wrote:
Serengeti wrote:

14 hours driving is 1. probably way cheaper than a flight, especially for multiple people and 2. far, far less annoying than dealing with airports. I resemble this meme!

And, depending on the flight, can take less time door-to-door.

Really. Well, I guess I'll be that guy. I live in Denver, which is 13 hours and 15 minutes of drive time to Minneapolis. If I pile my wife and son into the car with the goal of driving there in one day, we better be on the road by 7:00 a.m. Ten hours later we arrive in Des Moines, and having crossed over to the Central Time Zone it is now 6:00. Since we've made it this far this fast by not stopping for lunch and instead inhaling gas station hot dogs, my family is now insisting that we will sit in a Denny's for thirty minutes and have a civilized meal. 45 minutes later the meal is done, the check is paid, and we have to face one of two unappetizing choices: stop here and blow some of what we would have saved on the flight by staying the night in a hotel and plan to get to Minnesota the next day around mid-day, or plow ahead, where we now face three hours and forty five minutes of night driving before reaching our destination just short of 11:00 p.m.

By contrast, if I leave my house in Denver at 8:00 a.m. for a 10:00 a.m. flight, I will arrive in Minneapolis, with the time change, at 12:50 p.m., in time to grab lunch downtown by 2:00.

I have to drive 4 hours just to get to a major airport. I only have to drive for an hour and a half to get to a smaller one, but the flight options are a lot more limited and tend to cost more too.

Since last Wednesday, I've spent over 48 hours on Amtrak. 1 train from Chicago to Boston. Then 2 to get from Boston to Savannah (with a transfer in New York). It's been a fantastic time! Great views, plenty of space to 'move around the cabin' as it were, and the ability to work comfortably so I'm not having to waste a vacation day (those aren't free and I factor that into travel/mental health costs) on driving or flying, which are both horrible experiences in my opinion. All in all it makes travel an enjoyable part of the trip, instead of something separate before/after the trip. Highly recommend giving it a shot. Or two.

I've had to travel between Boston and NYC a fair number of times in the past decade. Amtrak is definitely the way to go. Yes, the actual on-the-rails travel time is a bit longer, but the convenience and comfort WAY more than makes up the difference. Also, being able to park at the train station like 5 minutes before the train is due to depart, and still get on board with time to spare, is a thing of beauty.

merphle wrote:

I've had to travel between Boston and NYC a fair number of times in the past decade. Amtrak is definitely the way to go. Yes, the actual on-the-rails travel time is a bit longer, but the convenience and comfort WAY more than makes up the difference. Also, being able to park at the train station like 5 minutes before the train is due to depart, and still get on board with time to spare, is a thing of beauty.

I'm in the same boat (train?) and I've also switched from flying to Amtrak for the same reasons.

This travel stuff is so very much situational.

I love Amtrak for the above reasons. Business class is absolute travel luxury on most trips, and not at all expensive compared to flying above Economy. Even the food on trains is decent to good these days; I highly recommend the NY hotdogs they stock, they are the real deal.

easy sunday wrote:

Well, I guess I'll be that guy. I live in Denver

You're missing the point. This is the same as the other argument. You live near a major hub and are flying to another. Nonstop flights are luxury.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/oxhZztX.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/4wxkEB9.jpeg)

farley3k wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/4wxkEB9.jpeg)

I used to think that my puns had intention, but I made a couple handful of puns for science and did a statistical analysis and it turns out that no pun in ten did.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/GvSdXYr.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/BGlHP8p.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/YEQ6BXg.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/phq0PiD.jpeg)

The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference.

I wish I lived in Theory. Everything works there.

My favorite humorous metaphor about theory vs practice is the spherical cow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheri...

My profile status at work often has a picture of a spherical cow and the words "our cows are not spherical" as it's something I've said frequently in the past

IMAGE(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/SphericalCow2.gif)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/NXi2nnN.png)

IMAGE(https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/342341780_917486763039951_8129778034370552334_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=NvSnqZXdn_0AX-bSpl2&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfAEmetq4LxX1Sfk8zRiUvJyuH6xOpZl4EEGlRAGjcXUwg&oe=644D366E)

I've seen the "Star Trek cosplayers at a Renfaire" meme a hundred times, but never knew it became such a problem that someone at a Renfaire came prepared for when they would inevitably show up

Trachalio wrote:

...
I've seen the "Star Trek cosplayers at a Renfaire" meme a hundred times, but never knew it became such a problem that someone at a Renfaire came prepared for when they would inevitably show up

I feel like Star Trek cosplay at a renfaire is doing it wrong. Particularly TOS. TOS didn't do a lot of time travel, they just kept encountering alien planets that had a convenient resemblance to historic periods on earth.
Clearly we need to be period correct and cosplay from long, long ago. We just got lost and aren't in a galaxy far far away anymore.
Yes, I did go to a commercial renfaire dressed as Darth Vader with some friends including someone else also dressed as Darth Vader, why do you ask?