Author Topic: Overheard at Work  (Read 8864826 times)

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1450 on: January 14, 2014, 12:31:48 PM »
Last week a coworker rolled up in a 2014 Toyota Highlander. Male, Single, 32, no kids, lives in one bedroom apartment in a small city and drives 40 minutes to work (30 mile drive).

Kinda curious why he bought that, so I broached the subject gently (he's kinda sensitive)... "I've been driving around a rust bucket for the last ten years, I just wanted something new."

Alright, to each their own.

He still drives the rust bucket on days it's supposed to snow/storm.

My sister & BIL did this (well, last year, 2013 model).  They both work from home.  Their other car is an SUV of some kind.  One child.  And they complain about money at times.  Their monthly grocery bill used to be more than our housing, including utilities and condo fee.

A coworker of mine decided to tally up his monthly spending in regards to eating out at work. He'd buy lunch every day of the work week, often get coffee after that and then on weekends he might have gone out to eat some too. He totaled out to a horrific $6500/year on eating out all the time. So he is now packing. But this is where it gets even more crazy...

He brought it up to another coworker and said, "Yeah, I'm packing all the time now to save money."

The other guy said, "Now you have to buy your own groceries, so between going to the store and buying food you're not really doing anything better."

WHAT?!?!?! I thought he was joking. He was not. That guy still buys every day of his life. Poor him (literally).

Were you talking to my husband?  He believes takeout is better because: you don't need to spend time grocery shopping, cooking or cleaning, and it costs just about the same to him.  I've done the math for him on specific meals he likes and he still finds it not worthwhile.

Albert

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
  • Location: Switzerland
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1451 on: January 14, 2014, 12:34:59 PM »
I see what the other guy might be thinking (hopefully), and I kinda agree.  If you don't change your eating habits at all -- i.e. you are cooking the exact same variety of food that you used to buy -- then it can get pricey fast.  Buying large variety in small quantities is often pretty expensive at the grocery store and you'll end up wasting some if you only eat 1-lunch worth of whatever you buy.  Sure, that's the dumb way to do it, but it's the best apples-to-apples comparison to eating out each day.  Going from salmon sanwiches and french fries with lime aoli on monday, chicken kiev with bacon roasted brussels sprouts on tuesday, etc. to ham and cheese sandwich on white bread every day of the week is a downgrade in more ways than one.  There's still a middle ground in there that will save you money without being boring.

That's a very good point and part of a reason why I eat in our canteen few times a week (the other part is a social interaction). It's not that expensive anyway (ca 10$) and coffee/tea is for free.

StPaulCityGirl

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1452 on: January 14, 2014, 12:42:09 PM »
A former co-worker and her husband bought a $1.xxM+ house because "it was such a great deal, we couldn't pass it up!" It has 5 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms (SEVEN! have fun cleaning those!), and a "sport court" for the kids. I guess the air isn't clean enough that they can go outside?? They have 2 kids. It's all I can do when I'm over there not to laugh out loud at it. If they lose one of their incomes how "great" of a deal is it going to look like then? I don't get it.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1453 on: January 14, 2014, 12:57:13 PM »
Were you talking to my husband?  He believes takeout is better because: you don't need to spend time grocery shopping, cooking or cleaning...

But has he added up all the time spent going to the takeout place and waiting in line?

Humm... Ought to be a phone app for that, so you can add up driving minutes, standing in line minutes, etc, and show weekl/monthly totals...

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8106
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1454 on: January 14, 2014, 01:02:19 PM »
Were you talking to my husband?  He believes takeout is better because: you don't need to spend time grocery shopping, cooking or cleaning...

But has he added up all the time spent going to the takeout place and waiting in line?

Humm... Ought to be a phone app for that, so you can add up driving minutes, standing in line minutes, etc, and show weekl/monthly totals...

There are always corner cases.  Best case you order online, the place is on your way home, and there is no line.  It doesnt have to be time consuming but it's always gonna be more expensive than beans n rice precook end for the entire week

NumberCruncher

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1455 on: January 14, 2014, 01:21:36 PM »
A former co-worker and her husband bought a $1.xxM+ house because "it was such a great deal, we couldn't pass it up!" It has 5 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms (SEVEN! have fun cleaning those!), and a "sport court" for the kids. I guess the air isn't clean enough that they can go outside?? They have 2 kids. It's all I can do when I'm over there not to laugh out loud at it. If they lose one of their incomes how "great" of a deal is it going to look like then? I don't get it.

I'm trying to think of a scenario where 7 bathrooms would make sense...but I just can't. O.o

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1456 on: January 14, 2014, 01:26:31 PM »
Were you talking to my husband?  He believes takeout is better because: you don't need to spend time grocery shopping, cooking or cleaning...

But has he added up all the time spent going to the takeout place and waiting in line?

Humm... Ought to be a phone app for that, so you can add up driving minutes, standing in line minutes, etc, and show weekl/monthly totals...

I've pointed it out, plus also the times when the weather is nasty and he doesn't want to go out, or meals we make at home that he can't get out.  He simply doesn't believe it takes that much time to get there & wait in line.  In fairness, our old place (move Sat) is actually only 2-3 blocks from a variety of takeout options so its not as long as it might otherwise be for most people (just take the train one more stop and walk back).  Our new place is further from tempting takeout.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1457 on: January 14, 2014, 01:56:57 PM »
I'm trying to think of a scenario where 7 bathrooms would make sense...but I just can't. O.o

When you serve tainted seafood at a dinner party to at least six other people?

AlmostIndependent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Anchorage, AK
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1458 on: January 14, 2014, 02:03:11 PM »
I'm trying to think of a scenario where 7 bathrooms would make sense...but I just can't. O.o

When you serve tainted seafood at a dinner party to at least six other people?

LOL

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1459 on: January 14, 2014, 05:06:15 PM »
Quote
Elsewhere in our department are some managers who fly in on the company jet Mondays from Louisiana and back to their homes on Wednesdays. Best 1 hour commute ever!

I've always thought that if I ever became absurdly wealthy, private aviation would be the one thing I'd splurge on in ways that aren't really justifiable.  The quantity of hassle that is avoided by flying private is amazing.  That said, I know it's incredibly expensive and awful for the environment.

Expensive, for sure, but is it really worse for the environment than flying on a commercial jet?

greenmimama

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1460 on: January 14, 2014, 06:03:17 PM »
A former co-worker and her husband bought a $1.xxM+ house because "it was such a great deal, we couldn't pass it up!" It has 5 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms (SEVEN! have fun cleaning those!), and a "sport court" for the kids. I guess the air isn't clean enough that they can go outside?? They have 2 kids. It's all I can do when I'm over there not to laugh out loud at it. If they lose one of their incomes how "great" of a deal is it going to look like then? I don't get it.

I'm trying to think of a scenario where 7 bathrooms would make sense...but I just can't. O.o

Maybe if you are the Duggars with a household of 21 :)

SpacemanSpiff

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Location: Murica
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1461 on: January 14, 2014, 06:04:03 PM »
Quote
Elsewhere in our department are some managers who fly in on the company jet Mondays from Louisiana and back to their homes on Wednesdays. Best 1 hour commute ever!

I've always thought that if I ever became absurdly wealthy, private aviation would be the one thing I'd splurge on in ways that aren't really justifiable.  The quantity of hassle that is avoided by flying private is amazing.  That said, I know it's incredibly expensive and awful for the environment.

Expensive, for sure, but is it really worse for the environment than flying on a commercial jet?

I'm fairly certain that the idea here is that each time you use your own private jet, amount of resources consumed per person is much higher than the amount of resources consumed per person if you were to book a flight on a commercial airliner with 100+ other people.

AlmostIndependent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Anchorage, AK
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1462 on: January 14, 2014, 06:29:25 PM »
Quote
Elsewhere in our department are some managers who fly in on the company jet Mondays from Louisiana and back to their homes on Wednesdays. Best 1 hour commute ever!

I've always thought that if I ever became absurdly wealthy, private aviation would be the one thing I'd splurge on in ways that aren't really justifiable.  The quantity of hassle that is avoided by flying private is amazing.  That said, I know it's incredibly expensive and awful for the environment.

Expensive, for sure, but is it really worse for the environment than flying on a commercial jet?

I'm fairly certain that the idea here is that each time you use your own private jet, amount of resources consumed per person is much higher than the amount of resources consumed per person if you were to book a flight on a commercial airliner with 100+ other people.

You are exactly right.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2971
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1463 on: January 14, 2014, 07:36:43 PM »
A former co-worker and her husband bought a $1.xxM+ house because "it was such a great deal, we couldn't pass it up!" It has 5 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms (SEVEN! have fun cleaning those!), and a "sport court" for the kids. I guess the air isn't clean enough that they can go outside?? They have 2 kids. It's all I can do when I'm over there not to laugh out loud at it. If they lose one of their incomes how "great" of a deal is it going to look like then? I don't get it.

I'm trying to think of a scenario where 7 bathrooms would make sense...but I just can't. O.o

Even if you don't use all of those toilets, you'd have to dust them at minimum.

wtjbatman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1313
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Missouri
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1464 on: January 14, 2014, 09:02:22 PM »
If you flush all seven at once, will the house explode?

Fireman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
  • Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1465 on: January 14, 2014, 09:42:13 PM »
If you flush all seven at once, will the house explode?

If someone was showering they would explode!

mamagoose

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Location: FL
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1466 on: January 15, 2014, 05:21:40 AM »
A former co-worker and her husband bought a $1.xxM+ house because "it was such a great deal, we couldn't pass it up!" It has 5 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms (SEVEN! have fun cleaning those!), and a "sport court" for the kids. I guess the air isn't clean enough that they can go outside?? They have 2 kids. It's all I can do when I'm over there not to laugh out loud at it. If they lose one of their incomes how "great" of a deal is it going to look like then? I don't get it.

I'm trying to think of a scenario where 7 bathrooms would make sense...but I just can't. O.o

Maybe if you are the Duggars with a household of 21 :)

+1 for the Duggars, love that show!

jba302

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1467 on: January 15, 2014, 07:30:50 AM »
Quote
Elsewhere in our department are some managers who fly in on the company jet Mondays from Louisiana and back to their homes on Wednesdays. Best 1 hour commute ever!

I've always thought that if I ever became absurdly wealthy, private aviation would be the one thing I'd splurge on in ways that aren't really justifiable.  The quantity of hassle that is avoided by flying private is amazing.  That said, I know it's incredibly expensive and awful for the environment.

Expensive, for sure, but is it really worse for the environment than flying on a commercial jet?

I'm fairly certain that the idea here is that each time you use your own private jet, amount of resources consumed per person is much higher than the amount of resources consumed per person if you were to book a flight on a commercial airliner with 100+ other people.

When I worked for a large company (we had 2 737's and a helicopter for the chief whatever officers and other highest level people), I was told by finance people that it was cheaper and safer for the company to own 2 planes (and a helicopter!) instead of having these guys sit in terminals and be unproductive on their salaries. It was said to me as if that was a valid explanation that didn't warrant more questions, so I just let it go and ended up at another company :).

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1468 on: January 15, 2014, 07:38:38 AM »
Quote
Elsewhere in our department are some managers who fly in on the company jet Mondays from Louisiana and back to their homes on Wednesdays. Best 1 hour commute ever!

I've always thought that if I ever became absurdly wealthy, private aviation would be the one thing I'd splurge on in ways that aren't really justifiable.  The quantity of hassle that is avoided by flying private is amazing.  That said, I know it's incredibly expensive and awful for the environment.

Expensive, for sure, but is it really worse for the environment than flying on a commercial jet?

I'm fairly certain that the idea here is that each time you use your own private jet, amount of resources consumed per person is much higher than the amount of resources consumed per person if you were to book a flight on a commercial airliner with 100+ other people.

When I worked for a large company (we had 2 737's and a helicopter for the chief whatever officers and other highest level people), I was told by finance people that it was cheaper and safer for the company to own 2 planes (and a helicopter!) instead of having these guys sit in terminals and be unproductive on their salaries. It was said to me as if that was a valid explanation that didn't warrant more questions, so I just let it go and ended up at another company :).

on a related note, my company has a policy that the top executives can't be on the same flight together. is that normal or wacky? this is my first grown-up job so I have no idea

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4637
  • Age: 26
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1469 on: January 15, 2014, 07:39:38 AM »
on a related note, my company has a policy that the top executives can't be on the same flight together. is that normal or wacky? this is my first grown-up job so I have no idea
I've heard that before. It may be wacky but I'm pretty sure it's also relatively standard.

Insanity

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1470 on: January 15, 2014, 07:40:34 AM »
When I worked for a large company (we had 2 737's and a helicopter for the chief whatever officers and other highest level people), I was told by finance people that it was cheaper and safer for the company to own 2 planes (and a helicopter!) instead of having these guys sit in terminals and be unproductive on their salaries. It was said to me as if that was a valid explanation that didn't warrant more questions, so I just let it go and ended up at another company :).
I would say it could be cheaper than letting these guys quit because they demand personal flights instead of commercial. CxO's basically expect this kind of stuff when they get to that level

Also have to factor in a lot of times these guys are not flying coach and are flying last minute and are flying a crap load. 

on a related note, my company has a policy that the top executives can't be on the same flight together. is that normal or wacky? this is my first grown-up job so I have no idea
I've heard that before. It may be wacky but I'm pretty sure it's also relatively standard.

It isn't wacky. It's about redundancy.  You don't want to lose two C-level personal in the same accident.

purpleqgr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1471 on: January 15, 2014, 07:44:01 AM »
When I worked for a large company (we had 2 737's and a helicopter for the chief whatever officers and other highest level people), I was told by finance people that it was cheaper and safer for the company to own 2 planes (and a helicopter!) instead of having these guys sit in terminals and be unproductive on their salaries. It was said to me as if that was a valid explanation that didn't warrant more questions, so I just let it go and ended up at another company :).
I would say it could be cheaper than letting these guys quit because they demand personal flights instead of commercial. CxO's basically expect this kind of stuff when they get to that level

Also have to factor in a lot of times these guys are not flying coach and are flying last minute and are flying a crap load. 

on a related note, my company has a policy that the top executives can't be on the same flight together. is that normal or wacky? this is my first grown-up job so I have no idea
I've heard that before. It may be wacky but I'm pretty sure it's also relatively standard.

It isn't wacky. It's about redundancy.  You don't want to lose two C-level personal in the same accident.

Tesla had this very problem, so it's not JUST paranoia -- http://jalopnik.com/5473942/3-tesla-execs-dead-in-palo-alto-plane-crash

jba302

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1472 on: January 15, 2014, 07:56:08 AM »

Also have to factor in a lot of times these guys are not flying coach and are flying last minute and are flying a crap load. 

It isn't wacky. It's about redundancy.  You don't want to lose two C-level personal in the same accident.

Both of these are absolutely correct, more specifically the second one - the risk of 2 of them dying in the same crash. The first one is not exactly so, since the majority of their schedules are planned months in advance between 2 or 3 specific locations.

Just the math behind it though is shocking - without talking about the cost of flights, it was their hourly pay rate that was the big factor (allegedly). They can be connected and productive on a corporate flight, so that was 4 hours+ each flight that was not lost productivity. And that made it worth it to buy 2 737's. I want someone that knows planes that can explain to me what the running hourly pay would need to be to balance that equation.

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1473 on: January 15, 2014, 08:00:30 AM »
When I worked for a large company (we had 2 737's and a helicopter for the chief whatever officers and other highest level people), I was told by finance people that it was cheaper and safer for the company to own 2 planes (and a helicopter!) instead of having these guys sit in terminals and be unproductive on their salaries. It was said to me as if that was a valid explanation that didn't warrant more questions, so I just let it go and ended up at another company :).
I would say it could be cheaper than letting these guys quit because they demand personal flights instead of commercial. CxO's basically expect this kind of stuff when they get to that level

Also have to factor in a lot of times these guys are not flying coach and are flying last minute and are flying a crap load. 

on a related note, my company has a policy that the top executives can't be on the same flight together. is that normal or wacky? this is my first grown-up job so I have no idea
I've heard that before. It may be wacky but I'm pretty sure it's also relatively standard.

It isn't wacky. It's about redundancy.  You don't want to lose two C-level personal in the same accident.

Tesla had this very problem, so it's not JUST paranoia -- http://jalopnik.com/5473942/3-tesla-execs-dead-in-palo-alto-plane-crash

oh wow!

yeah, it definitely makes sense to me, just not sure if it was standard. it seems to me that death by plane crash is pretty rare but I guess it doesn't hurt/better safe than sorry! (and crazy to see an example of it actually happening)

MsSindy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1474 on: January 15, 2014, 08:46:11 AM »
Were you talking to my husband?  He believes takeout is better because: you don't need to spend time grocery shopping, cooking or cleaning...

But has he added up all the time spent going to the takeout place and waiting in line?

Humm... Ought to be a phone app for that, so you can add up driving minutes, standing in line minutes, etc, and show weekl/monthly totals...

I've pointed it out, plus also the times when the weather is nasty and he doesn't want to go out, or meals we make at home that he can't get out.  He simply doesn't believe it takes that much time to get there & wait in line.  In fairness, our old place (move Sat) is actually only 2-3 blocks from a variety of takeout options so its not as long as it might otherwise be for most people (just take the train one more stop and walk back).  Our new place is further from tempting takeout.

My DH is the exact opposite.  He asks that I fix a sandwich for his lunch EVERY DAY and he's totally happy to eat damn near the same thing EVERY DAY.  He thinks that it is too much of a PITA to walk down to the cafeteria and would rather just lazily eat at his desk.  Even when I try to give him leftovers, he claims that it's a pain to go to the microwave....I'm not sure how his work is laid out, but really?  It's funny, because he is the least lazy person I know.  But hey, it's the one area of Mustachism that he fully embraces and it takes me about 4 min to make 3 days worth of sandwich lunches for him at a time, so no complaints here!  Yep, he doesn't even require a "freshly made sandwich".

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4358
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1475 on: January 15, 2014, 09:35:31 AM »
Yeah the redundency requirement is or should be pretty much standard at every major company. The Poles let that one slide 2 years ago and ended up with a sizeable chunk of their government taken out. Ouch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash

ThatGuyFromCanada

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
  • Location: Calgary Alberta - Canada
    • www.jonathanneufeld.com
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1476 on: January 15, 2014, 01:18:20 PM »

Also have to factor in a lot of times these guys are not flying coach and are flying last minute and are flying a crap load. 

It isn't wacky. It's about redundancy.  You don't want to lose two C-level personal in the same accident.

Both of these are absolutely correct, more specifically the second one - the risk of 2 of them dying in the same crash. The first one is not exactly so, since the majority of their schedules are planned months in advance between 2 or 3 specific locations.

Just the math behind it though is shocking - without talking about the cost of flights, it was their hourly pay rate that was the big factor (allegedly). They can be connected and productive on a corporate flight, so that was 4 hours+ each flight that was not lost productivity. And that made it worth it to buy 2 737's. I want someone that knows planes that can explain to me what the running hourly pay would need to be to balance that equation.

Say you're the CEO of ConocoPhillips and make $20,000,000 per year (which puts you very low on the list of 100 highest paid CEOs source). Say you work  10 hours per day 250 days per year. This means you're getting paid $8,000 per hour. If you're the CEO of Oracle your'e getting $96,000,000 per year or $38,400 per hour.

According tohttp://www.what2fly.com/operating_cost/boeing/737-300.php a 737 costs $5,200 per hour in fuel plus whatever the fixed costs of the lease are.

It seems outrageous but if your CEO is getting paid $38k per hour then a private jet makes sense

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4637
  • Age: 26
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1477 on: January 15, 2014, 01:27:12 PM »
It's probably considerably more hours than that. But there are also many executives and few planes.

CommonCents

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1478 on: January 15, 2014, 01:30:53 PM »
When I worked for a large company (we had 2 737's and a helicopter for the chief whatever officers and other highest level people), I was told by finance people that it was cheaper and safer for the company to own 2 planes (and a helicopter!) instead of having these guys sit in terminals and be unproductive on their salaries. It was said to me as if that was a valid explanation that didn't warrant more questions, so I just let it go and ended up at another company :).
I would say it could be cheaper than letting these guys quit because they demand personal flights instead of commercial. CxO's basically expect this kind of stuff when they get to that level

Also have to factor in a lot of times these guys are not flying coach and are flying last minute and are flying a crap load. 

on a related note, my company has a policy that the top executives can't be on the same flight together. is that normal or wacky? this is my first grown-up job so I have no idea
I've heard that before. It may be wacky but I'm pretty sure it's also relatively standard.

It isn't wacky. It's about redundancy.  You don't want to lose two C-level personal in the same accident.

Tesla had this very problem, so it's not JUST paranoia -- http://jalopnik.com/5473942/3-tesla-execs-dead-in-palo-alto-plane-crash

oh wow!

yeah, it definitely makes sense to me, just not sure if it was standard. it seems to me that death by plane crash is pretty rare but I guess it doesn't hurt/better safe than sorry! (and crazy to see an example of it actually happening)

Yep, when I worked at a large law firm, the partners were actually assigned to planes to go to the annual all partner retreat.  They split the main office into 3 groups, to ensure that the firm could continue if a plane went down.  Partners were always pissed to get the earliest one too - they wanted to stay working at their desk as long as possible (even though they had tools to work remotely).

rockstache

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5841
  • Age: 2014
  • Location: Northeast
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1479 on: January 15, 2014, 01:57:46 PM »
Were you talking to my husband?  He believes takeout is better because: you don't need to spend time grocery shopping, cooking or cleaning...

But has he added up all the time spent going to the takeout place and waiting in line?

Humm... Ought to be a phone app for that, so you can add up driving minutes, standing in line minutes, etc, and show weekl/monthly totals...

I've pointed it out, plus also the times when the weather is nasty and he doesn't want to go out, or meals we make at home that he can't get out.  He simply doesn't believe it takes that much time to get there & wait in line.  In fairness, our old place (move Sat) is actually only 2-3 blocks from a variety of takeout options so its not as long as it might otherwise be for most people (just take the train one more stop and walk back).  Our new place is further from tempting takeout.

My DH is the exact opposite.  He asks that I fix a sandwich for his lunch EVERY DAY and he's totally happy to eat damn near the same thing EVERY DAY.  He thinks that it is too much of a PITA to walk down to the cafeteria and would rather just lazily eat at his desk.  Even when I try to give him leftovers, he claims that it's a pain to go to the microwave....I'm not sure how his work is laid out, but really?  It's funny, because he is the least lazy person I know.  But hey, it's the one area of Mustachism that he fully embraces and it takes me about 4 min to make 3 days worth of sandwich lunches for him at a time, so no complaints here!  Yep, he doesn't even require a "freshly made sandwich".

lol...that's me. I eat the same sandwich almost every day. And when I do bring leftovers I eat them cold at my desk. I hate the kitchen, the microwave, talking to coworkers on my lunchbreak etc...   

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Age: 39
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1480 on: January 15, 2014, 02:29:01 PM »
Full tank of gas on a 737 will run you about 30k$ (depending on where you buy).  Not sure on the range of the BBJ but lets assume its comfortably coast to coast and would use most of that.  New 737's run around 80$mill.  But also with commercial you have to deal with lay overs, baggage clam, canceled flights, no work while in the air, etc.  Also owning your own eliminates the added cost of sending along a half dozen other people as support staff.  Hell send a driver or two-you have the room (commercial 737ng can take +200 people!).  As stupid as it sounds I can see the math working out very quickly. 

Where I work we have done the math and just with sending three 100k/year engineers 1500 miles can workout cheaper with a charter service when you include a lost 8hr of labor for travel vs 4hrs for point to point.

Fireman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
  • Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1481 on: January 15, 2014, 02:43:41 PM »
Full tank of gas on a 737 will run you about 30k$ (depending on where you buy). 

I like that there is someone here that knows how much it costs to fuel a 737. 

And wow, that's a lot!

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Age: 39
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1482 on: January 15, 2014, 03:01:57 PM »
Never rented one myself, just Google and some math.

I once worked out that all the taxes in all forms I paid to the Feds over one year would fill up ~2/3 of the full tanks of a B-52.  We spend a LOT on defense in the USA.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4637
  • Age: 26
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1483 on: January 15, 2014, 03:10:34 PM »
Never rented one myself, just Google and some math.

I once worked out that all the taxes in all forms I paid to the Feds over one year would fill up ~2/3 of the full tanks of a B-52.  We spend a LOT on defense in the USA.
There are less than a hundred B-52s and over a hundred million taxpayers.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Age: 39
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1484 on: January 15, 2014, 03:38:04 PM »
I have 130 Facebook friends if we each had good jobs and paid 15k in Federal Withholding taxes, that gives us 1.9$ million/year in tax income for the feds.

One B52-H has a fuel capacity of 48,000 gallons, commercial fuel rates are around 5.99$/gal, lets say they only use one tank per week, this comes to 14.9$ million just in fuel per year.  F.o.r o.n.e. (admittedly big) a.i.r.p.l.a.n.e.

Point being it takes a crap ton of people each paying a lot to support our military.  (I have no gripe with the military or those that serve you could do this with NASA or TSA just as easily!!!)  Just making a point on how expensive all this is by putting it in some context.  Fine there are 100,000,000 people paying tax, but when you think that a small towns entire tax bill might not cover the fuel bill for one airplane it puts things in perspective.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 03:43:56 PM by AlanStache »

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4637
  • Age: 26
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1485 on: January 15, 2014, 04:33:55 PM »
If the whole air force uses a bit over billion dollars a year in fuel (thanks wiki), it's unlikely that each of 100 B-52 bombers use $15M a year - that would leave only a negative half a billion dollars to purchase fuel for all the other planes and air force activities. That's electricity.

Edit: Let's try $7.5B on jet fuel. And that figure's more recent. Still doesn't look like just B-52s are $1.5B though.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 04:38:43 PM by grantmeaname »

AlmostIndependent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Anchorage, AK
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1486 on: January 15, 2014, 06:38:53 PM »
Yeah the redundency requirement is or should be pretty much standard at every major company. The Poles let that one slide 2 years ago and ended up with a sizeable chunk of their government taken out. Ouch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash

Royal families do that too. The British newspapers were talking about how it's unprecedented that Prince William plans to take the same flight as his son on their next overseas trip. Direct heirs don't travel together as a custom.

I find this especially silly since the Royal family isn't really governing the country.

Bruised_Pepper

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 190
  • Age: 30
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1487 on: January 15, 2014, 11:14:20 PM »
Yeah the redundency requirement is or should be pretty much standard at every major company. The Poles let that one slide 2 years ago and ended up with a sizeable chunk of their government taken out. Ouch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash

Royal families do that too. The British newspapers were talking about how it's unprecedented that Prince William plans to take the same flight as his son on their next overseas trip. Direct heirs don't travel together as a custom.

I find this especially silly since the Royal family isn't really governing the country.

The sovereign country of Alaska??

T-Rex

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 412
  • Location: SF
  • Thirtysomething woman, military vet
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1488 on: January 16, 2014, 04:22:01 AM »
"I can't wait for this deployment to be over so I can to go home to my new house, and my new custom SUV." -a guy that is extremely close to getting the boot if he doesn't pick up the next rank

153

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1489 on: January 16, 2014, 06:21:49 AM »

ho. ly. shit.


Update: same CW. She stopped by my office and said hey thanks for the help. I said no problem.

THEN SHE GOES: I just don't want to not be able to spend my money now. I want to enjoy it while I'm young. I'll eat ramen when I'm 55 and old. I said, old you might appreciate young you's foresight. Nope- I don't worry about being poor when I'm old, I won't care it- will be fine.

Headdesk.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1490 on: January 16, 2014, 10:17:23 AM »
I've always thought that if I ever became absurdly wealthy, private aviation would be the one thing I'd splurge on in ways that aren't really justifiable.  The quantity of hassle that is avoided by flying private is amazing.  That said, I know it's incredibly expensive and awful for the environment.

Expensive, for sure, but is it really worse for the environment than flying on a commercial jet?

I'm fairly certain that the idea here is that each time you use your own private jet, amount of resources consumed per person is much higher than the amount of resources consumed per person if you were to book a flight on a commercial airliner with 100+ other people.

Right, but that's what I have trouble believing. Even just looking at fuel costs (leaving out maintenance, crew salaries, other engine fluids, etc.), it would mean that the cost of fuel for flying a 70-ton (140,000 pound) Airbus 320 with two jet engines and 150 passengers from point A to point B is less than 25 times as much as the cost of fuel for flying that same distance in a 3700-pound Beechcraft Bonanza with one propeller engine and six passengers.

And there's just no way that's possible. In addition to the fact the Airbus is about 50 times heavier, jet engines burn more fuel than prop engines, and there are two of them on the Airbus.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4637
  • Age: 26
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1491 on: January 16, 2014, 10:42:54 AM »
And there's just no way that's possible. In addition to the fact the Airbus is about 50 times heavier, jet engines burn more fuel than prop engines, and there are two of them on the Airbus.
I thought jet engines got more efficiency because they're hotter-running. Perhaps they are but that's more than offset by the increased drag from going nearly the speed of sound rather than prop-plane slow?

They'd have to be 50% more efficient to take the fuel consumption ratio down to 25x from the 37.5x weight multiple. That's a little harder to believe.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Age: 39
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1492 on: January 16, 2014, 11:48:01 AM »
Did the math and strictly on a fuel usage basis it looks close between a Beechcraft Bonanza with four or six people and a 737 with 125 people. We have to convert to true airspeed and use a standard travel distance to compensate for the radically different speeds

Beechcraft Bonanza:
   basic numbers from the intertube: 169 knots @ ~15kft, 16 gal/hr
   true airspeed: 211 knot  (http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html)
   assume 100 nautical mile test run.
   time = distance/speed: 100nm / 211knot = 0.47hr
   fuel burn: 0.47hr*16gal/hr: 7.52 gal
   fuel per person (6 people): 7.52 gal / 6 people = 1.25 gal-per person
   fuel per person (4 people): 7.52 gal / 4 people = 1.88 gal-per person
      
Generic 737:
   basic numbers from the intert-tube: 0.74 mach at 30kft, 5500 lb/hr-> 816 gal/hr
   true airspeed: 436 knot
   assume 100 nautical mile test run.
   time = distance/speed: 100nm / 436knots = 0.23hr
   fuel burn: 0.23hr*816gal/hr: 187 gal
   fuel per person: 187 gal / 125 people = 1.4 gal-per person

There are 1001 assumptions in this but it looks like the two are close in terms of fuel usage and it could go either way with the exact number of people on board. 

EDIT: But they would be using different types of gas that cost differently and Delta does not buy at Joes-gas-n-fly, but Delta may have less choice where they buy and local taxes...
« Last Edit: January 16, 2014, 11:54:03 AM by AlanStache »

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1493 on: January 16, 2014, 12:09:21 PM »
There are 1001 assumptions in this but it looks like the two are close in terms of fuel usage and it could go either way with the exact number of people on board.

One thing here is that you're not counting climb & descent.  If you're flying any distance in a jet, most of the trip is going to be around 30K ft altitude, where air resistance is  low.  In a Bonanza, most of the trip will be IIRC at 12,500 or below.

Then you need to consider the whole trip, not just the airplane part.  The smaller the plane, the greater the chance of landing close to your destination.

AlmostIndependent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Anchorage, AK
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1494 on: January 16, 2014, 12:14:11 PM »
Did the math and strictly on a fuel usage basis it looks close between a Beechcraft Bonanza with four or six people and a 737 with 125 people. We have to convert to true airspeed and use a standard travel distance to compensate for the radically different speeds

Beechcraft Bonanza:
   basic numbers from the intertube: 169 knots @ ~15kft, 16 gal/hr
   true airspeed: 211 knot  (http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html)
   assume 100 nautical mile test run.
   time = distance/speed: 100nm / 211knot = 0.47hr
   fuel burn: 0.47hr*16gal/hr: 7.52 gal
   fuel per person (6 people): 7.52 gal / 6 people = 1.25 gal-per person
   fuel per person (4 people): 7.52 gal / 4 people = 1.88 gal-per person
      
Generic 737:
   basic numbers from the intert-tube: 0.74 mach at 30kft, 5500 lb/hr-> 816 gal/hr
   true airspeed: 436 knot
   assume 100 nautical mile test run.
   time = distance/speed: 100nm / 436knots = 0.23hr
   fuel burn: 0.23hr*816gal/hr: 187 gal
   fuel per person: 187 gal / 125 people = 1.4 gal-per person

There are 1001 assumptions in this but it looks like the two are close in terms of fuel usage and it could go either way with the exact number of people on board. 

EDIT: But they would be using different types of gas that cost differently and Delta does not buy at Joes-gas-n-fly, but Delta may have less choice where they buy and local taxes...

This is a silly comparison. There are so many variables to say that one plane is more efficient than the other based on 100 theoretical miles at cruise speed/fuel burn is misleading. In some instances the Bonanza will be more efficient and in some cases the 737 will. If you need to move 4 people 150 miles then the Bonanza will be more efficient but over longer distances with more people the 737 will win.

Jets get their efficiency from flying higher than a propeller driven plane can. The atmosphere is significantly thinner allowing them to travel faster with less drag.

NumberCruncher

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1495 on: January 16, 2014, 12:15:15 PM »
Additionally - don't private "jets" have jet engines? The Beechcraft Bonanza doesn't look like any private jets you see CEOs jetting off in...looks like something used for getting to small islands and the like.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Age: 39
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1496 on: January 16, 2014, 12:18:05 PM »
Both sets of numbers were at cruise.  That is the 737 fuel flow was for at 30kft and the Bonanza was at 15kft.  That said yes the comparison is still largely silly that is why assumptions were listed.

EDIT: The premise of this is like comparing two cars strictly on fuel costs, it may be meaningful for comparable cars but is less than idea for a Tessla vs Smart Car.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2014, 12:36:06 PM by AlanStache »

huadpe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1497 on: January 16, 2014, 12:33:40 PM »
Both sets of numbers were at cruise.  That is the 737 fuel flow was for at 30kft and the Bonanza was at 15kft.  That said yes the comparison is still largely silly that is why assumptions were listed.

I dunno, maybe my trips in my friend's bonanza were really unusual, but we hardly ever got above 5000 feet.  This was usually a relatively short hop from FRG to ACY though. 

Also, I realize that flying to Atlantic City for the night is not a very mustachian thing to do.  But really, flying to Atlantic City in a private plane for just my fifth of the fuel cost was well worth how much fun those couple adventures were.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Age: 39
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1498 on: January 16, 2014, 12:44:19 PM »
For a given airplane ground speed normally get faster and things more efficient per mile as you go higher*.  But the hassle of going higher has a steep slope, especially for short hops.  Weather, winds, ATC, supplemental oxygen, time to climb up/coast down, f-ing cold, less flying margin, etc

higher*: massively broad and simplistic statement I will not defend :-)

nawhite

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Location: An RV somewhere in the West
    • The Reckless Choice
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #1499 on: January 16, 2014, 01:03:57 PM »
For a given airplane ground speed normally get faster and things more efficient per mile as you go higher*.  But the hassle of going higher has a steep slope, especially for short hops.  Weather, winds, ATC, supplemental oxygen, time to climb up/coast down, f-ing cold, less flying margin, etc

higher*: massively broad and simplistic statement I will not defend :-)

"African or European swallow?"
...
"Its not a question of how he grips it, its a question of weight ratios!!!"
...

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Please go somewhere else to discuss airplanes (like the Off Topic part of this forum, that's what its for).

If anyone would like to continue discussing funny anti-mustachian things they heard at work, that would be nice. Otherwise this thread needs to be locked and restarted.