If you can’t be honest with me, then at least be quietly honest with yourself.
Have you ever compared the cost of flying somewhere to the cost of driving, but only considered the cost of gas if driving?
For example: It costs approx. $1,000 to fly from London Ontario to Montreal Quebec return for 2 adults, but I can drive there and back on about $230 worth of gas. Sounds like a no-brainer, until you start to consider:
- How much longer driving will take.
- The cost of meals along the way.
- Possibly a hotel room.
- Not being able to predict your exact arrival time – “We should be there by supperish.”
- The cost of parking while in Montreal.
- The increased risk of driving versus flying.
- Possible delays due to the weather.
- Wear and tear on your vehicle.
- Maintenance costs on your vehicle.
But, you’ll have a car to get around in once you’re there, and you’ll get to choose the time of your departure.
Let’s admit it folks, you’ve already decided to drive and now you’re just trying to justify it. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be having this insane argument with yourself.
Even at a reasonable rate of 50 cents per kilometer for your cars use the real cost of driving is around $750 and it’s an 8-hour drive versus a 75 minute flight. That’s 2 full days of mind-numbing driving versus 2 ½ hours in the air.
Don’t even start with your story about scenic drives. It’s the 401 and you’ll be sucking some truckers diesel exhaust and back spray for most of the drive.
We both know that the only clean and logical way forward is to decide to either fly or drive from the outset and make the best of it. Comparing the two is like trying to decide between watching a movie on Netflix in the comfort of your own home/bed or going to see it at the movie theatre. There are very good reasons why Netflix has taken off like a jet plane while theatres are struggling to reinvent themselves just to stay open.
Of course, these are not the only spaces in our lives where we try and make these kinds of comparisons to justify decisions (conscious or unconscious) that we’ve made.
I see this happening all of the time in construction. Folks like the idea of Digital Construction and having visual, cost and schedule certainty (Yes, that would be the flying option), but they’ve already made the decision to stick build it the way building has been done for nearly 100 years – probably because it’s the path of least resistance.
Now they’re going to waste their time and others comparing the cost of both without considering any of the collateral costs, risks or merits of either.
The future is in Digital Construction (flying). If you choose to embrace it you’ll be doing yourself and your clients a huge favour with a future-proofed technology. If there are truly valid reasons for building it the timeworn way then drive. But don’t confuse one for the other, that would be a disservice to both yourself and your client.