I wouldn't be surprised if there were a good number of people who were pleased with the cheap rooms. They just don't post here.From Congress, not passengers.The notice from Amtrak says their decision was based on feedback they received.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a good number of people who were pleased with the cheap rooms. They just don't post here.From Congress, not passengers.The notice from Amtrak says their decision was based on feedback they received.
why not? That seems silly. The Lake Shore Limited for example only serves Breakfast and Lunch the entire Eastbound trip, and that assumes you are going all the way to New York City. You would really alter your entire travel plan based on that Breakfast and Lunch?I would never ride an overnight train without a proper diner.
While a Diner is always nice, if it is a train like the Late Shore, I could survive going through part of a day without any "proper" chow, especially if I knew NYC or Chicago was at the end of the line. But let's hope Amtrak doesn't get any more cute ideas about this.....I would never ride an overnight train without a proper diner.
Well, said. I agree.I would never ride an overnight train without a proper diner.
You have, Mark. It's called "bottom".From the Trains Magazine, March 2016 issue, Mark Murphy, head of Amtrak's Long Distance Business Unit said this regarding the Silver Star food service cuts:
"Look at the Silver Star demand. When [sleeper occupancy] is up 21 to 25% consistently for three or four months, that tells me we've struck something."
They most certainly have - but obviously not on the date(s) you checked or traveled:The roomettes on the Star have not gotten cheaper. . .
"Look at the Silver Star demand. When [sleeper occupancy] is up 21 to 25% consistently for three or four months, that tells me we've struck something."
I'm OK with it. Probably most passengers still have the Meteor as an option. Meanwhile dropping the diner from the Star consist shows Congress how hard Amtrak is working to cut food & Beverage costs as it promised.From the Trains Magazine, March 2016 issue, Mark Murphy, head of Amtrak's Long Distance Business Unit said this regarding the Silver Star food service cuts:
"Look at the Silver Star demand. When [sleeper occupancy] is up 21 to 25% consistently for three or four months, that tells me we've struck something."
Isn't Amtrak already "making more on each room sold" here by lowering their costs more than they are lowering their prices?Only Amtrak would be surprised to discover that when you reduce the price of your goods or services, you sell more of them. Chrysler could sell more cars and McDonald's more hamburgers if they cut the price, just like Amtrak can sell more tickets (rooms) at a cheaper price. But you get what you pay for, and by reducing the quality of the product its now worth less - and maximizing revenue per unit is critical when you have a finite inventory such as the (fixed) capacity of two Viewliner sleepers. While you could add more cars to the train, we all know how few extra cars are even available (and if the now longer train needs a second locomotive, part of the cost savings disappears too).
Far better to make more on each room sold, with reasonable occupancy rates, when you have so few rooms to sell. To achieve that you need to make the service worth more - and that means more and upscale amenities, not the bottom feeder approach of Megabus and Motel 6 (both have their place, of course). The Wal-Mart model only works when you can make up the smaller profit margin on volume; Amtrak literally cannot do that.
If you only have 100 rooms to sell in your hotel, and can achieve high occupancy most of the time, would you do better to price them at Motel 6 or Hampton Inn prices (realizing a Hampton costs more to operate)?
But occupancy rate is NOT up. I'm not sure what Murphy actually said, but I hope your interpolation was incorrect. What happened was that they opened up more roomettes for revenue sales by removing the staff from the rooms. The number of roomettes sold increased strictly in proportion to that. The occupancy rate seems to be the same.From the Trains Magazine, March 2016 issue, Mark Murphy, head of Amtrak's Long Distance Business Unit said this regarding the Silver Star food service cuts:
"Look at the Silver Star demand. When [sleeper occupancy] is up 21 to 25% consistently for three or four months, that tells me we've struck something."
Removing the dining car only freed up three rooms, or 12.5% of the total onboard. So capacity increased 12.5% and occupancy increased 21-25%. How is that strictly in proportion?But occupancy rate is NOT up. I'm not sure what Murphy actually said, but I hope your interpolation was incorrect. What happened was that they opened up more roomettes for revenue sales by removing the staff from the rooms. The number of roomettes sold increased strictly in proportion to that. The occupancy rate seems to be the same.From the Trains Magazine, March 2016 issue, Mark Murphy, head of Amtrak's Long Distance Business Unit said this regarding the Silver Star food service cuts:
"Look at the Silver Star demand. When [sleeper occupancy] is up 21 to 25% consistently for three or four months, that tells me we've struck something."
He was stating that the occupancy (essentially the load factor on a rooms sold basis) has increased by "21 to 25%." So, if it was 60% before, he is saying it is 81 to 85% now. I'n not saying it's true, but that is what the Amtrak head of long distance services said, so at the very least, that is the company position.I think Murphy didn't say "occupancy", which has a very specific meaning (it's the opposite of "vacancy" and is basically load factor). I wonder what he did say, but I don't have a subscription to _Trains_.
Whoa, whoa. Does your second sentence actually logically follow from your first? 21% of 60% is ~12%. So an increase of 21% "if it was 60% before", could be 72%, not necessarily 81 to 85%, as you conclude.He was stating that the occupancy (essentially the load factor on a rooms sold basis) has increased by "21 to 25%." So, if it was 60% before, he is saying it is 81 to 85% now. I'n not saying it's true, but that is what the Amtrak head of long distance services said, so at the very least, that is the company position.I think Murphy didn't say "occupancy", which has a very specific meaning (it's the opposite of "vacancy" and is basically load factor). I wonder what he did say, but I don't have a subscription to _Trains_.
Thank these guys (House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure)...Nooo!!! Amtrak took the diner off the Silver Star PERMANENTLY???!!! HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?!
29+ hours from NOL to NYP with no diner?...........AAARRRRRGGGHHHHHHHThere is little left to say on this point. Some of us think it's a smart move by Amtrak (I'm one of them). Some of us don't. In any event, it has happened and I don't see that it will be revisited by Amtrak anytime soon.
The question is whether the same process will be extended to other LD trains. My gut feel is that it will... not 97/98, certainly not 52/53, but I wouldn't bet my life on diners elsewhere east of the Mississippi. 19/20, for example.
I agree! How can this get any worse?29+ hours from NOL to NYP with no diner?...........AAARRRRRGGGHHHHHHHThere is little left to say on this point. Some of us think it's a smart move by Amtrak (I'm one of them). Some of us don't. In any event, it has happened and I don't see that it will be revisited by Amtrak anytime soon.
The question is whether the same process will be extended to other LD trains. My gut feel is that it will... not 97/98, certainly not 52/53, but I wouldn't bet my life on diners elsewhere east of the Mississippi. 19/20, for example.
Enter your email address to join: