Airlines retrenching

[lepearso]

I came across this article in Yahoo! finance this morning:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/airlines-retrenching-alternatives-slim-150607698.html

As expected, the writer mentions how the opportunity to build high speed rail is getting away from us, but also mentions how existing rail services are filling a niche.

I have always believed that long-distance overnight trains can meet the need of some business travelers. This article gives some examples of that. Even though the trip itself is longer, a long-distance overnight train can save the hassle and expense of flying in a day earlier and staying overnight in a hotel room with meal expenses added in.

Amtrak's new order of Viewliners can't get here fast enough to meet a growing demand!

 

[Oldsmoboi]

If they could do an overnight Pennsylvanian with a Viewliner into NYP from Pittsburgh, I would be totally set for my business travel. That is the only city I cannot cover effectively with Amtrak because it gets me there too late in the afternoon and hotels are too expensive to go a day early. It would also help get me to New Haven CT at a reasonable hour in the morning.

 

[NY Penn]

Theoretically, Amtrak could make a second Pennsylvanian frequency, leaving CHI around 8 AM, PGH at 9 PM, and arriving at NYP near 7 AM.

More for business travelers, if Amtrak could cut around 6 hours off the LSL schedule (faster times through NYS, get the railroads to give Amtrak priority, so fewer delays, etc.), a theoretical LSL could have 6 PM - 8 AM times between Chicago and NY (and vice versa). Such a train would have a tremendous chance of being a hit. (Yes, I know, it's mostly a pipe dream).

 

[jphjaxfl]

PRR ran the All Pullman Pittsburgher from NYP to Pittsburgh into the mid 1960s 6 nights per week.

 

[NE933]

I think, along with many others, Amtrak badly downplays the potential demand for selling Sleeper space to the business travel community, in part because of shortage of cars, and in part due to entrenched idiotic thinking. With airlines tightening the noose, and new Viewliner sleepers set to arrive a year from now, this may enable (or force) the leadership to try out the idea.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

PRR ran the All Pullman Pittsburgher from NYP to Pittsburgh into the mid 1960s 6 nights per week.

What were the travel times?

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I think, along with many others, Amtrak badly downplays the potential demand for selling Sleeper space to the business travel community, in part because of shortage of cars, and in part due to entrenched idiotic thinking. With airlines tightening the noose, and new Viewliner sleepers set to arrive a year from now, this may enable (or force) the leadership to try out the idea.

It takes some getting used to by the people who approve such travel inside the companies as well. I had to show the cost difference between air and rail the first few times I did it. Because Roomettes to Chicago cost more than a flight, I had to demonstrate where the savings were. Once I was able to show that I spent less money on hotel, food, and rental car, and I also ended up with more time "on the ground" in the office, I was able to sell them on it. They no longer ask for the cost justification when I submit my travel request, but I provide it anyway to drive the point home.

.... they don't really question my travel expenses at all anymore. I travel cheaper than just about anyone even though the company pays.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Favorable and realistic discussion of Amtrak...

Joe Sharkey of The New York Times is certainly realistic when he explains in detail that virtually every other form of transit is both faster and cheaper than his selection of an Amtrak sleeper. Joe is also being realistic when he predicts that nothing is going to improve anytime in the foreseeable future and that high speed rail in America is "as dead as the Concorde." I'm just not sure how exactly that can be interpreted as favorable. The real irony of course is that the Concorde was extremely inefficient and a huge waste of resources that was designed, built, and flown largely for prestige. Only those who were willing and able to pony up $7,000+ for a flight got much use out of it and even then the Concorde operators were lucky to break even. This is after having purchased several models for little more than a token purchase cost ($2 or so). Meanwhile, high speed rail is one of the most efficient and least wasteful methods of modern transportation known to man and yet it cannot hope to compete for funds in the world's largest economy.

 

[NY Penn]

The real irony of course is that the Concorde was extremely inefficient and a huge waste of resources that was designed, built, and flown largely for prestige. Only those who were willing and able to pony up $7,000+ for a flight got much use out of it and even then the Concorde operators were lucky to break even.

Pretty much the same thing can be said about most Amtrak LD trains (the sleepers definitely).

 

[Anderson]

Hmm...just a thought, but though I know there's a lot of slotting wrangling over the tracks in eastern CT, would it be possible to run a train Boston-New York-Pittsburgh at a time that's non-peak in that direction (i.e. in the afternoon, when the vast majority of MNRR trains are outbound)?

As to the rail service picture, I'm wondering how bad it has to get in some markets before the local government seriously starts looking at pushing for a train at conventional speeds (i.e. 79-90 MPH). To pull an example off the top of my head, is there a way to run a train into Des Moines without major track upgrades? I know this has been mooted before, but I can't recall what the IAIS line's condition happens to be.

The other question is whether Amtrak is going to be able to start exercising pricing pressure in some markets to the point that it can start making operating losses shrink quickly. Double-digit fare hikes seem to be happening almost across the board without seriously hurting ridership (though they're arresting ridership growth, this isn't necessarily a bad thing given how Amtrak can probably sell some trains out and then sell them again half over at the peak of the peak)

Edit: An observation that came up while mulling other stuff. At what point do airline retrenchments start triggering connectivity breakdowns (or at least, breakdowns in vaguely affordable/workable connections...if you have to pay an additional $250 on a round trip because of an inter-airline connection versus being able to use a through ticket now when you're already dealing with a bad air market, that could cause some real problems, as could connections that go even more catastrophically out of your way, or forced multiple connection trips/really long layovers)? I ask because I think we've seen this story before.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

The PA Turnpike just raised the cash toll 10% across the board. Pittsburgh to Philly is now $28.15 or a little more than 50% of a $52.00 PGH-PHL ticket. But with AAA, taking the train drops to $46.80.

Now... if only we could have more frequent service..

 

[MikefromCrete]

Hmm...just a thought, but though I know there's a lot of slotting wrangling over the tracks in eastern CT, would it be possible to run a train Boston-New York-Pittsburgh at a time that's non-peak in that direction (i.e. in the afternoon, when the vast majority of MNRR trains are outbound)?

As to the rail service picture, I'm wondering how bad it has to get in some markets before the local government seriously starts looking at pushing for a train at conventional speeds (i.e. 79-90 MPH). To pull an example off the top of my head, is there a way to run a train into Des Moines without major track upgrades? I know this has been mooted before, but I can't recall what the IAIS line's condition happens to be.

The other question is whether Amtrak is going to be able to start exercising pricing pressure in some markets to the point that it can start making operating losses shrink quickly. Double-digit fare hikes seem to be happening almost across the board without seriously hurting ridership (though they're arresting ridership growth, this isn't necessarily a bad thing given how Amtrak can probably sell some trains out and then sell them again half over at the peak of the peak)

Edit: An observation that came up while mulling other stuff. At what point do airline retrenchments start triggering connectivity breakdowns (or at least, breakdowns in vaguely affordable/workable connections...if you have to pay an additional $250 on a round trip because of an inter-airline connection versus being able to use a through ticket now when you're already dealing with a bad air market, that could cause some real problems, as could connections that go even more catastrophically out of your way, or forced multiple connection trips/really long layovers)? I ask because I think we've seen this story before.

I would imagine the Iowa Interstate is good for 30-40 miles per hour. They really have no need to go any faster since they don't have a UPS contract or anything like it. Besides, the Republican governor of Iowa apparently has no interest in rail service to his state.

 

[Joeker]

There is (was) a proposal to run out to Des Moines on the IAIS, from the Quad Cities but the great governor of Iowa nixed any spending for passenger rail.

The IAIS can run trains at 59 mph now, but more improvemnet such as sidings and track upgrades would need to take place. Funding is in place and construction is set to begin in the spring for the Chicago to Quad city (Moline) segment. At least that will get you to within 150 miles of Des Moines!

 

[Anderson]

There is (was) a proposal to run out to Des Moines on the IAIS, from the Quad Cities but the great governor of Iowa nixed any spending for passenger rail.

The IAIS can run trains at 59 mph now, but more improvemnet such as sidings and track upgrades would need to take place. Funding is in place and construction is set to begin in the spring for the Chicago to Quad city (Moline) segment. At least that will get you to within 150 miles of Des Moines!

That's what I was wondering. I know that Branstad has screwed things up there (from what I gather, there are more than a few people displeased over that move...in general, the rail cancellations were not popular). I guess my question is more in the vein of "What could be done with relatively little capital spending"? IIRC, the Iowa HSR line was going to require a lot of upgrades to get the train running.

 

[The Journalist]

I seem to recall an interview with the president of I think JetBlue that said essentially that he would rather not fly his planes short distances and would gladly "interline" with HSR to complete trips rather than fly a half-full 757 for 200-500 miles-I believe specifically referring to California's plans, which would hugely reduce the number of flights needed between LA and SF, opening those slots for much longer flights.

 

[afigg]

There is (was) a proposal to run out to Des Moines on the IAIS, from the Quad Cities but the great governor of Iowa nixed any spending for passenger rail.

The IAIS can run trains at 59 mph now, but more improvemnet such as sidings and track upgrades would need to take place. Funding is in place and construction is set to begin in the spring for the Chicago to Quad city (Moline) segment. At least that will get you to within 150 miles of Des Moines!

That's what I was wondering. I know that Branstad has screwed things up there (from what I gather, there are more than a few people displeased over that move...in general, the rail cancellations were not popular). I guess my question is more in the vein of "What could be done with relatively little capital spending"? IIRC, the Iowa HSR line was going to require a lot of upgrades to get the train running.

The Iowa plan was not even HrSR, but for 79 mph service to Iowa City. The cost for the Quad Cities to Iowa City segment was/is $53 million plus 20% state matching, once you subtract the $177 million obligated to IL from the original $230 million FY10 award. $53 million plus some 20% (~$10 million) is not a lot of money when it comes to transportation or infrastructure projects. The Iowa DOT did accept the $1 million in FY09 funds for Chicago to Omaha passenger rail planning. That is enough funding to do a fairly comprehensive engineering assessment, analysis of the alternatives, and provide supported cost estimates of the necessary track & signal work to provide/restore service from Quad Cities to Omaha. If/when the political climate and leadership in Iowa changes, the DOT can pull out the study and say here are the recommendations, what it will take and cost to provide passenger rail service to Omaha. Not true HSR or even 110 mph HrSR, but Iowa is not going to be high on the list of states that can justify or need electrified high speed rail projects.

I don't agree with the article assessment that HSR is dead. There is $10.1 billion to be spent on passenger rail projects and studies with $9.42 billion of that currently obligated to 148 projects. Those funds will make improvements in the current passenger rail system and help, in the long run, lay the foundation for expansion of intercity passenger rail. The route to true HSR or major expansion & speed increases of passenger rail will have more curves and slow parts than the Shore Line East route, and will take many years, but I think the need for more energy efficient travel over short to medium distance airline flights will overcome the resistance in many quarters in the US. When looking at HSR and HrSR in the US, one should take the 10 to 20 year view, not a short term 1-2 year view.

 

[Texan Eagle]

Yes, overnight trains can be a hit among business folks, but to tap that market Amtrak needs to redesign their sleeper cars to have single person sleeping roomettes or berths with privacy curtains etc. Agreed folks who travel for business are not very price-conscious and at times booking a roomette for two for a single passenger might turn out to be cheaper than airfare, but still if there can be sleeping accommodation where a person pays only for one sleeping berth (not the weird railfare+sleeper fare concept that Amtrak has now) it would be a no-brainer hit on overnight services. Yes I know some folks here give a lot of importance to privacy and would like their own rooom, for them the existing Sleeper car with roomettes and bedrooms is fine, but there will also be many who would not mind traveling by an intermediate class where you get to sleep on a fat bed, dinner and breakfast is included in the fare (like existing Sleeper passengers) and the sleeping berth/couchette has individual curtains for semi-privacy. I am not sure if the European couchettes have curtains for every passenger, but I do know the similar class in India called AC 2 Tier has curtains and individual reading lights for every passenger and is very comfortable for an overnight journey. See this photo to get a better idea of what I am talking about.

 

[Anderson]

Afigg,

Why did I think that it involved a 110 MPH segment somewhere? Or was that just in Illinois?

TE,

So...open sections, essentially? While I want to take one up in Canada, that's more of a "tell the (proverbial) grandkids I did that" move than anything. I can't quite see those working...if nothing else, businessmen are going to want the (imagined or real) security of that door while they're away from the room.

I'm inclined to seriously look at slumbercoaches (though I'm wondering where a floorplan for a slumbercoach vs. a roomette-only car might be found). Of course, another option (failing a slumbercoach as such) would be a set of roomette-only sleepers. I'd guess that if you took out one bathroom, one shower room, and one attendant room, you might be able to pack 19-21 roomettes into a train. Now, could you man two such cars (or one such car and a standard Viewliner) with one attendant? 42-43 rooms seems a bit high. How about one of these plus a hypothetical roomette-lounge car like I listed elsewhere? I can see handling 30-34 roomettes with one attendant.

 

[Guest]

Yes, overnight trains can be a hit among business folks, but to tap that market Amtrak needs to redesign their sleeper cars to have single person sleeping roomettes or berths with privacy curtains etc. Agreed folks who travel for business are not very price-conscious and at times booking a roomette for two for a single passenger might turn out to be cheaper than airfare, but still if there can be sleeping accommodation where a person pays only for one sleeping berth (not the weird railfare+sleeper fare concept that Amtrak has now) it would be a no-brainer hit on overnight services. Yes I know some folks here give a lot of importance to privacy and would like their own rooom, for them the existing Sleeper car with roomettes and bedrooms is fine, but there will also be many who would not mind traveling by an intermediate class where you get to sleep on a fat bed, dinner and breakfast is included in the fare (like existing Sleeper passengers) and the sleeping berth/couchette has individual curtains for semi-privacy. I am not sure if the European couchettes have curtains for every passenger, but I do know the similar class in India called AC 2 Tier has curtains and individual reading lights for every passenger and is very comfortable for an overnight journey. See this photo to get a better idea of what I am talking about.

Heck, I don't even want your "intermediate class" that includes food. All I want is a flat bed. I can bring my own food and drink except for coffee.

 

[eagle628]

TE,

So...open sections, essentially? While I want to take one up in Canada, that's more of a "tell the (proverbial) grandkids I did that" move than anything. I can't quite see those working...if nothing else, businessmen are going to want the (imagined or real) security of that door while they're away from the room.

The door that doesn't exist in every business class airline seat in the US? The only reason to leave your room is meals, and Amtrak could (I feel like they do already) deliver meals to the room.

 

[NY Penn]

TE,

So...open sections, essentially? While I want to take one up in Canada, that's more of a "tell the (proverbial) grandkids I did that" move than anything. I can't quite see those working...if nothing else, businessmen are going to want the (imagined or real) security of that door while they're away from the room.

The door that doesn't exist in every business class airline seat in the US? The only reason to leave your room is meals, and Amtrak could (I feel like they do already) deliver meals to the room.

The point is to be much better than the airlines, not just-scraping-by better.

 

[eagle628]

As to the rail service picture, I'm wondering how bad it has to get in some markets before the local government seriously starts looking at pushing for a train at conventional speeds (i.e. 79-90 MPH).

We (Vermont) spent $74 million to get the Vermonter to 59/79 mph speeds. And even before the construction, ridership had been steadily growing. So I suppose the answer is "not bad at all if your politicians are in favor" (Vermont, Maine) or "it doesn't matter how bad, not a penny is going to those streaks of rust" (Ohio). Which is the story of Amtrak in general.

 

[Anderson]

As to the rail service picture, I'm wondering how bad it has to get in some markets before the local government seriously starts looking at pushing for a train at conventional speeds (i.e. 79-90 MPH).

We (Vermont) spent $74 million to get the Vermonter to 59/79 mph speeds. And even before the construction, ridership had been steadily growing. So I suppose the answer is "not bad at all if your politicians are in favor" (Vermont, Maine) or "it doesn't matter how bad, not a penny is going to those streaks of rust" (Ohio). Which is the story of Amtrak in general.

I've gathered that Virginia falls somewhere in the middle, and I think there are some other states in that vein (Florida seems to be there as well...the HSR plan blew up, but the money is apparently already allocated for the FEC service, for example). I think some states may also get into interesting conundrums if you start facing an airport failure or two, which I'm gathering is looking to be the case more and more (PHF in Newport News was looking like it was going to go bust at one point, before AirTran came in). Particularly if those airports start turning into black holes in budgets while you can use a train station as a development center (look at what Richmond wants to do with Main Street Station, for example).

As to the point about airline Business Class, what about just throwing some 66/67-style cars into the mix with 2-1 seating for some longer-distance trips? The wider seats in particular might be worth a stab at pitching to folks.

I'm not quite sure why the sections stopped selling while overnight BC on planes is working. I'm not opposed to Amtrak trying something in this vein...I just see it as a risky gamble that could turn into egg that we don't need on Amtrak's face.

 

[jis]

I seem to recall an interview with the president of I think JetBlue that said essentially that he would rather not fly his planes short distances and would gladly "interline" with HSR to complete trips rather than fly a half-full 757 for 200-500 miles-I believe specifically referring to California's plans, which would hugely reduce the number of flights needed between LA and SF, opening those slots for much longer flights.

It is quite unlikely that anyone from JetBlue talked about flying 757s half full or otherwise. JetBlue does not own or fly an single Boeing plane let alone a 757. Their entire fleed is Airbus 320 and Embraer E190, of which the latter fly most of the short hop routes.

 

[The Journalist]

I seem to recall an interview with the president of I think JetBlue that said essentially that he would rather not fly his planes short distances and would gladly "interline" with HSR to complete trips rather than fly a half-full 757 for 200-500 miles-I believe specifically referring to California's plans, which would hugely reduce the number of flights needed between LA and SF, opening those slots for much longer flights.

It is quite unlikely that anyone from JetBlue talked about flying 757s half full or otherwise. JetBlue does not own or fly an single Boeing plane let alone a 757. Their entire fleed is Airbus 320 and Embraer E190, of which the latter fly most of the short hop routes.

True. I couldn't find the whole interview when i first posted so I pretty much picked a random plane that doesn't seem like the sort that should be flow short distances. But regardless of the plane in question, this quote does exist: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/07/jetblue-sees-benefits-of-hsr/. The link to the original interview is broken now and i can't find it, but both SF-LA and the existing NEC are mentioned as "complimentary" to long-distance jet travel. Perhaps other airlines are realizing/coming around to this as well.