All meals not included (1st 2 pax only) (corrected - post 25)

[tonys96]

Just a question for the mods........why was the thread title changed to include "(false)" ? It is my opinion that the OP was just restating what s/he was told, and put it out here on AU to get the real inside skinny. I agree that s/he did not state it very well, but it looks like a better title could include a question mark (?) at the end instead of what it was changed to.

Just my 2¢.

 

[VentureForth]

Yeah - I agree that the mods shouldn't change titles - let the readers read.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using the Android Amtrak Forums mobile app

 

[Ryan]

The problem comes when someone only reads the title or the first page and thinks that the "policy" is actually real.

 

[jis]

Just to set the record straight one more time on the matter of food service.... Most airlines sell food to economy passengers on flights of sufficient length, just like Amtrak does to Coach passengers. Airlines that have domestic First Class generally serve food in First Class gratis, and the food is quite reasonable, just like Amtrak serves food gratis to First Class and Sleeper passengers. So as far as food service goes there is relatively little difference between Amtrak and at least the legacy airlines.

Sort of. If the airline decides that the flight encompasses a normal meal time, a meal is served. Otherwise, FC gets you larger seats, headphones, first on/off, free alcohol... but there are not meals served on every flight. Though I will say that snack service in FC is often like a meal. Where it is really different is that if your flight is delayed, most of the time your food costs are up to you, where on Amtrak they do seem to make an effort to provide things like meals and hotels to misconnecting passengers, even in the common weather situations where airlines stopped paying for these things, a process that started after deregulation and there was no more CAB.

True. But my observation was strictly regarding on board service. Even Amtrak chooses to not provide any food service for money or otherwise on certain trains that are deemed to be of too short a duration. On some they provide automat service too.
Another thought comes to mind. I think comparing Amtrak premium sleeper service on trips that are typically of long duration with run of the mill airline FC is also an inappropriate comparison. Domestically there are very very few premium sleeper service offerings from airlines. The only ones that come to mind are the likes of JFK - LAX PS of United and similar from American and Delta. And even those are almost like corridor sleeper service in the sense that there are half a dozen departures each day and the trip is of the order of 6 hours or less. To that extent they are sort of like Acela with lie flat beds more than Amtrak LD sleeper.

The only air service that comes close to Amtrak LD sleeper service in nature are to be found on long haul intercontinental service, which is kind of pointless to discuss in the context of domestic service anyway.

So the way I see it, most standard domestic major route air service with FC is like short to medium distance corridor service on Amtrak and generally provide the requisite equivalent level of on board service. There is nothing that is quite equivalent to Amtrak LD Sleeper service domestically by air. The thing that comes closest are services like United PS and equivalent from AA and DL, but even those are more akin to corridor service with lie flat bed than Amtrak LD Sleeper service.

The other observation is that when on board service is compared a consideration of greater importance is the length of the journey in time (not distance), and a related consideration also is frequency of service, since that affects how passengers are treated at each end to some extent too.

 

[Guest]

Since you don't need to present your ticket in the diner (just know your room/car), ...

I have been asked to show our tickets about 50% of the time, and that's with the first seating. After that, I guess they remember our faces and know we're sleeper passengers.

 

[jis]

Since you don't need to present your ticket in the diner (just know your room/car), ...

I have been asked to show our tickets about 50% of the time, and that's with the first seating. After that, I guess they remember our faces and know we're sleeper passengers.

As usual when it involves Amtrak the experience of individuals may be wildly different from each other. I have yet to be asked to show a ticket in the Diner. And I have been doing at least half a dozen Sleeper trips each year over the last decade or so.

 

[buddy559]

The problem comes when someone only reads the title or the first page and thinks that the "policy" is actually real.

Perhaps we should do away with the posts here all together and just post headlines. Say limit them to 140 characters, lest someone have to read more than a sentence before making a decision. It could be called "TRAKER"

 

[jis]

Y'all can already do that using the hashtag #AmtrakUnlimited on Twitter Don't need anything special

 

[SarahZ]

The problem comes when someone only reads the title or the first page and thinks that the "policy" is actually real.

Perhaps we should do away with the posts here all together and just post headlines. Say limit them to 140 characters, lest someone have to read more than a sentence before making a decision. It could be called "TRAKER"

You totally missed Ryan's point. He isn't saying we should just have headlines; he's saying some people just skim the headlines or the first couple of posts and don't read the entire thread.

Newspapers operate under this assumption, hence the old journalism rule of covering when, where, what, why, and how in the first sentence of every article. That way, when people pick up the morning paper and skim it during breakfast, they get the jist of the news without having to read every article in-depth. If the first sentence piques their interest, then they can choose to read the entire article. If not, they move on. Same with internet threads.

 

[PRR 60]

Just a question for the mods........why was the thread title changed to include "(false)" ? It is my opinion that the OP was just restating what s/he was told, and put it out here on AU to get the real inside skinny. I agree that s/he did not state it very well, but it looks like a better title could include a question mark (?) at the end instead of what it was changed to.

Just my 2¢.

There are very, very few occasions when I will change anything written by anyone here. This was one of those occasions.

If the member or guest who started and originally titled a topic later determines that the claim they made in the title was wrong and posts that fact in the topic, then I will go back and add that fact to the title. In that way, the title reflects the current thinking of the member who started the topic and does not mislead and require a reader to drill down through multiple replies to find that the claim in the title was wrong. However, for me to change a topic title in that way, the determination that the title is wrong has to come from the topic starter. If the topic starter does not concede that the title was wrong, then I will not touch the title no matter how strong my or anyone else's opinion may be that it is incorrect.

In this case, adding "false" was not intended to reflect on Michigan Mom in any negative way. It was just a means of keeping the original title (mostly) but make it clear that the claim in the title was later found by Michigan Mom to be incorrect.

 

[Guest]

In this case, adding "false" was not intended to reflect on Michigan Mom in any negative way. It was just a means of keeping the original title (mostly) but make it clear that the claim in the title was later found by Michigan Mom to be incorrect.

Possibly the edit/change should be to suffix "(ans: no)" or "(ans: false)".

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Another way to change the title in a neutral fashion would be to add [updated] or [see Post 52]. Just throwing out ideas.

 

[PRR 60]

Good suggestions! Thanks, and done.

 

[tonys96]

Good suggestions! Thanks, and done.

This is why this here forum is one of the best there is! Great Mods! :hi:

 

[Old MM]

Yes, indeed, thanks. I didn't like the implications of "FALSE" as though I would intentionally post anything false. As a couple posters stated, it was the information given, and I think people here are intelligent enough to sort through the nuances on their own.

I'd also like to once again thank the people who have written to me privately, every day there is a new PM from a different person.

Just as in life, the playing field is not always level, unfortunately, but sooner or later things have a way of working out.