While "the usual suspects" on both sides of the Amtrak long-distance debate (Mineta vs Kay Bailey Hutchison, Wendell Cox vs NARP) are easy to read, the "Amtrak Board" is one entity I just don't understand. I'd love to have a "fly one the wall" source at their meetings. Since we don't have that, we can only judge their actions:
A) Firing Gunn.
Verdict: Terrible! Got rid of a highly capable manager, respected by both sides and turned huge numbers of highly influential people against them.
B Replacing Gunn (interim) with Hughes.
Verdict: Good. If they really wanted to erase all the good Gunn had done, they could have replaced him with some political hack who knew nothing about railroads. This, to me, suggests that the Gunn firing was largely a personality clash; the board respected his work but just didn't like him.
C) Reducing staff in the dining cars by eliminating the remainder of on-board food preparation.
It's not lost on me that this is a tough topic around here. People's jobs are at stake, and my heart really goes out to Windy City LSA, in particular. To try to be both fair and diplomatic:
Verdict: Mixed. I've heard bad reviews for a couple food items, okay for a couple others. I realize for some on here, the Amtrak dining car food was the highlight of the trip, but few can dispute that Amtrak needs every red cent it can get at this point. The less money Amtrak trains are losing, the less attention they'll get at budget time.
D) Ordering refurbishments on the dining cars and lounge cars to better carry out the new food service.
Verdict: Good, if viewed by itself. As controversial as the whole diner-lite program is, the decision to put money into the fleet suggests that the board really believes in this program, and, to some extent, is trying to make long distance passenger rail viable.
Long-distance passenger rail may end very soon, or it may not. Either way, I'd hate for it to end not having tried every last trick in the book to make itself financially viable enough to stay on.
JPS
A) Firing Gunn.
Verdict: Terrible! Got rid of a highly capable manager, respected by both sides and turned huge numbers of highly influential people against them.
B Replacing Gunn (interim) with Hughes.
Verdict: Good. If they really wanted to erase all the good Gunn had done, they could have replaced him with some political hack who knew nothing about railroads. This, to me, suggests that the Gunn firing was largely a personality clash; the board respected his work but just didn't like him.
C) Reducing staff in the dining cars by eliminating the remainder of on-board food preparation.
It's not lost on me that this is a tough topic around here. People's jobs are at stake, and my heart really goes out to Windy City LSA, in particular. To try to be both fair and diplomatic:
Verdict: Mixed. I've heard bad reviews for a couple food items, okay for a couple others. I realize for some on here, the Amtrak dining car food was the highlight of the trip, but few can dispute that Amtrak needs every red cent it can get at this point. The less money Amtrak trains are losing, the less attention they'll get at budget time.
D) Ordering refurbishments on the dining cars and lounge cars to better carry out the new food service.
Verdict: Good, if viewed by itself. As controversial as the whole diner-lite program is, the decision to put money into the fleet suggests that the board really believes in this program, and, to some extent, is trying to make long distance passenger rail viable.
Long-distance passenger rail may end very soon, or it may not. Either way, I'd hate for it to end not having tried every last trick in the book to make itself financially viable enough to stay on.
JPS
If things don't work out, I'll bounce back somehow. I do have a seemingly useless culinary degree in my arsenal. I don't know what I want to do. But I need to figure it out soon. I'm not getting any younger! 
