Fare Buckets - and when do they increase/decrease?

[Bonser]

Yes,housing is outrageous as well. Still, paying over $3000 for a 48 hour ride on the Empire Builder is outrageous and obscene. Obviously,you and I won’t pay it. I still maintain that charging that kind of price is price gouging and greed Why can’t Amtrak yield management lower the high bucket? Why can’t it be done?

Traveling by bedroom was always a luxury few could afford since railroads started offering them. Yes, they had a larger supply of bedrooms in the 1920's-1950's, but they also had. a far greater demand rail was the only means of long distance travel.

 

[Bob Dylan]

One more time. Compare the price of premium travel in the USA vs Canada. AMTRAK is 40% less than VIA.

Not as much as you think! The Looney is weak right now against the Greenback, so the exchange Rate for those with American Dollars gives us a big discount when visiting the Great White North!( especially in the Winter when Discounts are more frequent on VIA)

 

[zephyr17]

Traveling by bedroom was always a luxury few could afford since railroads started offering them. Yes, they had a larger supply of bedrooms in the 1920's-1950's, but they also had. a far greater demand rail was the only means of long distance travel.

And the by far the vast majority of Pullman travel in the day was by business travelers on expense accounts. People that paid it themselves were generally wealthy or at least upper middle class. Leisure travelers also were largely not the target clientele.

 

[MARC Rider]

Not as much as you think! The Looney is weak right now against the Greenback, so the exchange Rate for those with American Dollars gives us a big discount when visiting the Great White North!( especially in the Winter when Discounts are more frequent on VIA)

True, except you wouldn't believe the prices of hotels in Toronto, even accounting for the currency conversion.

 

[MARC Rider]

From my PRR NY-Chicago timetable from 1930:

New York - Chicago was $58.20 for a compartment (bedroom?), equivalent to $1,032.50 in today's money. Plus, you would have to pay extra for meals, even if they were a lot better than flex. And that was during the height of the Depression, when I'm sure business travel was down.

I think there's a limit to my complaints about that $497 ticket I bought on the Lake Shore Limited a couple of years ago.

The main problem with Amtrak long distance service is they can't run the trains reliably and on time. I don't think that was as big a problem on the PRR of yore, the "standard railroad of the world."

 

[akbrian]

As I said before, Amtrak practices yield management and it makes no sense from a yield management standpoint to sell your inventory at a low price early on when your projection of demand is fuzzy and so block that inventory from sale at higher price point later as demand develops. You allocate inventory to lower buckets when you have a clearer picture of demand. That is how yield management is done, you will find airfares, for example, are generally pretty high 11 months in advance, too.

Prizes are not awarded for early booking as they once were before Amtrak's yield management practices improved.

Sleeper accommodations are a scarce commodity with high demand. A fair price is what a willing seller and willing buyer agree on. A price that someone is willing to press the purchase button on is, by definition, not insane.

I will not pay more than the lower buckets myself. That is my choice. I play the game and am usually able to play it well enough to get low/lower, typically in the 5 month out range. I will refuse pay $1500, the new top bucket for a roomette on the Builder, but I also do not feel I am entitled to get one at $588, either because I do not like or cannot afford $1500. No one has to ride in a sleeper to get to where they need to go and a better fare is usually obtainable with some patience, work and flexibility anyway.

Personally, I like VIA's system with stable seasonally based fares, but I also think it makes less economic sense than yield management. I have no quarrel with yield management as long as it is done right, with few rooms going out empty. If everything was always booked, it indicates pricing is too low. If a lot are empty, pricing is too high. In either case, money is being left on the table.

This is Econ 101. The iron laws of supply and demand in action. There are ways to ration scarce commodities other than price, all of them less equitable.

It's also a great way permanently lose existing customers and scare away potential future customers. It is a good way to exit a business with fewer people caring about the loss. In my opinion, Amtrak's future existence requires building the breadth of it's customer base by providing a pleasant and reliable experience at a reasonable cost. I don't know how many times I've heard "I once looked at what a train trip in a sleeper costs, and it was outrageous". That person may never bother to consider long distance rail travel again. The non-rail fan simply isn't going to go to the effort to follow the prices like they might for a pound of ground beef or tomatoes at the supermarket.

Alternately, if some first time rail traveler does coughs up for some outrageously priced accommodations for their train trip, the odds the Amtrak experience will meet their expectations for the price they paid are pretty slim.

 

[Sidney]

It's also a great way permanently lose existing customers and scare away potential future customers. It is a good way to exit a business with fewer people caring about the loss. In my opinion, Amtrak's future existence requires building the breadth of it's customer base by providing a pleasant and reliable experience at a reasonable cost. I don't know how many times I've heard "I once looked at what a train trip in a sleeper costs, and it was outrageous". That person may never bother to consider long distance rail travel again. The non-rail fan simply isn't going to go to the effort to follow the prices like they might for a pound of ground beef or tomatoes at the supermarket.

Alternately, if some first time rail traveler does coughs up some outrageously priced accommodations for their train trip, the odds the Amtrak experience will meet their expectations for the price they paid are pretty slim.

Says it all ..a reasonable and pleasant experience at a reasonable cost. Charging $2000, yet $3000 for a bedroom on a 48 hour trip will scare first time travelers away. Of course many people will pay it, but a great many more won’t.

 

[zephyr17]

It's also a great way permanently lose existing customers and scare away potential future customers. It is a good way to exit a business with fewer people caring about the loss. In my opinion, Amtrak's future existence requires building the breadth of it's customer base by providing a pleasant and reliable experience at a reasonable cost. I don't know how many times I've heard "I once looked at what a train trip in a sleeper costs, and it was outrageous". That person may never bother to consider long distance rail travel again. The non-rail fan simply isn't going to go to the effort to follow the prices like they might for a pound of ground beef or tomatoes at the supermarket.

Alternately, if some first time rail traveler does coughs up some outrageously priced accommodations for their train trip, the odds the Amtrak experience will meet their expectations for the price they paid are pretty slim.

As I pointed out in other posts, the supply is so limited that it doesn't really take many people to buy them at those levels to keep prices up (920 Bedrooms available in total for the months of June, July and August on the Builder, for example. Assuming they can actually run a second sleeper all summer). It appears demand for those relative few may well be inelastic and price insensitive.

I have also stated many times that sleepers are a truly terrible value proposition at high buckets and poor one even at lower ones. Bedrooms in particular are at a luxury price point for a product that is anything but.

The people that buy them may well be disappointed, they are certainly entitled to be. New customers enticed by pretty pictures might well never come back. There are more behind them, just a few are enough. There are also some that know what they are getting into and pay high bucket anyway, though many if not most here are not among them, including me. As I've said before, in the larger scheme of things, it only takes a truly miniscule number of people buying when there are only between two and ten Bedrooms on any given train at best. There are literally thousands of rooms on a cruise ship.

The current Amtrak Board and executive management team appears to be uninterested in growing the long distance market. Anderson seemed to want to actively drive people away. It would appear to many they'd still prefer it to just dry up and blow away.

If they had been at all interested, they would have been much more aggressive in returning the existing fleet to service after COVID cutbacks than they have been. They also would have been more active in presenting to Congress the situation with the small fleet and pushing for fleet expansion and replacement rather than passively taking the stance that when Congress said they wanted to replace the long distance fleet, they'd look into it.

The only real solution is to expand supply to better meet demand. That both increases revenues while holding down fares. That is years away at best and I have my doubts they'll order sufficient sleepers when they do.

 

[akbrian]

Traveling by bedroom was always a luxury few could afford since railroads started offering them. Yes, they had a larger supply of bedrooms in the 1920's-1950's, but they also had. a far greater demand rail was the only means of long distance travel.

In addition to rooms there were also less expensive simple berths that just provided a place to sleep flat and have a curtain.

 

[zephyr17]

In addition to rooms there were also less expensive simple berths that just provided a place to sleep flat and have a curtain.

Post World War II they were not popular and relatively few cars with open sections were built in the postwar car building boom. One of the things that kept them going was the government would only pay for travel at lower berth rates. Railroads with a lot of government worker travel kept some cars with sections. Others where government travel wasn't as important largely got rid of them and just sold roomettes to those on government travel at lower berth rates.

Cars with 12 sections were part of the California Zephyr consortium order. Those cars were not popular and were rebuilt as coaches around 1960. Those converted section sleepers were the only flat top coaches in the California Zephyr pool. All other coaches were dome coaches. Note that the CZ was one of the few trains where both sleepers and coaches were primarily marketed towards leisure travelers, rather than sleepers being targeted at business/expense account travel. It didn't even try to compete with the faster City of San Francisco for the business market. Leisure travelers largely didn't want open sections either, postwar.

 

[akbrian]

My short answer to the near term sleeper shortage would be to reduce long advance purchase prices on part of the inventory, and somehow up market the experience for another percentage of the inventory. I don't know exactly how, but at least provide value for the high price. Champagne? Upmarket bedding? Things that can be done without a major refurbishment. There's certainly a margin to work with. A little creativity would help.

The concert ticket scalper pricing model isn't a great long term business model

 

[zephyr17]

My short answer to the near term sleeper shortage would be to reduce long advance purchase prices on part of the inventory, and somehow up market the experience for another percentage of the inventory. I don't know exactly how, but at least provide value for the high price. Champagne? Upmarket bedding? Things that can be done without a major refurbishment. There's certainly a margin to work with. A little creativity would help.

The concert ticket scalper pricing model isn't a great long term business model

They don't provide value. The supply is so thin they don't really have to. Even long term, assuming they get the sidelined sleepers back online (and more appear to be online this summer than last), the supply is still pretty thin especially in high demand months. Getting more capacity beyond the current fleet is a VERY long term proposition, if ever. They have advertised a cosmetic refurbishment and have already put the improved bedding into service on all trains. The coaches were the first through the refurbishment, but there are reports of refurbished sleepers now appearing. Traditional dining is great improvement over the travesty that is Flex. They chucked champagne and wine tasting years ago when Congress threw a hissy fit about it.

If they can't fill most of the space with their current bucket allocations, they ought to reallocate starting at least a couple months in advance. If they can't find a combination of price points over time to mostly fill them fill them, Amtrak's yield managers are failing at their jobs. Yield management is supposed to be dynamic, almost by definition. Fire sales of inventory shortly before departure to move it, as has been reported here, indicates they may be failing to meet their objectives, at least some of the time. If it happens a lot, we could see a course correction in inventory management.

Until a few years ago, Amtrak almost always allocated at least couple of rooms to low bucket when released for sale 11 months prior to departure. You could be pretty assured of low bucket prices being available if you bought really early. Amtrak has gotten more sophisticated in their yield management and stopped the practice. It has apparently worked out for them. BTW, airline yield management practices don't put inventory into low buckets 11 months in advance, either. Now it takes work, research, some knowledge and experience, and patience to find and grab lower buckets. Not always successfully, I might add, but they're still out there.

I'd agree with you about it not being a great long term business model if they intended to grow their market, fill more cars, and generate more revenue. They clearly don't. They intend to maximize revenue from the existing constrained fleet without expanding it or spending more money on the product than they must. Supply is thin enough that a stream of suckers and die hards may well be sufficient to fill them under the current, very aggressive, yield management practices. Value for money and the operation of supply and demand are two separate things.

Amtrak management's almost exclusive focus has been on cost containment for years, especially in the long distance service line. Creative managers like Brian Rosenwald who put the on the Pacific Parlour Car and the Superior Service approach on the Coast Starlight have been forced out. Revenue enhancement opportunities never seem to become visible to them. Squeezing every last dime out of existing inventory with no attempt to grow the market is absolutely consistent with Amtrak's overall management approach of years if not decades. The only real hope for somewhat lower prices is if time and experience demonstrates that they overshot in their aggressive yield management and they start losing revenue due to too many unsold rooms or last minute low bucket fire sales.

If their objectives were different, we might see both some improvements and some moderation in price. They aren't and we won't. Unless the Board and the executive management team is replaced by one with laser focus on service and customer experience. A focus that is sustained enough that culture change filters through lower Amtrak management ranks.

 

[akbrian]

They don't provide value. The supply is so thin they don't really have to. Even long term, assuming they get the sidelined sleepers back online (and more appear to be online this summer than last), the supply is still pretty thin especially in high demand months. Getting more capacity beyond the current fleet is a VERY long term proposition, if ever. They have advertised a cosmetic refurbishment and have already put the improved bedding into service on all trains. The coaches were the first through the refurbishment, but there are reports of refurbished sleepers now appearing. Traditional dining is great improvement over the travesty that is Flex. They chucked champagne and wine tasting years ago when Congress threw a hissy fit about it.

If they can't fill most of the space with their current bucket allocations, they ought to reallocate starting at least a couple months in advance. If they can't find a combination of price points over time to mostly fill them fill them, Amtrak's yield managers are failing at their jobs. Yield management is supposed to be dynamic, almost by definition. Fire sales of inventory shortly before departure to move it, as has been reported here, indicates they may be failing to meet their objectives, at least some of the time. If it happens a lot, we could see a course correction in inventory management.

Until a few years ago, Amtrak almost always allocated at least couple of rooms to low bucket when released for sale 11 months prior to departure. You could be pretty assured of low bucket prices being available if you bought really early. Amtrak has gotten more sophisticated in their yield management and stopped the practice. It has apparently worked out for them. BTW, airline yield management practices don't put inventory into low buckets 11 months in advance, either. Now it takes work, research, some knowledge and experience, and patience to find and grab lower buckets. Not always successfully, I might add, but they're still out there.

I'd agree with you about it not being a great long term business model if they intended to grow their market, fill more cars, and generate more revenue. They clearly don't. They intend to maximize revenue from the existing constrained fleet without expanding it or spending more money on the product than they must. Supply is thin enough that a stream of suckers and die hards may well be sufficient to fill them under the current, very aggressive, yield management practices. Value for money and the operation of supply and demand are two separate things.

Amtrak management's almost exclusive focus has been on cost containment for years, especially in the long distance service line. Creative managers like Brian Rosenwald who put the on the Pacific Parlour Car and the Superior Service approach on the Coast Starlight have been forced out. Revenue enhancement opportunities never seem to become visible to them. Squeezing every last dime out of existing inventory with no attempt to grow the market is absolutely consistent with Amtrak's overall management approach of years if not decades. The only real hope for somewhat lower prices is if time and experience demonstrates that they overshot in their aggressive yield management and they start losing revenue due to too many unsold rooms or last minute low bucket fire sales.

If their objectives were different, we might see both some improvements and some moderation in price. They aren't and we won't. Unless the Board and the executive management team is replaced along with a wholesale change of culture throughout Amtrak management ranks.

Ironicly, the last sleeper I bought on Amtrak was the final southbound trip of the Pacific Parlour Car on the Coast Starlight.

 

[trimetbusfan]

Was just was looking at Coast Starlight fares for next January.

Just over 6 months out, both roomettes and bedrooms are both in the second to lowest bucket. (I was especially surprised to see bedrooms in such a low bucket this far out).

Anyways, if anyone is planning travel for around then this is a pretty good deal! This fare is available for several dates on both trains 11 and 14 in January.

 

[niemi24s]

This seems counter to the notion that fares remain at the higher buckets until a week or two before the travel date.

Could it be that the State of California has some say in this matter?

 

[zephyr17]

This seems counter to the notion that fares remain at the higher buckets until a week or two before the travel date.

Could it be that the State of California has some say in this matter?

California has no say on interstate fares on National Network trains.

My guess is Amtrak's yield management may be course correcting. Also, 6 months out is at the outer limit of the roughly 4-6 months out from departure that Amtrak appears to me have been doing inventory reallocations for the last couple of years. It really does not look unusual to me. It looks to me like Amtrak yield managers are just doing their jobs, not waiting to open lower buckets at the last minute during a low demand period so as to better ensure space doesn't go out empty, thereby foregoing all revenue from it.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

My guess is Amtrak's yield management may be course correcting.

Seems more likely that prospective customers are course correcting after years of punitive "dare you to fly or drive" fares.

 

[zephyr17]

Seems more likely that prospective customers are course correcting after years of punitive "dare you to fly or drive" fares.

I really don't see a change from a years long approach. For several years I've seen a pattern of them reallocating some inventory into lower buckets at roughly 4-6 months before departure, at least on the trains I most often ride. That's a pattern I've been able to take advantage of many times. This seems pretty consistent with that pattern.

It may be a change from a much more recent potential pattern of hanging onto onto high buckets far too long, then trying to move the unsold inventory by dropping them into lower buckets at the last minute. While there have been several instances of that noted here, there haven't been enough incidents over enough time to make me consider that a consistent approach. It may be that they started holding onto high buckets too long, noticed they have too much inventory going out unsold, fire saled immediate inventory and dropped back to their older, well established approach for more distant departures.

In any case, customer response to price ought to be driving yield management decisions. It appears it may be here.

 

[anilou]

They don't provide value. The supply is so thin they don't really have to. Even long term, assuming they get the sidelined sleepers back online (and more appear to be online this summer than last), the supply is still pretty thin especially in high demand months. Getting more capacity beyond the current fleet is a VERY long term proposition, if ever. They have advertised a cosmetic refurbishment and have already put the improved bedding into service on all trains. The coaches were the first through the refurbishment, but there are reports of refurbished sleepers now appearing. Traditional dining is great improvement over the travesty that is Flex. They chucked champagne and wine tasting years ago when Congress threw a hissy fit about it.

If they can't fill most of the space with their current bucket allocations, they ought to reallocate starting at least a couple months in advance. If they can't find a combination of price points over time to mostly fill them fill them, Amtrak's yield managers are failing at their jobs. Yield management is supposed to be dynamic, almost by definition. Fire sales of inventory shortly before departure to move it, as has been reported here, indicates they may be failing to meet their objectives, at least some of the time. If it happens a lot, we could see a course correction in inventory management.

Until a few years ago, Amtrak almost always allocated at least couple of rooms to low bucket when released for sale 11 months prior to departure. You could be pretty assured of low bucket prices being available if you bought really early. Amtrak has gotten more sophisticated in their yield management and stopped the practice. It has apparently worked out for them. BTW, airline yield management practices don't put inventory into low buckets 11 months in advance, either. Now it takes work, research, some knowledge and experience, and patience to find and grab lower buckets. Not always successfully, I might add, but they're still out there.

I'd agree with you about it not being a great long term business model if they intended to grow their market, fill more cars, and generate more revenue. They clearly don't. They intend to maximize revenue from the existing constrained fleet without expanding it or spending more money on the product than they must. Supply is thin enough that a stream of suckers and die hards may well be sufficient to fill them under the current, very aggressive, yield management practices. Value for money and the operation of supply and demand are two separate things.

Amtrak management's almost exclusive focus has been on cost containment for years, especially in the long distance service line. Creative managers like Brian Rosenwald who put the on the Pacific Parlour Car and the Superior Service approach on the Coast Starlight have been forced out. Revenue enhancement opportunities never seem to become visible to them. Squeezing every last dime out of existing inventory with no attempt to grow the market is absolutely consistent with Amtrak's overall management approach of years if not decades. The only real hope for somewhat lower prices is if time and experience demonstrates that they overshot in their aggressive yield management and they start losing revenue due to too many unsold rooms or last minute low bucket fire sales.

If their objectives were different, we might see both some improvements and some moderation in price. They aren't and we won't. Unless the Board and the executive management team is replaced by one with laser focus on service and customer experience. A focus that is sustained enough that culture change filters through lower Amtrak management ranks.

The proposed overnight train between LAX and SF has the potential to provide some healthy competition. This concept, if successful could even spread. Overnight trains are making a comeback in Europe.

 

[zephyr17]

The proposed overnight train between LAX and SF has the potential to provide some healthy competition. This concept, if successful could even spread. Overnight trains are making a comeback in Europe.

Not holding my breath on that. There's also a proposal for a Boston-Montreal overnight train I'm not holding my breath for, either.

Similar proposals have come and gone and usually never successfully navigate the hard slog into reality.

 

[lordsigma]

The proposed overnight train between LAX and SF has the potential to provide some healthy competition. This concept, if successful could even spread. Overnight trains are making a comeback in Europe.

I wouldn’t hold my breath either. Many of the “anybody but Amtrak” folks out there are predicting it’s going to be a massive gangbusters success because well Brightline and anything but Amtrak works. But the reality is Brightline has a specific market which they (smartly) target with their business model - it’s by no means a be all to end all that will work across passenger rail everywhere. It shouldn’t be assumed that this new service will even ever launch let alone be profitable with an ROI with whatever heritage equipment they plan on using. What many of the anybody but Amtrak folks forget is that any of these private ventures want not only an above rail profit but a return on investment (ROI) and forget that Amtrak exists for a reason.

 

[jis]

If I understand Brightline’s business model, they won’t touch this one with even a ten foot barge pole.

 

[trimetbusfan]

Looks like Amtrak has added an ultra-low coach fare for the California Zephyr! This is lower than any of the other saver fare previously reported on the fare bucket charts.

(This means there are at least 2 Saver Fares for the CZ, $99 and $146)
cc: @niemi24s

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Add that to the $19 Auto train sale this past week and it looks like sales and marketing might have actually woken up a bit. Most people will never take advantage of either of these two fares but it starts to break the stigma Amtrak has gotten that it’s only for the super well off.

On the flip side my uncle texted the other night. They are/were finally going to pull the trigger and take the train out from Cali to visit us late September. He asked if $1500 was reasonable for a bedroom on the CZ from EMY to GBB (Galesburg). I said that sounds kinda cheap. I pulled it up on my iPad and sure it enough for that dates it said “rooms from $1500” but as we all know that was for a roomette. Clicking on bedroom I told him it was actually $3500, he was like “$3500 one way?“ his deflated voice said we’ll look at plane tickets.

This got me thinking the wording on the initial page of the reservations is vague and deceiving to a novice traveler like it was to him. Should a roomette be described as ”a room” on the reservations page especially now when they are priced the same as bedrooms used to be? Maybe it should say “sleepers from” like it does on other pages. Just semantics but most people have no clue of what the levels of service and accommodations are on Amtrak.

 

[Sidney]

A roomette is still a room. It provides a bed and privacy. For one person,it is fine,two a bit tight,but at $3000 for a bedroom, that’s a bit excessive.

On the other hand, that $99 Coach fare on the full length of the Zephyr is a good price if you don’t mind sleeping in a seat for three days and two nights and if you are traveling solo,almost certain to share your seat with a stranger.