Green River to Denver is Cheaper than Glenwood Springs to Denver

[fairviewroad]

Okay, okay....so it's 'good business' to gouge passengers fair market value even though other passengers occupying the same car, but a much longer distance, are paying less.

Wonder what people think of this, if they just happen to discover this in talking to fellow traveler's?

And what about the situation where you book Denver to Green River for a lower fare, and then get off at Glenwood Springs? Are they going to try to get you to pay the higher fare before letting you off ? I don't think so........

I don't think you can "gouge" someone by charging them "fair market value." We're not talking about jugs of drinking water in the aftermath of a hurricane, here. If Amtrak deliberately charges less than fair market value then arguably they are gouging taxpayers. Darned if you do, darned if you don't. And I'd have to say that unless I'm talking about free AGR tickets, I've never discussed my fare with my fellow travelers. But as others have pointed out, the disparities are MUCH greater on a typical airline flight.

As for the person who books DEN to Green River but hops off at GSC, I don't see anything wrong with that...but if that person is checking a bag they'll have to convince a baggage clerk in DEN to short-check their bag to GSC despite what their ticket says. You may find a sympathetic agent, but I'll bet the Amtrak folks in DEN are familiar with that trick.

 

[Notelvis]

we used to call this short hopping on the airlines. I lived in DesMoines and there were a couple of United flights, I want to say to Denver (this is over 30 years ok? give the old man a memory lapse) that were half the cost of going to DSM. I would just buy the longer flight and get off.

Hate to admit it but I actually did this just this past summer. I needed to fly one way from Jackson, MS (off the City of New Orleans) to Charlotte, NC. The fare for that flight was about $350. HOWEVER, flying to Raleigh/Durham departing Jackson on the same flight with change in Charlotte was a shade under $200. I booked to RDU and just ditched the connecting flight at CLT.

Not something I do often.....only two or three times in my entire life....... and I'm not a frequent flyer member with anyone so, hopefully, no harm, no foul.

 

[neroden]

You're assuming that passengers paying less from Green River displace passengers paying more for from Grand Junction or Glenwood Springs. That would only be the case if the train were completely full, which I doubt is the case this time of year.

Ah... but if the train isn't completely full, then Amtrak isn't charging the revenue-maximizing amount. Remember, with a bucket system, Amtrak can "work down the demand curve", and should be able to charge everyone the price they're willing to pay, more or less.

If the demand for travel to Denver from the latter two cities is not particularly price-elastic (say you're going to sell 22 tickets per day if the price is $59, and 20 if the price is $89), and demand from Green River is strongly affected by price, it's obviously in Amtrak's interest to charge the higher price for the shorter distance trip.

No, no, it's not. Think about this again, more carefully. You would be right if Amtrak charged the same fare for all passengers from Grand Junction to Denver... but Amtrak doesn't do that.
As a result, you're wrong. Amtrak can sell 20 tickets at $89 and 2 at $59 from Grand Junction -- it can *do* that. Amtrak can offer $89 tickets to the price-insensitive, and then offer $59 tickets to the price-sensitive at the last minute.

Bluntly, this pricing situation does *not* make sense, it irritates people, and I think it's an artifact of a fairly coarse bucket pricing system. A more modern system could probably be reprogrammed to eliminate this anomaly, but Amtrak's system is ancient and probably can't do that. (So they should get a new one, which I think is still a project in progress.)

 

[railiner]

we used to call this short hopping on the airlines. I lived in DesMoines and there were a couple of United flights, I want to say to Denver (this is over 30 years ok? give the old man a memory lapse) that were half the cost of going to DSM. I would just buy the longer flight and get off.

Hate to admit it but I actually did this just this past summer. I needed to fly one way from Jackson, MS (off the City of New Orleans) to Charlotte, NC. The fare for that flight was about $350. HOWEVER, flying to Raleigh/Durham departing Jackson on the same flight with change in Charlotte was a shade under $200. I booked to RDU and just ditched the connecting flight at CLT.

Not something I do often.....only two or three times in my entire life....... and I'm not a frequent flyer member with anyone so, hopefully, no harm, no foul.

Good for you! I love to hear of people beating airlines that use this abusive pricing....what can they do with your frequent flyer miles in retaliation? All I can see is they only give you what you actually flew, not booked....If that was the case, I would agree that would be 'fair' on their part....

 

[Anderson]

Next month I need to go from Glenwood Springs to Denver. I randomly checked the date I want from Green River to Denver and its $59, but getting on two stops and 3 hours LATER at Glenwood Springs is $67. Grand Junction is even more ridiculous its presently $86 (vs. $59). If I was going the other direction I'd totally book Green River and just say I'm actually getting off in Glenwood Springs, it was cheaper. I guess with eTickets I can't that off, getting on that much later.

Amtrak buckets don't make sense. One time I miss paper tickets.

This pricing scheme is ridiculous and shouldn't be operated. I assume it's done because Amtrak's ticketing system is ancient and creaky and incapable of being programmed to be more sensible.
It's all very well for Amtrak to raise the price from Grand Junction to Denver to $86, but if they do that, they should raise the price for Green River to Denver to $86 too. Otherwise they're throwing away money. (For the math-impaired, I'll make this clear: every passenger from Green River to Denver is occupying a seat from Grand Junction to Denver, which could presumably have been sold for more money.)

Is Amtrak supposed to be running a business, or is Amtrak supposed to be running a charity for people in Green River? Think about it. At the moment Amtrak is doing the latter, running a charity by minimizing its revenue.

You're assuming that passengers paying less from Green River displace passengers paying more for from Grand Junction or Glenwood Springs. That would only be the case if the train were completely full, which I doubt is the case this time of year.

If the demand for travel to Denver from the latter two cities is not particularly price-elastic (say you're going to sell 22 tickets per day if the price is $59, and 20 if the price is $89), and demand from Green River is strongly affected by price, it's obviously in Amtrak's interest to charge the higher price for the shorter distance trip.

As a matter of course, Amtrak can get the train either completely full or close to it during peak seasons. Moreover, since this can happen, Amtrak does have to plan around the possibility of it coming to pass.

 

[Ispolkom]

As a result, you're wrong. Amtrak can sell 20 tickets at $89 and 2 at $59 from Grand Junction -- it can *do* that. Amtrak can offer $89 tickets to the price-insensitive, and then offer $59 tickets to the price-sensitive at the last minute.

Bluntly, this pricing situation does *not* make sense, it irritates people, and I think it's an artifact of a fairly coarse bucket pricing system. A more modern system could probably be reprogrammed to eliminate this anomaly, but Amtrak's system is ancient and probably can't do that. (So they should get a new one, which I think is still a project in progress.)

You're wrong. Amtrak does offer lower-price tickets at the last minute. What makes you think that they don't? Today's ticket GSC-DEN, for instance, is $43. Seems to me that Amtrak is already doing what you want.

In any case, the original issue wasn't changes in price for one city pair over time, but differences in price for different city pairs that are different distances apart.

 

[JoeBas]

Good for you! I love to hear of people beating airlines that use this abusive pricing....what can they do with your frequent flyer miles in retaliation? All I can see is they only give you what you actually flew, not booked....If that was the case, I would agree that would be 'fair' on their part....

No, they claim that "Short-Hopping" is a violation of their T&C, and reason for termination of the FF account, and forfeiture of all the miles therein.

 

[neroden]

Given that the last-minute Green River - Denver ticket is *now* more expensive than the last minute Grand Junction to Denver ticket (as it should be) it's theoretically possible that Amtrak's ticketing system makes some sort of sense. It's only essential to have the prices lined up in order by distance during the end of the reservation period....

...but still, any pricing scheme which irritates passengers and encourages short-hopping sheningans is still dumb. As I say, it wouldn't be hard to program the system to remove such anomalies, if it were a modern system, which I know it isn't. Maybe after the system gets replaced.

 

[fairviewroad]

Good for you! I love to hear of people beating airlines that use this abusive pricing....what can they do with your frequent flyer miles in retaliation? All I can see is they only give you what you actually flew, not booked....If that was the case, I would agree that would be 'fair' on their part....

No, they claim that "Short-Hopping" is a violation of their T&C, and reason for termination of the FF account, and forfeiture of all the miles therein.

Correct. And this is not an empty threat. There are plenty of documented cases of airlines doing precisely that. The general consensus on places like Flyertalk is that you can get away with it once or twice, but after that you're really skating on thin ice.

...but still, any pricing scheme which irritates passengers and encourages short-hopping sheningans is still dumb. As I say, it wouldn't be hard to program the system to remove such anomalies, if it were a modern system, which I know it isn't. Maybe after the system gets replaced.

How many passengers do you think are actually "irritated" by anomalies such as this? I don't think the average person who wants to travel to Glenwood Springs on Amtrak is also going to price out a Green River ticket. For most people, they'll check the price of Point A to Point B, and if it's an acceptable fare they'll book it. If not, they won't.

 

[Anderson]

As a result, you're wrong. Amtrak can sell 20 tickets at $89 and 2 at $59 from Grand Junction -- it can *do* that. Amtrak can offer $89 tickets to the price-insensitive, and then offer $59 tickets to the price-sensitive at the last minute.

Bluntly, this pricing situation does *not* make sense, it irritates people, and I think it's an artifact of a fairly coarse bucket pricing system. A more modern system could probably be reprogrammed to eliminate this anomaly, but Amtrak's system is ancient and probably can't do that. (So they should get a new one, which I think is still a project in progress.)

You're wrong. Amtrak does offer lower-price tickets at the last minute. What makes you think that they don't? Today's ticket GSC-DEN, for instance, is $43. Seems to me that Amtrak is already doing what you want.

In any case, the original issue wasn't changes in price for one city pair over time, but differences in price for different city pairs that are different distances apart.

It depends on the situation, load factors on the trains, and so forth. I can point out another wacky situation, namely "Stupid Roomette Tricks" where it will be cheaper to go RVR-NYP on the Meteor or Star in a sleeper than it would be to go coach on a Regional.

 

[Ispolkom]

Given that the last-minute Green River - Denver ticket is *now* more expensive than the last minute Grand Junction to Denver ticket (as it should be) it's theoretically possible that Amtrak's ticketing system makes some sort of sense. It's only essential to have the prices lined up in order by distance during the end of the reservation period....

No, it's actually possible. Every time I buy a ticket on the Empire Builder, I set up a amsnag alert, which tells me when prices change. I rarely travel in coach, but the alert is insensitive to that, and produces data for each class of travel. Coach tickets often (not always) drop in cost shortly before date of travel. In any case, it's not important to have the prices ever line up in order of distance, only in order of demand.

This is the problem with arguing a priori. Facts are stubborn things, and often if you ignore them you get skewered by reality.

 

[SubwayNut]

Yup the fare dropped, I randomly checked, just bought my ticket, and fare GSC-DEN dropped the day I want to travel (in a little over 3 weeks) to $43, that fairly sure I think is low bucket! from Green River is $59 at the moment.

 

[amamba]

I think you're reading it wrong, and the thread is describing the change of onboard ticket fares.

Unless you can find a later thread that describes the change from current bucket to full bucket.

Anecdote time!
I rode the 66 last week PVD - BOS. There was a guy who boarded without a ticket and asks if he can buy one. The conductor says that he has to charge a really high fare and tells the guy to call 1800USARAIL and tell them that he wanted to buy a ticket for the train. The conductor said it would be cheaper that way.

Now it could be that the conductor was being lazy and didn't really want to bother with selling a ticket. But it sounded to me like he has to sell the ticket at high bucket whereas calling would be current bucket.

 

[neroden]

In any case, it's not important to have the prices ever line up in order of distance, only in order of demand.

Given that Amtrak frequently sells out trains (== not demand-limited, supply-limited), it's still quite important when Amtrak's getting close to selling out a given train to have the fares line up in order of distance. It is necessary to maximize revenue. I think this has been adequately proven.

In fact, in a supply-limited situation, it's preferable to have the fares line up in order of distance all the time. (More precisely than "in order of distance", what I mean is that the total ordering of fares should be compatible with the full partial ordering generated by subset relations on the trips, so that if trip A is a superset of trip B, trip A should cost more than or equal to the cost of trip B. To give the mathematical description. Yes, this is necessary for revenue maximization in a supply-limited situation.)

The Amtrak bucket system is quite a brute-force system, not terribly complex, and is probably not handling the transition from demand-limited to supply-limited with great finesse. That's a technological limitation.

 

[NW cannonball]

In any case, it's not important to have the prices ever line up in order of distance, only in order of demand.

Given that Amtrak frequently sells out trains (== not demand-limited, supply-limited), it's still quite important when Amtrak's getting close to selling out a given train to have the fares line up in order of distance. It is necessary to maximize revenue. I think this has been adequately proven.

In fact, in a supply-limited situation, it's preferable to have the fares line up in order of distance all the time. (More precisely than "in order of distance", what I mean is that the total ordering of fares should be compatible with the full partial ordering generated by subset relations on the trips, so that if trip A is a superset of trip B, trip A should cost more than or equal to the cost of trip B. To give the mathematical description. Yes, this is necessary for revenue maximization in a supply-limited situation.)

The Amtrak bucket system is quite a brute-force system, not terribly complex, and is probably not handling the transition from demand-limited to supply-limited with great finesse. That's a technological limitation.

There's a false assumption in there - that costs correspond to distance, and that revenue should match costs. But what costs? Amtrak or the airline is committed to fly the whole way anyhow. So most of the cost is already committed, way before the seats are sold or sold out.

Why do airlines want less for the longer flight than for the 2 subflights? Why does Amtrak ask less for a longer trip?

Because once the carrier has committed to making the trip, their costs are fixed. Another passenger costs almost nothing. So sell the empty seats at whatever you can get, distance has nothing to do with it.

(But save a few seats for the last-minute price-insensitive few your "big-data" leads you to expect.

Ispolkom got it right.

 

[neroden]

In any case, it's not important to have the prices ever line up in order of distance, only in order of demand.

Given that Amtrak frequently sells out trains (== not demand-limited, supply-limited), it's still quite important when Amtrak's getting close to selling out a given train to have the fares line up in order of distance. It is necessary to maximize revenue. I think this has been adequately proven.

In fact, in a supply-limited situation, it's preferable to have the fares line up in order of distance all the time. (More precisely than "in order of distance", what I mean is that the total ordering of fares should be compatible with the full partial ordering generated by subset relations on the trips, so that if trip A is a superset of trip B, trip A should cost more than or equal to the cost of trip B. To give the mathematical description. Yes, this is necessary for revenue maximization in a supply-limited situation.)

The Amtrak bucket system is quite a brute-force system, not terribly complex, and is probably not handling the transition from demand-limited to supply-limited with great finesse. That's a technological limitation.

There's a false assumption in there - that costs correspond to distance, and that revenue should match costs.

Nope. I made no such assumption. Please go through the math again. You're not understanding it. That's the part where I described exactly what I meant with "subset relations" etc.

 

[neroden]

So sell the empty seats at whatever you can get, distance has nothing to do with it.

You're assuming demand-limited. If you're supply-limited, this is incorrect. It's not technically distance, but overlapping segments, which have a lot to do with it.
Let's go through this once again, slowly, since you're very slow on the uptake.

Green River - Grand Junction - Denver

Every ticket from Green River to Denver prevents someone from riding from Grand Junction to Denver

If tickets from Grand Junction to Denver are more expensive than tickets from Green River to Denver, then every passenger from Green River to Denver who replaces a possible passenger from Grand Junction to Denver is *lost revenue*.

In the other direction, where there isn't so much trouble with "cancelled reservations", passengers know this, and will book from Denver to Green River and get off at Grand Junction, making sure that Amtrak loses that revenue. Because the passengers are smarter than Amtrak's pricing system. And apparently, they're mostly smarter than you, because they can figure this out.

You are correct that this doesn't matter if you're not filling up the train anyway. If you are filling up the train (supply-limited), it matters a lot.

 

[PaulM]

If passengers from Glenwood Springs are less price sensitive, so that Amtrak can charge more for a ticket from Glenwood Springs to Denver than they can charge from Green River, why shouldn't they charge more? Shouldn't Amtrak maximize its revenue?

The supply and demand logic used to explain this situation has become conventional AU wisdom; but I've never bought it. After all, if you entice someone with a low price at Green River, you've denied the space to the price-sensitive (i.e., higher price) Glenwood Springs customer. Now if there were a separate train from Green River to Denver, then it would make sense.

Same thing with the classic BGH to WAS vs. ATL to WAS case. Sure there may be lot more business at ATL, but the BGH passenger takes up the same space at the ATL one.

Sorry, Neroden already put this old wives' tale to rest and explained it better than I did.