Help me understand Amtrak vs. airline pricing

[northnorthwest]

Can someone please give me some data to help me understand how Amtrak determines its pricing versus how airlines do? For example, why is it that in planning travel in March from PHL to DEN I can get a direct flight 3.5-4.5 hours long for $372 RT while Amtrak will take 3 days of travel each way and cost $487? I am totally pro-Amtrak. I want to have a reason to take the train. But how can Amtrak possibly compete with flights when it costs more and takes so much longer? I would appreciate seeing some actual figures to help me understand the situation.

As a related question, if we had the most advanced currently existing rail technology here right now, what would be the expected travel time between the east coast (NYP, PHL, WAS) and DEN?

Thanks.

 

[Will]

On most long-distance city pairs, Amtrak couldn't compete on price even if they wanted to. Even if the train was free, the vast majority of people would spend $186 to save three-four days of their time. Even a with a minimum wage job, you could make more than that.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

People who ride Amtrak are likely to be...

Passengers who are retired with no schedule to keep

Passengers who have difficulty with airline seats

Passengers who need or desire routine smoke brakes

Passengers who cannot afford last minute coach airfare

Passengers who have a fear of flying

Passengers who cannot fly for medical reasons

Passengers who cannot drive or do not own a car

Passengers who want a step up from public buses

Passengers who desire to bring additional luggage

Passengers who are unwilling to submit to TSA scans

Passengers who seek out passenger trains on purpose

Passengers traveling to locations without air service

It's true that outside of the NEC the routing, scheduling, and speed have little hope of competing with modern aircraft, or even buses or private vehicles, but hopefully the points above can help explain why some of us choose to travel by Amtrak anyway.

 

[Ryan]

Good points.

I'll only add on that Amtrak can charge more because people are willing to pay more (for the reasons above and probably some others).

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[caravanman]

I don't see that Amtrak are (nor should be) competing with airlines. If it costs Amtrak $xxx to provide a train service, then it must attract $xxx in fares and subsidies, no matter what airlines are charging.

If you look at it simply in staff costs... an aircrew paid for a few hours work , against a train crew paid for 3 days work. Being on a train for 3 days for $245 each way starts to look good value to me...

Ed

 

[greatcats]

Also, it takes one flight crew to get the plane from say Chicago to LA. The train takes six operating crews if at least 3, more often 4. Most if the SWC route operates with two engineers. Pretty significant labor costs there. But if I have the time, I prefer the train and will take it again next month FLG to CHI, although I could have flown cheaper. Also, if I drive to Phoenix, 300 miles round trip and pay to park, that adds up.

 

[SarahZ]

People who ride Amtrak are likely to be...

Passengers who are retired with no schedule to keep

Passengers who have difficulty with airline seats

Passengers who need or desire routine smoke brakes

Passengers who cannot afford last minute coach airfare

Passengers who have a fear of flying

Passengers who cannot fly for medical reasons

Passengers who cannot drive or do not own a car

Passengers who want a step up from public buses

Passengers who desire to bring additional luggage

Passengers who are unwilling to submit to TSA scans

Passengers who seek out passenger trains on purpose

Passengers traveling to locations without air service

It's true that outside of the NEC the routing, scheduling, and speed have little hope of competing with modern aircraft, or even buses or private vehicles, but hopefully the points above can help explain why some of us choose to travel by Amtrak anyway.

This should be a sticky.

 

[the_traveler]

One more thing I'll add about the fares is that while Amtrak receives a subsidy to operate, airlines do not directly. And airlines lose millions of dollars at those fares - sometimes every day!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

while Amtrak receives a subsidy to operate, airlines do not directly.

Are you sure about that? As I understand it US airlines have received direct federal assistance for flying to rural airports in the past. Some still receive state and/or local subsidies for the same purpose. They also received direct assistance after 9/11. I wouldn't be surprised if there are numerous other examples of direct subsidies as well. As for indirect airline subsidies you could probably fill a book and barely scratch the surface.

 

[the_traveler]

I know what you're saying, and I agree. Yet we always hear "We subsidize Amtrak, but we don't subsidize airlines"!

 

[June the Coach Rider]

Trying to compare Amtrak to Airlines is again like comparing apples to oranges. Sure they both get you from a point A to a point B. But Amtrak has many more points that they can get you to than what the airlines can. Also, the list of the type of passengers that takes trains is a great explanation of why people do that. Having the ability of getting up and walking around and having actual leg room even in coach is such a big difference, there is no comparing, unless you try to compare to first class on airlines, then you are adding to the fares.

To add, from 30,000 it is hard to see the landscape where you are in the middle of it on the train. Sitting back and enjoying the beauty of the country while reading, napping, or whatever else you do on the train, is one more plus that cannot be overlooked. Even if you drive somewhere, you miss all the mountain passes that the trains go thru, plus when you drive, if you happen to be the driver, you don't get to enjoy the sights as you are concentrating on driving.

 

[TVRM610]

As a related question, if we had the most advanced currently existing rail technology here right now, what would be the expected travel time between the east coast (NYP, PHL, WAS) and DEN?

"most advanced" is still very debate-able. What I would say is using existing right away with the most advanced signaling and equipment (and a perfect world scenario where passenger trains were given true priority in scheduling) - in that situation...

NYP-CHI - currently takes 18 hours - average speed 53 MPH. (top speed is 100 MPH)

it should be noted that the 20th Century Limited ran the route in 15.5 hours - average speed 61 mph

*IF* you could get the average speed up to 80 mph (which seems possible with shorter dwell times, less padding, and some extra 90-100 mph running where signaling could allow) then you could run the trip in 12 hours.

I feel like that's about the limit with existing right of ways.... *MAYBE* if you could get some sections of 110, and have high level platforms at most stations (reduces dwell time) you could possibly get up to 90 mph average speed which would cut it down to 10.5...

it should also be noted that the train split for the Boston section takes up some time as well.

On to the Zephyr...

Chicago to Denver - currently takes 17 hours - average speed 61 mph (top speed 79).

Again.. getting the average speed up to 80 (very possible with 90-100 mph sections) would bring that down to 13 hours.

taking out some padding and decreasing some dwell times could potentially get the average up to 90 mph and then the run time would be just under 12 hours.

So best case scenario with existing right of way I would say is about 23 hours of travel time from NYP to Denver via Chicago. Obviously I'm no expert.. just having some fun with math and mileage.

Now if you want to say sky is the limit and new dedicated right of ways could be built using literally state of the art technology...

average speed of 170 mph you could make the trip from NYP - Denver in 11 hours. But I don't even want to think about how much that would cost...

 

[WICT106]

ONe major difference between Amtrak (or passenger trains in general) and air service, is that the train serves stops along the route, while the aircraft is just point-to-point. The intermediate stops along an Amtrak route can be as important to the ridership as the endpoints. Sometimes, the ends of rail routes are just that -- the ends of the routes.

 

[FriskyFL]

The big bad gubmnt doesn't subsidize airlines? Ever heard of EAS? Paying millions so people who CHOOSE to live "2 weeks from anywhere" can have what amounts to their own personal air taxis, complements of the taxpayers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service

 

[Jackson Whole]

People who ride Amtrak are likely to be...Passengers who are retired with no schedule to keepPassengers who have difficulty with airline seatsPassengers who need or desire routine smoke brakesPassengers who cannot afford last minute coach airfarePassengers who have a fear of flyingPassengers who cannot fly for medical reasonsPassengers who cannot drive or do not own a carPassengers who want a step up from public busesPassengers who desire to bring additional luggagePassengers who are unwilling to submit to TSA scansPassengers who seek out passenger trains on purposePassengers traveling to locations without air serviceIt's true that outside of the NEC the routing, scheduling, and speed have little hope of competing with modern aircraft, or even buses or private vehicles, but hopefully the points above can help explain why some of us choose to travel by Amtrak anyway.

Good summary list, to which I'd add: Affectations and affections for a bygone era most never experienced. Nothing wrong with nostalgia per se but as Amtrak proves, it can be expensive.

 

[third rail 1200]

No one seems to have mentioned the advantage of actually seeing the country instead of just your destination. Of course this is more true west of Chicago but even Indiana can be interesting.

 

[jis]

What proportion of the total airline revenues is supplied by EAS subsidies these days? Just curious.

 

[PRR 60]

The big bad gubmnt doesn't subsidize airlines? Ever heard of EAS? Paying millions so people who CHOOSE to live "2 weeks from anywhere" can have what amounts to their own personal air taxis, complements of the taxpayers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service

It is always funny how some Amtrak supporters trash EAS as wasteful spending. Isn't the reason for EAS just about the same as one of the primary reasons for subsidizing Amtrak - providing transportation where options are lacking? Most EAS payments go to small airlines, not to the large ones. None of those carriers are making a killing off EAS routes.
By the way, not everyone truly chooses to live in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes it is just where your life or job or family lands you, like it or not.

 

[Ryan]

This says that FY13 was $214 million.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/19/house-panel-boosts-rural-air-service-subsidies/

In 2012, United Airlines ALONE brought in over $37 billion in revenue.

That's only one airline and the years don't match up, so it isn't really a fair comparison, but it suggests that the answer is "really, really, really small".

 

[Jackson Whole]

Paying millions so people who CHOOSE to live "2 weeks from anywhere" can have what amounts to their own personal air taxis, complements of the taxpayers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service

I take it you're a big fan of city lifestyles? Some of those people "who choose" to live in rural areas are called farmers and ranchers. Believe it or not, they have kids who attend college, relatives that visit occasionally, and now and then they might even rub a damp wash rag behind their ears, slick their hair, and venture out to the big city themselves. Amtrak doesn't serve 99% of them, the (often limited) EAS you decry does provide that link.

 

[PRR 60]

What proportion of the total airline revenues is supplied by EAS subsidies these days? Just curious.

A quick and dirty calculation: The 2012 gross revenue of AA, DL, UA, US and WN was $116 billion. The 2014 EAS program is about $246 million. Thus, even just counting the revenue of those carriers, EAS subsidy is no greater than 0.2% of airline revenue.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

So we're intentionally muddying the water by comparing a single sharply reduced subsidy to total revenue in a banner year?

With logic like that I can make the nuclear power industry look "too cheap to measure" for those who remember such claims.

Why not compare all subsides (including airports, air traffic control, security and surveillance, safety and certification, etc.) to actual profits over the life of the airline?

 

[shelzp]

I notice that Havre, Glasgow and Wolf Point are listed as subsidized areas for EAS.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

We could just conclude that in order to be able to travel around this great country of ours, the transportation network (road, rail, and air) is ALL going to need to be subsidized by our taxes, in one form or another. NO form of transportation supports itself.

And to the OP's point - I often wish that Amtrak could compete better with airlines, but I think the real key is competing for similar markets. For example, Amtrak is very competitive with airlines in the northeast corridor. I think Amtrak could do better if it could compete for particular middle-distance routes that make sense. For example, there are probably some popular middle-length routes that take most of a day to fly, and thus waste a lot of travelers' time in airports and hotels. If Amtrak could provide an overnight train on the same route, they could probably win some customers.

Overall, though, long distance travel is another animal altogether. It isn't air travel, it isn't car travel, and it isn't a "land cruise". It's a form of transportation unique unto itself. I enjoy it for many of the reasons DA posted earlier. Personally, I travel by car, air, and train - sometimes on the same trip. I'm glad we have a nationwide system with a lot of different options.

 

[Swimmingcat]

We could just conclude that in order to be able to travel around this great country of ours, the transportation network (road, rail, and air) is ALL going to need to be subsidized by our taxes, in one form or another. NO form of transportation supports itself.

And to the OP's point - I often wish that Amtrak could compete better with airlines, but I think the real key is competing for similar markets. For example, Amtrak is very competitive with airlines in the northeast corridor. I think Amtrak could do better if it could compete for particular middle-distance routes that make sense. For example, there are probably some popular middle-length routes that take most of a day to fly, and thus waste a lot of travelers' time in airports and hotels. If Amtrak could provide an overnight train on the same route, they could probably win some customers.

Overall, though, long distance travel is another animal altogether. It isn't air travel, it isn't car travel, and it isn't a "land cruise". It's a form of transportation unique unto itself. I enjoy it for many of the reasons DA posted earlier. Personally, I travel by car, air, and train - sometimes on the same trip. I'm glad we have a nationwide system with a lot of different options.

I think this post hits it right on the head! -- there are many people who won't fly, they have the time (& funds, perhaps, to go sleeper), they want to see our country, they consider it (as I do) as sort of a 'land cruise', etc. I'm not sure that Amtrak 'should' always compete with the airlines, or even bus lines for that matter -- for these are 3 different 'animals' if you will. Each of them (air, rail, bus) -- don't forget private/personal transportation as well -- offers something the other's don't.

What I've been doing the last several years, when I go from Colo Springs to the Bay Area of Calif for Christmas visit -- is to fly (usually Southwest) out to Oakland, then return on the CZ to Denver. This is a nice way to 'return to the real world' of work & other committments, to 'ease back into it' if you will .