More restrictive ticketing non refundable no changes coming March 1, 2020

[jis]

A good thing about taking Amtrak vs flying is that there is no change fee on Amtrak instead of the LARGE change fee on most airline tickets.

Actually, even for airlines, the change fee is fare specific. There are fares, albeit much higher, that are fully refundable and changeable without a fee. The discounted fares that are normally used come with progressively increasing restrictions and fees for progressively lower fares. When I know I have to change one or more times I usually buy an appropriately higher fare that allows such for free. Alternatively, one can try to get insurance, but those will typically not cover change of mind as the cause for a change.

 

[lordsigma]

From my experience over the past 18 months, a cancellation fee applies for everything except the fully refundable coach tickets after the change-your-mind cancellation window has passed. This, of course, applies no matter if you choose a refund (which is often not available) or an eVoucher. The only way around this is to rebook travel for a future date, then cancel the rebooking within the free cancellation window.

There are two issues I have with any additional changes to the current policy. One, if the only option is an eVoucher, then no cancellation fee should apply (and the no-change-fee should be retained, if for no other reason than to differentiate rail travel from the airlines). I would allow an exception for travel cancelled within 24 hours of departure, but still, that would be more restrictive than what the airlines used to have as routine policy.

Two, there is currently little benefit for AGR members, other than the accumulation of points for reward travel. Even the upper tier benefits largely only benefit corridor travelers (such as complimentary anytime lounge access). Contrast that to most hotel chains and some airlines, where the better a customer one is the more benefits one receives--in addition to higher point accumulations--and having most fees waived. There are many reasons for the monopolistic nature of US rail travel, but the company providing the service doesn't have to act like an exclusive provider of the service.

Coming this year though the select executive tier is getting one long distance related benefit. Complimentary priority offload coupons for AT. If your a frequent auto train rider it isn’t hard to get into select plus or executive especially if you ride in a sleeper so it makes sense they should do something like that. Though auto train is probably the only LD train you’d ever see AGR benefits for.

 

[Rasputin]

They are making trains not worth riding.

We probably should schedule some trips just to burn up some of our guest rewards points while the going west of Chicago is still good. Pretty soon these points won't be worth a damn.

Southwest Airlines is looking better all the time.

Thanks, Mr. Anderson for liberating my mind from the thought that I should always try to travel by train whenever possible.

 

[Qapla]

Fortunately, I already live in Florida so I don't have to travel here to get out of the cold ... so, if/when things get to the point I can no longer take the train, since I don't fly - well, if I can't get there by car ... I will just stay home and enjoy the warm weather and both coasts.

 

[Anderson]

Honestly, if Amtrak proceeds with changes like this I'm probably going to pointedly unsubscribe from their emails. It's one part a slap in their face, but it's more that if they're going to play stupid games with low fares then I don't even want to see the sale offers.

(At least they backed down on the non-upgradability of sale fares with upgrade cards...)

 

[lordsigma]

It should be noted once again that as lame as the changes are, they only apply to Saver/Value tickets. There is no change for now if you are buying sleeper or business on an LD train.

 

[MARC Rider]

A good thing about taking Amtrak vs flying is that there is no change fee on Amtrak instead of the LARGE change fee on most airline tickets.

Yeah, Maybe there's no change fee, but, wouldn't you know, that every time I go to change a ticket, the super cheapo Value/Saver fare is no longer available, and I have to pay the difference for the new higher fare.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Someone should wonder aloud if these changes will also apply to the Acela.

t's only business' is how he's running the show, pure and simple.

The problem is one of the things that helped Amtrak's business is being different from the airlines. As such, the railroad received a lot of disgruntled or inconvenienced passengers that didn't want the bs that came with airline travel, even though it may result in a quicker trip.

The mentality may become "As Amtrak becomes as unfriendly as an airline, why shouldn't I just take an airplane?"

That, wouldn't necessarily be good for business.

 

[Anderson]

It should be noted once again that as lame as the changes are, they only apply to Saver/Value tickets. There is no change for now if you are buying sleeper or business on an LD train.

Well, LD sleepers already have pretty bad conditions tagged to them and no equivalent to the flexible fares.

The other issue that I have is that the nonsense is increasingly "washing over" into Value tickets. If it was just "saver" fares I'd be back where I was 4-5 years ago, ignoring the advance discount sales (StupidSeats comes to mind).

 

[jebr]

I took a look at the current refund and cancellation policy, and there's currently no mention of the refund option if a long-distance train is more than two hours late (I think short-distance trains had either 30-minute or one hour late rules.) I'm not sure how long ago that was removed (or if it's now referenced elsewhere.) I know a couple months ago I was able to change my ticket to a later date without any fees (and that was with using a companion coupon.)

That said, if that policy is no longer written or able to be quoted, then I likely won't take Amtrak for all but the least time-sensitive trips I take (which are rare.) The Empire Builder has far too sporadic on-time performance for me to consider it without at least a refund fallback if it's significantly late. If a trip is also completely nonrefundable or nonchangeable, that just nails the coffin for those fares (and, honestly, considering Amtrak for those trips as driving or taking the bus becomes cheaper and more reliable at that point.)

It might be time for Congress to start having consumer protections for Amtrak similar to the airlines. When Amtrak had pretty lenient ticket policies, it didn't seem necessary, but there needs to be some protection there for issues that are outside of the customer's control. If Amtrak doesn't seem willing to do that themselves, then they need to be forced to have at least basic protections (like refunds if someone doesn't want to travel due to a late train!) Goodwill measures aren't enough - they need to be published policies that people can easily use/quote and rely on in order to be useful.

 

[lordsigma]

I took a look at the current refund and cancellation policy, and there's currently no mention of the refund option if a long-distance train is more than two hours late (I think short-distance trains had either 30-minute or one hour late rules.) I'm not sure how long ago that was removed (or if it's now referenced elsewhere.) I know a couple months ago I was able to change my ticket to a later date without any fees (and that was with using a companion coupon.)

That said, if that policy is no longer written or able to be quoted, then I likely won't take Amtrak for all but the least time-sensitive trips I take (which are rare.) The Empire Builder has far too sporadic on-time performance for me to consider it without at least a refund fallback if it's significantly late. If a trip is also completely nonrefundable or nonchangeable, that just nails the coffin for those fares (and, honestly, considering Amtrak for those trips as driving or taking the bus becomes cheaper and more reliable at that point.)

It might be time for Congress to start having consumer protections for Amtrak similar to the airlines. When Amtrak had pretty lenient ticket policies, it didn't seem necessary, but there needs to be some protection there for issues that are outside of the customer's control. If Amtrak doesn't seem willing to do that themselves, then they need to be forced to have at least basic protections (like refunds if someone doesn't want to travel due to a late train!) Goodwill measures aren't enough - they need to be published policies that people can easily use/quote and rely on in order to be useful.

We’ll see the reauth is right around the corner. Many members of congress seem annoyed about the arbitration thing - this could add some additional annoyance.

 

[RSG]

I know a couple months ago I was able to change my ticket to a later date without any fees (and that was with using a companion coupon.)

That scenario is under the standard policy, open to anyone for any reason. I've changed a ticket after the scheduled departure for the station I was ticketed from---but before the train actually arrived, with no issues or fees (though it usually requires agent intervention, as the WWW site interface isn't programmed to handle exceptions). I can foresee them getting into a very sticky situation if they make rescheduling difficult or penurious for late trains.

It might be time for Congress to start having consumer protections for Amtrak similar to the airlines. When Amtrak had pretty lenient ticket policies, it didn't seem necessary, but there needs to be some protection there for issues that are outside of the customer's control.

I was thinking the same thing when this thread first started. Though calls for a Passenger Bill Of Rights for the airlines didn't make much headway until planes were parked on tarmacs for hours on end with no food or beverage availability and overflowing lavatories. Since some of these situations are already de rigeur with Amtrak, let's hope that there are proactive policies put in place before the overall situation worsens.

 

[jis]

It might be time for Congress to start having consumer protections for Amtrak similar to the airlines. When Amtrak had pretty lenient ticket policies, it didn't seem necessary, but there needs to be some protection there for issues that are outside of the customer's control. If Amtrak doesn't seem willing to do that themselves, then they need to be forced to have at least basic protections (like refunds if someone doesn't want to travel due to a late train!) Goodwill measures aren't enough - they need to be published policies that people can easily use/quote and rely on in order to be useful.

Some keep saying that the railroads should do everything differently from airlines because they are different. I happen to believe that while they are different they do share a lot of commonality as passenger and freight transport businesses. Specifically I believe that:

1. Passenger railroads have a lot to learn about how to report OTP and regulators of passenger railroads have a lot to learn from the FAA on how to structure regulations for enforcing such. This has actually been suggested to the FRA, and they appear to be very receptive to picking up ideas from the FAA regulations on OTP tracking and remedies for failure to meet on both infrastructure providers and airlines.

2. Airline industry has a so called "Bill of Rights" for passengers. While it is nowhere near as strong as the European one, it still is something. I think it would be a good idea to adopt ideas from that to create a rail specific one and enforced by FRA like the air one is enforced by the FAA.

Will there be issues to address? Of course. But that should not keep us from increasing consumer protection in the rail sector to at least match the one, as sorry as it is, in the air sector, given that collectively we have had progressively more hostile management in the rail sector.

 

[Qapla]

There are similarities and differences in passenger air and passenger rail travel. While they both move people from one place to another, all of their circumstances are not the same.

"One size" does not fit all

Passenger airplanes do not have travel in airspace owned by freight airplanes like the passenger rail does ... this has a large impact on the OTP.

Trains are not subject to the weight restrictions of air travel so adding additional cars to the same train is possible where you cannot just add more room to the plane.

LD trains take longer to get across large distances but can stop at intermediate points - planes are just the opposite.

While some of the airline techniques will work for rain - not all will. This seems to be one of the problems with the current situation. Those in charge of Amtrak want to install the things that do NOT work as well for rail instead of the things that will work.

Since people will spend much more time on LD travel while on a train that a plane - making it "simpler" is the wrong way to go. Reducing the "amenities" may work for people in a hurry (air travel) but, amenities are far more important to people who choose to travel in a more relaxed method - and since it is a "choice" for them to ride rail, increasing the number of those who choose rail would make more sense than reducing the costs of those already riding rail.

There are two ways to increase profits ... raise sales and lower operating costs. Both, used together, produce the best results. When you cut costs to the point that you reduce sales you have cut too many costs.

 

[jis]

And would all those differences lead to the conclusion that:

1. OTP reporting and corrective measure metrics would be drastically different at least for major checkpoints en route? Of course who is fined for what would be different in case of rail. But I suspect the measurement of OTP and reporting requirements would not be terribly different.

2. Passenger rail should not have a passenger's bill of rights somewhat similar to air market ones? Of course some of the details will be different to fit the needs of rail passengers.

 

[neroden]

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gardner don't seem to fully understand that 535 members of Congress are their bosses. If they don't want to be micromanaged, they have to do a better job and stop doing customer-unfriendly moves which get their bosses angry letters from constituents.

*Nobody* should have mandatory arbitration clauses -- they're blatantly unconstitutional under the Seventh Amendment, regardless of what a corrupt Supreme Court stacked with corporate lackeys has said in the past -- and it's just arrogant for Amtrak to think that that sort of abuse wouldn't attract the attention of their Congressional bosses.

While nonexchangeable tickets are constitutional, they're also prone to generating angry constiuent letters. And that nickel-and-diming restriction doesn't benefit Amtrak one whit -- the revenue from forfeited tickets or change fees is dwarfed by the loss in revenue from angry customers. (Now, I understand Amtrak's former policy of "full value in a voucher, less if you want cash", because that encouraged people to keep taking Amtrak. That made sense. Change fees don't make sense. They don't make sense for airlines either, really.)

 

[F900ElCapitan]

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gardner don't seem to fully understand that 535 members of Congress are their bosses. If they don't want to be micromanaged, they have to do a better job and stop doing customer-unfriendly moves which get their bosses angry letters from constituents.

I do agree with much of what you mentioned, but there is one opinion that you’ve failed to mention. The country as a whole is very close to 50/50 liberal to conservative. So, whoever the current CEO is and trying to make these changes...there will be communication from both sides that is for and against what is happening. Personally, I hate seeing a $2 billion dollar subsidy to Amtrak, even though I love trains, riding trains and especially riding Amtrak and feel we should support rail travel. It’s just a large amount of money that I wonder if it can’t be spent better (including doing a massive upgrade to US rail travel!) I do think that if Amtrak can show (preferably with best accounting practices) a break even or better operating ratio, then it would make the federal money easier to justify and reduce opposition from both sides of the isle. Which of course would be the biggest possible win for rail travel and Amtrak!!

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

In regard to the post above the last three years or so Amtrak has become one of the most bipartisan issues in this country. The 95-4 Senate vote to maintain nationwide service is nothing but astonishing in this day and age. The value received for the two billion subsidy is paid back in spades to the communities and country as a whole. RPA had a great write up on economic return to cities along network routes recently. We also have to remember two billion sounds like a lot but it’s a rounding error in the big picture.

Really at this point the only ones wanting to defund Amtrak (or parts of it) are the Administration, Ideologue groups like Cato/Heritage and in a really warped way Amtrak itself through lower grant requests and the admission it wants to gut the network as we know it. Anderson has pissed off people on both sides of the aisle in about a bipartisan way as possible.

I’ll post the latest letter I received yesterday from my GOP Senator later on today. To paraphrase it though he said “we control the money and have the final say but you should consider writing Amtrak’s Board as well about your concerns. Anderson serves at their pleasure”

 

[Bonser]

I do agree with much of what you mentioned, but there is one opinion that you’ve failed to mention. The country as a whole is very close to 50/50 liberal to conservative. So, whoever the current CEO is and trying to make these changes...there will be communication from both sides that is for and against what is happening. Personally, I hate seeing a $2 billion dollar subsidy to Amtrak, even though I love trains, riding trains and especially riding Amtrak and feel we should support rail travel. It’s just a large amount of money that I wonder if it can’t be spent better (including doing a massive upgrade to US rail travel!) I do think that if Amtrak can show (preferably with best accounting practices) a break even or better operating ratio, then it would make the federal money easier to justify and reduce opposition from both sides of the isle. Which of course would be the biggest possible win for rail travel and Amtrak!!

Not so sure I agree with your political assessment. Amtrak serves many small towns in red states and that fact alone has tended to de-escalate partisan tensions, one of the few things that does these days. Anderson should capitalize (no pun intended) on this and push for expansion of all Amtrak services, not cherry pick the chosen few.

 

[jis]

I do agree with much of what you mentioned, but there is one opinion that you’ve failed to mention. The country as a whole is very close to 50/50 liberal to conservative. So, whoever the current CEO is and trying to make these changes...there will be communication from both sides that is for and against what is happening. Personally, I hate seeing a $2 billion dollar subsidy to Amtrak, even though I love trains, riding trains and especially riding Amtrak and feel we should support rail travel. It’s just a large amount of money that I wonder if it can’t be spent better (including doing a massive upgrade to US rail travel!) I do think that if Amtrak can show (preferably with best accounting practices) a break even or better operating ratio, then it would make the federal money easier to justify and reduce opposition from both sides of the isle. Which of course would be the biggest possible win for rail travel and Amtrak!!

It appears that Anderson is at least on the surface trying to do exactly that, though he is not trying to fight the battle with FRA and Volpe or even the Amtrak financial bureaucracy possibly, on changing some of the accounting practices. The problem is that this does not address the non-parity that exists between funding foundational pieces of passenger rail when compared to other transport modes, which leads to requiring rather drastic changes to get there.

 

[F900ElCapitan]

In regard to the post above the last three years or so Amtrak has become one of the most bipartisan issues in this country. The 95-4 Senate vote to maintain nationwide service is nothing but astonishing in this day and age. The value received for the two billion subsidy is paid back in spades to the communities and country as a whole. RPA had a great write up on economic return to cities along network routes recently. We also have to remember two billion sounds like a lot but it’s a rounding error in the big picture.

Really at this point the only ones wanting to defund Amtrak (or parts of it) are the Administration, Ideologue groups like Cato/Heritage and in a really warped way Amtrak itself through lower grant requests and the admission it wants to gut the network as we know it. Anderson has pissed off people on both sides of the aisle in about a bipartisan way as possible.

I’ll post the latest letter I received yesterday from my GOP Senator later on today. To paraphrase it though he said “we control the money and have the final say but you should consider writing Amtrak’s Board as well about your concerns. Anderson serves at their pleasure”

Sure, on the surface Amtrak is getting it’s funding, Congress loves spending money, it makes their constituents feel very good that some of their taxes are returning to their district and what they care for and thus helps re-election. But even though Congress approved the spending today, tomorrow they’ll likely double down (through committee and other avenues) about losses and how to “fix” todays percieved problem. Which is exactly the case today with the diner issues (how to “fix” their losses), today it’s the eastern trains, and soon it’ll be the western trains. Today it’s the raising of sleeper “rail fare” portions of a ticket, tomorrow ???? Today there is talk of a leaked email about adding Even more restrictions to ticketing, tomorrow ????

I have to admit I’m curious as to how the roll outs of the soon to be released sleeper “improvements” goes and if it’s enough to out do the recent fare increases. But overall there has been a definitive reduction in benefits to riding the train. This is all do to pressures from Congress about operating losses.

 

[F900ElCapitan]

Not so sure I agree with your political assessment. Amtrak serves many small towns in red states and that fact alone has tended to de-escalate partisan tensions, one of the few things that does these days. Anderson should capitalize (no pun intended) on this and push for expansion of all Amtrak services, not cherry pick the chosen few.

Yes, I would LOVE to see Amtrak expand. But with what equipment and what funding? I do agree we all want service to small towns in red and blue areas, but it’s the needing of funding that is being hit hard by Congress. Let alone trying to secure additional money for expansion. Today I think most of us are just happy to get some funding for re-fresh overhauls and some RFPs for new equipment that will have a very hard time getting enough funding for straight replacement...let alone expansion.

 

[neroden]

I do agree with much of what you mentioned, but there is one opinion that you’ve failed to mention. The country as a whole is very close to 50/50 liberal to conservative. So, whoever the current CEO is and trying to make these changes...there will be communication from both sides that is for and against what is happening. Personally, I hate seeing a $2 billion dollar subsidy to Amtrak,

Why? Basically a little over $1 billion covers the fixed overhead cost of having a national passenger railroad system at all. Any money beyond the first billion is going to expansion and upgrades.

Operation of the individual routes is typically profitable, or state-funded; there may be a couple which run at a loss of a few million dollars (we'd know if Amtrak would publish avoidable costs like it's legally supposed to).

Funding the fixed overhead is like funding Air Traffic Control, or funding the State Highway Police, or funding the Coast Guard. It's worth funding the fixed overhead to "keep the lights on". $1 billion is extraordinarily cheap for that.

If you're looking for somewhere in the federal budget to cut expenses, the only place to look is the military, which burns between $500 billion and $1 trillion every year, loses every war it gets into, can't pass an audit, and provides less economic benefit than literally anything else we could spend the money on (including throwing it out of helicopters for people to pick up off the street). As long as that trough of corruption keeps sucking up $500+ billion per year, it is simply not worth cutting any other government expenses; it's the elephant in the room.

In my opinion, too many politicians just throw money at the military without looking at where it's going, in a misguided and sick attempt to appear "patriotic". Anyway, as long as that is happening, I never criticize any non-military federal government spending which is being used for anything which is actually useful at *all*, since it's better than spending it on the military. (I'll criticize it if they're actively subsidizing pollution or something which is outright bad, though.)

 

[RSG]

Not so sure I agree with your political assessment. Amtrak serves many small towns in red states and that fact alone has tended to de-escalate partisan tensions, one of the few things that does these days.

There's plenty of support in Red States for Amtrak, and in a bipartisan fashion for those states which are more purple than red or blue. US Senator Jerry Moran [R-KS], for example, was very supportive when the Southwest Chief looked like it was going to get re-routed at a cost to existing stations in many places. The divide seems to be more along "AvGeek" and railfan lines and to a lesser degree, urban corridor vs long distance (often translating to rural) route advocates.

 

[John Bobinyec]

Is there any word on how this affects buying a ticket with points and then having to alter that reservation? Will there be a surcharge of points taken?

jb