Two sisters were kicked off Crescent for using the lounge car

[merkelman06]

I know there is two sides to every story and this seems to have escalated quickly regarding this story.

It started by two sisters playing cards in the lounge car and ended with them being kicked off the train in CVS

Seems like trains that run without a dinner and only a lounge are the ones with the most problems. Always read where the crew takes over and camps out in half of the car and restricts usage to the other half.

Here is the story, draw your own conclusions.

Two 85 and 95-year-old sisters were kicked off Amtrak train 500 miles from home

Two sisters from Rochester say they were kicked off an Amtrak train 500 miles from home. One of them was accused of being drunk and belligerent.

www.whec.com

 

[zetharion]

Sounds about right for Amtrak. And yes crews taking up half the dining cars really should come to an end.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

They were taking up a table at breakfast time when other passengers probably want to sit at those tables to eat … which is the main purpose of those tables. Since they had a room they could have played cards on the table in their room.

 

[Steve4031]

They were not kicked off for playing cards. They were kicked off for not following the directions of the conductor. I can see the crew's point on the tables being needed for breakfast. Though this was never stated. The conductor stating that they do not have to provide an explanation was not helpful. Perhaps an explanation was provided earlier and the women continued to argue. IMHO a conductor is not going to toss people off of a train and fill out a report if they can avoid it.

 

[joelkfla]

They deserved to be told what rule they were breaking. And they, and we, deserve an explanation and/or apology from Amtrak, instead of hiding behind a bogus privacy claim.

It would have taken little effort for the conductor to say, "I'm sorry, ladies, but you're getting a little bit too loud. Keep it down, or return to your rooms."

Or, "I'm sorry, ladies, but we have limited seating, and these tables are reserved for passengers who are eating."

Maybe Amtrak conductors need to start wearing bodycams.

 

[JoshP]

They deserved to be told what rule they were breaking. And they deserve an explananation and/or apology from Amtrak, instead of hiding behind a bogus privacy claim.

It would have taken little effort for the conductor to say, "I'm sorry, ladies, but you're getting a little bit too loud. Keep it down, or return to your rooms."

Or, "I'm sorry, ladies, but we have limited seating, and these tables are reserved for passengers who are eating."

Maybe Amtrak conductors need to start wearing bodycams.

Bodycams? Now are they police eh?

But the reasonable above should had been done but guess not.

 

[Palmland]

Don't forget the Crescent and the Capitol Limited. I think the Crescent might be the worst of the bunch, because everything is served out of the cafe car, and they apparently don't let people actually eat in the cafe car.

If this is accurate, not sure if they were taking up a table needed for passengers at breakfast.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

When we only have half of the story I suggest we take that side with a grain of salt.

Brean: “It sounds like, based on your story, you got kicked off because you were playing cards and asked questions.”
Scherzi: “You said it perfectly.”

By their own statements both sisters were playing cards in the "club car" but only one was told to leave the train by the conductor and police. If they both broke rule X but only one was threatened to be removed then it would appear that rule X was not the problem.

Brean: “The conductor of the train accused you of being what?”
Scherzi : “Drunk.”
Brean: “And?”
Scherzi: “Obnoxious.”
Brean: “And?”
Scherzi: “In her face.”

It sounds like public intoxication was Amtrak's reason. Both sisters were told to go be drunk in their room but one argued/refused and was kicked off. The other sister chose to disembark with her, which is perfectly understandable, but this detail is glossed over as "they kicked us off for playing cards."

 

[AmtrakBlue]

If this accurate, not sure if they were taking up a table needed for passengers at breakfast.

The CL doesn’t stop at CVS. It was probably the Crescent based on the time of day.

 

[zetharion]

Since Amtrak refuses to offer their explanation this doesn't look favorable for them regardless of the real reasons.

 

[JoshP]

I asked Amtrak directly via Twitter and I get this response

 

[toddinde]

I hope Amtrak conducts a solid, internal investigation. Kicking someone off a train is an extreme remedy. I agree we don’t have all the facts. It’s highly unlikely they were drunk and belligerent, but who knows. I’ve ridden enough trains to know full well there are some high handed conductors who can be full of themselves. I also believe that crews should not take up scarce lounge space as a work area. If this was about making more dining space for a breakfast crowd, I get it. But courtesy is the better approach. This is not the kind of publicity Amtrak needs.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I was on the Crescent in coach several years ago and a man across from me asked the Conductor why the coach ahead of us was closed. She snapped at him "If you don't like how I run my train you don't have to ride it" he continued to ask the question and she had him removed from the train. I saw the entire interaction - he never cussed, or made any threats and honestly he had an honest complaint, everyone was packed into 2 coaches when 3 coaches were on the train.

Also.. once on the Capitol Limited a Conductor came to my table in the Dining Car and told me "you're not supposed to be in here" and I replied... so am I supposed to leave and not pay my check?" - the LSA had basically forgot about me but somehow the Conductor was upset with me for still being in the dining car.

So yeah... I kinda belive the ladies version of the story.

 

[zephyr17]

I won't comment directly, but in my own travels, I have experienced:

"Little Tin God" conductors. Most are great, maybe 10 or 20% at the outside power trip of being the master of all they survey. I have come close to getting kicked off twice, but wisely backed off in time. Didn't mean they were right, they were petty and officious, but staying on the train trumped being "right" (I did privately call Customer Relations from my room on one of them, though).

Crews "homesteading" most of the tables. On my last trip on the Maple Leaf eastbound, all the tables in the cafe half of the cafe/business class car except one were posted "reserved" and had crew stuff all over them.

Crews blocking off the cafe seating in the lower level of Sightseers.

The issue in my mind is consistency. Tables needed for breakfast service? Fine, inform the passengers politely. Tables needed for crew to use to play with their phones? Set a standard on crew use of tables and enforce it. Passengers loud and drunk?One warning and off they go. Passengers disagreeing with the conductor in a civil tone? Conductors either continue the conversation or excuse themselves for other duties. None of the "If you don't like my train, you're not riding it" responses, I've heard myself and also overheard.

"Free range" crews and inconsistency are Amtrak's biggest problems that are wholly within its control. Amtrak management had shown absolutely no interest in addressing that for years.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I hope Amtrak conducts a solid, internal investigation. Kicking someone off a train is an extreme remedy. I agree we don’t have all the facts. It’s highly unlikely they were drunk and belligerent, but who knows.

Kicking drunks off trains and planes is a common remedy based on numerous posts and my own experiences. Usually you get one instruction to calm down or head back to your seat/room and if you comply that's usually the end of it. If you refuse or choose to argue then you risk being removed. If you act drunk and belligerent on a plane you can end up in the wrong city on a no-fly list facing enormous fines and federal charges. Compared to that these sisters got a slap on the wrist. I do support your suggestion of a full investigation however. The more we know about what happened the better.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

85 and 95 years old?

Whatever happened to treating older people with courtesy, respect, understanding, and compassion?

 

[jis]

85 and 95 years old?

Whatever happened to treating older people with courtesy, respect, understanding, and compassion?

Even when they are drunk, belligerent and disrespectful?

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

Even when they are drunk, belligerent and disrespectful?

No, of course not. But there’s no evidence they were, except from what Amtrak crew say.

 

[jis]

No, of course not. But there’s no evidence they were, except from what Amtrak crew say.

There is likewise no evidence that they were not except from themselves as far as I can tell

 

[Dutchrailnut]

the story is a one sided view of events, so whatever was said by Cdr or these ladies is reported by one side and subject to interpretation.

 

[lordsigma]

I think it’s important to consider both sides of every story before judging and if they were drunk and belligerent that’s a one way ticket off the train. I was recently on a train with a very belligerent and aggressive passenger who had to be ejected. Crew handled it very professionally until police arrived.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

No, of course not. But there’s no evidence they were, except from what Amtrak crew say.

If we're honest there is really no evidence in either direction, and because Amtrak does not record public areas (common on other passenger rail systems) we may never really know who did what or why. My grandfather was expressing some pretty hateful rhetoric at that age. He also struggled to see things objectively or remember what actually happened and a tiny amount of liquor would get him drunk.

I was on a train on Tuesday with a very belligerent and aggressive passenger who had to be ejected. Crew handled it very professionally until police arrived.

I've seen belligerent behavior in both directions and it's entirely possible both groups are in the wrong. Hard saying not knowing.

 

[Steve4031]

Even when they are drunk, belligerent and disrespectful?

And elderly people can be the last two without the aid of alcohol. I was traveling on the Coast Starlight with my father who did not think we should have to leave the parlor car for the wine tasting. I suggested we just get along with the crew. He insisted on staying. We were lucky we were not kicked off the train. I contributed to the confusion running through my mouth. But if I had been traveling alone I would have just left rather than get involved in a confrontation.

 

[joelkfla]

There is likewise no evidence that they were not except from themselves as far as I can tell

But at least they are telling their side. Amtrak chooses to remain silent. There is no evidence at all that they were disruptive, just their own telling of what the crew said and supposition here.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

[We] deserve an explanation and/or apology from Amtrak, instead of hiding behind a bogus privacy claim.

Since Amtrak refuses to offer their explanation this doesn't look favorable for them regardless of the real reasons.

But at least they are telling their side. Amtrak chooses to remain silent.

I don't understand these responses for two reasons. The first is that this is standard operating procedure for Amtrak and many other large companies. The second is that there is a lot to lose from responding too soon and having to walk it all back again. Consider what happened with UA3411. What pushed me over the edge was not that a passenger was beaten and bloodied before being dragged off the plane, but that the airline brass almost immediately declared that their staff had done absolutely nothing wrong and the airline would be exonerated from any judgement or blame. That claim aged horribly as more details emerged.