Unbelievable Southwest Chief Prices

[printman2000]

That's why I said ridership AND REVENUE.
Generally speaking, revenue is increasing faster than ridership. You can debate how much of that is just a function of overall higher prices versus opening at low bucket, but without any hard data to suggest otherwise Amtrak's revenue management seems to be having the desired outcome.

Yeah, your right.

However, I still highly doubt having these high prices 9-11 months out is contributing to it.

 

[AlanB]

If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms. I'm not sure if that's because some people just panic and think it's going to go even higher later, or if some just don't know the game, or what. But nonetheless with as proactive as revenue management has become with moving rooms around in the various buckets at various times, if this strategy wasn't selling any rooms, they would stop doing it. Of that I'm sure.<br />

 

[dlagrua]

I guess that it's come down to: if you can afford the prices you buy and if not you walk.

 

[printman2000]

If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms. I'm not sure if that's because some people just panic and think it's going to go even higher later, or if some just don't know the game, or what. But nonetheless with as proactive as revenue management has become with moving rooms around in the various buckets at various times, if this strategy wasn't selling any rooms, they would stop doing it. Of that I'm sure.<br />

You have a lot more faith than I do.

I could easily see that this is the way they tried it at some point and it is still happening simply because no one ever changed it back.

 

[AlanB]

I guess that it's come down to: if you can afford the prices you buy and if not you walk.

Or you wait for the prices to come down as they almost always do, except maybe around Thanksgiving & Christmas.

 

[AlanB]

If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms. I'm not sure if that's because some people just panic and think it's going to go even higher later, or if some just don't know the game, or what. But nonetheless with as proactive as revenue management has become with moving rooms around in the various buckets at various times, if this strategy wasn't selling any rooms, they would stop doing it. Of that I'm sure.

You have a lot more faith than I do.

I could easily see that this is the way they tried it at some point and it is still happening simply because no one ever changed it back.

It's not faith.

 

[printman2000]

If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms. I'm not sure if that's because some people just panic and think it's going to go even higher later, or if some just don't know the game, or what. But nonetheless with as proactive as revenue management has become with moving rooms around in the various buckets at various times, if this strategy wasn't selling any rooms, they would stop doing it. Of that I'm sure.

You have a lot more faith than I do.

I could easily see that this is the way they tried it at some point and it is still happening simply because no one ever changed it back.

It's not faith.

So you have first hand knowledge of this particular issue on this particular train? If so, I would love to know how many rooms they actually sell at this rate.

(Alan, I am not being snide with you, just trying to understand)

 

[Ryan]

I think that this is another one of those cases when Alan says "I know what I'm talking about" he actually knows what he's talking about.

It's probably also another one of these cases where broadcasting exactly what he knows and why he knows it to the whole internet isn't appropriate.

 

[printman2000]

I think that this is another one of those cases when Alan says "I know what I'm talking about" he actually knows what he's talking about.
It's probably also another one of these cases where broadcasting exactly what he knows and why he knows it to the whole internet isn't appropriate.

And that is fine. I would assume he would tell me if that were the case, though.

 

[Ryan]

You've got to read between the lines.

Disclaimer: I've got no idea what Alan knows and doesn't know. All I know is that when he makes a bold declarative statement like "It's not faith", I'm going to push the "I believe" button and not ask questions.

 

[SarahZ]

Printman, read between the lines. It's not faith so much as logic.

"If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms."

If Amtrak weren't selling any rooms at that price, they'd stop, but they haven't. Therefore, it's easy to assume they ARE selling rooms for that price.

A = B

It's a basic business model. If nobody bought rooms at that price, they'd lower the prices. The fact that they open at that price year after year shows at least a few people purchase them for that price. Otherwise, Amtrak would skip straight to the lower price.

 

[printman2000]

You've got to read between the lines.
Disclaimer: I've got no idea what Alan knows and doesn't know. All I know is that when he makes a bold declarative statement like "It's not faith", I'm going to push the "I believe" button and not ask questions.

Sorry, Ryan, while I understand what you are saying, I need to hear more from Alan. What he said could mean "I know this is how revenue management generally operates" or he could have meant "I know this is how revenue management is operating on this train". Big difference. That is why I am asking for clarification.

And, if he does not want to speak publicly, he can certainly send me a message.

 

[printman2000]

Printman, read between the lines. It's not faith so much as logic.
"If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms."

If Amtrak weren't selling any rooms at that price, they'd stop, but they haven't. Therefore, it's easy to assume they ARE selling rooms for that price.

A = B

It's a basic business model. If nobody bought rooms at that price, they'd lower the prices. The fact that they open at that price year after year shows at least a few people purchase them for that price. Otherwise, Amtrak would skip straight to the lower price.

Again, that would assume there were people doing their jobs well. I have no reason to believe that because prices are high, they must be selling rooms. Like I said, maybe it was set that way a year ago and they have never really looked at it again.

Maybe it is. I just have nothing from my experience to prove that other than what Alan says. While I do trust Alan and what he knows, I am just trying to clarify what he knows.

 

[dlagrua]

In conclusion, the issue then, is one of supply and demand, but as I stated in another post, the taxpayer is funding Amtrak to a point. Whether you agree that government should be in the "for profit" business or not is bound to influence ones opinion on what the ticket prices should look like. One side of the argument is that Amtrak isn't making a profit but the other argument is what do we get in return for our tax dollars? The question is a difficult one to answer.

I regularly use the service, wish to see Amtrak survive and grow, but when I am already forking over 50-60% or my income ( in all the combined taxes that I pay) the least that should be expected of government, is an attempt to keep ticket prices affordable. The bigger problem is that the hatred of passenger trains in Washington runs rampant. Amtrak doesn't spend millions lobbying congress, so politicians derive no benefit from it. Its all about the money and who can support election campaigns

 

[SarahZ]

Printman, read between the lines. It's not faith so much as logic.
"If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms."

If Amtrak weren't selling any rooms at that price, they'd stop, but they haven't. Therefore, it's easy to assume they ARE selling rooms for that price.

A = B

It's a basic business model. If nobody bought rooms at that price, they'd lower the prices. The fact that they open at that price year after year shows at least a few people purchase them for that price. Otherwise, Amtrak would skip straight to the lower price.

Again, that would assume there were people doing their jobs well. I have no reason to believe that because prices are high, they must be selling rooms. Like I said, maybe it was set that way a year ago and they have never really looked at it again.

Maybe it is. I just have nothing from my experience to prove that other than what Alan says. While I do trust Alan and what he knows, I am just trying to clarify what he knows.

Fair enough.

 

[gmushial]

Printman, read between the lines. It's not faith so much as logic.
"If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms."

If Amtrak weren't selling any rooms at that price, they'd stop, but they haven't. Therefore, it's easy to assume they ARE selling rooms for that price.

A = B

It's a basic business model. If nobody bought rooms at that price, they'd lower the prices. The fact that they open at that price year after year shows at least a few people purchase them for that price. Otherwise, Amtrak would skip straight to the lower price.

Again, that would assume there were people doing their jobs well. I have no reason to believe that because prices are high, they must be selling rooms. Like I said, maybe it was set that way a year ago and they have never really looked at it again.

Maybe it is. I just have nothing from my experience to prove that other than what Alan says. While I do trust Alan and what he knows, I am just trying to clarify what he knows.

Maybe via email, ie, not in a public forum, he'd be able to say more.... you might try such and see what happens.

But along the same lines, it would be nice to see afterthefact real numbers in terms of what they sell and for how much - my special interest is the CZ.

 

[AlanB]

So you have first hand knowledge of this particular issue on this particular train? If so, I would love to know how many rooms they actually sell at this rate.
(Alan, I am not being snide with you, just trying to understand)

Did you even provide a particular date? I don't recall seeing anything; so I couldn't have had that checked.

But that said, there was a recent post over at FT where someone made similar complaints regarding the AT. I'm not going to get into details, but I will say that I know that rooms were sold at the high bucket for that train.

Again, revenue management has been very proactive of late. They're not resting on their heels at all. The quantities of both seats and sleepers in each bucket on all trains are routinely rearranged based upon sales and available inventory. Things will move up or down as needed so as to maximize revenue, while still trying not to hurt ridership.

 

[gmushial]

So you have first hand knowledge of this particular issue on this particular train? If so, I would love to know how many rooms they actually sell at this rate.
(Alan, I am not being snide with you, just trying to understand)

Did you even provide a particular date? I don't recall seeing anything; so I couldn't have had that checked.

But that said, there was a recent post over at FT where someone made similar complaints regarding the AT. I'm not going to get into details, but I will say that I know that rooms were sold at the high bucket for that train.

Again, revenue management has been very proactive of late. They're not resting on their heels at all. The quantities of both seats and sleepers in each bucket on all trains are routinely rearranged based upon sales and available inventory. Things will move up or down as needed so as to maximize revenue, while still trying not to hurt ridership.

Sounds like a younger, more data driven management team... if they can walk that fine line, where they in fact maximize (or at least improved) the bottom line; while not alienating future potential customers... that would be a win-win for all.

 

[printman2000]

So you have first hand knowledge of this particular issue on this particular train? If so, I would love to know how many rooms they actually sell at this rate.

(Alan, I am not being snide with you, just trying to understand)

Did you even provide a particular date? I don't recall seeing anything; so I couldn't have had that checked.

But that said, there was a recent post over at FT where someone made similar complaints regarding the AT. I'm not going to get into details, but I will say that I know that rooms were sold at the high bucket for that train.

Again, revenue management has been very proactive of late. They're not resting on their heels at all. The quantities of both seats and sleepers in each bucket on all trains are routinely rearranged based upon sales and available inventory. Things will move up or down as needed so as to maximize revenue, while still trying not to hurt ridership.

I was not referring to a particular day. I just meant the Southwest Chief and how prices are opening high and staying that way for 3 or so months. So what I meant is do you know for certain what you know also applies to the Southwest Chief?

 

[AlanB]

I was not referring to a particular day. I just meant the Southwest Chief and how prices are opening high and staying that way for 3 or so months. So what I meant is do you know for certain what you know also applies to the Southwest Chief?

The same revenue management rules apply to all trains, which is why some start out high while others don't. Have I looked specifically at the SWC to see if rooms sold this week for 11 months out at high bucket? NO. But the fact that it is opening with largely only high buckets means that it must be selling rooms. If it wasn't selling them right after the sales start, then like some other trains it wouldn't be opening at high bucket prices.

 

[chakk]

And if Amtrak upper management really wanted to get rid of some LD trains, they could direct the rate department to set fares at high bucket, and then if no one bought up the tickets, management could use that result to justify train-off petitions.

So the real proof of the pudding is to look at the ridership statistics. Have the number of passengers on the SWC declined substantially since the agressive revenue management operation was rolled out? If the answer to this question is "No", then the Amtrak managers may well be correct to continue this procedure.

 

[gmushial]

And if Amtrak upper management really wanted to get rid of some LD trains, they could direct the rate department to set fares at high bucket, and then if no one bought up the tickets, management could use that result to justify train-off petitions.
So the real proof of the pudding is to look at the ridership statistics. Have the number of passengers on the SWC declined substantially since the agressive revenue management operation was rolled out? If the answer to this question is "No", then the Amtrak managers may well be correct to continue this procedure.

Such takes care of the short-term bottom line... but potentially adversely affects longer term ridership, ie, the never taken an Amtrak LD, with low bucket prices lower or more readily available, might be more willing to test the waters, but if they're faced with higher prices, then testing the waters becomes more difficult and as such potentially precludes a "possible" from becoming a 'believer." Again, as a company owner, we're always worrying about making this quarter fat, at the expense of multiple quarters down the road... and luckily being privately owned, can and do plan and execute for the long term, assuming that the short term in 90 days will be history and forgotten.

 

[AlanB]

And if Amtrak upper management really wanted to get rid of some LD trains, they could direct the rate department to set fares at high bucket, and then if no one bought up the tickets, management could use that result to justify train-off petitions.

So the real proof of the pudding is to look at the ridership statistics. Have the number of passengers on the SWC declined substantially since the agressive revenue management operation was rolled out? If the answer to this question is "No", then the Amtrak managers may well be correct to continue this procedure.

Such takes care of the short-term bottom line... but potentially adversely affects longer term ridership, ie, the never taken an Amtrak LD, with low bucket prices lower or more readily available, might be more willing to test the waters, but if they're faced with higher prices, then testing the waters becomes more difficult and as such potentially precludes a "possible" from becoming a 'believer." Again, as a company owner, we're always worrying about making this quarter fat, at the expense of multiple quarters down the road... and luckily being privately owned, can and do plan and execute for the long term, assuming that the short term in 90 days will be history and forgotten.

While that may be true, most first timers aren't looking to buy 11 months out. That's probably more people who are regulars and used to know that the trick for getting the best fare was to book early. Yes there might be a few who would book that early, but I don't think that its a huge number.

 

[calwatch]

Generally the best time to buy airfare is one to two months out, so this is reasonable. The only time you would want to book early is if there was an artificial limit on the number of spots available, such as the Portland sleeper or the Cardinal - but then you could tell how many had sold with the "Only X Rooms Left" banner.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Generally the best time to buy airfare is one to two months out, so this is reasonable. The only time you would want to book early is if there was an artificial limit on the number of spots available, such as the Portland sleeper or the Cardinal - but then you could tell how many had sold with the "Only X Rooms Left" banner.

I've noticed the X Rooms Left flag only comes up when inventory is low, say 3 or 4 accommodations left. Another trick is to test book for 8 pax and see how many Rooms come up.