What will Amtrak do with $800M?

[Larry H.]

I tried to point out some time ago that Sleepers or "Pullman Service" as it used to be considered here was only about one half more than the price of a coach ticket till someone decided that having a sleeper was a tuned to becoming royalty. When I did the comparisons it showed that you now are charged 18 times for a room what the cost would have been before amtrak took over in comparison to the coach ticket. This is not a mistake, its easily seen when studying old fare schedules. Somewhere along the line we lost what the Europeans still enjoy, a reasonable price for using a sleeper. What makes it worse the incredible loss of amenities that might have endeared the somewhat higher cost, but when your removing the lounges, first class diners, many of the nice surroundings and then raising the prices though the roof, well its beyond belief to me. I know it isn't to others.

And I often make the point that sleepers are currently cheaper than they ever have been! Only the highest bucket prices approach the overall cost for 2 people to travel by sleeper, and that's not including the fact that meals are included!

Amtrak coach is subsidized and much cheaper than ever, by a long shot. Before Amtrak started playing with fares and lowering prices, and so on, in mid 1971- according to the November timetable, a ride to Chicago in coach cost $51.25, and $98.11 in a roomette, one person. Keep in mind neither price includes meals. In today's cost that was $259.69 (as of 2007- its probably even more now) for coach and $497.14 for a roomette.

Today, that same fare for Chicago is $80-157 for coach ($179.69-102.69 less) and $257-494 for a roomette ($240.14 - 3.14 less). So even at the highest bucket, the prices are cheaper than they were 38 years ago. AND THEY INCLUDE MEALS. Priced for the rich and elite? My gluteus maximus!

And guess what? If you wanted to put 2 people in roomettes back then, ya needed two of them at $497.14 today's money each. I think the Bedroom back then cost more, but I don't have the bedroom pricing handy. So to travel with two people in first class accomodation then cost $994.28 today's money. But today? Well you need one (1) roomette and two (2) railfares. For a cost range of $337-577 which is between $417.28 and $657.28 less

Don't get me wrong- I'd love sleepers to be cheaper. But don't fall into the trap that sleepers are more expensive then they once were. They are, in fact, cheaper. It's just that sleepers are a little cheaper than they used to be, and coach is a lot cheaper than it used to be.

Cheaper may be in the eye of the beholder. Some how the prices then didn't seem quite as out of reach as they are today. Perhaps being on the low end of the salary scale all my life I didn't keep up with inflation. I would also guess that as things have been going in the past with jobs being eliminated and sent abroad, that many others are not feeling so flush either. If you recall the schedule put up from the early 50's bedrooms were only half more than a coach fare. ( I am not arguing wether I think its right or wrong as a policy). But in real terms when I divided todays fares by those old rate ratios it came up 18 times higher than it was compared to coach in that pre amtrak era. So I would say it is inflation in that respect. And in no way reflects the per Amtrak theory that sleeper service was a option that easily could be afforded by by the masses without costing 18 times the coach fare for the same trip. That isn't to say that it may not be a bargain in many peoples eyes. I for one do not think so.

 

[Neil_M]

Er, you're right, I meant Nice. It's been so long since I did this... it was the night train from Nice to Paris, which I took I think in 1994.

No problem. Even a long distance trip like Paris to Nice only takes just over 5 hours for 700 miles, so the sleeper services are not as numerous as they once were. In the summer the Paris to Nice TGVs are about every 2 hours and very full.

 

[Neil_M]

That isn't to say that it may not be a bargain in many peoples eyes. I for one do not think so.

I just picked a random date at the beginning of March for 2 people travelling from Chicago to Emeryville in a bedroom. $1461. That's an awful lot of money no matter which way you approach it, and no matter how much it cost 20 or 30 years ago.

To anyone not interested in rail travel, you may as well have 2 nights either end of your journey in a really really good hotel and bag yourself a cheapish airline seat and put up with being squashed for 5 or 6 hours. If Amtrak can sell the room at that price then fair play to them, but does paying top dollar get you a better class of service than someone who paid low bucket?

 

[Ispolkom]

At the moment, Amtrak sleepers are a pretty elitist thing; the general traveler going from A to B can't afford a sleeper; only those on expense accounts or those with money for an Amtrak holiday. While these people are important, with more sleepers, it would no longer be necessary to price off demand, and therefore the price of sleepers could drop, and bring the cost within reach of the general American - perhaps making his or her journey by sleeper cheaper than flying (which isn't that damned cheap).

Or, of course, those travelers who are so boring that they can plan their vacations 11 months ahead of time.

Like you say, the big problem that Amtrak has is its success. In the summer the Empire Builder (and I imagine the other western trains) could easily fill double their sleepers, and probably 25-50% more of their coaches. While I'm not so familiar with the single-deck trains, I found last month that on #48 for 11/21 all bedrooms and all but three roomettes were already booked!

Alas, even with all the money and good will in the world, I imagine that it will take years to sort this out. How quickly can new sleepers be produced? I'd scoff at Amtrak's priority for baggage cars and diners if I hadn't seen several last Christmas in Chicago, filled with snow because their doors were stuck open, and I'd hate to imagine keeping a 50-60 year-old Heritage diner in service. But given the time to agree on plans, let the contract, and actually have cars built, is it reasonable to expect much improvement before 2011-2012?

 

[printman2000]

Or, of course, those travelers who are so boring that they can plan their vacations 11 months ahead of time.

I am sorry, how does planning 11 months out make you "boring"? There are many people who have no choice but to pick there days off far in advance. Not sure how that makes them boring.

 

[Ispolkom]

Or, of course, those travelers who are so boring that they can plan their vacations 11 months ahead of time.

I am sorry, how does planning 11 months out make you "boring"? There are many people who have no choice but to pick there days off far in advance. Not sure how that makes them boring.

I have often been told there is something to be said for spontaneity. I will leave that to others. In any case, I would never refer to another traveler as boring. I was referring to myself. Later in the post I described how I myself was disturbed to find limited pickings 11 months out on the eastbound Lake Shore Limited.

Self-deprecation is very popular in the upper Midwest.

In any case, those of us who can plan far ahead of time do leave slimmer pickings for those with greater responsibilities.

 

[birdy]

Re: Sleepers. Amtrak seems to have no trouble selling them for the long bucks. therefore, I think they should charge what the market will bear. That should be a price signal to Amtrak to do more sleeper service and probably better diner car service. Perhaps some improvements could be made after all these years to make them more efficient. Not high tech stuff, to be sure, but a matter of following the market.

 

[Larry H.]

Re: Sleepers. Amtrak seems to have no trouble selling them for the long bucks. therefore, I think they should charge what the market will bear. That should be a price signal to Amtrak to do more sleeper service and probably better diner car service. Perhaps some improvements could be made after all these years to make them more efficient. Not high tech stuff, to be sure, but a matter of following the market.

Your right about the sleepers, what few there are, selling well. Now is that because the person who wishes to travel by train is so willing to pay that price? Or is it because its the only game in town and the price keeps going up. I don't buy the "well people pay for them so the price is fine theory". Did any one want to pay over 4.00 a gallon for gasoline? Or do you prefer it being closer to 1.50? You pay because you want to be able to get a good nights rest and granted a bit more comfort but not necessarily because you think the price is right. I see a number of people on the sleepers that I am positive could have easily used there money to a better purpose but had to make the trip and would have found coach in there situations nearly impossible. I still content that as a "people" subsidized service some consideration should be given to cost and not charge every last cent someone is willing to pay. I know that if your a well heeled rail fan and money means nothing, you can easily say "well its just the way it is", but that doesn't make the price seem very reasonable, no matter what inflation may say. I agree with the poster that quoted the bedroom fares to california. It is a major expense no matter how one looks at it, unless money is no object.

 

[printman2000]

Larry, I believe you and I have disagreed on this point in the past, so I do not want to rehash it all again. While we disagree, I do appreciate your position.

For me (who thinks they should charge what the market will pay), if I cannot afford it (which is often), I do not go. If I were in a position where I HAD to travel, I would do whatever I had to do, even if I had to travel in coach.

If I HAD to go on a long international flight (airlines are subsidized, too), should I demand that the lay flat seats be affordable?

I have said this before and I will say it again, if sleeper prices were much lower, they would be filled to capacity in no time. Then that last-minute-have-to-travel-person would not even have the option of a sleeper.

 

[sky12065]

Re: Sleepers. Amtrak seems to have no trouble selling them for the long bucks. therefore, I think they should charge what the market will bear. That should be a price signal to Amtrak to do more sleeper service and probably better diner car service. Perhaps some improvements could be made after all these years to make them more efficient. Not high tech stuff, to be sure, but a matter of following the market.

Your right about the sleepers, what few there are, selling well. Now is that because the person who wishes to travel by train is so willing to pay that price? Or is it because its the only game in town and the price keeps going up. I don't buy the "well people pay for them so the price is fine theory". Did any one want to pay over 4.00 a gallon for gasoline? Or do you prefer it being closer to 1.50? You pay because you want to be able to get a good nights rest and granted a bit more comfort but not necessarily because you think the price is right. I see a number of people on the sleepers that I am positive could have easily used there money to a better purpose but had to make the trip and would have found coach in there situations nearly impossible. I still content that as a "people" subsidized service some consideration should be given to cost and not charge every last cent someone is willing to pay. I know that if your a well heeled rail fan and money means nothing, you can easily say "well its just the way it is", but that doesn't make the price seem very reasonable, no matter what inflation may say. I agree with the poster that quoted the bedroom fares to california. It is a major expense no matter how one looks at it, unless money is no object.

Larry, I agree with what you say. Not withstanding the laws of supply and demand, to me providing a service at the best price possible is good customer service, however to go for the highest price that the market will bear is just plain greed, not good customer service. Our nation's current financial situation certainly shows what money + greed results in! If better service is wanted then a greater price would be warranted with the deliverance of better service, but to say that prices should be maxed then hope for better service just doesn't fly in my book!

 

[printman2000]

to go for the highest price that the market will bear is just plain greed, not good customer service.

I would say that is good business, not greed. That is what the law of supply and demand is, get the most you can while still selling all of your product. That is what Amtrak is doing.

Something I think we can all agree with is that Amtrak should have more supply. If that were so, I suspect the prices would go down (because of the law of supply and demand). But lowering prices right now with Amtrak's current supply would mean sold out sleepers 10 months in advance.

 

[sky12065]

to go for the highest price that the market will bear is just plain greed, not good customer service.

I would say that is good business, not greed. That is what the law of supply and demand is, get the most you can while still selling all of your product. That is what Amtrak is doing.

Something I think we can all agree with is that Amtrak should have more supply. If that were so, I suspect the prices would go down (because of the law of supply and demand). But lowering prices right now with Amtrak's current supply would mean sold out sleepers 10 months in advance.

I agree completely with your second paragraph, however I respectfully disagree with you on your description of "that is what the law of supply and demand is." The law of supply and demand is primarily about an effect and not necessarily about an objective. At least that was the impression and understanding I got when I took economics in college! Also, If I gave the impression that I feel that sleeper prices should be lowered at this time, I apologize. Although I would like that to happen like probably most others would, it wasn't my intention to actually suggest that it should. :blush:

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Your greed comment would have validity if Amtrak was profitable. But it isn't. The sleepers make a small profit on their over-the-rails expense, but not much of one. Amtrak isn't greedy. They are doing what they have been doing for the past 39 years: trying to demonstrate they have a purpose for existing.

If Amtrak cut the price of the sleepers, they'd lose money on them. If they lose money on them directly, they are gone.

 

[printman2000]

I agree completely with your second paragraph, however I respectfully disagree with you on your description of "that is what the law of supply and demand is." The law of supply and demand is primarily about an effect and not necessarily about an objective. At least that was the impression and understanding I got when I took economics in college! Also, If I gave the impression that I feel that sleeper prices should be lowered at this time, I apologize. Although I would like that to happen like probably most others would, it wasn't my intention to actually suggest that it should. :blush:

Okay, I am not an economics major either. You are probably right about the "law of S & P".

Here is what I believe Amtrak should be doing...

Filling sleepers while maximizing revenue. It seems to me they are doing that pretty well right now. Some trains are sold out while other still have a few rooms available at departure time.

 

[sky12065]

Your greed comment would have validity if Amtrak was profitable. But it isn't. The sleepers make a small profit on their over-the-rails expense, but not much of one. Amtrak isn't greedy. They are doing what they have been doing for the past 39 years: trying to demonstrate they have a purpose for existing.
If Amtrak cut the price of the sleepers, they'd lose money on them. If they lose money on them directly, they are gone.

:huh: I was speaking in generalities and not Amtrak specific. Otherwise I agree with what you've stated!

 

[sky12065]

I agree completely with your second paragraph, however I respectfully disagree with you on your description of "that is what the law of supply and demand is." The law of supply and demand is primarily about an effect and not necessarily about an objective. At least that was the impression and understanding I got when I took economics in college! Also, If I gave the impression that I feel that sleeper prices should be lowered at this time, I apologize. Although I would like that to happen like probably most others would, it wasn't my intention to actually suggest that it should. :blush:

Okay, I am not an economics major either. You are probably right about the "law of S & P".

Here is what I believe Amtrak should be doing...

Filling sleepers while maximizing revenue. It seems to me they are doing that pretty well right now. Some trains are sold out while other still have a few rooms available at departure time.

So you have "Standards & Poors" on your mind?

If by "maximizing revenue" you mean a goal of cost + reasonable profit then I agree. When I refer to "greed" I am referring to those who would go for cost + all the profit they can squeeze out of you... which to me is ripping off the consumer. Amtrak I agree is doing pretty well right now!

In conclusion we are probably thinking basicly the same, but one of us is on the steam engine end of the train and the other is on the caboose at the end of the train with the steam cloud pouring out of the smoke stack blocking each others views! :lol:

 

[printman2000]

If by "maximizing revenue" you mean a goal of cost + reasonable profit then I agree. When I refer to "greed" I am referring to those who would go for cost + all the profit they can squeeze out of you... which to me is ripping off the consumer. Amtrak I agree is doing pretty well right now!

There is no way in the world to define reasonable profit. Everyone would say a different amount. I would define reasonable profit differently. No, I would not say "all they can squeeze from you."

I would word it as the most profit they can get and still fill up the sleepers. That is the way business is run. I guess they mean the same thing, but one is worded as business would word it.

 

[jphjaxfl]

The other significant difference between Amtrak Sleeping Car Service and pre Amtrak Sleeping Car service is the type of service you receive. Even when private railroads were downgrading passenger service, if the train still carried a Sleeping car, the service provided on that car was excellent. Since most the Sleeping Car attendants were trained by Pullman, they were very attentive. Shoes placed the overnight compartment were shined when you woke up in the morning. The attendant was very knowledgeable about the train, the route of the train and could answer just about any question a passenger might ask. Nearly all the attendants were very customer friendly. They would offer to provide meals in your room or even cocktails from the lounge. Of course they received sizeable tips for their excellant service. In recent years, the Sleeping Car attendants are very hit or miss. There have been a few excellant ones, a fair number that are mediocre and quite a few attendants that provided almost no service. For those of us who remember, the fine service one received when traveling in a Sleeping Car, Amtrak's Sleeping car seems to be over price based on the value of what you receive compared to pre Amtrak.

 

[sky12065]

If by "maximizing revenue" you mean a goal of cost + reasonable profit then I agree. When I refer to "greed" I am referring to those who would go for cost + all the profit they can squeeze out of you... which to me is ripping off the consumer. Amtrak I agree is doing pretty well right now!

There is no way in the world to define reasonable profit. Everyone would say a different amount. I would define reasonable profit differently. No, I would not say "all they can squeeze from you."

I would word it as the most profit they can get and still fill up the sleepers. That is the way business is run. I guess they mean the same thing, but one is worded as business would word it.

I guess then that we'll have to agree to disagree! The readers can decide for themselves!

 

[printman2000]

I guess then that we'll have to agree to disagree!

Sorry, I disagree with you about that.

Just kidding.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The other significant difference between Amtrak Sleeping Car Service and pre Amtrak Sleeping Car service is the type of service you receive. Even when private railroads were downgrading passenger service, if the train still carried a Sleeping car, the service provided on that car was excellent. Since most the Sleeping Car attendants were trained by Pullman, they were very attentive. Shoes placed the overnight compartment were shined when you woke up in the morning. The attendant was very knowledgeable about the train, the route of the train and could answer just about any question a passenger might ask. Nearly all the attendants were very customer friendly. They would offer to provide meals in your room or even cocktails from the lounge. Of course they received sizeable tips for their excellant service. In recent years, the Sleeping Car attendants are very hit or miss. There have been a few excellant ones, a fair number that are mediocre and quite a few attendants that provided almost no service. For those of us who remember, the fine service one received when traveling in a Sleeping Car, Amtrak's Sleeping car seems to be over price based on the value of what you receive compared to pre Amtrak.

That's not an Amtrak thing. That's a world thing. Give me other places where you get top grade service out of pride and training! Nobody does good work anymore. Nobody has pride in their job. I'd say Amtrak's attendants are better than average. Compared to 50 years ago? Irrelevant. People don't do anything right anymore.

Lets remove Amtrak and focus elsewhere for a second. Name one company that builds a good automobile. What's a good automobile? As such:

Solidly engineered- All items that don't have to be wear items aren't- and that includes valve-train timing gear. Car can go 200,000 miles with basic oil, filter, fluid, and wiper blade changes alone. (On sale in 1995, I can think of about 2 dozen cars that qualify. On sale today, I can think of 3- the Volvo S60, the Lincoln Town Car, and the Mercury Grand Marquis)

Assembled properly- you don't find any butchered welds, paint runs, paint drips, orange peel paint, parts that break off easily, squeaks, rattles, or creaks. (On this alone we can probably eliminate 90% of cars sold now)

Good ergonomics- you can get in the car and simply drive it. You can access all basic features of the car necessary to adjust to, be comfortable in, and drive safely.

Comfortable seats- Seats comfortably accommodate 95% of drivers. Allow you to drive the car for 6 hours or more without severe back pain. Provide sufficient support for moderate cornering. (In 1995, just about every car Mercedes, Volvo, Saab, BMW, Volkswagen, Audi, Honda, and Subaru made got this right. Nowadays, the only company I know of that actually gets this right is Volvo.)

No major design mistakes- People are not liable to bang their head getting in or out, are not likely to hurt themselves inside the car, opening doors, closing doors, opening the hood, closing the hood, opening the trunk, closing the trunk, or utilizing any interior components that reasonable use requires. (It is honestly unbelievable, but I can't think of a car on the road right now that fits in here!)

This is where humanity goes. Bad decisions, bad design, bad execution, and bad bloody service!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Having plentiful legroom in every seat for someone of my size is also something most modern automobiles fail at. Though I've been in a VW that was surprisingly decent in the back seat compared to any of the competition.

The GMC Suburban certainly got this right in 1985. I haven't carefully checked out the newer body style models to see how they compare.

 

[Larry H.]

Your greed comment would have validity if Amtrak was profitable. But it isn't. The sleepers make a small profit on their over-the-rails expense, but not much of one. Amtrak isn't greedy. They are doing what they have been doing for the past 39 years: trying to demonstrate they have a purpose for existing.
If Amtrak cut the price of the sleepers, they'd lose money on them. If they lose money on them directly, they are gone.

The difference in our thinking here is that Amtrak is not going to be a profitable business, its a hoax promoted by congress people who wish to stop all rail service. IE, if it doesn't pay for it self we don't need it. Well they don't claim that about highways conveniently. You an I both know that rail is subsidized the world over.

Yes and to the other comment about service. Well in some instances it is quite true. In others such as Cruise lines, better hotels, restaurants, service still is considered the norm. Service on amtrak is poor because it is not properly supervised in my opinion.

 

[Larry H.]

If by "maximizing revenue" you mean a goal of cost + reasonable profit then I agree. When I refer to "greed" I am referring to those who would go for cost + all the profit they can squeeze out of you... which to me is ripping off the consumer. Amtrak I agree is doing pretty well right now!

There is no way in the world to define reasonable profit. Everyone would say a different amount. I would define reasonable profit differently. No, I would not say "all they can squeeze from you."

I would word it as the most profit they can get and still fill up the sleepers. That is the way business is run. I guess they mean the same thing, but one is worded as business would word it.

Your right, we don't always or even often agree, it may be a age difference perhaps. If we really want a successful rail service then the idea of many sleepers filled should be a natural to me. To think that one might sell out too soon, so we better price them higher only supports the idea that they are priced too high if lots more would ride if they weren't. Maybe that is why in the old days they could run whole trains of only sleepers.. If price were the guiding decision, then they would have only needed one car as well.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Your greed comment would have validity if Amtrak was profitable. But it isn't. The sleepers make a small profit on their over-the-rails expense, but not much of one. Amtrak isn't greedy. They are doing what they have been doing for the past 39 years: trying to demonstrate they have a purpose for existing.
If Amtrak cut the price of the sleepers, they'd lose money on them. If they lose money on them directly, they are gone.

The difference in our thinking here is that Amtrak is not going to be a profitable business, its a hoax promoted by congress people who wish to stop all rail service. IE, if it doesn't pay for it self we don't need it. Well they don't claim that about highways conveniently. You an I both know that rail is subsidized the world over.

[Yes and to the other comment about service. Well in some instances it is quite true. In others such as Cruise lines, better hotels, restaurants, service still is considered the norm. Service on amtrak is poor because it is not properly supervised in my opinion.]

I agree with you. I travel a great deal on business mostly by air and stay at better hotels. The service in first class on airlines is similar to the service in pre Amtrak Sleeping Cars. The same is true of better hotels and restaurants. Many times even mid tier hotels like Marriott Courtyard have excellent service. Their Staff is well trained, pleasant, is able to answer most questions. I feel like I am getting the service I am paying for. That is not true in Amtrak's Sleeping Cars...it is a premium price with very little service. It has nothing to do with 2009 vs 1969, but the culture of the organization. I have often wondered why Amtrak doesn't contract with Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt etc to operate their Sleeping and Dining Cars. It would be similar to what was done with Pullman.