Why is Amtrak coach more expensive than flying?

[Green Maned Lion]

The answer is a system similar to Englands Benefit In Kind tax, London's Congestion charging, fair toll pricing for roadways, and a 2-300% gas tax directing a designated mass transit fund.

The problem to the answer is that Democracy, by its very nature, must support the current wants of the under-educated, relatively unintelligent masses, rather than the long-term needs of society. Nobody wants to pay $15.00 a gallon, nor do they want to put 10% of their cars new purchase price into a tax each year, nor do they want to pay fair toll prices for roads. So we are stuck in a trap of our own creation.

 

[jis]

Well, given the way Amtrak simply decided to pay replace concrete tiles in the NE corridor that broke 40 year too early (rather than having the company that built them replace them as was guaranteed),

Could you enlighten us on how you get a bankrupt/non-existent company to replace ties? Ever bothered to check into what actually happened?

 

[acelafan]

Well, given the way Amtrak simply decided to pay replace concrete tiles in the NE corridor that broke 40 year too early (rather than having the company that built them replace them as was guaranteed),

Could you enlighten us on how you get a bankrupt/non-existent company to replace ties? Ever bothered to check into what actually happened?

JIS is correct. The tie manufacturer provided new ties but Amtrak is installing them using their own workforce, according to the previous Amtrak IG.

 

[MrFSS]

You guys realize this original thread is over a year old. Some guest re-opened it with a snide remark.

 

[jmbgeg]

With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.
My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.

If the government subsidizes Amtrak now, how would you to expect them to operate with a 50% reduction in coach revenues, especially when a lot of routes have close to full trains?

I have not typically seen Amtrak coach fares higher than airline coach. YMMV.

I have seen long distance Amtrak deluxe bedroom fares equal to or higher than first class airfare on the same route, but that's not an apples and apples comparison, and I am willing to pay sleeper rates to enjoy long distance train experience instead of the rushed airline gauntlet.

 

[the Other Mike]

As a fat person, it's much cheaper to take the train !!!!!!

 

[NETrainfan]

With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.
My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.

For us, air travel is not appealing and train travel has been very good with some excellent customer service during problematic times. We like the freedom of walking around the train, getting off to stretch, food choices etc. The trains are friendly and relaxing.

Two of my relatives recently had poor customer service by airlines. One was stranded in D.C. and the airline didn't even offer snacks or food for a 24 hour delay and they had to find their own hotel!!!! On the other hand, when Amtrak had a delay in April in D.C., we were called into a room, given instructions about the changes, and put on a bus to Baltimore and then put on the Acela to Boston at no extra cost. The customer service was so good that I wrote to my Congressman to tell him.

Also, some years back we had a long delay on Amtrak from Florida- got to Boston at midnight and Amtrak paid for a taxi for 4 of us to Portland, ME. We were very pleased.

We prefer trains and ships.

 

[jis]

Much worse, however, are corridor routes, where Amtrak charges much higher fares than bus operators on the same route ($59 for NYP-BOS booked in advance, which is $15 walkup on a Chinatown bus and $1 in advance on Megabus). High Amtrak pricing on such routes seems to be an attempt to price people off trains and reduce crowding, but since the purpose of Amtrak is to provide transportation rather than to make money, it should be running as many trains with as much space as possible, with fares low enough to fill them.

You seem to be making an implicit assumption that Amtrak is not already running as many trains as it can within the regulations that apply (e.g. there is a limiti on the number of trains it is allowed to run to Boston by agreement with the rich folks in Connecticut), and within the limits of the equipment that it has available. This may be a false assumption. Given that there is a limit that exists for whatever reason, the next logical thing for Amtrak to do is to figure out the fare level where these trains run as full as possible.

Admittedly one can argue that Amtrak may not be doing the best job there. Unfortunately even there, our usually blazingly brilliant legislature have hamstrung Amtrak by not giving it the freedom to reduce fares below certain levels. So go figure.

So the bottom line is given the equipment that Amtrak has and the limitations within which it operates, it is trying to maximize revenue as it has been instructed to do by the powers that be. And that has consequences in the form of the fares that you get.

 

[Dan O]

My beef isn't comparing airlines to Amtrak - it's comparing driving to Amtrak. Let's face it, the time commitment is much more fair. Sure - for one person driving, it makes a lot of sense to take Amtrak over driving. For instance, if I wanted to go to DC, it would cost between $86 and $192 one way. Gas in my Camry would be around $110. Throw in the wear and tear on my car, my solid attention for 9 hours and it would be a no brainer to take the train. Add a wife and three screaming kids, the car is still $110. I get a relief driver and don't need to rent a car when I get there. My family on the train is triple the cost - in coach. Can't even consider getting THREE roomettes.
So really, for the solo trip, Amtrak is the way to go. But as soon as we start thinking family, cost, vacation, etc., the train can't compete with driving.

Exactly. That's one reason we drove on this recent 5 week trip we took. Plus, my wife is afraid of tunnels and easier to avoid those in a car than in a train. I love the trains and when there are only two of us I hope we can travel that way, as long as I can find some tunnel free routes.

Dan

 

[Bob Dylan]

Thats what the SL is for,lots of desert with miles and miles and miles of flat nothing, Texas to California!LOL

 

[NETrainfan]

I think there's more pain associated with sitting in a coach train seat for 20+ hours than being squeezed on a plane for 3.....they need to provide more incentive to the market.

Here's the thing, though- have you tried it?

I haven't, quite, since we haven't done long-distance in coach, but I've done a 35hr trip in a roomette with two small kids, and I've taken a 3 hour airplane trip with those same two small kids. You can think there'd be more pain associated with the 35hr train trip, but at least in my case, you would be absolutely wrong- the train is SO much better, for all three of us.

Thank you Eris!

If you just sit in your seat in coach for 20 or 35 hours, then yes, it could quite possibly be a painful experience (personally, I would enjoy it, but that's just because I'm part of that railfan cult), since sitting is boring and uncomfotable no matter how big your seat is (even plushy First Class seats get old after awhile). But taking the train isn't about sitting in your coach seat for 35 hours. It's about getting up, moving around, enjoying the view from the lounge (especially the Sightseer Lounge--make sure your first long-distance trip is west of Chicago!), meeting people, eating train food and interacting with the people across the table from you in the diner, and watching the never-ending movie playing just outside of your window. What makes train travel enjoyable isn't the nicer, bigger-than-airplane seat--it's the total experience of being on the train. It's almost magical. It's a time warp, too--when you're enjoying yourself, the time flies--16 hours between Denver and Salt Lake felt quicker to me than a cross-country flight!

Before you slam it, you really should try it!

You said the above so well. It IS the total experience of the train that captures many of us. We are so pleased that we have seen a good portion of this country from an Amtrak train. The visual memories are often majestic.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

yeah how often can you get off the plane during a layover at a airport on a multy stop plane to get off and stretch before getting back on. uh you can't. with amtrak you can get off (stay next to the train) stretch your legs smoke then get back on. can't do that with a airplane. you can walk to other coaches. a train is allot better then flying. unfortunately there are people who are convinced that flying is the best way to travel and nothing will change there mind. there like eww a train. you must be poor then huh.

 

[Amtrak839]

I think there's more pain associated with sitting in a coach train seat for 20+ hours than being squeezed on a plane for 3.....they need to provide more incentive to the market.

Here's the thing, though- have you tried it?

I haven't, quite, since we haven't done long-distance in coach, but I've done a 35hr trip in a roomette with two small kids, and I've taken a 3 hour airplane trip with those same two small kids. You can think there'd be more pain associated with the 35hr train trip, but at least in my case, you would be absolutely wrong- the train is SO much better, for all three of us.

Thank you Eris!

If you just sit in your seat in coach for 20 or 35 hours, then yes, it could quite possibly be a painful experience (personally, I would enjoy it, but that's just because I'm part of that railfan cult), since sitting is boring and uncomfotable no matter how big your seat is (even plushy First Class seats get old after awhile). But taking the train isn't about sitting in your coach seat for 35 hours. It's about getting up, moving around, enjoying the view from the lounge (especially the Sightseer Lounge--make sure your first long-distance trip is west of Chicago!), meeting people, eating train food and interacting with the people across the table from you in the diner, and watching the never-ending movie playing just outside of your window. What makes train travel enjoyable isn't the nicer, bigger-than-airplane seat--it's the total experience of being on the train. It's almost magical. It's a time warp, too--when you're enjoying yourself, the time flies--16 hours between Denver and Salt Lake felt quicker to me than a cross-country flight!

Before you slam it, you really should try it!

You said the above so well. It IS the total experience of the train that captures many of us. We are so pleased that we have seen a good portion of this country from an Amtrak train. The visual memories are often majestic.

Agreed, very well said. There really is no one thing that makes the train superior to other modes of travel. But the overall experience can't be beaten! As Amtrak used to say in their commercials - There's something about a train that's magic!



They use that line once or twice in there. My favorite line is "maybe they just like taking off, without leaving the ground. All aboard, all aboard, all aboard Amtrak!"

 

[Nickrapak]

PHL-LAX May 1-May 10, 2010:

Amtrak coach: $386 r/t

Northwest Airlines (Via sidestep.com): $406 r/t+taxes,fees,etc.

Outside of the NEC, I find Amtrak coach to be competitive with the airlines for travel, except to "special" destinations which the hotels subsidize airfares, e.g Orlando.

 

[DET63]

yeah how often can you get off the plane during a layover at a airport on a multy stop plane to get off and stretch before getting back on. uh you can't. with amtrak you can get off (stay next to the train) stretch your legs smoke then get back on. can't do that with a airplane. you can walk to other coaches. a train is allot better then flying. unfortunately there are people who are convinced that flying is the best way to travel and nothing will change there mind. there like eww a train. you must be poor then huh.

Either poor, or afraid of flying—and thus a bit mentally ill. Of course, one could question the mental faculties of someone who wants to be crammed in like a sardine in a tin can 35,000 feet up in the air for 3, 4, 5 or more hours, but one wouldn't want to be judgmental, now . . .

 

[jackal]

yeah how often can you get off the plane during a layover at a airport on a multy stop plane to get off and stretch before getting back on. uh you can't. with amtrak you can get off (stay next to the train) stretch your legs smoke then get back on. can't do that with a airplane. you can walk to other coaches. a train is allot better then flying. unfortunately there are people who are convinced that flying is the best way to travel and nothing will change there mind. there like eww a train. you must be poor then huh.

Either poor, or afraid of flying—and thus a bit mentally ill. Of course, one could question the mental faculties of someone who wants to be crammed in like a sardine in a tin can 35,000 feet up in the air for 3, 4, 5 or more hours, but one wouldn't want to be judgmental, now . . .

Oh, come now--you've got to admit there's a certain adrenaline rush in air travel! Not even the fastest high-speed train pushes you back in your seat like a jet at take-off!

And those of us who enjoy flying usually fly enough to achieve elite status (it's cheaper and easier than attaining Amtrak Select or Select Plus [unless you're Chuljin! ]), which grants us free upgrades to the first-class cabin--hardly crammed in like sardines!

I like both forms of transportation almost equally (with a very slight edge to rail), but when time is a constraining factor, it often makes more sense to cram yourself like a sardine leisurely enjoy a first-class seat for a four-hour cross-country flight (especially if you can take advantage of a mileage run-worthy airfare) than to spend your entire vacation time getting to the destination, leaving you no time to actually see the city.

 

[Upstate]

PHL-LAX May 1-May 10, 2010:
Amtrak coach: $386 r/t

Northwest Airlines (Via sidestep.com): $406 r/t+taxes,fees,etc.

Outside of the NEC, I find Amtrak coach to be competitive with the airlines for travel, except to "special" destinations which the hotels subsidize airfares, e.g Orlando.

have fun spending three days trying to sleep in coach. I would take the sardine can for less than 1/3 of a day. Both are going to suck, but without a sleeper the airline is the lesser of two evils.

If you want to make a realistic comparison you have to ask yourself if you would be comfortable in the class of service for the duration of time. On a transcontinental flight I am fine in the economy section, but on the train I am only good for one night in coach. I think most people folks who like trains are not going to do 3 nights in coach.

 

[AlanB]

Oh, come now--you've got to admit there's a certain adrenaline rush in air travel! Not even the fastest high-speed train pushes you back in your seat like a jet at take-off!

Acela could probably come close to emulating that push back into the seat, but they choose not to do that for passenger comfort.

Airlines of course have no choice in the matter, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing either.

 

[PRR 60]

Oh, come now--you've got to admit there's a certain adrenaline rush in air travel! Not even the fastest high-speed train pushes you back in your seat like a jet at take-off!

Acela could probably come close to emulating that push back into the seat, but they choose not to do that for passenger comfort.

Airlines of course have no choice in the matter, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing either.

Of course, there's no one up and walking around during a aircraft take-off. And, once Acela reaches speed, it does not rotate and lift off the rails (we hope).

 

[Bob Dylan]

PHL-LAX May 1-May 10, 2010:
Amtrak coach: $386 r/t

Northwest Airlines (Via sidestep.com): $406 r/t+taxes,fees,etc.

Outside of the NEC, I find Amtrak coach to be competitive with the airlines for travel, except to "special" destinations which the hotels subsidize airfares, e.g Orlando.

have fun spending three days trying to sleep in coach. I would take the sardine can for less than 1/3 of a day. Both are going to suck, but without a sleeper the airline is the lesser of two evils.

If you want to make a realistic comparison you have to ask yourself if you would be comfortable in the class of service for the duration of time. On a transcontinental flight I am fine in the economy section, but on the train I am only good for one night in coach. I think most people folks who like trains are not going to do 3 nights in coach.

To each his own,however IMHO: as someone who Loves trains,not just likes(and thats most of us here)and when not traveling on business

or personal emergencies(ie funeral/no train connections,across the water :lol: etc.) I must say that Yes, I woulkd gladly spend three days

in coach compared to the "fun" of going to/through/from airports anywhere!Air travel used to be an adventure,and mostly first class,

but was for the more affluent!Of course I perfer riding in a sleeper,eating in the diner,waiting in the first class lounges etc. but as lots of folks have

said, the journey is thge thing, not just the destination!All things considered,its not an imposition to take the train and now days it is to fly

to/from most places!!I have flown millions of miles in my life and only ridden trains a few thousands but as John Kennedy said:

"..for I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep...",for me its a train leaving or going somewhere, as Bob Dylan said:

"..it can cure the soul, it can make it whole.."!!!!

 

[stntylr]

Oh, come now--you've got to admit there's a certain adrenaline rush in air travel! Not even the fastest high-speed train pushes you back in your seat like a jet at take-off!

Acela could probably come close to emulating that push back into the seat, but they choose not to do that for passenger comfort.

Airlines of course have no choice in the matter, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing either.

Of course, there's no one up and walking around during a aircraft take-off. And, once Acela reaches speed, it does not rotate and lift off the rails (we hope).

A Maglev does.

 

[JSmith]

You certainly can't generalize plane vs train fares in either direction. I was surprised to discover that it would actually be cheaper for a family of four to travel by train in sleepers from Buffalo to Halifax and back than to go by plane in economy class. I thought it would be an expensive luxury to go by train, but it turns out if I want to go visit my relatives there at all, I actually save money going first class by train!

 

[Bigval109]

In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!

That is why I always plan on two weeks or 16 days so I don't have to hurry but I can just relax and look out the window.

 

[Bob Dylan]

In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!

That is why I always plan on two weeks or 16 days so I don't have to hurry but I can just relax and look out the window.

Basics 101: Flying is NOT a VACATION!Its a means of getting to a destination,perhaps for a vacation!Being on a LD train IS a

VACATION, the journey is the thing as they say!Simple and oh so true in this age of third world conditons @ airports and on planes!

 

[micmac99]

In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!

That is why I always plan on two weeks or 16 days so I don't have to hurry but I can just relax and look out the window.

Basics 101: Flying is NOT a VACATION!Its a means of getting to a destination,perhaps for a vacation!Being on a LD train IS a

VACATION, the journey is the thing as they say!Simple and oh so true in this age of third world conditons @ airports and on planes!

I would have to agree. Cost has traditionally been the biggest factor for me in LD travel, so I used to take Greyhound, Amtrak and the airlines pretty evenly. Nowadays, I am leery of flying, and largely because of the post 9/11 regulations. Greyhound is OK but if you think Amtrak coach for three days is bad, try traveling from Atlanta to Tucson on Greyhound. I've done it. Ouch.

I have also driven in a rental car from Phoenix to Austin, and man, I don't think I'll be doing that again. Boring and tiring. If I'm going to be bored, at least I'm conserving my energy sitting in a coach seat and not having to concentrate on my responsibility as a motorist.