Why is Amtrak coach more expensive than flying?

[p&sr]

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.

On the other hand, a trip from Emeryville, CA to Chicago, IL might cost $130 (with AAA discount). Figuring that the price includes NOT ONLY your Transportation, but also two nights lodging (in coach) AND three days of Entertainment... where else can you get such a deal?

 

[Walt]

Airlines may be cheaper in some markets.

Also, don't just compare the airlines "advertised" fare. I have found for my local airlines, there are like only 4 seats available at that very low, teaser, ticket price. For me, that is the difference between their advertised $80 fare, vs their realistic $150 fare which is the actual fare on like 90% of their plane seats. And one needs to add into any of those airline fares, all those little extra fees they tack on, like the fee they charge you for the privilege of waiting in the security line, or the fee they charge to possibly loose just one bag.

Plus, if you have kids, on Amtrak kids between 2 and 15 pay only 1/2 fares. I don't think any airline has kids' fares anymore.

 

[Loui1]

I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.

I'm with you man....still miffed why they dont figure this one out.

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.

 

[Eris]

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.

 

[jackal]

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!

 

[rogers55]

I can fly for FREE!!!

But we take the train because it is incredibly more comfortable and has none of the hassle associated with air travel today.

I drive about a mile to the VNC station, leave my car for as long as I want at no charge, and am on my way. Traveling by rail gives me a feeling of freedom, flying does not.

It is not that I don't like flying, most of my life was spent in the aviation industry. I just don't want to work that hard to travel.

Regards,

Roger

 

[Loui1]

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?

In fact, yes I just took a 6 hour TGV ride in first class and I was ready to jump off the train by the end.....all the swaying back and forth, people continuously walking around, no movies playing, etc. No amount of reading or walking up and down the train could occupy my time. Also took an 8 hour ride up to Boston two years ago....again, yuck. I travel to get places and meeting people is ok but would never be a reason to subject myself to 20+ hours of being cooped up. It must REALLY depend on the person.

 

[puck71]

I travel to get places

I think that's the difference - the difference between traveling to get places and traveling to travel. If your main goal is just getting to your destination as fast as possible, then the train would (I imagine) be torturous. For me it's a delicate balance. I don't want to waste my time, but I also don't want to rush from place to place, slave to the time and the fear of "missing" something.

Also, I think you have to make your own entertainment. They don't play movies on the seat backs (although they do play movies in some cars on some trains, I guess) but you can bring a DVD player and watch as many movies as you want. Do some work on your laptop, play cards, look out the window, plan your trip, etc. But the bottom line is it's personal preference and priorities, plain and simple.

 

[p&sr]

In fact, yes I just took a 6 hour TGV ride in first class and I was ready to jump off the train by the end.....all the swaying back and forth, people continuously walking around, no movies playing, etc. No amount of reading or walking up and down the train could occupy my time.

Thank you for this honest observation. What you mean to say, is that you do not happen to like Train Travel itself, as an experience. This has Nothing to do with Economics, nothing to do with scheduling convenience, and nothing to do with how much time it takes. You just don't happen to like the experience.

Thank goodness for an analysis that finally gets beyond Economics. The single biggest error made by Karl Marx was that Economics is the full and proper description of human existence and activity.

Have you ever enjoyed a Walk through the Park? Sat on a Bench there to watch the clouds blow past, and the Flowers waving in the Breeze, and the Kids playing?

Some people like it, some probably don't. But I don't think an Economics-based approach is going to be very helpful in appreciating the difference.

 

[Gingee]

How about this? I am paying $576 for four people to take the train (coach) from Chicago to NYC. I booked last fall and got AAA discounts. We do have to drive to Chicago but if we were flying out of Chicago, the same applies.

 

[jackal]

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?

In fact, yes I just took a 6 hour TGV ride in first class and I was ready to jump off the train by the end.....all the swaying back and forth, people continuously walking around, no movies playing, etc. No amount of reading or walking up and down the train could occupy my time. Also took an 8 hour ride up to Boston two years ago....again, yuck. I travel to get places and meeting people is ok but would never be a reason to subject myself to 20+ hours of being cooped up. It must REALLY depend on the person.

Those aren't train rides, they're commuter runs. You really need to try a western long-distance train, like the Coast Starlight up the coast or the California Zephyr through the Rockies. And if you are planning to "subject [your]self to 20+ hours of being cooped up"--well, that's your own fault! On a train, you should not be cooped up! If you coop yourself up in your seat, that's your choice, but you're missing 90% of the fun and benefit of the train!

 

[Gingee]

No movies on the train? Bring your own little tv.

 

[p&sr]

In fact, yes I just took a 6 hour TGV ride in first class and I was ready to jump off the train by the end...

Those aren't train rides, they're commuter runs.

This is a good point. I took the TGV from Lyons to Paris, and the only positive thing about it was that it went to Paris. Too fast to see any scenery, and all open country (flat cropland) with nothing to see anyway.

Far more memorable was the three-day slow train from Istanbul to Budapest, with no food service on board. After our groceries (from a shop in Thessaloniki) went bad, we survived on chocolate-stuffed crescent rolls purchased on the Black Market from a Bulgarian Sleeping Car Steward.

Remember, adventure is where you find it!

 

[Ispolkom]

Far more memorable was the three-day slow train from Istanbul to Budapest, with no food service on board. After our groceries (from a shop in Thessaloniki) went bad, we survived on chocolate-stuffed crescent rolls purchased on the Black Market from a Bulgarian Sleeping Car Steward.

Ah, the good old days. In 1991 I took the Moscow-London express. It turned out to be one sleeper car, that was attached to a series of trains (Moscow-Brest, Brest-Warsaw, Warsaw-Berlin, Berlin-Ostend, I guess. I got off in Brussels). It was the nicest Soviet train I ever took, with 2 person compartments, but once in the West they locked the doors to keep us from visiting the rest of the train, and we rolled through Poland, Germany, and the Low Countries in a little bit of the Soviet Union, complete with coal-fired samovar, filthy toilets, sullen conductoress, and fellow passengers who started drinking shots of vodka at 7 a.m. I was sad that I couldn't get off at Brest and watch them change the wheels of the carriage for European gauge.

WRT the original post, flying is probably most cost-effective if you are traveling alone. Looking at traveling from St. Paul to Washington DC at Christmas, I find these three options:

Flying $880

Train (coach to Chicago, roomette to DC) $830

Bus/Train (Megabus to Chicago, roomette to DC) $635.

Given that Northwest now charges for every checked bag (won't *that* make boarding fun!), I am always happy to stop over in Chicago (my wife insists, though that there are other places to eat other than Giordano's), the only question is whether we'll trust the bus in December.

 

[p&sr]

WRT the original post, flying is probably most cost-effective if you are traveling alone. Looking at traveling from St. Paul to Washington DC at Christmas, I find these three options:
Flying $880

Train (coach to Chicago, roomette to DC) $830

Bus/Train (Megabus to Chicago, roomette to DC) $635.

But Amtrak coach fare MSP to WAS is $272 Round-Trip (AAA), with a few pleasant hours in Chicago each way!

(for selected travel dates 12-21 and 12-29... these are not even the low-bucket fares.)

 

[Rail Freak]

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.

On the other hand, a trip from Emeryville, CA to Chicago, IL might cost $130 (with AAA discount). Figuring that the price includes NOT ONLY your Transportation, but also two nights lodging (in coach) AND three days of Entertainment... where else can you get such a deal?

I made my reservation on my 11 day (1st trip) in Feb for my Sept trip. As a newbie, I asked the agent " You mean we stop at all these places along the way?" He said " Hey, AmtraK doesn't make it's money off of travelers like you, its the shorter routes. I sat there scratching my head, but now I have a little AU education under my belt!!!

 

[Ispolkom]

But Amtrak coach fare MSP to WAS is $272 Round-Trip (AAA), with a few pleasant hours in Chicago each way!(for selected travel dates 12-21 and 12-29... these are not even the low-bucket fares.)

Oh, sure, but I am quite happy to pay the upgrade for a sleeper -- for me it's well worth it on a longer trip with several meals, especially traveling at a busy time of the year, when the coach cars can be crowded. YMMV.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

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.

On the other hand, a trip from Emeryville, CA to Chicago, IL might cost $130 (with AAA discount). Figuring that the price includes NOT ONLY your Transportation, but also two nights lodging (in coach) AND three days of Entertainment... where else can you get such a deal?

I made my reservation on my 11 day (1st trip) in Feb for my Sept trip. As a newbie, I asked the agent " You mean we stop at all these places along the way?" He said " Hey, AmtraK doesn't make it's money off of travelers like you, its the shorter routes. I sat there scratching my head, but now I have a little AU education under my belt!!!

RF, Amtrak doesn't make money of anyone.

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

The price of tickets, air or rail, do not typically reflect their costs; witness the chronic debt Amtrak suffers, the immense highway subsidies, and the continuing turmoil in the airlines. Our entire society has begun a series of changes which, in due course, will alter the costs and, eventually the ticket prices. Fuel prices are already driving big cars out of the market. Home prices are collapsing in the suburbs (down 7 percent) while they are falling less dramatically in the city-centers near public transport (down 2 percent in Boston) and actually increasing in many markets (up 2 percent in Dallas, Atlanta and Denver). Our auto and air systems and our suburbs and shopping centers constitute a complex of systems that assumes very low energy costs. The complex will not survive. If and when Israel attacks the nuclear facilities in Iran (probably later this year while Bush is in office) oil will go to 220 dollars per barrel ($7.60 a gallon), which will drive a bit more than half of the U.S. airlines out of business. The sometimes low prices of air tickets are a temporary phenomenon, and they come at a cost: baggage charges, fee for food, delays, jammed planes, filthy planes, lost bags, reduced schedules, and angry staff. Logical reactions to high fuel prices will bring the sector back to a sustainable model, which will be very different from what we see today: fewer carriers, fewer routes, and much higher prices, perhaps three times what they are today. Meanwhile, Amtrak will continue its heavily subsidized business, sustained by the government at a level far below what it should be. The question then moves to the political realm: will the new administration recognize the fundamental changes in the country and shift transportation subsidies away from highways, cars and air (where they have been since 1954) and toward rail, which is inherently more efficient in its use of energy?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

One would hope so but remains cynical.

 

[Guest]

I see nothing to disagree with you above, but would like your calculation of the $7.60 and how you arrived at that.

I believe that we need a leadership with the same laser focus on alternatives for energy that we had to get Apollo to the moon. It might be time to scrutinize and mimic the best of Europe's system of transportation since high gas prices have been the norm for a long time (by comparison to the US).

 

[travelerpaul]

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.

I keep reading posts from people that want to compare airline prices to Amtrak prices. The thing is, you have to factor in the price of getting to and from the airport.

Last October, my wife and I flew from JFK to SFO. It cost me $200 to get to and from the airports! Amtrak goes from downtown to downtown, so there's little or no extra cost involved.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I too question the math of 7.60. ($4/$140)*$220= $6.28.

 

[Guest]

I keep reading posts from people that want to compare airline prices to Amtrak prices. The thing is, you have to factor in the price of getting to and from the airport.Last October, my wife and I flew from JFK to SFO. It cost me $200 to get to and from the airports! Amtrak goes from downtown to downtown, so there's little or no extra cost involved.

BART from downtown San Francisco to SFO is $5.35, Airtrain and subway from JFK to downtown New York is $7. The fact that an Amtrak customer would even consider taking a taxi when such alternatives exists shows how far Amtrak is from being a budget option.

A number of people have been extolling the more pleasant and relaxing environment of train travel. While I agree that train travel is indeed more enjoyable, the government does not subsidize Amtrak to run some sort of land cruise business. The government subsidizes Amtrak to provide passenger transportation. When fares are so high that people have to treat Amtrak as an entertainment provider to justify them, it suggests that Amtrak is failing at its primary purpose of providing passenger transportation for the general public. Amtrak should either increase the number of coaches per train (using commuter-style equipment if necessary) until it can offer coach fares competitive with budget airlines and Greyhound/Megabus, or give up its federal subsidy and become like GrandLuxe.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I love train riding, dude. I do take rail cruises, because I love riding trains. I also use Amtrak as transportation.

Its not fair to judge that based on people here. We're railfans, damnit. I want to ride a train for my vacation because I feel there is no better place to spend my time. But that doesn't mean that I don't consider Amtrak a reasonable and affordable transportation company. That is, primarily, what I use them for.