Why is Amtrak coach more expensive than flying?

[rrdude]

Train travel, PART of the vacation, not just a "means" of getting from Point-A to Point-B...

However, IF overnight travel is required, sleeper is a MUST, and that makes it a tad more expensive, but think of Amtrak like Italy or France's "slow-food" movement. Enjoy the hourney, NOT just getting there................

 

[jackal]

Train travel, PART of the vacation, not just a "means" of getting from Point-A to Point-B...
However, IF overnight travel is required, sleeper is a MUST, and that makes it a tad more expensive, but think of Amtrak like Italy or France's "slow-food" movement. Enjoy the hourney, NOT just getting there................

Yes, and that has its place. But sometimes I'd like to actually visit a destination for my vacation. And if I can only get a week off, spending 6 of my 7 days in transit doesn't leave much time to actually see wherever it is I'm heading. So, there's a time and a place for flying, too, and it's not that painful if you manage to achieve even low-tier status on an airline.

And when cheap airfares get filed (far cheaper than even Amtrak coach), it's hard to pass those up to see a far-off, exotic location! (I almost booked a $95 mistake business-class fare on Air Malaysia last week, but I had no idea how I would have cheaply gotten to LAX to connect to it, not to mention getting time off from work. And you can't get to Malaysia on a train! [Well, I'm sure the_traveler could figure out a way to do so... :lol: ]*)

*Actually, with some projects under consideration (but not likely to be finished in our lifetimes), it might be nearly possible someday. All we need is a thousand or so miles of track through Canada and then another 2,000 or so from Fairbanks, Alaska to Vladivostok, Russia, and then the entire Asian and European continents would be accessible by land-based transport! To get to Malaysia, though, there's still a gap to negotiate between Thailand and China or Vietnam--Laos and Cambodia are both missing rail systems

 

[rrdude]

I'm with you on that, I've prolly taken more train-air vacation/trips than I have train-train over the years. I'd be nice if Amtrak's OTP were higher for the LD trips, expecially when you convince a friend/neighbor to "try out Amtrak" for the first time. If the LD train is 3-4 hours late, there is no amount of explaining that can satisfy the newbie-traveler. And I've found that even with as much "prepping" as one can do ("enjoy the journey, meals, vistas, meeting new people", etc., etc.) first time travelers either LOVE IT or HATE IT.

My kids have grown up on trains, and are at the point now (12, 9, & 9) where train travel is considered the "norm" and if we don't take a train, it's "why"? (try to work in Ferry rides too....)

 

[Bob Dylan]

I'm with you on that, I've prolly taken more train-air vacation/trips than I have train-train over the years. I'd be nice if Amtrak's OTP were higher for the LD trips, expecially when you convince a friend/neighbor to "try out Amtrak" for the first time. If the LD train is 3-4 hours late, there is no amount of explaining that can satisfy the newbie-traveler. And I've found that even with as much "prepping" as one can do ("enjoy the journey, meals, vistas, meeting new people", etc., etc.) first time travelers either LOVE IT or HATE IT.
My kids have grown up on trains, and are at the point now (12, 9, & 9) where train travel is considered the "norm" and if we don't take a train, it's "why"? (try to work in Ferry rides too....)

This is excellent,family,ferries and trains!YES!!!!!

 

[Jillian]

I am flying to Texas in June and decided to check Amtrak's website for cost comparison. I know that it would take more time for my son and I to take a train but I was unaware of the ridiculous expense. We are flying to Texas for $596.76. To take the Amtrak it would be $3,205.50 and we would only get a few days in Texas, not a week. I will fly!!!

 

[Bob Dylan]

I am flying to Texas in June and decided to check Amtrak's website for cost comparison. I know that it would take more time for my son and I to take a train but I was unaware of the ridiculous expense. We are flying to Texas for $596.76. To take the Amtrak it would be $3,205.50 and we would only get a few days in Texas, not a week. I will fly!!!

Something doesnt seem right with this picture? You dont indicate where you are coming from/to, what kind of accomadations etc. but this fare sounds way too high even @ high bucket prices! I could go all over the US for less for 30 days so if youll let us know what itenerary youd like Im sure we can help you come up with a better price for your trip, even rack up som AGR points etc. I live in Texas as do several other members on this forum and we are pretty familiar with the routes/fares/cities etc. to get here, so are our northern,southern and western brothers and sisters! Even northeasters MIGHT know? :lol: Please give us the chance to help, well do it for free and for fun!! Flying is for the birds!

 

[amtrakwolverine]

coach is cheaper then flying depending on bucket. i can go to lax and back to roy for around $300 in coach. can't do that flying. go first class for around $800 in a low bucket roomette. first class on a plane would be more. i think this person either made up a price or there taking a whole lotta of trains to come up with that price. if they want to fly fine more room for those who LOVE to take the train.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I am flying to Texas in June and decided to check Amtrak's website for cost comparison. I know that it would take more time for my son and I to take a train but I was unaware of the ridiculous expense. We are flying to Texas for $596.76. To take the Amtrak it would be $3,205.50 and we would only get a few days in Texas, not a week. I will fly!!!

$3,205.50....

What are your dates and destination if you care to tell-- You must not be looking at coach class, this sounds like a transcontinental deluxe sleeper round trip in a high bucket.

 

[Poindexter118]

I agree flying is sometimes cheaper. But, my wife will not fly. We either drive or take the train. We find the train a relaxing way to go. It's nice to sit back and watch the scenery go by, while enjoying an adult beverage and or having a meal. :lol:

 

[DET63]

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.

Yeah, but Acela ain't no maglev.

 

[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.

Mr. Guest,

You make so many friends by calling train riders ignorant you should call a meeting of all of your train friends. :blink:

The tenor of your post does not warrant a substantive response. There are both substantive and lifesyle reasons to travel by train.

 

[anir dendroica]

It's $166 one way (low bucket coach) from south of Portland to Minneapolis, which is marginally cheaper than the cheapest flight. With a student discount, it is $284 round trip. Not that I couldn't find a flight for less than that if I really tried, but it wouldn't be much less.

Reasons I take the train whenever I make the trip:

1. I love the atmosphere and the experience, having spent many days watching freight trains in my youth.

2. I can check three bags and carry on two for free. For moving stuff between my parents' house and my home in Oregon, that saves big $$.

3. I get one day each way to relax, watch the countryside, and read a book in between the demands of grad school and the demands of family time.

4. The train uses less energy per passenger mile and contributes less to climate change than flying. (So what if buses are better - I only took Greyhound once and don't plan to repeat it.)

5. It is easier to convince friends to take me 15 miles to the train station than 100 miles to the airport, and I don't have to arrive two hours early, pack away my liquids, and watch TSA unpack my bag because my flute looked like a club on the X-ray machine (it happened).

Mark

 

[jmbgeg]

It's $166 one way (low bucket coach) from south of Portland to Minneapolis, which is marginally cheaper than the cheapest flight. With a student discount, it is $284 round trip. Not that I couldn't find a flight for less than that if I really tried, but it wouldn't be much less.
Reasons I take the train whenever I make the trip:

1. I love the atmosphere and the experience, having spent many days watching freight trains in my youth.

2. I can check three bags and carry on two for free. For moving stuff between my parents' house and my home in Oregon, that saves big $$.

3. I get one day each way to relax, watch the countryside, and read a book in between the demands of grad school and the demands of family time.

4. The train uses less energy per passenger mile and contributes less to climate change than flying. (So what if buses are better - I only took Greyhound once and don't plan to repeat it.)

5. It is easier to convince friends to take me 15 miles to the train station than 100 miles to the airport, and I don't have to arrive two hours early, pack away my liquids, and watch TSA unpack my bag because my flute looked like a club on the X-ray machine (it happened).

Mark

Bravo!

 

[Tim_Metra]

Flying is cheaper then the train?!? I do not think so; Bring tools and luggage $$, Change your ticket $$, Bring your kids $$, and Pay the new surcharge fees $$. Flying is cheaper then the train ONLY when they have special "teaser fares", but do not change your plans or bring anything!! I have been using the train for business travel and I have seen my travel expenses DECREASE!

 

[MrFSS]

Flying is cheaper then the train?!? I do not think so; Bring tools and luggage $$, Change your ticket $$, Bring your kids $$, and Pay the new surcharge fees $$. Flying is cheaper then the train ONLY when they have special "teaser fares", but do not change your plans or bring anything!! I have been using the train for business travel and I have seen my travel expenses DECREASE!

What you say has merit, but what about folks who don't live near a rail connection? I traveled on business all over the country for almost 40 years before I retired. I never lived one place that had rail service, except IND with ungodly hours and frequency, so my only options were to fly or drive. I would have loved to have taken the train.

How does the business man get to Columbus, OH? To Phoenix? To anywhere in South Dakota? (Yes - I traveled there on business, too).

If we had a rail system that went everywhere more business people would use it, I'm sure.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Well Tom, technically Amtrak does go anywhere-- they just expect you to drive the rest of the way.

 

[dlagrua]

Train travel can be part of the fun of traveling. My wife and myself avoid the congested, unhealthy, filthy conditions at the airports when ever possible and take the train. Just take those rude neanderthals at airport security for starters. Then put all your personal objects, your laptop and your wifes handbag into a bin that holds thousands of dirty shoes and is never cleaned- yuucch! Finally sit in a tight seat that is about 18" wide ( and hope that the person in the center is thin) in a sealed environment where everyone is breathing the same air.

On passenger trains you can travel as ladies and gentleman. We relax and enjoy the view in our private room, eat a leisurely dinner ( with quality food) talk on our cell phones , watch a movie on our laptops and sleep in a bed at night. In most cases you pay more for a 1000+ mile journey but on 200-400 mile trips the train costs less and will get you there faster. On the NE corridor ( from Boston to Washington DC) Amtrak has the largest share of passenger traffic not the airlines. As a comparison I used to take the Acela to Washington DC on business. It was a 2 1/2 hour trip . In contrast the airline trip took about 4 hours. 1 hour to Newark Airport, 1 hour getting through secuity, a 1 hour trip and another 1/2- 1 hour travel from the airport to the city . This assumes that traffic was good and that the flight left on time which it never did. I'll take traveling on the ground any day.

 

[rrdude]

Going by rail when traveling on biz-ness requires a LOT of prep, and if I need to go to (from BWI) to Chicago, or the Twin Cities, or God Forbid Louisville, then it's just plain difficult. I have to factor in a roomette if going overnight, so the cost v. air is often no comparison.

Going to NOLA in Feb, about $250 from BWI to the Crescent City, ONE WAY in sleeper. RT airfare on SWA is just a bit less, (RT).

Luckily for me, a lot of my biz-ness travel is in the Northeast, where Amtrak does have an advantage.

Am at a dead end for a trip to Halifax thou........ Looks like Amtrak Regional ($48), Adirondack ($69), Nite-In-Hotel-In-Montreal ($100) and Via's Ocean in sleeper ($285) is about $500 give or take, not to mention meals. Then I still have to pay $200 to fly back. RT airfare is about $430.

So I'll end up paying about $300 more to take the train/air option...

I'm more than open to options.....and advice............

 

[GregL]

I am lucky, I live about 10 minutes away from a station on the CZ route and about 10 minutes away from another station on the SWC route. Also about 60 minutes away from Galesburg,IL, which has several other trains that has great connections to Chicago.

If we fly anywhere, it's at least a 2 1/2 hour ride to an airport, plus all the hassles that comes with flying. We have flown, but it's more of a time issue when we fly. I'm an uneasy flyer at best!

If at all possible we use rail.

GregL

 

[Guest]

Going by rail when traveling on biz-ness requires a LOT of prep, and if I need to go to (from BWI) to Chicago, or the Twin Cities, or God Forbid Louisville, then it's just plain difficult. I have to factor in a roomette if going overnight, so the cost v. air is often no comparison.
Going to NOLA in Feb, about $250 from BWI to the Crescent City, ONE WAY in sleeper. RT airfare on SWA is just a bit less, (RT).

Luckily for me, a lot of my biz-ness travel is in the Northeast, where Amtrak does have an advantage.

Am at a dead end for a trip to Halifax thou........ Looks like Amtrak Regional ($48), Adirondack ($69), Nite-In-Hotel-In-Montreal ($100) and Via's Ocean in sleeper ($285) is about $500 give or take, not to mention meals. Then I still have to pay $200 to fly back. RT airfare is about $430.

So I'll end up paying about $300 more to take the train/air option...

I'm more than open to options.....and advice............

Well you can take the Cat ferry from Portland to Yarmouth. Amatrak will get you to Portland. Yarmouth to Halifax probably has a bus or you can rent a car.

 

[volkris]

Just to add a datapoint for people who doubt the claim that rail is more expensive, I travel interstate about once a month and am constantly comparing prices for rail and air. I find plane tickets to be around the same price or cheaper than Amtrak about 75% of the time, and that's been consistent over the last three years or so.

More specifically, I live in Virginia and generally travel to OH, NC, LA, and TX. YMMV, but my experience mirrors the claim.

Flying is cheaper then the train?!? I do not think so; Bring tools and luggage $$, Change your ticket $$, Bring your kids $$, and Pay the new surcharge fees $$. Flying is cheaper then the train ONLY when they have special "teaser fares", but do not change your plans or bring anything!! I have been using the train for business travel and I have seen my travel expenses DECREASE!

In other words, flying is cheaper so long as you know how to work air travel. Change my ticket? Why? I got it right the first time. Check luggage? Without having to pack clothes for an extra day or two on the train I can travel light enough to carry it on easily.

Call them teaser fares, "conspiracy against Amtrak fares," or whatever else you want. Fact is, for whatever reason, flying is often cost competitive with rail.

 

[TVRM610]

Just to add a datapoint for people who doubt the claim that rail is more expensive, I travel interstate about once a month and am constantly comparing prices for rail and air. I find plane tickets to be around the same price or cheaper than Amtrak about 75% of the time, and that's been consistent over the last three years or so.
More specifically, I live in Virginia and generally travel to OH, NC, LA, and TX. YMMV, but my experience mirrors the claim.

Flying is cheaper then the train?!? I do not think so; Bring tools and luggage $$, Change your ticket $$, Bring your kids $$, and Pay the new surcharge fees $$. Flying is cheaper then the train ONLY when they have special "teaser fares", but do not change your plans or bring anything!! I have been using the train for business travel and I have seen my travel expenses DECREASE!

In other words, flying is cheaper so long as you know how to work air travel. Change my ticket? Why? I got it right the first time. Check luggage? Without having to pack clothes for an extra day or two on the train I can travel light enough to carry it on easily.

Call them teaser fares, "conspiracy against Amtrak fares," or whatever else you want. Fact is, for whatever reason, flying is often cost competitive with rail.

So then fly! I ain't gonna cry cause you take a plane instead of a train and neither is Amtrak. Amtrak is running many trains consistently at capacity so until they have new equipment they are hardly worried about attracting new business on LD trains.

I also don't understand the argument that amtrak should be cheaper... why? Amtrak does not exist to provide budget travel, they exist to provide rail travel and they do so at much cheaper prices then VIA Rail, at prices that people are obviously willing to pay. If amtrak brings down the price, great I'll save money too but I don't see a good reason for them to do so in most places on their system (obviously there may be some exceptions where lower fares may boost ridership and the extra capacity is already there, I'm saying system wide from what I have seen so far.).

 

[saxman]

It all just depends are where you go. My pilot buddy who knows I love trains asks me why Amtrak is more expensive. I tell him its not always. It just depends. Sure if you go NY to LA on the train, thats over $600 round trip on the train in coach. Sure you could find lots of cheaper airline tickets, but thats major hub city to another major hub city. Lots of airlines compete heavily on this major market, so prices are pretty reasonable. How about a ticket from NY to Grand Forks, ND? Or Meridian, MS to Raleigh, NC? I bet you'd have a hard time finding cheaper airline tickets in those smaller markets. Plus keep in mind that airlines probably have about 10 or 20 different fares between a city pair. The cheaper usually having many restrictions, such as which days you can travel on, one-way only or round trip rules, advance purchase rules, etc. In many cases a last minute trip, Amtrak will beat out the airlines.

I use to live in Grand Forks, ND where Northwest was the only carrier there. I never found a round trip flight there for under $300. Even just going to MSP was usually over $200. Amtrak, GFK to MSP starts at about $40 each way. A winner almost every time. I usually took the train to MSP and just flew to DFW from there. Much cheaper.

Another example I like is Dallas/Fort Worth to Austin. The very cheapest Southwest ticket is $49 one-way, plus taxes and fees. Plus you gotta buy that fare in advance, otherwise it goes to over $100. Amtrak starts $24 one-way including taxes and fees and that is usually available. The high bucket fare is $48, but I've almost never seen it that high.

So it all just depends where you go. Big city to big city, you'll probably find a good airfare. But I find that Amtrak usually takes the shorter markets, say 200 to 500 miles. Hopefully in the coming years more rail will be connected to airports so you can combine trips.

 

[WorkinOnIt]

Amtrak coach is NOT more expensive than flying. Even with about 1 month lead time for planning, I found airfare for our Houston to Kalamazoo trip to be DOUBLE the Amtrak fare.

We thought about driving it and considering we would have to overnight somewhere in a motel, we felt the Amtrak coach fare was very competitive if not cheaper than DRIVING! Straight-through driving I suppose is the rock-bottom cheapest (or sleep at a rest stop- ugh), but we are too old for that anymore. heh. Another option would have been to fly into a cheaper-market city like Grand Rapids and rent a car, but the car rental got us right back up to double the Amtrak fare, so for cost factor alone Amtrak won out for our trip.

Still, there are lots of factors to consider besides JUST the bottom line. The price of a trip is just one factor - a big factor of course, but just one. All transportation methods have pros and cons.

Just wanted to chime in here after seeing the thread header as I thought it was misleading and not representative for travel between smaller towns/cities. Sometimes I think big-city dwellers seem to forget not everyone lives in a big city.

 

[AAARGH!]

I also don't understand the argument that amtrak should be cheaper... why? Amtrak does not exist to provide budget travel, they exist to provide rail travel and they do so at much cheaper prices then VIA Rail, at prices that people are obviously willing to pay. If amtrak brings down the price, great I'll save money too but I don't see a good reason for them to do so in most places on their system (obviously there may be some exceptions where lower fares may boost ridership and the extra capacity is already there, I'm saying system wide from what I have seen so far.).

In a simplistic view: time = money. If it is going to take longer to get there, it should cost less. You pay a premium to get there fast. Of course when you start adding amenities such as food, sleepers, etc.... It will cost more to take a train. But when comparing coach (air) to coach (train), the trains should cost less because they take longer.

Whether we like it or not, for a large segment of the population Amtrak IS competing with the arilines.