Any Changes so for under Mr. Moorman?

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
F

fulham

Service Attendant
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
110
I believe Wick Moorman has been Amtrak's President for around 3 months now. Have there been any changes regarding key positions, operating strategy or customer service that anyone has noticed? Just wondering.
 
I think he's working on understanding the issues, interviewing his management, and then getting his organization in place. Supposedly he has brought in 5 retired senior ex NS execs as 'consultants' to help do this (this includes former COO Manion). If I was an Amtrak manager, I wouldn't be too comfortable right now.

Makes sense to work on the big issues now rather than operating details. That will come. I believe much of September Boardman was still around as Moorman was off on a prearranged trip.
 
I've heard the same Palmland.

Amtrak has always been top-heavy, especially in the NEC, and there have been meetings already about this. From what I've heard, he feels there are too many VPs and he would like the number reduced.

The sentiment of many front line employees has been that the company protects its management, giving yearly bonuses, while drastically cutting employees. There are many, many redundant management jobs, and many managers are rightfully worried.

It will certainly be interesting!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Palmland said:
I think he's working on understanding the issues, interviewing his management, and then getting his organization in place. Supposedly he has brought in 5 retired senior ex NS execs as 'consultants' to help do this (this includes former COO Manion). If I was an Amtrak manager, I wouldn't be too comfortable right now.

Makes sense to work on the big issues now rather than operating details. That will come. I believe much of September Boardman was still around as Moorman was off on a prearranged trip.
Click to expand...

NTL1991 said:
I've heard the same Palmland.

Amtrak has always been top-heavy, especially in the NEC, and there have been meetings already about this. From what I've heard, he feels there are too many VPs and he would like the number reduced.

The sentiment of many front line employees has been that the company protects its management, giving yearly bonuses, while drastically cutting employees. There are many, many redundant management jobs, and many managers are rightfully worried.

It will certainly be interesting!
Click to expand...

jis said:
Well, looks like Amtrak might get in line with the rest of the industry in the management structure afterall.
Click to expand...

And how many times have we heard this before? I'll believe it when I see it because even if it occurs, the chosen few will likely lie in wait. Mr. Moorman shouldn't have mentioned he doesn't plan to stick around for too long. Mr. Gunn marched through management like General Sherman marched through Georgia. Once he was gone, the numbers once again increased.
 
You're exactly right Thirdrail. In a normal sition of how bureaucracies operate I don't think Moorman will succeed. He will face what i call the "Yes Minister Syndrom" (Ref: british TV Series named "Yes Minister"), from those that have an interest in perpetuating the current setup in the face of a "Helicopter Boss". They will outlast the "Helicopter Boss", unless something truly unusual happens.

Hence my use of the word "might" instead of "will". ;)
 
In my opinion, the #1 thing that needs to happen is better consistency of customer service. The good need to be rewarded, and the bad need to lose their seniority and possibly job. If that can't happen due to union rules, then there is no hope. If the service stays as wildly inconsistent as is it currently is, no amount of better time keeping, better food quality etc. Can fix the problem.
 
As someone who has worked in customer service for forty years, I can tell you that it is impossible to give good service if you do not have a good product delivered on time. Without costly infrastructure additions, the best way to improve the product is with better on-time performance, and this would be accomplished by negotiating with the freight railroads for better dispatching. Perhaps it is realistic for us to look to Mr. Moorman to try to achieve this.
 
Maglev said:
As someone who has worked in customer service for forty years, I can tell you that it is impossible to give good service if you do not have a good product delivered on time. Without costly infrastructure additions, the best way to improve the product is with better on-time performance, and this would be accomplished by negotiating with the freight railroads for better dispatching. Perhaps it is realistic for us to look to Mr. Moorman to try to achieve this.
Click to expand...
I 100% disagree. VIA rail Gave me extremely impressive customer service on a train that was 6 hours late.
I've received equally good customer service on Amtrak trains, and service that was terrible on others.

As far as on time performance... Amtrak is doing pretty well with that currently. All the trains I took in the last month (Starlight x 2, Builder, Hoosier State, Surfliner x 2) were on time or early.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Progressive Railroading article with interview with Coscia and Moorman: What's Next for Wick Moorman and Amtrak? No real new news in the article, but it does provide some background on how the Amtrak Chairman had to persuade Moorman to take the job CEO and what Moorman wants to accomplish. Some excerpts:

Rather than simply "sharpening our lobbying effort" to hit up Congress for a larger appropriation, Coscia says, the board thought it would be better to spend more time convincing stakeholders that the railroad serves the public well with the limited resources that it has.

"No one invests in a company that isn't well run," Coscia says. "And our feeling was that a lot of progress had been made at Amtrak under Joe Boardman's tenure, and [his retirement] was an opportunity to build on that and create a very, very well-run company."

......

Moorman doesn't know exactly how long his stay at Amtrak will last. Still, he'll be there long enough to tackle some key issues necessary to make the organization function more effectively.

"I think we need to continue and there has been progress at Amtrak to really focus on building a strong culture centered around safety first, and then on customer service," he says.

.....

But few passenger railroads in the world make a profit, Moorman adds. So while Amtrak continues to drive down its operating deficit, it can't "economize" to a point of hurting the quality of the product, he says.

"One of the things we're going to pay a lot of attention to going forward is the customer experience," he continues. "We'll balance the customer service needs with our ability to be more efficient and effective, particularly in those areas that don't directly affect the customer."

.....

With the Gateway and Acela Express programs underway, Amtrak needed an executive leader with the experience to manage capital projects of such magnitude, according to Coscia.

"Forty years of under-investment in passenger rail has created some glaring things that need to be built, both in infrastructure and in rolling stock," he says. "Getting the money is difficult; almost equally difficult is overseeing and managing the project so that its delivered on time and on budget."
Click to expand...
 
I think a good test of Mr. Moorman would be to see if he disowns the "Food Service profitable within x number of years" pledge and starts doing more reasonable things with food service. I always look for real action. Words are always cheap. I have very little faith in words not backed by action. But it is reasonable to wait upto a year to see what unfolds before coming to any conclusions, this way or that.

This would really be an acid test because the action on the Star was actually taken behind Mr. Boardman's back by the CFO according to several rumbles heard at various places. If that is the case then this would be a test to see if the CFO runs the company or Mr. Moorman does. many a company has been destroyed by mindless accountants running the company into ground. They are really good at it as a matter of fact. :)
 
jis said:
This would really be an acid test because the action on the Star was actually taken behind Mr. Boardman's back by the CFO according to several rumbles heard at various places.
Click to expand...
Ouch, that rumor is new to me.
If that is the case then this would be a test to see if the CFO runs the company or Mr. Moorman does. many a company has been destroyed by mindless accountants running the company into ground. They are really good at it as a matter of fact. :)
Click to expand...
Bombardier outsourcing streetcar components to Mexican factories which are unable to meet quality standards comes to mind, from just a year or two ago...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:

Rather than simply "sharpening our lobbying effort" to hit up Congress for a larger appropriation, Coscia says, the board thought it would be better to spend more time convincing stakeholders that the railroad serves the public well with the limited resources that it has.

"No one invests in a company that isn't well run," Coscia says. ......
Click to expand...
Coscia may be on the correct track. Maintenance appears being shorted causing many late originations and enroute failures. We have no idea for sure but it seems that Amtrak suffers from both shortage of maintenance personnel and more importantly lack of parts. Every monthly performance report shows the overhaul maintenance of cars delayed for lack of parts. Even more important is the lack of parts for loco work at Beech Grove especially the replacement of traction trucks.

If Amtrak can reduce its internally caused delays and cancellations then the moral of the employees would be expected to improve and those employees would transfer that to passengers. ( not all of course )Then the freight RRs would have more accountability for delays.

Of course more equipment will give more continuous maintenance time without having to send equipment out before all deficient items can be fixed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been away from the Forum for a while & was hoping to hear more about Mr. Moorman's experiences riding around the country. I guess he must be finished with that, but I hope he resumes some time soon. I have it on very good authority that he has not ridden the Auto Train or talked to veteran Auto Train employees. If he does, he can get a pretty good before-and-after view of the degradation of a once-great train. The Auto Train used to be at the top in terms of customer satisfaction, and at the bottom in terms of customer complaints. Those have been reversed. Passenger loadings are down in comparison with seasonal norms for other years. There are reasons for this, and Mr. Moorman can find out those reasons if he talks to some veteran Auto Train employees. I can direct him to some good people if he wants to contact me.

I say this as an Auto Train retiree who was always proud of my train, and is saddened by the changes wrought since the beginning of 2014. Note that I say "my" train, In the past, all of us at the Auto Train had a sense of ownership and personal investment in that train. That has been destroyed by Management. My friends all tell me I retired at just the right time, so I didn't have to be there to see it and experience it first hand.

Tom
 
It would seem to me the CEO trumps the CFO when it comes to decisions, even if a decision is taken behind the CEO's back. One wonders, then, why the CEO did not reverse the CFO's decision--unless he agreed with it, which is quite plausible.
 
jis said:
I think a good test of Mr. Moorman would be to see if he disowns the "Food Service profitable within x number of years" pledge and starts doing more reasonable things with food service. I always look for real action. Words are always cheap. I have very little faith in words not backed by action. But it is reasonable to wait upto a year to see what unfolds before coming to any conclusions, this way or that.
Click to expand...
Doing more reasonable things with food service = good. Explicitly disowning the profitability goal = defying Congress* for the feel-good sake of defying Congress = bad. IMHO. The mirror image of "words are cheap" is that certain words can be damned expensive too.

*Yes, many in Congress are not anti-Amtrak or anti-Amtrak-food-service. And many of the people who oppose/vilify Amtrak as a waste of money because it's not profitable are not in Congress. But as shorthand for "a faction in government that casts a cold eye on any federal spending on Amtrak because it's not profitable and profitability is, to them, the by-all and end-all of existence" it's handy. :)
 
John Bredin said:
jis said:
I think a good test of Mr. Moorman would be to see if he disowns the "Food Service profitable within x number of years" pledge and starts doing more reasonable things with food service. I always look for real action. Words are always cheap. I have very little faith in words not backed by action. But it is reasonable to wait upto a year to see what unfolds before coming to any conclusions, this way or that.
Click to expand...
Doing more reasonable things with food service = good. Explicitly disowning the profitability goal = defying Congress* for the feel-good sake of defying Congress = bad. IMHO. The mirror image of "words are cheap" is that certain words can be damned expensive too.
Click to expand...
This, exactly.
 
Sounds like a Hobson's choice.

1. If not profitable can Amtrak

2. If profitable then sell it to private interests ?

3. Of course both views ignore the heavy capital infrastructure needed. That's not the Wall street model.t 4
 
John Bredin said:
jis said:
I think a good test of Mr. Moorman would be to see if he disowns the "Food Service profitable within x number of years" pledge and starts doing more reasonable things with food service. I always look for real action. Words are always cheap. I have very little faith in words not backed by action. But it is reasonable to wait upto a year to see what unfolds before coming to any conclusions, this way or that.
Click to expand...
Doing more reasonable things with food service = good. Explicitly disowning the profitability goal = defying Congress* for the feel-good sake of defying Congress = bad. IMHO. The mirror image of "words are cheap" is that certain words can be damned expensive too.
Click to expand...
Disowning the (food service) profitability goal - which needs to be done because it is both misguided and unattainable - and defying Congress are not necessarily the same thing. Granted, antagonistic defiance of those who hold the purse strings is a very bad idea, but that's not what is being suggested; It would be far worse to continue to mislead that same Congress with a strategy which is inherently unworkable. George ("glide path to self sufficiency") Warrington tried that once, and David Gunn had to come clean up the mess.

There is a saying that the cover up is always worse than the original transgression. Much better to work with Congress (often behind the scenes) on appropriate and sound goals toward an efficient and financially responsible Amtrak than to pursue an impossible goal only to fail in the final analysis. The potential damage done to Amtrak's "transportation product" in such an attempt - and the political fallout from having to explain the eventual failure to a hostile Congressional committee - could have repercussions for years.
 
I don't understand why dining car service can't be evaluated like any other product Amtrak offers. If it turns an operating profit by itself, great, keep it. If reducing dining car costs – cutting back on service or scrapping it altogether – has a disproportionate impact on ticket review (e.g. for every $1 of food service expense cut, ticket revenue drops by $2, say), then keep it as is. If raising prices brings it into the black, raise away. But if it's a money loser, can't be fixed and it doesn't have a meaningful impact on ticket revenue, cut it, scrap it or contract it out and take it off the books.
 
Amtrak is tied inextricably to Government, unless something happens to change it fundamentally. We're back to the old argument between those who want to run Government like a business ((i.e., at a profit) and those who want to run Government like a Government (i.e., in the public interest). There is no treason a Government Agency can't be run in a responsible way, without excessive waste. But if the fares are affordable, you won't run good passenger service (including all appropriate services, such as food service) at a profit, just as the Interstate Highways don't operate at a profit.

Tom
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top