Richard Anderson replacing Wick Moorman as Amtrak CEO

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.
I will shoot a message odd to some people and see if I can't get an answer to which charters were the money losers. I'm tempted to say none of them were money losers based on what they actually charge us. But I could be wrong.

Without right sizing the consists I could see the argument that equipment sent out for charters cost money from lack of space on scheduled trains.

My initial thought was the AAPRCO Specials but those just get a crew and engines from Amtrak so the resources used are small. But also they bring in far less than say New River Train which at times has had ten Amtrak cars and three locomotives for two weeks.

Speaking of that if I were you I would ride New River Train this year because you never know when you might get the opportunity again.
 
Thirdrail7 said:
As for the food service, for the single night LD trains that operate with these puny consists, I've stated it before and I'll say it again: Amtrak has slashed the need for a dining car to compete with a cafe car. You don't have the equipment committed to bring in the necessary numbers. If that is the case, drive your cost down and follow the example you've started with the Star. Be honest. Introduce high end cafe service or boxed/delivered.pre-ordered hot meals etc and adjust your prices accordingly.
Click to expand...
Bluntly, I'd be happy with high-end cafe service, but Amtrak currently seems unwilling to provide the level of service you can get from a bad buffet at a cheap motel. Where are the boiled eggs? While I understand it's more expensive to provide things on a train than in a fixed location, maintaining "at least as good as a cheap free motel breakfast, but for exorbitant prices" standards shouldn't be that hard.
 
jis said:
His immediate staff has clearly shown some significant gap in knowledge with several patently inaccurate statements that they have made.
Click to expand...
This specifically is what turned me against Anderson. If his staff had shown that they *knew what they were talking about*, I would have cut him a lot of slack. But at the moment it looks like he's surrounded by complete ignoramuses who are absolutely sure of their false beliefs -- a bit like the current President -- and that never ever works out well.

Again, my tactical advice is to point out that the CEO and his immediate staff have been publishing verifiably false claims and demonstrating gross lack of understanding (with quick citations). Admit upfront that the old methods of operation needed to be changed (so they won't write you off as a "never change anything" type), but say that Amtrak needs someone who *knows what they're talking about* in order to improve things.

This is an argument which can convince a Board of Directors. You are demonstrating to them that their employee, the CEO, is incompetent, and merely asking them to hire someone competent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden said:
Where are the boiled eggs?
Click to expand...
These mythical boiled eggs are starting to reach "Philly Fan vs. the Cardinal" levels of jihadist infamy...
default_wink.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden said:
jis said:
His immediate staff has clearly shown some significant gap in knowledge with several patently inaccurate statements that they have made.
Click to expand...
This specifically is what turned me against Anderson. If his staff had shown that they *knew what they were talking about*, I would have cut him a lot of slack. But at the moment it looks like he's surrounded by complete ignoramuses who are absolutely sure of their false beliefs -- a bit like the current President -- and that never ever works out well.

Again, my tactical advice is to point out that the CEO and his immediate staff have been publishing verifiably false claims and demonstrating gross lack of understanding (with quick citations). Admit upfront that the old methods of operation needed to be changed (so they won't write you off as a "never change anything" type), but say that Amtrak needs someone who *knows what they're talking about* in order to improve things.

This is an argument which can convince a Board of Directors. You are demonstrating to them that their employee, the CEO, is incompetent, and merely asking them to hire someone competent.
Click to expand...
But look at how long it took them to land Anderson. They were probably pretty desperate, what with Wick champing at the bit to get out. I see no reason for anyone with the requisite experience to want the job!
 
My guess is that the Board will not fire Anderson no matter how loudly a few rail fans/advocates huff and puff about it. They will however change some specific instructions and goals related to his $500K bonus possibly. Mind you this is just my guess. Having watched at least a dozen Boards' actions over the years, unless there is some financial or harassment or gross insubordination kind of malfeasance involved, they will not fire someone. That is not how corporate America operates, not that I necessarily agree with how it operates. But it is what it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do people keep implying Wick couldn't wait to leave? I've seen that claim at least a dozen times here on the forum but I never saw or heard anything like that from him directly. Whenever he mentioned leaving it was always his wife's idea/suggestion/demand that he give up and come home. For better or worse Wick himself seemed to be highly engaged and motivated and I was curious to see what his vision would be for Amtrak's future. Unfortunately Wick's short tenure was marred by the repercussions of long deferred maintenance and his replacement was a man best known for blaming his own company's problems on highly illogical (but politically expedient) targets 7,500 miles away.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
Why do people keep implying Wick couldn't wait to leave? I've seen that claim at least a dozen times here on the forum but I never saw or heard anything like that from him directly. Whenever he mentioned leaving it was always his wife's idea/suggestion/demand that he give up and come home. For better or worse Wick himself seemed to be highly engaged and motivated and I was curious to see what his vision would be for Amtrak's future. Unfortunately Wick's short tenure was marred by the repercussions of long deferred maintenance and his replacement was a man best known for blaming his own company's problems on highly illogical (but politically expedient) targets 7,500 miles away.
Click to expand...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/11/21-wick-short-time

Whether it was actually his wife's idea or his own was immaterial. It was always a given from the start that Wick had no intention on staying around.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Devil's Advocate said:
Why do people keep implying Wick couldn't wait to leave? I've seen that claim at least a dozen times here on the forum but I never saw or heard anything like that from him directly. Whenever he mentioned leaving it was always his wife's idea/suggestion/demand that he give up and come home. For better or worse Wick himself seemed to be highly engaged and motivated and I was curious to see what his vision would be for Amtrak's future. Unfortunately Wick's short tenure was marred by the repercussions of long deferred maintenance and his replacement was a man best known for blaming his own company's problems on highly illogical (but politically expedient) targets 7,500 miles away.
Click to expand...
He never really wanted to work for Amtrak. He took the job because no one else would and he felt it was important to fill in while additional candidates were found. Unfortunately, it is not an attractive position.

I have it cued up for you.

https://youtu.be/h5XsTmzfqDs?t=1358
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even though I think Wick might have been willing to stick around, especially if no other candidate was forthcoming, I'm willing to concede this point. If he really wanted this he would have done what was needed to make it happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
frequentflyer said:
The question should be why doesn't anyone want the job? Anyone one with real credibility.
Click to expand...
Probably because running Amtrak is akin to "mission impossible"...even someone with the very best intentions will utimately be frustrated by their lack of power to make the meaningful changes necessary, due to its completely unique nature, in the world of business mixed with politics...
 
Arent all Federal Jobs the same?

Ask to do the impossible with nothing. Seem that was the issue when I was in the military. Recalled the DoD was begging for a two year budget so they could plan purchase and projects.

Conflicting instructions from Congress effect all Agency not just Amtrak. The whole push back on Congress allowing the Administration to write rules to the law that they past.

Add in the lack of pay, the fall guy position if something fail to work, little or no respect, and no credit when it works.

Tough environment with limited up side.
 
Just-Thinking-51 said:
Arent all Federal Jobs the same?

Ask to do the impossible with nothing. Seem that was the issue when I was in the military. Recalled the DoD was begging for a two year budget so they could plan purchase and projects.

Conflicting instructions from Congress effect all Agency not just Amtrak. The whole push back on Congress allowing the Administration to write rules to the law that they past.

Add in the lack of pay, the fall guy position if something fail to work, little or no respect, and no credit when it works.

Tough environment with limited up side.
Click to expand...

That being said, most railroaders want to be free to pursue their products and agendas. They answer to their board and to the operation. Action speaks louder than words. If they see something not working, they are free to make changes.

Most railroaders know this isn't the case with Amtrak. As I mentioned earlier, Mr Anderson is a for profit CEO that see PRIIA as his mandate. However, every word he speaks is scrutinized, analyzed and second guessed. Politicians, use your back as their bully pulpit. Every incident is publicized. Meanwhile, freight trains have melted down, collided, derailed and caused mass evacuations and the outrage is local..if it exists at all.

What railroaded in their right mind would want to put up with that?

This typically leaves you with an opportunist or an enthusiast. Both of them think they can "save Amtrak." One does it for the love and glory while the other looks for the glory of building their resume. The burnout impacts the opportunist first. They tend to leave on a high not, knowing the ship is tilted to the right but their actions couldn't be linked to the actually sinking. The enthusiast just starts to burn out. Sometimes they are still flickering when they depart while other times, the fire was stomped out and the boiler is cold.

Finally, when you consider the pay versus the private compensation, you have to be one of the above to put yourself through this. That is why Gunn said 'he wouldn't take this job on a bet" if he wasn't retired and Moorman turned it down. They had absolutely nothing to lose. They wanted to help since the industry was important to them.
 
At this point, I'd like to tip my hat to Mr. Anderson.

While Mr. Boardman was the first CEO during my tenure to make sure that various departments realized they worked for a passenger railroad, which means we should work together to support customer services, Mr. Anderson is the first CEO during my tenure to notify the mechanical department that they are FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES!
default_smile.png


That's right and all though it will take time, this is more than words...I've seen the action.

He informed mechanical that the customer experience begins with them. If the train is dirty, looks neglected and has burnt out light bulbs, the rest of the employees are already on the defense. While he is aware that some of the equipment is just old, rundown and neglected, he wants the things that can be controlled...controlled...and is not taking no for an answer...regardless of the consequences (and there are definitely going to be consequences particularly when it comes to washing the trains.)

To that end, he is investing in the mechanical departments. He is investing in training and upgrades in facilities. Granted, he could do a lot more, but we'll have to cut loose some more chefs to make it happen.....(too soon?)

Additionally, there is a contractor that was hired to check the conditions of the trains prior to departure. In other words, the group is traveling around the various terminals, inspecting the work of the mechanical facilities. We've been told to assist when we seen them (give them access to the trains , escort them across tracks ,etc). They are also on the look out for items that haven't been repaired in a timely fashion. It has been made clear that facilities with too many exceptions will experience "changes"
default_ph34r.png
.

It is a start.
 
I have mixed feelings learning of this contract for an outside 'auditor' to do what inside quality control should be doing...

While the outside audit may be more objective, I am wondering what the cost of this might be, and where those funds could be better utilized....
default_unsure.png
 
railiner said:
I have mixed feelings learning of this contract for an outside 'auditor' to do what inside quality control should be doing...

While the outside audit may be more objective, I am wondering what the cost of this might be, and where those funds could be better utilized....
default_unsure.png
Click to expand...
It would actually be interesting to know whether there is any hope at all of getting anything objective from an inside audit too, and what the cost of that would be. I suspect that there is not a bunch of people on regular payroll with all attached benefits costs etc. with nothing to do and with expertise in auditing just sitting around waiting to be called on to audit. but who knows?
default_unsure.png
 
jis said:
railiner said:
I have mixed feelings learning of this contract for an outside 'auditor' to do what inside quality control should be doing...

While the outside audit may be more objective, I am wondering what the cost of this might be, and where those funds could be better utilized....
default_unsure.png
Click to expand...
It would actually be interesting to know whether there is any hope at all of getting anything objective from an inside audit too, and what the cost of that would be. I suspect that there is not a bunch of people on regular payroll with all attached benefits costs etc. with nothing to do and with expertise in auditing just sitting around waiting to be called on to audit. but who knows?
default_unsure.png
Click to expand...
Usually a CEO brings in "his people" to do an audit like this. So I highly doubt anyone internal was even considered.
 
railiner said:
I have mixed feelings learning of this contract for an outside 'auditor' to do what inside quality control should be doing...

While the outside audit may be more objective, I am wondering what the cost of this might be, and where those funds could be better utilized....
default_unsure.png
Click to expand...
If it gets you a cleaner, mechanically sound train, it will be worth it.

Besides, they will look at the "pure" results. It is likely an internal audit wouldn't hold the same weight, particularly if tasks aren't accomplished. They know the time limitations and considerations. If an outside agency comes in, sees certain things aren't being addressed and they note a great deal of it is because of late arriving equipment and staffing shortage, it will verify what mechanical has been screaming about since the Gunn layoffs.

In the end, this may give the facilities what they need.
 
I would imagine the audit company is having a field day in Chicago, given all the negative posts in various places about their sloppy work.
 
Thirdrail7 said:
At this point, I'd like to tip my hat to Mr. Anderson.

While Mr. Boardman was the first CEO during my tenure to make sure that various departments realized they worked for a passenger railroad, which means we should work together to support customer services, Mr. Anderson is the first CEO during my tenure to notify the mechanical department that they are FRONT LINE EMPLOYEES!
default_smile.png


That's right and all though it will take time, this is more than words...I've seen the action.

He informed mechanical that the customer experience begins with them. If the train is dirty, looks neglected and has burnt out light bulbs, the rest of the employees are already on the defense. While he is aware that some of the equipment is just old, rundown and neglected, he wants the things that can be controlled...controlled...and is not taking no for an answer...regardless of the consequences (and there are definitely going to be consequences particularly when it comes to washing the trains.)

To that end, he is investing in the mechanical departments. He is investing in training and upgrades in facilities. Granted, he could do a lot more, but we'll have to cut loose some more chefs to make it happen.....(too soon?)

Additionally, there is a contractor that was hired to check the conditions of the trains prior to departure. In other words, the group is traveling around the various terminals, inspecting the work of the mechanical facilities. We've been told to assist when we seen them (give them access to the trains , escort them across tracks ,etc). They are also on the look out for items that haven't been repaired in a timely fashion. It has been made clear that facilities with too many exceptions will experience "changes"
default_ph34r.png
.

It is a start.
Click to expand...
It is. I have to respect that. Maybe the longtime chronic disaster which is Chicago Mechanical will finally be taken to task.
 
I'm ready for a mid year evaluation. While I like a lot of the initiatives that have continued and a return to the basics, the public handling of his messages are abysmal...and possibly destructive. I find it hard to believe that he is allowing ill timed, ill advised and poorly communicated messages to be the focal point of his tenure.

It goes back to the thoughts I had at the beginning of his tenure.

Thirdrail7 said:
dlagrua said:
A point to consider is that Richard Anderson was the CEO of a for profit corporation. Amtrak is a totally different animal. When he discovers that Amtrak salaries account for about 75% of total revenue, jobs may be cut or lost.
Click to expand...
jis said:
And until someone manages to update 49 CFR 700.2 (requires an act of the Congress) to take out the phrase "for profit corporation", Amtrak by its charter continues to be a "for profit corporation". That it does not or cannot make a profit for various possibly legitimate reasons is a matter that is not included in its charter at present. Granted that Mr. Anderson will have a bit of a challenge, but then he has been there and done that in the airline industry. So that experience should be nothing new. Unfortunately the straitjacket environment in which Amtrak operates does not give him as many flexible options as he had in the airline industry to address the issue as swiftly as he could at Delta.

Click to expand...


This is the key. Can a person that has a "for profit" mantra understand that passenger railroads typically don't run at a profit and even if you attempt to cut your costs by eliminating things that don't necessarily make money but can add to the base, sometimes that actually drives away your customers?

I guess we'll find out soon enough.
default_ph34r.png
Click to expand...
Thirdrail7 said:
PRR 60 said:
Mystic River Dragon said:
Would someone please explain to me why Anderson took this job?
Click to expand...
He's a disruptor: a manager who comes into an organization and questions everything and accepts nothing from the past unless it is proven to his or her satisfaction - and that's not easy. His intent is to make a comfortable organization uncomfortable, and change the way things are done. People can either play ball or get out. I've been through that kind of management, and while it was very unsettling when it happened, we came out much, much better in the end.
Click to expand...

There's a difference in where this can work. Amtrak has had enough disruptors over the years. What it needs is a BUILDER that serves as LEADER. It needs a LEADER with a vision and a BUILDER that can work to BRIDGE the gaps between the various stakeholders and achieve a common goal of providing service where desired.



Why "disrupt" the long term bridges that are needed to provide service and what makes you think that a corporation that is routinely starved of capital funds, operations funds and must beg for its existence every year is "comfortable?



Additionally, if you believe Amtrak, it covered almost 95% of its operational expenses from ticket sales and other revenues in FY 17. It has climbed every year, along with ridership. hat has increased year after year after by working together with stakeholders (states, feds, Congress, employees etc), not "disrupting" the network and alienating your potential partners (private car owners, states, host railroads, etc) . All that does it make the NEXT CEO, waste valuable time and capital on mending fences, restoring bridges and reestablishing the network.
Click to expand...

We are finding out that he may not understand that eliminating things that don't necessarily make money but can add to the base may increase bad publicity and draw negative attention.

Canceling the Toys-For-Tots train immediately after a train derails in a major terminal operated and maintained by your company may seems like a good idea. Your excuse may be "we need to concentrate on the basics and that includes a state of good repair"

However, the timing and poor press will take a long time to correct. Even if there is an about face(and there have been a few 'ramp downs in rhetoric), the message has been mangled. It also shows you are unreliable and you have broken the spirit of cooperation with your partners.....partners that can help. How long until Chuck Schumer shows up in front on the podium? How many riders will get attached to funding bills? These attachments may last long after Mr Anderson and his regime are gone. There is damage to relationships being done.

Some of the passengers and future riders? Check!

Congress? Check!

States? Check!

Other Railroads? Check!

Private Car groups? Check!

Charities? Check! (Seriously!! Charities???)

Now, the Marines!! Check!

At this point, he and his regime are teetering on a shaky C-.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thirdrail7 makes many good points. Anderson could use some advice from a re entry retired public transit or commuter rail CEO or senior goverment affairs staff person to help communicate with riders and elected officials for funding.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top