Dining car food service (requirement to show profit?)

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.

Charles785

Service Attendant
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
154
I understand there is a either a law, or a regulatory ruling, mandating that dining car food service on Amtrak trains show a profit. This may have been covered in previous posts sometime back, but can anyone here tell us specifically what law or regulation it is?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this statute is in effect and governs:

49 U.S. Code sec. 24305 ( c ) (4) provides --

( c )Miscellaneous Authority.—Amtrak may...

(4) provide food and beverage services on its trains only if revenues from the services each year at least equal the cost of providing the services...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And are there any sanctions if Amtrak does not meet these requirements? Is that what we are experiencing now with all the discussions about abolishing/changing dinner options on LD trains?
 
And are there any sanctions if Amtrak does not meet these requirements? Is that what we are experiencing now with all the discussions about abolishing/changing dinner options on LD trains?
Theoretically the sanction would be reduction in federal subsidies to zero for misuse of funds. But in reality that is highly unlikely.
 
The mandate was never really enforced up before Anderson and I don't think anyone really cared or did anything about it. Maybe since Anderson is from the airlines where every single rule and policy has to be enforced with no judgement calls even in extenuating circumstances, he's doing the same thing here. Just throwing that idea out there.
 
More then likely it will affect ridership and revenue numbers especially for sleeping/premium travelers and in the not so long run COST Amtrak more. Its always been a loss leader. The current management is more then inept.
 
I believe Amtrak has a deadline of 2019 to be in full compliance with this law. There have been many attempts over the years to reach compliance, such as cutting the number of crew on dining cars, using disposable dishes, changing menu options, etc. The boxed meal idea is only the latest and most radical attempt to meet the deadline.

The ideal solution to this dilemma is to rescind the law and let Amtrak provide the necessary amenities that will attract ridership, not discourage it. To do this, Amtrak riders need to complain to their congressmen and senators. John Mica, thankfully, is no longer in office. We need to get rid of his legacy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The answer is simple. If the costs are being incorrectly reported as too high ( I,of course, do not know this as from what I have seen reported, no one can with any degree of confidence say what the costs really are), then report them correctly.

Then, increase the allocation of revenue from the Sleeper Service so that it balances.

Finally, as any good business would do, institute good management to the food services.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The answer is simple. If the costs are being incorrectly reported as too high ( I,of course, do not know this as from what I have seen reported, no one can with any degree of confidence say what the costs really are), then report them correctly.

Then, increase the allocation of revenue from the Sleeper Service so that it balances.

Finally, as any good business would do, institute good management to the food services.
The issue is that costs can in some ways be subjective. The negative consequences that come from making a significant cut are really just drops in ridership in revenue. They can attribute that to pretty much anything. So if they save $5 million on making some big change, and revenue drops by $10 million, there's no real way to pin that on said cut. So they can claim that they saved millions and millions of dollars on taking away hot meal service or checked baggage or something like that, and there's no real way to prove that they actually took a net loss.
 
Back
Top