The "magic" is that everything that Amtrak does costs more.
Sure there is. First, competition. The government hates competition and is generally viewed as an entity willing to pay whatever price asked for any given product. Sure, they go through competitive bids on things, and allegedly pick the best bidder, but when it comes to the work getting done, you rarely hear the Gov'mt refusing to pay after complaining about overruns.
Could they? Does the kitchen and chef have the capacity to turn out that number of meals? Sure, you can bring back the assistant cook/dishwasher, but there are physical constraints that you run up against in a kitchen that fits in a railcar.
I agree. Amtrak should restructure like a real business. That is actually my point. If Amtrak were to restructure like a real business, among the many other changes, they would get out of the food and beverage business tomorrow. Real businesses concentrate on their core function (pardon the corporate-speak), and buy everything else from third parties. They do not clean their own buildings, they do not run their own cafeterias, or multiple other examples of things that a company must do but do are not the primary purpose of the organization. They let others do those things: firms who do those things as their primary function. That is how they cut down costs, management and overhead.
I don't know if that will work.
The issue stretches way beyond Amtrak. Witness what happens when Congress tries to specify that something like food service should be outsourced. Just watch the discussion that unfolds in this forum! Amtrak cannot operate as a private business while its board is appointed by a convoluted government process, unless of course some fortuitous accident takes place, like the Soviet Union appointing Gorbachev as Secretary General.
And if it operates as a private business you will get all the pluses and minuses of same, unless properly regulated to keep it primarily in the passenger train service business. I.e. it will eventually trend towards (a) only those business segments that are actually more profitable (and contrary to all the frothing LD service has never been and never will be) and (b) trend towards other businesses initially ancillary to the core business that may be even more profitable... e.g. high value package service etc. Heck even as a publicly controlled entity it has attempted to delve into such from time to time.
Exactly, if private industry can do it better and cheaper, then if I were an Amtrak executive I'd poach the people that know how to do it better and cheaper and hire them to do the same on Amtrak.
We can observe in the UK that increasingly the franchises are not being won by genuine private companies, but that state companies as in the state railroads of France, German and Holland are winning franchises in the UK.
Amtrak, as a quasi-governmental organization, would never be able to pay a high enough salary to poach the people from other industries.
But if Amtrak subcontracted to the same company, wouldn't they also be paying their salaries in addition to the shareholders' dividends?
You are assuming those higher paid people at the private company are working only on the Amtrak contract. They would likely be working for multiple customers of the company. Those same people working at Amtrak would only be serving Amtrak.
Nobody said outsourcing a certain function would mean that responsibility for the function would also be outsourced.
This is an important difference though. Those agents also wear Delta uniforms and as such they represent Delta. Whether they are actually employed directly by Delta or by some holding agency acting for Delta doesn't really matter. It's nbot as if the stewardess serving you your coffee on a Delta flight will wear a Starbucks uniform, thus confusing you as to who is responisble. This type of background outsourcing happens on Amtrak too, for example the bus services are run by third parties on behalf of Amtrak. I also thought (but could be I was mistaken) that the food is also provided and delivered trainside by an external company and that all the Amtrak staff do is the final preparations and serving (the same happens on airlines by the way). So what exactly would it mean to privatize the food service? That the staff serving it would also be on the payroll of a private company? If it's just that, I don't see what the fuss is about. But if they're going to be wearing the uniforms of a private company, that's a development I don't like. I also doubt a change like that would massively impact the balance sheet
Flight attendants of regional carriers wear uniforms with the name of their carrier, not the major for whom they are contracted to fly (and how many passengers could actually identify an airline by the crew uniforms anyway? How many even pay attention?).
exactly.
The fuss would be about being on a different payroll which has its effects on individual pays and also on issues related to Unions retirement etc. Of course any cost savings is not going to magically materialize from nowhere. Someone will get paid less than they do now. One could argue that that is the way it should be, but those that stand the risk of getting paid less may tend to disagree. That is what the fuss usually is all about, regardless of whether what each is getting paid legitimately or otherwise, and the work environment that they enjoy or not, is right or not.
What you describe is a poorly executed and managed contract. A operation well managed from both the owner and contractor standpoint would have service levels as a fundemental aspect of the contract. This is not just in theory. It is in place right now on Amtrak with the Downeaster. Here is an exerpt from the written testimony of Patricia Quinn, the Executive Director of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) before the House committee:
At least in Maine, public and private mix very well.
At the end of the day it is the responsibility of your company's management to get the service they believe they need and are willing to pay for. I am sure the company outsourced to would be happy to provide additional service for additional money, which your management is unwilling to pay, and use the contract as just an excuse to try to deflect responsibility elsewhere. Afterall why should the service provider provide a service for free that was not part of the original contract, one that was entered into by the same management at your company to save money? Having been on both sides of such relationships, this appears to be a case of normal games that people play. Your company's management would appear to be the primary party at fault in this case, manifested in their inability to manage contracts to get the services that they actually need.
