What is going on with Auto Train Pricing

[b243923]

My dates are fixed as we own 2 weeks of timeshares in Fort Lauderdale and know the dates we need and no flexibility in the time.

I usually do not book till July as I would rather have my money than Amtrak having it.

I have checked Amsnag and the rate is the same for all of March 2015.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Don't panic yet, give it some time.

But yes prices are going up on Amtrak, but have you see the cost of gasoline lately.

 

[FriskyFL]

Bravo, Amtrak. Charge what the market will bear.

So Frisky, with that enthusiastic reply I take it you WANT to pay the highest price possible to keep your precious trains running? Do you voluntarily offer to pay the highest bucket price even when they charge you less? The man asked what is going on. He didn't ask for an Amtrak cheering session. We gave him suggestions for finding a lower price.

I can't speak for Frisky, but I've often mentioned my split opinion here: While I would, of course, like to pay as little as possible for my train trips I also recognize Amtrak's position and want them to do as well as possible. If I have to throw an extra few dollars in the pot on a given trip, I'd rather do that and see Amtrak better able to get new equipment than not.

Call it stirring the pot if you will, but the fact remains that Amtrak is *supposed* to be run as a profit seeking business, not a public charity. Maximizing revenue and minimizing costs, hardly a revolutionary concept. If the trains are full at the highest price points possible, then bravo, someone at Amtrak is doing their job well.

 

[Barciur]

Don't panic yet, give it some time.

But yes prices are going up on Amtrak, but have you see the cost of gasoline lately.

Yep, still 2x cheaper than in Europe and Amtrak is still move expensive than European trains

I would fully understand reasoning of the people who say Amtrak isn't a charity and shouldn't be run like one if it were a fully private business out to make a profit on any level that a private business would. Amtrak is subsidised heavily by the taxpayer and it is my deep belief that as such, it should be serving the population to a certain extent as a public service.. Which it does, I suppose, on certain routes, and not the others.

Unfortunately, I understand the reality which is said in the post above: Amtrak is "supposed" to be run as a profit seeking business despite being heavily subsidized which I find to be very unfair and ridicuolous, but that's a political topic so let's not go there.

 

[rrdude]

"Heavily subsidized"...... I can only fantasize that were true.....

 

[guest_nj_2]

To elaborate on Barciur's comments:

1. Amtrak is *NOT* run like a "business", not even close (so please stop bringing up this nonsense of running it "as business").

It's "business model" is fundamentally flawed.

They have low-revenue LD routes that are subsidized by high-revenue shorter routes (Acela, Auto Train, etc.)

A "business" would immediately cut [at least some] LD routes (Sunset ?) with freed equipment redeployed

on CHI-DEN, CHI-MSP (even on AT) routes with higher demand at higher pricing points.

Also, most businesses give DISCOUNTS to their best customers (which in Amtrak case would be Acela's and AT's

passengers as they pay the highest fares already), yet Amtrak keep increasing Acela's and AT's prices through the

roof. And why not increase LD fares through the roof ? Because then nobody will ride these trains, as there is no

"natural" demand for cross-country travel by train.

2. Amtrak does NOT have a competition, so it acts as a "natural monopoly".

Natural monopolies should NOT be allowed to increase prices uncontrollably (it is called "price gauging").

Public utilities (the other natural monopolies) provide a good comparative example.

People actually need electricity much more than they need Amtrak travel, and most people actually

CAN AFFORD doubling or tripling their utility bills, yet it doesn't mean that this is the right thing to do.

Regulators will not allow this to happen, as utility rates are modestly revised once every few years, and a hearing

is usually conducted.

Same logic should be applied to Amtrak -- especially since it gets public subsidies, it's fares should be

REGULATED by a commission and not allowed to increase uncontrollably (even if there exists a large demand

on certain routes).

3. Sometimes it seems that the main point of Amtrak's existence is for the benefit of its management and

employees and not for the travelling public. Customer service ? Amenities taken away ? Costs of running Amtrak

(fuel) may be increasing, but the price increases recently thrown on Acela and AT routes seem way in excess

of the general inflation. It seems that paying passengers are being asked to cover bigger and bigger share of

Amtrak's inefficiencies than in the past. And, as nice a rail journey can be, it's still NOT the *TRUE LUXURY*

experience, so charging the "true luxury" prices is absurd. Wait until [sleeper-riding] price-insensitive public

on Auto Train dies out, and younger people (currently riding coach) balk at the price increase and hit the I-95 again.

 

[Ryan]

It would be great it we lived in your fantasy world where Amtrak was treated as a public service and subsidized appropriately.

But back here in the real world, it isn't and it's operated like a business.

You've obviously not priced long distance train tickets recently - prices there are climbing just as much as the NEC trains.

 

[guest_nj_2]

Even if in the "real world" Amtrak operates as a "business", it doesn't make it right what it is doing right now.

"Businesses" also make mistakes, and a lot of them; Amtrak is not immune (if anything, it is probably more

culpable than other "businesses"). Recent Amtrak moves seem EXTREMELY short-sighted, akin some CEO

decisions that increase TOMORROW'S stock price at the expense of the long-term growth.

I remember times when Amtrak differentiated itself (and rightly so) from airlines; now the differential is pretty

much gone.

- prices change several times a day, keep forever increasing

- customer service nonexistent

- services and amenities taken away

Travelling is still a bit more comfortable than on airlines, but ultimately you spend 6 hours on a cross-country

flight instead of 2+ days on a LD train.

These price increases are not sustainable, same way as computer programmers' salaries in the late 1990-es

were not sustainable. Peoples' incomes are not growing as fast as Amtrak fares. Something got to give soon.

 

[Ryan]

 

[guest_nj_2]

Many people do live in denial (sigh ...) -- they didn't see the crash of 2001 coming, or the crisis

of 2008 coming, etc ... Keep laughing until public balks at these fare increases (and Amtrak STILL

isn't able to turn a profit even with all these hikes).

 

[guest_nj_2]

FWIW -- my company would NOT cover the "last-minute" trip NYP - WAS on Acela,

I would be required to drive -- Even "last-minute" NE Regionals may cost higher than

personal car mileage -- The "end" may be closer than you think.

 

[Eric S]

And when Amtrak reaches "the end" (which I guess is the point that increasing fares turn off enough passengers that revenues stop increasing and start falling, right?), it will just drop fares. Right? What am I missing? How is this such a big deal?

 

[Barciur]

You've obviously not priced long distance train tickets recently - prices there are climbing just as much as the NEC trains.

Yes, if you honestly look at the prices for LD trains, it IS a lot cheaper than NEC, so while the LD's have been increasing, they are still very cheap compared to NEC..

Chicago to San Francisco last minute - for April 24th - costs $257. If you buy a month in advance it is $164. That's 2438 miles. WAS to BOS is more expensive last minute - $175 for tomorrow with a month in advance being $101 - with only two 25% off saver fares one MONTH in advance for $75. That's 664 miles and that is a HUGE difference in pricing.

Point-to-point things on LD that are in between or on one end point, like Tampa to Miami (258 mi) will cost you less than Philly to New York on the NEC will (91 mi). I don't think it's realistic to say "well look at LD's how expensive they have been getting." The gap is huge still.

 

[guest_nj_2]

Eric S:

Nothing is a "big deal" as long as Amtrak's shortfall is covered by a public subsidy.

Even if revenue drops to $0.

However, if the revenue is stagnating while ridership is falling (a likely scenario if

a "casual" rider is wiped out by price increases and only the "core" group of

price-insensitive riders are left travelling), then it will be much harder to poster

in front of Congress and ask for increase in subsidies.

Also, Amtrak came a long way of "winning" the casual rider (and his money); once

this casual rider leaves, it may take a few years (and NOT just the drop in prices) to

get this group of riders back.

 

[Ryan]

However, if the revenue is stagnating while ridership is falling

Fortunately, Amtrak publishes such numbers, and no such thing is happening.

 

[Eric S]

However, if the revenue is stagnating while ridership is falling

Fortunately, Amtrak publishes such numbers, and no such thing is happening.

But, you know, if your fare is too high, then it must mean that everyone else is also turned off on from all purchases and revenues must be falling. Or something like that, I guess.

 

[guest_nj_2]

I don't say it will happen *RIGHT NOW* - there is an inertia in consumer's behavior;

also, as others commented, a lot of this year's travel has already been booked at *current* prices.

The scenario I'm talking about is likely to play in the next two years (2015-2016).

Denying this outright assumes that ALL Amtrak travelers have either infinite amounts of money

or very little price-comparison cost-benefits skills, which is an insult to Amtrak travelers.

 

[Eric S]

No, it does not. Your scenario assumes that Amtrak will continue to increase prices even after revenues start falling. So far, revenues (and ridership, by the way) have continued to increase.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Any business that is operating at by far the best ROI it has ever had is a business that is being operated correctly.

 

[tonys96]

Jesus Christ, Henry, listen. Read and repeat aloud: Reasonable Minds Can Differ.

You are an old retired man living in Houston Texas........."your laziness"

Disagree all you want but don't make a personal attack, amigo.

Sometimes it is advisable to take a dose of what one prescribes for others.

 

[Ryan]

Where has GML personally attacked anyone?

 

[tonys96]

Well stated GML. I have learned to keep my opinion to myself usually. I will post the facts that I have learned from 41 years of railroad time (40 Amtrak), also can rely on over 135 years of rail experience in my generation and the previous generation (wife, mother, sister, and father in law all railroaders).

I would like to add that I also have met Ryan and totally agree with Guest_SANSR_.

Since this seems to be the cheer leading for Ryan thread, I'll add that I met Henry at the Texas mini gathering a while back, and found him to be a very nice, respectable and decent person, who has a strong fondness for trains of all types, from Amtrak to local commuter trains and old trolleys.
We also met Saxman, DA, Misty, JimHudson, and others, good people all. We are blessed to have had the honor of sharing a table and breaking bread with these good folks. Had a great time with peace and harmony prevailing throughout.

 

[Thw Whistler]

In view of the escalating prices and sold out trains, it can only be assumed that the A/T service has always appealed to the retired traveler (aka snowbirds) with the cash. I do not believe that the prices can be raised that much higher without a negative impact but I've been wrong before. Lets face it, the Autotrain with their 60 year old worn cars ( and now abbreviated amenities) just isn't Pullman luxury rail journeys.

 

[Ryan]

No car on the Auto Train is 60 years old.

 

[VentureForth]

The oldest the equipment (Superliner IIs) on the AT was built in 1993. This makes the equipment barely 21 years old - or less.