Joe Boardman questions current Amtrak's managements motives

[neroden]

From a business perspective, Anderson is not wrong to ask the states to come up with a business plan for the tracks.

So here's the thing: I actually *agree* with that. When the bizarre deal was made to keep the Chief running over Raton, I was an advocate of contacting Amarillo and Wichita and BNSF and rerouting the train; and if it was to stay over Raton, I believed the states needed to come up with a long-term ownership & maintenance plan, which they did not do.

HOWEVER, this does not excuse the cavalcade of dishonesty and lies which finished off the letter. If the letter had been *honest*, if it had said "While the Southwest Chief as a whole is doing very well, the stations across Raton Pass are low-ridership and declining" (which is true); if it had said "Cancelling the Southwest Chief would save $5 million a year [this is my estimate based on the last available information] and free up much-needed equipment for other trains", that would have been a fine letter. But that's not what it said. As the RPA letter pointed out, Amtrak's letter was instead wildly dishonest.

And that's not OK.

 

[neroden]

The root cause of the problem is that Amtrak has conflicting requirements spelled out in its charter. Anderson is but the latest symptom of it.

Amtrak is supposed to be both a national system and a for profit corporation. Are all those past CEOs who blithely ignored the "for profit" part of it any less "dishonest" than Anderson?

Yep. If you honestly state outright that you're ignoring part of the law... which several of them did, pretty bluntly, particularly Gunn... it's honest.
I should make it clear that I don't think there's a conflict between maximizing Amtrak's profits (/minimizing its losses) and maintaining a national system. Hell, I don't even have an issue with saying "We should axe the Sunset Limited because it serves very few people, serves them poorly, and is immensely expensive". My issue is the flat-out lies and deliberately misleading statements which Anderson has been peddling.

 

[Ryan]

He also lied about the ridership profile of the Southwest Chief (which has been increasing -- he claimed it was continuously decreasing). RPA pointed that lie out in their letter.

As has already mentioned, the RPA letter states that the ridership peaked in 2015. It's mid-2018. In what direction does ridership go after a peak? Not up.

I'm not wading into the argument about cost figures. Neither you nor I have the data to be able to speak authoritatively about it. We have scraps of data filled in by guesswork.

It is now indisuptable that Mr. Anderson is lying to Congress.

Not based on what was presented above.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

To provide some context on where Anderson may be coming from:

1. Amtrak Five Year Service Line Plans 2019-23

2. Amtrak Fiscal 2019 Fiscal Report and Grant Request

Just as a reminder, I neither come to bury Caesar, nor to praise him. Just information....

Thank you, jis.

The first one will be especially helpful to me in understanding Amtrak's long-term plan. I will finally have an understanding of what the plan is and whether or not it is being followed.

 

[Chey]

So here's the thing: I actually *agree* with that. When the bizarre deal was made to keep the Chief running over Raton, I was an advocate of contacting Amarillo and Wichita and BNSF and rerouting the train; and if it was to stay over Raton, I believed the states needed to come up with a long-term ownership & maintenance plan, which they did not do.

Bingo. I never understood the deal either.

 

[LookingGlassTie]

The thing about Anderson, is that he is known for having been the CEO of Delta. I think that that is hurting his case. Granted, I don't know whether everything he is doing (and wants to do) with Amtrak is all on the up and up, but it reminds me of a quote by John Wooden:

"Your character is who you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are".

So to me, it's a matter of public perception and Anderson, IMHO, has a serious PR problem.

 

[dlagrua]

IMO, Anderson is trying to destroy the LD network. Going to cold meals on the LD trains will probably reduce ridership and this is exactly what Anderson needs to make his case. We won't ride LD without a dining car meal so his plan will work well with us and most likely others.. Wick Moorman once said that the dining car was part of the service. If you remove that part of the service, ridership will probably drop and this fits the Anderson's narrative.

I thought some of Joe Boardmans decisions where he pandered to congress penny pinching were bad but this Anderson guy takes it to an entirely different level. I see layoffs, more cuts in service, lower ridership and eventual discontinuance of the LD routes. The situation is absolutely terrible

 

[Lonestar648]

If F&B labor is the issue, generally there are at least two servers in a busy Dining Car plus LSA and the cook. The LSA stays no matter, so if the Diner returned, what if you had an extra SCA who crossed over to serve meals, but remained on accommodations overhead. An extra Coach attendant could do the same.. the added labor is your food specialist, food costs should be a wash. This would eliminate Sleeper lounge that some like so make the diner open most of the time to Sleeper passengers only except during meals

 

[Seaboard92]

If F&B labor is the issue, generally there are at least two servers in a busy Dining Car plus LSA and the cook. The LSA stays no matter, so if the Diner returned, what if you had an extra SCA who crossed over to serve meals, but remained on accommodations overhead. An extra Coach attendant could do the same.. the added labor is your food specialist, food costs should be a wash. This would eliminate Sleeper lounge that some like so make the diner open most of the time to Sleeper passengers only except during meals

The problem then probably would come from the union honestly.

 

[JayPea]

The thing about Anderson, is that he is known for having been the CEO of Delta. I think that that is hurting his case. Granted, I don't know whether everything he is doing (and wants to do) with Amtrak is all on the up and up, but it reminds me of a quote by John Wooden:

"Your character is who you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are".

So to me, it's a matter of public perception and Anderson, IMHO, has a serious PR problem.

I agree. He has been the CEO of an airline. Therefore in some people's eyes he has some evil ulterior motive to destroy Amtrak. If he'd been the CEO of the Wishy Washy Washing Machine Company of Walla Walla, Washington, I bet he wouldn't receive some of the flack he's been getting. And I bet he wouldn't be getting accusations he's trying to run Amtrak like a large appliance conglomerate.

 

[jis]

It would be even better if said Wishy Washy Washing Machine was a regularly loss making company too I suppose

 

[cpotisch]

The thing about Anderson, is that he is known for having been the CEO of Delta. I think that that is hurting his case. Granted, I don't know whether everything he is doing (and wants to do) with Amtrak is all on the up and up, but it reminds me of a quote by John Wooden:

"Your character is who you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are".

So to me, it's a matter of public perception and Anderson, IMHO, has a serious PR problem.

I agree. He has been the CEO of an airline. Therefore in some people's eyes he has some evil ulterior motive to destroy Amtrak. If he'd been the CEO of the Wishy Washy Washing Machine Company of Walla Walla, Washington, I bet he wouldn't receive some of the flack he's been getting. And I bet he wouldn't be getting accusations he's trying to run Amtrak like a large appliance conglomerate.

Well when you think about it, Amtrak has generators in its locomotives, as well as stoves, ovens, and freezers in its dining cars, so in some ways they are a large appliance conglomerate!

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

Doesn't the worry about him being connected to an airline go back to the beginning of Amtrak's history? The impression (whether correct or not) that air travel (along with cars, of course) was contributing to the decline in passenger rail travel (along with the railroads' desire to get out of passenger rail). And that Amtrak's whole purpose for existing was to let the private rail companies get out of passenger rail without embarrassing themselves--persuading people that they had another option in Amtrak--then having Amtrak self-destruct as quietly and quickly as possible. And they got an airline man to be their first CEO, Then Amtrak failed in its mission to self-destruct quickly but has been working on it ever since.

So it seems like a case of what goes around comes around, and no wonder some of us are a bit leery of another airline person as CEO.

Forgive me if my history is not completely accurate--it is the impression I have had from what I've read of Amtrak's past--and I will happily stand corrected if any of this is not correct. But I do think this is where the gut-reaction worry about a CEO from an airline is coming from.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Truthfully, I wouldnt go that far, Mystic. The reality of the situation is no sane railroader wants the job. He came in to run it like a business and he knows the airline business. Plus, he has made it perfectly clear that he is attempting to run it according to the PRIIA. Others have attempted to ignore certain points of it but he isnt. I

If PRIIA allowed him to lose a ton of money in F&B service, Im not sure hed go for it but at least there wouldnt be a timeline for eliminating the losses. This is why I suggested he may be an evil genius. Hell ram PRIIA right up their nostrils and say this is what you wrote and Congress will have to put their money where their mouths are or stand aside.

 

[Ryan]

In between his tenure at Northwest and Delta, he was at United Healthcare, and he has been a prosecutor and district attorney. The latter is likely where his laser like focus on PRIIA comes from.

 

[cpotisch]

In between his tenure at Northwest and Delta, he was at United Healthcare, and he has been a prosecutor and district attorney. The latter is likely where his laser like focus on PRIIA comes from.

He worked at UH? Now I hate him even more...

 

[Anderson]

Truthfully, I wouldnt go that far, Mystic. The reality of the situation is no sane railroader wants the job. He came in to run it like a business and he knows the airline business. Plus, he has made it perfectly clear that he is attempting to run it according to the PRIIA. Others have attempted to ignore certain points of it but he isnt. I

If PRIIA allowed him to lose a ton of money in F&B service, Im not sure hed go for it but at least there wouldnt be a timeline for eliminating the losses. This is why I suggested he may be an evil genius. Hell ram PRIIA right up their nostrils and say this is what you wrote and Congress will have to put their money where their mouths are or stand aside.

So Wick Moorman was nuts and his wife was sane?

 

[dlagrua]

OK folks, on this post may of us got it out of our system. Now what are we going to do about it? Next week we will be on the CL and you can be sure that I will be speaking with all the dining car staff and will ask if they will accept a petition to be presented to the board expressing our/their grievances. As rail passengers we need to write letters, join with Joe Boardman to preserve the national network and incite the employees to push back. No dining service and ridership declines, with employee cuts soon to follow. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is the way I see it. My dad was an organizer for the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union (now Unite Here) He always encouraged everyone to unite and speak out for the working person and that's what I intend to do. .

 

[Ryan]

I wouldn't ask employees to play politics while on the clock.

 

[railiner]

Doesn't the worry about him being connected to an airline go back to the beginning of Amtrak's history? The impression (whether correct or not) that air travel (along with cars, of course) was contributing to the decline in passenger rail travel (along with the railroads' desire to get out of passenger rail). And that Amtrak's whole purpose for existing was to let the private rail companies get out of passenger rail without embarrassing themselves--persuading people that they had another option in Amtrak--then having Amtrak self-destruct as quietly and quickly as possible. And they got an airline man to be their first CEO, Then Amtrak failed in its mission to self-destruct quickly but has been working on it ever since.

So it seems like a case of what goes around comes around, and no wonder some of us are a bit leery of another airline person as CEO.

Forgive me if my history is not completely accurate--it is the impression I have had from what I've read of Amtrak's past--and I will happily stand corrected if any of this is not correct. But I do think this is where the gut-reaction worry about a CEO from an airline is coming from.

Your history is pretty good... there was more than one airline executive involved in Amtrak's early history...the one you are referring to was of course, Roger Lewis, first President and CEO.

But prior to him, was Arthur D. Lewis (don't know if related), who was one of the eight people chosen by President Nixon in 1970 as incorporater's of the National Railroad Passenger Corp...

He had an extensive airline background.

Besides these two, some other airline executives were recruited into Amtrak management to tap into their 'knowledge of modern passenger transportation'.

 

[JoeBas]

I wouldn't ask employees to play politics while on the clock.

To be fair, it seems like you wouldn't want anyone to do anything except stop complaining.

 

[Skyline]

I wouldn't ask employees to play politics while on the clock.

I don't think a rally on board a train is on anyone's radar. At least not involving employees, at this time. But educating employees about a grassroots movement? That could happen on board or off a train, on-duty or off. The employees would be listeners; others would be talkers.

 

[Ryan]

I wouldn't ask employees to play politics while on the clock.

To be fair, it seems like you wouldn't want anyone to do anything except stop complaining.

Not in the least. Just make sure that the complaints are actually based on facts and not wild conjecture.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I wouldn't ask employees to play politics while on the clock.

I don't think a rally on board a train is on anyone's radar. At least not involving employees, at this time. But educating employees about a grassroots movement? That could happen on board or off a train, on-duty or off. The employees would be listeners; others would be talkers.

As he stated before, diagrua wants the employees to hand out the petitions to pax. We should not be asking employees to do something like that. I’m sure the employees are well aware of what’s going on so no need for them to “listen” on the clock.

 

[Seaboard92]

To play devils advocate for once. What would said employees have to lose. We are in mid May and their position in the dining car ends in roughly two weeks. Assuming they are not transferring to another crew base or staying with the company.

They really wouldn't have too much at stake because it's such a short time period. And I strongly doubt they would fire someone with two weeks left on the job.