Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
I think we're all/mostly on the same side here. I can't even remember the last time someone seriously defended Andertrak's flexi-con nonsense. If we're going to bicker let's at least pick something we strongly disagree about.
resume traditional dining for sleeper car passengers only, and just remove lunch service?
I got pretty much unlimited non-alcoholic beverages, even between meals, when I took the Capitol and the Cardinal to/from the Gathering. I don't drink milk, but I suppose if I had wanted it, it would have been provided.The milk is in the fridge where it should be. I got milk for all my meals by asking the LSA. I did not have cereal, though.
The Congressional mandate is to end food and beverage losses.
This plan would do nothing to cut costs (you're still paying for staff) and reduce revenue by serving few meals. Wrong direction.
And the Lake Shore LimitedThe new Viewliner dining cars, as of now, are still used on the Silver Meteor and the Crescent and are referred to as "Sleeper Lounges."
Cascades “Bistro” service then, unless you’re gonna tell me that costs too much as well and only exists thanks to the state of Washington... my fear is that while the current flex dining model is cutting costs, and thus, losses, it’s driving away passengers in droves and significantly decreasing the overall profitability of the train. I hope Anderson is nervous for the upcoming hearing where he’ll have to tell Congress whether or not the changes to food service have helped or not.
Cascades “Bistro” service then, unless you’re gonna tell me that costs too much as well and only exists thanks to the state of Washington... my fear is that while the current flex dining model is cutting costs, and thus, losses, it’s driving away passengers in droves and significantly decreasing the overall profitability of the train. I hope Anderson is nervous for the upcoming hearing where he’ll have to tell Congress whether or not the changes to food service have helped or not.
. you repeat this alot.. do you think the current solution is good?The Congressional mandate is to end food and beverage losses.
This plan would do nothing to cut costs (you're still paying for staff) and reduce revenue by serving few meals. Wrong direction.
Both Delta and American Airlines offers a very nice domestic first class service which includes decent meals served on real plates, with real silverware, on a real "table cloth" and with real glassware. The food is not as good as traditional dining car food, but considerably better than contemporary dining. So no... they haven't cut amenities to the bone.Also, consider Mr. Anderson's experience in the airline industry: The industry has become highly profitable after they cut passenger service amenities to the bone, and most airline passengers seem to accept the new order. Oh, they complain, but it's not like they have any other choice.
Sativa or Indica? LOL!It might be driving away some passengers, but whether it's in "droves" would require some more investigation.
If I were a congressperson deciding about whether financial support of the National Network was a good use to taxpayer dollars (which I think it is), I would consider the following:
- The vast majority of people riding the National Network ride coach, and tend to ride shorter trips rather than end-to-end.
- That said, the revenue generated by the sleeping car passengers, who do tend to ride (on the average) for longer distances a a significantly disproportionate share of the total revenue generated by the service. Thus, Amtrak can make use of sleeping car revenue to cross-subsidize the coach service (especially that serving numerous rural towns in numerous rural states), which is the main mobility benefit to the general public claimed by proponents of the National Network and the reason why it deserves to be supported by taxpayer funds even if it's not profitable overall.
- The main question is whether the cost of providing sleeping car service is such that a great deal of that extra revenue generated by sleeping car passengers is simply sucked up by the costs of providing sleeping car service, which includes the costs of the full meal service.
- It's possible that cost cutting like flex dining may drive away some sleeper passengers, and that the reduction of demand might cause sleepers to be sold at lower fares than before, thus reducing revenue. That, indeed, may be true, but the net revenue that can be applied to cross-subsidize the service in general, may be similar to what it was when there were the additional costs of full dining service. Thus, the train itself continues get the revenue it needs, while the food services losses are reduced to meet the congressional mandate, which, so far, doesn't seem like it will be removed any time soon.
- Also, consider Mr. Anderson's experience in the airline industry: The industry has become highly profitable after they cut passenger service amenities to the bone, and most airline passengers seem to accept the new order. Oh, they complain, but it's not like they have any other choice. If they want to get places in what is considered reasonable time, they have to fly. The only alternative is not to travel or drive their own car. The same with most sleeper passengers on long-distance passenger trains. They travel long distances by train because they like the experience, not because it's a practical way to travel. (That's different from most of the coach passengers, who ride the short distances on the long distance trains and find that it is practical transportation, or at least it is when Amtrak can keep to its schedule.) Nobody else runs long-distance passenger trains in the US, and it's not likely that anybody will be doing so any time soon. Thus, sleeping car passengers either have to put up with what Amtrak dishes out or not travel long distances by train.
- Mr. Anderson's gamble is that he can reduce the service amenities and reduce costs without driving so many people away that net revenues are significantly decreased to a point that he has to go the Congress and ask for a significantly larger subsidy than what was needed before when the service for sleeping car passengers was better. What I'm reading here and in the material from the RPA is that he might no be dealing with accurate cost figures and that these service cuts are not going to save him the money he thinks they are.
Of course, if I were a Member of Congress, someone on my staff would be doing all this thinking. These days, my mind would be more occupied by stuff like considering a war with Iran, the future of our democracy, or how we're going to handle the climate apocalypse. A minor piece of pork barrel spending like the Amtrak appropriation for the National Network might be fairly low on the priority list. I suppose I would support funding for the national network as part of a deal with Members and Senators from rural states to ensure their support for larger funding for improved corridor service between larger cities that would have a real chance of generating significant reductions in auto miles driven, and thus greenhouse gas emissions.
The culinary preferences of sleeping car passengers would be pretty low on my list of concerns. Anyway, if it got really bad, this could actually enhance the long distance train travel experience, as enthusiasts like us can apply our creativity to furnishing our own food and enjoy communal picnics in the sleeper lounge. Who knows, it might become fashionable to travel in sleeper without food service, and the sleepers will fill up, net revenue with skyrocket, and even Mr. Anderson will be talking about expanding the network and introducing multiple frequencies on the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited routes, and maybe even revive the Broadway Limited! We can always hope, anyway.
Both Delta and American Airlines offers a very nice domestic first class service which includes decent meals served on real plates, with real silverware, on a real "table cloth" and with real glassware. The food is not as good as traditional dining car food, but considerably better than contemporary dining. So no... they haven't cut amenities to the bone.
Don't forget that even coach passengers on major airlines including Southwest get free soft drinks and free snacks.
Wonderful. When I'm bouncing around in turbulence, the last thing I care about is a free soft drink and a minuscule bag of pretzels. I want to land safely and have the upset in my tummy go away.
The only excuse for having premium service on a taxpayer-subsidized Amtrak train is that the additional revenue from the premium service can cross-subsidize the part of the service that provides the essential transportation that deserves taxpayer support.
I find it hilarious that this board is filled with members who only take sleeping cars when they travel but somehow domestic first class should never be considered as a mode of travel since the majority of air line travelers take coach. The majority of rail travelers take coach as well!
My wife an I are planning a trip this spring. We will be traveling overnight - but, we will only be on the train from 11 PM till 8:30 AM the next morning. We will be on the Silver Star - and it does not offer food with with the sleeper. (We can't take the SM since it does not go to our destination)
Here's the part that we have a hard time with ...
There are two separate issues:
1) For a $200 difference in the price I would expect to get more than a "lie-flat" bed and a Happy Meal. Although the Roomette has two seats and two beds (not at the same time) it does not have ample space to warrant the $200 dollar a night price.
- A Roomette will cost $317 for the two of us while traveling coach will be $114 - so, the overall difference in the cost is $203.
- The pricing breakdown for this fare is not consistent/correct
2) If you look up the price and get the breakdown, according to Amtrak, the Roomette is only costing $152 because the tickets are $82.80 each. However, if you divide the Saver Fare by two, the tickets are only $57 each - even the Value Fare tickets are only 63.90 each ... so, where does this $82 dollar price come from. As far as we are concerned, the Roomette will cost $203 not $152 - since the coach seats will only cost us $114. After all, since we would sit in the same seats and have the same provisions with the Saver Fare as the Value - why would we buy the Value.
Now, if the Roomette could be priced at $75 for such a short ride - we would consider it .... but, it simply is not worth $200+ just to have 2 beds in a cramped cubicle overnight when we will not have anything to look at out the "private window" (it'll be dark outside) and no food is even being offered.
BTW - The prices for our trip are based on traveling as a Passenger with Disabilities and Companion ... if it were at "full price" the difference in the cost of a Saver Fare and the Roomette would be $222
So, in order to make a sleeper worth the additional cost - offering the dismal flex-dining does not help with the price disparity between coach and sleeper
Your conclusion is faulty simply because you don't understand how Amtrak prices sleeping accommodations. The total fare for your particular Roomette is whatever the upcharge happens to be for a Roomette on your day of travel plus 2X the second highest Coach bucket - not the Saver or Value Coach fare.There are two separate issues:
- A Roomette will cost $317 for the two of us while traveling coach will be $114 - so, the overall difference in the cost is $203.
- The pricing breakdown for this fare is not consistent/correct
I get where you're coming from, and it closely mirrors my own feelings, but I can still remember a time when coach travel seemed perfectly fine and sleeper travel was treated like a rare luxury. Even though I'm able to travel in sleepers exclusively now all it would take is one major legal or medical problem and I'd be back to coach or nothing. That's one reason I try not to judge or second guess those who view sleepers as unnecessary or excessively priced.It's a matter of COMFORT, for you. Personally, I chose not to sleep overnight in coach. (Noise, light, not flat bed, "aromas", privacy....) I've reached the point where If I go overnight, it's only in a room.
It's a matter of COMFORT, for you
Your conclusion is faulty simply because you don't understand how Amtrak prices sleeping accommodations
Enter your email address to join: