Amtrak Guest Rewards 2.0 Coming January 2016
- Thread starter Paulus
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
That still leaves the LDs out in the cold. I sincerely hope that the bonus points issue for Sleeper fares will get corrected. It just does not seem to make sense not to give Sleeper users at least some bonus in line with at least corridor BC, though logically (according to my logic of course) sleepers should be equated with First Class in Acela since both have food included. Maybe Sleeper with no food a la the Star could be equated to Business Class.
Ryan
Court Jester
I don't say so, the data does.
Source?
Amtrak's accounting system makes Medicine Men,Wall Street Hustlers, Politicians and TV Evangelists seem honest!
Take their numbers with a grain of salt!
You're right Tony, as was Mark Twain, who said it first!
Take their numbers with a grain of salt!
You're right Tony, as was Mark Twain, who said it first!
Last edited by a moderator:
Rail Freak
Engineer
We can all complain til the cows come home!!! I enjoyed it while it lasted & I'll miss you folks on AU!!!!!!!!
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
What data?
Agreed, Jim! Here is a great example of it. While I have no idea as to the veracity of any of the numbers used, here is something that says the NEC is the big $$$ loser of the system:
http://www.railpac.org/2015/01/13/more-on-the-amtrak-long-distance-trains-performance-vs-the-nec/
Note: This is just used as an example of someone using "statistics" to bolster their own position......
Last edited by a moderator:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Yep. That is our old friend Andrew Selden for you. He is quite capable of coming with a statistical argument showing that the Sun always rises in the west.
Ryan
Court Jester
Saying that you're already going to disbelieve any numbers I put forth saves me the effort of pulling together a bunch of information and waste my time, so thanks.
I'll just take the easy way out and leave this here:
http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/ld_2014.pdf
In the 6 years 2009-2014, ridership has increased in every year save one.
As of July 2015 (most recently available monthly report), ridership is up 3.5% YoY and 6.5% above budget. We'll see what August and September brings, but it looks likely that 6 out of the last 7 years, Amtrak will see a ridership increase in LD trains.
I'll just take the easy way out and leave this here:
http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/ld_2014.pdf
In the 6 years 2009-2014, ridership has increased in every year save one.
As of July 2015 (most recently available monthly report), ridership is up 3.5% YoY and 6.5% above budget. We'll see what August and September brings, but it looks likely that 6 out of the last 7 years, Amtrak will see a ridership increase in LD trains.
I do not think ANYONE disputes that ridership has increases over the past few years. However, there is a legitimate argument that can be made that the bar was very low to begin with, so increases in ridership, however good they are, simply do not equate to "they are not struggling to fill trains". A 90% to 95% load factor, per seat mile, would, however.
A 90-95% seat load factor is something even the airlines rarely attain, and is arguably even less practical for long distance trains. If Amtrak is having 90-95% load factors per seat mile, it's selling out massively on a lot of city pairs on a lot of travel dates. Just as an example, I will sometimes take the train from SCD - WIN to visit family and get out of town for a bit. It's unlikely that they can turn over my seat perfectly at SCD or WIN (at least in the aggregate...there might be 10 people getting on the train at WIN but 12 people getting off.) There's also some days (and times of the year) that are slower than others...the Empire Builder will almost certainly have less passengers on a Tuesday in February than it will on a Saturday in July. If Amtrak has to attain 90-95% load factors before people believe that they are filling the trains, I don't think those people will ever believe that Amtrak is filling trains.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
I was already prepared for Tony to disbelieve whatever I posted, so I don't particularly much care what arbitrary standards he can come up with to be satisfied. Somehow, my life will be complete without his approval.
Fine, they're struggling to fill trains. Just less so than in previous years.
Fine, they're struggling to fill trains. Just less so than in previous years.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you! However, I cannot fathom calling a 50%-60% load factor, over time, (at very best) anything but "struggling to fill trains"...........I believe the semantics are where our differences lie. I think we agree on the situation.
On peak travel times, trains can and will fill up, even to over capacity! I have ridden (rode?) in the SSL on the TE for the entirety of a couple of trips due to there being no coach seats open. And enjoyed it! However, that is the anomaly, not the rule. Last time I checked the load factor for the TE was around 70%. So there are days there are very few pax on the train, that is to be expected. It is a struggle to get the load factor to even 75% every day!
Airlines aggregate in the high 70%s to about 83% since 2009, and are profitable.
http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=5
Over any given amount of time, selling only 50% to 60% of your fixed inventory product, while having fixed costs no matter how much is sold, will not be a winning business strategy. Raising that number can help get Congress off of Amtrak's backside. Seeing this, I believe Amtrak is struggling to raise that load factor, and is improving nearly every year, as was pointed out earlier. But it is still a struggle. One that I hope Amtrak can win.
Bottom line: I sincerely believe and HOPE that Amtrak is struggling to fill trains, each and every day. It is vital to the survival of Amtrak. IMHO.
Agreed with wholeheartedly!
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Ultimately load factor just by itself is not an indication of much. The difference between RASM and CASM and also the goals of the service provision is what matters. You could get a large positive number in odd situations for the overall system even with not the best load factors. The goal of service provision may not be to get a large positive number but something else. Supply, demand, requirements of the service purpose and price elasticity plays into that in complex ways.
PPorro
Train Attendant
OK I'll start at that. I used Dallas as a simple example, actually going to be two zones, on CZ from Chicago to Elko, NV. (Or Reno? it's the same price) 30,000 points and I have 64,000 right now.
Found the return trip using Amsnag, which didn't show on Amtrak, still don't know why, but it's not an issue anymore.
Returning CZ to SAC, (nine+ hour layover) to Portland and ending in Wolf Point, MT. One zone. 15,000
Then book Wolf Point to Chicago, IL one zone. 15,000
4,000 points to spare.
If I'm reading this right, I need to book before January 2016 - on the old zone system?
I haven't received the new card / old card information yet? I don't much care if I use one bank card or another, if I get points for AGR. Part of the old contract and new is, your points are valid as long as you have the credit card. There's also some 36 month limit, must have activity, which is nothing, considering it's a charge card.
For me that means, I can't cancel the old card, without risking losing my points, even thought we will be on the new card? And if the new card is a fee card and I decline to join, will my points be lost, because I don't have an active AGR card? Kind of messy?
I wonder how that part of the old points, new points will be handled, transferred or explained.
PPorro
Train Attendant
Well I have to look at this in the literal sense. The ridership is UP, which is true, but LD service is losing more money every year.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/AmtrakRoutes
I don't know about "filling trains" or percentages of seats and room occupied, but if more ridership is part of the $614,000,000 deficit, counting heads as an argument, isn't what matters?
Follow the link. Empire Builder ridership up 56% and lost $54 million dollars? Southwest Chief up 38% and lost $66 million dollars. Calif. Zephyr up 29% and lost $62 million dollars.
Blaming AGR for "free rides" and losses is kind of silly too. We earn these points, it encourages us to use the credit card that AGR benefits from the deal with the card company. The points are used for more than free rides, it's also promotion and beneficial, when there's an open seat or room, that would be better used by someone with points, than riding empty?
Unless the problem is, that LD travel loses money on the paying customers, so we are even more of a loss? :huh:
Whatever it is, I'm happy for the plan we had and hope that there will still be some incentive for me to continue. I've been using the AGR card as much as possible for years, looking forward to my big rail trip vacation. The whole Idea is not the destination, but the experience of enjoying the trip itself. That's where rail is an all time winner and can't be replaced by any other commercial transportation.
newlatidude
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2014
- Messages
- 17
Another case of parroting the current airline frequent flyer programs, which isn't a good thing these days.
In some cases certain airlines are even worse as far as changes. With Delta, for example, award ticket cancelation less than 72 hours before departure results in forfeiture of the entire amount of miles (though if one calls with a reasonable sounding emergency such as a death in the family, some have reported success getting the miles reinstated).
American Airlines is slightly more generous with modifications, where date changes to award tickets are permitted without penalty (assuming availability for the new dates). But cancelation or changes to origin/destination still incur penalties.
Any previously earned points will still be there after Jan 24 regardless of credit card status. If you don't have an AGR credit card, you have 36 months to have some kind of activity which will reset the timer. Currently, you have to take a paid trip for this to happen. After Jan 24, the reset is a lot more generous. From AGR: "We’ve expanded qualifying account activity to include all point earning or redemption activity (including points earned with partners or promotions). So as long as your Amtrak Guest Rewards account shows point earning or redemption activity within 36 months, your points won’t expire." If you have the AGR credit card (either annual fee or no annual fee), the 36 months does not apply.OK I'll start at that. I used Dallas as a simple example, actually going to be two zones, on CZ from Chicago to Elko, NV. (Or Reno? it's the same price) 30,000 points and I have 64,000 right now.
Found the return trip using Amsnag, which didn't show on Amtrak, still don't know why, but it's not an issue anymore.
Returning CZ to SAC, (nine+ hour layover) to Portland and ending in Wolf Point, MT. One zone. 15,000
Then book Wolf Point to Chicago, IL one zone. 15,000
4,000 points to spare.
If I'm reading this right, I need to book before January 2016 - on the old zone system?
I haven't received the new card / old card information yet? I don't much care if I use one bank card or another, if I get points for AGR. Part of the old contract and new is, your points are valid as long as you have the credit card. There's also some 36 month limit, must have activity, which is nothing, considering it's a charge card.
For me that means, I can't cancel the old card, without risking losing my points, even thought we will be on the new card? And if the new card is a fee card and I decline to join, will my points be lost, because I don't have an active AGR card? Kind of messy?
I wonder how that part of the old points, new points will be handled, transferred or explained.
Yes, you need to book your trip before Jan 24 to use the outgoing "zone system". The trip itself can take place after the 24th. As long as you do not modify that trip, it will remain as originally booked (AGR zone system).
I'm not sure you're quite right with those numbers - it's not actually 15,000 flat for each zone, unless you're planning on getting off the train for an overnight/extended stop somewhere. Your one zone CHI-DAL is 15,000 - but the two zone to RNO on the CZ is only 20k, not 30k. It would only cost 30k points if you were stopping off in a zone border city, either as a destination or a method of ensuring a specific routing.OK I'll start at that. I used Dallas as a simple example, actually going to be two zones, on CZ from Chicago to Elko, NV. (Or Reno? it's the same price) 30,000 points and I have 64,000 right now.
Found the return trip using Amsnag, which didn't show on Amtrak, still don't know why, but it's not an issue anymore.
Returning CZ to SAC, (nine+ hour layover) to Portland and ending in Wolf Point, MT. One zone. 15,000
Then book Wolf Point to Chicago, IL one zone. 15,000
4,000 points to spare.
I think you get that basic concept, because you know you'll need to break the return trip up in order to be routed via the EB back home - that will be 30,000 the way you have it planned. Unless you were planning on staying in MT for a bit, though, if I were you, I'd pay cash for a RNO-SAC segment, and take a two zone / 20,000 trip (still via CS/EB) back to Chicago.
If your goal is just round trip transport to NV without stopovers, you could save a lot of points by slightly changing the way you book it. For the cash cost of one short leg, you could have another two zone redemption! I'd happily pay for that sleeper leg from RNO if instead you wanted to share those saved points with me ;-)
neroden
Engineer
You're just wrong. 50%-60% load factor over the course of a long run is basically full for a train.
This is how it works, using a stylized example. Suppose you have a train which stops at a bunch of cities, crosses a mountain pass, and then stops at a bunch more cities. The train is empty at one end of the run. It accumulates passengers as it stops at intermediate stops. When it crosses the mountain pass, the train is completely jam-packed full, standing-room-only. Then the train starts draining passengers out as it heads towards the other end of the run.
When you average the load factor across the length of the run, it ends up being 50%-60% load factor. But the train is completely full across the mountain pass. And the travel demand is "across the pass", so anyone who wants to cross the pass -- regardless of what city they start or finish at -- sees a sold-out train.
Some trains have more favorable geographical distribution of passenger demand (and they can get higher load factors), but the situation I just described is *typical*. The same is true with roads, incidentally.
Since it doesn't cost anything significant to drag along empty coaches behind a train, you size the length of the train according to the demand across the mountain pass, and just haul the additional cars empty the rest of the way. This "lowers your load factor" but it doesn't *cost* anything significant.
Airlines don't do this because nearly all their flights are point-to-point, because it's expensive for an airplane to stop. (It's relatively cheap for a train to stop en route.) So airplanes end up with people taking transfers to smaller and smaller puddle-jumpers as they head further away from "the mountain crossing". The train might as well keep going straight through.
This causes overall train load factors to appear lower than for airplanes, but it doesn't mean anything economically. (Well, it means discount tickets should be offered for trips which stay out of the peak segment, which "don't cross the mountain pass".)
The interesting number is the load factor at the *peak occupancy part of the route*, which is hard to measure from Amtrak statistics. If that's low, then you do have an issue. But for Amtrak, on the vast majority of trains I've taken end-to-end, there's been one route segment where the train typically fills up -- showing that the trains are pretty much full.
-- For Empire Service, it's the final New York City approach.
-- For Pacific Surfliner, it's Oceanside, interestingly. (Because people who aren't crossing Oceanside take Metrolink or Coaster.)
-- For Empire Builder, it's MSP-CHI.
-- For the Lake Shore Limited, it's South Bend - Elkhart and again on the final New York City approach; having two separate peak segments helps the LSL. It's pretty full overnight too. It has good characteristics.
-- For the NE Regionals, it's New York City to Metropark (unsurprisingly).
-- For the California Zephyr, it's actually Denver to Winter Park. (But the whole Denver-Chicago run is pretty crowded too. It *empties out* west of Grand Junction and doesn't start filling up again until Reno.)
-- For the Southwest Chief, it's Galesburg to Kansas City. (Because there are other trains Galesburg - Chicago; this is mostly Chicago-Kansas City traffic.)
-- I couldn't actually tell for the Capitol Limited since I basically slept through the entire trip, so didn't see the other passengers, but maybe it's an exception.
Consider yourself educated about this basic characteristic of train service.
It would be nice to improve the load factor by filling up the empty seats on the emptiest section of the trip, but think about how to get more people to ride from Niagara Falls to Buffalo, or from Grand Forks to Spokane, and you start seeing that it's a hard problem. Many routes have a "big draw" on only one end of the line. On Empire Service, for instance, nearly everyone is travelling to or from New York City, so the Niagara Falls end is inevitably half-empty. You try to put a "big draw" on both ends of the line, and you get a New York - Chicago train like the LSL -- but then it's emptier in the *middle*. The NEC is lucky to have a lot of different major cities fairly evenly spaced, but it's still most crowded from NY to Philadelphia.
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden
Engineer
I've explained before that this is nonsense and gibberish. Basically, this is Amtrak's overhead costs (which don't change regardless of what services are provided) being allocated to trains in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Overhead is up in recent years, which is a bad thing and I'd like to know why It's happening, but it means nothing regarding whether LD service is "losing more money" or "losing less money".
Last edited by a moderator:
