Amtrak's Answer to my complaint about photography

[AlanB]

I find it easier to gather my thoughts and send it in am email. If I do that to a hotel, a restaurant or anyplace else, I'll get a response within 5 days max. I don't see why I should have to CALL Amtrak. They should be able to answer my email in a timely manner. It looks like I might HAVE to call, but it still shows a lack of support. Doesn't anyone agree with me that Amtrak Support is the closest thing to no support? What good will a phone call do? One person will hear it and say they're sorry and send me on my way anyways.

Amtrak's Customer serivce department like many things at Amtrak, is understaffed. Especially for the volume of work that they get. I'm not saying that it couldn't and shouldn't be better, it should be; but it is what it is. Phoning usually works best because they have to deal with you immediately, whereas an emailed issue can be handed off to a phone op who doesn't currently have a phone call waiting for them. Of course, I suspect that most times there is always another phone call waiting. It's a problem that only more money can solve and I don't see that coming anytime soon.

But more often than not, once customer service does get around to dealing with the issue, many people seem to come away feeling satisfied with the results. I've had to deal with CS on a couple of occasions, granted by phone, and always came away from the call a happy camper.

 

[AlanB]

In any event, in response to the OP, I think you got the response you were looking for. Personally I found your letter to be way over the top. Take things in stride and have a chill life man... Breathe in the air!

Way over the top? How so? It seemed pretty reasonable to me, especially given Amtrak's history of repeatedly lying to photographers about imaginary laws with no names. Even this talk about needing a ticket to secure a picture isn't backed up by any law I'm familiar with. If you're on a sidewalk or other public space then you're free to pop off as many photos as you like, whether the train is there or not. These days so many portable devices come with cameras because it's becoming more and more popular to record and share our adventures like never before. Meanwhile Amtrak and related agencies seem to be doing their best to turn back the clock and diminish one of the best incentives I know of for traveling the rails.

Here I agree with you that the email wasn't over the top. However, as we've learned this was neither an Amtrak employee in this case nor was it in an Amtrak owned station. But that's also not to say that the results wouldn't have been the same if it had been an Amtrak station or an Amtrak employee. There is certainly plenty of evidence that Amtrak employees have overstepped their bounds on this issue.

If you're standing on private property (like inside the ABQ station), the owner of that station (or its agent) can absolutely tell you to stow the camera.

True, but maybe we should change the law so people have the freedom to photograph each other when waiting at a station. Seems like a pretty harmless expectation to me. I'm also not convinced that rules and laws against conspicuous photography actually help anyone. Maybe one of the reasons our food supply is routinely contaminated is because nobody sees what's actually going on at our farms and processing plants. Maybe if it wasn't illegal to take pictures more information would get out and we wouldn't have to suffer from routine contamination.

This I'm not so sure that I agree with you. This could be a very slippery slope to start legislating what people can or cannot do while on private property, even if that private property is open to the public.

 

[AlanB]

Of course, it didn't answer the question as to why the person in the station cafe said it was "federal property" and therefore photography was prohibited. Oh well!

Just curious, who was the person that said that? An Amtrak employee? Or someone else?

As I mentioned, the cafe clerk came over to me.

Sorry, the memory ain't what it used to be.

That person definately had no right to say anything to you and as already noted, they were dead wrong on Federal law applying.

If you're standing on private property (like inside the ABQ station), the owner of that station (or its agent) can absolutely tell you to stow the camera.

I don't believe that it is private property. Public property I believe. In any case, the employee lied. She claimed it was federal property and at least one person stated it was owned by the city. She also stated that because of that, pictures were forbidden. Another lie based upon what Amtrak stated in their email. There are no signs prohibiting photography.

Again, I'm not sure who owns the station; only that Amtrak does not since again I remember that Amtrak didn't move over right away because the rent was too high. I tend to think that it is indeed owned by the city, which would make it public property.

However, none of the above changes the fact that the cafe employee was dead wrong about it being Federal property and was clearly overstepping their bounds. Unfortunately, there is also little that Amtrak can do about that cafe employee, since they don't own the station and don't run the cafe.

 

[makai1976]

The sarcasm was exactly what was over the top, it was childish.

No you are wrong. The sarcasm was spot on, but wasted because no public employee working in the complaints/response letters department can possibly do anything but prepare a robotic, non-human reply akin to painting by the numbers. That's why the recommendations of many here to call and complain in a live interactive situation works better. The customer service rep may become embarrassed at his/her prevarication and attempt to soothe you with boilerplate responses, and actually address your complaint and offer a substantive reply.

How mature is it to send an aggressive and sarcastic communication to someone who cannot respond in kind?

 

[LA Resident]

The sarcasm was exactly what was over the top, it was childish.

No you are wrong. The sarcasm was spot on, but wasted because no public employee working in the complaints/response letters department can possibly do anything but prepare a robotic, non-human reply akin to painting by the numbers. That's why the recommendations of many here to call and complain in a live interactive situation works better. The customer service rep may become embarrassed at his/her prevarication and attempt to soothe you with boilerplate responses, and actually address your complaint and offer a substantive reply.

How mature is it to send an aggressive and sarcastic communication to someone who cannot respond in kind?

And if the OP had sent an obsequious, fawning letter apologizing for "sort of" complaining about a really nice guy in the Albuquerque station who just happened to threaten him over taking innocent photos, do you really think that the reply would have been any different? If you do, you're smoking the stuff that they pull people off the train in Reno for.

 

[makai1976]

The sarcasm was exactly what was over the top, it was childish.

No you are wrong. The sarcasm was spot on, but wasted because no public employee working in the complaints/response letters department can possibly do anything but prepare a robotic, non-human reply akin to painting by the numbers. That's why the recommendations of many here to call and complain in a live interactive situation works better. The customer service rep may become embarrassed at his/her prevarication and attempt to soothe you with boilerplate responses, and actually address your complaint and offer a substantive reply.

How mature is it to send an aggressive and sarcastic communication to someone who cannot respond in kind?

And if the OP had sent an obsequious, fawning letter apologizing for "sort of" complaining about a really nice guy in the Albuquerque station who just happened to threaten him over taking innocent photos, do you really think that the reply would have been any different? If you do, you're smoking the stuff that they pull people off the train in Reno for.

I think it's possible to express that you have a concern without mocking or belittling anyone. In fact, I find that expressing frustration or concern in the manner of an adult often results in a pleasant resolution for all. It seems that you're unable to express a differing opinion without personal insult...I'm sure that serves you well in life.

 

[LA Resident]

The sarcasm was exactly what was over the top, it was childish.

No you are wrong. The sarcasm was spot on, but wasted because no public employee working in the complaints/response letters department can possibly do anything but prepare a robotic, non-human reply akin to painting by the numbers. That's why the recommendations of many here to call and complain in a live interactive situation works better. The customer service rep may become embarrassed at his/her prevarication and attempt to soothe you with boilerplate responses, and actually address your complaint and offer a substantive reply.

How mature is it to send an aggressive and sarcastic communication to someone who cannot respond in kind?

And if the OP had sent an obsequious, fawning letter apologizing for "sort of" complaining about a really nice guy in the Albuquerque station who just happened to threaten him over taking innocent photos, do you really think that the reply would have been any different? If you do, you're smoking the stuff that they pull people off the train in Reno for.

I think it's possible to express that you have a concern without mocking or belittling anyone. In fact, I find that expressing frustration or concern in the manner of an adult often results in a pleasant resolution for all. It seems that you're unable to express a differing opinion without personal insult...I'm sure that serves you well in life.

The OP did not attack anyone in his sarcasm; he attacked the idiotic interpretations being made of a a rule that may or may not even be legal. Certainly he could have sent a very low-key letter but my point was, and still is, that he would have gotten the same vanilla, cookie-cutter answer.

As for your personal attack on me, I choose to ignore it because if you read all of my postings on my site, I don't attack individuals

 

[makai1976]

So what you're saying is that being sarcastic or demeaning to someone in this circumstance will not yield a more favorable result? I totally agree.

Of course, where I don't agree is that there is any value to be sarcastic and combative to a person who had nothing to do with the OP's concern.

 

[LA Resident]

So what you're saying is that being sarcastic or demeaning to someone in this circumstance will not yield a more favorable result? I totally agree.

Of course, where I don't agree is that there is any value to be sarcastic and combative to a person who had nothing to do with the OP's concern.

Then maybe Amtrak's Customer Service Department should start sending the e-mails it receives to those individuals in the corporation who are responsible for the issue. Then perhaps the person who sent the complaint might receive a reply that substantively addresses the matter. Oh, and then the sarcasm would also be of value because the corporation honcho in charge of the matter would come to understand how ridiculous the photo policy is, whatever that policy actually is!

 

[makai1976]

So in the case of a non-Amtrak employee making a comment in a non-Amtrak-owned station, to whom would they send this enlightening correspondence?

 

[LA Resident]

So in the case of a non-Amtrak employee making a comment in a non-Amtrak-owned station, to whom would they send this enlightening correspondence?

Well, if Amtrak Customer Relations actually addressed the issues raised in complaints, it could have responded that the specific station is owned by the city and county of Albuqerque, not Amtrak, and that Amtrak cannot determine photo policies at that station. An even more responsive letter would address the fact that Amtrak has received more than a few complaints about inconsistent, nee non-existent photo policies, and said that Amtrak is attempting to clarify matters so that passengers, and especially rail fans who are Amtrak's strongest supporters, can enjoy taking pictures to the greatest extent possible.

Instead, Amtrak sends a boiler-plate reply that in its own way, is itself an unintended piece of sarcasm, in that it confirms all the sarcastic stereotypes of an uncaring public agency going through the motions of customer care.

But hey, I'm the person you've accused of personal attacks so what do I know?

 

[makai1976]

You're quite persecuted, so I appreciate you tolerating my remarks. Clearly I misinterpreted the 'you must be smoking something' remark directed my way before as some sort of attack on my character. You obviously meant it as a compliment; my apologies.