Boardman: Amtrak Commits to End Food and Beverage Losses

[Tokkyu40]

How about adding one more staff to the dining car, have three overlapping shifts and keep the dining car open from 6:30 to 9:30 so people can wander in whenever they get hungry? The costs of the extra person would be paid out of the extra revenue from people eating more food.
Not to be a cynic, but it has to be expensive to drag around the weight and rolling resistance of a car no one can use most of the time.

 

[Trogdor]

You'd need to add at least two people: a server and a cook. I don't think the short amount of extra coverage you'd get (during off-peak meal hours) would pay the costs of two people. On some trains, the dining car staff is fairly thing as it is. Adding just a couple more people could mean a 40-50% increase in staff costs on those trains.

 

[williamn]

I'm always amazed that 1, sometimes 2, bays of seats are taken up by staff and/or equipment such as silverware, linen etc, even when the dining care is full, and that staff would rather turn away customers rather than inconvenience themselves.

 

[Tokkyu40]

The problem with the current system is that people don't like being regimented into specific mealtimes but they do like between-meal and midnight snacks. The dining cars can't do that because they're barely open long enough to feed the passengers.
And you can't add more cars to bring in more revenue because the dining cars can't handle the extra demand unless they lengthen the hours. So they're abandoning revenue at the dining car because they can't handle impulse snacks and turning away passengers at the station because they can't run more cars.
That is a tough problem.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

The problem with the current system is that people don't like being regimented into specific mealtimes but they do like between-meal and midnight snacks. The dining cars can't do that because they're barely open long enough to feed the passengers.

And you can't add more cars to bring in more revenue because the dining cars can't handle the extra demand unless they lengthen the hours. So they're abandoning revenue at the dining car because they can't handle impulse snacks and turning away passengers at the station because they can't run more cars.

That is a tough problem.

They can't run more cars because they don't have enough extras to run.

 

[haolerider]

The problem with the current system is that people don't like being regimented into specific mealtimes but they do like between-meal and midnight snacks. The dining cars can't do that because they're barely open long enough to feed the passengers.

And you can't add more cars to bring in more revenue because the dining cars can't handle the extra demand unless they lengthen the hours. So they're abandoning revenue at the dining car because they can't handle impulse snacks and turning away passengers at the station because they can't run more cars.

That is a tough problem.

I don't know if there is any hard evidence that passengers are unhappy with the hours of service, but during my years with the company, I never heard this complaint. Sometimes coach passengers cannot get served, but that is relatively rare. As far as your previous suggestion that an extra person be added to the staff, to,allow for additional hours of service, that would mean you also would have to add an extra cook and an additional wait help person. You can't have a cook waiting around for someone to wander in for a snack or meal. The current hours seem to work for all concerned.

 

[jis]

In places where trains are taken real seriously and very long trains cater to thousands of passengers per train, no one expects a Dining Car or two to serve each passenger on the train. Indeed in most case there is no Dining Car at all, or if there is one it primarily serves the highest class of travel on the train. The rest are served out of Pantry cars or from en-route service stops. Even if they are open for service to all, only a small fraction of the travelers can actually partake of that luxury.

This whole idea that the whole train will be served with sit down dining in Dining Cars is something that applies to only luxury tourist trains, not to mass transport providing trains. Amtrak should not be in the business of providing luxury tourist trains. But that is not to say that it should not continue providing Dining Car service as it does now. Just that it should not make very significant additional expenditures to provide more food to more people, unless it is provably the case that the additional revenues will more than cover the additional cost.

 

[SarahZ]

The problem with the current system is that people don't like being regimented into specific mealtimes but they do like between-meal and midnight snacks. The dining cars can't do that because they're barely open long enough to feed the passengers.

So they're abandoning revenue at the dining car because they can't handle impulse snacks...

If someone wants a snack, they can go to the cafe car. The dining car menu is pretty hefty; I would never order something in there as a "snack". The cafe car is generally open until 11:00 or midnight if someone wants to eat between meals.

As far as craving a candy bar at 3:00 AM, the pax are given the cafe car hours, repeatedly, before quiet hours start. It's like last call in a bar. When I ride in coach, I usually head down there to grab something just in case I wake up in the middle of the night and want to sit in the lounge with a book. I usually see a decent line right before they close, and I hear the rustling of bags and the crunch of chips late into the night.

 

[rrdude]

Well, slightly off topic, and crews would/did HATE it, but when I was LSA-Steward (only ran 3-4 trips as such) I kept the dining car "open" on one half for exactly that reason, (between meals, not late PM). Trains in summer were packed, I'd send chef, cook, and half servers to dorm car, keep dishwasher, and two SA. We limited to EZ items. (Sandwich, soup, salads). Made PA announcement that diner open for "early bird" dinner, or late lunch. I worked tables too, but gave100% of tips to 3 employees. Can't remember specifics on sales, but suffice to say, the three of us NEVER had time to sit.

Result was, got asked to visit "Burt", our union rep. Complaint didn't come from workers who I chose to work thru down-time, but from those I DIDN'T choose.

Demoralizing........

 

[The Davy Crockett]

...Amtrak should not be in the business of providing luxury tourist trains. But that is not to say that it should not continue providing Dining Car service as it does now. Just that it should not make very significant additional expenditures to provide more food to more people, unless it is provably the case that the additional revenues will more than cover the additional cost.

Reminds me of the old sales joke: "Yes, we lose money on every sale, but we make up for it in volume!" :blink:

 

[Anderson]

Well, slightly off topic, and crews would/did HATE it, but when I was LSA-Steward (only ran 3-4 trips as such) I kept the dining car "open" on one half for exactly that reason, (between meals, not late PM). Trains in summer were packed, I'd send chef, cook, and half servers to dorm car, keep dishwasher, and two SA. We limited to EZ items. (Sandwich, soup, salads). Made PA announcement that diner open for "early bird" dinner, or late lunch. I worked tables too, but gave100% of tips to 3 employees. Can't remember specifics on sales, but suffice to say, the three of us NEVER had time to sit.

Result was, got asked to visit "Burt", our union rep. Complaint didn't come from workers who I chose to work thru down-time, but from those I DIDN'T choose.

Demoralizing........

(1) It would seem that in such a case, the answer would be to ask for volunteers for the "extra shift" and distribute that time as evenly as possible among those willing to volunteer (and only calling on non-volunteers if it became necessary).

-Also, I suspect the grumbling was from the fact that it sounds like on a round-trip those extra shifts might be worth somewhere between $50-100 in tip money (depending on trip length, etc.). That's nothing to sneeze at.

(2) This (and Jis' comment) has me thinking of the fact that the only train where extra diner capacity is a desperate need is potentially the Builder at the moment. Please note the qualifiers in that sentence. The rule of thumb seems to be that a diner will accommodate 3-4 sleepers plus coach passengers desiring a meal. When you get above somewhere in that range, demand becomes an issue.

-A footnote to this: I wonder, if meals weren't included, if you could handle 5-6 sleepers on a single diner?

 

[Tokkyu40]

...Amtrak should not be in the business of providing luxury tourist trains. But that is not to say that it should not continue providing Dining Car service as it does now. Just that it should not make very significant additional expenditures to provide more food to more people, unless it is provably the case that the additional revenues will more than cover the additional cost.

Reminds me of the old sales joke: "Yes, we lose money on every sale, but we make up for it in volume!" :blink:

Actually, yes. That's exactly how it works. There's a certain unavoidable fixed overhead cost invested in the facilities on any business, and if you only offer a limited supply you can't cover the overhead, so you lose money on each sale.

By making it easier for more people to access your product you can increase your volume to spread the overhead costs over more sales, so the price to supply each item falls below the sales price and you begin making a profit.

The question is how to improve access to sell more cheeseburgers and egg, bacon and cheese sandwiches (on toast. Yum).

 

[cirdan]

Put simply; the union must defend the employee, without regard to what morals or even common sense might otherwise dictate.

Well, even the world's greatest criminal has the right to a legal aid, but that doesn't mean he's not going to be found guilty.

So just because the union (rightly) provides legal support for employees, that doesn't mean they cannot be fired or disciplined.

 

[Paulus]

Put simply; the union must defend the employee, without regard to what morals or even common sense might otherwise dictate.

Well, even the world's greatest criminal has the right to a legal aid, but that doesn't mean he's not going to be found guilty.

So just because the union (rightly) provides legal support for employees, that doesn't mean they cannot be fired or disciplined.

The problem is an inability to manage properly and one that seems endemic to Amtrak's culture (probably an issue with manager selection and training). It's really not that hard to create a proper paperwork trail to dot the i's and cross the t's in order to fire someone, but for whatever reason, there is a tendency not to do that.

 

[jis]

Reminds me of the old sales joke: "Yes, we lose money on every sale, but we make up for it in volume!" :blink:

Actually, yes. That's exactly how it works. There's a certain unavoidable fixed overhead cost invested in the facilities on any business, and if you only offer a limited supply you can't cover the overhead, so you lose money on each sale.By making it easier for more people to access your product you can increase your volume to spread the overhead costs over more sales, so the price to supply each item falls below the sales price and you begin making a profit.

The question is how to improve access to sell more cheeseburgers and egg, bacon and cheese sandwiches (on toast. Yum).

As long as in the process of improving access, the overhead costs don't go up faster than the revenues accruing from added volume of sales and potentially additional ridership generated. Historically food service on rails counted separately has been a net money loser and has typically been justified in added ridership revenues. Hopefully this time around Amtrak can figure out a way to breaking from the historical trend all over the world.

 

[haolerider]

Put simply; the union must defend the employee, without regard to what morals or even common sense might otherwise dictate.

Well, even the world's greatest criminal has the right to a legal aid, but that doesn't mean he's not going to be found guilty.So just because the union (rightly) provides legal support for employees, that doesn't mean they cannot be fired or disciplined.

The problem is an inability to manage properly and one that seems endemic to Amtrak's culture (probably an issue with manager selection and training). It's really not that hard to create a proper paperwork trail to dot the i's and cross the t's in order to fire someone, but for whatever reason, there is a tendency not to do that.

Having worked in both hotel chains and Amtrak, the major difference I saw was the poor record keeping and write-ups for union infractions at Amtrak. In my hotel chain, we wrote up every infraction and followed through with the appropriate punishment and the union hated it. We had a "three strikes and you are out" in the contract and we took every infraction to the table. We were able to clean out the dead wood in a few years, but it took a determined management to do it. At Amtrak, one of the issues is that many of the line/operations managers are former union members and they are lax in enforcing the policies and middle and senior management do not follow through aggressively. Without aggressive management actually on the trains, you can never get rid of the problem employees!

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Hopefully this time around Amtrak can figure out a way to breaking from the historical trend all over the world.

Indeed. :hi:

The only way to do this might be to give the books to the chef and have him 'cook' them.

 

[guest in the west]

In the superb history of American railroads by Christian Wolmar, The Great Railroad Revolution, Wolmar writes that the Pennsylvania Railroad at the height of its passenger service (and profits) was losing $1 million a year on its dining services before WW II and at least $4 million by 1949. So Boardman must be using hyperbole to say that Amtrak can offer food and beverage on a profit-making basis if even the best private railroads in their halcyon days couldn't do it. Hopefully he just wants to pare down losses in easily-identifiable managerial and operational areas as a way to cut down on the carping from some members of Congress. To honestly run the service as a profit, he'd have to destroy the ambiance and quality of railroad dining that makes it attractive in the first place.

 

[cirdan]

At Amtrak, one of the issues is that many of the line/operations managers are former union members and they are lax in enforcing the policies and middle and senior management do not follow through aggressively. Without aggressive management actually on the trains, you can never get rid of the problem employees!

Then it would seem that Amtrak has a problem with its process of screening and selecting candidates for promotion. If you want good people in lower and middle management you've got to hire good people into those roles rather than expecting them to somehow grow into their responsibility even when they're not suitable. So could it be that Amtrak is just poor at talent spotting?

 

[cirdan]

In the superb history of American railroads by Christian Wolmar, The Great Railroad Revolution, Wolmar writes that the Pennsylvania Railroad at the height of its passenger service (and profits) was losing $1 million a year on its dining services before WW II and at least $4 million by 1949. So Boardman must be using hyperbole to say that Amtrak can offer food and beverage on a profit-making basis

Maybe there's a question of definition here.

How do you define the loss or profiot of a dining service?

Do you, for example, take the dining car as a given, and just look at the opex of the dining service, or do you expect the dining service to actually cover the capex of the car, additional locomotive fuel for pulling that car etc. Such questions of definition can lead to vastly differing figures on loss or profit.

 

[GG-1]

Put simply; the union must defend the employee, without regard to what morals or even common sense might otherwise dictate.

Well, even the world's greatest criminal has the right to a legal aid, but that doesn't mean he's not going to be found guilty.

So just because the union (rightly) provides legal support for employees, that doesn't mean they cannot be fired or disciplined.

Correct Sir

Aloha

 

[haolerider]

At Amtrak, one of the issues is that many of the line/operations managers are former union members and they are lax in enforcing the policies and middle and senior management do not follow through aggressively. Without aggressive management actually on the trains, you can never get rid of the problem employees!

Then it would seem that Amtrak has a problem with its process of screening and selecting candidates for promotion. If you want good people in lower and middle management you've got to hire good people into those roles rather than expecting them to somehow grow into their responsibility even when they're not suitable. So could it be that Amtrak is just poor at talent spotting?

Agree!

 

[Guest]

My guess is that the government subsidy per first class passenger as a % of the total fare is less than the % of the far subsidized for coach passengers, even if you factored in the amount of the dining car total cost that is attributable to first class passengers dining in the diner. By that measure, the dining car is not such a "money loser"...if we look at the Pullman charge in the '40s to '60s, from what I have seen it was around 3 times the cost of the basic train ticket. It seems to be quite a bit more than that ratio now. If so, the the dining car and sleeping cars are pulling more of their own weight than the coaches are.

 

[AlanB]

Put simply; the union must defend the employee, without regard to what morals or even common sense might otherwise dictate.

Well, even the world's greatest criminal has the right to a legal aid, but that doesn't mean he's not going to be found guilty.

So just because the union (rightly) provides legal support for employees, that doesn't mean they cannot be fired or disciplined.

Oh, I wouldn't argue that at all. I was simply explaining to others why it is that the union defends someone who based upon all appearances should be fired.

 

[AlanB]

My guess is that the government subsidy per first class passenger as a % of the total fare is less than the % of the far subsidized for coach passengers, even if you factored in the amount of the dining car total cost that is attributable to first class passengers dining in the diner. By that measure, the dining car is not such a "money loser"...if we look at the Pullman charge in the '40s to '60s, from what I have seen it was around 3 times the cost of the basic train ticket. It seems to be quite a bit more than that ratio now. If so, the the dining car and sleeping cars are pulling more of their own weight than the coaches are.

No need to guess, NARP published a study a few years back and shortly before a dramatic price increase for sleepers, that showed even then that sleeper pax covered their extra costs and that there was then a bit of money left over to actually subsidize the railfares for those in coach.