Help me understand Amtrak vs. airline pricing

[chakk]

That change in altitude from sea level in the SF Bay Area to 9,000 feet plus in the Colorado mountains can be quite taxing on us older folks. Occasionally, I will fly + rental car the trip "up" in 5 hours total transit time, but may have difficulty breathing for the first 3 days in the mountains thereafter.

Driving my own car over 2 days (20 hours of engine turn time) or riding the CZ + Greyhound connection (29 hours total travel time) helps very much in gradually acclimating to the altitude increase, so I am better able to function immediately upon arrival in the High Country.

But for distances beyond 1300 miles, unless I have enough AGR points to cover the train, it's fly, rocket, fly; up up in the sky.

 

[andersone]

It is always interesting when a conversation falls into the realm of us vs. them,,,, and not picking sides I would like to propose that the real difference is not getting there, but how you get there and the personal options you have to influence this process. I swore off flying from 1989 until last spring but the press of time made me take to the skies. I did not die, and it wasn't as bad as I remembered it, but I still don't understand what the TSA guy sprayed all over my hands in New Orleans when I stumbled and dropped some coins. He wouldn't tell me, and just told me to keep moving. I walk distances with a cane, and my trache slows my pace and the press of flesh in the lines was really unreal. I realize those are my problems, and I prefer to drive or take the train because I am more comfortable. That to me outweighs the additional dollars that the rails and driving.

Other folks have different needs and expectations. I like living five miles outside a town of five thousand down a dead end gravel road. Sure there is no symphony and fine dining is limited, but the Kroger and the WalMart sell the same stuff that your WalMart sell, I just don't have a decent bakery to buy a cannoli. I just wish my connection to Amtrak were better, but then again I relish the chance to drive 600 miles to catch the EB so I can visit the twin sister of my former mother in law along the way. I am grateful that I live in a country where I can make these choices.

 

[ACL]

As one poster stated before, with Amtrak there are intermediate stops, where a direct flight from Philly to Denver has no intermediate stops. Between the Pennsylvanian between Philly and Chicago, and the CZ between Chicago and Denver, I counted 36 stops. If I were in a hurry to get to Denver from Philly, I would fly. If I were trying to get from Lewistown, PA to Princetown, Il, I think I'd take Amtrak.

 

[me_little_me]

Can someone please give me some data to help me understand how Amtrak determines its pricing versus how airlines do? For example, why is it that in planning travel in March from PHL to DEN I can get a direct flight 3.5-4.5 hours long for $372 RT while Amtrak will take 3 days of travel each way and cost $487? I am totally pro-Amtrak. I want to have a reason to take the train. But how can Amtrak possibly compete with flights when it costs more and takes so much longer? I would appreciate seeing some actual figures to help me understand the situation.

As a related question, if we had the most advanced currently existing rail technology here right now, what would be the expected travel time between the east coast (NYP, PHL, WAS) and DEN?

Thanks.

Then why does it cost so much more to fly from Atlanta to New Orleans than to take the train? If I leave on Feb 28, the cheapest round trip is $411 per Kayak. It's only $120 via Amtrak not including Amtrak senior or AAA discounts.

Your second issue is totally unrelated to the first.

 

[Tumbleweed]

What proportion of the total airline revenues is supplied by EAS subsidies these days? Just curious.

A quick and dirty calculation: The 2012 gross revenue of AA, DL, UA, US and WN was $116 billion. The 2014 EAS program is about $246 million. Thus, even just counting the revenue of those carriers, EAS subsidy is no greater than 0.2% of airline revenue.

Let us not forget the EAS subsidies have an effect on the major airlines bottom line, as a probably not so small percentage of EAS commuters make connecting flights on the majors, thus increasing the revenue of the majors....

 

[jis]

So we're intentionally muddying the water by comparing a single sharply reduced subsidy to total revenue in a banner year?

With logic like that I can make the nuclear power industry look "too cheap to measure" for those who remember such claims.

Why not compare all subsides (including airports, air traffic control, security and surveillance, safety and certification, etc.) to actual profits over the life of the airline?

We were looking at a specific question about EAS. Any extrapolation or generalization from that is entirely the responsibility of anyone who proposes such.
No one's stopping anyone from doing the more all encompassing computation mentioned by DA. Go for it! Would be an interesting piece of info if someone has the time to put it together.

But as far as EAS is concerned, I suspect it has more impact on the economy of the few small airport and surrounding areas served than on the bottom line of any major airline in any big way. It is just way too small a program.

Again that is not to say at all that the overall indirect subsidy (non EAS) is insignificant at all.

 

[June the Coach Rider]

Another thing that makes it impossible to compare the two is that on the plane, there is NO SMOKING from as soon as you get near the airport through check-in, the whole time on the plane, and then not again until you are out of the building where ever you are going. That can be many, many hours. On a train, there are usually smoke stops every few hours, I want to say about every 2 hours or so.

 

[Ryan]

Many airports have smoking rooms on the airside for one last puff before boarding.

What proportion of the total airline revenues is supplied by EAS subsidies these days? Just curious.

A quick and dirty calculation: The 2012 gross revenue of AA, DL, UA, US and WN was $116 billion. The 2014 EAS program is about $246 million. Thus, even just counting the revenue of those carriers, EAS subsidy is no greater than 0.2% of airline revenue.

Let us not forget the EAS subsidies have an effect on the major airlines bottom line, as a probably not so small percentage of EAS commuters make connecting flights on the majors, thus increasing the revenue of the majors....

I'm not sure about that. Let's say that each person spends twice as much on their connecting tickets as they do the EAS segment (including federal subsidy). That $200 million becomes $600 million in revenue against $116 billion. Not inconsequential, but not really much to write home about.

 

[benjibear]

My problem with the EAS is the local situation in south central PA. Lancaster Airport has an airline that gets EAS funding from the government.

Let;s look at the location of Lancaster. 30 miles or about 35 minutes to the west is Harrisburg International Airport. About 90 miles or an hour and a half is Philadelphia Airport to the east. Going south you can get to BWI in about the same time/miles as Philly. I think these distances are well within an acceptable location to get to an airport with many choices and you can probably get anywhere you need to go from these locations.

Second, Amtrak Keystone service comes right through Lancaster. While it may be difficult with luggage, you can get to Philadelphia Airport very easily going Amtrak/SEPTA. You can get to Harrisburg Airport with bus or cab connection. Also, they are talking about a new intermodal station that would make the transfer to the airport really easy.

While I am sure there are areas in the country that depend on EAS, Lancaster is not one of them. The money would be better spent upgrading the Middletown station for easier connection to HIA or to Amtrak. I think it is just a waste. Also, I think Altoona and Johnstown are EAS cities which the Pennsylvanian goes through. These cities would be served better with a second Pennsylvanian in my opinion.

 

[SarahZ]

Another thing that makes it impossible to compare the two is that on the plane, there is NO SMOKING from as soon as you get near the airport through check-in, the whole time on the plane, and then not again until you are out of the building where ever you are going. That can be many, many hours. On a train, there are usually smoke stops every few hours, I want to say about every 2 hours or so.

It depends on the train. Some have several hours between smoke stops.

 

[Ispolkom]

Paying millions so people who CHOOSE to live "2 weeks from anywhere" can have what amounts to their own personal air taxis, complements of the taxpayers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service

I take it you're a big fan of city lifestyles? Some of those people "who choose" to live in rural areas are called farmers and ranchers. Believe it or not, they have kids who attend college, relatives that visit occasionally, and now and then they might even rub a damp wash rag behind their ears, slick their hair, and venture out to the big city themselves. Amtrak doesn't serve 99% of them, the (often limited) EAS you decry does provide that link.

Given that farmers and ranchers already benefit from a wide variety of government price supports, subsidized crop insurance, subsidized roads, and other forms of public assistance, maybe they don't also need subsidized air service.

Getting back to the subject at hand, many federal (and state and local) government expenditures seem stupid and misguided to me, though not to their supporters. The political process is greased by logrolling, though, so the federal government pays for EAS as well as Amtrak, probes to Pluto as well as sugar quotas, etc. Selecting one or two programs as bad policy misses the point.

Finally, the basic reason Amtrak charges what it does is that the market will bear it. If there wasn't demand, the prices would probably go down.

 

[andersone]

Before I survived cancer (twice) I loved to smoke. Good reason to ride the rails. After a combined 15 hours of radical head and neck surgery I still want a smoke - but I promised my surgeon since he saved my life I would be like the Raven - "Nevermore".

 

[Apd]

On paper flying *might* look safer, but if something were to happen id rather be on land than falling 40,000 feet out of the sky. That's why I choose to take Amtrak rather than flying.

 

[Swimmingcat]

Can someone please give me some data to help me understand how Amtrak determines its pricing versus how airlines do? For example, why is it that in planning travel in March from PHL to DEN I can get a direct flight 3.5-4.5 hours long for $372 RT while Amtrak will take 3 days of travel each way and cost $487? I am totally pro-Amtrak. I want to have a reason to take the train. But how can Amtrak possibly compete with flights when it costs more and takes so much longer? I would appreciate seeing some actual figures to help me understand the situation.

As a related question, if we had the most advanced currently existing rail technology here right now, what would be the expected travel time between the east coast (NYP, PHL, WAS) and DEN?

Thanks.

Then why does it cost so much more to fly from Atlanta to New Orleans than to take the train? If I leave on Feb 28, the cheapest round trip is $411 per Kayak. It's only $120 via Amtrak not including Amtrak senior or AAA discounts.

Your second issue is totally unrelated to the first.

Sometimes, airfares between city pairs don't always appear to make sense from a price standpoint, or a pure distance factor. That $411 seems quite high (the price you mention) for a fairly short distance. My recent trip on Southwest Air -- Denver to Oakland (CA) on Dec 23 (a very busy travel time)was only $150 (including all taxes & fees), for an air distance of almost 1,000 miles. That was a nonstop as well! I made my reservation & paid for it, in early November. But, depending on time of day, the fares this same day varied Widely/Wildly!. It's called "yield management" -- the airlines know which flights have higher demand, they can adjust fares accordingly. I believe that much of it is about the old 'supply & demand' working here.

 

[SarahZ]

On paper flying *might* look safer, but if something were to happen id rather be on land than falling 40,000 feet out of the sky. That's why I choose to take Amtrak rather than flying.

I understand where you're coming from, but people do survive plane crashes. Nevertheless, you and my boyfriend say the exact same thing. He knows driving is the least safe method of travel, but he likes 1) that he's in control of the vehicle and 2) if the vehicle breaks down, he just has to pull over. Working in auto claims, driving is my absolute least favorite method of travel, and I worry a bit every time he leaves town.

He says the same thing about trains too. If the train breaks down, it can just sit there on the tracks and wait for assistance. I don't even get into the litany of safety checks planes go through because I realize he has a phobia, and all of the logic in the world won't cancel out a phobia (plus, he knows planes are safe, and he is a logical person, so me saying all of that is simply nagging and pointless).

I love flying and trains. I love flying because it's faster and cheaper than taking the train. Plus, I absolutely adore takeoff and landing. If I could takeoff and land over and over again, it would be like the greatest roller coaster in the world.

I love trains because I have more room and I love seeing the scenery. Right now, we use trains exclusively because of his phobia, but if I'm traveling by myself, I fly. The exception is Chicago, obviously, since it would be rather stupid to fly (and it's very expensive, despite it only being a 45-minute flight).

 

[Nathanael]

It's true that outside of the NEC the routing, scheduling, and speed have little hope of competing with modern aircraft, or even buses or private vehicles, but hopefully the points above can help explain why some of us choose to travel by Amtrak anyway.

I'd quibble and say "outside the short corridors". As well as the NEC, Amtrak can compete on NY-Albany, Philadephia-Harrisburg, Chicago-Milwaukee, San Diego-Los Angeles, etc. On such relatively short routes, the fixed overhead from going to the airport (arriving early, going through security, etc. -- several hours spent) is very high, and with big cities involved, road congestion slows down the buses and cars.
But apart from that, I entirely agree with your list of why people ride Amtrak long distances. If you're planning to take Amtrak for a distance where Amtrak isn't time-competitive, you're not comparing prices with airplanes, because you've already ruled out airplanes as an option.

---

On another topic, EAS is mostly a waste of money -- if you're so rural that commercial air service can't be supported, odds are that the roads are clear enough to run fast bus service. If they're more crowded than that, you probably ought to have rail service. Is commercial air service ever really *essential*? OK, probably in the areas of Alaska with no roads. But not in the rest of the country, where we already pay a fortune to build roads. And I say this living in a town which gets subsidies for EAS, and which does have road congestion. It would be cheaper in the long run to restore some of our train service.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

I'd be willing to wager a lot of the Western EAS airports see plenty of mail coming into them, and that's bigger than humans.

 

[northnorthwest]

Can someone please give me some data to help me understand how Amtrak determines its pricing versus how airlines do? For example, why is it that in planning travel in March from PHL to DEN I can get a direct flight 3.5-4.5 hours long for $372 RT while Amtrak will take 3 days of travel each way and cost $487? I am totally pro-Amtrak. I want to have a reason to take the train. But how can Amtrak possibly compete with flights when it costs more and takes so much longer? I would appreciate seeing some actual figures to help me understand the situation.

As a related question, if we had the most advanced currently existing rail technology here right now, what would be the expected travel time between the east coast (NYP, PHL, WAS) and DEN?

Thanks.

Then why does it cost so much more to fly from Atlanta to New Orleans than to take the train? If I leave on Feb 28, the cheapest round trip is $411 per Kayak. It's only $120 via Amtrak not including Amtrak senior or AAA discounts.

Your second issue is totally unrelated to the first.

The reason it is a related question (and not a "totally unrelated" question) is that if we had the most advanced high speed rail then trains would be more competitive with the airlines--not all routes, of course--but some. If I can get from point A to point B within a certain time frame for about the same or less than the cost of a flight, then I would rather take the train. But if the train costs more than the flight and takes days longer then I cannot justify it. I think this is the case for many travelers.

 

[Nathanael]

I'd be willing to wager a lot of the Western EAS airports see plenty of mail coming into them, and that's bigger than humans.

OK, I'll believe that for *some* airports. But where I am in the east, our mail gets delivered to an sorting center 30 miles away and driven here, so that's no excuse. They even do this with our LOCAL mail, meaning that it has a minimum two-day turnaround on a local letter.

EAS is a stupid and wasteful subsidy for airports. Frankly I'd rather subsidize faster local mail service, now that you mention it!

 

[saxman]

I've made this list before. It compares airports that have both EAS and Amtrak service.

Kingman- LAX

Hot Springs (via Malvern)- DAL

Merced- LAX

Visalia- LAX

Quincy- STL

Burlington, IA- ORD

Dodge City- DEN

Garden City- DFW

Laurel/Hattiesburg- ATL

Meridian- ATL

Kirksville (via La Plata)- STL

Glasgow- BIL

Havre- BIL

Wolf Point- BIL

McCook- DEN

Plattsburgh- BOS

Devils Lake- MSP

Altoona- IAD

Johnstown- IAD

Lancaster- IAD

Rutland- BOS

Staunton- IAD

Beckley (via Prince)- IAD

White Sulpher Springs- ATL

Quite a list there.

 

[saxman]

Also, it takes one flight crew to get the plane from say Chicago to LA. The train takes six operating crews if at least 3, more often 4. Most if the SWC route operates with two engineers. Pretty significant labor costs there. But if I have the time, I prefer the train and will take it again next month FLG to CHI, although I could have flown cheaper. Also, if I drive to Phoenix, 300 miles round trip and pay to park, that adds up.

Not a very good comparison, IMO. You're comparing only one flight to a train that makes dozens of stops on its route and probably has several hundred boardings throughout its one trip. I remember looking a few years ago and posting here that in one single Empire Builder journey, about 1500 different passengers board that consist throughout 1 journey from CHI to SEA and PDX. This was during the peak travel months. I can't remember what the SWC usually had but it was probably in the 6 or 700 range. It would take multiple flights to cover all the city pairs that one SWC can cover.

 

[me_little_me]

I've made this list before. It compares airports that have both EAS and Amtrak service.

White Sulpher Springs- ATL

Quite a list there.

The rich people flying to the Greenbrier from Atlanta need to be subsidized by the poor. Obviously essential service.

 

[greatcats]

Thanks for your good points, but it still takes a fair number of crew members to operate these trains cross country I'd be interested in reading more statistics such as yours as to how many these trains carry and between certain intermediate points. ( and I am not anti railroad crews, having been a crew dispatcher. )

 

[chakk]

Can someone please give me some data to help me understand how Amtrak determines its pricing versus how airlines do? For example, why is it that in planning travel in March from PHL to DEN I can get a direct flight 3.5-4.5 hours long for $372 RT while Amtrak will take 3 days of travel each way and cost $487? I am totally pro-Amtrak. I want to have a reason to take the train. But how can Amtrak possibly compete with flights when it costs more and takes so much longer? I would appreciate seeing some actual figures to help me understand the situation.

As a related question, if we had the most advanced currently existing rail technology here right now, what would be the expected travel time between the east coast (NYP, PHL, WAS) and DEN?

Thanks.

Then why does it cost so much more to fly from Atlanta to New Orleans than to take the train? If I leave on Feb 28, the cheapest round trip is $411 per Kayak. It's only $120 via Amtrak not including Amtrak senior or AAA discounts.

Your second issue is totally unrelated to the first.

Is the date of travel on the airplane during Mardi Gras? If so, it could well be that most of the flights are already nearly full on that route and so now air fares are substantially higher for that date. You might want to look for an "Amsnag-equivalent" for airline fares to see if changing your travel dates by a few days before or after Feb 28 produce a big savings in air fares. I think some of the individual airline websites offer such an option to search for lower air fares on alternate dates of travel.

 

[benjibear]

I started doing some resaearch on EAS in Altoona, Johnstown, and Lancaster, PA. Between the 3 airports, the airlines were subsidized 6.5 million a year for EAS. Pennsylvania contributed 3.8 million to the Amtrak Pennsylvanian and 5.5 million towards the Keystone. I am just coming to a conlcusion off the cuff here but the 6.5 million could go towards a second Pennsylvanian. I am still reseraching some numbers.