Senate THUD Committe Transportation 2020 Appropriation Draft

[jis]

Well, Anderson seems to feel immune from other Congressional mandates, such as restoring ticket agents. To my eye he seems to cherry pick ones that suit his strategy and ignore those that don't.

Mainly because Congress has not mandated restoring ticket agents yet. They might get around to it in the Appropriations for 2020. All that they got around to mandating is staffing stations, which can be fulfilled using part time volunteers.

Senator Tester has just added a more specific mandate for ticket agents in the draft Approp bill which still has quite a ways to go before becoming law.

 

[Ryan]

There you go again, clouding the issue with facts and logic.

 

[jis]

According to my memory (not perfect but it's the only one I have) Boardman spoke out against the Mica rules prior to being enacted, dragged his feet on implementation after passing (unclear if he had other choices), and then spoke out again after he was relieved of his duties. It may not seem like much of a push at first glance, but I see it as a relevant distinction between him and Anderson. If Amtrak were still ignoring the Mica mandate does the law spell out what sort of actions would be taken against them?

I agree that Boardman personally did not like the pressure that was being put on him regarding food service, and that BTW predates Mica. I had actually had a conversation with him on the subject. Yet he was unable to prevent Silver Star Diner loss from happening in his regime. It was a stunt pulled by his CFO behind his back and served with a fait accompli to him according to some rumors. So I do agree that Boardman was no Anderson and vice versa. My point was that post FAST Act Boardman did not have much time to do anything this way or that beyond expressing displeasure.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I agree that Boardman personally did not like the pressure that was being put on him regarding food service, and that BTW predates Mica. I had actually had a conversation with him on the subject. Yet he was unable to prevent Silver Star Diner loss from happening in his regime. It was a stunt pulled by his CFO behind his back and served with a fait accompli to him according to some rumors. So I do agree that Boardman was no Anderson and vice versa. My point was that post FAST Act Boardman did not have much time to do anything this way or that beyond expressing displeasure.

I was much more alarmed at the Star's relatively sudden loss of dining service prior to reading a post of yours explaining why you enjoyed having an (indirect) option to include or exclude meals and that of these two choices you actually preferred the Silver Star. Although I was never a fan of Boardman, and eventually came to believe his lack of corrective attention WRT safety standards was a major problem, he was the man at the helm of the ship when the Chef Inspired meals came into existence. Those felt like good days in the grand scheme of contemporary service standards and the future looked bright for the first time in ages.

 

[jis]

Oh, I still believe that the cost of food should not be included in the Sleeper ticket, and will support any means by which that can be brought about. The railroads in the heyday of passenger service all operated their food service that way. There is no real reason to become like airlines on that aspect, specially if one believes that the food served should not become like airlines.

I also believe that there should be reasonable food service for reasonable price offered on long distance trains.

 

[JRR]

Oh, I still believe that the cost of food should not be included in the Sleeper ticket, and will support any means by which that can be brought about. The railroads in the heyday of passenger service all operated their food service that way. There is no real reason to become like airlines on that aspect, specially if one believes that the food served should not become like airlines.

I also believe that there should be reasonable food service for reasonable price offered on long distance trains.

I’m not sure why you think that the meals should not be included in the price for a sleeper.

If the food & beverage portion of the ticket price were properly allocated, it would, I believe, make it much easier to cover the cost of the f&b service (I know, I’m beating a dead horse to death)!

 

[jis]

I don’t care to pay up front for food that I do not consume. That is why I do not want some arbitrary cost of food included in the ticket. And yes, as far as convincing me otherwise goes, yup, you are beating a dead horse. [emoji57]

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I don’t care to pay up front for food that I do not consume. That is why I do not want some arbitrary cost of food included in the ticket. And yes, as far as convincing me otherwise goes, yup, you are beating a dead horse. [emoji57]

I agree. I sometimes skip a meal on my longer trips. I’m never happy about paying for free booze either.

 

[Skyline]

One more vote here for separating food from sleeper fares. And letting anyone who wants to pay for a full meal in the diner, or lesser fare in the cafe car, do so. Shouldn't matter if they are sleeper or coach pax.

However, the ticket pricing for sleepers should come down appropriately based upon how F&B costs are currently allocated -- not some fictional amount.

All parties should recognize that providing good diner and lounge experiences attracts pax to trains, and that these are unlikely to ever make a profit. Politicians who demagogue on this issue should not only be ashamed, but should be voted out of office. It's like saying snow removal on tolled interstates should "pay for itself." Rubbish.

 

[JRR]

I don’t care to pay up front for food that I do not consume. That is why I do not want some arbitrary cost of food included in the ticket. And yes, as far as convincing me otherwise goes, yup, you are beating a dead horse. [emoji57]

I have no problem with your viewpoint re having to pay for food you aren’t going to eat or an arbitrary cost of food in the ticket price. They are both good points and I am not and was not trying to convince you otherwise.

Thank you for responding and setting forth your thoughts. They are good points and I am happy that you set them forth to add to the discussion.

My point has been and is about “revenue” and its being properly accounted for. Only when that happens can one make any determination as whether or not costs are being covered.

One can’t just focus on costs and ignore revenue.


I would welcome input from those who know, how AMTRAK actually determines what the revenue is from the f&b service.

My dead horse reference, was my pessimistic opinion that we would ever receive such info since all anyone including Congress cares to discuss is costs and how to cut them.

I’d like to see a discussion of revenue and how to increase it if necessary to cover costs.

 

[jis]

I have stated at least half a dozen times in these threads what I learned from RPA's interaction with Amtrak about how revenue is allocated to the F&B account for complementary Sleeper meals, and before me AlanB had stated the same based on information from his different source within Amtrak. But that appears to be unacceptable and people keep going on and on asking the same question over and over again. That is why I don't bother answering it over and over again. I am happy to let people believe whatever they wish to.

One more time ... a fund transfer equal to the food check amount in the dining car is transferred to the F&B account. I am neither defending nor opposing this. It is just the way it currently is. So if no one goes and consumes food in the Dining Car, the F&B account looks the poorer for it and the train appears to be more profitable in the transportation account. OTOH if everyone goes and eats the most expensive items then the F&B account looks fatter and the transport account looks marginally thinner.

My overall position is that it is crazy to treat F&B as a separate P&L center. It should be accounted for as part of the cost and revenue of running the train, irrespective of whatever mechanism is used to entice people into partaking of the service more. That is the reason I consider discussion of how to optimize the current crazy scheme to be an utter waste of at least my time. The goal needs to be to revert back to per train P&L (if that, perhaps it should be per train set as part of an overall route structure - but that is a separate discussion), away from separate F&B P&L, and discussing how to tweak the current scheme is just feeding the Mica troll. This is the reason I ignore the discussion that you seem to reeeally want to have, and will continue to do so.

 

[jis]

The CR to keep the government funded through Nov 21 was signed by Trump...

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/budg...on-averting-government-shutdown-until-nov-21/

BTW, the Passenger Rail related numbers in the 2020 House Draft THUD Appropriations for FRA are:

Amtrak - National Network: $1.4 billion
Amtrak - NEC: $750 million
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure & Safety Grants: $600 million
Federal State Partnership for State of Good Repair: $500 million
Restoration & Enhancement Grants: $20 million

The passenger rail related appropriations in the FTA budget are over and above these.

 

[Anderson]

I have stated at least half a dozen times in these threads what I learned from RPA's interaction with Amtrak about how revenue is allocated to the F&B account for complementary Sleeper meals, and before me AlanB had stated the same based on information from his different source within Amtrak. But that appears to be unacceptable and people keep going on and on asking the same question over and over again. That is why I don't bother answering it over and over again. I am happy to let people believe whatever they wish to.

One more time ... a fund transfer equal to the food check amount in the dining car is transferred to the F&B account. I am neither defending nor opposing this. It is just the way it currently is. So if no one goes and consumes food in the Dining Car, the F&B account looks the poorer for it and the train appears to be more profitable in the transportation account. OTOH if everyone goes and eats the most expensive items then the F&B account looks fatter and the transport account looks marginally thinner.

My overall position is that it is crazy to treat F&B as a separate P&L center. It should be accounted for as part of the cost and revenue of running the train, irrespective of whatever mechanism is used to entice people into partaking of the service more. That is the reason I consider discussion of how to optimize the current crazy scheme to be an utter waste of at least my time. The goal needs to be to revert back to per train P&L (if that, perhaps it should be per train set as part of an overall route structure - but that is a separate discussion), away from separate F&B P&L, and discussing how to tweak the current scheme is just feeding the Mica troll. This is the reason I ignore the discussion that you seem to reeeally want to have, and will continue to do so.

I think this is also why Amtrak was trying not to sell meals to coach pax with F&C. If they're selling to coach pax, they need to use the cash price for F&B transfers from the sleepers. If there is no coach price, there's probably room to "dress up" the contemporary dining transfers at a much higher rate (probably $40-50 vs $25, maybe even more). Note that when they ran off the F&C, IIRC they were "offering" them to employees at an absurdly high price (again, something like $40 for the box meal).

 

[jis]

Good observation Cliff. It fits together.