Unsold sleepers

[Maglev]

It's been over 15 years since I traveled non-revenue standby as a parent of a United Airlines employee.  When I first got privileges in 1984, parents had the same priority as the sponsoring employee, which meant that I often bumped employees trying to get to work (I had May 1968 seniority).  That particular policy changed around 1995, and over the years more and more elites started filling up the first-class cabins.  For a variety of reasons, standby travel became even more difficult after 9-11.  From what I read on FlyerTalk, I gather that employee space-available travel is very difficult nowadays.

What about employee travel on Amtrak?   

 

[jis]

As a proportion on the domestic flights, the number of elite upgrades outstrip the number of paying passengers up front, except on the designated connector flights to major intercontinental legs, and on flights with lie flat seats. Incidentally, those two sets overlap considerably too, so no surprise there I suppose. Of course the upgrades may involve some amount of money in addition to miles too. The certificate upgrades and comp upgrades of course do not involve any additional money, but then a full Y fare upgrade is already paying a pretty penny when compared to the usual discount fares.

In short, it is way more complicated than it would appear at first blush, and I am not sure if they somehow compute the monetary value of the good will of upgrading high flying elites.

 

[Triley]

It's been over 15 years since I traveled non-revenue standby as a parent of a United Airlines employee.  When I first got privileges in 1984, parents had the same priority as the sponsoring employee, which meant that I often bumped employees trying to get to work (I had May 1968 seniority).  That particular policy changed around 1995, and over the years more and more elites started filling up the first-class cabins.  For a variety of reasons, standby travel became even more difficult after 9-11.  From what I read on FlyerTalk, I gather that employee space-available travel is very difficult nowadays.
What about employee travel on Amtrak?   

We can not walk up and travel free in a sleeper, unless BT rooms are available, which do not include meals in the diner. Otherwise we get a discount, and if they particular type of accommodation does not sell out, it's free. I'm not comfortable giving the full details, but a search on these forums will provide you with the full story.

My point simply is if Amtrak thought the cars were needed they would be using them not parking them. 

Where have you heard that they're being parked..?

Think about it. He’d rather run the new diners as axle counts or park them instead putting them on trains like the Cardinal or Palmetto? 
Name one good reason the Cardinal doesn’t have a V2 diner? I hope it’s not true but Anderson is as bad as most of us think.

Are there even enough in service to cover the Cardinal? I haven't tomorrow's followed the status updates, but have all the diners even been delivered yet? It also comes down to a crewing issue. To put a full diner onboard requires more crew, thus greatly increased cost.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see it happen, but I don't expect to see a diner on the Cardinal. I would like to see one back on the Star, but I'm pretty sure there were not enough extras ordered to cover the Cardinal, and you'll never see one go back on the Palmetto.

 

[cpotisch]

We can not walk up and travel free in a sleeper, unless BT rooms are available, which do not include meals in the diner. Otherwise we get a discount, and if they particular type of accommodation does not sell out, it's free. I'm not comfortable giving the full details, but a search on these forums will provide you with the full story.Where have you heard that they're being parked..? Are there even enough in service to cover the Cardinal? I haven't tomorrow's followed the status updates, but have all the diners even been delivered yet? It also comes down to a crewing issue. To put a full diner onboard requires more crew, thus greatly increased cost.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see it happen, but I don't expect to see a diner on the Cardinal. I would like to see one back on the Star, but I'm pretty sure there were not enough extras ordered to cover the Cardinal, and you'll never see one go back on the Palmetto.

Firstly, what's a BT room? Secondly, 24 of the 25 diners have been delivered, so they almost certainly have enough to outfit the Card and Star. Not saying they will, but they almost certainly could.

2 on the Card + 4 on the Star + 4 on the Meteor + 4 on the Crescent + 3 on the LSL + 1 in Hialeah protect + 1 in New Orleans + 1 in Sunnyside + 1 in Chicago = 21 diners, give or take. So on paper the equipment is definitely there. But equipment is often one of the less important factors when it comes to this stuff.

 

[LookingGlassTie]

I don't know if it would make financial sense for Amtrak to do this (or if it would be foolhardy), but I kinda like the idea of offering sleeper accommodations at discounted fares (without meals included).   I'm sure that there are some passengers who would want a room but would be willing to pay for their meals separately.   

I know it's done that way on the Silver Star as an example, as there is no diner, but it MIGHT work on other routes as well.     On the Star, sleeper and coach passengers alike pay for food separately from the cafe car.   

 

[cpotisch]

I don't know if it would make financial sense for Amtrak to do this (or if it would be foolhardy), but I kinda like the idea of offering sleeper accommodations at discounted fares (without meals included).   I'm sure that there are some passengers who would want a room but would be willing to pay for their meals separately.   

I know it's done that way on the Silver Star as an example, as there is no diner, but it MIGHT work on other routes as well.     On the Star, sleeper and coach passengers alike pay for food separately from the cafe car.   

I think the possibly problematic part of this would be that the diner staff would now have to know exactly what kind of ticket you have and charge you accordingly. Currently you just five the room and car number and you're all set. Once there are two kinds of tickets it can get complicated pretty quick.

 

[Triley]

Firstly, what's a BT room? Secondly, 24 of the 25 diners have been delivered, so they almost certainly have enough to outfit the Card and Star. Not saying they will, but they almost certainly could.
2 on the Card + 4 on the Star + 4 on the Meteor + 4 on the Crescent + 3 on the LSL + 1 in Hialeah protect + 1 in New Orleans + 1 in Sunnyside + 1 in Chicago = 21 diners, give or take. So on paper the equipment is definitely there. But equipment is often one of the less important factors when it comes to this stuff.

So I stand corrected.

BT = Business Travel room. Typically the first four rooms closest to the crew side of a transdorm. They are not offered on single level trains, nor are they offered on trains they don't use a dorm (27/28 for example). Also during certain times of the year, they may sell those rooms as revenue, further restricting availability. Oh, right. Technically there's not suppose to be an attendant either, and occupants are suppose to make up/strip the bed and remove all garbage for any potential following travelers.

I think the possibly problematic part of this would be that the diner staff would now have to know exactly what kind of ticket you have and charge you accordingly. Currently you just five the room and car number and you're all set. Once there are two kinds of tickets it can get complicated pretty quick.

There's a POS headed to the diners within...a couple of years, we'll say. Who knows. It will hit other trains far sooner, though.

 

[ehbowen]

The problem with breaking out meals separately from sleeper tickets goes back to the original reason that meals were included with sleeper fares in the mid-80s: Not enough passengers were purchasing diner meals (from either coach or sleeper) to make the diners financially sustainable. Forcing sleeper passengers to pay for meals was enough of a financial lifeline to keep them available. If we break out meals from sleepers systemwide (possibly with a "coupon system" or similar for those who continue to want meals included), pretty soon we'll be facing one of two unpleasant choices: Raise ALL fares (coach and sleeper) to cross-subsidize the expense of providing a full service diner, or else say bye-bye to full service diners completely.

 

[jis]

Raise all fares for Coach and Sleeper to include will never happen, (except in special case single night overnight runs like the Auto Train) because a single 40 seater (or even 60 seater) Diner cannot serve all passengers on a train of reasonable length and ridership.

When the first meals included train was introduced in India (only 5 Coaches - 70 seaters each,  and one Sleeper BTW) it was realized that even a dual unit Diner won;t be enough to serve all, so Diner was removed and replaced by a Pantry Car with only at seat service provided. Cooking on board was essentially discontinued except for some items for the Sleeper passengers, and meals served at each passenger's seat from the pantry consisted of one of four standard meals. That has pretty much become standard practice on all trains that have meals included in the fare, and has become even more necessary as trins have grown from 8 cars to 16 and then to 20, and more recently to 24 cars.

I am not suggesting that this is inevitable. All that I am suggesting is that including meals in fare has its own consequences, depending a lot on how widely you spread it.

 

[Triley]

Raise all fares for Coach and Sleeper to include will never happen, (except in special case single night overnight runs like the Auto Train) because a single 40 seater (or even 60 seater) Diner cannot serve all passengers on a train of reasonable length and ridership.
When the first meals included train was introduced in India (only 5 Coaches - 70 seaters each,  and one Sleeper BTW) it was realized that even a dual unit Diner won;t be enough to serve all, so Diner was removed and replaced by a Pantry Car with only at seat service provided. Cooking on board was essentially discontinued except for some items for the Sleeper passengers, and meals served at each passenger's seat from the pantry consisted of one of four standard meals. That has pretty much become standard practice on all trains that have meals included in the fare, and has become even more necessary as trins have grown from 8 cars to 16 and then to 20, and more recently to 24 cars.
I am not suggesting that this is inevitable. All that I am suggesting is that including meals in fare has its own consequences, depending a lot on how widely you spread it.

Pretty sure they meant raise fares to subsidize the operating cost, but not include meals in the diner.

 

[ehbowen]

Raise all fares for Coach and Sleeper to include will never happen, (except in special case single night overnight runs like the Auto Train) because a single 40 seater (or even 60 seater) Diner cannot serve all passengers on a train of reasonable length and ridership.
When the first meals included train was introduced in India (only 5 Coaches - 70 seaters each,  and one Sleeper BTW) it was realized that even a dual unit Diner won;t be enough to serve all, so Diner was removed and replaced by a Pantry Car with only at seat service provided. Cooking on board was essentially discontinued except for some items for the Sleeper passengers, and meals served at each passenger's seat from the pantry consisted of one of four standard meals. That has pretty much become standard practice on all trains that have meals included in the fare, and has become even more necessary as trins have grown from 8 cars to 16 and then to 20, and more recently to 24 cars.
I am not suggesting that this is inevitable. All that I am suggesting is that including meals in fare has its own consequences, depending a lot on how widely you spread it.

Pretty sure they meant raise fares to subsidize the operating cost, but not include meals in the diner.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. And I really don't think it's a bad alternative. I mean, there is an opportunity cost to provide decent food service aboard a train and it is an incentive to choose it over a plane or bus, even if at the last minute for whatever reason you decide not to take advantage of it. And it would allow food prices to more reasonably reflect the marginal cost of providing them and would encourage the consumption of the lower-priced options. I mean, how many sleeper passengers order Surf & Turf not because they're really hungry, or because they're really in the mood for both a flat iron steak and crab cakes, but because it's the most "expensive" item on the menu, it's already paid for, and they want to maximize value of the return on their several hundred (thousand?) dollar investment (Guilty!)? How many (honestly) unwanted desserts have been ordered for the same reason?

 

[jis]

The notional increase of Sleeper fares to cover food was mostly about enhancing revenue for the train to close the operating subsidy gap. The way funds are transferred from the revenue account to the Diner account pretty much reflects that. I know people keep insisting that they do not know how the accounting is done, but at least at presentations at the RPA in the past, it was quite clear that only the actual menu price of the food consumed is transferred. So the higher fare benefits the subsidy picture of the train more than the Diner P&L.

Of course back then no one had conceived of the possibility that some idiot from Florida would want to run the Diners as separate P&L center, and 500+ other idiots in Washington will write that into law. :angry2:

 

[cpotisch]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. And I really don't think it's a bad alternative. I mean, there is an opportunity cost to provide decent food service aboard a train and it is an incentive to choose it over a plane or bus, even if at the last minute for whatever reason you decide not to take advantage of it. And it would allow food prices to more reasonably reflect the marginal cost of providing them and would encourage the consumption of the lower-priced options. I mean, how many sleeper passengers order Surf & Turf not because they're really hungry, or because they're really in the mood for both a flat iron steak and crab cakes, but because it's the most "expensive" item on the menu, it's already paid for, and they want to maximize value of the return on their several hundred (thousand?) dollar investment (Guilty!)? How many (honestly) unwanted desserts have been ordered for the same reason?

This! I do have to agree, whenever we diner on Amtrak, our attitude toward what we order is mostly "Well, it's better than nothing, and it's free, so why not go for it?". If we had to actually pay for the meals at those prices, there is no doubt that we'd be eating and ordering a lot less.

 

[ehbowen]

This! I do have to agree, whenever we diner on Amtrak, our attitude toward what we order is mostly "Well, it's better than nothing, and it's free, so why not go for it?". If we had to actually pay for the meals at those prices, there is no doubt that we'd be eating and ordering a lot less.

Well, let's just assume that your coach fare from New Orleans to Chicago was $12 higher...but for that "subsidy" amount you had the choice of a fresh-cooked burger and chips for $7.95, an entree salad with chicken breast for $8.95, roasted 1/4 chicken for $12.95, or the flat iron steak for $16.95. And in the morning you had your choice of a Continental or else bacon and eggs to order (Edit To Add: For a price comparable to Denny's). Do you think that you as a coach passenger would find that appealing, and be more inclined to take meals in the diner?

 

[cpotisch]

Well, let's just assume that your coach fare from New Orleans to Chicago was $12 higher...but for that "subsidy" amount you had the choice of a fresh-cooked burger and chips for $7.95, an entree salad with chicken breast for $8.95, roasted 1/4 chicken for $12.95, or the flat iron steak for $16.95. And in the morning you had your choice of a Continental or else bacon and eggs to order (Edit To Add: For a price comparable to Denny's). Do you think that you as a coach passenger would find that appealing, and be more inclined to take meals in the diner?

If they could make that work, then I'm sure diner patronage would go up significantly. But I feel like fares would have to be raised quite significantly to fund the diners sufficiently.

 

[jis]

Remember, accounting for Diners as a separate P&L center was a Republican invention to try to kill off the LD trains, and apparently it is doing its job, though somewhat messily.

When the raising of fares to include food was put in place it was essentially to extract more blood from Sleeper passengers to cover more of the overall cost of the train, not the Diner separate from the train. The compromise was reasonable because it was, and still is, possible to serve all Sleeper passengers in a 40/60 seat Diner. OTOH it was not possible to prvide such guarantee for all Coach passengers without adding another Diner, which according to the reckoning then would raise cost more than revenue.

In general one cannot completely ignore the price elasticity or lack thereof and just raise ticket prices willy nilly for the lower end of the riders hoping that the cost of a Diner would be compensated for by higher ridership caused by it. In general the marginal lower end riders would simply abandon Amtrak and go to Boltbus or hitchhiking or whatever.

 

[ehbowen]

In general one cannot completely ignore the price elasticity or lack thereof and just raise ticket prices willy nilly for the lower end of the riders hoping that the cost of a Diner would be compensated for by higher ridership caused by it. In general the marginal lower end riders would simply abandon Amtrak and go to Boltbus or hitchhiking or whatever.

Let 'em. Appealing to only the bottom feeders is not a sustainable long-term business strategy. Oh, it may seem to be working for the Amazons of this world...but how much of that is due to credit lines which appear to be able to balloon without limits? What happens if interest rates spike again?

 

[jis]

Let 'em. Appealing to only the bottom feeders is not a sustainable long-term business strategy. Oh, it may seem to be working for the Amazons of this world...but how much of that is due to credit lines which appear to be able to balloon without limits? What happens if interest rates spike again?

My my! That is a pretty elitist position, dare I say. All that I can say is I am glad that you are not in real decision making position relative to try to keep something like Amtrak running, and sincerely hope it remains so :lol:

Amtrak's purpose is to provide transportation to all that are not served adequately by public transportation for a reasonable price. That is how its subsidy is justified.

If we are talking of running a passenger rail service that does not depend on any subsidy and charge the entire cost to the user, that is a different service, not what Amtrak is meant to be.

 

[ehbowen]

My my! That is a pretty elitist position, dare I say. All that I can say is I am glad that you are not in real decision making position relative to try to keep something like Amtrak running, and sincerely hope it remains so :lol:

Amtrak's purpose is to provide transportation to all that are not served adequately by public transportation for a reasonable price. That is how its subsidy is justified.

If we are talking of running a passenger rail service that does not depend on any subsidy and charge the entire cost to the user, that is a different service, not what Amtrak is meant to be.

Well, I disagree (obviously). I see room for intermediate levels between full-fare 'users pay it all' and free-ride Staten Island Ferry. In rail passenger travel you had a business model which was quite viable up until competing transportation was heavily subsidized, both highway and air. I see the Amtrak subsidy as a way to equalize the playing field to permit the provision of a superior product without a debilitating cost to the user for a representative cross-section of the population, not to provide "transportation for all."

 

[jis]

I see. Strawman set up and adequately destroyed  Who's talking of free service? Not me. Transportation for all for a reasonable price is not free service. Providing "superior product" while removing access from the less fortunate is an elitist position.

The reason that airline and road subsidies work so well is because the service that results is inclusive at many price points that most can afford. What you are proposing is subsidizing an exclusive service for those that can afford the level of luxury that is acceptable to some. That is where my disagreement is with you.

The PV industry and even reasonable even higher end, Sleeper service with some associated luxuries is fine to support as a side activity for those that want to avail of it, but not to the exclusion of a generally inclusive passenger service.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

The notional increase of Sleeper fares to cover food was mostly about enhancing revenue for the train to close the operating subsidy gap. The way funds are transferred from the revenue account to the Diner account pretty much reflects that. I know people keep insisting that they do not know how the accounting is done, but at least at presentations at the RPA in the past, it was quite clear that only the actual menu price of the food consumed is transferred. So the higher fare benefits the subsidy picture of the train more than the Diner P&L.

Of course back then no one had conceived of the possibility that some idiot from Florida would want to run the Diners as separate P&L center, and 500+ other idiots in Washington will write that into law. :angry2:

Ah, that has me thinking of the entire Diner P&L a bit differently.   I had thought that the Diners were loosing money simply  because some (dumb?) Amtrak accountant wasn't transferring enough of the Sleeper ticket revenue, over to the Diner.   From your posting, it appears that is wrong.

If the actual menu price of food/drink consumed by a Sleeper passenger is transferred over to the Diner, then a Sleeper passenger is essentially paying the same as a Coach passenger.   If under that the Diner is still loosing money, then IMHO, the Diner needs to raise its menu prices to more accurately reflect actual cost.     Yea, I realize that higher menu prices are fighting words to many here, but I think that realistic pricing is essential to a viable Diner service.

Now, drifting into my "If I ran Amtrak" hallucinations, maybe as part of the VL2 order, there should have been table-only aux Diner cars.    IMHO, the kitchen in the VL's is large enough to handle more tables than can fit into a single car.  So, pairing up a VL Diner car with a table-only VL Aux Diner car, could allow more patrons per seating.

 

[chakk]

While aboard 6(1) this month, I overhead another coach passenger ask the conductor about upgrading to a sleeper on the first afternoon, after finding so much difficulty she said she was having napping in her coach seat. The conductor did politely direct her to call Amtrak on her cell phone, which she did. She decided to “tough it out” in coach when told she would have to pay an additional $800 (not sure if this was just to Chicago or included the connecting train to West Virginia) for a room in one of the sleepers.

I was paying attention to the one-half of the conversation I was hearing, because had she been offered low bucket, I would have speed-dialed Amtrak to upgrade myself into a roomette to Colorado.

So I also “toughed it out”, and slept pretty well in my coach seat with the help of my own blanket, eyemask, and foam ear plugs.

 

[cpotisch]

Ah, that has me thinking of the entire Diner P&L a bit differently.   I had thought that the Diners were loosing money simply  because some (dumb?) Amtrak accountant wasn't transferring enough of the Sleeper ticket revenue, over to the Diner.   From your posting, it appears that is wrong.

If the actual menu price of food/drink consumed by a Sleeper passenger is transferred over to the Diner, then a Sleeper passenger is essentially paying the same as a Coach passenger.   If under that the Diner is still loosing money, then IMHO, the Diner needs to raise its menu prices to more accurately reflect actual cost.     Yea, I realize that higher menu prices are fighting words to many here, but I think that realistic pricing is essential to a viable Diner service.

Now, drifting into my "If I ran Amtrak" hallucinations, maybe as part of the VL2 order, there should have been table-only aux Diner cars.    IMHO, the kitchen in the VL's is large enough to handle more tables than can fit into a single car.  So, pairing up a VL Diner car with a table-only VL Aux Diner car, could allow more patrons per seating.

But still, why can't they just change the system such that the sleepers allocate more money to the diners?

 

[jis]

That does not help the viability of the train. The net result could we that we have all sorts of trains with Diners in them that got cancelled because of their net poor overall financial performance.

Why can't people see that the real solution is to stop treating the Diner as a separate P&L center and just make it an integral part of the operation as a train, with the train treated as a P&L center, or better still the route, or even better, just the region, treated as a P&L center? It really is crazy t treat the Diner as a P&L center by itself. No one else in the world does so.

 

[cpotisch]

That does not help the viability of the train. The net result could we that we have all sorts of trains with Diners in them that got cancelled because of their net poor overall financial performance.

I'm obviously missing something here, but if the only requirement is that F&B turns a profit, and not the train overall, then why wouldn't this work? I'm not challenging you, just curious.