Varying Service Levels

[seajay]

Traveling in a sleeper is automatically designated as First Class and, beyond the type of room (standard versus deluxe), every First Class passenger is awarded pretty much the same amenities. We've discussed possibly having different types of sleeper equipment to give people some choice between coach and a bedroom.

Perhaps we've discussed this before but, utilizing the current sleeper equipment, what services would you be willing to give up in order to receive a lower fare?

I think the first one for me would be the automatic inclusion of meals when you buy a sleeper ticket. While it's nice, I don't need or really even want to eat three meals a day in the dining car and would gladly pay as I go to eat there.

Another thing for me would be the admittance to the Metropolitan Lounges in those cities where they're available. While they are nice, I don't find them that important. I don't mind "fighting the masses" getting to the train if I know I have a reserved bedroom awaiting me.

Granted, a lot of different options for service levels may cause booking and ticketing nightmares and the Metropolitan Lounges would likely only affect a small percentage of riders over the entire system. I would think the meal system, however, could be something simple like a notation on the ticket that you would have to present in the diner for every meal, if you had purchased the meal option. Perhaps even a certain number of meals could be pre-purchased.

Just letting my mind wander this afternoon!

seajay

 

[AMTRAK-P42]

Well, In terms of meals I eat a lot... so thats no problem for me. I would be willing to give up the Metropolitan Lounge admittance though.

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

The Metropolitan(or Acela) lounges really do "work" for me in NYC and WAS. On the other hand, it hardly seems to work AT ALL in Chicago.In Chicago I think I am better off being out there with the "huddled masses struggling to be free".

But when I go from ATL to WAS overnight to spend the day it is neat to have that place to check in upon arrival, leave my overnight bag, have another coffee or juice, use a clean, safe restroom, then wander out. Then,coming back in after walking around all day, kick off my shoes, make a phone call or two , more snacks, newspapers, etc, waiting for #19. I would miss it(except in Chicago).

If I had to give up the meals or the Metropolitan(Acela) lounges, I would give up the meals. Sometimes a person might eat more than they need or want just because it is already included.

I would not want to give up the priory boarding in stations which have it,but I guess I could live without it.

 

[AMTRAK-P42]

I would not want to give up the priory boarding in stations which have it,but I guess I could live without it.

Thats a good point. That can really come in handy when traveling with luggage.

 

[RandyJay]

I agree with Seajay on the meals - many times I have not wanted (or at least have not needed - LOL) the "free" meals. If the sleeper cost could be lowered, by even just the average menu prices of the meals served during the trip, that would be fine with me. For instance, for a ticketed trip that ran from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., if they assumed two people per room that would reduce the fare by two breakfasts and two lunches - maybe $35-$40? I may be off a dollar or two on those estimates, but such a discount would be a good thing for me. And while it would be nice to have the meal purchase option during reservations, I have a feeling that would be quickly dismissed as too much trouble (even though it isn't). So just letting everyone, sleeper and coach, pay their way in the diner would be the way to go. As far as the lounges, well, since I haven't used them I won't comment . . . . but they do sound like a nice little feature. Since their cost is spread out over a large number of passengers, I don't know if the per-ticket price drop would be as significant anyway.

 

[tp49]

For me this begs the question would the cost savings be enough if those services were eliminated to cause a significant reduction in the fare. Having never been in a sleeper I wonder how important certain amenities are to people during the course of a trip but I have a feeling that for a decent portion of the people who ride in sleepers cutting some of those amenities very well might keep them home. The reason I say this is because it would be a bookkeeping nightmare to offer them to individual passengers separately so if this were implemented it would probably be cut for everyone.

 

[PRR 60]

A very big part of the sleeping car accommodation charge is to act as revenue to help offset the far below cost coach fares. The incremental cost of meals or service is not a big issue in setting these fares.

Amtrak loses a fortune on the average long distance coach passenger. Amtrak’s cost per available seat mile is about 21 cents, but on some long distance routes, Amtrak collects 5 cents or less per mile from coach passengers (and on some rail sale fares, it gets downright ridiculous). The sleeping car fares, with total revenue in the 25 cent per passenger per mile range, help offset the loss in coach. It brings the train yield up to something that is hopefully manageable.

So the bottom line is that sleeping car fares are only indirectly related to the cost of providing first class service. They are much closer associated with what a prospective passenger is ready and willing to pay for privacy. If rooms priced at $700 sell, why would Amtrak want lower the price?