Amtrak recently added the requirement that customers are required to accept mandatory arbitration of any claims in order to purchase a ticket. In doing so, the customer is waiving the right to sue Amtrak, either individually, or part of a class action. According to Amtrak, the customer does not have the option of "opting out" of the mandatory arbitration arrangement.
In summary, if you don't agree, you will not be able to purchase a ticket. Find another way to travel.
To my knowledge, this is unprecedented in transportation providers.
ROLLAND GRAHAMAmtrak recently added the requirement that customers are required to accept mandatory arbitration of any claims in order to purchase a ticket. In doing so, the customer is waiving the right to sue Amtrak, either individually, or part of a class action. According to Amtrak, the customer does not have the option of "opting out" of the mandatory arbitration arrangement. In summary, if you don't agree, you will not be able to purchase a ticket. Find another way to travel. To my knowledge, this is unprecedented in transportation providers.
It all boils down to 'My lawyer can beat your lawyer'. Any lawyer worth his fee will be able to take Amtrak on and win. If they don't win, they are much of a lawyer.
The problem from the customers side it that you have to go out and hire a lawyer. For this type of law, there are very, very few that would take the case on a contingency basis - so the customer has to spend money to challenge and the final question is - is the expected return worth the expenditure on the lawyer?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
ROLLAND GRAHAMAmtrak recently added the requirement that customers are required to accept mandatory arbitration of any claims in order to purchase a ticket.
This boilerplate language is far from uncommon in many service industries, and I'm surprised Amtrak didn't think to put it there before now.
Perhaps best to think of it as a less-expensive method of assessing the validity of claims and going through a mechanism to reach a realistic settlement. It has certainly acquired a better reputation than trying to find a plaintiff's lawyer when you have less than an obvious 'case'.
How enforceable that contract provision turns out to be is, of course as Balt said, how clever a lawyer you hire for the amount involved. One thing, unfortunately, I expect it will foster is putting a kibosh on any proposed action over Amtrak providing anything more than its pathetic little definition of 'transportation service'.
I would NOT expect Amtrak to take this language out of its agreement; in fact I'm a bit glad they're shutting the door on much of the I-think-frivolous kinds of activist suit that Amtrak seems to attract.
Rolland, welcome to the forums, and may you be taken off moderation as quickly as possible.
Since Amtrak is moving towards Corridor Services more vs. Long Distance I think this is a smart move at the most the average Corridor ticket is how much? I think in most cases the lawyer retention fee is more expensive than just walking away from the purchased ticket. If Amtrak were to offer LD travel and charge a few thousand per ticket, several tickets you could have yourself $6,000-7,000 in the hole. Even so whose fault is it you did not buy travel insurance? Anyway, I could see lawsuits more if the ticket values were a lot higher.
CMStPnP.....is a smart move at the most the average Corridor ticket is how much?
JPS1The average revenue per passenger for the Acela in 2018 was $182.19. The average revenue for the NEC regional trains was $79.12. These numbers include the ticket revenue plus food and beverage revenues. Amtrak stopped showing ticket revenues in the monthly performance reports as of 2018. In 2017 the average ticket revenue for the Acela was $173.50; the average for the NEC regional trains was $74.53. The average revenue per passenger for the Pacific Surfliner in 2018 was $37.75. The average ticket revenue in 2017 was $25.72. The average revenue per passenger for the Empire Service in 2018 was $41.89. The average ticket revenue in 2017 was $43.40.
Although it is not PC, I always wonder how some of the numbers could be improved with just adding a bartender on board that could mix decent drinks and if I had to guess a decent lounge car with a bartender on a 500 mile corridor train that additionally sold bar snacks could potentially break even or better? When I was in college as a Junior I worked at a Wyndham Hotel that had a bar in it and I was the Night Auditor. That bar was a profit center for the hotel. It was only a 270 room three story roadside type hotel with a small restaurant and bar but that darn bar brought in well into the four figures each night.
Roughly $2500-4000 just in mixed drink and hard liquor sales a day (late 1980's)......can't remember how many patrons that tied too (it was a small bar) but some sales people would ring up a $150-200 tab in drinks without batting an eye. Not sure how that would translate to a moving train though where the clientele is more tied to regular ridership. I wonder though if Amtrak has experimented on the NEC. Maybe make it a Business Class feature or seperate car with really nice overstuffed sofa's and chairs?
Well, the New Haven did make enough of a profit on its commuter bar cars to subsidize the dining-car and grille-car services on the inter city (NY - Boston and NY - Springfield) trains.
daveklepper Well, the New Haven did make enough of a profit on its commuter bar cars to subsidize the dining-car and grille-car services on the inter city (NY - Boston and NY - Springfield) trains.That is the rumour anyway. But who knows at this point if it is actually true. Let's say it is true. The difference is that the New Haven operated in a high population area with alot of affluent business men and women clientelle who were willing and able to spend money on booze. Today's Amtrak passengers are not of that type. They have less discretionary money. They don't take the train because it offers luxury with plush sofas and piano bars. Amtrak tried that on the Montrealer (remember "Le Bistro" cars) and the result was that not enough revenue was produced to cover the increased costs. Most people who take the train today are working or middle class. They take the train only if the cost is about the same or lower than the bus and it gets them to their destination on or almost on time. They are not looking for alot of amenities. The affluent or even those with discretionary money to spend will fly. Those looking for convenience and comfort at a lower cost will drive. The hotel example is that salesmen spent alot of money on drinks for their business but how many salesmen ride the train to conduct business today? Not many I would wager. Any increased revenue brought in by selling upmarket booze and amentities will be eaten up in waes by the union bartender slaries.
Well, the New Haven did make enough of a profit on its commuter bar cars to subsidize the dining-car and grille-car services on the inter city (NY - Boston and NY - Springfield) trains.That is the rumour anyway. But who knows at this point if it is actually true. Let's say it is true. The difference is that the New Haven operated in a high population area with alot of affluent business men and women clientelle who were willing and able to spend money on booze. Today's Amtrak passengers are not of that type. They have less discretionary money. They don't take the train because it offers luxury with plush sofas and piano bars. Amtrak tried that on the Montrealer (remember "Le Bistro" cars) and the result was that not enough revenue was produced to cover the increased costs. Most people who take the train today are working or middle class. They take the train only if the cost is about the same or lower than the bus and it gets them to their destination on or almost on time. They are not looking for alot of amenities. The affluent or even those with discretionary money to spend will fly. Those looking for convenience and comfort at a lower cost will drive. The hotel example is that salesmen spent alot of money on drinks for their business but how many salesmen ride the train to conduct business today? Not many I would wager. Any increased revenue brought in by selling upmarket booze and amentities will be eaten up in waes by the union bartender slaries.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
runner: More than a rumor, a fact well known at the time.
But I agree with you about the current ridership.
Long distance trains are another matter entirely. Again, their primary purpose is or should be to serve those that cannot fly, like handicapped access ramps and elevators and hard-of-hearing listening systems. Encouraging tourism and providing accerss to places otherwise isolated in winter and being available for airline shutdown emergencies are also uses but arr secondary to the main one. The station restaurant takeout scheme is the only way to cut losses and still priovide decent beverage and meal service.
Amtrak should stick to its authorized mission and try to do that better rather than enter a field it has zero experience with.
I don't want Amtrak to run the restaurants. Thar is obvious. The on-board food-service employees would work for the new private chain restaurant organization with similar wages and seniority and benefits but much improved working conditions. They would have a specification, including locations, and solicit bids.
It would remove some of the "hospitality" responsibilities from Amtrak to people more expert in meeting these specific responsibilities.
Amtrak would provide oversight to insure standards are met.
The stumbling block on your idea is labor contracts. The unionized F&B folks on Amtrak make a lot more than non-union restaurant workers, yet you'd have them all working for Marriott, et al.?
charlie hebdoThe stumbling block on your idea is labor contracts. The unionized F&B folks on Amtrak make a lot more than non-union restaurant workers, yet you'd have them all working for Marriott, et al.?
He's essentially saying just what I thought Mica and Anderson were planning for: getting rid of the existing union F&B entirely (by getting rid of the whole dining-car service) and then cleverly outsourcing a new suite of F&B options to a combination of third-party contract operators and (presumably-)responsible companies in hospitality and food service.
There are some useful examples in John White's book on the American passenger car; many of the older approaches could be 'made new' in a modern context where orthodox 'loss leader' full-service diner service has become impractical in terms of the 2015 mandate.
It didn't sound like he was getting rid of existing F&B folks, but maybe it was unclear.
charlie hebdoIt didn't sound like he was getting rid of existing F&B folks, but maybe it was unclear.
I think there have been a number of threads in which that was more or less established. Personally I don't see any way things could work with the current F&B systems.
Overmod charlie hebdo It didn't sound like he was getting rid of existing F&B folks, but maybe it was unclear. I think there have been a number of threads in which that was more or less established. Personally I don't see any way things could work with the current F&B systems.
charlie hebdo It didn't sound like he was getting rid of existing F&B folks, but maybe it was unclear.
Without a major change on the labor side it can't work. Easier said than done. Consequently the sensible solution is to eliminate diners.
It could work with onboard service people being Amtrak and everything up to and after being the chain.
charlie hebdoConsequently the sensible solution is to eliminate diners.
I am 'presupposing' exactly that. With the added expedient "revival" of the idea of using the shiny new Viewliner diners after a decent 'review interval' has elapsed. Of course all the union arrangements, commissary contracts, etc. went away when the 'dining car service' did, and all shiny new negotiations will be made for the 'new' and probably touted as clamored-for meal services ... now easily made compliant with the spirit and likely methodologies of that 2015 mandate.
Yes, I'm cynical ... but aren't there precedents of this sort of thing in the airline industry? And such a useful salutory 'cautionary tale' to have an effect on morale!
(Gee, I better get busy printing up the modern version of 'no Lorenzo' buttons with Anderson's name on them for all the Amtrak folks to wear inside their lapels... )
There are several possible business plans to implement my idea:
1, National chain, all food-servicce employees.
2, National chain, on-board employees remaining Amtrak.
3. Local franchiases, national operatiing system, on-board employees remaining Amtrak
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.