I was just wondering...
With all of the talks of passenger delays, security screenings that would have been at home in the Stassi, and general customer discontent with the airline industry, why isn't Amtrak promoting itself more? It seems to me that all the trouble the airlines are having would be ( or should be ) a godsend to passenger rail travel!
If I were running Amtrak I would be starting an advertising blitz aimed directly at the disgruntled airline passenger!
But then again, what do I know!
George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Once you get beyond the Northeast Corridor and certain other short-haul routes, Amtrak is not a viable alternative for your average road warrior, who needs to get from Point A to Point B in the least amount of time.
Understood, but Amtrak isn't even promoting the so-called short haul routes. I think the last time a saw a commercial for Amtrak was in the late 80s or early 90s.
PA ERR wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Once you get beyond the Northeast Corridor and certain other short-haul routes, Amtrak is not a viable alternative for your average road warrior, who needs to get from Point A to Point B in the least amount of time.Understood, but Amtrak isn't even promoting the so-called short haul routes. I think the last time a saw a commercial for Amtrak was in the late 80s or early 90s.George
eastside wrote: PA ERR wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Once you get beyond the Northeast Corridor and certain other short-haul routes, Amtrak is not a viable alternative for your average road warrior, who needs to get from Point A to Point B in the least amount of time.Understood, but Amtrak isn't even promoting the so-called short haul routes. I think the last time a saw a commercial for Amtrak was in the late 80s or early 90s.GeorgeHere in the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak does advertise a lot, such as in the NY Times and on billboards. You probably live in an area where they don't offer very much service, hence they don't advertise. I also receive e-mails from them concerning their NEC service.The bigger problem is they too have had a surge in ridership. My sister, who travels between NYC and Boston regularly, has quit riding Amtrak. After several trips where she had to stand because of overbooking on Amtrak she switched to flying on JetBlue, and she's happy with the service.
I grew up a stones thow from the Philly-Harriburg main. I spent many a summer day watching trains at Whitford Station. I live in Utah now.
Here in Chicago I can't recall when I've heard any Amtrak advertising on TV or radio. The occasional newspaper ad. The new Illinois-funded trains got some publicity, too.
IMHO I think the dilemma people have outlined is important. Only in the NEC is Amtrak a cost-efficient way to reach large numbers of people by advertising, but the NEC is already so busy that trying to crowd a few extra passengers in is probably not worth the effort and expense. Amtrak is making much more money on time-of-day ticketing there. Just last week I paid $60, nearly a buck a mile, to take Amtrak from Newark to Philadelphia. Since my friend and I traveled together, we could almost have taken a taxi for $120! It's more miles from Chicago to Milwaukee, but the listed one-way fare is only $21, or about one-third of what we paid to travel fewer miles in the NEC. - a. s.
The point being missed is...
You only advertise when you have more product to sell than people buying, or you are in a position to expand your product.
May I humbly point out that at this point Amtrak, thanks to the nitwits in the administration and congress for many years past, is running everything legal that has wheels on it. As to the fare, they charge -- naturally -- what the traffic will bear. Same as any other company. Since the same aforesaid nitwits want Amtrak to make money, or at least stop losing so much, they pretty well have to...
jchnhtfd wrote: The point being missed is...You only advertise when you have more product to sell than people buying, or you are in a position to expand your product.May I humbly point out that at this point Amtrak, thanks to the nitwits in the administration and congress for many years past, is running everything legal that has wheels on it. As to the fare, they charge -- naturally -- what the traffic will bear. Same as any other company. Since the same aforesaid nitwits want Amtrak to make money, or at least stop losing so much, they pretty well have to...
Oh, I agree with you totally. Amtrak would be unwise to spend marginal publicity dollars chasing a few more passengers when people are already paying jacked-up, supplemental fares to travel in the NEC. The moral to me is, don't let Congress play capitalism. Do any of those critters know anything about capitalism or big business? Or little business? How many of them have even made change at Target?
IMHO traveling on Amtrak in the NEC is NOT my idea of travel value. Go to my post in TRANSIT called TRAIN-RIDING IN PHILADELPHIA AND NEW JERSEY and you'll see what I mean -- especially about Amtrak, my last entry on that post. - a. s.
When I drive north from Orange County CA to LA on I-5 I see an Amtrak California billboard ad in, I believe, City of Commerce, on the right (northeast) side of the freeway. It's one of those new bright ones with LEDs.
Jack
Amtrak would be unwise to spend marginal publicity dollars chasing a few more passengers when people are already paying jacked-up, supplemental fares to travel in the NEC. The moral to me is, don't let Congress play capitalism. Do any of those critters know anything about capitalism or big business? Or little business? How many of them have even made change at Target?
In MBA marketing they taught me if your product is selling out regularly following introduction your price is too low. Amtrak could raise fares even further on the corridor to fund trains elsewhere.
jchnhtfd wrote: You only advertise when you have more product to sell than people buying, or you are in a position to expand your product. May I humbly point out that at this point Amtrak, thanks to the nitwits in the administration and congress for many years past, is running everything legal that has wheels on it. As to the fare, they charge -- naturally -- what the traffic will bear. Same as any other company. Since the same aforesaid nitwits want Amtrak to make money, or at least stop losing so much, they pretty well have to...
May I point out that Amtrak makes money on the corridor AND has numerous cars sitting in storage in Bear, DE (you can see them from the train). It is the nitwits running Amtrak, not Congress, that have brought this situation. It's easier to raise fares, than do work.
eastside wrote: Here in the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak does advertise a lot, such as in the NY Times and on billboards. You probably live in an area where they don't offer very much service, hence they don't advertise. I also receive e-mails from them concerning their NEC service.
That's interesting, because I live on the NEC in Philadelphia and have never seen them advertise in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Perhaps this is an indication that Amtrak's advertising can't see past the Wall St to Capitol Hill Market. The Keystone line got some minimal advertising when it was first relaunched, but nothing since and it'a actually a decent route.
nbdprr wrote: Amtrak could raise fares even further on the corridor to fund trainselsewhere.
A lot of this has little to do with the "administration" and more to do with the crippled state Warrington left Amtrak in ($4bn in debt and little to show for it). It also is an indication of what happens when the people running it are bureaucrats (I'm referrning to their management, not necessarily the CEO's).
Suburban Station wrote:May I point out that Amtrak makes money on the corridor AND has numerous cars sitting in storage in Bear, DE (you can see them from the train). It is the nitwits running Amtrak, not Congress, that have brought this situation. It's easier to raise fares, than do work.
True. There are numerous cars sitting in storage in Bear, DE. Also at Beech Grove, IN. If you read my original statement correctly, you will note that I said "legal". To the best of my knowledge, all the cars at Bear require what should be a routine running gear inspection to be legal. Unfortunately, the dingbats in the administration have failed to provide the money ($100,000 each, as I recall) for the inspection -- never mind the cash to repair the cars at Beech Grove. It's not the current Amtrak administration, nor the one just before it. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money and that's that -- and you can't run uninspected equipment.
As to whether or not Amtrak makes money on the northeast corridor, that is fundamentally an accounting question, and a very difficult one to answer. The best supported (not politically motivated, but performed on a generally accepted accounting practice for railroads basis) is that the answer is no, sorry, but they don't.
TrainManTy wrote:When you said "Fly Amtrak" I though you meant Amtrak got into the airline buisness, like Boston and Maine Airways! (Why couldn't they keep it the way it was?????!!?)
South Dakota uses Amtrak funds to buy an airplane for the state officials.Read all about it.http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=38680
spokyone wrote: South Dakota uses Amtrak funds to buy an airplane for the state officials.
South Dakota uses Amtrak funds to buy an airplane for the state officials.
It would be very difficult for South Dakota to spend the money in question on Amtrak as we do not now have, nor have we ever had, any Amtrak service whatsoever. We share that distinction with Alaska and Hawaii.
Nor are the funds in question limited to Amtrak, there is a much wider permissible range of activities that are permissible. Having said that, the State did push the envelope somewhat in buying a plane for state use with the funds.
Dakguy201 wrote: spokyone wrote: South Dakota uses Amtrak funds to buy an airplane for the state officials.It would be very difficult for South Dakota to spend the money in question on Amtrak as we do not now have, nor have we ever had, any Amtrak service whatsoever. We share that distinction with Alaska and Hawaii. Nor are the funds in question limited to Amtrak, there is a much wider permissible range of activities that are permissible. Having said that, the State did push the envelope somewhat in buying a plane for state use with the funds.
I myself don't consider it very progresive or envelope-pushing if the fat cats got themselves another little luxury with earmarked funds--whether or not they are strictly earmarked doesn't matter much IMO if there still are other Amtrak-related solutions. How about a subsidized bus from a stop in N.Dak to Rapid City in S.Dak? Or a reservable paratransit van? All this is to make hooking up to the Empire Builder easier and perhaps a little cheaper, which to me is Amtrak-related, possibly disability-related. Besides, a reduced-fare service would overcome the fact that S.Dak., thru no fault of its own, is passenger-train challenged, so such suggestions as mine (and I'm sure there are better) would even the score a bit. Wouldn't something like that be a much better use of the public's funds? - a. s.
_______________________________________________________________
PS: I am writing this from an Illinois perspective, in a state that has spent plenty on planes and even helicopters to save top officials an hour or two, or even half an hour in the case of helicoptering. If S.Dak. had no executive airplane of its own, none at all, I would be inclined to be more forgiving. I still think that the jet solution deprives the public of some common-sense solutions, though, and is not in the spirit of Amtrak.
Suburban Station wrote: A lot of this has little to do with the "administration" and more to do with the crippled state Warrington left Amtrak in ($4bn in debt and little to show for it). It also is an indication of what happens when the people running it are bureaucrats (I'm referrning to their management, not necessarily the CEO's).
I for one would be infinitely grateful to the gov't and/or Amtrak if they could get the footrests working on the Amfleet I generation of coaches. Part of the allure of train travel to fans and pragmatists alike is that ordinary coach offers about the same degree of personal room as an airline would in business class or even first class. I'm fat and have middle-aged feet that ache after playing tourist, and I think it's despicable that the pennies cannot be found to fix such minor syndromes as the one I mentioned above. To some they may be mere "niceties," but all together they would make the whole RR-riding experience less of a drudge and more of a pleasure. As it is, I cannot sincerely recommend Amtrak as the most useful and least hurtful way to get from, say, D.C. to New York, not if the airlines are price-competitive. And with NEC time-of-day pricing being what it is, I'd guess some operators are undercutting Amtrak; at least flying their "coaches," one would have less than an hour's confinement. - a. s.
The plane South Dakota bought was a used Cessna King Air. That is a nice place, certainly, but not excessively fancy. It replaces a Piper Navaho, which was the only plane previously available to our executive branch.
I admit we are touchy on the subject as not so long ago we lost the man many people thought was the best Governor in our lifetimes to a small plane crash. He was returning from a flight back east attempting to lure a specific company here. Had he been using the state plane to commute daily, say, from his home in Chicago to Springfield (not to name names ), we probably would have impeached him.
To get back on topic, there is a phone number in the Amtrak timetable for a bus company. The route is between Omaha (the California Zephyr), Sioux Falls and Fargo (the Empire Builder).
While i was getting ready for work last night my dad was watching the news in the other room and I overheard them saying Amtrak ticket sales have gone up. they said mainly due to high gas prices / congestion and all the crap dealing with air travel
Mr_Ash wrote: While i was getting ready for work last night my dad was watching the news in the other room and I overheard them saying Amtrak ticket sales have gone up. they said mainly due to high gas prices / congestion and all the crap dealing with air travel
Right. But that does not necessarily mean that Amtrak travel has improved, only that the other modes of transportation have become more miserable.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.