Air line Bankruptcy vs. Amtrak.

[VerMontanan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

No Allan, the one word is insignificant. That is how Amtrak fits into the national transportation scheme, and it's funding is proportional to it's importance.

I disagree with "insigificant." It all depends. Truly insignificant when compared with the available options between, say, Dallas, Texas and Chicago, Illinois where there are scores of daily flights. But in the Northeast Corridor (including New York City to Albany), the train carries the majority of the non-automobile traffic. And, then of course, you have the single most-ridden passenger train in America, the Empire Builder, whose service to many communities is their only form of public transportation. I'd say that the fact that over 14,000 people a year board Amtrak in Shelby, Montana (population 3,000) is very significant. And, with Greyhound cutting back (I wouldn't be surprised if it, too, goes bankrupt), Amtrak will become even more "significant" to many small towns.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by skydome

being a retired railroad conductor . i was wondering that all these response listed above saying amtrak will no be a help to our transportation mode . i guess these people above do not know anything about railroad or ever worked for a railroad. passenger rail is safe fuel efficient and less polluting. there are many people who do not fly or can't or won't, and many people fan't drive or can't and won;t.i wonder how many of the people who responsed to this article drive gas-guzzling SUC's thank you

This discussion is not about understanding railroads, it's about understanding people and their habits. I understand railroads sufficiently. While rail is an excellent way of hauling freight, the vast majority of people won't choose it for travel, A: because it is too slow for long distance travel, B: because it doesn't go where they are going or when they want to go.

Remember we are talking about a 19th century transportation mode, which has changed little from a passenger perspective, in the last 60 years. The airplane and the automobile have run circles around the train. This is not a fact I like, it is a fact of life.

For those who need to travel, and can't or won't drive or fly, the bus is the mode of choice. Yes, some choose the train, and that's wonderful, but the destinations are very limited compared to the bus.

This discussion is not about fuel economy or safety. If it was, then cars and planes should be outlawed. You try convincing the American people to give up their cars. The crazy pump prices over the last year are finally having an effect in reducing demand.

Personally, I don't use much gasoline anymore, maybe 250 gallons per year with a 20 MPG vehicle, that's 5000 miles per year. I used to be a courier, and would fill my tank every other day. Back then I consumed about 300 gallons per month, of course that was a business.

I stand by my original position that airline bankruptcies will not create any extra passengers for Amtrak. Those who travel by air will continue to travel by air, until air travel is no longer possible due to cost or lack of fuel. The problem is, that in it's current form, rail travel does not compete with airpalnes or cars, period. The proof of this is in the link below.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2004/html/table_01_37.html

If it was up to me, longhaul trucking would be outlawed, and any trip over 1000 miles would be done intermodal.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by VerMontanan

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

No Allan, the one word is insignificant. That is how Amtrak fits into the national transportation scheme, and it's funding is proportional to it's importance.

I disagree with "insigificant." It all depends. Truly insignificant when compared with the available options between, say, Dallas, Texas and Chicago, Illinois where there are scores of daily flights. But in the Northeast Corridor (including New York City to Albany), the train carries the majority of the non-automobile traffic. And, then of course, you have the single most-ridden passenger train in America, the Empire Builder, whose service to many communities is their only form of public transportation. I'd say that the fact that over 14,000 people a year board Amtrak in Shelby, Montana (population 3,000) is very significant. And, with Greyhound cutting back (I wouldn't be surprised if it, too, goes bankrupt), Amtrak will become even more "significant" to many small towns.

When the rail lines to the small towns across America are abandoned, don't look for Amtrak, look for Greyhound. If not Greyhound, then some other rubber tired carrier, but not rail. Amtrak can't replace Greyhound, because it can't go where Greyhound goes.

I'm not trying to bash Amtrak. I'm just trying to illustrate where Amtrak fits in the national transportation scheme, near the bottom of the heap. I chose the word insignificant based on the passenger miles of all modes. (See the link in my other posts.)

If the same amount of money that is being poured into road and air infrastructure, was put into rail infrastructure, passenger rail travel might have a chance. The problem is rail infrastructure is expensive to build and maintain, and compared to rubber tired vehicles not very flexible either.

There will always be destination pairs that are well served by rail, even for passengers. For trips of 200 miles or less, through densely populated areas, air travel is almost stupid. The NEC is successful because of the distances involved and the dedicated right of way which allows for higher speeds. It is for those reasons that Europe can use trains the way they do, but for the most part we can't.

I would be willing to bet that, it will be a cold day in hell, when Shelby Montana becomes the sole reason to save the Builder. Part of the reason the traffic volume is so high at Shelby has to be that it is a gathering point for half of Montana, including Great Falls and Butte, which if I'm not mistaken get Amtrak Bus service to bring the people to thre rails.

Maybe that's what the system needs, more Amtrak bus service to feed trains. I know it sounds sacrilegious, but that may be how all of the small towns would best be served.

[jeaton]

Elliot-

When you base your argument that rail travel is not competitive with airplanes or cars on the passenger mile stats you find on the cited table, you are caught in a non-sequitor. Those stats show that automobile travel produces 10 times the passenger miles than air travel. Following your logic, it would appear that airplanes are not competitive with cars, as car produce almost ten times the passenger miles than airplanes. If one were to follow that line, it would seem that the airline bankruptcies would be caused by the obvious "fact" that they don't compete with automobiles.

Take another view. Rand-McNally mileage charts say it is 407 miles from Minneapolis to Chicago. If your car gets 20 miles to a gallon with $3.00 gas your out of pocket cost for the trip is $61.05. According to the IRS calculation on full costs for the average automobile is 40 cents per mile, so if you drive an "average" car, your full cost for the trip is $162.80. The Amtrak coach fare is $79.00. Unless you have an oversized gas tank and bladder, and a very heavy foot, it will take you about 7 hours and 24 minutes to make the trip by car. Amtrak makes the trip in 8 hours 5 minutes. And, you can take a nap.

Let's see. Amtrak costs less, only takes 41 minutes more and somebody else does the driving. What is not competitive about that?

Jay

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Elliot-
Let's see. Amtrak costs less, only takes 41 minutes more and somebody else does the driving. What is not competitive about that?

Certainly as far as it goes that may be correct for one person, but if a family of four is going from say, a suburb of Chicago to a suburb of Minneapolis, that family is going to pay two adult fares and two child fares.

More important, you have to add the opportunity cost of time spent arranging transportation to the station, waiting for departure, getting picked-up at the destination, and then going through the same hassle on the return. Of course airplanes have that same disadvantage versus cars, but it's worth it for long distances, and it doesn't help Amtrak that many trains run so infrequently that on schedule alone it's impossible. Americans put a high premium on their time and the idea of just jumping in the car and going there is totally seductive.

I don't hesitate to go to cities on the NEC because the trains run hourly during the day and I live a short cab ride from the station. Long-haul Amtrak is a different matter.

[jeaton]

eastside

You are correct that the train may not be competitive in the scenerio for the family of four that you describe. My issue is with the argument that trains are not competitive-period. Your use of the NEC is an illustration. Obviously for you the train is a competitive option at least for some of your travels. You might remember that oppurtunity cost only exists if you have had to forgo income for some period to perform an non income earning task. Maybe one can say that there is a higher use for the time time spent. For example, you may want to spend time at home with the family and fly to LA rather than driving or taking the train. That may make sense. However, let me suggest a point. If I were to be the driver for a trip with my family of wife and two children for a trip of some 400 or more miles, I wouldn't necessarily consider it "quality" time.

Of course, I am kicking around the idea of rational choices. A great deal of travel choices are made on an emotional basis. The American "love of cars". How else can you explain the ownership of an extend cab 4 wheel drive pick up truck that never travels off a paved road and never has any thing less tidy than groceries or travel bags in the bed. Some folks won't leave the car until the steering wheel is pried out of their cold dead hands.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Jay, let's not read more into the data than what is there. The only thing I get from that data is gross passenger miles by mode. No economic implications whatsoever. All it really says is Americans love their cars, and use them to get around, a lot !

It doesn't say where they go. It could be to work, it could be to the grocery store, it could even be New York to LA. This is more a reflection of our society, and our need to move around. We want to be free to come and go as we please. It is our way of life, and we have Henry Ford to thank for it. The data is simply a clear illustration of our transportation "habits".

I think we all know, and can agree, that when transportation funding is appropriated in Washington, the largest slice of the pie goes to roads. The railroad's share is minimal. This just reinforces the pattern of automobile use.

I would love nothing more than to see this country break the automobile habit, but I honestly believe that we will put more effort into finding alternative energy sources for personal transportation, rather than transportation efficiency that rail travel brings.

I really liked your hypothetical of Minneapolis to Chicago, as I have made that trip many times in my 44 years. I think I've done it about a dozen times, and by all three modes, train, plane and automobile. (John Candy and Steve Martin[;)]) At least 4 times were on the Empire Builder. It is a very nice ride, not too long so as to become boring, but long enough for my taste.

Only one trip was by plane. It was actually model train related business, and I was in a hurry to get there, and get back, only spending 2 days.

The rest were by car, the most recent of which was 2002. That trip was noteworthy, because I put a bit of a dent in your numbers, using a combination of factors. First I cut down the distance by about 40 miles, because I live east of St Paul almost to Wisconsin, then my destination was in the western suburbs of Chicago. Second, I do have a slightly heavy foot, a large blader, and a very large gas tank. I think gas was about $1.30, I figured it was about $40 one way.

I left the house just before 5 AM, and was in my hotel room by 11:30 AM, and that was after a couple of minor navigational errors after I got off the hiway.

So, how does that stack up to the Builder? (Ever mindful that I cheated.[;)])

When I left the house, the Builder was somewhere between Staples and St Cloud, if it was on time. By the time I reached Madison, it was in Red Wing. When I got to the hotel, it was in Tomah.

After a few minutes in the room recovering from my journey, it was back to the road. I spent the rest of the afternoon visiting hobby stores, after all, I had made the trip for a train collector's convention. I was on my third store about the time the Builder pulled in.

Had I ridden the train, a thought which did cross my mind, I would have arrived in Chicago having lost at least 4 hours. I would have then had to rent a car, or find a way out to the hotel, and the day would basicly have been shot.

Had I flown, I could have slept in, and still arrived at the same time, though again I would have needed to rent a car, or find a way to the hotel. However, from the airport a shuttle may have been available.

Each mode has it's own advantages and disadvantages. I was behaving like a normal American on that trip.

If I was going to NYC, I would never take a car, plane only. Once there, subway is the only way to go, taxi at night.[swg]

[Valleyline]

Airline terminal services are not supported by the federal gov't. The terminals get their money from landing fees (paid by the airlines), concession rentals, parking fees, and passenger boarding fees. Most airline terminals are operated by independent authorities or city/regional governments and most maintain profitability by applying the above fees. New terminal construction is funded through bond issues which are paid off with income generated by the fee structure.

For more information on how the FAA is funded check out the FAA budget on the web. You may be surprised at the small percentage of taxpayer money that goes into it, in stark contrast to the Amtrak budget.

As far as airline failures contributing to any major expansion of Amtrak, there will always be new, low cost, profitable operators willing to take over the business of failed airlines. Beyond that, the US freight rail system simply can't handle a significant increase in passenger traffic even if Amtrak receives all the money it asks for. Some would argue that they can't handle (properly) existing passenger traffic levels. The fact is, profitable airlines can still attract private capital while passenger rail expansion, with no prospect for profitability, can only find support through the government.

[Anonymous]

Ref: Airline bankruptcys. USAir will finally emerge from bankruptcy by merging with America West. The pension plans are already gone being taken over by the PBGC (read taxpayers)
United Airlines will emerge from bankruptcy by tearing up its pension plans. Delta and Northwest will do the same. A month or two ago there was an article in TRAINS about the prospect of AMTRAK tearing up its pension plans to cut cost. The PBGC will take over pension responsibility for all these corporations. Prediction: AMTRAK will not survive the next decade.
Captain John Stottle
United Airlines Ret.

[jockellis]

G'day, Ya'll,
I had a perfectly miserable time driving last September to the Pennsylvania RR Museum, Strassburg RR and the East Broadtop, which was cancelled that weekend due to Hurricane Ivan. I'd never drive it again without a gun to my head, but in the 21st century with vacations short, I guess I'd have to take a plane. fifty, sixty years ago, people seemed more likely to take two weeks instead of splitting their time into two, one week vacations. That pretty much means passenger trains are out even if they still go to where you want to go. a train trip could take four of your seven days. Getting there is rarely half the fun.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by johnstottle

Ref: Airline bankruptcys. USAir will finally emerge from bankruptcy by merging with America West. The pension plans are already gone being taken over by the PBGC (read taxpayers)
United Airlines will emerge from bankruptcy by tearing up its pension plans. Delta and Northwest will do the same. A month or two ago there was an article in TRAINS about the prospect of AMTRAK tearing up its pension plans to cut cost. The PBGC will take over pension responsibility for all these corporations. Prediction: AMTRAK will not survive the next decade.
Captain John Stottle
United Airlines Ret.

I'll bet you Amtrak survives the next decade (or two or three) in some form, because they have vocal constituency. 34 years or administrations cutting or trying to kill Amtrak hasn't made much of a dent, so why should the next 10 years be any different.

All those airlines, however, will not suvive the next 10 years. There are too many legacy carriers and even the latest round of bankruptcies and mergers won't fix what's wrong. USAir, NW, Delta, American - all in bankruptcy - USAIr for the 2nd time! Even "reorganized" they won't be able to compete with JetBlue, Airtran and Southwest. You can pretty much figure on the industry contracting to 3 or 4 very large carriers, only one or two which will be have a legacy carrier heritage. This is that natural order of things in a mature, deregulated environment (see oil & gas industry, telecommunications and RRs for a good example)

Also remember, that the net income of all airlines since the Wright Bros started out is <$0 - not including direct and indirect subsidies (any airlines pay back their post 9/11 handout yet?) At least passenger rail made a net profit for it's 1st hundered years!

I'll be the future holds really affordable and frequent air service between the top 30 or so cities in the US on routes <500 miles. For shorter distances, there will be train service in some limited number of markest (the NEC, Calif, NC&VA, Chicago hub), and perhaps some bus service to some other major markets, but private auto will the only other choice most places.

[gfjwilmde]

Once again, the buffoons speak without allowing their brains to engage. You can bring up all kinds of statistics and/or figures that shows Amtrak doesn't amount to anything in the major sceam of interstate transportation or commerce. The airlines can file for bankruptcy several times over(which they have done) and you nitwits wouldn't think twice. Also...Greyhound doesn't go to ever part of this country either, and have reduced services and frequencies to alot of the major cities and towns over the years, but none of you are even concerned. No...all you hypocrits can concentrate on is the fact that Amtrak can't make a profit and is sucking the US government of funds(which the bus lines, airlines and the war in Iraq are doing). Plus...many of you that work for other railroads(freight and/or commuter), your companies aren't in that good of financial shape either. CHECK YOURSELF, BEFORE YOU WRECK YOURSELF!! Why don't many of you stick to what you do best...LYING!! You can't possibly call yourselves railroaders or rail enthusiasts when you talk this junk. If you had to work for Amtrak, I bet half of you wouldn't be saying the nonsense like you're doing now. You all are...are...I can't say it without cursing, so I'll leave you backstabbers to yourselves...for now! For the rest of you that support Amtrak and feel that it can be made into a better operation...I THANK YOU!!



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!!
A T R U E R AMERICAN!!!!!

[dldance]

From today's USA Today:

When you get on an airplane these days, the chances are better than 50-50 that it will be operated by an airline in bankruptcy. Last week, Delta and Northwest joined United and US Airways in the expanding club of struggling companies running to court for protection.

For passengers, this raises safety concerns. For employees, it can be a calamity. Bankruptcy lets companies shuck pensions and other obligations.


But for the airline industry, bankruptcy no longer carries shame. It's just a business decision, a way to reduce costs by repudiating debt and abrogating labor contracts. In many cases, companies enter bankruptcy proceedings even though they could pay their bills by selling off assets....

======

Business as usual...

dd

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

From today's USA Today:
When you get on an airplane these days, the chances are better than 50-50 that it will be operated by an airline in bankruptcy. Last week, Delta and Northwest joined United and US Airways in the expanding club of struggling companies running to court for protection.

For passengers, this raises safety concerns. For employees, it can be a calamity. Bankruptcy lets companies shuck pensions and other obligations.

Yep, that's bankruptcy for you. I would argue that in the past, when liquidation was more likely, bankruptcy was even worse for employees. Airlines are like what railroads used to be in the 19th and 20th centuries. As for pensions, it's not a total loss for the employees, the taxpayer is left holding the bag. IMO, there are too many zombies in the airline business.

QUOTE:
But for the airline industry, bankruptcy no longer carries shame. It's just a business decision, a way to reduce costs by repudiating debt and abrogating labor contracts.

Bankruptcy a business decision? It's always been that way, heartless and shameless though it may seem. Corporations are limited liability entities meant to shield stockholders from liability beyond their equity stakes.

QUOTE:
In many cases, companies enter bankruptcy proceedings even though they could pay their bills by selling off assets....

That's usually not the case. The classic definition of bankruptcy is that liabilities exceed assets and/or the firm is unable to meet its current obligations. I can tell you that when most companies start considering bankruptcy they're usually so far under water that the value of their total assets are only a fraction of total liabilities. Selling assets would hardly make a dent. So they reorganize under Chapter 11 by settling debts for cents on the dollar, disenfranchising the equity holders, repudiating pensions, selling assets, etc. Employees who want to stay on are presented with the choice of working for less.

[oltmannd]

They forgot American. They may have recently "emerged", but they are among the recently bankrupt. Continental is another that went thru bankuptcy a few years ago, but has fallen on hard times again. Hard to believe that chances aren't more like 80-20. I can't even think of a solvent legacy carrier.....

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

From today's USA Today:

When you get on an airplane these days, the chances are better than 50-50 that it will be operated by an airline in bankruptcy. Last week, Delta and Northwest joined United and US Airways in the expanding club of struggling companies running to court for protection.

For passengers, this raises safety concerns. For employees, it can be a calamity. Bankruptcy lets companies shuck pensions and other obligations.


But for the airline industry, bankruptcy no longer carries shame. It's just a business decision, a way to reduce costs by repudiating debt and abrogating labor contracts. In many cases, companies enter bankruptcy proceedings even though they could pay their bills by selling off assets....

======

Business as usual...

dd

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

They forgot American. They may have recently "emerged", but they are among the recently bankrupt.

AMR has been on the brink, but hasn't actually declared bankruptcy.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gfjwilmde

Once again, the buffoons speak without allowing their brains to engage. You can bring up all kinds of statistics and/or figures that shows Amtrak doesn't amount to anything in the major sceam of interstate transportation or commerce. The airlines can file for bankruptcy several times over(which they have done) and you nitwits wouldn't think twice. Also...Greyhound doesn't go to ever part of this country either, and have reduced services and frequencies to alot of the major cities and towns over the years, but none of you are even concerned. No...all you hypocrits can concentrate on is the fact that Amtrak can't make a profit and is sucking the US government of funds(which the bus lines, airlines and the war in Iraq are doing). Plus...many of you that work for other railroads(freight and/or commuter), your companies aren't in that good of financial shape either. CHECK YOURSELF, BEFORE YOU WRECK YOURSELF!! Why don't many of you stick to what you do best...LYING!! You can't possibly call yourselves railroaders or rail enthusiasts when you talk this junk. If you had to work for Amtrak, I bet half of you wouldn't be saying the nonsense like you're doing now. You all are...are...I can't say it without cursing, so I'll leave you backstabbers to yourselves...for now! For the rest of you that support Amtrak and feel that it can be made into a better operation...I THANK YOU!!



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!!
A T R U E R AMERICAN!!!!!

Glenn...I like railroads. I like passenger trains, heck I even like Amtrak. But as a taxpayer this comes across as the rantings of someone whose support for Amtrak is based more on fear of losing the teet of subsidation vice concern for transportation. Supporting Amtrak as a viable long distance travel option is tanamount to supporting clipper ships as viable long distance freight. If this is what I get for my money....then kill it. Use the budget to rebuild NOLA!

Dan

[Anonymous]

American Airlines (AMR Corp) has NEVER declared bankruptcy.

You may be be confusing it with the former TWA (which American took over). TWA declared bankruptcy twice before begin bought by American.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

They forgot American. They may have recently "emerged", but they are among the recently bankrupt. Continental is another that went thru bankuptcy a few years ago, but has fallen on hard times again. Hard to believe that chances aren't more like 80-20. I can't even think of a solvent legacy carrier.....

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

From today's USA Today:

When you get on an airplane these days, the chances are better than 50-50 that it will be operated by an airline in bankruptcy. Last week, Delta and Northwest joined United and US Airways in the expanding club of struggling companies running to court for protection.

For passengers, this raises safety concerns. For employees, it can be a calamity. Bankruptcy lets companies shuck pensions and other obligations.


But for the airline industry, bankruptcy no longer carries shame. It's just a business decision, a way to reduce costs by repudiating debt and abrogating labor contracts. In many cases, companies enter bankruptcy proceedings even though they could pay their bills by selling off assets....

======

Business as usual...

dd

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by gfjwilmde

Once again, the buffoons speak without allowing their brains to engage. You can bring up all kinds of statistics and/or figures that shows Amtrak doesn't amount to anything in the major sceam of interstate transportation or commerce. The airlines can file for bankruptcy several times over(which they have done) and you nitwits wouldn't think twice. Also...Greyhound doesn't go to ever part of this country either, and have reduced services and frequencies to alot of the major cities and towns over the years, but none of you are even concerned. No...all you hypocrits can concentrate on is the fact that Amtrak can't make a profit and is sucking the US government of funds(which the bus lines, airlines and the war in Iraq are doing). Plus...many of you that work for other railroads(freight and/or commuter), your companies aren't in that good of financial shape either. CHECK YOURSELF, BEFORE YOU WRECK YOURSELF!! Why don't many of you stick to what you do best...LYING!! You can't possibly call yourselves railroaders or rail enthusiasts when you talk this junk. If you had to work for Amtrak, I bet half of you wouldn't be saying the nonsense like you're doing now. You all are...are...I can't say it without cursing, so I'll leave you backstabbers to yourselves...for now! For the rest of you that support Amtrak and feel that it can be made into a better operation...I THANK YOU!!



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!!
A T R U E R AMERICAN!!!!!

Glenn...I like railroads. I like passenger trains, heck I even like Amtrak. But as a taxpayer this comes across as the rantings of someone whose support for Amtrak is based more on fear of losing the teet of subsidation vice concern for transportation. Supporting Amtrak as a viable long distance travel option is tanamount to supporting clipper ships as viable long distance freight. If this is what I get for my money....then kill it. Use the budget to rebuild NOLA!

Dan

Dan,

I would be all for cutting off the Amtrack subsidy as long as the explicit and implicit subsidies that the airlines, bus lines, trucking companies, etc, get. In other words, force the airlines to pay 100% of the costs of running the Air Traffic Control System, 100% of the costs of building, maintaining , and operating all commercial airports, etc. Make the buses and trucks pay more road tax and fuel tax. No federal grants to expand local airports, etc. Then, the gripes about Amtrack not earning a profit would sound more consistent. What gripes me is that the same politician and bureaucrat bozos who pontificate about the need for Amtrack to turn a profit will be first in line to hand out government subsidies for airlines. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[C):-)]

[dharmon]

Sorry,

I don't buy that argument.

1. As Valley Line pointed out on page two of this thread, airports are funded by municipalities and reagional coalition, through bond issues as a rule. How the airport is funded and run is a local issue as it is thier airport. They build it, run it and charge airlines to land there, a cost borne by the passenger in terms of ticket price. They also manage the concessions and the space used by other airport services.

2. The FAA serves more than just airlines. Civil aviation - private and corporate, military, etc...all aviation. So why should the airlines pay for that. Aviation in all forms plays a critical role in the US...Amtrak does not. That's like saying that truckers should pay for the traffic lights in your city because they use them. FAA is a service, like the interstates..which truckers pay a fair amount to use. Ask one.

3. Short line - commuter and short intercity travel works. And most effectively when run by the interested regions.

Amtrak is a luxury. Money goes to greatest benefit...and Amtrak does not serve the great portion of the American public nor does it play a critical role in our economy. Cars, trucks, freight trains and airplanes do. The federal government does not need to be in the passenger rail business.

Dan

[edbenton]

Fine people think Amtrak is a luxuary just ask the towns that have no bus service or airports what they think about Amtrak. They love it it gives them a way to get out of that town or brings in the tourist traffic. Glacier Park MT in fact gets 80% of its tourist via Amtrak

[gfjwilmde]

Dan,

1) I am an Amtrak employee(machinist) who would not like to be looking for another job at my age(43 in October). The domestic job market is extremely tight and don't think for one minute that age will not be one of those factors that employers will consider if and when they have a hiring blitz. No age discrimination laws will make a company hire you if they don't want to.

2) Greyhound Bus Lines, believe it or not, I S A M O N O P O L Y!! If you can think back some years ago, Greyhound bought out Trailways to become the only coast to coast bus line in this country(and I think also Canada). All those other bus companies that use the Trailways name are spin offs from that buy out. They only operate regionally and fill in for the places Greyhound no longer services(do some research). Now...I'm an ex New Yorker, and the Port Authority agency up there owns the major bus terminal in Manhattan. If you go to other cities in this country, you'll find that the bus terminals there say...'GREYHOUND' !! It doesn't matter what other bus lines you may take, they all must use a Greyhound bus terminal in the rest of the country(do some research). So tell me that Greyhound isn't a monopoly. Yet...no one questions that, but can rant about how Amtrak is a monopoly when it comes to interstate passenger rail services.

3) The issue with the airlines going bankrupt has been one that has been going on long before 9-11. 9-11 was just a catalyst, that made their troubles come alot faster. As far as rebuilding New Orleanes, I have no problem with that. I just know that this will be another excuse for the Bush regime not to fund us properly(like many of his republican cronnies are now stating)! In other democratic elected governments around the world, many of them fully fund their rail system without regard of the losses. Also...most of them have full control of their nations' rail systems. That means passenger, commuter and freight operations are all controlled by the government whether it is national or provincal(do some research)!! Even their airlines are controlled by the government, so what's that saying about this so called free market capitalistic trade that we are suppose to have with them(do some research)!!

4) Regardless of what some of you think of Amtrak, it's the best thing we have going until someone with half a brain can come up with something better. Believe me...I don't deny there needs to be some changes in the way this company does business, but many of those changes need to come from the top, not the bottom. How can this country have one vice-president, yet Amtrak still boast nearly ninety(some say it's more than that) vp's or managers. How can you expect the blue collar workforce to perform professionally, when they haven't gotten a contract in over six years and yet managers and vp's get bonuses and pay raises each year!!!

Many of you don't care for what I write and I R E A L L Y don't care if you get offended by my words, but I have a big stake in all of this. I love my job(with all its hardships) and I'm and have always been, a proud working adult, able to contribute to myself, my family and society as a whole. I've been unemployed twice in my life and it's not pretty. Yet...I never begged nor hustled to make a means to an end. I picked myself up and got back to where I am right now...today. So...I would really not like to loose that. So...if you don't care about/for Amtrak, then do us all a favor and not post anymore threads in these forums concerning Amtrak, because unless you are or have lived the railroad life, then your words have no merit. I was a soldier in this country's armed forces, so this fact at least gives me more insight to the current hardships our troops are facing here and abroad, peacetime and in wartime. The same goes for working on the railroad. Unless you actually live it, work in it, you have no way of knowing what it's like. My father(God Rest His Soul) was a railroader then worked in the New York City's transit system until he retired(on time). He was a proud man and I was also very proud of him. I'll be ***ed if anyone wants to take my job that I worked so hard to get all because they want to line their friends' pockets(coffers). DO YOU THINK THE LIVES OF AMERICAN TROOPS AND/OR THE LIVELYHOODS OF AMERICAN WORKERS IS WORTH THIS!!! If you think it is, then you are as demonic as that heathen that's currently claiming to be the president of these United States.



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!!
A T R U E L Y ASHAMED AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gfjwilmde

Dan,
2) Greyhound Bus Lines, believe it or not, I S A M O N O P O L Y!! If you can think back some years ago, Greyhound bought out Trailways to become the only coast to coast bus line in this country(and I think also Canada). All those other bus companies that use the Trailways name are spin offs from that buy out. They only operate regionally and fill in for the places Greyhound no longer services(do some research). Now...I'm an ex New Yorker, and the Port Authority agency up there owns the major bus terminal in Manhattan. If you go to other cities in this country, you'll find that the bus terminals there say...'GREYHOUND' !! It doesn't matter what other bus lines you may take, they all must use a Greyhound bus terminal in the rest of the country(do some research). So tell me that Greyhound isn't a monopoly. Yet...no one questions that, but can rant about how Amtrak is a monopoly when it comes to interstate passenger rail services.

N O T T R U E. In many areas they may be the only game in town, but that's because there's so little money to be made or that the route is a losing proposition. Even so being the only business in an industry isn't enough to constitute a monopoly. To be a monopolist the company must also erect entry barriers to prevent competition and control prices to the extent that it makes outsized profits. Usually that attracts competition. No one is complaining that they can't get into the business because the prospects are so lousy. An exception is in the New York - Boston corridor where poor immigrant Chinese have set up bus services charging ten bucks each way and have put severe pressure on Greyhound. They don't use or need the Port Authority Terminal, they pickup in Mid-Town or Chinatown. So much for barriers to entry. If an anti-trust case came to court, it's likely Greyhound would assert that the airlines, cars, and, yes, even Amtrak would have to be counted as viable competition to Greyhound, reducing their marketshare to almost insignificant proportions.

As far as I know Greyhound has either been in bankruptcy or near dissolution for many years. If they're a monopoly they're not very well run.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gfjwilmde

Dan,

1) I am an Amtrak employee(machinist) who would not like to be looking for another job at my age(43 in October). The domestic job market is extremely tight and don't think for one minute that age will not be one of those factors that employers will consider if and when they have a hiring blitz. No age discrimination laws will make a company hire you if they don't want to.

I sympathize with you. We aren't to far apart in age. And I understand your desire to have a viable employer. The argument seems to be that Amtrak should be funded to keep jobs.

QUOTE:
2) Greyhound Bus Lines, believe it or not, I S A M O N O P O L Y!! If you can think back some years ago, Greyhound bought out Trailways to become the only coast to coast bus line in this country(and I think also Canada). All those other bus companies that use the Trailways name are spin offs from that buy out. They only operate regionally and fill in for the places Greyhound no longer services(do some research). Now...I'm an ex New Yorker, and the Port Authority agency up there owns the major bus terminal in Manhattan. If you go to other cities in this country, you'll find that the bus terminals there say...'GREYHOUND' !! It doesn't matter what other bus lines you may take, they all must use a Greyhound bus terminal in the rest of the country(do some research). So tell me that Greyhound isn't a monopoly. Yet...no one questions that, but can rant about how Amtrak is a monopoly when it comes to interstate passenger rail services.

Not going to argue whether or not Greyhound is a monopoly. There are other smaller regional lines, but they're only a monopoly because no one seems to want to challenge them on the long haul. The return is just not there for the investment. Short haul/ commuter there is. There are several regional lines in SoCal that do just that.

QUOTE:
3) The issue with the airlines going bankrupt has been one that has been going on long before 9-11. 9-11 was just a catalyst, that made their troubles come alot faster. As far as rebuilding New Orleanes, I have no problem with that. I just know that this will be another excuse for the Bush regime not to fund us properly(like many of his republican cronnies are now stating)! In other democratic elected governments around the world, many of them fully fund their rail system without regard of the losses. Also...most of them have full control of their nations' rail systems. That means passenger, commuter and freight operations are all controlled by the government whether it is national or provincal(do some research)!! Even their airlines are controlled by the government, so what's that saying about this so called free market capitalistic trade that we are suppose to have with them(do some research)!!

I have done my research and lived or been in many of the countries that do this. By and large though, the infrastrucure for these systems was built and nationalized before many of the democratic governments came into power....Italy, Germany......the rest followed the model, becasue nationalized service is all the Europeans have ever known. What's that saying...I'd rather live in a capitalist society than a socialist one....Had development been left to the nationalized model we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now.

QUOTE:
4) Regardless of what some of you think of Amtrak, it's the best thing we have going until someone with half a brain can come up with something better. Believe me...I don't deny there needs to be some changes in the way this company does business, but many of those changes need to come from the top, not the bottom. How can this country have one vice-president, yet Amtrak still boast nearly ninety(some say it's more than that) vp's or managers. How can you expect the blue collar workforce to perform professionally, when they haven't gotten a contract in over six years and yet managers and vp's get bonuses and pay raises each year!!!

Amtrak is the ONLY thing we have going...not the best. If long distance passenger rail was critical and I mean critical to the US economy then something more than Amtrak would have been created, or it would be profitable enough that the Class 1's would still operate it. Spin off Amtrak then and let it sink or swim. Let regional and municipalities do their own short haul and see how long Amtrak lasts in the real world.

QUOTE:
Many of you don't care for what I write and I R E A L L Y don't care if you get offended by my words, but I have a big stake in all of this. I love my job(with all its hardships) and I'm and have always been, a proud working adult, able to contribute to myself, my family and society as a whole. I've been unemployed twice in my life and it's not pretty. Yet...I never begged nor hustled to make a means to an end. I picked myself up and got back to where I am right now...today. So...I would really not like to loose that. So...if you don't care about/for Amtrak, then do us all a favor and not post anymore threads in these forums concerning Amtrak, because unless you are or have lived the railroad life, then your words have no merit. I was a soldier in this country's armed forces, so this fact at least gives me more insight to the current hardships our troops are facing here and abroad, peacetime and in wartime. The same goes for working on the railroad. Unless you actually live it, work in it, you have no way of knowing what it's like. My father(God Rest His Soul) was a railroader then worked in the New York City's transit system until he retired(on time). He was a proud man and I was also very proud of him. I'll be ***ed if anyone wants to take my job that I worked so hard to get all because they want to line their friends' pockets(coffers). DO YOU THINK THE LIVES OF AMERICAN TROOPS AND/OR THE LIVELYHOODS OF AMERICAN WORKERS IS WORTH THIS!!! If you think it is, then you are as demonic as that heathen that's currently claiming to be the president of these United States.



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!!
A T R U E L Y ASHAMED AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're right. I have no idea what it's like to work for the railroad. But I do know what it's like to work and care for a family and make ends meet so don't give me that crap. So unless I have been a railroader and like Amtrak, I'm not allowed to post? You're well on the way to that socialist gig hoss....... censorship and demanding a federally subsidized job....

by the way....

I A M O N E O F T H E T R O O P S

DAN

A R E A L A C T I V E D U T Y S E R V I C E M E M B E R
A T R U L Y P R O U D A M E R I C A N **

** Who's seen how really, really, really good we have it in this country for all it's faults.

[Anonymous]

I noticed a couple of more airlines turned a profit last quarter, most didn't. All the airlines except one are complaining about the price of fuel, which has doubled in a year.

The only airlines turning a profit, other than Southwest which has a sweetheart fuel deal, and which by the way is running out, are the ones that have cherry picked routes. Such as AirTrans: almost all of their flights fly to Atlanta and Florida from other major cities. If you live in Amarillo or Lubbock or Oklahoma City or Tulsa, forget AirTrans, because AirTrans don't fly to your city. Neither does JetBlue, which has a lot of flights to Florida also from the northeast part of America, especially New York City. And then, there is Southwest. Three airlines turned a profit during the last quarter. Two airlines the quarter before.

Delta is shutting down considerably CIncinnati, which used to be its second hub. Have you noticed any other airline wanting to fly to Cincinnati?

Frankly, I favor bringing back government control of the airline business. At this rate, the only cities which will have airline transportation will be Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City. Every other airport will be flightless.....

Yes, the internet has changed the way business flies. Business used to fly short notice first class or business class, without even blinking an eye at the huge price they were paying. With the internet travel websites, all businesses are using the internet to get bottom dollar coach deals. The airlines profit went out the window when the internet arrived in full force.

Without its business customers paying the fare and providing the profit, major airlines serving many small markets are having a difficult time turning a profit. Fuel price increases haven't helped either.

Some think Southwest will overcome. I don't. When its fuel deal is over, it will have as much difficutly turning a profit as much as American, Delta, Northwest, and Continental, the big four.... with Us Air and Southwest fighting to be the fifth largest airline.

None of the other airlines come close to these airlines in aircraft numers or capacity. They are nothing but cherry picked want-a-bees....

[Anonymous]

I do not understand the fuss of keeping Amtrak, so far we have mixed train service, executives or managers as the proper title, still pleading for more millions upon millions to keep running. When airlines were deregulated a number of small regional outfits like Ozark air for example was bought out and added to the big airlines, get rid of the small competition and bigger doesn't mean better, just a little more costly to operate.

[daveklepper]

IF Amtrak had been funded to have its equipment in all tiptop shape and if Mineta had not been asleep at the switch, a lot of lives in New Orleans could have been saved by Mineta asking Amtrak to move two ten car trains to New Orleans and then announce that anyone wishing free transportation north could leave before the flood. Lots would have stayed, but lots without access to cars or money for airline tickets would have jumped at the chance. To ten-car trains, 50 passengers per car, 1000 people -and then possible a second movement doubling the number.

Preparation for emergencies should really be Amtrak's primary mission.

[Philcal]

"For profit" That phrase, in the original Amtrak legislation has never been a reality, and probably never will be. That premise leads to the question of direct government subsidies such as in Europe. With the exception of the NE Corridor, Amtrak cannot compete with the airlines with respect to speed. I do feel though, that there is a definite market for long distance trains. This is largely a retiree market with people who have the time to take the Sunset from Miami to Los Angeles. To make these services viable, Amtrak would have to "reinvent the wheel" in terms of providing service levels which would attract riders to these trains. Tentative steps have been taken in this regard, but the long term commitment has simply never been there. I also believe that mail and express service can effect Amtrak's bottom line, given the chance. I am aware this has been attempted, however, a contract with the Post Office , which virtually subsidized passenger trains for years , could be a major shot in Amtrak's financial arm. We could go on and on, but these are just a few thoughts. The bottom line is really how badly we want viable rail passenger service in the U.S.