spokyone wrote:OK. Poor choice of words. I meant non-union personnel
Spokyone, I will have to apologize. My mind totally zoned out there. For some reason, I was thinking of the poor service that one finds on Amtrak trains, and that is what my response was related to.
Whew! I think I need a vacation.
One solution that I can think of: Every time that you ride Amtrak, write a letter to some higher up. Be specific. List what was wrong (in your opinion), but also list what was right. Provide feedback. And CC several people while you are at it.
If enough people did this, upper management would soon get the message.
Spokyone: Do you think that I have any answers? I have some influence, but nothing whatsoever in the direction of Amtrak operations. If the supervisor/manager/.../VP doesn't care to do anything about it, I doubt that there is anything that we can do except vote with our feet. And I kind of suspect that abandoning Amtrak would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Ps. Where I come from, a scab is a person that crosses a picket line.
selector wrote: RXRon wrote:And what do you make an hour? and do you think everybody else thinks your worth it? Lay off bashing the worker, it's a fair wageHow is your question relevant? If you come to me for work, and I offer you $15/hr do do a list of things each shift, no matter the order, and you accept, we have an agreement. You do the work, and I pay you. If the work is unacceptable, you wouldn't agree to it at the time of the job offer, right?When she collects the pay, but over time begins to neglect to perform any of the work she originally agreed to do, "bashing" would be the least of the worker's worries. Don't you think so? Would you continue to pay someone who unilaterally decided that some of the tasks simply didn't fit into her gestalt, but threatened to go to her union if you withheld a single cent of her salary? Smells different on the other foot, doesn't it?
RXRon wrote:And what do you make an hour? and do you think everybody else thinks your worth it? Lay off bashing the worker, it's a fair wage
How is your question relevant? If you come to me for work, and I offer you $15/hr do do a list of things each shift, no matter the order, and you accept, we have an agreement. You do the work, and I pay you. If the work is unacceptable, you wouldn't agree to it at the time of the job offer, right?
When she collects the pay, but over time begins to neglect to perform any of the work she originally agreed to do, "bashing" would be the least of the worker's worries.
Don't you think so? Would you continue to pay someone who unilaterally decided that some of the tasks simply didn't fit into her gestalt, but threatened to go to her union if you withheld a single cent of her salary? Smells different on the other foot, doesn't it?
I agree with you. Back when I owned my own company, I never had a problem with customer complaints, but if there had been any (and they were justified), the responsible employee would have soon found themselves facing a choice - either do the job you are being paid for, or hit the street.
OOOOKKKK. Does this mean that maybe next month,the corner of the Lounge car
will be turned into that so-called coffee shop known as Starbucks??? Then put
their sign on the outside of the Diner. They have done it in Banks and trying
every where else... Dave br,
MichaelSol wrote: Datafever"As I listen to all of the problems that people have encountered with Amtrak's dining service, I wonder if it would make sense to dispose of the attendants and just go with vending machines.Essentially, that is what Amtrak has already created -- vending machines with human operators. Something of a uniquely Amtrak solution.It's the passenger version of the captive shipper. The customers aren't going anywhere -- we don't need to break our backs serving them.The employees are union, there is little incentive for them in tips, even as they are fairly ruthless in demanding them. There is low accountability for customer satisfaction. I've done a few restaurant business plans in my day and I can say with some certainty, Amtrak has it backwards. The cost of food -- and a perceived need to cut corners on food -- is not the major part of the costs for any kind of food service operation, let alone on a train. The idea that cutting corners will save money is exactly wrong -- they will sell less food, lose more money, and stutter along for another while, wondering why they keep losing money.And there will be no more corners to cut, everything will be round --- as in big fat red zeroes.A private operator, given the wonderful uniqueness of the facilities and the circumstances, would turn handstands to be able to turn those facilities and circumstances into something that would be, frankly, tons of fun for passengers, a central part of the experience, and profitable. I have no doubt.Walking through the Dining Car and the Lounge, my impressions always are as follows: 1) no mission, these guys are here for a paycheck, nothing more 2) no pride, who develops a pride in a plastic wrapped burger?, 3) no menu -- the typical truck stop -- no, a poor truck stop -- has a better menu, 4) no leadership -- nobody's in charge that wants to make it work, 5) no marketing -- there is nothing to market, 6) no innovation -- the menus are dead, dead, dead, no restaurant on the planet could survive if they actually tried to sell that stuff to anybody but a captive audience, 7) no "use" of the environment to promote the product. The Tip Top Tap used to be a real seller Chicago-Twin Cities. Now, on Amtrak if you want a beer or a coffee, it is handed to you by some guy stuck in a closet -- that's not how any business makes money on those items in the real world. And I think that is a key to Amtrak's thinking -- they have a railroad accountant in charge, and they are trying to make money on the item, whereas experienced food/beverage operators will tell you they make money on providing the experience -- then people buy more items.Cripes, create an environment, play off the strong points of railroading -- make it memorable -- people will pay for it. Even airport lounges figured out that, to make money, you had to create an atmosphere, offer some quality -- and when they did -- they made money at it.
Datafever"As I listen to all of the problems that people have encountered with Amtrak's dining service, I wonder if it would make sense to dispose of the attendants and just go with vending machines.
As I listen to all of the problems that people have encountered with Amtrak's dining service, I wonder if it would make sense to dispose of the attendants and just go with vending machines.
Essentially, that is what Amtrak has already created -- vending machines with human operators. Something of a uniquely Amtrak solution.
It's the passenger version of the captive shipper. The customers aren't going anywhere -- we don't need to break our backs serving them.
The employees are union, there is little incentive for them in tips, even as they are fairly ruthless in demanding them. There is low accountability for customer satisfaction. I've done a few restaurant business plans in my day and I can say with some certainty, Amtrak has it backwards. The cost of food -- and a perceived need to cut corners on food -- is not the major part of the costs for any kind of food service operation, let alone on a train. The idea that cutting corners will save money is exactly wrong -- they will sell less food, lose more money, and stutter along for another while, wondering why they keep losing money.And there will be no more corners to cut, everything will be round --- as in big fat red zeroes.
A private operator, given the wonderful uniqueness of the facilities and the circumstances, would turn handstands to be able to turn those facilities and circumstances into something that would be, frankly, tons of fun for passengers, a central part of the experience, and profitable. I have no doubt.
Walking through the Dining Car and the Lounge, my impressions always are as follows: 1) no mission, these guys are here for a paycheck, nothing more 2) no pride, who develops a pride in a plastic wrapped burger?, 3) no menu -- the typical truck stop -- no, a poor truck stop -- has a better menu, 4) no leadership -- nobody's in charge that wants to make it work, 5) no marketing -- there is nothing to market, 6) no innovation -- the menus are dead, dead, dead, no restaurant on the planet could survive if they actually tried to sell that stuff to anybody but a captive audience, 7) no "use" of the environment to promote the product.
The Tip Top Tap used to be a real seller Chicago-Twin Cities. Now, on Amtrak if you want a beer or a coffee, it is handed to you by some guy stuck in a closet -- that's not how any business makes money on those items in the real world.
And I think that is a key to Amtrak's thinking -- they have a railroad accountant in charge, and they are trying to make money on the item, whereas experienced food/beverage operators will tell you they make money on providing the experience -- then people buy more items.
Cripes, create an environment, play off the strong points of railroading -- make it memorable -- people will pay for it. Even airport lounges figured out that, to make money, you had to create an atmosphere, offer some quality -- and when they did -- they made money at it.
Well, here's the rub. The trains Amtrak operates have to employ the people they employ, or they get "bought out", which can be very expensive. I am currently reading "The Men who Loved Trains". Labor protection is very,very harmful if the jobs protected are unproductive. Amtrak is still the same hopeless case it was 36 years ago. Some of it's creators knew that, yet there are some who think it can make a profit. It's creators knew it would always be on welfare. This is why labor protection is dying a slow death in all industries that are unionized, except one. MichaelSol put it up. Now find a way out of the cul-de-sac that Amtrak is in. If you can, then go to Washington and see how far you don't get!
Essentially, that is what Amtrak has already created -- vending machines with human operators. Something of a uniquely Amtrak solution -- the lowest service for the highest cost.
The Tip Top Tap used to be a real seller Chicago-Twin Cities. Now, on Amtrak if you want a beer or a coffee, it is handed to you by some guy stuck in a closet -- it's a manned vending machine!! -- but, that's not how any business makes money on those items in the real world.
jeaton wrote: Datafever wrote:As I listen to all of the problems that people have encountered with Amtrak's dining service, I wonder if it would make sense to dispose of the attendants and just go with vending machines.And for that suggestion, you are sentenced to 2 1/2 days locked in a room with vending machines to provide your only source of food and drink. If you complain, the microwave will be out of order and the change machine will be empty.
Datafever wrote:As I listen to all of the problems that people have encountered with Amtrak's dining service, I wonder if it would make sense to dispose of the attendants and just go with vending machines.
And for that suggestion, you are sentenced to 2 1/2 days locked in a room with vending machines to provide your only source of food and drink. If you complain, the microwave will be out of order and the change machine will be empty.
In my younger days...
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
I ride the Empire Builder into Seattle fairly regularly. I have to drive three hours to the nearest station, but I enjoy the trip. The train splits at Spokane, and if you have a reason to go to Portland, the journey down the Columbia River in the early morning (and the evening on the return) is one of the most magnificent train trips I can think of. The dome/lounge/snack car goes that route.
The formal Dining Car takes the Seattle portion of the EB.
I will say this, the train is nothing like the North Coast Limited, Olympian Hiawatha, or ... the Empire Builder.
Compared to airline employees, Amtrak employees apparently have no particular standards of behavior or attitude. They vary all over the place from cheerful and helpful to surly and resentful. The Dining Car is run on the apparent principle that they will save money by using it as little as possible. Meals are rigidly set within certain hours, customers are packed in under the "community seating principle" as tightly as possible, and the idea of actually being able to sit and enjoy a leisurely meal and watch Stevens Pass roll past has not occured to the management as a "feature."
Nor does food appear to have occured to them as a reason that people might actually want to eat in the Dining Car. The Dining Car menu I find to be surprisingly thin on offerings and nothing special. Aside from the generally indifferent staff, there is simply no effort at "branding" anything on the menu that might make Amtrak a memorable experience. Where's George Rector?
I prefer the lounge car, because at the least I can control the timing of my meal, who I am sitting with, where I am sitting -- and that lounge car rolling along the Columbia River is just fabulous.
Even at that, a plastic sealed burger, encased in a hard plastic case, microwaved, represents to me the very minimum that Amtrak could figure out. The local 7-11 has better variety. And those guys sure let you know that they expect money in the tip jar for microwaving your burger for you.
It's not that people won't pay more for better food, they are reluctant to pay more for pure crap that is below the worst fast food standards and so, yes, Amtrak loses money on food services because it operates a system designed to lose money on food services.
I use Amtrak with the ambivalent perception that I very much enjoy the experience, but that I would enjoy it much more if it weren't for Amtrak policies that seem to me designed to make it as minimally enjoyable an experience as possible.
BNSF gets very high marks for reliability. I've rarely been more than a few minutes late either way.
"Canadian" is usually 100% X Canadian Pacific equipment. Occassionally
there is an X U.S. coach or baggage car in the consist. VIA has a few dozen X U.S. Budd built mostly coach & some baggage cars essentailly
remanufactured in the early '90's ..actually impressively done. All VIA's
loco's were bought "new" . BTW there is I believe around 5 X'Amtrak Budd sleepers (10-6) which were on lease maybe now bought in the
Churchill Manitoba service. This is in response to a thread I noticed about "Canadian" & F40's being all X U.S..
I don't think even the "Canadian" (shich comes close) or any Amtrak
LD train qualifies for "luxury". In North America ; the American Orient
Express & Canadian Pacific's "Royal Canadian Pacific" are examples.
The downgrading of Amtrak's dining car service will only serve to steer
away sleeping car and some coach trade. I think in the U.S. as well as Canada, if the LD trains are degraded and eliminated so should the
Corridor services as well. I don't see why one portion of the population should subsidize another without something in return. In Canada's case
our "corridor" service actually expanded after the 1990 cuts, while the
Western service never recovered.
Depreciation , who cares? It's only relevant if a write off is needed to reduce taxable income. I noticed on one of the threads the reason was
to set $ aside for when the usefull life of the equipment came to an end.
I don't buy that. VIA rebuilt there 1950's equipment, and it's in better
maintained shape than Amtrak's. Apparently in the U.S. it's easier to get $ for new equipment than $ for maintenance which largely explains the
different approaches between the two countries.
hobojoe
You conclusions are exactly what other supporters of Amtrak, including NARP, have said about service levels on the long distance trains.
While he was still Amtrak president, Dave Gunn initiated the refurbishing of the Empire Builder and established some upgrades for the food and beverage offering. Gunn had in mind to do the same thing on the other "two night" trains, such as the CZ and Southwest Chief. The EB and the Auto Train are now the only LD trains to retain on board fresh food preparation.
At the same time, he had his people looking at ways to improve the cost situation on the trains where dining car patronage was relatively low. At the time he was fired, the reduced staff, plated meal program was going to be tried on one of the "one night" trains such as the City of New Orleans.
His departure left persons in charge, mainly the Amtrak Chairman, who carried the idea that the reduction in costs from cutting corners would save the day. With that came the roll-out of the plated meal and other changes associated with the food and beverage business.
Not to excuse the performance of the on-board people on your last train ride, but I am not too surprised at their behavior. Replace a boss admired for his understanding the value of top quality service with someone just trying to save a buck; change dining service from freshly prepared meals to "frozen dinners"; run a train that has the worst never "on-time" record imaginable and I guarantee that you will have employees with a first class "Who gives a..." attitude.
While it is still wait and see time, the new leadership at Amtrak, DOT and in Congress suggest the prospect that maybe they will get right. One can hope.
I don't think he is bashing the pay scale, but at that scale (more, as it turns out) one should expect good performance.
Ok, Let's be real. I work for a living and get to travel by train maybe once a year. So when I do I want the biggest bang for money I can get. Last September I rode the Coast Starlight to PDX from LAX. On my way to the station, Amtrak called to say that the Parlour Car, a popular spot and amenity for sleeping car passengers would not be operating, no discount, just tooo bad. Ok, stuff happens. Then it's into the diner for lunch, blah, but again, OK, it's a cheeseburger and what should one expect. But here comes dinnertime, what a thrill. Horrible food served on plastic plates by a filthy waiter (dirty uniform). Now I know I was travelling in a "sleeper" so the "food" was included, but if that is what I had received for the $19.00 price of it, things would gotten ugly. I ordered a bottle of wine, $12.00, two sips, I'm done, horrible. There's NO excuse for that kind of poor provisioning and planning. Amtrak charges plenty to ride in the sleeping cars and at was time the ever-present was an expected perk for popping that kind of money.
The truth of it is that Amtyrak needs to look at the total picture. Sure cutting dining car costs may save some money in the short run, but they're losing the high paying passenger in the process. "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water". Where Amtrak needs to begin is with customer service on board the trains. Get rid of the attitudes that some of these high priced crew members have. If they're going to be paid $15+ per hour, then earn it. I even stiffed the car attendant on the return trip because I NEVER saw her again after leaving Portland. No make down the beds, no make up the beds, no clean or tidy the high priced room, nothing. When I did see her enroute, she was in her room with a headset on. I'm really glad Geo. M. Pullman isn't around to be a part of this mess.
Yes, in the day, the railroads used their diners to lure travellers, and most (save SP) took pride in their service, some up til the end. Diners serve a purpose. I doubt seriously that given an option, lifestyles permitting, that most people wouldn't much rather suffer through 4 hours LAX to CHI on United Airlines with no food, than pay a high dollar on Amtrak, sit the the bedroom for 40+ hours, and dread going to the diner.
Snap out it Amtrak, like it or not, you're in a business. Get your "house" in order. Good marketing cannot replace customer satisfaction. You're fine until the customer gets on the train.
If any of you sample Acela 1st class regularly, you might want to comment on this thread. I ask, because when I rode Amtrak regularly, over 10-1/2 years ago, I would occasionally have a client who would be willing to treat me to 1st Class Metroliner between New York and Philly, "Balimor" and DC. I found that generally the special meal I ordered was delivered as was at least as good (usally better) as 1st-class Air, if not the gourmet Panama Lmtd, TCL, BL, SC, EC quality. I found the attendants 1st class in every way. I found the single swiveling reclining seats on one side comfortable. Temperture perfect. The ride varied from smooth and quiet to some moderate roughness, and the on-time performance generally good. I wonder how Acela compairs today? This standard was not kept up in regular Metroliner (upgraded Amfleet with Snackcar service) equipment, but that was OK.
Regarding the other comparisons, I agree. But in addition to the streamliners, there were plug runs that on some railroads were downright terrible, although some railroads like the AT&SF treated EVERY passenger well.
I am bringing this back up because I found the original piece and an article on the subject on the ABC News site.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Travel/story?id=2777294&page=1
When this topic first came up, I checked Google News and found a couple of conservative media watch dog groups that screamed that the ABC report was another example of liberal bias. I don't claim to be an unbiased critic of the media, but I don't think this is a report that should get anybody's shorts in a knot.
While there is plenty of comment that the full service dining on the Empire Builder is a great part of the train riding experience, there is also much said about the size of the Amtrak food/beverage deficit, the changes being made and how much is being saved by the changes. There is also a specific note of the $1.3 billion total federal grant for Amtrak.
Seems to me that it is fairly balanced. What else might be necessary? Is the reporter supposed to stand up and in a serious tone scream at how the goverment funding is a is a big taxpayer rip-off?
jeaton wrote: so there is obviously no point for them to report financials using anything other than useful life straight line depreciation.
so there is obviously no point for them to report financials using anything other than useful life straight line depreciation.
I'm shocked that you would say that. Given a business that has to pitch it's case for survival funding, adjusting the rate at which long term expenses are realized would certainly have an impact on the claimed cost of doing business.
wouldn't it?
Interesting things I've found show that Amtrak has been very creative in using "sale /lease back" arrangements with it's rolliing stock, where the proceeds of the sale have been used to offset 'other depreciation' , while the leasing expense is written off as a current expense
I also see where they did start reporting amortization to congress differently in Nov 2001 , which while not what I thought I recalled, may be the source of that foggy memory moment I had.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
eastside wrote: jeaton wrote:Accelerated depreciation schedules are widely used by business for tax purposes. In fact there is a section of the Federal Tax Law that allows smaller companies to write off up to $108,000 on most tangible property investments in the year of the investment. That is a feature that I use for my business.You are speaking of section 179 depreciation. Although it was intended for smaller companies, many of them, especially start-ups, don't generate enough taxable profits to take advantage of it. Nor can they take advantage of accelerated depreciation either. Instead the tax code allows two straight-line methods as alternatives so that depreciation is deferred to later years when they may become more established, generating taxable profit. Therefore the IRS tables are a compromise between economic estimation and politics. Even so, if you look closely at some of the categories, you'll see that many of the IRS estimates of asset lives clearly don't make sense anymore, particularly technology assets. This is bad because some here seem to confuse economic life with the tax code estimates of asset life.In addition, I find the discussion of depreciation with regard to Amtrak amusing. Amtrak's zombie state is way beyond the intricacies of the tax code. Also, there seems to be some kind of presumption in this thread that the government should be underwriting "luxury" long-distance rail travel, as represented by the Empire Builder. To me the ambiance is more like a decent long-distance bus.
jeaton wrote:Accelerated depreciation schedules are widely used by business for tax purposes. In fact there is a section of the Federal Tax Law that allows smaller companies to write off up to $108,000 on most tangible property investments in the year of the investment. That is a feature that I use for my business.
I know about Sec. 179 as I often advise my sole proprietorship clients on the pluses and minuses of that provision. Value of a tax dollar defered for payment at a later time and all that. As you probably realize tax code accelerated depreciation provisions are set up more as an incentive to increase capital investments, thus providing some boost to the economy. The prospect of Amtrak ever having a taxable profit is zero, so there is obviously no point for them to report financials using anything other than useful life straight line depreciation.
I think the EB is better than a bus, but it is far from luxury.
Most of the postings suggest an ambiance to the luxury trains that existed during the pre-WW2 era and up to the late 1950's. Let us consider that this ambiance existed almost solely on the premier trains such as the Super Chief, 20th Century Ltd, Panama Ltd, Lark, etc. These were top-notch trains that were oriented to the carriage trade, which traded the station for the airport a long time ago. I would suggest that a fairer comparison would be between Amtrak's long-distance trains and the coach streamliners such as the El Capitan, Trail Blazer, Pacemaker, Starlight, etc., which were more oriented to the masses.
Most of the postings also seem to ignore the hundreds of long-haul runs that existed primarily for their mail contracts and lost (or never had) any semblance of luxury.
eastside wrote:To me the ambiance is more like a decent long-distance bus.
Maybe it's just me, but I would pay more to take a long distance train than to take a long distance bus.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.