Interesting reading:
http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/file/112th/Full%20Committee%20Briefing%20Memo%20%208-2-12.pdf
Of course it serves a political agenda, but there are some interesting facts.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The subtitle of the hearing, "Mismanagement of Food & Beverage Services," suggests a kangaroo court.
Everybody knows there will be some employee theft, as there is in the food-service industry as a whole, as the agenda acknowledges. If Chairman Mica's committee can figure out how to eliminate or significantly reduce that, it would be public-spirited of the committee to share its findings with the industry.
Otherwise, the quarrel seems to be with Amtrak losing money on the services, as the private rails did before them and as the airlines used to (before virtually discontinuing them). This calls for a hearing? Congress has bigger holes in its pocket than food and beverage services on Amtrak.
dakotafred The subtitle of the hearing, "Mismanagement of Food & Beverage Services," suggests a kangaroo court. Everybody knows there will be some employee theft, as there is in the food-service industry as a whole, as the agenda acknowledges. If Chairman Mica's committee can figure out how to eliminate or significantly reduce that, it would be public-spirited of the committee to share its findings with the industry. Otherwise, the quarrel seems to be with Amtrak losing money on the services, as the private rails did before them and as the airlines used to (before virtually discontinuing them). This calls for a hearing? Congress has bigger holes in its pocket than food and beverage services on Amtrak.
You didn't read it, did you...
oltmannd dakotafred: The subtitle of the hearing, "Mismanagement of Food & Beverage Services," suggests a kangaroo court. Everybody knows there will be some employee theft, as there is in the food-service industry as a whole, as the agenda acknowledges. If Chairman Mica's committee can figure out how to eliminate or significantly reduce that, it would be public-spirited of the committee to share its findings with the industry. Otherwise, the quarrel seems to be with Amtrak losing money on the services, as the private rails did before them and as the airlines used to (before virtually discontinuing them). This calls for a hearing? Congress has bigger holes in its pocket than food and beverage services on Amtrak. You didn't read it, did you...
dakotafred: The subtitle of the hearing, "Mismanagement of Food & Beverage Services," suggests a kangaroo court. Everybody knows there will be some employee theft, as there is in the food-service industry as a whole, as the agenda acknowledges. If Chairman Mica's committee can figure out how to eliminate or significantly reduce that, it would be public-spirited of the committee to share its findings with the industry. Otherwise, the quarrel seems to be with Amtrak losing money on the services, as the private rails did before them and as the airlines used to (before virtually discontinuing them). This calls for a hearing? Congress has bigger holes in its pocket than food and beverage services on Amtrak.
As best I could with my eyes glazed over. What do you think I missed?
It is a great example of a kangaroo court, a fishing expidition, a waste of time, a hand at partisan politics, a return for a payoff from (fill in the blank...or blanks, many blanks), and why a politician can't be a businessman and a businessman can't be a politician.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The most interesting thing I saw is that ATK has been breaking the law for about 30 years. The quickest way to get a stupid law changed is to obey it to the letter. Pull off the diners, lounges, and snack cars.
Mac McCulloch
PNWRMNM The most interesting thing I saw is that ATK has been breaking the law for about 30 years. The quickest way to get a stupid law changed is to obey it to the letter. Pull off the diners, lounges, and snack cars. Mac McCulloch
I get your point, but am afraid this would just play into the hands of the Amtrak haters, hurting ridership and driving the operating deficits even higher, thus excusing killing Amtrak altogether outside of the NEC.
It's a constant battle --with Democrats, not just Republicans; an Amtrak on-train rep pointed out to me that the worst train-offs were during the administrations of Carter and Clinton -- but I suspect Amtrak will win this one too.
Well the item I saw of interest was the percent of labor cost per food item sold and the fact that Amtrak has to have it's own commissaries. 12 of them in operation. Really? Nobody thinks this is wasteful? Whats the difference in food freshness if the food is assembled at an existing airport commisary vs a Amtrak commissary? Why on earth are 12 Commissaries being kept open when they basically duplicate airport commissaries in the same city.
Other then the above item, I would look at how much food is not sold on a Amtrak run and is thrown out due to expiration date issues, that would be another area of concern which I think the House is probably going to skip past looking at.
I for one do not think the "it's always worked that way in the past" is an acceptable excuse. Private Passenger Rail was never efficient at running a food service operation.
Airport commissaries? Anybody who has flown within the past 4-5 years knows that airline food service on domestic flights is virtually non-existent unless you're willing to pay exorbitant prices for sandwiches. Hot meals seem to be reserved for first class and business class. The last time I got a decent meal on a plane was on a foreign flag carrier.
Again businessmen are not politicians and politicians are not practicing businessmen....nor necessaryily practical. Today's business climate is ruled by "bottom liners": CPA's and investment specialists (to be nice). Each movement, each operation, each job, in any company has to bring something to the bottom line directly or it should be done away with. In other words, they don't look at a business as a "service" but as an individual product. In this case the politicians are looking at running trains and ignoring the whole operation as a service. You provide meals on long distance trains or wherever in order to entice and keep the patronage. If there were no meals (or sleeping cars) then there would be no riders. Add the meals (and/or the sleeping cars) and charge what's possible and try to keep the fares high enough to offset the loses and still make a buck. At least that is the theory of providing passenger rail service rather than just running trains. COngress don't get it, especially those paid off by the oil and gas lobby, the airline lobby, etc.
henry6 Again businessmen are not politicians and politicians are not practicing businessmen....nor necessaryily practical. Today's business climate is ruled by "bottom liners": CPA's and investment specialists (to be nice). Each movement, each operation, each job, in any company has to bring something to the bottom line directly or it should be done away with. In other words, they don't look at a business as a "service" but as an individual product. In this case the politicians are looking at running trains and ignoring the whole operation as a service. You provide meals on long distance trains or wherever in order to entice and keep the patronage. If there were no meals (or sleeping cars) then there would be no riders. Add the meals (and/or the sleeping cars) and charge what's possible and try to keep the fares high enough to offset the loses and still make a buck. At least that is the theory of providing passenger rail service rather than just running trains. COngress don't get it, especially those paid off by the oil and gas lobby, the airline lobby, etc.
Business executives must keep in mind all of the entity's key stakeholders, i.e. customers, creditors, regulators, employees, shareholders, etc. They know that they must add value for all of them, or they are out of business.
A business ultimately must offer goods and services that customers are willing to pay for in an arms length transaction. The goods and services must add value for the customer. Apple Inc., 3M, IBM, Wells Fargo, Caterpillar, Ford, Norfolk Southern, Southwest Airlines, Florida Power & Light, etc. are just a few examples of companies that understand the importance of customer service and deliver it every day. All of them have employees whose full time job is customer service and customer relations.
Businesses must pay attention to the bottom line over the long run. If they don't they are out of business. Not so with government! Which is the reason a government agency should not be involved in a commercial activity, i.e. Amtrak, airport operations, etc.
Business must pay attention to costs, which amongst other things means not employing people who do not add value to the organization over the long run. Which is the way it ought to be. But to say that a successful business ignores customer service and only pays attention to the bottom line, i.e. adds value for the shareholders only, does not square with my experience or the thousands of people I encountered in my business career.
I spent all of my working life in Fortune 250 companies. Moreover, I was a senior manager, which means that I had access to the company's executives and, thereby, gained knowledge of how big companies are run. I never met an executive who did not understand the importance of adding value to all of the aforementioned stakeholders.
CSSHEGEWISCH Airport commissaries? Anybody who has flown within the past 4-5 years knows that airline food service on domestic flights is virtually non-existent unless you're willing to pay exorbitant prices for sandwiches. Hot meals seem to be reserved for first class and business class. The last time I got a decent meal on a plane was on a foreign flag carrier.
I spent more than 40 years flying commercial as part of my job. I never got a meal on an airplane that was very good. In fact, after the first couple of years, when the thrill of flying for business had worn off, I avoided the meals on the airplane even though they were priced into the cost of the ticket.
The domestic airlines finally figured it out, thanks in no small part to Southwest Airlines, which never offered meals. Most people want to get from point A to B as cheaply as possible. They don't want meals that are prepared in a commissary, put on the plane, re-heated and served, especially when most of the meals were not as good as folks could get at their local cafeteria. Southwest figured out what the market wants.
I made 22 trips between the United States and Australia, where I lived and worked for five years. Most of my trips were on Qantas, although approximately 25 per cent of them were on United. The meals on Qantas and United were of similar quality and quantity. None of them, however, were what one could get at a decent middle grade restaurant.
Back in the day, back in the day is all nostalgic B.S. but...back in the day of competing railroads between any given city pair or other points prompted the need for better food service than the other guy. Thus there was pride in providing dining car services with specialties of the railroad...Rocky Mountain Trout on the Rio Grande comes to mind for instance. The dining menue could be the competitive edge in passengers selecting a given train or railroad. Today, however, serving food to the public has been downgraded to McCrap at the lowest cost with no conecpt of marketing or service. Eating is a necessary evil, like lavatories, got to provide them but they don't add to the bottom line...er, ah...so to speak.
Food and beverage service on passenger trains never covered its costs but was viewed as a necessary part of the service. Even so, a dining car could still be an expensive place to eat which is why a lot of passengers packed their own lunches.
henry6 Back in the day, back in the day is all nostalgic B.S. but...back in the day of competing railroads between any given city pair or other points prompted the need for better food service than the other guy. Thus there was pride in providing dining car services with specialties of the railroad...Rocky Mountain Trout on the Rio Grande comes to mind for instance. The dining menue could be the competitive edge in passengers selecting a given train or railroad. Today, however, serving food to the public has been downgraded to McCrap at the lowest cost with no conecpt of marketing or service. Eating is a necessary evil, like lavatories, got to provide them but they don't add to the bottom line...er, ah...so to speak.
And 'back in the day' dining car operations did not add 'directly' to the bottom line. Food service, by itself, was a money losing proposition for the carriers; however, it was necessary for the overall passenger operation to be successful and profitable.
My Grandfather was Superintendent of the Dining Car and Commissary department of a fallen flag Class I carrier. I recall him commenting on the President of the carrier always pressuring him to reduce costs and increase personal services to the dining car customers - with the major emphasis on being enhanced pleasurable experiences of dining car customers. Major shippers & consignees of the carrier were repeat passenger train customers of the carriers in the days before air travel took over the business travel market. If operating dining cars at a loss kept the major shippers & consignees using the line for their freight business, it was considered a small price to pay for the freight business secured.
Business models and operations have changed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
dakotafred oltmannd: dakotafred: The subtitle of the hearing, "Mismanagement of Food & Beverage Services," suggests a kangaroo court. Everybody knows there will be some employee theft, as there is in the food-service industry as a whole, as the agenda acknowledges. If Chairman Mica's committee can figure out how to eliminate or significantly reduce that, it would be public-spirited of the committee to share its findings with the industry. Otherwise, the quarrel seems to be with Amtrak losing money on the services, as the private rails did before them and as the airlines used to (before virtually discontinuing them). This calls for a hearing? Congress has bigger holes in its pocket than food and beverage services on Amtrak. You didn't read it, did you... As best I could with my eyes glazed over. What do you think I missed?
oltmannd: dakotafred: The subtitle of the hearing, "Mismanagement of Food & Beverage Services," suggests a kangaroo court. Everybody knows there will be some employee theft, as there is in the food-service industry as a whole, as the agenda acknowledges. If Chairman Mica's committee can figure out how to eliminate or significantly reduce that, it would be public-spirited of the committee to share its findings with the industry. Otherwise, the quarrel seems to be with Amtrak losing money on the services, as the private rails did before them and as the airlines used to (before virtually discontinuing them). This calls for a hearing? Congress has bigger holes in its pocket than food and beverage services on Amtrak. You didn't read it, did you...
You missed the main point!
That malfeasance by employees is only a minor issue.
It's the whole cost of serving the food. Interestingly, two of those who are going to testify are from service where Amtrak does not supply the food and labor. The Downeaster uses a regional gourmet food company and the Piedmont trains use *gasp* vending machines.
Also, that Amtrak, by statute, is allowed to contract out the whole shebang (as happens on the Piedmont and Downeasters trains, and almost happened on the Empire corridor) and they they are REQUIRED to break even. They have been ignoring both points of the law.
Well, they tried. Once. They tried to contract out the cafe car service between NY and Albany. They union threatened to strike, so Amtrak killed the cafe car service altogether. A LOSE/LOSE proposition. No jobs AND no food on the trains.
oltmannd Also, that Amtrak, by statute, is allowed to contract out the whole shebang (as happens on the Piedmont and Downeasters trains, and almost happened on the Empire corridor) and they they are REQUIRED to break even. They have been ignoring both points of the law.
That all goes to my point of the difference between politicans running a business and businessmen running a government. Amtrak is caught in the middle and does what it has to to meet its service obligations and needs in any given circumstance or train service. Businessmen/invstors/bottomliners don't understand the need for ancilliary services while politicians are trying to apease constintuants, party lines, and lobby money.
Part of what I find fascinating about this is comparing Amtrak's food service to the restaurant industry. Over the past 25 years or so, there's been an explosion in the number of meals eaten out and the menu variety. Restaurants are always changing their menu around to try to hang on to market share. Even the fast food guys are branching out. McDonalds has fancy salads and smoothies and flavored coffees. Arby's has gourmet deli sandwiches.
Amtrak has burgers, pizza, basic deli sandwiches, same as always. The Cascades are a notably different. They have some local selections and it appears the Downeaster is similar in approach.
Even the Amtrak LD trains have a rather basic and limited menu. The food is OK, generally, but the menu is can't compare with even a Chili's or an Appleby's, both of which are basically just grills.
So, why the lack of imagination at Amtrak? Is it because they use Gate Gourmet to stock their commissaries? Why not try to "brand" each service and contract out the whole thing for each service? Give the sleeper passengers a "voucher" for their dining car meal. The voucher would be good for a basic meal and the food service provider could have "premium" selections for a bit of extra $$.
Just a thought.
In COngress eyes the purpose is for Amtrak to run trains like a kid with a Lionel set: run trains; period. So food services are of no consequence to Congress and Amtrak has to cope. This topic has been explored many times and thus facts get placed all over and not all in the same place.
Dining services never made money directly to the bottom line.
Railroads offered dining services as a means of advertising and to be competitive.
Railroads hoped their dining services would please passengers to come back again and for shippers to look favorably on the service, meal, and hospitality they received.
Amtrak has no shippers to please and no direct rail competition to beat.
Bottom liners don't understand the need for service beyound running a Lionel train set. Nor do many Congressmen, evidently.
American's tastes and need have changed greatly, as have reasons and ways to travel. Thus there is less need to please business men because they are in their private or corporate jets, Families are in their cars. McDonald and Burger King has become the standards of mass restauranting rather than Delmonico's. It is a different world.
Yes, it is a different world... which one is Amtrak sopposed to be in?
CSSHEGEWISCH Food and beverage service on passenger trains never covered its costs but was viewed as a necessary part of the service. Even so, a dining car could still be an expensive place to eat which is why a lot of passengers packed their own lunches.
If I remember correctly, at least through the 50s, the New Haven covered the costs of its food service. Perhaps it was because of the well heeled patrons who hit the bar car before the trains were out of Grand Central or South Station.
I just came back from a trip to Florida. Whilst there I rode the Silver Meteor from Jacksonville to Miami. I went first class, so my meals were included in the cost of my ticket. Which is a way of ensuring a certain level of traffic in the dinner! If the meals were not included in the first class ticket, I suspect the results for the dinning cars would be even worse than reported.
The prices in the dinner are not that much out of line with those at a mid-level restaurant. For example, I had the Veggie Burger for lunch. It would have cost me $9.50 had I paid for it off the menu. A similar burger at Denny's is $7.99 plus tax.
Earlier this year I took the Coast Starlight from Los Angeles to San Francisco. As was true for my previous rides on the long distance trains, the coach passengers appear to favor the lounge car for food service. I suspect that they do so because the prices are lower than those in the dinning car. This is especially true for dinner. For example, prices for dinner on the Meteor range from $15 for pasta to $25.75 for a steak.
Clearly, the taxpayers are subsidizing Amtrak's food services. Why should they be required to do so? Where is the common good in this activity?
henry6 In COngress eyes the purpose is for Amtrak to run trains like a kid with a Lionel set: run trains; period. So food services are of no consequence to Congress and Amtrak has to cope. This topic has been explored many times and thus facts get placed all over and not all in the same place. Dining services never made money directly to the bottom line. Railroads offered dining services as a means of advertising and to be competitive. Railroads hoped their dining services would please passengers to come back again and for shippers to look favorably on the service, meal, and hospitality they received. Amtrak has no shippers to please and no direct rail competition to beat. Bottom liners don't understand the need for service beyound running a Lionel train set. Nor do many Congressmen, evidently. American's tastes and need have changed greatly, as have reasons and ways to travel. Thus there is less need to please business men because they are in their private or corporate jets, Families are in their cars. McDonald and Burger King has become the standards of mass restauranting rather than Delmonico's. It is a different world. Yes, it is a different world... which one is Amtrak sopposed to be in?
Amtrak needs to keep up with the real world. Their food service should mirror the mid-level chains. Why they don't get one of the restaurant companies to handle it for them is a mystery to me. (Darden, Bloominbrands, Brinker, etc.)
To me, the lesson of this committee hearing is this.
The railroad industry is one that has been around for a long while, since about the 1830's, I suppose -- what kind of food service did the Stockton and Darlington offer? People in the railroad industry are known to take a kind of "don't think you are so smart because all those great ideas you are telling me about have been tried and proven unsuccessful" view of life.
Trains Magazine under David P Morgan's editorship famously attempted to swim against that tide (run against the flow off that traffic?), what with the Professional Iconoclast column, which would bring up things like this food service question. All the time. And get a lot of criticism for it.
Traditionally, it was the industry insiders who were the real stick-in-the-mud we-have-always-done-it-that-way types from criticisms, suggestions, or ideas from industry outsiders, which included many train enthusiasts. But I guess the lesson is that train enthusiasts, sufficiently immersed in railroading culture even without working for a railroad, become more wedded to the way-we-have-always-done-it. Than a guy who actually works for a railroad.
Now on the other hand, if a railroad were not tradition bound, it would be something else. An airline maybe. Or perhaps a trucking company. The whole point of railroads is that they are a tradition-bound business and perhaps there are social benefits or economic efficiencies to be had in doing things "the old way" instead of embracing every passing fad, either to abandon trains for the newer modes of transportation that are arguably not an improvement, or even to change how the trains are operated.
So this committee hearing and the document and this thread aren't really about Amtrak food service.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sam1 Clearly, the taxpayers are subsidizing Amtrak's food services. Why should they be required to do so? Where is the common good in this activity?
But there is a need to provide the service otherwise the riders will drive or fly or complain there was no good food service and you spend millions of man hours defending. As I said, those who ride trains long distances are no longer the business man on an expense account but more leisurely riders, more blue collar riders, so you don't really have to have a high end menu; but can't have only microwaved or grilled burgers, either. I hate to say it, but, a mid ranged Applebee's-Outback Steakhouse mid range style menu might work, definitely not Delmonico's nor McDonalds. But where individual restaurants can flip tables for up to 100 or more per night, a train dining car can maybe do 25 to 50 depending on route and train. Menu's would have to be designed around the ability of the dining car kitchen to produce as well as the predicted tastes of the customers on any given night and train. The small number of customers with the moving and small kitchen and storage space coupled with fewer employees, does drive up the costs from a standing still, mall located restaurant. The competition: airplane has you there in time for dinner; personal car allows you to pick your restaurant. Comparing dining cars to other food options is more like comparing apples to oranges than a Stockyard steak to a chain named steak to a hamburger from under the arches.
But again, it has to be worked as a service rather than going out to eat.
I guess it is time for Amtrak to follow the airline model - throw a half ounce bag of peanuts at their patrons and give them 4 ounces of a beverage and be done with it. They won't make money off of it but the will lose less on the 'food service'. [sarcasm] You can really build a high class clientele with such 'service'.[/sarcasm]
henry6 Comparing dining cars to other food options is more like comparing apples to oranges than a Stockyard steak to a chain named steak to a hamburger from under the arches.
Comparing dining cars to other food options is more like comparing apples to oranges than a Stockyard steak to a chain named steak to a hamburger from under the arches.
Exactly. Or another example (intentionally obtuse, as is the dining car argument): DIA was paid for by a (huge) sales tax increase on Denver residents (including me for 11 years), the Sborro, McDonalds et al at the airport doesn't have a structure capable of withstanding the outside weather but rather uses the roof I paid for, but I still don't feel like I am "subsidizing" someone's lunch at DIA.
Here is some more fuel for the fire:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/amtrak-s-food-lost-taxpayers-834-million-in-10-years-mica-says.html
BaltACD I guess it is time for Amtrak to follow the airline model - throw a half ounce bag of peanuts at their patrons and give them 4 ounces of a beverage and be done with it. They won't make money off of it but the will lose less on the 'food service'. [sarcasm] You can really build a high class clientele with such 'service'.[/sarcasm]
The airlines have to cover all of their costs or they go out of business. Just take a look at the airline graveyard.
Why is Amtrak any different? Why should it be funded by the taxpayers? Why should it receive a passenger per mile federal subsidy that is approximately 20 times more than the federal subsidies paid for commercial airlines passengers and vehicle miles traveled? This is especially true for ancillary items such as on-board food services.
Boardman claims that people would not ride the long distance trains unless they offered food service. That may be. What is crystal clear, however, is the patrons of the long distance trains, including the 2.2 per cent of Amtrak's passengers who can afford a first class ticket, won't pay the full cost of the on-board meals. Again, why should the taxpayers buy their breakfast, lunch, and dinner?
If the long distance trains are important, as has been argued my many, Amtrak should follow the IG's recommendation. Run coach only trains with a portion of one of the cars dedicated for light food service. It works for the Heartland Flyer and several other Amtrak trains.
Sam1 The airlines have to cover all of their costs or they go out of business. Just take a look at the airline graveyard. DIA, just to use one example, cost Denver taxpayers $4.8 Billion whether they use it or not, and that doesn't even consider the air traffic control system and other federal infrastructure necessary for aircraft to operate. When UA or any other airline builds their own airport using their own money you may have a point. Why is Amtrak any different? Why should it be funded by the taxpayers? Why should it receive a passenger per mile federal subsidy that is approximately 20 times more than the federal subsidies paid for commercial airlines passengers and vehicle miles traveled? This is especially true for ancillary items such as on-board food services. Another red herring, an intentionally obtuse breakdown of costs.
DIA, just to use one example, cost Denver taxpayers $4.8 Billion whether they use it or not, and that doesn't even consider the air traffic control system and other federal infrastructure necessary for aircraft to operate. When UA or any other airline builds their own airport using their own money you may have a point.
Another red herring, an intentionally obtuse breakdown of costs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.