henry6 It sums up all the answers we're going to get...and most are not answers but opinons or conjecture. If you want an answer, the answer you want, it is up to you to post it. No one here is enough of an expert to give such an answer but only cite history, performance, experience, and opinion. And we've gone round and round not just here and now but many times before. In the end, unless Amtrak does something now, there really isn't an answer. And your questions unasnwered have been addressed in that Amtrak is not immune and has tried several different approaches with varying degrees of success. Your first question about subsidies is a political question rathar than an operational question which will not produce a satisfying answer now matter what is said.
It sums up all the answers we're going to get...and most are not answers but opinons or conjecture. If you want an answer, the answer you want, it is up to you to post it. No one here is enough of an expert to give such an answer but only cite history, performance, experience, and opinion. And we've gone round and round not just here and now but many times before. In the end, unless Amtrak does something now, there really isn't an answer. And your questions unasnwered have been addressed in that Amtrak is not immune and has tried several different approaches with varying degrees of success. Your first question about subsidies is a political question rathar than an operational question which will not produce a satisfying answer now matter what is said.
It is an operational and marketing question. Now to my perspective.
Passenger trains only make sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the highways and airways is prohibitive. I have held this position since joining these forums approximately five years ago. The ideal corridor is roughly 100 to 300 miles and can be (ultimately will be) traversed in three hours max. New York to Washington is one of the best examples.
My model eliminates the long distance trains and most of the so-called other or short corridor trains. That takes care of the dinning and lounge car problem.
Corridor passengers could buy something to eat at a good station restaurant, like those in Washington, before departure and, if desired, buy something else when they get to New York or most of the stations in between the end points. The food service vendors in the stations cover their costs. And they do a heck of a better job serving eats and drinks than what one gets on the train. Starbuck's coffee beats anything that I have had to force down on the train.
Very few of Amtrak's NEC passengers travel from Boston to Washington. Most of them probably are on the train for two to three hours. Who cannot go without food and drink for three hours, especially if they can buy it in the station before or after their trip? Air shuttle passengers seem to do without food on the plane; so too do bus travelers. On my last trip to Washington I did not see any emaciated passengers stumble off the Bolt bus because of caloric deficiencies.
For those passengers who want to travel from Washington to Boston, which means more than three hours on the train, cart vendors could meet the train in Penn Station and sell light fare. Use to work pretty well in Harrisburg when I rode the train from Altoona to New York.
To answer an earlier question.
Once upon a time there was a food and beverage cart on the Chicago to Milwaukee run that was used by Amtrak and pushed up and down the isle. No idea what happened to it.
As for continuing the conversation I don't see why not. A lot of railfans in this thread are really not vigilant against taxpayer waste and any money thrown at passenger train service is OK. Thats fine and my suggestion is they cover the cost then out of their wallet instead of using other folks money and shrugging their shoulders at waste. If you don't want to read the topic then don't click on it. I don't think shutting down conversation because you think your point of view is the only valid one is acceptable or very adult like.
I would like to see the fine print of this contract because I am fairly confident there is significant graft in it. Makes no sense to me why Amtrak needs 12 seperate commissaies open. Makes no sense to me why they have not moved to cashless vending as the airlines have to reduce fraud. Amtrak is clearly wasting money with this contract.
I don't think onboard food and beverage will ever be profitable either BUT losing this much money.....it needs to be looked at again why and where the money is being spent in detail. It is very telling that joe citizen can't even get the details of this contract. Might just ask my Congress Critter to obtain it for me for further analysis.
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.
henry6 We're going around the loop track on this again. Facts: food service has always lost money on moving trains except dining car specific trips; it is a service private railroads used to lure and impress both passenger customers as well as shipper customers; outsourceing has not been successful; each train, each market, needs special attention, no blanket meal will fill the bill; if there is no decent and acceptable food service, then passengers may choose other modes of transportation making a vialbe and attractive food service an advertising feature and not a bottom line extra. I think that kind of sums up all that has been said and all that can be said at this time.
We're going around the loop track on this again. Facts: food service has always lost money on moving trains except dining car specific trips; it is a service private railroads used to lure and impress both passenger customers as well as shipper customers; outsourceing has not been successful; each train, each market, needs special attention, no blanket meal will fill the bill; if there is no decent and acceptable food service, then passengers may choose other modes of transportation making a vialbe and attractive food service an advertising feature and not a bottom line extra. I think that kind of sums up all that has been said and all that can be said at this time.
Sums it up from your perspective without answering two fundamental questions: Why should the taxpayers subsidize breakfast, lunch, and dinner or anything in between for its already heavily subsidized passengers? And what is it about Amtrak that makes it immune from testing in a meaningful way an alternative business model.
If the moderator want to end the discussion that is his and only his prerogative.
Spot on, henry6!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The Piedmont service that NCDOT runs between Charlotte and Raleigh just has vending machines.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Francine Those waters have been tested. I don't know if you read my post on how Subway tried to do it. Some people here hail the Nor'Easter as a success story in the food service question. Their contractor, Epicurean Feast, also operates at a loss (duh), which is gladly picked up by the State of Maine. Someone has to pick up the losses of providing food service on a train. Town, City, State, Country. Take your pick. No one can make money serving food on a train. If you don't believe me, try it yourself.
Those waters have been tested. I don't know if you read my post on how Subway tried to do it. Some people here hail the Nor'Easter as a success story in the food service question. Their contractor, Epicurean Feast, also operates at a loss (duh), which is gladly picked up by the State of Maine.
Someone has to pick up the losses of providing food service on a train. Town, City, State, Country. Take your pick. No one can make money serving food on a train. If you don't believe me, try it yourself.
If food service is a critical component for train travel and the customers won't pay its full cost, then it has to be subsidized. The key management question is what business model results in the lowest subsidy? Outsource it to a contractor or use in-house employees?
henry6 It has been tried but with little success. No company actually understands how to feed people at speed rather than on speed.
It has been tried but with little success. No company actually understands how to feed people at speed rather than on speed.
Outside of outsourcing the food service on the Downeaster and the Piedmont (I believe that these were mentioned previously), where else has Amtrak outsourced the food service?
To give it a true market test, Amtrak should try it out of a major operating base. For example, if it outsourced the food service on all of the trains operating out of Los Angeles, it would cover long distance and short haul trains. The service may have to be subsidized, at least initially, but if it were structured properly, I'll bet a private operator could deliver a better service than is currently the case.
Seemingly forever people said that the electric power industry could not be de-regulated and opened to competition. They were wrong. It has happened in many places with good results. The biggest hurtle were the orthodox people who insisted that it could not be done. And to prove it they insisted that those who favored a market solution for the power industry should not be allowed to try it.
NittanyLion Personally, ending food service would spell the end of my use of Amtrak, permanently. Being able to eat en route is one of the major selling points for me.
Personally, ending food service would spell the end of my use of Amtrak, permanently. Being able to eat en route is one of the major selling points for me.
Ditto here. Along with the lounge car, the dining car is one of the great time-shorteners on a trip, an indispensible part of the "getting there is half the fun" experience. Take away these features that have always uniquely defined train travel, and you might as well have the trains too.
I feel the same way about my roomette.
What have they got to lose? Money. Subway (the sandwich chain) tried it and lost money. The much-heralded Epicurean Feast who feeds Downeaster passengers loses money. The State of Maine picks up their losses.
SFbrkmn For some selections priced at over 20.00 and some at 25.00 who can blame them?
For some selections priced at over 20.00 and some at 25.00 who can blame them?
But then to someone like me, that's not so bad. Going to Subway for lunch runs me about $10. We have $7 footlongs (but still get the $5 footlong commercials, of course).
Of course Amtrak loses money on the food and beverage service, it is not in the fast food or restaurant business. If memory serves me Disney had lousy fast food until it contracted it out.
Why not test the waters and see if a company in the business could take over the business and pay Amtrak a percentage. What have they got to lose?
Anyone that thinks dining service in rail transportation is a profit center is deserving of buying the swamp land from Death Valley. Food on moving trains has never been profitable when fully allocated costs are applied, even in the heyday of the passenger train.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The last time I ate in an Amtrak full-service dining car was the winter of 1995-1996, northbound on one of the Florida "Silver" trains. Judging from other postings, I thought that meal quality has held up, but the above post says the opposite. I am very sorry to learn that, because dining car meals were always a high point of my many long distance train trips, and the average quality was very high indeed, both in the days of the best streamliners and during Amtrak's operations. When I came across the automat car on SP's Coast Daylight or only snack's on what had been the Twilight Limiited, of course I was dissapointed.
The one segment of Amtrak which is I find not to like is its food service. We all agree its lousy and something needs to be changed. The losses amount to over 80 million yrly. I ride Amtrak only once a yr and when on coach will not use the diner car and many times will avoid buying something from the lounge if possible. Last month I went on a vac trip to DC--riding the Capitol out and Cardinal back. Was first class both ways, thus since the cost of meals were already included in the fare I used the dining service. The prices are way too high, quality of food keeps going down and I have also noticed that less riders are using the dining cars. For some selections priced at over 20.00 and some at 25.00 who can blame them? At my meal times in the diner on the Cap and diner/lounge on the Cardinal, the car was less then half full at any given time I was in there. The time has come to slash the diners period. As my thoughts have always been do we as taxpayers need to pay for someones chicken *** and green beans? This is not being anti Amtrak. I support it, would love to see service expanded to KS but are the full service diners, which are too pricy and loosing business, really needed anymore? Also Sam, my name is Sam also!!
Sam, your comment about over what is expected is interesting. I think the image of train travel has been one of glamour and romance...anything less than a Lucious Beebe presentation is a let down. Yeah, reality sucks.
And Don, I disagree with the concept that The Downeaster is like any other trains service. Each railroad and each section of the country are all different as is the local population. The money doesn't change the nature of the train, right, but the geography and market, the marketing, the schedules, the train make up, reason for the service and the other influences of politics, culture, and history of the railroad and the area certainly have impact. Downeaster is not Empire Builder, ACELA, Crescent, or a San Diegan nor are any of them a Downeaster. One of the problems of "Mc'ing" our country is the lack of acknowledgement of parochialism and provincial differences. Big and all the same is not better but acknowledgement of and acceptance of differences has proven more true in many economic ways....
Francine I was THERE and I know exactly what went down that day. Subway pulled out. I talked to the Subway employees for 2 hours on the journey to New York after they stopped selling their goods. They were apologetic, as they had no idea and no intention of being part of a union-busting maneuver. They didn't pack up after one day. They packed up on Day 5, 15 minutes after the union reps handed out the literature, 5 minutes after a phone call to their boss. Amtrak was decidedly NOT happy with the turn of events, as Thanksgiving week was looming. Downeaster is a state-funded train. Their model doesn't translate to a national railroad reality. Safety is of paramount importance in transportation. You have no idea how grueling a food service job on Amtrak is. In these times of high unemployment, the turnover rate for newly-hired LSAs is astonishing. It is not a 9 to 5 job. It is not a job with weekends and holidays off. It is not a job with paid sick days. Overtime is paid only after 185 hours are worked in a month. Ask an engineer, ask a conductor, what is the hardest job at Amtrak?
I was THERE and I know exactly what went down that day. Subway pulled out. I talked to the Subway employees for 2 hours on the journey to New York after they stopped selling their goods. They were apologetic, as they had no idea and no intention of being part of a union-busting maneuver. They didn't pack up after one day. They packed up on Day 5, 15 minutes after the union reps handed out the literature, 5 minutes after a phone call to their boss. Amtrak was decidedly NOT happy with the turn of events, as Thanksgiving week was looming.
Downeaster is a state-funded train. Their model doesn't translate to a national railroad reality.
Safety is of paramount importance in transportation. You have no idea how grueling a food service job on Amtrak is. In these times of high unemployment, the turnover rate for newly-hired LSAs is astonishing. It is not a 9 to 5 job. It is not a job with weekends and holidays off. It is not a job with paid sick days. Overtime is paid only after 185 hours are worked in a month. Ask an engineer, ask a conductor, what is the hardest job at Amtrak?
The Downeaster is like any other day train corridor. Where the money comes from doesn't change the the nature of the train or the service, physically.
I have no doubt at all that Amtrak employees work hard. They work VERY hard, most of them. That is exactly the problem. For the amount of "production" i.e. passenger miles traveled , meals served, bags checked, there are too many labor hours. Amtrak's management is not rewarded for figuring out how to do things better, faster, cheaper. In fact, they are de-facto punished for trying.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
As a frequent Amtrak rider, as well as dinning car patron, I can attest to the grueling challenges faced by the on-board food service staff. Near the top of the list is the unrealistic expectation of many of the patrons.
schlimm From the airport financials (link in your linked article) for 2011, it looks like the airport expenses + depreciation exceed revenue. What that actually means, i will leave to the accountants.
From the airport financials (link in your linked article) for 2011, it looks like the airport expenses + depreciation exceed revenue. What that actually means, i will leave to the accountants.
Here is a short explanation of the two issues (one of which has been removed by the moderator) regarding Denver International Airport.
The airport's 2011 operating revenues were $602.7 million. Operating income before depreciation and amortization was $209.9 million. Operating income after depreciation and amortization was $30.8 million. Non operating revenues and expenses, as well as capital grants, when netted against operating income, resulted in a loss and reduction in net assets of $9.9 million, thereby leaving a net assets balance of $545.1 million.
Over time the increase or decrease in net assets provides an indication of DIA's financial performance. The substantial net assets balance indicates that DIA has covered its expenses since it began operations.
The financial information for DIA, which opened in 1995, is available in the airport's annual audited financial reports. The 2000 through 2011 reports are on-line.
The initial capitalized cost of DIA to the Denver Airport System was $4.2 billion. The $4.8 billion figure includes costs to others, e.g. FAA, rental car operators, etc. In addition, the city and state undoubtedly incurred some costs, e.g. access roads, water and sewer lines, etc. At the end of 2011 the capitalized cost of the airport was $5.0 billion, less accumulated depreciation of $2.3 billion, for a net balance of $2.7 billion, before adjustments for CWIP, land rights, air rights, etc. Due to on-going construction, the capitalized cost of the airport changes annually.
Approximately 95% of the capitalized cost of DIA was funded with municipal bonds. Institutional investors purchased most of them. Grants and other resources covered the remainders of the construction costs. The Denver taxpayers did not fund the airport.
The airport's finances are very complex. A comprehensive understanding of them would require a thorough read of the 2011 annual report, which is 80 pages, as well as prior years financials, which would involve hundreds of pages.
DIA has covered its operating expenses since opening for business. However, it has had some years when total expenses exceeded total revenues, thereby resulting in a loss and a decrease in net assets. The airport appears to have some financial stresses, primarily associated with an on-going construction program, but the rating agencies have scored the airports bonds A+, A1, and A+, which indicates they are sound investment grade.
DIA has nothing to do with this topic. However, missimpressions regarding the financing of the airport, which popped-up in two postings, should be addressed.
You are right about examining the fine print in the contract between Amtrak, Aramark, and Gate Gourmet. According to this government report, the contract was a verbal one between the former president of Amtrak and the president of Gate Gourmet. Although the report is from 2006, it is interesting reading and gives insight into the root of the problem. Employee theft has much less to do with Amtrak's food service losses than mismanagement and lack of accountability. The problem starts at the top, not at the bottom.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-05-867/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-05-867.htm
The commissaries have always been there. The LSA has to report there, and finish up the trip there, to verify the stock counts. I doubt if it would be feasible to report to the flight kitchen to verify the stock, and then travel with the stock to the train station, wait for the commissary personnel to transfer the stock into a smaller truck which can deliver the stock to the train on the platform.
Trains are also restocked en route. To transport the stock from the flight kitchen rather than a local commissary would likely be costly if not impossible. For instance, an LSA runs out of sandwiches, beer, and soda on a trip from Washington to Boston. An order is phoned in, and the New York commissary personnel meets the train in Penn Sation with the goods. Now imagine that this order had to be delivered from the flight kitchen at LaGuardia Airport. Yikes!
Francine That's not exactly what happened. Subway (the sandwich franchise) had a short-term trial contract with Amtrak which started just before Thanksgiving, which is Amtrak's heaviest travel time. The service lasweeklies than a week. Three minimum-wage Subway employees did the job of one Amtrak service attendant during that time. Sales were poor. Union reps boarded the train one morning and distributed literature to the passengers, detailing the numerous responsibilities and training of Amtrak employees. One of the Subway attendants called his supervisor and read the literature to him over the phone. The supervisor told him to pack it up, the contract was over. Subway used the incident to get out of a money-losing proposition. Amtrak didn't back out; Subway did. I was on the train that day and witnessed the entire incident. There was never any talk of a strike.
That's not exactly what happened. Subway (the sandwich franchise) had a short-term trial contract with Amtrak which started just before Thanksgiving, which is Amtrak's heaviest travel time. The service lasweeklies than a week. Three minimum-wage Subway employees did the job of one Amtrak service attendant during that time. Sales were poor. Union reps boarded the train one morning and distributed literature to the passengers, detailing the numerous responsibilities and training of Amtrak employees. One of the Subway attendants called his supervisor and read the literature to him over the phone. The supervisor told him to pack it up, the contract was over. Subway used the incident to get out of a money-losing proposition. Amtrak didn't back out; Subway did. I was on the train that day and witnessed the entire incident. There was never any talk of a strike.
I am sure I don't have it exactly right, however there has to be a bit more to the story than you state.
1. You cannot tell whether an enterprise will be profitable after just one day - so "money-losing proposition", nobody can know. I DO know that the thoughput of 3 Subway employees assembling subs is much higher than a single attendant nuking burgers and pizza.
2. "numerous responsibilities and training of Amtrak employees." The non-Amtrak guys on the Downeaster are doing just fine. Safety training isn't a show stopper.
3. Packing up after on day sounds like two things happened. Intimidation by union and Amtrak caving in, leaving Subway in the lurch. It is always easier for Amtrak mgt. to cave in. They never have anything to gain by fighting.
Francine Amtrak employees do not work in the commissaries. They only work on the trains. The commissaries are staffed by a company called Aramark. The whole business of providing food to the trains is contracted out to Aramark, who in turn buys the food from GateGourmet flight kitchens. The contract that Aramark has with Amtrak used to belong to GateGourmet; prior to that it was held by an outfit called Dobbs. Before that, up till the late 90's, all commissary work was performed by Amtrak employees. It would be interesting to compare the losses then to the losses now.
Amtrak employees do not work in the commissaries. They only work on the trains. The commissaries are staffed by a company called Aramark. The whole business of providing food to the trains is contracted out to Aramark, who in turn buys the food from GateGourmet flight kitchens. The contract that Aramark has with Amtrak used to belong to GateGourmet; prior to that it was held by an outfit called Dobbs. Before that, up till the late 90's, all commissary work was performed by Amtrak employees. It would be interesting to compare the losses then to the losses now.
Then why keep open 12 Amtrak Commissaries vs using the existing commissaries these firms already have in place? There is something in the fine print of the contracting agreement I will bet you that keeps the commissaries open. So the question is why are they kept open and why can't they be consolidated for greater cost savings?
Sam1 CMStPnP: Sam1: 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. 600k air miles under my belt on American Airlines. I think their first class service as far as food is concerned is more than acceptable to me. Never had a meal in First Class I didn't enjoy on American. My observations of other airlines: America West Coach (pass the candy bar basket........really?........merged into US Scare) Delta Air Lines Coach (Kool Aide as a beverage?.........really?) Midwest Airlines All Business Class Airline (fairly decent meals back when they were complimentary........now the airline is out of business). Became Frontier, what a CF Frontier is. Never flew Air Scam before Southwest bought them, I tend to avoid the cattle car airlines, life is too short already. First class and business class meals tend to be better than those served in coach class, if the coach passengers get a meal, which they usually do on long overseas flights. However, first class and business class is an exception. Very few people can afford to fly either class. And most of those who fly first class and business class are travelling on an expense account. If it were not for the coach passengers, there would be no first and business class. To the best of my knowledge, none of the all first class or all business class airlines have survived.The same concept applies to passenger rail. If it were not for the coaches there probably would be no sleeping cars and no full service dinning cars. Of course, there was a time when all Pullman car trains (Broadway Limited, Twentieth Century Limited, etc.) were viable, but they are long gone.
CMStPnP: Sam1: 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. 600k air miles under my belt on American Airlines. I think their first class service as far as food is concerned is more than acceptable to me. Never had a meal in First Class I didn't enjoy on American. My observations of other airlines: America West Coach (pass the candy bar basket........really?........merged into US Scare) Delta Air Lines Coach (Kool Aide as a beverage?.........really?) Midwest Airlines All Business Class Airline (fairly decent meals back when they were complimentary........now the airline is out of business). Became Frontier, what a CF Frontier is. Never flew Air Scam before Southwest bought them, I tend to avoid the cattle car airlines, life is too short already.
Sam1: 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.
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.
600k air miles under my belt on American Airlines. I think their first class service as far as food is concerned is more than acceptable to me. Never had a meal in First Class I didn't enjoy on American. My observations of other airlines:
America West Coach (pass the candy bar basket........really?........merged into US Scare)
Delta Air Lines Coach (Kool Aide as a beverage?.........really?)
Midwest Airlines All Business Class Airline (fairly decent meals back when they were complimentary........now the airline is out of business). Became Frontier, what a CF Frontier is.
Never flew Air Scam before Southwest bought them, I tend to avoid the cattle car airlines, life is too short already.
First class and business class meals tend to be better than those served in coach class, if the coach passengers get a meal, which they usually do on long overseas flights. However, first class and business class is an exception. Very few people can afford to fly either class. And most of those who fly first class and business class are travelling on an expense account.
If it were not for the coach passengers, there would be no first and business class. To the best of my knowledge, none of the all first class or all business class airlines have survived.The same concept applies to passenger rail. If it were not for the coaches there probably would be no sleeping cars and no full service dinning cars. Of course, there was a time when all Pullman car trains (Broadway Limited, Twentieth Century Limited, etc.) were viable, but they are long gone.
So why would one compare coach class airline meals to first class passenger rail meals? You know in today's dollars it cost $900.00 to travel from Chicago to Seattle on the Great Northern Emplire Builder in 1952, Was that Coach class or was that First Class? I tend to think it was a First Class train at those prices. I would also tend to think a good portion of the Dining Car fare today is sold or is complimentary to Sleeping Car Passengers vs those that ride in Coach. A lot of those that ride in Coach pack their own food and suppliment from the Cafe Car with an occassional Dining Car visit.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.