ontheBNSFUnder wages, salaries, and benefits it seems to make a very large expense. 2.0 billion or so seems to be going there. If that could be reduced with everybody taking a haircut and labor automated wherever then losses could be possibly ended. That seems to be where most Amtrak's subsidy is going.
Amtrak has a fair number of service personnel on its trains. We have discussed eliminating them but the elimination does not come from automation; it comes form eliminating the services they perform. For example, if Amtrak eliminates sleeping cars it can eliminate service attendants for sleeping cars. That would be a change of policy. So far Amtrak has declined to make that change of policy.
To simply reduce wages would not doubt injure morale. It would also do nothing to reduce the costs of operating crew dorms and of housing crew members between trains that run 3 days a week. Working on a train makes its own demands on people. Providing direct service to the public not only makes its own demands but also requires high moral. Crew members with low morale will not necessarily be rude or obnoxious; however they can generally drag their feet, be hard to find when they are needed and do a lot to erode the standard of service Amtrak needs to provide. Reducing wages could cause Amtrak some real problems.
Also, some here have pointed out that Amtrak is structured as a for profit corporation. In for profit corporations employees have a right to collective bargaining over wages. Any wage cut would have to be negotiated with unions who most likely would oppose it. Had Amtrak been structured as a part of government rather than a for profit corporation then there would be no right to collectively bargain over wages. Federal employees today are represented by unions but those unions cannot bargain over wages; wages are set by law. In recent times there have been years that Federal employee wages remained flat and were not increased. And of course now Federal employees face furloughs because of the sequester and will have their wages cut because of that. But the Congress declined to place such controls on Amtrak employees.
So cutting wages is not as simple as it may sound.
I honestly don't see there being an issue with labor being so much higher than all other expenses on the balance sheet. Compared to other passenger operations in this country, Amtrak's 50% labor to all other expenses is reasonable. Here is some quick research in to the labor expense ratios for some other passenger railroads in the US: New Jersey Transit 52%, SEPTA 59%.
All Amtrak and commuter trains have multiple conductors compared to freight trains which typically have 1 conductor. Amtrak long distance trains have additional crew members for handling food service and sleeping / coach car attendants. Unlike the airline and bus industries, Amtrak's payroll includes right-of-way (track/signal/structures) maintainers, engineering, police, dispatching, etc. For airlines, dispatching/air traffic control is covered by the FAA, airports are maintained and staffed by local governmental authorities, security is provided by the Feds (TSA).
So based on the above explanation, it makes sense labor would be such a big expense. If you really think about it, moving people is very labor intensive process. Think of how many people are involved in transporting people on an airplane or a ship (cruise or ferry) let alone a train (Amtrak or commuter). It a lot of people.
Unilateral (read: forced) renegotiation of contracts is a non-starter. However, if the wage scales are out of line with comparable situations, there could be some savings in the next contracts. Attrition as retirements occur is another possibility. But as others have pointed out, one reason Amtrak has such a high payroll is the labor-intensive nature of the LD trains, compared to the corridor routes.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
That is exactly what Tom Downs attempted in 1997. Didn't work out too well for him.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Short of blatant union-busting tactics, reducing labor expenses can be difficult at best. Unilateral wage reductions are out of the question and I'm not sure as to how many positions can be eliminated by automation and/or further mechanization.
How would the union react to a pay cut? Or job cut?
I think greater efficiency in used of people and equipment is a more productive answer.
Railroad to Freedom
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.