CSSHEGEWISCH I'm going to rain on the parade and suggest that any attempt at outsourcing may well require a renegotiation of existing labor contracts, a time-consuming process at best.
I'm going to rain on the parade and suggest that any attempt at outsourcing may well require a renegotiation of existing labor contracts, a time-consuming process at best.
Yes...that is the point of many privatization attempts, to break the unions. Sly, aren't they.
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.
My sense and that of several others is to let Amtrak run passenger service, outsource the food/hospitality services. As far as non-profits go, many non-profit colleges and universities (aka community colleges and state universities) have superb food programs and operate public facilities that serve great food at reasonable prices,even hotels, like at MSU. The food at some really puts Amtrak to shame. Perhaps something could be worked out as externships.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
MEG Iowa Pacific (Pullman Rail) or similar operators may be the future for dining and sleeper car services. Amtrak has too many external pressures to deliver first class service. Let Amrtak focus on coach class and operating the trains and turn the balance over to a third party operator with flexible work rules to deliver a superior product. Lease the dining and sleeping cars to third party operators for refurbishment and service.
Iowa Pacific (Pullman Rail) or similar operators may be the future for dining and sleeper car services. Amtrak has too many external pressures to deliver first class service. Let Amrtak focus on coach class and operating the trains and turn the balance over to a third party operator with flexible work rules to deliver a superior product. Lease the dining and sleeping cars to third party operators for refurbishment and service.
Iowa Pacific narrowly averted financial disaster with their wheel / axle problem. If it wasn't for the alert railroad employee that informed that company of their deteriorated wheel sets. They easily could have been wiped out financially by one bad derailment. They were very lucky in that respect.
In regards to outsourcing. Need to have a model beyond simple nostalgia that attracts private investment. So far no such model on the Private side has proven to be sustainable over a period of a couple years. Canadian Operations of the Rocky Mountaineer being an exeception (the reason they do better is they sell hotel packages, tour packages in addition to the train package) They also over more than one level of service.
Rocky Mountaineer Service has proved they can order new passenger cars from a existing passenger car manufacturer (Colorado Rail Car). Iowa Pacific's service has not proved that it makes enough money to do so and relies on very old cars. Rocky Mountaineers model might not be able to support purchase of a completely new trainsets vs new cars here and there. We'll have to wait and see.
So we have not seen a Private model yet anywhere on the continent that can support Private Long Distance Passenger Service with Sleepers over a 10-15 period of time and support refreshment of their fleet (substantial new car orders).
desertdog henry6 That is the point. Politicians will give you the smoke and mirrors story that by outsourcing it will only cost the one million dollars and you will not lose the nine million spent on providing the service, that money will be spent by the outsource entity who will bill the government for the million dollar loss. And of course you guys are looking at the numbers more closely than most political constituents who only nod approval to their public servant because he just showed him how he saved 9 or 10 million dollars cutting the loss to only a million. For what it matters, I don't expect that outsourcing will cost any less. It may even cost more. However, the vendor has an incentive to make a profit and is more likely to do so by providing a quality service. The Amtrak image just might improve in the process, as well as ridership. John Timm
henry6 That is the point. Politicians will give you the smoke and mirrors story that by outsourcing it will only cost the one million dollars and you will not lose the nine million spent on providing the service, that money will be spent by the outsource entity who will bill the government for the million dollar loss. And of course you guys are looking at the numbers more closely than most political constituents who only nod approval to their public servant because he just showed him how he saved 9 or 10 million dollars cutting the loss to only a million.
That is the point. Politicians will give you the smoke and mirrors story that by outsourcing it will only cost the one million dollars and you will not lose the nine million spent on providing the service, that money will be spent by the outsource entity who will bill the government for the million dollar loss. And of course you guys are looking at the numbers more closely than most political constituents who only nod approval to their public servant because he just showed him how he saved 9 or 10 million dollars cutting the loss to only a million.
For what it matters, I don't expect that outsourcing will cost any less. It may even cost more. However, the vendor has an incentive to make a profit and is more likely to do so by providing a quality service. The Amtrak image just might improve in the process, as well as ridership.
John Timm
Correcting the typos, the numbers henry posted were a $ one million loss either way. Service quality may or may not improve. The advantages to outsourcing are usually less costly fringe benefits and easier to eliminate unnecessary services or redundant staff. The disadvantage is that profit for the company doing the work has to come from somewhere, usually workers' pockets. Rather than outsourcing to for-profit corporations, why not outsource to non-profits? The best medical centers use the non-profit model; the quality is top notch, costs are contained, staff is paid very well and any surplus is reinvested in the operation, equipment, buildings, etc. rather than distributing to investors.
schlimm henry6 The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained. Maybe I am missing something, but your numbers and point don't make any sense to me.
henry6 The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained.
The contractor signs a contract with the government agency to operate the system for a fee. They get that fee from the fare box and the government supplying the difference. Yes, the operator makes money, but the smoke and mirrors is that the government still has to subsidize. So it Someplace Authority owns and operates a passenger service and it costs them $10 million dollars a month and they only collect $9 a month, the loose $1 million a month. But if they hire a company to run the service who rakes in $10 million a month and pick up their loss million from the Authority it only costs the Authority $1 million a month, Now they can show the taxpayers they aren't losing $9 million a month operating the railroad but are saving that money instead. Politicalbs explained.
Maybe I am missing something, but your numbers and point don't make any sense to me.
I'm with you on this one, Schlimm.
There may be an instant improvement but I doubt it won't be long before it is as bad or worse. Time and again I've seen outsourcing turn into a finger pointing shouting match accusing the other party for not holding up their end of the deal. Then things go down hill. We've seen how LA had problems with their operator, how Boston has changed operators several times, and numerous short line operators have gotten kicked off or *** off and left. So, privatizing or outsourcing is not the panacea for making money. Give up! Moving people is not a money making proposition in this country, so operate the best service possible as a support for both our transportation system and our economic system (businesses helped by the inexpensive and reliable movement of people).
henry6 Passenger rail in this country has become a service of the government because of subsidies needed to keep it going as it does not produce enough profit for private investors...it is too labor intensive and it relies on a population which has become accustomed to highways, airways, water, gas, and electric utilities and rail services both commuter and inter city to be cheap and unencumbered by investors for the most part, i.e. they don't want to pay the full price out of their pockets. Even if services are "out sourced" a government agency will pay for the services to cover losses. It is a game of words not economics.
Passenger rail in this country has become a service of the government because of subsidies needed to keep it going as it does not produce enough profit for private investors...it is too labor intensive and it relies on a population which has become accustomed to highways, airways, water, gas, and electric utilities and rail services both commuter and inter city to be cheap and unencumbered by investors for the most part, i.e. they don't want to pay the full price out of their pockets. Even if services are "out sourced" a government agency will pay for the services to cover losses. It is a game of words not economics.
The services would most likely continue to lose money as you suggest, and require a subsidy, but there may well be an improvement in quality.
Contractors would need too much money. Let taxpayers continue their modest subsidy of decent rail service as it is. The subsidy is a drop in the bucket compared to the public money spent on competing forms of passenger transportation, let alone on "entitlements."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.