Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
PJS1 Here is an in your face rock that any competent business executive would turn over in looking for sustainable cost savings. In 2017 salaries, wages, and benefits chewed up 59.4 percent of Amtrak’s operating expenses and, worse yet, 63 percent of its revenues. One does not need to be much of a labor expert to realize that these results are unsustainable. At CSX personnel expenses – same as salaries, wages and benefits – accounted for 47.4 percent of operating expenses and 25.5 percent of operating revenues. At UP the numbers were 45.4 and 24 percent. At Norfolk Southern the numbers were 48 and 27.6 percent. At Kansas City Southern the percentages were 36.9 and 19.1. At Southwest Airlines the numbers were 45.1 and 34.6 percent. At United Airlines they were 35.6 and 29.3.
To be clear, this isn't about wages as much as it is about productivity. And productivity isn't a measure of how hard you work, it's how much gets done.
Right off the top of my head...some simple ones.
Why does the club car attendent have to give me a cup of ice when I buy a soda? I get my own in McDonalds. In fact, I get my own soda. Perfect spot for a vending machine. Cold sandwhiches, pre-packed salads, chips, candy - Vending machine. Let the cafe car attendent do the stuff that needs heating up. This will increase the throughput in the cafe car. Same person. Same wage. More revenue.
But, don't stop there...Let him also open up a vestibule at stops to speed boarding.
Dining car and sleeping car personnel. Why both? Why not just have the car attendent take care of meals like flight attendents do. In between stops, they heat and serve pre-plated meals.
Why coach attendants at all? We don't need them on day trains and Amtrak doesn't hand out pillows and blankets anymore... So, what's their value added? The trainman can get folks on and off.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd PJS1 Here is an in your face rock that any competent business executive would turn over in looking for sustainable cost savings. In 2017 salaries, wages, and benefits chewed up 59.4 percent of Amtrak’s operating expenses and, worse yet, 63 percent of its revenues. One does not need to be much of a labor expert to realize that these results are unsustainable. At CSX personnel expenses – same as salaries, wages and benefits – accounted for 47.4 percent of operating expenses and 25.5 percent of operating revenues. At UP the numbers were 45.4 and 24 percent. At Norfolk Southern the numbers were 48 and 27.6 percent. At Kansas City Southern the percentages were 36.9 and 19.1. At Southwest Airlines the numbers were 45.1 and 34.6 percent. At United Airlines they were 35.6 and 29.3. To be clear, this isn't about wages as much as it is about productivity. And productivity isn't a measure of how hard you work, it's how much gets done. Right off the top of my head...some simple ones. Why does the club car attendent have to give me a cup of ice when I buy a soda? I get my own in McDonalds. In fact, I get my own soda. Perfect spot for a vending machine. Cold sandwhiches, pre-packed salads, chips, candy - Vending machine. Let the cafe car attendent do the stuff that needs heating up. This will increase the throughput in the cafe car. Same person. Same wage. More revenue. But, don't stop there...Let him also open up a vestibule at stops to speed boarding. Dining car and sleeping car personnel. Why both? Why not just have the car attendent take care of meals like flight attendents do. In between stops, they heat and serve pre-plated meals. Why coach attendants at all? We don't need them on day trains and Amtrak doesn't hand out pillows and blankets anymore... So, what's their value added? The trainman can get folks on and off.
In 2017 salaries, wages, and benefits chewed up 59.4 percent of Amtrak’s operating expenses and, worse yet, 63 percent of its revenues. One does not need to be much of a labor expert to realize that these results are unsustainable.
Good perspective. I tried to make clear in my previous post that it is not just wages, although I believe they are a factor, but it is equally about work rules, which is what you are saying.
Why have service personnel at all? Just load the animals on board and stop in accordance approrpiate section of the Livestock Bill of Lading. 24 Hours for Feed, Water & Rest - extendable to 36 hours on Shipper request.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I find it rather amusing that a lot of these postings suggest cutting the number of service personnel on the trains to just above the level found on the various airlines and would later complain about the lack of amenities on said trains. Cutting personnel costs also means eliminating amenities.
CSSHEGEWISCH I find it rather amusing that a lot of these postings suggest cutting the number of service personnel on the trains to just above the level found on the various airlines and would later complain about the lack of amenities on said trains. Cutting personnel costs also means eliminating amenities.
It all about judging the value of the ammenity against the cost of providing it. It's the job of Amtrak's marketing dept. to figure this out. It doesn't seem like that's what they've been doing over the past decades.
Improving productivity is always a no-brainer, though. Anything that get more done with the same or the same done with less is always worth pursuing.
In the early 1990s, I rode the train from Philadelphia to London ON a couple times. Got up really early, caught 5:45 clocker at 30th St and then Maple Leaf from Penn. Got off at Aldershot ON and caught VIA to London, arriving about 10PM. Only food service was basic Amcafe food on the Maple Leaf. It wasn't a problem. Pre-made sandwiches and microwaved burgers were the mainstay of the menu back then. They were okay. I don't think the dining experience was a factor either way for anybody riding the train.
Where dining can be a factor is when you're primarily selling to tourists (which is what Amtrak should be doing with it's western LD fleet.)
Check out how KiwiRail sells their trains. https://www.greatjourneysofnz.co.nz/northern-explorer/
The Northern Explorer is an 11 trip between Wellington and Auckland. It's prime purpose is tourism, but there were a good number of locals riding, too.
Check out the on board menu
https://www.greatjourneysofnz.co.nz/assets/food-menus/scenic-trains-menu.pdf
just prepackaged cold items and microwaved hot items.
(when you book, you have an option to pre-order your meals. They warn you that they often run out of some items en route)
On board, there is a small staff and everyone is cross-trained, meaning the cafe might stop serving during a station stop and you might find the conductor pitching in at the cafe during peak times.
Does the service make money? I doubt it, but I doubt it bleeds red ink, either. But it seems the government believes it's worth spending the bucks to help attract foreign tourists.
Amtrak and it's appologists need to stop defending the status-quo on absolute terms and figure out how to get the most from what we have - show the value of that in global terms - and defend THAT.
There are lots of examples from around the world on how to go about that.
BaltACD oltmannd PJS1 Here is an in your face rock that any competent business executive would turn over in looking for sustainable cost savings. In 2017 salaries, wages, and benefits chewed up 59.4 percent of Amtrak’s operating expenses and, worse yet, 63 percent of its revenues. One does not need to be much of a labor expert to realize that these results are unsustainable. At CSX personnel expenses – same as salaries, wages and benefits – accounted for 47.4 percent of operating expenses and 25.5 percent of operating revenues. At UP the numbers were 45.4 and 24 percent. At Norfolk Southern the numbers were 48 and 27.6 percent. At Kansas City Southern the percentages were 36.9 and 19.1. At Southwest Airlines the numbers were 45.1 and 34.6 percent. At United Airlines they were 35.6 and 29.3. To be clear, this isn't about wages as much as it is about productivity. And productivity isn't a measure of how hard you work, it's how much gets done. Right off the top of my head...some simple ones. Why does the club car attendent have to give me a cup of ice when I buy a soda? I get my own in McDonalds. In fact, I get my own soda. Perfect spot for a vending machine. Cold sandwhiches, pre-packed salads, chips, candy - Vending machine. Let the cafe car attendent do the stuff that needs heating up. This will increase the throughput in the cafe car. Same person. Same wage. More revenue. But, don't stop there...Let him also open up a vestibule at stops to speed boarding. Dining car and sleeping car personnel. Why both? Why not just have the car attendent take care of meals like flight attendents do. In between stops, they heat and serve pre-plated meals. Why coach attendants at all? We don't need them on day trains and Amtrak doesn't hand out pillows and blankets anymore... So, what's their value added? The trainman can get folks on and off. Why have service personnel at all? Just load the animals on board and stop in accordance approrpiate section of the Livestock Bill of Lading. 24 Hours for Feed, Water & Rest - extendable to 36 hours on Shipper request.
You've obviously seen a Mega-Bus...
PJS1 jeffhergert I didn't know you were an expert in Amtrak's, or any railroad's labor contracts. I am not an expert in labor contracts. But I spent a decade or more re-engineering a Fortune 500 Corporation. So, I know what rocks to start looking under and what questions to ask. Here is one example to ponder. In 2012 the average compensation for the lead server and attendant server on Amtrak’s dining cars was $88,970. Adjusted for inflation the number would be close to $97,292. Of this amount approximately $72,000 would be salary and the remainder would be benefits. Undoubtedly, most of the on-board servers believe that they are fairly compensated. They have all kinds of arguments as to why they need to be paid higher wages, i.e. being away from home, serving on a rocking train, safety in case of a wreck, etc. But compared to people working in similar positions, including flight attendants, which I laid out in another thread, a prudent business person would take a hard look at the justification for these numbers. They are, by-the-way taken from Table 3, Page 22, Amtrak’s Food and Beverage Service Audit, OIG-A-2014-01 dated October 31, 2103. But it not just the cost of labor. Savings could be realized through better management of the workforce on the trains. For example, as noted by the auditors, Amtrak tends to keep the same level of on-board staffing during high and low demand periods. Also, it keeps the same level of staffing from end-point to end-point even though the average load factor may diminish significantly from one intermediate point to an end-point. They noted the practice of keeping a full dining car staff on the Sunset Limited between San Antonio and New Orleans even though the average load factor east of San Antonio is considerably lower than west of San Antonio. The auditors noted that many of the on-board staff are required to clock-in two to three hours before train time. This practice incurred unnecessary cost. Actually, I believe Amtrak has reduced the clock-in lead times. Management could take a hard look at whether many of the stations served by Amtrak need to continue being staffed. As it is, staff is being eliminated at several stations. Included in the hit list is Marshall, TX. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 80 percent of American households have a computer. As is true for the airlines, as well as Greyhound, Megabus, etc., an increasing percentage of wannabe travelers are booking on-line, thereby eliminating the need to sell tickets across the counter. Are there other opportunities where the staffing at intermediate stations could be eliminated or reduced? No one is talking about paying Amtrak’s engineers less than those running for the Class 1s. It is the ancillary personnel, especially those on the long-distance trains, that shoulld be looked at carefully. Moreover, no one believes that paying subpar wages is a winner. But by the same token no prudent business person pays more than what it takes to get people to perform the work.
jeffhergert I didn't know you were an expert in Amtrak's, or any railroad's labor contracts.
OK, so you aren't going to renogotiate more realistic (read: lower wages) contract with T&E staff, just food and beverage staff (and others). I think Oltmann's ideas for boosting efficiency are more likely to bear fruit. Run the more promising western LD routes (CZ, EB, Coast Starlight) as land cruises with fine dining (with prices in the $7000 range as mentioned in another thread). On shorter corridor runs where the bulk of passengers are riding <5 hours, most people don't care about "dining" so onboard cold and microwavable self-serve foods and drinks should suffice. RIF or reassign the now redundant staff.
PJS1 ... So, here is the question that I never get a satisfactor answer to. The government has not taken over failed airlines or intercity bus companies. So, why should it be in the passenger rail business. If it cannot be sustained in the competitive market place, it should be allowed to die. The creation of Amtrak was more about sloppy sentimental politics than rational decision making.
...
So, here is the question that I never get a satisfactor answer to. The government has not taken over failed airlines or intercity bus companies. So, why should it be in the passenger rail business. If it cannot be sustained in the competitive market place, it should be allowed to die.
The creation of Amtrak was more about sloppy sentimental politics than rational decision making.
The reason you don't get a satisfactory answer, is that you are asking a rhetorical question based on an invalid equivalent. The entire intercity rail passenger network is not equivalent to individual airline or bus companies. Yes, individual airlines and bus companies have gone out of business (with competitors taking up the slack), but individual passenger carrying rail companies have also gone out of business without intervention, such as the Colorado Midland, and of course thousands of passenger train-offs have been approved by the ICC.
Even if you are speaking of entire transportation industries, the government has bailed out the airline industry with $billions in the years after 9/11/01, and bails out bus companies (and cars and trucks) by supplementing the highway trust fund with general tax dollars among other things.
MidlandMike ......you don't get a satisfactory answer, is that you are asking a rhetorical question based on an invalid equivalent.
Needless to say, I disagree with your perspective.
PJS1 MidlandMike ......you don't get a satisfactory answer, is that you are asking a rhetorical question based on an invalid equivalent. Needless to say, I disagree with your perspective. Did the industry need to be saved and transformed into a bloated government bureaucracy? Or like the airlines or intercity bus companies that could make it in the market place, should only those segments of the industry that had some potential to be viable been saved? No one knows whether the NEC and perhaps LAX to San Diego could have survived had the government not elected to take over passenger rail service in the United States. Perhaps you were not arround during the PC bankruptcy. Not only did the NEC need to be saved, but the whole freifht system in the Northeast needed government bail-out. But the fundamental question remains: Why should the federal government have saved collectively passenger trains that their users would not pay for? Why should it have gone into the passenger rail business since did not go into the airlines, bus, or cruise ship business? Maybe the airline, bus, and cruse ship business didn't need intervention. Subsidies to other modes of transport, which unlike Amtrak are not direct cash payments, have nothing to do with how much money the U.S. has or should invest in passenger rail, and where it should be invested. If you already concluded that subsidies to other modes have nothing to do with passenger rail, then why are you asking why Amtrak souldn't be treated like the other modes? In retrospect, which is always easier than foresight, creating Amtrak was a mistake. What we got is a sub-par passenger railroad with more than 20,000 government employees whose productivity is questionable and who appear to be over paid. Amtrak was created as a ward of the government because no one else was going to do it, and national rail passenger service was considered worth saving by those elected. And so far no one else has stepped up to take it on.
PJS1You are correct to challenge Amtrak to do it better, faster, cheaper. I would take it one step further. Privatization!
Has anyone ever expressed interest?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann PJS1 You are correct to challenge Amtrak to do it better, faster, cheaper. I would take it one step further. Privatization! Has anyone ever expressed interest?
Not directly!
Several conservative think tanks have suggested privatizing Amtrak. But as long as the politicians insist on a "national system", no one is going to take it on.
If the NEC were put up for sale, with some government support for the infrastructure, there might be some takers. It is close to covering its fully allocated costs.
One way to get there would be to have an regulated entity own rails. It would be open to anyone that wanted to run a train on it as long as they met the health and safety standards. They would have to buy a slot just like the airlines have to buy gates at the airports that they serve, but competition has a tendency to burst the gates.
Brightline and Texas Central are private investor projects. I am among their cheerleaders.
MidlandMike makes the point that elected officials made the decision to save the passenger trains. It was not the first or last government mistake. One thing is clear. The people did not want it, at least in sufficient numbers at the fares required to cover the costs.
Amtrak has cost the taxpayers $34.6 billion in historical dollars and more than $40 billion in 2009 constant dollars. It is a relatively small sum in the scheme of things, to be sure, but I can think of a lot of things where the money could have been better spent, i.e. healthcare for the poor, education, etc.
The government should not be a commercial transport operator. It should help develop rights-of-way; it should also make sure that the users pay for them.
PJS1 zugmann PJS1 You are correct to challenge Amtrak to do it better, faster, cheaper. I would take it one step further. Privatization! Has anyone ever expressed interest? Not directly! Several conservative think tanks have suggested privatizing Amtrak. But as long as the politicians insist on a "national system", no one is going to take it on.
Think tanks are great, however money wells are required for privatization. The only way 'privatization' can show a profit is if the privateers are in charge of the fare box and all the cost elements of a operation are subsidized.
PJS1Several conservative think tanks have suggested privatizing Amtrak. But as long as the politicians insist on a "national system", no one is going to take it on.
So ... No. Privatization would be an easier pill swallow if someone actually wanted it.
Ed Ellis tried a privatization of sorts with the "Hoosier State". It did not turn out too well since his contract did not provide enough of a state subsidy.
Providing infrastructure of various sorts, including for transportation, has been a government function since the early republic days. A national rail infrastructure, much akin to highways and air transport infrastructure is sensible. Operations can be private, public or some hybrid. The devil is in the details. But the goal should be having efficient operations to provide transportation. If some private concern thinks it can make a go running land cruises with deluxe accomodations and "fine dining" from CHI to SEA for example, let it try. But that should not be a subsidized government passenger service because so few people use them (EB and CZ) even now at discounted prices. Passenger rail has a place, especially 21st century HSR, for routes <300-500 miles. Longer distances become competitive and popular as speed increases.
These so called think tanks are funded by big oil companys. The Think tanks are filled with professors that were thrown out of traditional universitys for having extream bias and not being neutral.Some fudged reaserch so that a predertmined outcome would happen so they could keep getting funded.
How do we reconcile the almost same number of passenger miles on the NEC and the rest of the syste?
CSSHEGEWISCH Ed Ellis tried a privatization of sorts with the "Hoosier State". It did not turn out too well since his contract did not provide enough of a state subsidy.
As the Japanese and French have learned, privatization only works where there is a concentration of mass. That means high density corridors like the NEC and maybe southern California.
A one train a day service is not a candidate for privatization. If that is all a route will support, the train should be ditched in favor of buses or airplanes. No wonder El Ellis failed.
Last week I drove to Dallas from south Texas. I stopped in Italy, Texas, which is approximately 45 miles south of Dallas. I was surprised to see 10 Tesla recharging stations at the Love Travel Stop. When I asked the manger about the arrangement, he told me that Tesla and Love agreed that each could benefit from the arrangement, i.e. Tesla drivers get a re-charging station and Love gets folks who are likely buy their stuff while waiting to re-charge their electric vehicles.
So, what is the message? Competition brings better outcomes than government run monopolies like Amtrak. Pure and simple!
CandOforprogress2 These so called think tanks are funded by big oil companys. The Think tanks are filled with professors that were thrown out of traditional universitys for having extream bias and not being neutral.Some fudged reaserch so that a predertmined outcome would happen so they could keep getting funded.
blue streak 1 How do we reconcile the almost same number of passenger miles on the NEC and the rest of the syste?
In 2017 the passenger miles on the NEC were 1,984 million (2 billion rounded) vs. 1,920 million for the state supported services and 2,616 million for the long distance trains.
I am not sure that I understand your point. From a business (commercial) perspective, in 2017 the NEC had an operating profit of $471.7 million vs. an operating loss of $97.7 million for the state support services and $500.2 million for the long distance trains.
So, the long distance trains racked up more passenger miles than the other two service lines, but lost a lot of money doing so.
PJS1So, what is the message? Competition brings better outcomes than government run monopolies like Amtrak. Pure and simple!
But hasn't tesla accepted billions in gov't subsidies?
PJS1 So, the long distance trains racked up more passenger miles than the other two service lines, but lost a lot of money doing so.
So the question becomes " what items are causing this obvious disparaity " ?
One item is the NEC revenue per passenger mile is higher. But what accounting tricks are being done ? We have no idea what load factors on each route are and revenue.
There probably are many other items that you posters can cite ?
zugmann PJS1 So, what is the message? Competition brings better outcomes than government run monopolies like Amtrak. Pure and simple! But hasn't tesla accepted billions in gov't subsidies?
No.
People who buy Tesla automobiles, as well as any of the EVs, e.g. Chevy Bolt, Nissan Leaf, etc., get a credit on their federal tax return that effectively reduces the cost of the vehicle. And some states may also grant a credit, although most of them key off the federal income tax return.
The relationship between Tesla and Love demonstrates is a clear demonstration of innovation driven by competition, which is the point that I was trying to make.
blue streak 1 PJS1 So, the long distance trains racked up more passenger miles than the other two service lines, but lost a lot of money doing so. So the question becomes " what items are causing this obvious disparaity " ? One item is the NEC revenue per passenger mile is higher. But what accounting tricks are being done ? We have no idea what load factors on each route are and revenue. There probably are many other items that you posters can cite ?
In 2017 the average ticket price paid by a long-distance train rider was $107.36 compared to $102.96 on the NEC. But the average operating cost per passenger on the long-distance trains was $220.31 compared to $65.98 for the NEC.
The average revenue generated by a long-distance rider was $113.84 compared to $105.20 for the NEC. Again, however, it was the average operating cost per passenger than resulted in an operating profit per passenger on the NEC, but a significant loss per passenger on the long-distance trains.
The NEC had an average operating profit per passenger mile of 24 cents while the long-distance trains lost an average of 19 cents per passenger mile.
The notion that Amtrak is manipulating its books to make the long-distance trains look bad is not supported by any independent evidence. The people who make this claim don't have access to the company's books and, therefore, they have no basis for making the claim.
I grew up near the headquarters of the PRR. For years the unions claimed that management was using dodgy accounting to hide the true condition of the railroad. Finally, PRR management gave the unions access to the books. They were blown away as to how bad the company was doing. It turned out that for years the Standard Railroad of the U.S. was in essence borrowing money to pay it dividends. But the unions refused to believe it. Which, of course, shows that it is important for management to be transparent.
PJS1 zugmann PJS1 So, what is the message? Competition brings better outcomes than government run monopolies like Amtrak. Pure and simple! But hasn't tesla accepted billions in gov't subsidies? No. People who buy Tesla automobiles, as well as any of the EVs, e.g. Chevy Bolt, Nissan Leaf, etc., get a credit on their federal tax return that effectively reduces the cost of the vehicle. And some states may also grant a credit, although most of them key off the federal income tax return. The relationship between Tesla and Love demonstrates is a clear demonstration of innovation driven by competition, which is the point that I was trying to make.
A tax credit is just an indirect subsidy.
So, without dragging this thread further into the weeds, I seem to remember a Don Phillips column about a converstation with Wick Moorman. Phillips tried to pin Moorman down on the NEC vs. LD cost allocation thing.
Moorman begged off discussing details except to reafirm that LD trains lose money and NEC trains generate cash. Moorman is about the straightest-shooter I know. He wasn't saying this because he's part of some grand political conspiracy to lavish the Northeast with speedy trains while sticking it to fly-over country. In fact, he has a personal vested interest in the LD network as a private car owner.
I think the reason the cost allocation thing is so opaque is not that there is some grand conpiracy, but rather that this is really rather complicated and there are all sorts of indirect subsidies flowing in many directions that don't show up cleanly in the books.
One of them is the fees that the commuter agencies pay for NEC usage. Amtrak's contention is that they don't come close to covering costs. There has been a working committee over the past half dozen years or so trying to hash out a new deal. As far as I know, nothing new has been agreed upon.
Another is the "sweetheart" deal the LD trains get from the host roads. You can rationalize the fairness of it a zillion ways, but a the end of the day, it's still an indirect subsidy.
I think it's a fools errand to try to try to parse out Amtrak's operations too finely. It's like fiddling while Rome burns, or like kids at the dinner table arguing who got a larger slice of pie.
Instead, the focus should be on "better". I don't mean "better scorekeeping". I mean, Amtrak has it's existing routes and equipment at it's disposal right now. How best can they be deployed? Changing lines on the map is nearly impossible without serious horse-trading with the host roads and invoking the ire of some politician (see the recent flap over a station agent for Charleston WV!). Adding train frequencies is doable with a) a barrel of money for the host road and/or b) some serious horse-trading. or c) some serious leverage (e.g. NCRR and Piedmont trains) Rearranging schedules is a non-trivial exercise, but much simpler and faster to accomplish.
The goal should be the markets the the routes run through, not so much retention of existing riders. Amtrak's marketing should be focused on that more, and web page and pricing tweaks less.
oltmannd A tax credit is just an indirect subsidy.
It is an indirect subsidy for cars sold in the U.S.
Although Tesla has not revealed the percentage of cars that it has sold in the U.S., a substantial percentage are sold overseas according to Bloomberg and others. In fact, Tesla is looking to build an assembly factor in China. Whether overseas buyers get a tax credit is unknown.
The subsidy flows to the buyer; it does not flow to the company. Moreover, its impact on the buyer decision depends on the AGI of the taxpayer. The impact means something much different for a buyer with an AGI of $250,000 vs. a buyer with an AGI of $75,000.
The tax credits phase down and out as U.S. sales exceed predefined trigger levels. For Tesla, it began with the sale of its 200,001 vehicle. Once the Model 3 begins to sell robustly, unless the Congress changes the law, very few of the buyers will get a tax credit.
Cost allocation is not nearly as difficult as many make it out to be. Most of the people who complain about Amtrak's cost allocation models don’t know anything about cost accounting or the models.
[/quote]
I seldom agree with CandO for Progress's contententions. However...
There have numerous articles in the progressive media citing name of authors and the foundations (Think Tanks) receiving funding from the carbon industries. One need only Google it.
Manhattan Institute is a major source of articles and papers supporting the use of fossil fuels and downplaying global climate change. These pieces get picked up and published by the broad media such as WAPO, WSJ and CSM. They have received $1.21 million from Exxon Mobil and the Charles Lambe Foundation, a Koch Industries charity, and others. Robert Bryce is a senior fellow who pens most of its articles. His credentials? Not even a failed professor, as C&O suggests. Just a BFA from UT-Austin, i.e., a degree in the arts, visual and stage.
American Enterprise Institute has received $ 2.8 million in the last 20 years from fossil fuel industries and uses the same tactic to influence public opinion. One of their writers is Steven Hayward, who has a PHD in American Studies ("history-lite") from Clarmont.
A good example of the strategy and methods used by fossil-fuel industry can be seen in this study of the campaign in 2015 to lift the crude oil export ban.https://public-accountability.org/2015/12/the-oil-tanks/
And this one on funding climate change denial think tanks: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
Some other articles looking at the relationships of corporations, "think tanks," the media and government, including foreign governments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers-buy-influence-at-think-tanks.html
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies
The United States has a long history of building, subsidizing, encouraging, incentivizing, providing lower cost bonds, enacting protective tariiffs, etc. for inrastructure and (primarily) emerging industries. It all depends on what side of the fence one is, payor or recipient, as to whether one thinks it is right or fair or a good use of funding.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.