Enzoamps CMStPnP I don't want to create a tangent so I leave it at this: My poor folks would become liable for a $70,000 debt. I assume most folks would take out a mortgage for the amouht, but that assumes said family could qualify for one. The single mom with three kids working at minimum wage would not. York, my comment was not aimed at you, thanks for your kind thought. I was addressing the hostile remarks from Backshop.
CMStPnP
I don't want to create a tangent so I leave it at this: My poor folks would become liable for a $70,000 debt. I assume most folks would take out a mortgage for the amouht, but that assumes said family could qualify for one. The single mom with three kids working at minimum wage would not.
York, my comment was not aimed at you, thanks for your kind thought. I was addressing the hostile remarks from Backshop.
PS As regards your original post about Amtrak--if a person can't afford a hotel room, then they aren't the people that Amtrak is trying to attract. They wouldn't be going on vacation or taking trips anyway.
Gramp So the regular vps are in the chips!
So the regular vps are in the chips!
alphasSince many larger corporations get good discounts on 1st class airfares, the train could even be significantly more expensive in that comparison.
Of all the companies I worked for, none of them paid for First Class Travel unless it was a very special circumstance (leaving a specific city in reasonable time and no coach seats available). Highest they will usually go is Business Class or Coach Class upgrade. What companies did you work for that gave out first class tickets?
Marketing and Business might get first class upgrades via frequent flyer awards but never really a ticket that could be expensed Senior executives fly chartered or corp business jets vs first class. Frito-Lay in Plano,TX you only need to be a regular VP (not Exec VP) to get access to the Corporate Lear Jet.
No normal business traveler is going to take a long overnight rail trip by coach so it can be assumed Amtrak business travelers would usually have the expense of a sleeping compartment. Now you are talking more $ [usually far more] than the coach airline ticket which is what the great majority of business travelers use. Since many larger corporations get good discounts on 1st class airfares, the train could even be significantly more expensive in that comparison.
And it's not always speed but reliability that matters. If I need to be in city X for a meeting the next morning at 10:00 and I take a train scheduled to arrive at 8:30, but is late by three hours, I'm not likely to be a repeat customer.
My wife traveled for business 2-4 times a month before she retired. She wasn't a highly paid executive but she did travel to the 4 corners of the country. Under 300 miles she normally drove but over that, Delta got the nod. She could have 2-3 day trips instead of weeklong marathons.
BackshopThat's because in business, time is money.
It's true for high paid executives, bill by hour consultants and marketing folks where they earn a commission on sales. Other parts of business not really. So if I am going on business to a trade show, to take an educational class/training/seminar, attend a remote business meeting or series of meetings. Those type of things do not have the same time pressure as would someone in marketing visiting multiple accounts in a day, trying to close deals to make money. Nor would they have the same time pressure as an Executive who has to justify a $300k Salary or higher. So yes time is money is a rule of thumb for some in business but not all business. Of course most people want to travel on the fastest way possible. However, when traveling on a department budget for training, seminar, meetings, etc. Business people will forgo a couple of hours to save travel money......there is some elasticity there. I have seen them forgo nonstop flights for cheaper multi-connect flights for example. As well as drive vs. fly. True not a lot take the train but I think they would if it was on a frequent schedule and ran between the city pairs they were traveling.
Also folks will drive less than and up to 350-400 miles instead of taking Amtrak because they do not have to rent a car on the other end of the trip which also saves money plus you get paid mileage for taking a car and that is more profitable to the individual. Depending on their speed of driving and what kind of vehicle they have. You get to pocket that fixed rate of money not spent. It is not a lot of money but for some people it is a motivator to drive vs. fly if they can show it is cheaper for the company.
n012944 Gramp Does Amtrak have sales people like airlines do who develop travel accounts with corporate clients? Yes, but it looks like it is a NE corridor only program. https://www.amtrak.com/corporateprograms
Gramp Does Amtrak have sales people like airlines do who develop travel accounts with corporate clients?
Does Amtrak have sales people like airlines do who develop travel accounts with corporate clients?
Yes, but it looks like it is a NE corridor only program.
https://www.amtrak.com/corporateprograms
An "expensive model collector"
GrampDoes Amtrak have sales people like airlines do who develop travel accounts with corporate clients?
In order to get an Amtrak trip expensed the rule of thumb is to prove the ticket is the same or cheaper price than a comparable airline ticket. You do that at time of reservation by asking the travel agent to provide that computation on the itineary. Most companies will reimburse for Amtrak travel with that computation document on the travel itineary. The reason they do not require that for airline tickets is the contracted travel agency normally makes airline ticket reservations and Amtrak is considered a "travel exception" in most travel markets.
As a former business consultant I could use Philadelphia as the destination from Texas and get a cheaper airline ticket than one to NY or DC, then transfer to the Amtrak NEC via cab from Philly's airport for a cheaper overal price than if I just bought a direct ticket to NY or DC. Not always but in some cases where I had less than 2 weeks advance notice. Again I needed the travel agency to do the computation on the iternary showing it was cheaper or same price.
EnzoampsTurns out the family would need to come up with about $70,000.
Actually not really, the $70k can be paid for via a first lien / mortgage on the home since your obtaining the home debt free. In which case the poor person would have a $200k asset via only $70k debt. Additionally, part of the mortage payments and interest for the $70 would be written off each year. So the $200k asset could be had for far less than $70k in debt over the life of whatever term was choosen for the mortgage. Also, the IRS has payment plans as well, though they usually charge above market rates..........so mortgage would be a cheaper option. Now the question is, can they afford a $70k, 30 year fixed mortgage, and I would suspect some families can.
Enzoamps, I did not mean to demean your remarks in any way. I appreciate your views.
York1 John
Y'know, I am as interested as anyone in finding ways to promote the train. If it offends you that I find problems with certain approaches, I am sorry. You have every right to disagree with my thoughts. But I see no reason to make snide personal remarks.
But I will say, here locally a few years ago they had a contest where they gave away a free new $200,000 home. SOunds great, some poor family can have a home without a lot of money. I asked the reporter who wrote about it, what does the free house actually cost. New owner has to pay property taxes, insurance, tax on the value of the home as winnings, and some other costs. Turns out the family would need to come up with about $70,000. Hey, that is a great deal for someone, but only if they can afford it.
Amtrak already has an equivalent to the miles programs of airlines, and I suspect that appeals more to regular travellers than to first timers. And mentioned before, they were promoting buy a ticket, companion gets free ride. I like that better than just a free ticket.
EnzoampsA free trip is tough. What do you do when you get there? There will not be a return train waiting. And unless your free trip is a round trip, you'd have to pay for a return ride. That makes it a half price deal, not a free trip. Plus you'd have to stay in a hotel or otherwise wait for tomorrow's return.
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of actual travel rather than just an outing.
If I need to get to Dallas for a family reunion, I can fly, drive, or take a train. I will probably drive or fly. However, if there's a free ticket to get me there on a train, I might be tempted to take it for my first train trip ever. I could fly back, or buy a train ticket back.
With that, if the experience is a good one, I might be more tempted to take the train in the future.
It's just an idea.
Enzoamps OK, BAckshop, here is your free ticket from your town to some large city 300 miles away. WHat would you do with it? And what would it cost out of pocket?
OK, BAckshop, here is your free ticket from your town to some large city 300 miles away. WHat would you do with it? And what would it cost out of pocket?
CMStPnP A few more observations: As a supporter of good conscientious Unions, IMHO Amtrack's union is a bit out of hand. In some respects, I agree that Amtrak shouldn't exist as it is. My (possibly flawed) understanding is that every few years congress proposes to stop funding Amtrak but the cost of paying the exorbitant severance pay dictated by the union contract when everyone is laid off is far more than the savings so the can gets kicked down the road. A good union doesn't want to kill it's host company like a parasite but rather create better workers through fair pay, working conditions etc thereby benefiting everyone. (possibly a discussion for another time). Unfortunately the Federal Government won't fiscaly get killed (also a discussion for another time) easily so some of the contract points are a bit over the top (again IMHO). Since the Feds are by far and away Amtrak's biggest stakeholders, possibly they should demand some re-negotiation (If they went on strike, would it hurt our economy much?) maybe grandfathering in some seniority. Over time the costs could come down, and it just "might" become a profitable business and the government could get out. It IS important to maintain some passenger rail in this country but at what cost? I believe some of the eastern corridor routes are profitable. FWIW I love riding Amtrak (at least before covid-19) but it's obviously not an efficient system as it stands. Change is inevitable. Planning ahead just makes sense. BTW I'm with York1 in getting better managment. Tons of smart folks out there that could probably do a better job. York1 Everything concerns the whole issue of government involvement. Amtrak is in the worst possible position, being between a profit-making company and a government-run entity. I don't think Amtrak should exist that way. I want Congress to finally decide one way or another. I don't think the U.S. should be underwriting train travel unless it is a necessary means of transportation. If Congress decides that it is necessary, then let's do it. Some ideas: 1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules. To pay food workers or custodians two or three times the rate that normal workers get won't work. 2. Charlie's idea (with which I don't agree) is to nationalize the tracks and run them like we do highways. Amtrak as a business can't operate if they have to provide track maintenance. It also can't operate as a profit-making business by relying on tracks run and maintained by other companies that don't really want it there. 3. Relax certain environmental laws and limit court injunctions on building new tracks. We have crippled any attempts to build HSR in our country. I don't have time to come up with more. One issue I will mention is sure to bring the wrath of many on this forum: Hire another CEO like Anderson, who does not have a railroad background. We need new thinking to run a 21st Century transportation system. We don't need someone who wants to run the system using 1950s thinking. Personally? I don't think Amtrak should exist if the government has to pay for it. I also think U.S. highways should be toll-based, airlines should pay for airports and air traffic control, and shipping companies should pay for port construction and maintenance. A couple of comments: 1. A balanced transportation system is in the interest of everyone including a productive economy. In many cases in this country traveling from downtown to downtown.....rail transportation is the fastest method. Rail transportation with high frequency and easy of ticketing / check-in even more so. To sit on the sidelines and just ignore that fact means for Congress to accept a lowered standard of living and a lower GDP than we otherwise could have. 2. Union rates of pay are not really the issue. It's productivity of the unionized worker that usually is to blame. Give me a cross trained unionized worker any day of the week over one I pay by the hour who isn't and I will wow the public with that person. Further, people deserve a liveable wage for rail service jobs, I don't agree with the idea we should lower their wages down to where they cannot afford to support a family. You do that and your going to pay via customer service and probably safety as well as your not going to attract a very high caliber of employee or one that is necessarily smart. 3. Long Distance trains are a luxury but I think some should be retained for the economic impact they have on small communities with large attractions such as National Parks, Popular camping / hiking areas, rural areas with little or no other service including Bus. I think the National LD network should be pared back more. I see no reason for the Sunset Limited, the Cardinal, and maybe one or two others. Would keep the California Zephyr and Empire Builder West of Chicago as a minimum. Southwest Chief and Texas Eagle open to debate but I think the Texas Eagle could be argued is cheaper to run than the Southwest Chief. So I would favor the Texas Eagle over the Southwest Chief as well.
A few more observations:
As a supporter of good conscientious Unions, IMHO Amtrack's union is a bit out of hand.
In some respects, I agree that Amtrak shouldn't exist as it is. My (possibly flawed) understanding is that every few years congress proposes to stop funding Amtrak but the cost of paying the exorbitant severance pay dictated by the union contract when everyone is laid off is far more than the savings so the can gets kicked down the road.
A good union doesn't want to kill it's host company like a parasite but rather create better workers through fair pay, working conditions etc thereby benefiting everyone. (possibly a discussion for another time). Unfortunately the Federal Government won't fiscaly get killed (also a discussion for another time) easily so some of the contract points are a bit over the top (again IMHO).
Since the Feds are by far and away Amtrak's biggest stakeholders, possibly they should demand some re-negotiation (If they went on strike, would it hurt our economy much?) maybe grandfathering in some seniority. Over time the costs could come down, and it just "might" become a profitable business and the government could get out. It IS important to maintain some passenger rail in this country but at what cost? I believe some of the eastern corridor routes are profitable.
FWIW I love riding Amtrak (at least before covid-19) but it's obviously not an efficient system as it stands. Change is inevitable. Planning ahead just makes sense. BTW I'm with York1 in getting better managment. Tons of smart folks out there that could probably do a better job.
York1 Everything concerns the whole issue of government involvement. Amtrak is in the worst possible position, being between a profit-making company and a government-run entity. I don't think Amtrak should exist that way. I want Congress to finally decide one way or another. I don't think the U.S. should be underwriting train travel unless it is a necessary means of transportation. If Congress decides that it is necessary, then let's do it. Some ideas: 1. Don't require Amtrak to follow railroad union rules. To pay food workers or custodians two or three times the rate that normal workers get won't work. 2. Charlie's idea (with which I don't agree) is to nationalize the tracks and run them like we do highways. Amtrak as a business can't operate if they have to provide track maintenance. It also can't operate as a profit-making business by relying on tracks run and maintained by other companies that don't really want it there. 3. Relax certain environmental laws and limit court injunctions on building new tracks. We have crippled any attempts to build HSR in our country. I don't have time to come up with more. One issue I will mention is sure to bring the wrath of many on this forum: Hire another CEO like Anderson, who does not have a railroad background. We need new thinking to run a 21st Century transportation system. We don't need someone who wants to run the system using 1950s thinking. Personally? I don't think Amtrak should exist if the government has to pay for it. I also think U.S. highways should be toll-based, airlines should pay for airports and air traffic control, and shipping companies should pay for port construction and maintenance.
A couple of comments:
1. A balanced transportation system is in the interest of everyone including a productive economy. In many cases in this country traveling from downtown to downtown.....rail transportation is the fastest method. Rail transportation with high frequency and easy of ticketing / check-in even more so. To sit on the sidelines and just ignore that fact means for Congress to accept a lowered standard of living and a lower GDP than we otherwise could have.
2. Union rates of pay are not really the issue. It's productivity of the unionized worker that usually is to blame. Give me a cross trained unionized worker any day of the week over one I pay by the hour who isn't and I will wow the public with that person. Further, people deserve a liveable wage for rail service jobs, I don't agree with the idea we should lower their wages down to where they cannot afford to support a family. You do that and your going to pay via customer service and probably safety as well as your not going to attract a very high caliber of employee or one that is necessarily smart.
3. Long Distance trains are a luxury but I think some should be retained for the economic impact they have on small communities with large attractions such as National Parks, Popular camping / hiking areas, rural areas with little or no other service including Bus. I think the National LD network should be pared back more. I see no reason for the Sunset Limited, the Cardinal, and maybe one or two others. Would keep the California Zephyr and Empire Builder West of Chicago as a minimum. Southwest Chief and Texas Eagle open to debate but I think the Texas Eagle could be argued is cheaper to run than the Southwest Chief. So I would favor the Texas Eagle over the Southwest Chief as well.
Enzoamps A free trip is tough. What do you do when you get there? There will not be a return train waiting. And unless your free trip is a round trip, you'd have to pay for a return ride. That makes it a half price deal, not a free trip. Plus you'd have to stay in a hotel or otherwise wait for tomorrow's return. If you were not aware, earlier this season, Amtrak was offering buy a ticket, companion rides free offers. I had not planned travel, but it made me stop and consider it.
A free trip is tough. What do you do when you get there? There will not be a return train waiting. And unless your free trip is a round trip, you'd have to pay for a return ride. That makes it a half price deal, not a free trip. Plus you'd have to stay in a hotel or otherwise wait for tomorrow's return.
If you were not aware, earlier this season, Amtrak was offering buy a ticket, companion rides free offers. I had not planned travel, but it made me stop and consider it.
+1
The same status holds true for other corridor states, including the state-subsidized ones like Illinois. In 2019, the net flow was minus $364 per resident while in Montana it was plus $3808 per resident. So those folks in Montana and other states screaming for maintaining their subsidized train, kick in your share as Illinois residents do.
daveklepper And what will be the response of those states plus New Mexico when NEC states request Federal help fr any transportation or environmenqal problem?
Southwest Airlines is one of our most successful airlines today.
When they started, they filled up vacant seats with $10 tickets from Dallas to Houston.
All through their early years, they had $16 flights to other cities, and I think it was $26 round trips.
The thinking was that a filled seat was better than an empty seat, and it won customers.
I'm not a proponent of long distance trains in the U.S.
But if we're going to run trains with empty seats, maybe free or $10 tickets is the answer to fill those seats. Maybe it will win customers in the long run.
Blackmailing? Pork barrelling?
And what will be the response of those states plus New Mexico when NEC states request Federal help fr any transportation or environmenqal problem?
PNWRMNM This will not bring traffic, but it will bring deadheads. More work, no money, what a plan! If you read between the lines of the cited article, this seems to have been imposed by the govt, as opposed to being some kind of railroad marketing inititive. ATK serves no transportation purpose. Kill it and give the NEC to the states that it operates in.
This will not bring traffic, but it will bring deadheads. More work, no money, what a plan! If you read between the lines of the cited article, this seems to have been imposed by the govt, as opposed to being some kind of railroad marketing inititive.
ATK serves no transportation purpose. Kill it and give the NEC to the states that it operates in.
Tell that to the people of North Dakota and Montana who rely on the Empire Builder and the people in SE Colorado who rely on the SW Chief as their only form of public transportation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.