Originally Posted by
iahphx
That extra fee sure is disappointing, Alan -- I guess it was designed to pay for the very nice (and underutilized) EWR rail station.
AFAIK, the rail station was paid for by State of NJ, and perhaps with some help from Amtrak. I belive that they did pay for the monorail tracks to the station.
Only problem is that the entire monorail, including the extension to the rail station, was paid for by an airport use ticket fee of 3 bucks tacked onto every ticket of every passenger flying out of EWR for a period of 10 years. And I seem to recall that they got an extension for another 5 years. Originally when this was being planned and built, there was supposed to be no extra charge.
The current charges for those arriving/departing by rail are "officially" supposed to be for the operation of the monorail. Only problem is that no one pays that fee, unless they arrive by train. If you arrive by bus, transfer between two terminals for your connecting flight, get dropped off, or park, you don't have to pay to ride the monorail. Only rail passengers are penalized directly! And that penalty is still on top of the ticket fee on their airline ticket.
Originally Posted by
iahphx
As far as the NJT/SEPTA fare, if they can do it for less than $50, why can't Amtrak? It's not like single-ticket regional rail fares are "cheap" -- it would also be like a NYC-LAX nonstop being more expensive than buying an NYC-ORD ticket PLUS an ORD-LAX ticket. Amtrak just doesn't seem motivated to develop a product that people would want to buy. There's no entrepreneuriship there.
Amtrak can do if they wanted to. There simply is no need or motivation for them to do so. On the other hand, with Congress and the White House always breathing down Amtrak's neck to make a profit, there is a motivation to sell the Amtrak seat for the maximum that they can get.
And if Amtrak can sell that seat to DC for $67 (low bucket price, the high is $128), why would they want to give away a seat from EWR to Philly for $25 and loose that extra 42 bucks or more because they can no longer accomodate that longer distance passenger. So since there is a cheaper alternative, Amtrak charges more for a short rider to help compensate for the inability to sell the longer distance, higher priced ticket. And seeing as how the trains aren't running empty, it would appear that Amtrak isn't leaving money on the table by charging the higher fares to Philly.
There is no need or motivation for Amtrak to develop a new product, if they can currently sell out the current product. On the other hand, AFAIK, Amtrak had hoped that after the agreement with Continental, that other airlines would also work out code share agreements with them. So far there have been no other airlines that are interested. Probably because they still see Amtrak as a threat to their bottom line. They'd rather fly a puddle jumper, than to follow Europe's example of letting trains do the short hauls and planes doing the long hauls.
I realize that none of this helps your friend, but unfortunately such is life.
