Does Amtrak realize it's too expensive?
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,422
I think the fares are reasonable. I regularly travel amtrak between NYC and DC/PHL.
Living in Detroit, I can fly to NYC, take a meeting, hop on the train to DC, take another meeting, then fly home from DC. I certainly wouldn't drive. Also, if I have several days of meetings in NYC, but have one in PHL mixed in, I can go to the meeting and come back to NYC the same day.
Living in Detroit, I can fly to NYC, take a meeting, hop on the train to DC, take another meeting, then fly home from DC. I certainly wouldn't drive. Also, if I have several days of meetings in NYC, but have one in PHL mixed in, I can go to the meeting and come back to NYC the same day.
But imagine if the airlines only catered to business travellers.
Amtrak has essentially priced themselves out of the leisure market for the vast majority of potential travellers -- even with gas going for almost $3 gallon and fairly hefty Northeast tolls.
#17
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MSY
Programs: BA GfL
Posts: 5,929
I wouldn't agree with that, given the high volumes of people who are traveling on the Regional and weekend trains. I mostly take Amtrak for business (and then use my AGR points if I am taking leisure trips), but there are plenty of leisure travelers on the non-Acela trains in the NEC. As an example, my friend in DC took Amtrak to Wilmington to come visit me this past weekend. She doesn't have a car, and if she had rented one, she would have paid about $75 for it plus gas and tolls, not to mention having to race back to DC on Sunday afternoon in order to get the car back on time. That compares with a fare of about $110 on Amtrak, the ability to do work/relax on the train, and no rushing. It does make sense for plenty of people.
#18
In Memoriam
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York, NY, USA
Programs: HH Diamond, Amtrak Exec
Posts: 3,262
Well to some extent they do cater only to business travellers. The infamous Saturday layover rule is a prime example. If one couldn't stay over a Saturday, then you were a business traveler and paid higher rates. And go look at airline prices to the most popular tourist destinations.
Whenever and where ever possible, that price is jacked as high as they can get it. It's only been recently with the advent of Jet Blue's, Southwest, and other discounters that the bigger airlines have been forced to cut their prices to popular tourist destinations.
And again I have to disagree. Yes there is no doubt that a good portion of Amtrak's business on the corridor is business travel. But there is still a decent portion of personal travel on the corridor. I'd guess that at least 30% is still personal. On weekends the trains remain packed, and sometimes are busier than on weekdays.
And Amtrak, unlike airlines, actually offers two different products on the corridor. There is the premium Acela service with limited stops and higher prices which is predominantly business passengers during the weekdays. And then there is the lower priced regional service which is probably 30% to perhaps 40% personal on weekdays and much higher on the weekend. Again these numbers are my estimates based upon my own observations, Amtrak to my knowledge does not track who's traveling for what reason.
I see many families traveling on the trains, even on weekdays, especially during the summer. So Amtrak is getting some personal traffic without a doubt. Just how much might be debatable, but as long as the seats are full, I'm not sure that it really matters who's filling those seats. If the seats were going empty, then yes they're doing something wrong and need to reevaluate things.
But the seats aren't going empty and as I mentioned earlier, with the 600+ Congressional & White House bosses breathing down Amtrak's neck about making money, there will never be any motivation on Amtrak part to consider trying to figure out how to cater more closely to the personal market and to do so in such a way as to not hurt the existing business market.
Whenever and where ever possible, that price is jacked as high as they can get it. It's only been recently with the advent of Jet Blue's, Southwest, and other discounters that the bigger airlines have been forced to cut their prices to popular tourist destinations.
And Amtrak, unlike airlines, actually offers two different products on the corridor. There is the premium Acela service with limited stops and higher prices which is predominantly business passengers during the weekdays. And then there is the lower priced regional service which is probably 30% to perhaps 40% personal on weekdays and much higher on the weekend. Again these numbers are my estimates based upon my own observations, Amtrak to my knowledge does not track who's traveling for what reason.
I see many families traveling on the trains, even on weekdays, especially during the summer. So Amtrak is getting some personal traffic without a doubt. Just how much might be debatable, but as long as the seats are full, I'm not sure that it really matters who's filling those seats. If the seats were going empty, then yes they're doing something wrong and need to reevaluate things.
But the seats aren't going empty and as I mentioned earlier, with the 600+ Congressional & White House bosses breathing down Amtrak's neck about making money, there will never be any motivation on Amtrak part to consider trying to figure out how to cater more closely to the personal market and to do so in such a way as to not hurt the existing business market.
Last edited by AlanB; Apr 18, 2007 at 7:15 am
#19
In Memoriam
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York, NY, USA
Programs: HH Diamond, Amtrak Exec
Posts: 3,262
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.
But even then I'd bet that the monorail has been well paid for over the course of the last 11 years or so that they've been collecting the fee. And that still doesn't change the fact that those arriving via train are still the only ones being charged twice to use the monorail.
#21
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Detroit
Programs: Northwest Platinum
Posts: 1,533
This is specifically against the law for trains. If a train goes from A-B-C-D, they can't charge more for B-C or B-D than for A-D.
#22
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Here! (Or there - I'm not sure)
Programs: Peon in all
Posts: 4,358
I know it's international, but I recently saw an ad with an airfare from BOS-SFO for something like (not the exact fare) $154 O/W, while a flight (on the same airline) from BOS-YUL was something like $159 O/W - $5 more than going trans-con! That doesn't make sense!
#23
In Memoriam
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York, NY, USA
Programs: HH Diamond, Amtrak Exec
Posts: 3,262
If I book a ticket a month or so in advance from Boston (A) to DC (D), I may be able to get a price of $81. If I wait to the last minute and book New Haven (B) to Philly(C), I could easily end up paying $91, 10 bucks more for the shorter trip.
#24
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: United States
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Amtrak
Posts: 4,647
I have to say that I've never heard of that law and in fact Amtrak violates it all the time, if it does exist.
If I book a ticket a month or so in advance from Boston (A) to DC (D), I may be able to get a price of $81. If I wait to the last minute and book New Haven (B) to Philly(C), I could easily end up paying $91, 10 bucks more for the shorter trip.
If I book a ticket a month or so in advance from Boston (A) to DC (D), I may be able to get a price of $81. If I wait to the last minute and book New Haven (B) to Philly(C), I could easily end up paying $91, 10 bucks more for the shorter trip.
#25
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,072
I think i remember learning about a law like that in high school history. It goes way back to the late 1800s, it was some anti-trust thing. I think the pricing is based on whenever you buy it. So if you buy a ticket NYC-PHL a ticket purchased at the same exact time can't be cheaper for going NYC-WAS. When it comes to train travel it would make no sense to price NYC-PHL more than NYC-WAS.
On airlines it does make sense, lets say LGA-ORD is selling quickly, there isn't a lot of competition (this is fictional) the ticket will go for more than LGA-SFO that is almost empty.
On airlines it does make sense, lets say LGA-ORD is selling quickly, there isn't a lot of competition (this is fictional) the ticket will go for more than LGA-SFO that is almost empty.
#26
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NYP forever
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards SelectPlus
Posts: 89
Commuting two-four times a week between New York and College Park, Maryland, I can tell you that the train is a lifesaver. I'd have to quit my job if not for the train. With a monthly pass, it's much cheaper than the plane and I can change my plans on a moment's notice. Also, the train is much less restrictive physically or emotionally.
Hooray for Amtrak!
Hooray for Amtrak!
#27
Join Date: Apr 2007
Programs: SPG Gold; Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 21
One can ride the rails for a little less than $50 round trip. If one boards a New Jersey Transit train at EWR and connects with a SEPTA train at Trenton, you can do a round trip for $42. So the choice is a more expensive, but more convienent one seat ride, or a cheaper 2 seat ride. Note, the Amtrak ride would probably be closer to $100, if one books early enough.
AMTRAK is kinda expensive, but do they make any money? From NY to Boston, it's cheaper for me to fly, but plus the cab rides flying still more, maybe I save about an hour and half.
#28
In Memoriam
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York, NY, USA
Programs: HH Diamond, Amtrak Exec
Posts: 3,262
I actually did that one time, taking RT NJ transit and transfer SEPTA via Trenton to Philly. Yes, i beat the price, but it was a disaster. My NJ transit was late and I missed my SEPTA connection, had to sit there and wait. On my way back, the transition was also hectic, I didn't have time to purchase the ticket in advance and there were no machines on the platform, I had to pay a penalty to buy it on board.
Well the NEC itself covers its operating costs, but it does not cover its capital costs. And Amtrak as a whole does not make money.
I readily admit that I don't fly to/from Boston, so I don't check fares, but you can get a ticket from NY to Boston for less than $58? Yes that is the low bucket price, so if you're booking last minute it won't be that cheap. But still I'm kinda of surprised that the airlines can beat that.
#29
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA, US
Posts: 2,229
What the market will bear
Amtrak is pricing at market rates, because the product it is offering in the NEC is generally a valuable product. Likewise, its rates elsewhere are much lower, because that's what the market will bear in those markets (the Amtrak product is less valuable).
I've always thought Amtrak should offer a limited number of restricted tickets at lower NEC rates to provide some fairness.
If Amtrak charged less, it would just be giving money away in the absence of huge additional capacity. If global warming were a real concern rather than a concern du jour, then perhaps we would fund and provide that capacity.
I've always thought Amtrak should offer a limited number of restricted tickets at lower NEC rates to provide some fairness.
If Amtrak charged less, it would just be giving money away in the absence of huge additional capacity. If global warming were a real concern rather than a concern du jour, then perhaps we would fund and provide that capacity.
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,422
The problem is that almost no one believes Amtrak could expand rail service -- make it an option for the masses if you will -- without the result being a boondoggle. I would love to see the entrepreneurship of the airline industry -- where they can fly you astonishing distances at very low cost -- transferred to the passenger rail business. I don't see a path to achieving that worthwhile goal, however.