iahphx

Right, and for a business traveller, that makes sense.

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.

travelmad478

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.

AlanB

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.

AlanB

By the way in the light of day, I realize that I should have mentioned that the above $3 fee isn't exclusively for the monorail. It was also granted to the airport for the purpose of funding some needed improvements to the access roads at EWR.

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.

kspeed55

Airline travel pricing makes even less sense in my opinion as I can travel from New York City to Los Angeles for about $5.00 more than I can from here to Chicago, which is about 300 miles.

sany2

In many circumstances I can travel to LAX for less than to some close midwest destinations.

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.

the_traveler

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!

AlanB

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.

fairviewroad

I've never heard of that law either, but your scenario doesn't neccesarily disprove it, if the law applies to purchases made at any one point in time. In other words, it you were to buy the two tickets you described at the same time, for the same travel day, would it still be more to go from B to C than from A to D? (If that makes sense)

ClimbGuy

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.

dpb

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!

flyin'high

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.

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.

AlanB

Yes, that is one of the pitfalls of the NJT/SEPTA connection is that one doesn't wait if the other service is late. As for the other problem, if you were to ever do it again, buy the tickets for both directions at the same time.

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.

Reindeerflame

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.

iahphx

Well, I also view the global warming scare as a flavor du jour, but getting more people out of their cars and planes and onto trains in the Northeast would seem to be a good idea. Certainly the amount of energy used per pax is significantly less. It would save us the cost of building expensive new roads. And it would reserve more of the crowded airspace and airports for necessary longer-distance flying.

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.