diesteldorf

I spoke to Amtrak once about getting on at a destination that was after the original destination of a ticket. They told me it wasn't a problem accept it was good to call customer service ahead of time and let them know.

They are able to note your change in their system and this helps prevent any reselling of rooms or future legs of the reservation being canceled.

jackal

Well, you could just make up some story about how you were running late but still wanted to make your trip so you drove (or had a friend drive you) to the station where you got on, figuring that you could beat the train there (not an unlikely story, since, at least outside of the NEC, cars are usually faster than trains). Who knows, the conductor and even customer service might buy it...

In light of the discussion on the other thread regarding rating the AGR program, I wanted to bring up a point I had meant to bring up in our previous discussion on AGR's earning ability (I've already conceded that the redemption aspect is much better than almost any airline's awards, although I still dream of following in Seat2A's footsteps on an AS award in BA's F to Australia--the long way).

As I said, it seems relatively difficult to earn points outside of the NEC. Take the famed (in railfan circles, anyway) Chris Guenzler, who rides from Santa Ana to San Diego every night after work. Round trip fare (lowest fare bucket, as far as I can tell) is $40, but even with the 100-point minimum, he spends $14,600 and earns 73,000 points per year (109,500 with the 50% Select Plus bonus). In comparison, if you could (with enough advanced planning) find it for every trip, you could take UA's $180 LAX-PVD round-trip fare 81 times (spending close to the same $14,600) and earn 418,932 miles (838,512 miles with UA's Premier Exec bonus).

Now, I'm not sure about you, but earning 6-7 times the miles for the same amount of money certainly illustrates to me the vast difference in earning ability between AGR and UA. Then, when you go back to my previous posts where I calculate the value of each mile for an international F award, the difference is even greater. I still fail to see how AGR is a good deal for someone who doesn't take Acela between those select city pairs.

I'm begging for someone to prove me wrong here, but so far, AGR feels like an afterthought used to sort of reward people who love train travel, but aside from some NEC commuters, it isn't a revenue leader and certainly doesn't drive people (no pun intended) to take Amtrak over an airline or even over a car. If Amtrak wants to pull people away from other modes of transportation, maybe they need to take a look at the AGR program and make it more attractive. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if AGR hired an airline loyalty program executive to overhaul the program...

the_traveler

I agree with you jackal. The 100 point minimum doesn't make sense. It does not even account for the distance traveled. 2 of these examples (*) are from this week's "weekly specials".

Chicago to St. Louis * - $18.60
Chicago to Indianapolis * - $10.40
Meriden, CT to Wallingsford, CT - $4.00 (a 7 minute trip!)
NYP to Chicago - $44.50 (a recent weekly special offering)

All these trips would give 100 points! But there is quite a bit of difference in mileage. At least the airlines go by mileage.

But then again, they don't care if you got a $39 special or if you paid the walk-up Y fare of $500, you still get XXX miles! Maybe it should be a combo of price and mileage!

AlanB

AGR was designed intially for one reason and one reason only, to reward the customers who were riding Acela Express, Amtrak's new train which had started running shortly before Amtrak unveiled the AGR program. And of course the most common person riding Acela would be a business person. Amtrak was trying to gain more of the market share between NY and DC, as well as greatly increase it's share of the market between NY and Boston.

And as an after thought, it was hoped that many of those business people would then want to use their points for a long distance journey with their families, thereby increasing ridership on those trains.

The 100 point minimum was AGR's way of trying to slightly level the playing field for those who don't live near the NEC. It was a rather poor attempt, but it was nonetheless an improvement.

jackal

Ah, then this makes sense, especially considering Amtrak's LD trains aren't profit-makers, although with a lucrative-enough rewards program, passenger loads might increase and at least make it less of a money hole. And honestly, I really can't see a problem with award redemption costing Amtrak money, as the LD trains rarely run full, so a free seat on one wouldn't necessarily take a seat away from a paying passenger (like it would on an airline). If passenger loads increased substantially, anyway, it's a lot less costly to add another coach on a train than it is to schedule another plane (someone else posted around here that it's something like 4% more fuel per car).

Even if the long-distance earnings don't improve a lot, Amtrak could and should do more for the non-Acela corridor trains (Regionals, Amtrak California trains, Midwestern/Chicago-area corridor trains, etc.), although passenger loads seem fairly high on many of those and may not need boosting (even though they're not the profit-makers Acela is).

AlanB

The LD's may not be running full, but they certainly aren't empty. And that statement only applies to the coach sections of the trains. On most trains I believe that the sleepers run at 75% to 80% occupancy minimum, and are often sold out completely. I'm not sure where it stands right now, but IIRC the figures that I saw, last fall the Lake Shore Limited ran with an average 95% full on the sleepers, and over 70% full in coaches.

And long distance trains aren't quite the money hole that many people would have you believe. A lot simply has to do with how one presents the numbers. If one uses revenue passenger miles, those huge and often reported $400 per passenger subsidies quickly vanish. It's all in how one presents the numbers.

Part of the problem many also still believe, is that the LD's are being hit unfairly for their share of overhead expenses. This has been long debated by people, since Amtrak provides no transparency in those numbers.

Finally by Amtrak's own admission, if they were to cut every long distance train tomorrow, it would at best reduce Amtrak's subsidies by at most $300 Million. Over $100 Million of the Federal monies goes to pay for the retirement plans of RR workers who never even worked for one day in their lives for Amtrak.

At least another $300M to $400M goes to pay off debt, some of which was incurred to buy new cars, some of which was incurred due to under funding by Congress and the White House in years past.

Acela is not a profit maker. Not by a long shot. It does cover its operating expenses and then some, but once you factor in its capital expenses, it's all over. It looses money each and everytime they send out a train. Amtrak's maintenance budget for Acela is huge compared to the rest of the fleet, and I understand that next year the budget may come close to doubling as the cars just aren't holding up like they were expected to.

Then add in the huge costs for maintaing the rails and the catenary to support operations above 100 MPH, and it becomes clear that Acela isn't Amtrak's life savor like it was once touted to be.

jackal

I think I've seen you post those stats before, but I had sort of forgotten about them.

Are European urban (subway/light-rail), commuter, regional, long-distance and express trains (which, at least as common knowledge would have you believe, are extremely popular and well-used) anything close to profitable? If not, I think the hope that Amtrak would ever approach self-sufficiency is a pipe dream.

But, as I think I've mentioned before elsewhere, if you factor in the subsidies going into the aviation industry (the FAA, states and cities operating airports, etc.) and even freight and transit hauled over the road network (trucking companies, Greyhound, etc.), could any other mode of transportation be profitable? If every expenditure were considered and the per-passenger-mile or per-ton-mile (for passenger and freight, respectively) cost truly figured out, would rail be the lowest?

To me, it seems that Amtrak's got it a bit unfair: outside the NEC, anyway, the freight railroads are building and providing the infrastructure and passing the costs onto Amtrak. If the feds were providing the capital costs for building tracks and--as they do for the most part with roads and aviation--not passing those costs onto Amtrak, rail travel *might* not seem like such a money pit. And if the capital cost of maintaining the NEC were counted separate from Amtrak's federal subsidy, Acela might be in about the same shape that most airlines are today (teetering between profitability and bankruptcy, hopefully leaning towards a future in the black). Who knows? Some pro-Amtrak lobbying group should crunch the numbers and then present them in this context to Congress. (Or maybe they have crunched the numbers and it doesn't work out as I've hypothesized.)

Conversely, if the true cost of America's great road infrastructure were passed onto vehicles, trucking firms and Greyhound would have to hike their rates. (A good overview of potential road privatization and associated costs is in this Wikipedia article.) And if the FAA gets its way and implements user fees to pay for aviation expenses, airfares would probably increase and general aviation would all but disappear.

Again, my thoughts are completely based on conjecture and speculation, and I have no real numbers to support what I'm saying. I'm just doing a thought-experiment here.

As far as passenger loads, I based my comments on my experiences on one Coast Starlight SLO-SEA-SPK-PDX-SLO round-trip, two Pacific Surfliner LAX or SIM-SAN round trips, one San Joaquins LAX-bus-to-BFD-SAC round trip, one BUR-SIM one-way trip, and four or five Coast Starlight or Pacific Surfliner one-ways between SIM and SLO or PRB. Granted, my experience is wholly biased towards the West Coast and I'm by no means a frequent Amtrak traveler, but nearly all or even all of these runs have been on mostly empty (or at the very least, certainly not crowded) trains. (I've also covered the entirety of the SoCal Metrolink system and have never been on a train that had more than a few people on it and certainly none where I couldn't find a seat. Actually, I take that back--once I was traveling with baggage after getting on at BUR airport but didn't bother to check upstairs as I didn't want to lug my bags. The downstairs was full...) Perhaps train loads are higher (at least, I would hope they are higher!) on other routes, like the Lakeshore Limited that you mentioned (although all three Acela trips I took were far from full, too). Out on this side of the country, train travel is not taken seriously (maybe it's the lower population densities or maybe it's the bad rep Amtrak has for being on time, courtesy of UP--that's a subject for a different thread), and my experience is that train loads are low. I could just have the lucky experience of always picking off-peak trains, though...

the_traveler

If the government stopped all the subsidies for roads (building them, maintaining them, etc...), people would not be willing to drive, because they might have to pay $300 to go to the store down the street. If the government stopped all the subsidies for avaition (ATC, building and operatng airports, etc...), do you really think that the airlines would offer a $98 fare from JFK-LAX? And how many $29 fares do you think that you would find?

But stopping the subsidies for Amtrak - that's another matter (in most taxpayer's eyes). "Nobody rides trains! So why should we have it? "

Part of the problem is "the national system of trains" Yes you can take a train from New York to Seattle or Chicago to Dallas, or you could also drive (on roads you pay for) or fly (in the air system you pay for). However, if you want to go from Phoenix to Concord or Las Vegas to Lexington, you could fly or drive, but you couldn't take a train (because the "national train system" does not include any of those cities)!

Even going from Atlanta to LA would be an easy flight or a (fairly easy) long drive, but it would be a VERY long train trip. Except for us "crazies", most people would rather take a few hour flight or drive a few days "because it's cheaper and easier"! Yet if they had to pay the full cost (not have it paid by a taxpayer in Havre, MT or Portland, ME), how many would? But those same people do not want their tax dollars to be spent on Amtrak!

ananthar

You haven't mentioned if you are travelling alone, but it is an even better deal when you consider that 2 people get to travel for a single sleeper award (and 2 adults + 2 children for a single bedroom award).

sechs

Keep in mind that AGR points are awarded on dollars spent and not distance traveled. That mileage running has arisen among airline programs really shows that distance isn't a perfect measure of the value of travel.

I can get 100 points for less than $8. Try finding a flight for that much!

the_traveler

True, but a trip of 2000 miles for $49.99 (if there were such an animal) would also give you 100 points!

jackal

Yeah, but I can find an airfare that gives me more points per dollar spent and lets me earn one of the best awards with less money spent overall.

I took a trip ANC-DEN-BOS/LGA-ORD-SEA-ANC last year and spent $367 (actually, $167 after using my $200 voucher!). That trip earned me 8,031 miles. If I had booked three of those trips, I would have spent $1,101 and earned me 24,091 miles--almost enough for a domestic coach seat. Add in the miles earned buying those tickets on United.com with the Chase/United credit card, and I can get that domestic coach seat with miles to spare.

On Amtrak, booking LAX-BOS costs $308 round-trip. That trip earns me 616 points. After spending the same $1,101, I've earned 2,202, which is barely enough for a one-way award in one zone and certainly can't compare to the cross-country potential of UA's domestic award. I'd need to spend ten times as much (that is, take 33 round trips between LAX and BOS) to get enough AGR points to get a cross-country round-trip in coach. I'd need to take 163 round trips and spend $50,000 to get enough miles for a cross-country sleeper round-trip, whereas I could take 18 UA round trips (spending $6,606) and get a free round-trip first-class lie-flat suite from ANC-SYD (or, even better, 14 round-trips gets me a seat in premium business on Air New Zealand, which may be even better than United First).

Frankly, AGR stinks (didn't want to use a stronger word on these nice, family-friendly forums) at rewarding travel on their long-distance trains.

And as I posted elsewhere (using Chris Guenzler as an example), even when taking advantage of the 100-point minimum, it takes a heck of a lot to get enough miles for big trips. It takes 1,000 100-point trips to earn enough points to get a cross-country sleeper. Even with that $8 trip you mentioned, that's $8,000--a lot less than the $50,000 required on long-distance travel but still quite a bit more than my lie-flat suite to the other side of the world. Even factoring in all of the great benefits of those awards--no capacity restrictions, more than one person can travel in the bedroom, etc.--I'm still not convinced it's a good deal!

AlanB's already said that AGR was created for and at the same time as Acela. Even with the 500 points earned between the fabled city pairs (1000-point round trips) or even the 750 points earned in First (1,500 points round trip), it would still take tons more trips and money to earn enough miles for that sleeper.

It actually takes the occasionally-running triple miles promotion (4,500 points on an Acela First round trip) to make it competitive with my UA flight. 23 round-trips, or $6,532 at the cheapest qualifying city pair I could find--$284 BOS-STM--would get you the cross-country sleeper.

I suppose you could argue that it's actually a better deal than the UA award because, as I mentioned, you can put up to four people in a bedroom and meals are included (and, as AlanB once said, cross country train trips are much more scenic than an over-water flight to Australia), and of course capacity is not restricted (although UA's unrestricted "standard" awards could still be earned with less money than you'd spend earning the AGR sleeper award), but the point is: AGR is barely competitive on Acela even given the most generous bonus mileage promotion, they're not even close in the corridor services even given the 100-point minimum, and they're almost worthless on rewarding long-distance travel.

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here (honest!) or beat any of you into submission and into agreeing with me; I'm just posting this here because I keep feeling like I haven't been able to clearly articulate what I think (my math always makes my posts too convoluted), and maybe secretly I'm hoping to eventually have Amtrak read one of my posts and take a good look at the AGR program and realize it needs to be made more competitive.

xcalx

just read the whole thread and am glad I transfered 20000 CO miles to amtrak.I was hoping to get choise points but looking at 2 zone roomette I am more than happy to relieve the strain and take the train.