Amtrak's program update doesn't have United as a partner no more
 

Just received the program update today and United is missing on the airline partners list .... so I guess it's pretty much a done deal.... :td:

I have done this and, despite many negative CO comments, the transfer was quick. As for the post about the 20K useless CO miles, you can transfer to Hilton. The Hilton redemption can be done on Amtrak's site:

CO --> Amtrak --> Hilton

There are rumors that President Bush's budget will cut off Amtrak's subsidy.
If you are complaining to Amtrak, it might help to get their attention to comment that their sleazy action on the United miles has motivated you to lobby your Congressman to support cutting off Amtrak's funds.

It also means that if you are stuck with Amtrak miles, it is time to burn, baby, burn!

I too was disappointed by the disappearance of UA as a partner. Thinking about the mad last minute race to transfer UA miles to HHonors points about two year ago, it is not a bad option to transfer the points to HHonors.

I have been slow to post my notes and findings on my site link so that we may be able to fight back to the Amtrk people... But if anyone has anything they got as an email or letter or message of any kind, please save it. Let me know too, as this evidence may be needed later on. My site will have stuff on it soon. I am readying for battle.

As for my own current needs, I earn miles on SPG, NWA, UAL and AA cards. I burn as I earn but I stay way on top of things and keep extremely detailed records of EVERYTHING I do. If a promo goes bad, I get on the company ASAP.

more to come...
There is a light at the end of this... it will just take us time to get there.
:)MM

Sent an email complaint about the subject to Amtrak Guest Rewards ... got the following reply today:

"Thank you for contacting Amtrak Guest Rewards

We regret that United is no longer a partner with Amtrak Guest Rewards
Program for 2005. In the Terms and Conditions, any of our partners can
choose to depart our program at any time. We apologize for any
inconvenience this may have caused."

I guess Amtrak GR is still denying that they had initiated the whole thing. :rolleyes:

There is a story about in today's Wall Street Journal on page D3.

Ron Lieber wrote an excellent article in the Feb 10 Wall Street Journal.

I was very suprised to see an Amtrak rep, William Shulz, stating that the reason they did not give notice was that there is only a small percentage of Amtrak Guest Rewards members who redeem for United miles. I thought the reason might have been to avoid a last minute deluge of transfer requests.

I'm still confused-even if, as Amtrak says, the notice would only have impacted a small number of people, wouldn't that be even more reason to give some notice as a courtesy to those people? Since Amtrak believes it is only a small problem on their end, it should be easy to open up a short window now so we can make those final, few transfers to UA.

Perhaps Mr. Shulz or another Amtrak spokesman could address this.

Whether it stays in the final budget is anyone's guess, but it's not a rumor. <political commentary omitted.> I certainly hope Amtrak survives, but it will need to evolve to be viable. Only time will tell.

Time? Read the Wall St Journal's editorial today. I love train travel in Europe and I used to dismiss calls for stopping Amtrak funding as right-wing rants. But the fact is, the USA is a competetive environment and, bad as air travel may be, Amtrak has had 30 years of subsidies and hasn't been able to garner a decent sized customer base.

The Journal calls for cutting the Amtrak subsidy and letting passenger rail lines continue where they have enough customers to cover costs. Hard to argue with that.

Yes, time. As I said, they will have to evolve or die. I hope they (or someone who actually knows how to manage a large corporation) do get something going. I never said I was hopeful, especially after they revealed their plan for a "high-speed" (less than half the speed of the Shinkansen) train in California ... that totally bypasses the SF Bay Area! Coincidentally, it runs pretty much straight from Arnie's home in L.A. to his home in Sacramento, but we'll leave that alone...

No, it's very easy to argue with that. They're following the government line as usual. Personally, I'd rather see the government cut all the highway subsidies and start subsidizing sensible mass transit (which doesn't include Amtrak in its current form). It's disgusting to look at all the traffic on the freeway and see that over 80% of it is single-person vehicles.

No argument there. But other than on the North East coast corridor, Amtrak has little to do with "mass transit" for commuters, and it hasn't attracted much more than the "ride the rail crowd" on long haul trips. You and I may prefer public transportation for long-haul trips, but it's clear the American public won't support it by buying tickets, at least as it is run now. Come to think of it, I like the idea of Amtrak but I haven't taken it on a long trip for years. Have you? If so, you're an exception.

Mass transit in the urban areas should be supported on a "build it and they will come" basis". I think this will work in the long run as to commuters. Amtrak is another story-romantic as train travel may seem, they operate it, but people still don't come.

I recall our earlier discussion on why Amtrak pulled the plug. Pressure from Continental? Another airline? What did United think? I guess we just didn't consider the possibility that few people were doing what we mileage geeks figured was widespread. We might have been giving this more thought than Amtrak did.

It reminds me of a joke. Canadian says to American, "What do Americans think about Canadians. Please, tell me what they think about us. I really want to know." The American responds, "we don't".

Ha! A close friend of mine works for Amtrak here in DC and let me tell you, however nice the frontline people are, the HQ staff really take to heart that old SNL commercial: We're the phone company. We don't have to care.

Not to get too far OT, but one thing people forget is that Amtrak isn't profitable in the Northeast Corridor just because of ridership. It's also because commuter rail ridership is higher and the regional rail authorities (MBTA, SEPTA, MARC, and the one in Connecticut for sure, not sure about MTA or NJ Transit) lease tracks and facilities from Amtrak. As for high-speed rail in California, if you've ever driven between San Francisco and Los Angeles you realize how expensive it would be to 1) buy all the land for the right of way, 2) build an electrify rails straight enough for high-speed service through mountains and also strong enough to resist earthquakes. I do agree the subsidy structure for transportation in this country is nonsensical. As for Amtrak long-distance, why stop with trains? Why not subsidize sea-to-sea Conestoga wagon service?

This is not entirely true. Amtrak trains on the NEC (in terms of operational expenses) fall into two completely different categories. Acela and Metroliner are profitable, but the conventional/regional services eat away at that profit almost entirely. Stats were released recently.

As for the commuter rail companies, Metro North (the Connecticut one) does not lease tracks from Amtrak. In fact, it's the other way around in the sense that MN owns the tracks between NYC and New Haven and restricts the 150mph capable Acela to a top speed of 75mph. They have also been known to give priority to their own trains over Amtrak. The Acela service would likely be even more profitable, thanks to increased speed and reliability, if it were not for the MN obstacle.


Cheers.