# Amtrak Food Service Lost $834 Million in 10 Years



## amtrakwolverine (Aug 2, 2012)

> Amtrak lost $84.5 million selling food and beverages last year and $833.8 million over 10 years, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica said, calling for a “better way” to run those operations.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/amtrak-s-food-lost-taxpayers-834-million-in-10-years-mica-says.html

Yeah what better way do you have in mind. get rid of food service all together? Cut even more food staff? Only serve peanuts?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 2, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> > Amtrak lost $84.5 million selling food and beverages last year and $833.8 million over 10 years, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica said, calling for a “better way” to run those operations.
> 
> 
> http://www.bloomberg...-mica-says.html
> ...


Maybe increasing the prices is the only way to reduce losses with food. Then again, many people easting in diners are Sleeper pax, who do not pay for their food.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 2, 2012)

Well, there is no Free Lunch! When you pay several Hundreds of Dollars, if not over $1,000, for a Room on an LD Train you ARE paying for your Food!

Perhaps Amtrak should run the Food Service Like most Resturants, Pay the Chef and the LSA a Liveable Wage and Pay everyone else $2.10 an Hour + Tips like they do Food Service people here in Texas! Yeah, that's the ticket! Isnt Private Enterprise Wonderful! While they're at it might want to get rid of the Coach Attendants and the AC and the Sleeprs too which will allow them to lay off the SCAs and they could put Vending Machines in and get rid of the Cafe Attendants also! And break the Unions , that will save Lots of Money!

Greyhound and Mega Bus don't have any staff except a Driver, maybe we could get rid of the Conductor too and just let the Highly Paid Engineer do everything! That ought to Save a Bundle! 

If the Idiots in Congress that push this Crap were any stupider we could just eliminate ALL Public Transportation since that seems to be the Wing Nuts Mantra now-a-days! :wacko:

Sarcasm intended! <_<


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 2, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> Well, there is no Free Lunch! When you pay several Hundreds of Dollars, if not over $1,000, for a Room on an LD Train you ARE paying for your Food!


Apparently, not paying enough. Maybe the sleeper fares don't account for food costs at all, it was added in 1985.


----------



## NE933 (Aug 2, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Apparently, not paying enough. Maybe the sleeper fares don't account for food costs at all, it was added in 1985.


Also there is the pay one price then order the most expensive bias.

Most sleeper passengers will zero in on the higher priced steaks, seafood, and chicken. Very few will settle for the cheaper salads, hamburgers, etc. This bias towards ordering the more desireable items raises variable costs while the fixed payment in the form of a sleeping car ticket markup might not be working in paying the piper.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 2, 2012)

"Amtrak Food Service Lost $xxx Million"? I would like know how much highways lost in the same period?

[slaps hand on head] That's right - we taxpayers do not subsidize highways at all!




It's free!


----------



## pebbleworm (Aug 2, 2012)

I really dread the AmChow- by the second day I'd rather be eating pretzels in my room. And on a recent CZ trip the dining car was so dysfunctional it took almost 2 hours to get dinner and get out, with only half the tables full. And the LSA was griping over the PA that he wanted more sleeper passengers to come in. The last day I ate my own snacks and used the lounge car. I'm sure that the process could be streamlined a little bit but I don't want to have to eat Subway chain turkey products either.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Aug 2, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Also there is the pay one price then order the most expensive bias.
> 
> Most sleeper passengers will zero in on the higher priced steaks, seafood, and chicken. Very few will settle for the cheaper salads, hamburgers, etc. This bias towards ordering the more desireable items raises variable costs while the fixed payment in the form of a sleeping car ticket markup might not be working in paying the piper.


To eliminate this, maybe Amtrak can streamline food service like airlines. Offer only one combination to everyone. If its gonna be steak, then steak for everyone. If chicken, then chicken for everyone. And like the airlines, if you have special needs, like vegetarian, gluten free etc, ask the passengers to choose special meals at the time of booking and only load vegetarian etc dishes if someone has asked for it. This solves the problem of "free" sleeper passenger being greedy and ordering the most expensive items. Now how do we take care of paying coach passengers? Again, look at LCC airlines. Let the passengers pay for their meal while booking if they plan to eat on the train. If they show up in the Diner unannounced, charge them higher and offer only what's available. You can't be choosers then.


----------



## scott (Aug 2, 2012)

Maybe Amtrak should change how it buys its food....paying $3.40 for a can of Pepsi that they sell for $2.00? Sounds like someone (or several someones) 9s getting rich off the commissary-supply deal, at OUR (taxpayers) expense.

Sounds mobbed up, imho.


----------



## afigg (Aug 2, 2012)

Ok, so by whatever accounting procedures and rules that were applied (which is anything but simple), Amtrak lost $834 million in Food & Beverage (F&B) sales over 10 years. To put that into perspective, adding up the ticket revenue numbers for the past 10 fiscal years, FY2002 through FY2011, if my numbers are correct, Amtrak took in $14.7 billion in ticket revenue. That does not include F&B sales which were $191.1 million in FY2011. Adding up losses over 10 years makes them sound worse than they are.

Still, Amtrak needs to reduce F&B losses as much as they can while also not hurting ticket revenue. Electronic Point of Sale systems are being deployed which should cut costs by eliminating a lot of manual record keeping, provide better tracking of inventory, keep the café and food cars open longer (if the OBS cooperates). Of course, electronic POS systems are simply catching up to what the retail food chains implemented many years ago. The PRIIA Section 222 report issued last year also lists Improved Food Service Menus as approaches they are trying to generated more revenue and thus reduce losses. Maybe we will see better cost recovery for F&B sales in FY13 and FY14 if these efforts help.

I'm curious about whether the airlines make or lose money on food & beverage sales? I think if the US domestic airlines made a profit on on-board food sales, we would be able to buy a better range of food on domestic flights of more than an hour. That the airlines have so drastically slashed on-board food and beverage choices for short to medium range flights (in general), even when the passengers pay for it, says to me, that F&B sales are not a profit center for the airlines either.


----------



## afigg (Aug 2, 2012)

scott said:


> Maybe Amtrak should change how it buys its food....paying $3.40 for a can of Pepsi that they sell for $2.00? Sounds like someone (or several someones) 9s getting rich off the commissary-supply deal, at OUR (taxpayers) expense.
> 
> Sounds mobbed up, imho.


Amtrak is NOT paying $3.40 for a can of Pepsi. The $3.40 is the fully loaded cost of selling that can of Pepsi - the food service attendant, stocking the train, inventory tracking, perhaps even the cost of the café car, and probably a slew of other costs.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 2, 2012)

afigg said:


> scott said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Amtrak should change how it buys its food....paying $3.40 for a can of Pepsi that they sell for $2.00? Sounds like someone (or several someones) 9s getting rich off the commissary-supply deal, at OUR (taxpayers) expense.
> ...


Alright, I did some work in cost accounting, so I'll throw out what is _probably_ happening here:

-Amtrak pays X for a given amount of food in a diner or cafe over a given period. Let's say that it is $1500.

-Amtrak pays Y for the cost of OBS, car maintenance, etc. Let's say that this is $1900.

-Amtrak generates Z in revenue from the sale of those goods. Let's say this is $2000.

So, the cost of selling the goods comes to $3400 while $2000 is brought in. Thus every item sold is going to be hit with a "burden" of 1.7*sale price...and thus a soda that sells for $2 is going to generate a "cost" of $3.40.

That's one way to do it. The other way would be to base it off of the purchase price for Amtrak. In such a situation, using the numbers above, the burden rate would be 2.266..., meaning that something that cost $1.27 "off the shelf" would be burdened to $3.40 (or something that cost $2 for Amtrak to buy will "burden out" to $4.53.


----------



## TML (Aug 3, 2012)

Amtrak's food service is not meant to be profitable - it should be viewed like the food service provided by hotels, not restaurants. As former senator Trent Lott put it, "...if you wipe out food service, you might as well terminate the route. [so] don't mess with people's stomachs."


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 3, 2012)

the_traveler said:


> "Amtrak Food Service Lost $xxx Million"? I would like know how much highways lost in the same period?
> 
> [slaps hand on head] That's right - we taxpayers do not subsidize highways at all!
> 
> ...


I once saw that Interstate highways get over $400,000,000,000 of money from the government. Forgot the source. Now just wait for the numbers when you add up U.S., state, and county highways, and other roads.....



pebbleworm said:


> I really dread the AmChow- by the second day I'd rather be eating pretzels in my room. And on a recent CZ trip the dining car was so dysfunctional it took almost 2 hours to get dinner and get out, with only half the tables full. And the LSA was griping over the PA that he wanted more sleeper passengers to come in. The last day I ate my own snacks and used the lounge car. I'm sure that the process could be streamlined a little bit but I don't want to have to eat Subway chain turkey products either.


I don't see what the problem is with Amtrak food. Much better than McDonalds. What do you not like about the food?


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 3, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Also there is the pay one price then order the most expensive bias.
> 
> Most sleeper passengers will zero in on the higher priced steaks, seafood, and chicken. Very few will settle for the cheaper salads, hamburgers, etc. This bias towards ordering the more desireable items raises variable costs while the fixed payment in the form of a sleeping car ticket markup might not be working in paying the piper.


On what basis do you claim that most sleeper passengers go for the higher-priced stuff? I don't have specific data, but my anecdotal observations are that people will read/listen to what the options are, and choose based on what they want to eat. The sleeper passengers that get their meals included probably don't even look at the price column.

For what it's worth, the chicken is usually among the lowest-priced items on the dinner menu, and I see plenty of folks ordering that.


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 3, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> To eliminate this, maybe Amtrak can streamline food service like airlines. Offer only one combination to everyone. If its gonna be steak, then steak for everyone. If chicken, then chicken for everyone. And like the airlines, if you have special needs, like vegetarian, gluten free etc, ask the passengers to choose special meals at the time of booking and only load vegetarian etc dishes if someone has asked for it. This solves the problem of "free" sleeper passenger being greedy and ordering the most expensive items. Now how do we take care of paying coach passengers? Again, look at LCC airlines. Let the passengers pay for their meal while booking if they plan to eat on the train. If they show up in the Diner unannounced, charge them higher and offer only what's available. You can't be choosers then.


There are far too many people with different tastes/dietary requirements/general preferences.

I don't know what airlines offer "steak (and only steak) for everyone." There is generally a choice of a couple options (first class, no cooked meal options at all in coach on domestic flights).

Still, Amtrak's menu offerings aren't exactly very complex, as you usually only get four or five options per meal. I can't imagine anything good coming from only offering one option.

What LCC airlines have passengers pay for their meal while booking (first, what LCCs actually offer meals)?


----------



## Anderson (Aug 3, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> NE933 said:
> 
> 
> > Also there is the pay one price then order the most expensive bias.
> ...


For my unscientific sample size of one, I've shelled out for the steak with cash at least a dozen times, and quite possibly close to twice that. But I can also confess to being an outlier in virtually every way on this front. What can I say, I like steak and Amtrak usually does it well (though preferably not well done!). Indeed the diner prices are quite reasonable, being exempt from sales/prepared foods taxes. I think I once tallied up the cost of french toast, bacon, juice/milk, and coffee on Amtrak and at IHOP, and Amtrak came out cheaper...I forget precisely what I put in on each side, but I remember Amtrak beating IHOP on a comparable meal.

I've run into some lousy meals, yes, but I've run into those at very nice restaurants as well when the chef was having a lousy evening or a disagreement with the stove. If anything, Amtrak tends to average much better than your average "causal dining" restaurant in terms of quality (I'd put it on the lower range of "fine dining" in terms of quality as a rule, and in some ways the food is preferable to "fancy" food in my mind). The food is solid, and it is a good value for your money as a rule.

The big questions in the above are, to my mind:

1) What's the breakdown on the OBS losses? i.e. How much of that is coming off of the Acelas vs. the Regionals vs. the LD trains?

2) How are FC meals (Acela), sleeper meals (LD), and BC drinks (Regionals/corridor trains) being accounted for in the mix? If Amtrak sells a million BC seats and books off a $.25 charge for a soda for each one, that's $250,000 in "lost revenue" that could either be deducted from the BC accommodation revenue or just left on the food service budget as a $0 sale. $5/meal in costs for FC on the Acela (and I think I'm using a _very_ low price point) could easily rack up several million in uncompensated losses to food service. Ditto the sleepers (where you're probably averaging 2-3 meals per sleeper passenger; even at a low price point, that's close to 700,000 passengers times whatever your average price point per meal is times the average meals per passenger; assuming 3 meals at $5/meal times those passengers is going to give you close to $10m/year in costs).

3) What costs _are_ being allocated to food service? No, really...how much overhead is being offloaded here by Mica et al to make things look bad? Yes, I know that some of that overhead is justified...but in this particular instance, anything outside of direct costs for running the food service is just being "fudged" onto it.

4) Finally, how much revenue is there, what _are_ the expenses, and what does that leave as losses? My guess is that the losses, while not trivial, are still well under 50%...my best guess, based on the soda example, is that you're covering around 60% of food service costs on food service revenue...and this is potentially excluding several tens of millions in "discarded" revenue due to FC/BC/sleeper food expenses not getting paid for in cash...which would be sloppy, stupid accounting on someone's part, but I don't think we can exclude the possibility of this. This would be roughly in line with the $110m or so in revenue from food and beverage noted last year.

If the sleeper/FC/BC situation is being handled poorly, I can probably shake about $25 million/year loose in "losses" depending on meal cost assumptions; I can probably even run that higher if you bill the "losses" of the meal against the sleeper/first class/business class accommodation charges.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 3, 2012)

NE933 said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently, not paying enough. Maybe the sleeper fares don't account for food costs at all, it was added in 1985.
> ...


Often the difference between the cheapest and most expensive item in a particular category is not that big. So I don't think this is really the problem.

Also remember that a lot of people choose to drink alcoholic beverages (which they pay for, and that means Amtrak saves money because they move less of the free stuff)

I think all in all it averages out.

Maybe sleeper fares are just too low?


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 3, 2012)

How can any food service be expected to generate a profitable income when they are only open for 2 hours per meal, paid 12 hours per day, at a wage that is far above meager (plus the priciest on on the menu 3 times a day), then pay their room and board for a couple of nights at their end stops.


----------



## rrdude (Aug 3, 2012)

QUOTE FROM USA TODAY: ".......Possible solutions include using café cars instead of dining cars on long-distance routes, replacing the food and beverage service with vending machines or food service carts, and contracting out the service to the lowest bidder..........."

We _know_ what happened on the Sunset when they put in the vending machines. Can you _imagine_ going X country with your only choices being AmCafe food?

Anything CLOSE to this happens, and I'm off the LD trains, permanently. Let's get rid of the windows too, then we wouldn't have to pay to CLEAN them, saving even more money.





I'd highly suggest WE ALL (regardless of political affiliation) contact Mica's office ASAP, like TODAY, and inform of your views. We all know he's got Amtrak in his gun sights, since it's an easy target. But let's make it more, er, "painful" to stage these ridiculous stunts, and outrageous quotes.


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 3, 2012)

rrdude said:


> I'd highly suggest WE ALL (regardless of political affiliation) contact Mica's office ASAP, like TODAY, and inform of your views. We all know he's got Amtrak in his gun sights, since it's an easy target. But let's make it more, er, "painful" to stage these ridiculous stunts, and outrageous quotes.


I understand your outrage, and agree with it, but I don't think Rep. Mica will care what we think, if we aren't either constituents or donors. It probably makes more sense to contact one's own Congressman or Congresswoman.


----------



## EB_OBS (Aug 3, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> How can any food service be expected to generate a profitable income when they are only open for 2 hours per meal, paid 12 hours per day, at a wage that is far above meager (plus the priciest on on the menu 3 times a day), then pay their room and board for a couple of nights at their end stops.



Wow! Exaggerate much!

Breakfast, 6:30-10:00am. Report time for breakfast is 5:30am. 5:00am for the chefs. Lunch, 11:00 or 11:30-3:00 on most trains. Barely any time to eat your own breakfast between breakfast and lunch and then be ready for lunch. Dinner, 5:00-9:00pm, which during summer months typically goes until 10:00pm. Report time for dinner is 4:00pm. Add one hour minimum for clean-up afterwards. I'm sorry but your post is just plain stupid.

Now consider the fact that these people work the whole day from 5:00-5:30am until closing time with, according to the dining car schedule about 3 hours in between meals which most of that time is eat up by cleaning up and setting up. When you do get a break and when it is time to quit, there's nowhere to go. You're still stuck on a train for two days.

At turn-around points, Amtrak pays on average, except in the more expensive cities, $75 per night for a room. I've seen CLC charges as low as $26 per night and as high as $120. Per diem is about $24 per day and it's split up into meal segments so you only get the part that applies to when you are in town. Try eating dinner, breakfast and lunch in downtown Chicago and see how far $24 goes.


----------



## reefgeek (Aug 3, 2012)

This has been discussed to death on this forum, but it is an interesting topic.

My reading of modern passenger railroad history is this: Dining cars have always been a money-losing proposition, but they attract the public and they are one of the core traditional features of train travel. Honestly when people learn I like to travel on LD trains, it's usually around the second question they ask. I would hate to see the experience go.

Maybe there are alternatives to the dining car, such as having prepared meals served in room by the SCAs. Lose the physical dining car. Put the cafe car business out for bid, I've never been too impressed with the menu or the service there. But I'm not sure anyone would be eager to take it over.

I work for the biggest US Bank and we have a cafeteria in our building. It used to be very subsidized but it's not so much anymore, ie food inside the building costs the same as outside. It's a money-losing proposition, they have to PAY the company that runs it to do it, even with the free real estate (formerly ARA, now Restaurant Associates). The guy in charge of our building once jokingly asked if we'd take $50 a week in return for closing the cafeteria. It's quite a trick to provide good food service in inconvenient places.

You can look at what's happened to foodservice on the airlines. They have cut costs to the bone, and charge out the wazoo for a little package of cheese and crackers. I don't think the experience is transferrable. Mostly airline pax are under duress to tolerate their situation for up to six hours or so. Train travel is more of a choice.

Bring Back Fred Harvey!! :lol:

(If Rep. Mica's car was hit by an Amtrak train the judge would rule self-defense.)


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 3, 2012)

The purpose of this hearing was not to force Amtrak into profitable food and beverage operation. It was to determine the steps Amtrak has taken to implement recommendations made last year by the Amtrak office of the Inspector General (AOIG) to reduce waste and fraud in the food and beverage operation, and also to assess the impact of Amtrak food and beverage costs on state-supported services.

A report issued last year by the AOIG identified widespread theft and fraud in Amtrak food and beverage service involving 307 LSA’s over eight years. A conservative estimate of the cost of the theft and fraud to Amtrak is between $4 and $7 million per year. The AOIG made a series of recommendations to Amtrak to reduce the problem. The hearing was to assess the steps taken by Amtrak in response to the AOIG’s report.

A second issue covered was the cost of food and beverage service being passed to states for state-supported trains. Of particular interest was the experience of the state of Maine and the Downeaster. Maine does not use Amtrak food and beverage service for the Downeaster. They independently contract the on-board food and beverage operation. There was considerable interest in the economic comparison between Maine’s use of a private food and beverage contractor verses the cost to other states for use of Amtrak-supplied food and beverage service.

As long as Amtrak depends on federal funding in order to operate their trains, Congress, which provides those funds, has every right to question how the money is being spent. When an independent investigator like the AOIG finds waste and fraud, Congress has an obligation to follow-up and review Amtrak’s response. By all accounts, Amtrak did just fine at this hearing, and the AOIG expressed general satisfaction with Amtrak’s response to last year’s report.


----------



## jis (Aug 3, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> The purpose of this hearing was not to force Amtrak into profitable food and beverage operation. It was to determine the steps Amtrak has taken to implement recommendations made last year by the Amtrak office of the Inspector General (AOIG) to reduce waste and fraud in the food and beverage operation, and also to assess the impact of Amtrak food and beverage costs on state-supported services.
> 
> A report issued last year by the AOIG identified widespread theft and fraud in Amtrak food and beverage service involving 307 LSA’s over eight years. A conservative estimate of the cost of the theft and fraud to Amtrak is between $7 and $10 million per year. The AOIG made a series of recommendations to Amtrak to reduce the problem. The hearing was to assess the steps taken by Amtrak in response to the AOIG’s report.
> 
> ...


An excellent summary PRR. Hopefully this will lay some of the knee-jerk reactions to rest.


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 3, 2012)

rrdude said:


> QUOTE FROM USA TODAY: ".......Possible solutions include using café cars instead of dining cars on long-distance routes, replacing the food and beverage service with vending machines or food service carts, and contracting out the service to the lowest bidder..........."
> 
> 
> 
> We _know_ what happened on the Sunset when they put in the vending machines.


Just curious - what did happen when they put in the vending machines? After all, it's pretty wasteful to have a person serving what a vending machine can mostly serve (chips, drinks, etc.) And vending machines for things like pizza or burgers exist too. In addition, doesn't the Piedmont have vending machines?

PS This is only as a replacement for the AmCafe - the diner would stay as is.


----------



## NE933 (Aug 3, 2012)

Waste and fraud, as in stealing, it would seem to be something having a relationship to the quality of commissaries and their employees. Items are easier to disappear if the distance between the commissary's refrigerator and the train is a long one. I remember someone commenting on Sunnyside's (NY) food storage is no longer in the yard itself but rather several blocks away?!! If this is true, I can see how easy stealing can be.

In any case however, a simple audit before food is loaded onto transport carts and after it is loaded onto the train, if not done already, should catch where the leak is.


----------



## philabos (Aug 3, 2012)

The big questions in the above are, to my mind:

1) What's the breakdown on the OBS losses? i.e. How much of that is coming off of the Acelas vs. the Regionals vs. the LD trains?

Tha Amtrak Inspector General stated over 80% of the F&B losses were on the LD trains. If anyone followed up on that statement, I missed it.


----------



## shelzp (Aug 3, 2012)

I've been reading a book about Fred Harvey. When he won the bid to run dining cars that were being added to save time at stops the railroad had to subsidize him for every meal. If Amtrak stopped at 7, noon and 6 so we could walk into a trackside restaurant think about how much time would be lost and time = money. My point is that food service and travel don't work that well together outside of cruise ships and I think alcohol sales may be the subsidy there.


----------



## Paulus (Aug 3, 2012)

Link to the session with video and written testimony

The breakdown between various route types is given in the OIG's testimony, page 9. The NEC had 31.8 million in revenue and 40.9 million in direct costs and its 9 million dollar loss was 11% of the total. State supported corridors collected 31.7 million in revenue (including state support for 21 of the routes) against 33.3 million in costs and the 1.6 million dollar loss was 2% of the total. The long distance trains had 57.9 million in revenue against 131.9 million in costs and their 73.9 million loss was 87% of the total Amtrak F&B loss. The Palmetto had the lowest F&B loss of any long-distance route.

The Downeaster reports a cost recovery rate of 75%.


----------



## williamflemming (Aug 3, 2012)

I would be willing to pay for food if they lower there prices I always go on sleeper, so I get it for free, but if it saved that much for Amtrak I would definitely buy food.


----------



## acelafan (Aug 3, 2012)

Those who want to pick on Amtrak will always find a reason to do so. At least they are focused on food & not the LD routes (for now).

Reminds me of the post on here about a bunch of Tea Party-ers complaining about Amtrak losing money while they proceeded to keep silverware & other items as souvenirs from the train they were on. But it's OK to fight a few wars b/c those trillions are worth it.


----------



## NE933 (Aug 3, 2012)

shelzp said:


> My point is that food service and travel don't work that well together outside of cruise ships and I think alcohol sales may be the subsidy there.


This may be true, even if a little. At present, Amtrak has no food cars set up with all the accouterments and wares of a full bar: no blenders, shaker and strainer apparatus, and most of all, no room to fit every possible premium liquor that people like in their margarita, sangria, cosmopolitans, etc. Therefore, we can perhaps do without all the hardware i listed above and maybe use pre-mixed cocktails, and then charge them for it with a markup. While we can get away with asking $4 - 5 bottle of beer, which is only slightly more than a the bars I go to but much more than the news stand, if Amtrak got creative and started using premium tequilas like Patron' in some of their drinks, maybe we can get the alcohol sales to work harder. Or: since we are such a major carrier that serves beverages in trains of all categories, why not approach the makers of these liquors to ask for a custom size or mixture that allows for more choices of more desireable items, thereby commanding a higher price? If Amtrak made and sold mixed cocktails and other drinks and charged higher for it, and dress up the Amfleet cafe tables and lighting a little, they very well could have alcohol subsidize the food by selling not just a drink, but a NIGHT OUT while traveling!! It's a similar concept to the Coast Starlight's Pacific Parlor lounge which is also the norm d reguer on Auto Train and Empire Builder.

And not to ignite any wars, but i wish to heck they would dump Pepsi and go back to Coke!


----------



## acelafan (Aug 3, 2012)

NE933 said:


> shelzp said:
> 
> 
> > My point is that food service and travel don't work that well together outside of cruise ships and I think alcohol sales may be the subsidy there.
> ...


You and me both! And not just because I live in Atlanta. Amtrak must have a XX year contract with Pepsi.


----------



## Shortline (Aug 3, 2012)

NE933 said:


> shelzp said:
> 
> 
> > My point is that food service and travel don't work that well together outside of cruise ships and I think alcohol sales may be the subsidy there.
> ...


I agree, to an extent-At between $5 and $7 per can of beer as I recall, that is a bit higher than I am usually willing to pay for multiple drinks. Cut the price 20%, and I'll up my intake 80%! Would really like to have more of a lounge atmosphere-The current crop of cafe's are more like the concession stand at a high school football game. Reasonable prices (for what you get-Don't get me wrong, I would pay $7 for a 22 oz draft craft beer. But I'm not paying $60 for a 12 pack of Budweiser!) and a better social atmosphere would be great! Bring back the bar from Silver Streak. Real cocktails, a real bar to sit at along with the tables, and I think alcohol revenue would go up.

Of course, the high prices might ALSO be there intentionally. I've been on trains a long time ago, back when you could smoke in the lounge, and a lot of coach passengers would camp out drinking and smoking until stumbling......so, I guess it's a tradeoff. I can afford to drink at $6/beer now, but I can imagine a lof of folks can't.


----------



## henryj (Aug 3, 2012)

Anderson said:


> 3) What costs _are_ being allocated to food service? No, really...how much overhead is being offloaded here by Mica et al to make things look bad? Yes, I know that some of that overhead is justified...but in this particular instance, anything outside of direct costs for running the food service is just being "fudged" onto it.


There it is..........it's that bloated overhead again.


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 3, 2012)

Just raise the price to close the gap. When I took my first train trip, we were too poor to eat anything the rail line provided. We survived on a 2000 mile trip with hiker food we brought on board. Now if that reduces ridership, well, my experience this year is that Amtrak is incapable of adequately servicing the riders who now book. Many private businesses downsize to what they can handle. Could be Amtrak will have to be a regional service only till petroleum gets up to $200 a barrel or so. We train lovers might be bummed by that, but it seems clear to me that the economics right now doom MOST Amtrak service to being marginal and mediocre. A lot of travel industry factors go into that, but the bottom line comes out clear enough.


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 3, 2012)

The price of food in the AmCafe is already ridiculous, and there are not enough paying customers in the diner for a reasonable raise to have much of an effect.


----------



## TVRM610 (Aug 4, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE FROM USA TODAY: ".......Possible solutions include using café cars instead of dining cars on long-distance routes, replacing the food and beverage service with vending machines or food service carts, and contracting out the service to the lowest bidder..........."
> ...


Yes, the Peidmont has vending machines which work wonderfully. The Piedmont trains have old combine cars which are used as checked baggage / lounge cars. In the center of the car is the vending area with snack and drink machines, coffee machines, and a refrigerator with mini bottles of water. The few times I've ridden the machines were all well stocked and in working order. It would make absolutely no sense to pay a lounge car attendant on this route. There is no reason that other day trips couldn't adapt to this as well.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Aug 4, 2012)

TVRM610 said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > rrdude said:
> ...


Well you can't have a vending machine mix up a Bloody Mary for you, and I assume that you cannot acquire alcohol at all because there is no way to card, so the Pacific Surfliner would lose a lot of its lounge revenue mid-July - Labor Day IYKWIM.


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 4, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> The price of food in the AmCafe is already ridiculous, and there are not enough paying customers in the diner for a reasonable raise to have much of an effect.


Must vary from one route to another. EVERY time I took a train trip, they had to call diners in shifts because they could never fit more than about 20 percent in the car at one time. But isn't it obvious that no matter what you think of present prices, they are too low? How do you lose money if you price to offset costs?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Aug 4, 2012)

One way to fit more people in the diner is to add a extra cook and server but we know amtrak can't do that thanks to congress and rep mica. Those 2 are the reason the dining car is the way it is but they are too stupid to see that then they whine cause amtrak looses money on food. But one thing they can do is crack down on lazy LSA who turn people away cause they rather text their BF or GF while on the job.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 4, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> The purpose of this hearing was not to force Amtrak into profitable food and beverage operation. It was to determine the steps Amtrak has taken to implement recommendations made last year by the Amtrak office of the Inspector General (AOIG) to reduce waste and fraud in the food and beverage operation, and also to assess the impact of Amtrak food and beverage costs on state-supported services.
> 
> A report issued last year by the AOIG identified widespread theft and fraud in Amtrak food and beverage service involving 307 LSA's over eight years. A conservative estimate of the cost of the theft and fraud to Amtrak is between $4 and $7 million per year. The AOIG made a series of recommendations to Amtrak to reduce the problem. The hearing was to assess the steps taken by Amtrak in response to the AOIG's report.
> 
> ...


While these purposes are admirable (and I support both efforts), I suspect that the _real_ reason for the hearing was to give Mica a beat-up-on-Amtrak day. Otherwise, the total amount of the losses would not have been particularly at issue except as they related to the fraud problem. Yet the headline had diddly squat to do with either of the issues you mention, instead focusing on a very big number. The theft/fraud total could have been played up as "Congress investigates fraud approaching $100 million over ten years at Amtrak" or somesuch number (inflated though it might be), but there seems to have been at least a decidedly different gist to things.

By the way, it has occurred to me that part of the problem with at least some LD trains might be the presence of two FSCs (the diner and the cafe) instead of one. Now, I support having a diner on these trains, but I cannot help but wonder if the presence of two FSCs on an LD train where a corridor train with a similar number of people on board isn't at least part of the problem.


----------



## sldispatcher (Aug 4, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > "Amtrak Food Service Lost $xxx Million"? I would like know how much highways lost in the same period?
> ...


Surely you jest?

I know some people put the hammer down on the convection oven items, but even airlines serve convection oven items in business/first that far outdo anything on Amtrak. I love travel by rail. I support Amtrak (but not necessarily some of their policies), but I'm not going to rave about their cuisine...sorry.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 4, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Well you can't have a vending machine mix up a Bloody Mary for you, and I assume that you cannot acquire alcohol at all because there is no way to card, so the Pacific Surfliner would lose a lot of its lounge revenue mid-July - Labor Day IYKWIM.


You assume wrong. In CT the lottery vending machines have a scanner on them. You must scan your drivers license before you buy a lottery ticket. Unknown if this can be used for a 50 state thing, but the equipment is out there.

I do find fraud numbers a bit Intresting. Are they before or after the intro of the printed receipt. Now you get a receipt so selling your own goods in the lounge should be a non-issue. Just have a report printed each hour or day and have it turn in. That will stop any personal stock sold in the lounge. (the report say you sold $100 dollars of stuff, where the money,)


----------



## jis (Aug 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> By the way, it has occurred to me that part of the problem with at least some LD trains might be the presence of two FSCs (the diner and the cafe) instead of one. Now, I support having a diner on these trains, but I cannot help but wonder if the presence of two FSCs on an LD train where a corridor train with a similar number of people on board isn't at least part of the problem.


You can see the validity of that observation even in apples to apples comparison between what is characterized as LD service by Amtrak. Palmetto generally performs better financially than almost any other run of the mill Amtrak LD train.

What I cannot understand is why there is a tendency to lean towards a position that in effect says "better to have no train service than to have overnight trains with no sleeper and diner service". Yes it is nice to have sleeper and diner service, but should one necessarily choose no service if one could possibly run a coach, baggage and cafe only train to connect secondary locations overnight? Afterall 66/67 still does a bangup business without sleepers. Is one to believe that there is nowhere else in the US that an overnight train providing basic transportation won't work? And yet the whole concept is avoided like the plague, which I don't understand.


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 4, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > The price of food in the AmCafe is already ridiculous, and there are not enough paying customers in the diner for a reasonable raise to have much of an effect.
> ...


That's because most of them are sleeper passengers, who don't specifically pay for their food, and thus would not be affected by a price increase.



RRUserious said:


> But isn't it obvious that no matter what you think of present prices, they are too low? How do you lose money if you price to offset costs?


There's a point where the prices are too high to be practical. For instance, $2 for a can of soda is very high, but any more would drive almost everyone away - so revenues would go DOWN instead of up.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 4, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> > NY Penn said:
> ...


Sleeper passengers do pay for their meals. They're priced into the ticket price and a portion of that ticket revenue is allocated to the dining costs.


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 4, 2012)

Ryan said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > RRUserious said:
> ...


So, if for instance the dining car raises its prices, the sleeping car ticket prices will rise as well?


----------



## jis (Aug 4, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Sleeper passengers do pay for their meals. They're priced into the ticket price and a portion of that ticket revenue is allocated to the dining costs.
> ...


Heck, Sleeping Car prices rise even when the Dining Car does not make any changes. So any Dining Car related price rise will probably be lost in the noise anyway.


----------



## Shanghai (Aug 4, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> > Amtrak lost $84.5 million selling food and beverages last year and $833.8 million over 10 years, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica said, calling for a “better way” to run those operations.
> 
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/amtrak-s-food-lost-taxpayers-834-million-in-10-years-mica-says.html
> ...


*That's minuscule when compared with the Federal Government loss (deficit) of nearly 7 Trillion over*

*the past 10 years!!*


----------



## Ryan (Aug 4, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > NY Penn said:
> ...


The amount of ticket revenue allocated to the dining car can be adjusted separately from the ticket price itself.

So, maybe.


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 4, 2012)

> There's a point where the prices are too high to be practical. For instance, $2 for a can of soda is very high, but any more would drive almost everyone away - so revenues would go DOWN instead of up.


Perhaps, but at some point where it stabilizes, you'd not have a net loss. Perhaps at some point, you don't even have a dining car, maybe not even hot food, but if you break even, then the service has balanced demand against the cost of meeting that demand. You can always goose demand and revenue by selling at a loss. But in a private business, you go broke. In a publicly-subsidized business, you give political ammunition to those who don't even want the train, let alone the food service.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Aug 4, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> > Amtrak lost $84.5 million selling food and beverages last year and $833.8 million over 10 years, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica said, calling for a “better way” to run those operations.
> 
> 
> http://www.bloomberg...-mica-says.html
> ...


Uh Oh!  Now we've made the big time!

The article has trended on Yahoo!!!


----------



## sldispatcher (Aug 4, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> There's a point where the prices are too high to be practical. For instance, $2 for a can of soda is very high, but any more would drive almost everyone away - so revenues would go DOWN instead of up.



Wouldn't fountains take care of this problem? People don't seem to mind paying $2.50 or $3.00 for a soda at a regular establishment on land...is there just no space to put in a simple fountain operation as opposed to the cans?


----------



## EMDF9A (Aug 4, 2012)

sldispatcher said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > There's a point where the prices are too high to be practical. For instance, $2 for a can of soda is very high, but any more would drive almost everyone away - so revenues would go DOWN instead of up.
> ...


The issue with fountains is the potable water needed to make them function. Yes it could be done, but it would add weight to the cars as well as labor to effectivly maintain & sanitize the systems. Would the maintenance costs be offset by increased profit & less disposal of the cans? I dont know... but it might be something worth exploring.


----------



## Naismith (Aug 4, 2012)

If it is true that 2 separate departments are involved in managing the food service component of Amtrak, its unlikely any progress will be achieved. Each department will blame the other for any problems. If the food service management could be consolidated under one department, accountability for provision of service would be more likely.

However, having worked for the federal government, the turf wars that this would provoke could be insurmountable.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 4, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> One way to fit more people in the diner is to add a extra cook and server but we know amtrak can't do that thanks to congress and rep mica. Those 2 are the reason the dining car is the way it is but they are too stupid to see that then they whine cause amtrak looses money on food. But one thing they can do is crack down on lazy LSA who turn people away cause they rather text their BF or GF while on the job.


Why do you think LSAs are texting on the job?



sldispatcher said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > the_traveler said:
> ...


I was not raving about their cuisine, but it's not as bad as "I'd rather be eating pretzels in my room."


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Aug 4, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> That's because most of them are sleeper passengers, who don't specifically pay for their food, and thus would not be affected by a price increase.


Probably the major factor of food service losing money,

There is no way Amtrak does not make profit off the food they actually get money for.


----------



## Guestlsa (Aug 4, 2012)

EB_OBS said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > How can any food service be expected to generate a profitable income when they are only open for 2 hours per meal, paid 12 hours per day, at a wage that is far above meager (plus the priciest on on the menu 3 times a day), then pay their room and board for a couple of nights at their end stops.
> ...






Thank you . I work service attendant on train 4 . my report time is 4 pm I always come in early so i can set up but guess what time I go to bed ? 12 am! Have to be at 430 to be in diner by 515. Do what kind of question I get when I'm working though to diner? What time is breakfast ? No good morning . Eat ? Good luck . They already asking bout lunch .train more than 6 hours late ? Still serving and only paid for LATE TRAIN. Do I enjoy what I love yes. I had good pax and annoying and yes it comes with job but guess I earn every penny .


----------



## Anderson (Aug 5, 2012)

Shawn Ryu said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > That's because most of them are sleeper passengers, who don't specifically pay for their food, and thus would not be affected by a price increase.
> ...


Well, it depends on what you mean by "the food they actually get money for". They're definitely charging more for food than they pay for acquiring it for resale, yes, but what about the "burdened cost"?

Also, there's another hole in the accounting that I'm not sure of: How do they account for the cost of employee meals? Do they zero out the price? Or "bill" an internal "benefits" account? The latter would probably be correct, but there's a chance that they do the former, and on an LD train that can be quite a few OBS (SCAs, Coach Attendants, and food service staff could easily be 8-10 on a train).

Another point on the "balancing costs against demand": Part of the problem with cutting food service back is, and always has been, the loss of business due to the cuts. There's a respectable chance that a non-trivial minority of passengers wouldn't take the train without the ability to get at least one decent hot meal during a 3-4 meal trip. I know of at least one person off the top of my mind who was thoroughly not amused by the quality of food on board one of the Silvers during what I _believe_ was the bottom of the Warrington-era cuts (and who hasn't traveled by train since, in no small part due to the experience), and while I will readily concede that this is an anecdote and not scientific, it _does_ make a difference.

Mind you, this doesn't dictate the presence of two FSCs (though on some longer trains that certainly becomes a necessity due to the sheer number of passengers on board)...it would seem to be _quite_ possible to follow a diner-club model of some sort or to have you place your order and pick it up at a counter and then go to a table. It wouldn't be nearly as nice, true, but the point is that your operating model can be altered without absolutely massacring the quality of the food on board.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Aug 5, 2012)

Shanghai said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > > Amtrak lost $84.5 million selling food and beverages last year and $833.8 million over 10 years, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica said, calling for a “better way” to run those operations.
> ...


Someone has a grudge. And yet no ones worried about the governments spending yet everyone is doing there best to get rid of amtrak over there food losses. Whats wrong with this pictue.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 6, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> One way to fit more people in the diner is to add a extra cook and server but we know amtrak can't do that thanks to congress and rep mica. Those 2 are the reason the dining car is the way it is but they are too stupid to see that then they whine cause amtrak looses money on food. But one thing they can do is crack down on lazy LSA who turn people away cause they rather text their BF or GF while on the job.


I've noticed that on the LD Superliners there are actually tables on both sides of the central service area/stairs, but they only seat people on one side, and then call them to the meal in shifts. Why don't they seat both sides? I guess because that would require more serving staff so its more efficient to serve in shifts. No issue with that. But why then do they have these extra tables? That space could be put to a different use, maybe one generating more revenue?


----------



## Caesar La Rock (Aug 6, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> Shanghai said:
> 
> 
> > amtrakwolverine said:
> ...


It shows how biased and delusional some people are these days.


----------



## EB_OBS (Aug 6, 2012)

cirdan said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > One way to fit more people in the diner is to add a extra cook and server but we know amtrak can't do that thanks to congress and rep mica. Those 2 are the reason the dining car is the way it is but they are too stupid to see that then they whine cause amtrak looses money on food. But one thing they can do is crack down on lazy LSA who turn people away cause they rather text their BF or GF while on the job.
> ...



Amtrak's official policy for seating is a "staggered seating" for meals where reservations are taken, such as dinner and lunch on some trains. Each server is supposed to work no more than 4 tables or 16 people, however on busy trains most servers will work 5 tables with 20 people.

Now imagine you call in 15 tables or 60 people all at once for dinner. For dinner the server starts at table number one and gets salads and bread and takes beverage orders, delivers that to the table and then proceeds to take the rest of that tables order. If on average that takes five minutes then by the time that server is done with the fourth table and ready to move on to the fifth table, those people have now been sitting there for twenty or twenty-five minutes and they are usually not very happy about it.

It makes absolutely no sense at all to fill up the every table in the diner all at once for dinner. Yet, passengers walk in all the time and ask why is only 1/2 the tables being used. They don't understand and sometimes they even think the dining car crew is just being lazy and not seating as many people as they could. If they came back in 15 or 30 minutes, depending upon the interval used, they would then see every table in use.

As a dining car LSA I always used a 15 minute seating interval for dinner and would seat only two tables per server per reservation time. This gives each server two tables and eight passengers and then fifteen minutes later they get two more tables and eight more passengers to serve. It's extremely efficient. Generally for dinner my seating times would be 5:00, 5:15, 6:45 & 7:00 and 8:30 & 8:45. That gives each seating 1:30 to be done and gives the servers 15 minutes to clean up and re-set for the next seating. Every LSA does it a little bit different. Most use a 30 minutes seating interval but I always thought that was too much time and your servers are then just standing around waiting for the next seating. I think 15 minutes is perfect.


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 6, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> You assume wrong. In CT the lottery vending machines have a scanner on them. You must scan your drivers license before you buy a lottery ticket. Unknown if this can be used for a 50 state thing, but the equipment is out there.


Lottery tickets aren't liquor. In my experience, liquor law is the screwiest, most contradictory set of state laws in the U.S. When did South Carolina bars start selling liquor by the drink from 750 ml bottles, rather than single shot airline bottles? What states allow you to drink underaged in a bar, as long as it's with your parents? Are there still Texas counties where bars require you to buy memberships? Why couldn't US Airways serve booze on airliners flying over New Mexico?

You're never going to have a vending machine selling alcohol on a interstate train in this country.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 6, 2012)

Ispolkom said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > You assume wrong. In CT the lottery vending machines have a scanner on them. You must scan your drivers license before you buy a lottery ticket. Unknown if this can be used for a 50 state thing, but the equipment is out there.
> ...


Blame Prohibition (or, more properly, its repeal). As part of the compromise to repeal Prohibition (I suspect there were _just_ enough states that would have opposed repeal without a concession of some sort, and I suspect that there was a concern that a repeal might have gotten spun by the courts to evolve authority away from the states and therefore _require_ legalizing the sale of alcohol), states have near-absolute control over liquor laws. In turn, this means that in some states (due to home rule provisions or allowances under Dillon Rule states) county rules vary wildly.


----------



## pebbleworm (Aug 7, 2012)

> I was not raving about their cuisine, but it's not as bad as "I'd rather be eating pretzels in my room."


It was pretty bad, and the service eastbound out of Emeryville on July 3rd was just plain weird. And westbound out of Chicago on July 15 was not much better- no seatings earlier than 8:00 available for dinner in the sleepers? Two hours to get in and out of the diner? And on both legs there were a couple of entrees that were just plain inedible (a "specialty sandwich" and the pasta at lunch). And I don't know what they did to the dinner vegetables, but it wasn't right. A Lean Cuisine would have been preferable for every meal but breakfast, and I've been taking long distance trains frequently for 5 years. Next trip I'm packing my own edible food, even though I do enjoy meeting people in the diner. The only safe bet, if you could stand the wait was the kid's hot dog. I'll stick with breakfast only unless things improve. ALTHOUGH I've been happy with the food in the Coast Starlight parlor car, this Zephyr trip was pretty bad on the AmChow front.


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 7, 2012)

Ispolkom said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > You assume wrong. In CT the lottery vending machines have a scanner on them. You must scan your drivers license before you buy a lottery ticket. Unknown if this can be used for a 50 state thing, but the equipment is out there.
> ...


Not only that, but those serving alcohol have the authority/duty to deny service to those who are too intoxicated. A machine couldn't do that.


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 7, 2012)

You could make the controls on the machine too complicated for someone whose had enough already.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Aug 7, 2012)

Not all OBS or LSAs are lazy but there are reports on this forum of some who do nothing but sit on their a$$ the entire time refuse to help the overworked staff or turn people away when not even half the diner is full.


----------



## pebbleworm (Aug 7, 2012)

Where else are you gonna eat? I'll be packing food on my next trip.


----------



## sldispatcher (Aug 7, 2012)

It's way past time to consider private vendors for food and sleeping car service.

If doing so would allow continued offerings of these areas and supply Amtrak with a little operational revenue while minimizing the exposure..I'm all for it.

I'm a believer in passenger rail, but not the way the last 10 years or even 30 years have been done.

Of course, in this forum, one generally gets slammed for proposing anything that involves private enterprise or reduction in the government subsidy....There is no doubt that passenger rail requires some form of subsidy...BUT, if you want it to thrive....we need the ageing yuppies/generation X'rs to embrace the concept. They are not going to do so at the current level of relatively poor service and almost inedible cuisine. You can blame it on "cutbacks" all you want. That isn't going to change.

Time to push for a change on how the business is run. Hybridize the system...let Amtrak be in charge of pulling the train and basic transportation (coaches, and maybe a 1/2 slumbercoach arrangement) and let private enterprise take over the remainder....food/sleepers.

I vote for the Coast Starlight to be the first to be changed over.

Flame away...


----------



## Ryan (Aug 7, 2012)

You're assuming that it's possible to make a profit off of food service/sleeping car service on a train. If that assumption is true, those profits should go towards reducing the amount of subsidy needed by Amtrak. If that assumption is false, no business will want to get involved.

Either way, privitization isn't the answer.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> You're assuming that it's possible to make a profit off of food service/sleeping car service on a train. If that assumption is true, those profits should go towards reducing the amount of subsidy needed by Amtrak. If that assumption is false, no business will want to get involved.
> 
> Either way, privitization isn't the answer.


Privatization does not make an overall profitability assumption at all. If Amtrak loses $80 million per year on food and beverage, and a private vender could do the same job for $50 million, it would still be a net loss of $50 million to Amtrak, but a $30 million gain to the bottom line.

Business should do what they do well. Amtrak runs a railroad, not a chain of mobile food outlets. Maine has proven that outsourced, private food service on trains works.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 7, 2012)

If a private vendor can do the job for $50 million, Amtrak can do the same job for $50 million - whatever profit the private company is making.

There's no magic in private industry that makes things cheaper.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> If a private vendor can do the job for $50 million, Amtrak can do the same job for $50 million - whatever profit the private company is making.
> 
> There's no magic in private industry that makes things cheaper.


The "magic" is that everything that Amtrak does costs more.

Amtrak internal costs are so high that anything and everything they do costs far more than normal businesses. It is not just the on-board operation. It is all the back room layers and layers of management that run the on board operation, and the multiples of overheads and burdens that drive an already high cost structure through the roof. I worked with Amtrak on a business to business basis. Our rule of thumb for estimating Amtrak costs was to do a straight-up estimate and multiply by three. It was usually pretty close. On one job, our actual work used eight people at the site. Amtrak, just to support us as needed, used sixteen. They played cards all day and cost us over $100 an hour each (even though their direct wages were more like $35 per hour).

Amtrak is a boated, entrenched bureaucracy. They are not structured like a real business. That is why Amtrak cannot win commuter rail operation contracts (and has now given up even trying). Competing head to head with a real business, Amtrak has lost every time.

Having a food service company support rail is not exactly a new idea. The Santa Fe did it for years with the Fred Harvey Company. Maine is doing it now. It amazes me how some passenger rail supporters refuse to even consider the idea of having someone other than Amtrak run even an ancillary part of the operation. Wouldn't better food and service at a lower cost be a good thing for passenger rail? Who cares whose name is on the paychecks?


----------



## Ryan (Aug 7, 2012)

I'd rather fix the root cause of Amtrak inefficiency and have the organization benefit across the board than employ band-aid solutions around the edges.

Amtrak is supposed to be a real business. Structure it like one, run it like one, and everyone benefits. Outsourcing parts of the operation just allows what remains behind to continue on in their wasteful ways.


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> If a private vendor can do the job for $50 million, Amtrak can do the same job for $50 million - whatever profit the private company is making.
> 
> There's no magic in private industry that makes things cheaper.


Sure there is. First, competition. The government hates competition and is generally viewed as an entity willing to pay whatever price asked for any given product. Sure, they go through competitive bids on things, and allegedly pick the best bidder, but when it comes to the work getting done, you rarely hear the Gov'mt refusing to pay after complaining about overruns.

The private sector has an inherit interest in making money. That's why most businesses have gone from pension programs to 401(k)s.

It goes back to my Waffle House analogy. There are plenty of people willing to work at Waffle House for $2.30/hr plus tips. If they paid a FAIR wage in the diner, they could reduce a tremendous amount of cost, AND hire more people, and fill 24 tables with REVENUE producing guests from Coach.

EVERYTHING in the private sector is cheaper - especially when a lot of bureaucratic red tape is removed. That's why BOEING and other agencies are making space flight cheaper outside of NASA then they did within NASA. What they are doing is nowhere near the scope, but it can accomplish much of the same goals with a tremendous reduction in cost.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 7, 2012)

Like I said, there is no reason that Amtrak couldn't do whatever a private business would come in and do. Rather than just give up and call in private industry (and allow them to skim off some of the $$$ in profit), lets force Amtrak to do it and not waste any money on profit to private shareholders.



VentureForth said:


> It goes back to my Waffle House analogy. There are plenty of people willing to work at Waffle House for $2.30/hr plus tips. If they paid a FAIR wage in the diner, they could reduce a tremendous amount of cost, AND hire more people, and fill 24 tables with REVENUE producing guests from Coach.


Could they? Does the kitchen and chef have the capacity to turn out that number of meals? Sure, you can bring back the assistant cook/dishwasher, but there are physical constraints that you run up against in a kitchen that fits in a railcar.


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 7, 2012)

I could go on a rant about things that hold back government efficiency, but I already did so last year.

You can read all about it here.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> I'd rather fix the root cause of Amtrak inefficiency and have the organization benefit across the board than employ band-aid solutions around the edges.
> 
> Amtrak is supposed to be a real business. Structure it like one, run it like one, and everyone benefits. Outsourcing parts of the operation just allows what remains behind to continue on in their wasteful ways.


I agree. Amtrak should restructure like a real business. That is actually my point. If Amtrak were to restructure like a real business, among the many other changes, they would get out of the food and beverage business tomorrow. Real businesses concentrate on their core function (pardon the corporate-speak), and buy everything else from third parties. They do not clean their own buildings, they do not run their own cafeterias, or multiple other examples of things that a company must do but do are not the primary purpose of the organization. They let others do those things: firms who do those things as their primary function. That is how they cut down costs, management and overhead.

Food and beverage requires a management structure within Amtrak (actually, there are two running in parallel). Outsource it, and Amtrak food and beverage support is reduced to a minimal contract management function. A private contractor also has a management structure, but it is shared across multiple customers. That is one way the costs are lower.

This whole discussion is likely a moot point. I do not think there is even a slightest chance that Amtrak will move toward outsourced food and beverage service. There are just too many factions that are opposed to it, and some of those factions are not the least bit concerned with what is best for the promotion of passenger rail.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 7, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather fix the root cause of Amtrak inefficiency and have the organization benefit across the board than employ band-aid solutions around the edges.
> ...


I don't know if that will work.

Prior to privatization in the UK, train catering was outsourced to a private company. The first thing many privatized companies did was tear up the contracts and put their own catering back.

It's just a question of efficiency and of customer service. If the customer asks a waiter "are we running late" or "at what time are we arriving in xyz" and the response is "that's not my job", the customer doesn't appreciate that as quality service. Likewise if there are complaints. Would you be happy if you complained about bad food and Amtrak told you "not my problem". No, when I buy a sleeper ticket off Amtrak I am buying a complete service and not a mish-mash of different companies providing their own bit of service. It's bad enough with the freight railroads being responsible for dealys (and not having any obvious person I can complain to if I'm affected). There has to be a single entity responsible for the service and the buck has to stop there.

If you stayed at the Sheraton, would you be happy if the room service were outsourced to one company, and the breakfast to another, and if you wanted to complain the reception would give you some phone number of an Indian call center? Would you percieve that as quality service? Or as miserable patchwork?


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> This whole discussion is likely a moot point. I do not think there is even a slightest chance that Amtrak will move toward outsourced food and beverage service. There are just too many factions that are opposed to it, and some of those factions are not the least bit concerned with what is best for the promotion of passenger rail.


The issue stretches way beyond Amtrak. Witness what happens when Congress tries to specify that something like food service should be outsourced. Just watch the discussion that unfolds in this forum! Amtrak cannot operate as a private business while its board is appointed by a convoluted government process, unless of course some fortuitous accident takes place, like the Soviet Union appointing Gorbachev as Secretary General.  And if it operates as a private business you will get all the pluses and minuses of same, unless properly regulated to keep it primarily in the passenger train service business. I.e. it will eventually trend towards (a) only those business segments that are actually more profitable (and contrary to all the frothing LD service has never been and never will be) and (b) trend towards other businesses initially ancillary to the core business that may be even more profitable... e.g. high value package service etc. Heck even as a publicly controlled entity it has attempted to delve into such from time to time.


----------



## jerichowhiskey (Aug 7, 2012)

The problem I wonder with privatization is how much will service remain at the current level (or even become better) for cheaper costs or will private companies try to reduce service in favor of making more money within the contract offered. You can see this in various industries like construction when they'll use cheaper but just adequate materials and take whatever remains as further profit.

I'm usually skeptical with privatization when Arizona's private prisons are costing taxpayers more than when they were state-run or when the private contractor that was suppose to finish renovating a subway station (NYC #7-Court Square) neglects to put the remaining wall panels in place as a couple examples.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Like I said, there is no reason that Amtrak couldn't do whatever a private business would come in and do. Rather than just give up and call in private industry (and allow them to skim off some of the $$$ in profit), lets force Amtrak to do it and not waste any money on profit to private shareholders.


Exactly, if private industry can do it better and cheaper, then if I were an Amtrak executive I'd poach the people that know how to do it better and cheaper and hire them to do the same on Amtrak.

Knowledge and good people is what grows an industry, not accounting. You win if you have the best people on your team.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 7, 2012)

jerichowhiskey said:


> The problem I wonder with privatization is how much will service remain at the current level (or even become better) for cheaper costs or will private companies try to reduce service in favor of making more money within the contract offered. You can see this in various industries like construction when they'll use cheaper but just adequate materials and take whatever remains as further profit.


We can observe in the UK that increasingly the franchises are not being won by genuine private companies, but that state companies as in the state railroads of France, German and Holland are winning franchises in the UK.

So much for the private sector being better at everything.


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 7, 2012)

cirdan said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said, there is no reason that Amtrak couldn't do whatever a private business would come in and do. Rather than just give up and call in private industry (and allow them to skim off some of the $$$ in profit), lets force Amtrak to do it and not waste any money on profit to private shareholders.
> ...


Amtrak, as a quasi-governmental organization, would never be able to pay a high enough salary to poach the people from other industries.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 7, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


But if Amtrak subcontracted to the same company, wouldn't they also be paying their salaries in addition to the shareholders' dividends?

Or look at it from a different side. if they are unable to deliver the efficiency that offsets their higher salary, then employing them is not a good proposition, regardless of whether it is Amtrak or private industrry that is hiring them.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 7, 2012)

cirdan said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > cirdan said:
> ...


You are assuming those higher paid people at the private company are working only on the Amtrak contract. They would likely be working for multiple customers of the company. Those same people working at Amtrak would only be serving Amtrak.


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 7, 2012)

cirdan said:


> It's just a question of efficiency and of customer service. If the customer asks a waiter "are we running late" or "at what time are we arriving in xyz" and the response is "that's not my job", the customer doesn't appreciate that as quality service. Likewise if there are complaints. Would you be happy if you complained about bad food and Amtrak told you "not my problem". No, when I buy a sleeper ticket off Amtrak I am buying a complete service and not a mish-mash of different companies providing their own bit of service. It's bad enough with the freight railroads being responsible for dealys (and not having any obvious person I can complain to if I'm affected). There has to be a single entity responsible for the service and the buck has to stop there.
> 
> If you stayed at the Sheraton, would you be happy if the room service were outsourced to one company, and the breakfast to another, and if you wanted to complain the reception would give you some phone number of an Indian call center? Would you percieve that as quality service? Or as miserable patchwork?


Nobody said outsourcing a certain function would mean that responsibility for the function would also be outsourced.

To take one example, airlines outsource tons of functions (including actual flying). If you check-in for a Delta Airlines flight at some small outstation, and fly a regional jet to the hub, odds are you could go almost the entire trip, from check-in at the airport right until you step off the jetway at the hub before you see your first actual Delta Airlines employee. The ticket counter agents, gate agents, baggage handlers, pilots and flight attendants probably all work for a different company (possibly even several different companies depending on which specific function you're dealing with).

If a passenger has a complaint about that flight, who do they call? SkyWest? Comair? Compass? Pinnacle? Expressjet? Republic Airways? Have most people even heard of any of those airlines? No. They call Delta, and Delta handles the issue. Why? Because Delta's name is on the ticket, and Delta's reputation is at stake.

I don't see why a hypothetical contracted food service operation would be any different.


----------



## jerichowhiskey (Aug 7, 2012)

I think the better question is whether Amtrak will be able to do anything about the complaints regarding the contracted company. Depending on how the contract is agreed to, they may very well be able to do nothing but wait until it expires.

(Edit: Which is what pretty much has to happen for the concessions at my soccer team...)


----------



## cirdan (Aug 7, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Nobody said outsourcing a certain function would mean that responsibility for the function would also be outsourced.
> 
> To take one example, airlines outsource tons of functions (including actual flying). If you check-in for a Delta Airlines flight at some small outstation, and fly a regional jet to the hub, odds are you could go almost the entire trip, from check-in at the airport right until you step off the jetway at the hub before you see your first actual Delta Airlines employee. The ticket counter agents, gate agents, baggage handlers, pilots and flight attendants probably all work for a different company (possibly even several different companies depending on which specific function you're dealing with).
> 
> ...


This is an important difference though. Those agents also wear Delta uniforms and as such they represent Delta. Whether they are actually employed directly by Delta or by some holding agency acting for Delta doesn't really matter. It's nbot as if the stewardess serving you your coffee on a Delta flight will wear a Starbucks uniform, thus confusing you as to who is responisble. This type of background outsourcing happens on Amtrak too, for example the bus services are run by third parties on behalf of Amtrak. I also thought (but could be I was mistaken) that the food is also provided and delivered trainside by an external company and that all the Amtrak staff do is the final preparations and serving (the same happens on airlines by the way). So what exactly would it mean to privatize the food service? That the staff serving it would also be on the payroll of a private company? If it's just that, I don't see what the fuss is about. But if they're going to be wearing the uniforms of a private company, that's a development I don't like. I also doubt a change like that would massively impact the balance sheet


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 7, 2012)

cirdan said:


> This is an important difference though. Those agents also wear Delta uniforms and as such they represent Delta. Whether they are actually employed directly by Delta or by some holding agency acting for Delta doesn't really matter. It's nbot as if the stewardess serving you your coffee on a Delta flight will wear a Starbucks uniform, thus confusing you as to who is responisble. This type of background outsourcing happens on Amtrak too, for example the bus services are run by third parties on behalf of Amtrak. I also thought (but could be I was mistaken) that the food is also provided and delivered trainside by an external company and that all the Amtrak staff do is the final preparations and serving (the same happens on airlines by the way). So what exactly would it mean to privatize the food service? That the staff serving it would also be on the payroll of a private company? If it's just that, I don't see what the fuss is about. But if they're going to be wearing the uniforms of a private company, that's a development I don't like.


Flight attendants of regional carriers wear uniforms with the name of their carrier, not the major for whom they are contracted to fly (and how many passengers could actually identify an airline by the crew uniforms anyway? How many even pay attention?).

Regardless, issues such as what uniforms they wear are so minor as to not even really be relevant to the discussion.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 7, 2012)

jerichowhiskey said:


> I think the better question is whether Amtrak will be able to do anything about the complaints regarding the contracted company. Depending on how the contract is agreed to, they may very well be able to do nothing but wait until it expires.
> 
> (Edit: Which is what pretty much has to happen for the concessions at my soccer team...)


exactly.

I'm all for private services but in my observation its where private and public services interface that waste and ineffciency occurs.

A real private company, for example MacDonalds, has to serve the customer, and if the customer isn't happy he won't come back. So they have to fight for every customer.

A private company that has a lock-in agreement with a public company only has to fulfill some agreed KPI's (and there is often room for worming out and creative misinterpretation of contracts) with scant regard of what the end customer thinks or how the service is appreciated.

A train isn't a high street. There aren't different restaurants the end customer can choose from. There is no incentive for the service supplier to improve. So then at least I like to see a direct chain of command so Amtrak can fire employees who don't do their job right. If there is a private company in between, there's very little they can do.

Hence my moan that private and public don't mix.


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 7, 2012)

Make sure the contract specifies some quality goals, implemented in part by response to customer complaints.


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2012)

cirdan said:


> So what exactly would it mean to privatize the food service? That the staff serving it would also be on the payroll of a private company? If it's just that, I don't see what the fuss is about. But if they're going to be wearing the uniforms of a private company, that's a development I don't like. I also doubt a change like that would massively impact the balance sheet


The fuss would be about being on a different payroll which has its effects on individual pays and also on issues related to Unions retirement etc. Of course any cost savings is not going to magically materialize from nowhere. Someone will get paid less than they do now. One could argue that that is the way it should be, but those that stand the risk of getting paid less may tend to disagree. That is what the fuss usually is all about, regardless of whether what each is getting paid legitimately or otherwise, and the work environment that they enjoy or not, is right or not.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 7, 2012)

Let me present another example.

I work for a big corporation, and our IT service is outsourced. basically the company we outsource to runs the network, the servers, the databases, te hardware, a lot of stuff.

We are pretty unhappy with their service. And the discontent goes all the way to the top. Even our CEO complains.

But there's nothing anybody can do as many years ago we signed a lock-in agreement and its not due for renewal for another several years.

They are a private company making a lot of money with lousy service, but we can't terminate because nominally they are fulfilling what was agreed. It's just that they're stopping there and not doing an iota more.

Now before we oustourced we had our own IT department. The people were actually employed by the company and the newtork and hardware etc were owned by the company. If we thought something wasn't good enough we could go to our managers and present a business case or some good arguments why we needed more or better stuff and we would get the money and it would happen. Now they tell us "the contract says we get this so we get this".

Nominally, we save money because this company is cheaper than when we did it ourselves, but in terms of our overall productivity etc, I doubt that that is still the case.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 7, 2012)

cirdan said:


> jerichowhiskey said:
> 
> 
> > I think the better question is whether Amtrak will be able to do anything about the complaints regarding the contracted company. Depending on how the contract is agreed to, they may very well be able to do nothing but wait until it expires.
> ...


What you describe is a poorly executed and managed contract. A operation well managed from both the owner and contractor standpoint would have service levels as a fundemental aspect of the contract. This is not just in theory. It is in place right now on Amtrak with the Downeaster. Here is an exerpt from the written testimony of Patricia Quinn, the Executive Director of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) before the House committee:



> NNEPRA monitors the financial performance of the Downeaster Café very closely. In addition to receiving daily reports regarding sales, the monthly P&L statement provided by Epicurean _[the food service contractor]_ details every transaction made for the Downeaster Café. We track labor cost, food purchases, spoilage, Business Class comps and many other line items. On a quarterly basis, we meet formally with Epicurean management to review operations, menus, and financial performance and have even established an incentive program if the financial and service goals of the Café are met.
> 
> While it would not work for all, the Downeaster Café model is one which I think other states could consider, particularly in light of the pending implementation of PRIIA 209 _[the federal law that requires states to cover all the costs of state-supported service]_. It is an opportunity for states to have input or even take responsibility for an element of the passenger rail business which has both financial and service related impacts.
> 
> NNEPRA considers the Downeaster Café to be a critical component of the Downeaster service and a success story. CSI _[customer service index]_ scores for the Downeaster are consistently higher than the Amtrak overall average in categories of food quality, café personnel, and overall café experience. In FY12, Downeaster passengers rated their overall café experience 5% higher than other Amtrak services. I believe this is directly related to NNEPRA’s involvement in the service, Epicurean’s dedication to helping us achieve our goals, and Amtrak’s ongoing partnership and support. Together, we constantly strive to find ways to increase revenues, reduce expenses, and improve customer service.	It’s our standard of excellence.


At least in Maine, public and private mix very well.


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2012)

cirdan said:


> Let me present another example.
> 
> I work for a big corporation, and our IT service is outsourced. basically the company we outsource to runs the network, the servers, the databases, te hardware, a lot of stuff.
> 
> ...


At the end of the day it is the responsibility of your company's management to get the service they believe they need and are willing to pay for. I am sure the company outsourced to would be happy to provide additional service for additional money, which your management is unwilling to pay, and use the contract as just an excuse to try to deflect responsibility elsewhere. Afterall why should the service provider provide a service for free that was not part of the original contract, one that was entered into by the same management at your company to save money? Having been on both sides of such relationships, this appears to be a case of normal games that people play. Your company's management would appear to be the primary party at fault in this case, manifested in their inability to manage contracts to get the services that they actually need.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 7, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> > NNEPRA monitors the financial performance of the Downeaster Café very closely. In addition to receiving daily reports regarding sales, the monthly P&L statement provided by Epicurean _[the food service contractor]_ details every transaction made for the Downeaster Café. We track labor cost, food purchases, spoilage, Business Class comps and many other line items. On a quarterly basis, we meet formally with Epicurean management to review operations, menus, and financial performance and have even established an incentive program if the financial and service goals of the Café are met.
> >
> > While it would not work for all, the Downeaster Café model is one which I think other states could consider, particularly in light of the pending implementation of PRIIA 209 _[the federal law that requires states to cover all the costs of state-supported service]_. It is an opportunity for states to have input or even take responsibility for an element of the passenger rail business which has both financial and service related impacts.
> >
> ...


There still isn't any magic there. There's no reason that Amtrak management couldn't do this on their own.

Public/Private is a distraction. The distinction of importance is between organizations that do their job well and organizations that do their jobs poorly, and there are government and private concerns that fall into both categories.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 7, 2012)

jis said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > So what exactly would it mean to privatize the food service? That the staff serving it would also be on the payroll of a private company? If it's just that, I don't see what the fuss is about. But if they're going to be wearing the uniforms of a private company, that's a development I don't like. I also doubt a change like that would massively impact the balance sheet
> ...



The problem is that there is no free lunch. If you pay people less, you hire a different quality of people. So service won't be as good. It is a bit optimistic to think nothing will change only it will cost less. Employees will also change more as they'll look for better opportunities, so you'll spend more time training newbies (which also costs money and time). The question thus is, (a) at what point are savings cancelled out by this inefficiency, and (b) in terms of lower quality service for a lower price, how good is good enough.

The thing is, you cannot split food and Amtrak totally. If people were unhappy with the food, that may put them off going by train again. On LD service the food is an important part of the overall service offering. Is it worth sacrificing that?

I know for one, given the choice, I'd rather pay more for my sleeper than see food service depreciate. Before Amtrak goes and does something stupid, I hope they try and understand their customers. How would they react?


----------



## haolerider (Aug 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > > NNEPRA monitors the financial performance of the Downeaster Café very closely. In addition to receiving daily reports regarding sales, the monthly P&L statement provided by Epicurean _[the food service contractor]_ details every transaction made for the Downeaster Café. We track labor cost, food purchases, spoilage, Business Class comps and many other line items. On a quarterly basis, we meet formally with Epicurean management to review operations, menus, and financial performance and have even established an incentive program if the financial and service goals of the Café are met.
> ...


I think there is a great deal of difference between a non-overnight train and long distance train food service. Do the employees go home after their shift or do they go back to a roomette and then reappear for the next days three meals? All the difference in the world, but this is really all about unions and that was clearly shown when Subway was introduced a few years ago. That certainly did not last long. If Congress demands a major change, the union will be in the center of the decision and if they are interested in their members well being a comprise may be possible, but I am not holding my breath!


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Aug 7, 2012)

cirdan said:


> Before Amtrak goes and does something stupid, I hope they try and understand their customers. How would they react?


This is amtrak we are talking about. I think Amtrak needs to bring back david gunn.


----------



## jis (Aug 7, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > Before Amtrak goes and does something stupid, I hope they try and understand their customers. How would they react?
> ...


Really? You like trains that keep shrinking in size over the years?, with Regionals down to 5 and 4 cars? OK.....


----------



## cirdan (Aug 7, 2012)

jis said:


> At the end of the day it is the responsibility of your company's management to get the service they believe they need and are willing to pay for. I am sure the company outsourced to would be happy to provide additional service for additional money, which your management is unwilling to pay, and use the contract as just an excuse to try to deflect responsibility elsewhere. Afterall why should the service provider provide a service for free that was not part of the original contract, one that was entered into by the same management at your company to save money? Having been on both sides of such relationships, this appears to be a case of normal games that people play. Your company's management would appear to be the primary party at fault in this case, manifested in their inability to manage contracts to get the services that they actually need.


My argument exactly. Outsourcing, when too much emphasis is on saving costs and other aspects are ignored, is a catastrophe waiting to happen. And seeing the present debate is very much centered on costs (and not much else) that's where this seems to be heading.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 7, 2012)

haolerider said:


> I think there is a great deal of difference between a non-overnight train and long distance train food service. Do the employees go home after their shift or do they go back to a roomette and then reappear for the next days three meals? All the difference in the world, but this is really all about unions and that was clearly shown when Subway was introduced a few years ago. That certainly did not last long. If Congress demands a major change, the union will be in the center of the decision and if they are interested in their members well being a comprise may be possible, but I am not holding my breath!


Excellent point, that was actually going to be my follow up to this question that has gone unanswered:



Ryan said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > It goes back to my Waffle House analogy. There are plenty of people willing to work at Waffle House for $2.30/hr plus tips. If they paid a FAIR wage in the diner, they could reduce a tremendous amount of cost, AND hire more people, and fill 24 tables with REVENUE producing guests from Coach.
> ...


You might be able to find someone to work an 8 hour shift at the waffle house for that price, but good luck trying to find someone to work 0530-2200 in a moving train while spending a week at a time away from home.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 7, 2012)

I know this has come up in my mind before, but is there some way that Amtrak could work things whereby on some of the eastern routes the diner staff wouldn't ride through? For example, with the Crescent you could detrain "Team A" at LYH or thereabouts and have "team B" cycle to/from somewhere north of Atlanta (perhaps CLT?). On the Silvers, doing so with RVR and perhaps SAV on the Meteor also comes to mind; Cleveland and Pittsburgh come to mind for the Cap as well.


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 7, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I know this has come up in my mind before, but is there some way that Amtrak could work things whereby on some of the eastern routes the diner staff wouldn't ride through? For example, with the Crescent you could detrain "Team A" at LYH or thereabouts and have "team B" cycle to/from somewhere north of Atlanta (perhaps CLT?). On the Silvers, doing so with RVR and perhaps SAV on the Meteor also comes to mind; Cleveland and Pittsburgh come to mind for the Cap as well.


For one, I don't think that would actually save any staff, and might actually increase crewing costs.

Secondly, if a train is running late, then you might not have a dining car staff available to serve breakfast. Then what?

To add to that, the crews really wouldn't get much sleep, and they'd be groggy/cranky in the morning (some think that customer service is bad now, but wait until you have your Capitol Limited dining car crew wake up at 2 in the morning to transfer from the eastbound to the westbound; or have the crew on the other end get off at midnight in Pittsburgh and have to be back to the station by 5 am for the subsequent departure).


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 8, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> The purpose of this hearing was not to force Amtrak into profitable food and beverage operation. It was to determine the steps Amtrak has taken to implement recommendations made last year by the Amtrak office of the Inspector General (AOIG) to reduce waste and fraud in the food and beverage operation, and also to assess the impact of Amtrak food and beverage costs on state-supported services.


Well, in that case,

(1) Amtrak is implementing electronic point-of-sale tracking to prevent theft and fraud;

(2) the costs in state-supported services are none of Congress's business.

This hearing was the usual sham -- an excuse for a small group of Republicans to attack Amtrak.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 8, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> Just curious - what did happen when they put in the vending machines?


(on the Sunset Limited, replacing the diner)

Massive ridership drop, bad reviews, vandalism...



> PS This is only as a replacement for the AmCafe - the diner would stay as is.


Well, that might actually work....

This gets back to my basic principle of food service on trains:

*The longer the trip takes, the better the food service people demand.*

On long (measured in hours) routes, people start demanding food; the longer the route, the higher the quality of the food service they demand. So, the Downeaster is easy, people will tolerate minimal food. On the Texas Eagle, people will demand a well-stocked full service diner.

Food service on trains, just as it is on planes, has always been a loss leader. If you want to cut food service costs, make the trains *faster* and people will demand less food.

So the entire food service cost thing is a sideshow. Make the trains faster!


----------



## cirdan (Aug 8, 2012)

Maybe this is a bit of a red herring, but ...

I've noticed when I've travelled on Greyhound that there is never any form of food on the actual bus. But on longer journeys the bus will stop by some place where people can get off and get food.

I understand that in the early days, before dining cars were invented, that trains did that too.

It would of course wreck schedules. There would be a risk of people getting lost or wandering off and missing the train. If a train was running late, people would just have to wait as there would be no means of stopping elsewhere. Service-wise it would be a big step backwards, and thus I don't recommend trying it.

But on the other hand it would relieve Amtrak of having to stock and run the restaurant car. More different types of menus could be available. The train would contribute to the local economy and that could actually translate into more support for Amtrak. What do you think?


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 8, 2012)

So many issues here...

- If you pay people less, then you get a lower quality worker? I'll tell you, I would much rather spend my money on service provided by some Waffle House staff than Amtrak staff that gets paid WAY more. You pay someone TOO much, and they feel entitled to their job, they'll NEVER leave, and they will never be incentivized to provide excellent service. It's why some of those International flight attendants, who, back in the Pan-Am days were fresh, polished, and extraordinarily helpful, are now replaced with flight attendants who have 30 years of seniority and want to kick you're behind if you ask for an extra milk.

- I'm sure a Waffle House server would be HAPPY to work 0530 - 2200 with at least 6 hours of break in between and a night or two of hotel stay at the end of their journey, meals paid. And they'd keep their $2.30 plus tip wage.

- Republicans have every right in the world to challenge waste.

- Trains used to stop. Those were the Harvey Houses of fame out in the West. They are no longer because they proved to be less efficient.

- You can increase service AND increase revenue, but it deals with messing with "The Formula". No one messes with "The Formula".


----------



## amamba (Aug 8, 2012)

It's appalling to me that people are advocating paying train servers $2.30/ hr plus tips. That is not a living wage, folks. Taking good jobs and replacing them with low paying jobs is not the answer.


----------



## jis (Aug 8, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> - Trains used to stop. Those were the Harvey Houses of fame out in the West. They are no longer because they proved to be less efficient.


Meanwhile the airlines have quite successfully transition to said "inefficient" model. 

The problem with LD trains in the US is that they are too few per day and too far between to sustain a chain of food establishment set up only to serve trains. Places where there is sufficient traffic the model works just fine. For example most LD passengers in India actually do eat at stations and trains do have timed stops at station, except for only the most elite prestigious ones which have on board food at your seat service, which itself is many cases served from en route stops by ordering ahead.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 8, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> - If you pay people less, then you get a lower quality worker? I'll tell you, I would much rather spend my money on service provided by some Waffle House staff than Amtrak staff that gets paid WAY more. You pay someone TOO much, and they feel entitled to their job, they'll NEVER leave, and they will never be incentivized to provide excellent service. It's why some of those International flight attendants, who, back in the Pan-Am days were fresh, polished, and extraordinarily helpful, are now replaced with flight attendants who have 30 years of seniority and want to kick you're behind if you ask for an extra milk.


You might be able to prove correlation on that one (although I doubt it), but good luck proving causation.


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 8, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> - Trains used to stop. Those were the Harvey Houses of fame out in the West. They are no longer because they proved to be less efficient.


No. Dining cars were introduced because travelers preferred them. Railroads generally preferred meal stops because they made use of the network of beaneries every western railroad had already built for the use of their shift workers. "Dining Car to the Pacific" is a good source for understanding the nuances of this issue.

Amtrak could certainly cut back on its dining cars and use premade meals loaded at intermediate destinations. This could be a great innovation (example: the dinner on #28) or a terrible idea (example: the breakfast on #27). It might be difficult, though, to find appropriate vendors for some meals on some of the western trains, given the tiny size and remoteness of the communities they got through.


----------



## rrdude (Aug 8, 2012)

EB_OBS said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> > amtrakwolverine said:
> ...


While stating the obvious, I believe it deserves repeating: The diners were *designed* to handle seating on both ends, without the staggered-seating scenario. HOWEVER, *funding cuts* eliminated *STAFF* in the diners, both upstairs and in the kitchen down below. Now, unfortunately, the best solution *IS* staggered-seating, for the reasons outlined above.

It's not right, it's seems to many pax the staff is "taking the easy route", but in essence, unless-and-until Amtrak can get more staff in the diners, it's the best option.........which kinda sux.


----------



## rrdude (Aug 8, 2012)

sldispatcher said:


> It's way past time to consider private vendors for food and sleeping car service.
> 
> If doing so would allow continued offerings of these areas and supply Amtrak with a little operational revenue while minimizing the exposure..I'm all for it.
> 
> ...


Not flaming, just some hard facts, and opinions. "All things being equal" (and they never are) privatizing only the food service and sleeper portions of rail operations probably wouldn't result in any savings at all. No matter WHO is employing the staff on board, Railroad Retirement and Railroad Union work rules (in some cases) are going to trump any staff savings. No private firm in the world is going to go into a contract without Amtrak (or the states, like Maine has done) subsidizing the loss or difference between F/S profits, and losses.

You want private competition? Then the INFRASTRUCTURE has to be public, and let the carriers bid on service. But, that's just not the way the rail industry is set up in the USA.........


----------



## EB_OBS (Aug 8, 2012)

rrdude said:


> EB_OBS said:
> 
> 
> > cirdan said:
> ...


Yeah, I've worked with a few people, who were around when the superliners were introduced. Originally there were six or seven waiters in the diners and they each only worked two tables. Obviously I wasn't there. I'm just repeating what some of my co-workers have told me.


----------



## sldispatcher (Aug 8, 2012)

rrdude said:


> Not flaming, just some hard facts, and opinions. "All things being equal" (and they never are) privatizing only the food service and sleeper portions of rail operations probably wouldn't result in any savings at all. No matter WHO is employing the staff on board, Railroad Retirement and Railroad Union work rules (in some cases) are going to trump any staff savings. No private firm in the world is going to go into a contract without Amtrak (or the states, like Maine has done) subsidizing the loss or difference between F/S profits, and losses.
> 
> You want private competition? Then the INFRASTRUCTURE has to be public, and let the carriers bid on service. But, that's just not the way the rail industry is set up in the USA.........


Now you are hitting the sweet spot....and I've been waiting for multiple posts for someone to get to some of these points...

One part of privatizing part of the business is to allow a work around from the Railroad Retirement and Union work rules....

Someone has mentioned that Amtrak needs to fix it internally....I laugh..they've had decades to do it...

They are not set up to put the right fixes in place.

Look, let me give you an upper middle class perspective. You want Amtrak/Passenger Rail service more widely supported? Give the people who have disposable income something worth spending it on. People drop $500/night for a nice meal, B&B type service with great amenities. They drop $3000 grand per person to sit in a seat that lies flat..get convection oven meals..and only lasts a few hours...and isn't all that comfortable anyway (international business class).

Amtrak, in no way, shape or form is able to deliver that service. The Superliner Sleeping cars have too few bedrooms and they are simply not big enough. I get tired of the retread arguments over people saying this is not supposed to be a land cruise. They are EXACTLY right. BUT, if you don't provide something that people feel is worth the perceived value....and make no mistake....AMTRAK is just not there from an upper end standpoint....they will not purchase it or pursue it as an option.

I'm traveling through the UK right now and have been on the Transpeninne Express in first (forgettable) and ScotRail in first (that's more like it). Have the Eurostar, Thallys and East Coast Rail to go...and have paid for First/Premium in all..because I am going to get what I pay for...and paid for Business class over here...because I wanted to. That's not for bragging purposes....that's for backup to make my point...again.

AMTRAK, until it sheds responsibility for the dining/sleeping car arrangements and lets a private company..that knows hospitality/sleeping and handles food service to the level that people expect who are paying $600 or more a night for that privilege...then we will be STUCK in this quagmire of the last several decades.

Again, just my 2 cents.


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 8, 2012)

sldispatcher said:


> AMTRAK, until it sheds responsibility for the dining/sleeping car arrangements and lets a private company..that knows hospitality/sleeping and handles food service to the level that people expect who are paying $600 or more a night for that privilege...then we will be STUCK in this quagmire of the last several decades.


There have actually been a couple of attempts at attaching private cars to the back of Amtrak trains and running a scheduled luxury service, using Amtrak as a means of transportation. They didn't make any money and had to shut down.

There's another company planning to give it a go, so we'll see how that works out.

That is, more or less, what you're suggesting here. Someone (not Amtrak) handles the service, while Amtrak handles the transportation. Maybe some day it will work, but it hasn't thus far.


----------



## rrdude (Aug 8, 2012)

> Yeah, I've worked with a few people, who were around when the superliners were introduced. Originally there were six or seven waiters in the diners and they each only worked two tables. Obviously I wasn't there. I'm just repeating what some of my co-workers have told me.


I *was* there, and *worked those new cars,* and let me tell you, we made a helluva a lot of money in tips, AND filled the diners and *cranked out* meals.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 8, 2012)

Pretty sure you messed that quote up.


----------



## pebbleworm (Aug 8, 2012)

One privatized option is the New Pullman service that will start in the fall. Definitely not cheap, but more affordable tha the late American Orient Express. There is a thread here:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/47684-the-new-pullman-sleeper-prices-are-now-posted/

A price list here:

http://www.travelpullman.com/media_files/IPH-005_SalesSheet1_FINAL_SR.pdf

And just for fun, here is an interesting take on the American Orient Express:

http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/johnny_berlin

We'll see what happens.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 9, 2012)

I would argue that American Orient Express was, if neither terribly affordable nor useful as functional transportation, at least modestly successful. IIRC, it wasn't that AOE itself failed...it's that it got used as a piggybank by a corporate parent that also ran a railcar-building business which failed, bringing AOE down with it.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 9, 2012)

pebbleworm said:


> One privatized option is the New Pullman service that will start in the fall. Definitely not cheap, but more affordable tha the late American Orient Express. There is a thread here:
> 
> http://discuss.amtra...are-now-posted/
> 
> ...


We have discussed this before, and I wish this new service well.

However, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking this will develop into a proper public service comparable to Amtrak's own cars. Private operators will cherry-pick routes (and I don't mean that negatively), and the number of customers interested limits the number of trains they can do this. Right now they are looking at a twice-weekly service on two different trains. I don't expect it will ever expand significantly beyond that.

It's like crossing the Atlantic. I can catch any one of several dozen flights that leave every day. Or if I want to go by ship, I can choose from maybe one or two saliings a month (in the Summer, probably nothing in the Winter). Why aren't there more ships and more sailings? Because that's all the market will support.

You can argue, the ship isn't that expensive. It probably costs less than first class on the plane. And it's much more comfortable in every respect to be on a ship. But the problem is that many of those who occupy those expensive seats on the plane are business travellers, and crossing the Atlantic by ship is just not really compatible with the schedule of a businessman. Trying to think otherwise is to chase a market that bdoesn't exist.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 9, 2012)

cirdan said:


> pebbleworm said:
> 
> 
> > One privatized option is the New Pullman service that will start in the fall. Definitely not cheap, but more affordable tha the late American Orient Express. There is a thread here:
> ...


I'm honestly not convinced that there isn't a market for the "overnight trip" in the US, particularly as the convenience of air travel slides. However, there are very few markets where there is a decent option for this both ways (and if anything, Amtrak is moving "the other way" on this front with the planned changes to the Cap's schedule). I suspect the question will be answered a bit more once 66/67 get their sleeper back, but my understanding is that 66/67 had a packed sleeper up until it was cut.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 10, 2012)

Just a thought that came into my head.

I have at times pondered on the economics of sleeper cars.

I can book a roomette for sole occupancy but I can also book it for double occupancy. I was wondering in which situation Amtrak makes more money. Of course in sole occupancy there is one place that Amtrak is unable to sell. In fact if there are two of us travelling and we decide to take a roomette each rather than sharing one, then there is one roomette and potentially two tickets that amtrak cannot sell to anybody else, and if the train is sold out, people are being turned back.

I have sometimes wondered whether that is an antisocial choice, seeing i'm depriving somebody else of a trip and Amtrak of the fare.

However, if Amtrak really does lose food money on every passenger, then surely I am paying for two sets of meals but only eating one. That should be good for their bottom line. Unless of course they stock that extra food anyway and end up throwing the extras away.

Any ideas?


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 10, 2012)

cirdan said:


> However, if Amtrak really does lose food money on every passenger, then surely I am paying for two sets of meals but only eating one. That should be good for their bottom line. Unless of course they stock that extra food anyway and end up throwing the extras away.


Just as in running the trains at a loss, Amtrak does not lose money on each passenger. It's the whole service that loses money.

The marginal cost of serving one additional meal is fairly low, and whatever price the passenger pays easily covers that marginal cost. What causes the whole service to lose money is that you're paying for a crew, a car (with maintenance) and various support services that don't get one cent cheaper just because there's one less person traveling. The additional rail fare from the second person in a sleeper would easily exceed the cost of delivering service to one more person, because all of the other expenses are fixed (even if we assume that Amtrak could get away with buying one less steak for the dining car that trip).

By using the loss-per-passenger logic (whether it's on food service in particular or train service as a whole), one can easily come to the (ridiculous) conclusion that the trains wouldn't lose any money if people simply didn't ride. Reality is just the opposite.


----------



## stonesfan (Aug 10, 2012)

Amtrak is a SERVICE which is funded by the taxpayer is it not? Unfortunately services tend not to make much money, in fact, they tend to gobble up cash in huge sums! I know were talking politics here, but some people seem to think everything needs to run as a profit to make it viable. I'm all for enterprise but theres some things which are going to lose money but for a good cause.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2012)

Shortline said:


> NE933 said:
> 
> 
> > shelzp said:
> ...


You don't have to bring back the bar from the Silver Streak, you can ride it any time you're willing to pay the price The CPR (Amroad!) Budd equipment used in Silver Strwak is still polishing the rails for Via Rail, primarily on The Canadian..

G.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 14, 2012)

rrdude said:


> > Yeah, I've worked with a few people, who were around when the superliners were introduced. Originally there were six or seven waiters in the diners and they each only worked two tables. Obviously I wasn't there. I'm just repeating what some of my co-workers have told me.
> 
> 
> I *was* there, and *worked those new cars,* and let me tell you, we made a helluva a lot of money in tips, AND filled the diners and *cranked out* meals.


The Auto Train still does do this to some extent, that is to say, load up the entire car at once. I can't truly speak to the kitchen staff, although I'm sure that there are at least 2 downstairs and quite probably 3 if not 4. But up top if they're just using the dining car they have 4 SA's and 1 LSA working the sleeper diner. And when they go to overflow seating in the cafe car, they add I believe 2 more SA's although it was hard to keep track of just how many people were running around so it might have been just 1.

I have no idea how many they use in coach during busy times, but clearly it has to be more when they run two dining cars, one just for seating and one for seating & all cooking. There they must have at least 8 SA's, if not more and easily 4 down in the kitchen.


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 14, 2012)

About the Auto Train, how did the buffet cars work? Why were they replaced with regular dining cars?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 14, 2012)

cirdan said:


> pebbleworm said:
> 
> 
> > One privatized option is the New Pullman service that will start in the fall. Definitely not cheap, but more affordable tha the late American Orient Express. There is a thread here:
> ...


Actually, there's still regular liner service across the Atlantic every month, maybe not in Winter, but this is in addition to cruise ship servies. There is a market to support more ships than you said, but probably not for more ships than what is actually there. Also, liner fares in a regular room costs about the same as airline J (business class), sometimes even less, but more expensive than economy.

I must agree with Anderson, there is a market for evening-to-morning trains plus some longer trips for tourists. So the new "Pullman" service might actually expand to a Western LD or two, who knows, while Amtrak should try out more evening-to-morning trains that have lots of Sleepers.



NY Penn said:


> About the Auto Train, how did the buffet cars work? Why were they replaced with regular dining cars?


I don't know how they worked but I would expect that htey were replaced because they lost too much money.


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I know this has come up in my mind before, but is there some way that Amtrak could work things whereby on some of the eastern routes the diner staff wouldn't ride through? For example, with the Crescent you could detrain "Team A" at LYH or thereabouts and have "team B" cycle to/from somewhere north of Atlanta (perhaps CLT?). On the Silvers, doing so with RVR and perhaps SAV on the Meteor also comes to mind; Cleveland and Pittsburgh come to mind for the Cap as well.


That would sure free up a lot of roomettes for revenue service. Lets be generous and say that the roomette could be potentially only going to be occupied by one person from WAS to ATL: For each worker that stays on the train overnight a there is a potential of $239 lost revenue ($108 rail fare + $131 roomette). Now that is a low price, but as the roomettes are selling you can find them going for $500+.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 14, 2012)

Guest said:


> 1344986925[/url]' post='387303']
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> ...


Don't forget that those employees are using rooms in the trans-dorm on Superliners. (The CL was mentioned and uses Superliner equipment!) Those rooms could *NEVER* be revenue rooms!


----------



## Guest (Aug 14, 2012)

Guest said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > I know this has come up in my mind before, but is there some way that Amtrak could work things whereby on some of the eastern routes the diner staff wouldn't ride through? For example, with the Crescent you could detrain "Team A" at LYH or thereabouts and have "team B" cycle to/from somewhere north of Atlanta (perhaps CLT?). On the Silvers, doing so with RVR and perhaps SAV on the Meteor also comes to mind; Cleveland and Pittsburgh come to mind for the Cap as well.
> ...


Team A based out of Greenville, SC gets on early in the morning and spends the night in a hotel in NOL. Next day they return home. Team B works Lynchburg-NYP-Lynchburg same day turn. Next day for that crew is off to rest. If the train is so late that it interrupts meals then a shuttle can be arranged to bring the crews where they need them


----------



## Guestlsa (Aug 14, 2012)

Oh k so if team a train is getting off at Atlanta where would they stay ? or better lets say train is late and since team a still on train after 10 ( that's what time we are paid up to) where would sleep ? you would have to pay for hotel. The average worker gets less than 8 hours ( I might be wrong on some routes) at their layover (overnight) .


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Aug 14, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > About the Auto Train, how did the buffet cars work? Why were they replaced with regular dining cars?
> ...


I've only seen a full diner and a lounge. No buffet in 7 round trips. Must have been before my AT time.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 14, 2012)

AutoTrDvr said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > NY Penn said:
> ...


I believe the buffets were used during the period the Auto Train used single-level equipment. When the AT was converted to Superliners (as the Superliner II's came into service), the buffets went away.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Aug 14, 2012)

pebbleworm said:


> http://www.snagfilms...e/johnny_berlin


I like this link - look at the end


----------



## Guestlsa (Aug 15, 2012)

So why pay for hotel when team a can just work all way. You asking them to pay for hotel and a shuttle to and from when they can just pay them for whole trip. When I started in 2002 we had our own car (dorm) do you think we want to share with passengers ? I have nothing against any of them ( met a lot of nice ones ) but we like our privacy .


----------



## OBS (Aug 16, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> AutoTrDvr said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


That is correct.


----------

