# AGR Prohibition of Stopovers on Award Connections



## jmbgeg (Jun 8, 2010)

I certainly understand that passengers should not be able to board, detrain and later reboard a paid or award fare from the departure city to the termination point of a train on one ticket. For example, say you ticket the Empire Builder from Chicago to Portland; you should not be able to hop off and overnight in Minneapolis and then reboard the same train in MSP under the same ticket the next day. That would block other passengers buying CHI-PDX tickets both days.

Now, on award travel, if I wanted to take the Builder on an award ticket from Chicago to LAX, but overnight at the termination of the Builder in Portland; before taking the Coast Starlight from PDX to LAX the next day, it breaks up neither the Builder or Starlight. Why do they prohibit the one night PDX overnight?

At a minimum, I believe they should allow the overnight if the same class of service is not available on the connecting train. Say that in this hypothetical I wanted to ticket a deluxe bedroom from Chicago to LAX, and a bedroom was available on the Builder, but only a roomette, or maybe even only coach; on the Starlight (and the bedroom would be available the day after the overnight). That type of waiver is reasonable, and appropriate for Select Plus and possibly other AGR members.

Ideally, I believe that a one night overnight between two long distance trains should be allowable without conditions. It does not break up or block a segment.

Is there something I am missing? What is the foundation of the rule precluding an overnight between two connecting long distance trains on an AGR ticket?


----------



## rrdude (Jun 9, 2010)

I would agree, as long as it is at the termination point, what's the downside? I can't figure what it would be. It would probably actually BENEFIT Amtrak, as there MAY be fewer missed conx.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 9, 2010)

Ditto, suggest you contact CR with this idea/question since they are taking over AGR completely in the fall! Probably a good time to have inpout since there almost certainly will be new people, hopefully some new ideas and attitudes that will benefit Amtrak and us!Sometimes common sense even applies in Government operations contrary to the opinions of the no nothings!   :lol:


----------



## Rail Freak (Jun 9, 2010)

I'm still trying to figure out ELP-WPT???? 

RF


----------



## alanh (Jun 9, 2010)

An obvious reason why they may not allow it is that people may actually book two tickets to get a stopover, and AGR doesn't want to lose that.


----------



## rrdude (Jun 9, 2010)

alanh said:


> An obvious reason why they may not allow it is that people may actually book two tickets to get a stopover, and AGR doesn't want to lose that.


???? Not lose what?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 9, 2010)

alanh said:


> An obvious reason why they may not allow it is that people may actually book two tickets to get a stopover, and AGR doesn't want to lose that.


Easy to handle, only places like NOL/EMY and SAS where there are overnight mandatory layovers would apply automatically! Of course you stay on your own nickel in these cases! Which brings up the question in the case of the EB: Why is one forced to take the PDX section to SPK when connecting from the CS,you could just as easliy ride to SEA, spend the night and ride the next day SEA section on #8. Same price,same train after SPK, it would open up more rooms on the PDX section since there is only one sleeper and they are hard to book! I think lots of folks would like options like this, probably others have similar and even better ideas/examples! Now is a good time for new ideas and changes with AGR as Ive said, we need to share with each other and Amtrak on this!


----------



## the_traveler (Jun 9, 2010)

rrdude said:


> alanh said:
> 
> 
> > An obvious reason why they may not allow it is that people may actually book two tickets to get a stopover, and AGR doesn't want to lose that.
> ...


Yeah, not lose what?

Just say PDX-CHI-WAS. If they book a roomette, it's 35,000 points. If someone books PDX-CHI, that's 2 zones and 20K. if they then get a 2nd ticket for CHI-WAS, that's another 2 zones and another 20K! So booking straight thru = 35K, and booking 2 tickets = 40K! 

So how does AGR lose? :huh:


----------



## jmbgeg (Jun 9, 2010)

alanh said:


> An obvious reason why they may not allow it is that people may actually book two tickets to get a stopover, and AGR doesn't want to lose that.


Amtrak/AGR would rarely be losing something by modifying this policy.

If the suggestion is that someone would cash in two awards because of the stopover:

-Many if not most people woulds have enough points to do that.

-Those that have adequate points for the second award would seriously question whether a one night stopover is really worth a second award (and my determination is that it is not).

Both these arguments would lead a reasonable person to conclude that AGR would not lose an opportunity to burn off more member points with a second award very often.

Now, the same analysis applies to the question of whether Amtrak would loose opportunities to sell paid tickets. In an AGR trip that I am actually taking this month I wanted to take the EB SPK-SEA and connect with the second day's CS instead of the EB SPK-PDX connecting southbound with the CS on the same day. With sleeper fares prevailing at high bucket prices there was no way I was going to buy a ticket at those prices ($612) a day earlier to catch the CS just to spend a stopover night in Seattle. On the issue of the loss of opportunity to sell "stopover" related paid tickets, it is illusory in most cases.


----------



## sechs (Jun 10, 2010)

Because it is entirely possible for someone to miss their second leg, but, because they inserted a stopover, neither Amtrak nor AGR is responsible to do anything for this passenger, such a policy is just as likely to be useful as detrimental; so, it's much easier to keep the AGR policy aligned with the regular Amtrak policy.


----------



## rrdude (Jun 10, 2010)

sechs said:


> Because it is entirely possible for someone to miss their second leg, but, because they inserted a stopover, neither Amtrak nor AGR is responsible to do anything for this passenger, such a policy is just as likely to be useful as detrimental; so, it's much easier to keep the AGR policy aligned with the regular Amtrak policy.


You think MORE pax would miss the second leg if stopovers were allowed? I think the opposite. Due to missed conx or late trains, Amtrak would probably come out ahead. I don't think it would take much computer programming to allow AGR members a ONE DAY stop over. Anything more than that really _should_ be two AGR awards.

But with infrequent (i.e. daily or thrice-weekly) departures, and late trains, or "Forced" conx like CS north to PDX to catch the EB, a little leeway from AGR would benefit both parties involved, me thinks...................

But what the Hell do I know anyway, I'm not GML. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2010)

For a reward on Continental with the following conditions: Three cabins for full first class, coast to coast, 2 people, easypass availability; it would cost 240K miles roundtrip. AGR gives a full bedroom for 2 people with the most generous availability in the industry for 100K roundtrip. AGR is a bargain already; you wont hear me complain a peep about no stopovers.


----------



## rrdude (Jun 10, 2010)

Guest said:


> For a reward on Continental with the following conditions: Three cabins for full first class, coast to coast, 2 people, easypass availability; it would cost 240K miles roundtrip. AGR gives a full bedroom for 2 people with the most generous availability in the industry for 100K roundtrip. AGR is a bargain already; you wont hear me complain a peep about no stopovers.


I don't wanna sound like a complainer, and I agree, good rewards for the $$$ spent. I just think it would benefit AGR, Amtrak, and the AGR member if they allowed something like a ONE DAY stop-over.


----------



## alanh (Jun 10, 2010)

Well, yes, I meant it would mean that more miles would be burned if stopovers aren't allowed. Either the person will book two tickets (using more points), or pay money for one of the tickets. Either way, Amtrak is better off.

Yes, some people will just omit the stopover, but not 100%.


----------



## jmbgeg (Jun 10, 2010)

alanh said:


> Well, yes, I meant it would mean that more miles would be burned if stopovers aren't allowed. Either the person will book two tickets (using more points), or pay money for one of the tickets. Either way, Amtrak is better off.
> Yes, some people will just omit the stopover, but not 100%.


Do they want to be customer service oriented to their Select + members?


----------



## alanh (Jun 10, 2010)

It's always a tradeoff -- setting price points and rewards that keep customers, while not giving away the store. It would be even more customer service oriented to give Select + free upgrades to sleepers. They would absolutely love it. People would travel lots of extra segments to get Select +. It would also cost Amtrak a fortune, since the cost of providing it wouldn't be covered by the extra business.

It appears that stopovers are currently on the "give away the store" side of the equation, though that could of course change. These sorts of calculations aren't all that scientific as they're trying to guess human reactions to the promotions.

The reasoning follow is what's in it for Amtrak? As noted above, there are fewer misconnects and it adds to the value of the program to the customer. On the other hand, they lose the extra point burn or purchased tickets from the current system when people do stopover.


----------



## sechs (Jun 10, 2010)

rrdude said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > Because it is entirely possible for someone to miss their second leg, but, because they inserted a stopover, neither Amtrak nor AGR is responsible to do anything for this passenger, such a policy is just as likely to be useful as detrimental; so, it's much easier to keep the AGR policy aligned with the regular Amtrak policy.
> ...


You totally missed the point.
It's not whether there are missed connections or not -- there always will be. It's what happens when that occurs.


----------



## jmbgeg (Jun 11, 2010)

sechs said:


> Because it is entirely possible for someone to miss their second leg, but, because they inserted a stopover, neither Amtrak nor AGR is responsible to do anything for this passenger, such a policy is just as likely to be useful as detrimental; so, it's much easier to keep the AGR policy aligned with the regular Amtrak policy.


I am not sure that I undertand your point(s).

Using the EB to CS connections as a hypothetical, the westbound EB connection to the CS is guaranteed, as is the northbound CS connection to the EB. There is a 4.25 hour buffer between the westbound EB and the CS; and a 1.08 hour buffer between the northbound CS and the EB. Rarely does the westbound EB misconnect with the CS. A seriously late northbound CS can cause a misconnect with the EB (but that can sometimes be countered with a bsing of eastbound passngers from Klamath Falls to Pasco to catch the EB in route instead of in PDX).

As I understand Amtrak policy, a stopover in PDX westbound on the EB or a stopover in PDX on the CS northbound would make the connection non-guaranteed. So it should be if AGR allows the stopover. I can hardly imagine a scenario where a passenger arriving in Portland on the westbound EB or on the northbound CS would miss the connecting trains a day later. Am I missing something in your point? If the unbundled connection was not guaranteed it would not worry me in the least.


----------



## sechs (Jun 12, 2010)

jmbgeg said:


> If the unbundled connection was not guaranteed it would not worry me in the least.


That's you.
I find it comforting to know that Amtrak can (and has) put me up for two nights due to a missed connection; while you, on the other hand, would not be worried "in the least" at the possibility of, having planned to stop over for only one night, being responsible for a second night *and* finding your own way to your destination. Oh, and still being out the points.

Furthurmore, even though you and I understand this possibility, even when warned, many won't. That's a PR disaster in the making.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2010)

jmbgeg said:


> alanh said:
> 
> 
> > Well, yes, I meant it would mean that more miles would be burned if stopovers aren't allowed. Either the person will book two tickets (using more points), or pay money for one of the tickets. Either way, Amtrak is better off.
> ...


What do stopovers have to do with customer service? Seems more like a pricing issue to me.


----------



## jmbgeg (Jun 12, 2010)

Guest said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > alanh said:
> ...


First, transition from a guest to a board member.

Customer service to an AGR member who spends five figures a year on Amtrak means what I said,


----------



## Ispolkom (Jun 12, 2010)

Is there any reasoning behind this prohibition or any other AGR redemption rule, past the quick and dirty "If it's not on Arrow you can't book it?" Does anybody at AGR care about long-distance awards? I see little evidence of anything but the most sporadic attention to anything outside of the Northeast Corridor.

Heck, is there actually a 100% prohibition on stopovers? I've personally never convinced an AGR agent to book an award trip with an overnight stopover, but others have.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 13, 2010)

The simple answer to this question is that's the way it works with a normal reservation. In general, if you book an overnight stay, you don't get a "continuing" fare. You get charged one price for the 1st leg and another price for the second leg. The simplest example would be a cross country trip with a night in Chicago thrown in vs. a same day transfer. Spend that night, and you'll pay a lot more than if you went straight through.

AGR simply kept that same basic practice when they set up their rules.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jun 13, 2010)

This is the set up that keeps me from going from Miami to Chicago via NYP. This is an interesting routing because I could do the Silver star, overnight in NYC< and then the Lake Shore Limited to Chicago. I'm not complaining though, I just wish I could do it. LOL


----------



## jmbgeg (Jun 20, 2010)

AlanB said:


> The simple answer to this question is that's the way it works with a normal reservation. In general, if you book an overnight stay, you don't get a "continuing" fare. You get charged one price for the 1st leg and another price for the second leg. The simplest example would be a cross country trip with a night in Chicago thrown in vs. a same day transfer. Spend that night, and you'll pay a lot more than if you went straight through.
> AGR simply kept that same basic practice when they set up their rules.


That makes me feel better. I did not know that.


----------

