# More restrictive ticketing non refundable no changes coming March 1, 2020



## Amtrakfflyer (Dec 13, 2019)

https://markets.businessinsider.com...ble-fares-2020-leaked-memo-2019-12-1028763138

Another way to sock it to LD riders who book months in advance. I have no issue with non refundable but no changes is an issue when buying a $2000 ticket months in advance. Especially with close in or walk up sleeper travel priced through the roof now. This will hit long distance riders a lot more then corridor travelers.

MODERATOR NOTE: a new thread started 2/20/20 based on a rumor that the changes will occur on 3/1/20 was merged into this existing thread.


----------



## Acela150 (Dec 13, 2019)

Behind a paywall.


----------



## Palmetto (Dec 13, 2019)

Wait until the baggage fees start.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Dec 13, 2019)

Acela150 said:


> Behind a paywall.


Not for me?


----------



## Qapla (Dec 13, 2019)

I could not read the article ... 


> This story requires our BI Prime membership. To read the full article, simply click here to claim your deal and get access to all exclusive Business Insider PRIME content.


----------



## Chey (Dec 13, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Not for me?



When I clicked the link it gave the headline but said a Business Insider Prime membership is require to access the article.


----------



## niemi24s (Dec 13, 2019)

This is all I could manage to capture before the "join" window blocked everything:




Oh goody. A leaked memo about what Amtrak is considering. Think of all the dastardly things Amtrak considers that _aren't_ leaked!!


----------



## 41bridge (Dec 13, 2019)

_REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
_

_Amtrak is considering making its cheapest fares nonrefundable and nonchangeable, according to an internal memo seen by Business Insider. _
_Other fares will see a 25% cancellation fee and 15% change fee within 14 days of travel. _
_Ancillary revenue and more fare segmentation has been a big focus of Amtrak leadership recently, as they seek to bring many airline-style practices to the railroad._
_
https://markets.businessinsider.com...ble-fares-2020-leaked-memo-2019-12-1028763138

A screw job for the passengers._


----------



## Qapla (Dec 13, 2019)

And much of this is because they just don't want to admit that the highway and skyway systems are Gov't supported so they want Amtrak to be "profitable" without the same amount of "free assistance" the other means of travel get.


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2019)

http://cryptodictation.com/2019/12/...ees-non-refundable-fares-in-2020-leaked-memo/


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 13, 2019)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> https://markets.businessinsider.com...ble-fares-2020-leaked-memo-2019-12-1028763138
> 
> Another way to sock it to LD riders who book months in advance. I have no issue with non refundable but no changes is an issue when buying a $2000 ticket months in advance. Especially with close in or walk up sleeper travel priced through the roof now. This will hit long distance riders a lot more then corridor travelers.


According to RPA, the average sleeper fare is about $280. I would suspect that a $2,000 fare is not one of the low-bucket fares that will become non-refundable. I also suspect that last-minute walk-up fares will continue to be refundable, although a passenger buying them at the last minute will have less reason to cancel their trip.

And why should this not hurt corridor travelers as much as long-distance travelers? I'm not sure whether this is the smartest thing for Amtrak to do, especially when they don't have on-time performance under control, but, on the other hand, the airlines do it, and people still fly.


----------



## amtrakpass (Dec 14, 2019)

I could understand a small cancellation fee for a cash refund but why have a fee for a evoucher? I wouldn't even mind if the evoucher had a shorter time period where you had to use it. I work on call and my work schedule varies. It is impossible for me to not have to change travel plans on occasion as I expect it is for many other folks for their own reasons


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 14, 2019)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> https://markets.businessinsider.com...ble-fares-2020-leaked-memo-2019-12-1028763138
> 
> Another way to sock it to LD riders who book months in advance. I have no issue with non refundable but no changes is an issue when buying a $2000 ticket months in advance. Especially with close in or walk up sleeper travel priced through the roof now. This will hit long distance riders a lot more then corridor travelers.



I think the fee/restrictions are going to be based on what tier of ticket you get. The $2000 trip is going to be fine as it’s for a sleeper. “Flexible” tier coach/Acela business tickets and premium tickets (premium would be northeast regional and state supported business class, Acela first, and long distance business/sleeper) will still have flexible cancellations/changes. It’s if you buy a saver or value coach/Acela business where the fees will come in to play. Saver fares are going to be the most restrictive.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 14, 2019)

lordsigma said:


> I think the fee/restrictions are going to be based on what tier of ticket you get. The $2000 trip is going to be fine as it’s for a sleeper. “Flexible” tier coach/Acela business tickets and premium tickets (premium would be northeast regional and state supported business class, Acela first, and long distance business/sleeper) will still have flexible cancellations/changes. It’s if you buy a saver or value coach/Acela business where the fees will come in to play. Saver fares are going to be the most restrictive.


Actually, sleeper fares (or at least the accommodation charge) already has some cancellation penalties. I think they apply if you cancel within 14 days of the trip. I had to do that about 5 years ago. I think the rail fare was refundable to my credit card (minus a penalty), but the sleeper charge wasn't. They did offer an e-voucher for the whole thing without penalties, which is what I took, as I ride the corridor a lot, and so had a reasonable expectation of spending down the whole $400 (which I did.)


----------



## railiner (Dec 14, 2019)

It comes as no surprise to me, especially considering who is running Amtrak, that they are using more and more of airline means to raise revenue...
As Palmetto has said...it’s probably only a matter of time before baggage fees come along...


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 14, 2019)

A good thing about taking Amtrak vs flying is that there is no change fee on Amtrak instead of the LARGE change fee on most airline tickets.

However, in case of inclement weather, most airlines a few days in advance will post a notice and give you an opportunity to change your flight without a change fee or additional cost for a flight on another day. Amtrak gives you this opportunity also, without a change fee - but you MUST pay the current fare of the new ticket!

A good example of this is my trip in early December. With a major snowstorm approaching the northeast on Monday, airlines knowing there will be delays and possible airport closures, offered an opportunity to change your flight beginning the weekend before. I had a reservation on Amtrak on Monday morning during the height of the storm. I was not given that opportunity! My choices were get to the station on Monday morning or change to another train and pay a fare of $160 instead of $95!

So I got a ride to the station. Besides driving slow, we had to follow a snowplow for MILES. As we pulled up to the station, the train was pulling in! If we got there a minute later, I would have missed the train and lost my reservation. (And yes, I left early from home due to the weather.)

So I see one advantage of flying instead of taking Amtrak. I would have loved to have the opportunity to change without an additional cost. True, there was no change fee, but I would have had to pay $65 more for a new ticket.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Dec 14, 2019)

But the train was running while planes might have been ground. 

If you'd been late to the airport and the plane was on time you would have lost your fare as well. The airlines only do that to keep people out of the airport when they are pretty sure they won't be flying, they don't care about whether you can get there or not. And Amtrak refunds if they cancel don't they? 

(it also seems to me that Amtrak has done this in advance of hurricanes and such)


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 14, 2019)

railiner said:


> It comes as no surprise to me, especially considering who is running Amtrak, that they are using more and more of airline means to raise revenue...
> As Palmetto has said...it’s probably only a matter of time before baggage fees come along...


Along with "Fees" for picking your seat, talking with a Live Agent, paper tickets, change fees etc. etc.


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 14, 2019)

Yes, Amtrak has if they cancel or may cancel the train. 

In my case, I could not change to a different train without paying more. And due to road conditions, it was advised for no unnecessary travel. (My necessary travel was to get to the station - or pay a much higher fare.) If it was an airline, I could have changed and left earlier or later.


----------



## RichieRich (Dec 14, 2019)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> But the train was running while planes might have been ground.


I've had many AT trips canceled (email/text notification) on the way TO the station when planes were flying!!! . YES, you do get a refund,,,but you are on your own to reschedule yourself (at the going rate). I've met people that stayed at the Comfort Inn for THREE days waiting for an opening.


----------



## RSG (Dec 14, 2019)

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, sleeper fares (or at least the accommodation charge) already has some cancellation penalties. I think they apply if you cancel within 14 days of the trip. I had to do that about 5 years ago. I think the rail fare was refundable to my credit card (minus a penalty), but the sleeper charge wasn't. They did offer an e-voucher for the whole thing without penalties, which is what I took, as I ride the corridor a lot, and so had a reasonable expectation of spending down the whole $400 (which I did.)


From my experience over the past 18 months, a cancellation fee applies for everything except the fully refundable coach tickets after the change-your-mind cancellation window has passed. This, of course, applies no matter if you choose a refund (which is often not available) or an eVoucher. The only way around this is to rebook travel for a future date, then cancel the rebooking within the free cancellation window.

There are two issues I have with any additional changes to the current policy. One, if the only option is an eVoucher, then no cancellation fee should apply (and the no-change-fee should be retained, if for no other reason than to differentiate rail travel from the airlines). I would allow an exception for travel cancelled within 24 hours of departure, but still, that would be more restrictive than what the airlines used to have as routine policy.

Two, there is currently little benefit for AGR members, other than the accumulation of points for reward travel. Even the upper tier benefits largely only benefit corridor travelers (such as complimentary anytime lounge access). Contrast that to most hotel chains and some airlines, where the better a customer one is the more benefits one receives--in addition to higher point accumulations--and having most fees waived. There are many reasons for the monopolistic nature of US rail travel, but the company providing the service doesn't have to act like an exclusive provider of the service.


----------



## RSG (Dec 14, 2019)

RichieRich said:


> I've met people that stayed at the Comfort Inn for THREE days waiting for an opening.


Is this really any different than when airlines cancel flights? I've seen news stories of people stranded in the airport when flights are cancelled and after a particularly nasty weather event, the news crews will go back after the weather has cleared for a follow-up story and there will be at least one traveler (usually a family) who will say they've spent the past three nights in a hotel waiting to be rebooked. They are rarely asked, but I know I would be safe in saying it was at their own expense. (In these cases, travel insurance would likely have covered at least part of any additional expense, just sayin'.)

Similarly, when I cancel Amtrak reservations for exactly the scenario @the_traveler presents, I've been asked by friends why I didn't just take the airlines to start the trip. But when 500 flights are canceled at the nearest airport for the same reason, nobody is leaving via that method anytime soon, least of all a new customer without a prior reservation. It's just one of the hazards of modern travel; airlines aren't adding more flights after a severe weather event just as Amtrak isn't adding more trains (or cars) after a similar event.


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 14, 2019)

No, it’s not different. But the airlines give you a choice to rebook before you even leave for the airport - and for the same fare!

Last January, I flew to Miami. Before I returned, there was a big snowstorm that was expected to snail air traffic. So Delta offered a no change fee option. I was “stuck” in Miami for 2 days while temperatures were about 0° and the was 2 feet of snow in NYS! (Yes, I had to pay for a hotel - but at least I knew about it in advance and when I was leaving.)


----------



## RSG (Dec 14, 2019)

the_traveler said:


> No, it’s not different. But the airlines give you a choice to rebook before you even leave for the airport - and for the same fare!
> 
> Last January, I flew to Miami. Before I returned, there was a big snowstorm that was expected to snail air traffic. So Delta offered a no change fee option. I was “stuck” in Miami for 2 days while temperatures were about 0° and the was 2 feet of snow in NYS! (Yes, I had to pay for a hotel - but at least I knew about it in advance and when I was leaving.)


Part of the reason is the way airline travel is priced and booked, with classes for each fare category. (Largely as a legacy from the days of regulated air travel). So if a passenger is holding a ticket for a "Q" class seat, then rebooking is done at the same class level, ie, the "Q" class. If no seats are available for that class, then another class would be offered, but at the prevailing price differential.

Could Amtrak do something similar? Yes, but that would upend the pricing and fare model in place for decades. (It would be easy/ier if they would give a waiver based on AGR status and would at least soften the blow for otherwise unhappy passengers.) But implementing an across-the-board change would be like offering a food item after the diner has closed---just not doable.

But let's not give the airlines too many props for this seemingly benevolent policy. As Metra Electric Rider noted, the reason the airlines are proactive is because they don't want people hanging out at the airport---or more accurately, they don't want pictures of people hanging out at the airport because flights were cancelled and passengers claimed to be given insufficient notice. As a side benefit, they receive positive PR when news sources announce that change fees are being waived in advance or during a storm. (Never mind the fact that change fees weren't even a thing not that long ago.) It makes them look like good guys at the same time someone somewhere in the parent company is figuring out how to cram another row of seats in an already crowded aircraft or reduce the in-cabin airflow in order to save on fuel costs.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 14, 2019)

As one of the mobsters in the movie "The Godfather" remarked..."It's only business." Clearly, Anderson will do whatever it takes to make Amtrak 'profitable'. At least, in terms of direct operating costs.

What makes bundles of money for the airlines? Baggage fees. Cancellation fees. Reservation changes. He is simply doing what works to bring in more money. Fortunately, for the airlines, due to an artificially induced lack of aircraft (before the Boeing 737 problems) almost all seats get sold, so making extra money by fees and more fees is the way to keep the investors happy and bonuses for the big shots. Banks are no different these days, either.

I consider the increased change/cancellation fees (aka, penalties) and the sudden jump in base coach fares for LD trains to be Andersons' 'magic bullet' formula to making Amtrak completely profitable. Remember that myth? To me, it's like PSR. The railroads claim they've gotten the operating ratio (operating costs divided by gross sales) super low and see how well they are doing. Truth told, their total sales are down significantly due to higher prices and customers getting less service. In all likelihood, Anderson will some day be able to crow 'our operating ratio is 65%, like the railroads' but at the cost of losing 30% or more of the passengers due to higher prices, high fees, and reduction of services, and probably fewer trains, too. I count myself as one of those passengers that won't be traveling Amtrak nearly as much as I have as a result.

'It's only business' is how he's running the show, pure and simple.


----------



## jis (Dec 14, 2019)

the_traveler said:


> A good thing about taking Amtrak vs flying is that there is no change fee on Amtrak instead of the LARGE change fee on most airline tickets.


Actually, even for airlines, the change fee is fare specific. There are fares, albeit much higher, that are fully refundable and changeable without a fee. The discounted fares that are normally used come with progressively increasing restrictions and fees for progressively lower fares. When I know I have to change one or more times I usually buy an appropriately higher fare that allows such for free. Alternatively, one can try to get insurance, but those will typically not cover change of mind as the cause for a change.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 14, 2019)

RSG said:


> From my experience over the past 18 months, a cancellation fee applies for everything except the fully refundable coach tickets after the change-your-mind cancellation window has passed. This, of course, applies no matter if you choose a refund (which is often not available) or an eVoucher. The only way around this is to rebook travel for a future date, then cancel the rebooking within the free cancellation window.
> 
> There are two issues I have with any additional changes to the current policy. One, if the only option is an eVoucher, then no cancellation fee should apply (and the no-change-fee should be retained, if for no other reason than to differentiate rail travel from the airlines). I would allow an exception for travel cancelled within 24 hours of departure, but still, that would be more restrictive than what the airlines used to have as routine policy.
> 
> Two, there is currently little benefit for AGR members, other than the accumulation of points for reward travel. Even the upper tier benefits largely only benefit corridor travelers (such as complimentary anytime lounge access). Contrast that to most hotel chains and some airlines, where the better a customer one is the more benefits one receives--in addition to higher point accumulations--and having most fees waived. There are many reasons for the monopolistic nature of US rail travel, but the company providing the service doesn't have to act like an exclusive provider of the service.


Coming this year though the select executive tier is getting one long distance related benefit. Complimentary priority offload coupons for AT. If your a frequent auto train rider it isn’t hard to get into select plus or executive especially if you ride in a sleeper so it makes sense they should do something like that. Though auto train is probably the only LD train you’d ever see AGR benefits for.


----------



## Rasputin (Dec 15, 2019)

They are making trains not worth riding.

We probably should schedule some trips just to burn up some of our guest rewards points while the going west of Chicago is still good. Pretty soon these points won't be worth a damn. 

Southwest Airlines is looking better all the time. 

Thanks, Mr. Anderson for liberating my mind from the thought that I should always try to travel by train whenever possible.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 15, 2019)

Fortunately, I already live in Florida so I don't have to travel here to get out of the cold ... so, if/when things get to the point I can no longer take the train, since I don't fly - well, if I can't get there by car ... I will just stay home and enjoy the warm weather and both coasts.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 15, 2019)

Honestly, if Amtrak proceeds with changes like this I'm probably going to pointedly unsubscribe from their emails. It's one part a slap in their face, but it's more that if they're going to play stupid games with low fares then I don't even want to _see_ the sale offers.

(At least they backed down on the non-upgradability of sale fares with upgrade cards...)


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 15, 2019)

It should be noted once again that as lame as the changes are, they only apply to Saver/Value tickets. There is no change for now if you are buying sleeper or business on an LD train.


----------



## MARC Rider (Dec 15, 2019)

the_traveler said:


> A good thing about taking Amtrak vs flying is that there is no change fee on Amtrak instead of the LARGE change fee on most airline tickets.



Yeah, Maybe there's no change fee, but, wouldn't you know, that every time I go to change a ticket, the super cheapo Value/Saver fare is no longer available, and I have to pay the difference for the new higher fare.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Dec 15, 2019)

Someone should wonder aloud if these changes will also apply to the Acela.



bratkinson said:


> t's only business' is how he's running the show, pure and simple.



The problem is one of the things that helped Amtrak's business is being different from the airlines. As such, the railroad received a lot of disgruntled or inconvenienced passengers that didn't want the bs that came with airline travel, even though it may result in a quicker trip.

The mentality may become "As Amtrak becomes as unfriendly as an airline, why shouldn't I just take an airplane?"

That, wouldn't necessarily be good for business.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 15, 2019)

lordsigma said:


> It should be noted once again that as lame as the changes are, they only apply to Saver/Value tickets. There is no change for now if you are buying sleeper or business on an LD train.


Well, LD sleepers already have pretty bad conditions tagged to them and no equivalent to the flexible fares.

The other issue that I have is that the nonsense is increasingly "washing over" into Value tickets. If it was just "saver" fares I'd be back where I was 4-5 years ago, ignoring the advance discount sales (StupidSeats comes to mind).


----------



## jebr (Dec 15, 2019)

I took a look at the current refund and cancellation policy, and there's currently no mention of the refund option if a long-distance train is more than two hours late (I think short-distance trains had either 30-minute or one hour late rules.) I'm not sure how long ago that was removed (or if it's now referenced elsewhere.) I know a couple months ago I was able to change my ticket to a later date without any fees (and that was with using a companion coupon.)

That said, if that policy is no longer written or able to be quoted, then I likely won't take Amtrak for all but the least time-sensitive trips I take (which are rare.) The Empire Builder has far too sporadic on-time performance for me to consider it without at least a refund fallback if it's significantly late. If a trip is also completely nonrefundable or nonchangeable, that just nails the coffin for those fares (and, honestly, considering Amtrak for those trips as driving or taking the bus becomes cheaper and more reliable at that point.)

It might be time for Congress to start having consumer protections for Amtrak similar to the airlines. When Amtrak had pretty lenient ticket policies, it didn't seem necessary, but there needs to be some protection there for issues that are outside of the customer's control. If Amtrak doesn't seem willing to do that themselves, then they need to be forced to have at least basic protections (like refunds if someone doesn't want to travel due to a late train!) Goodwill measures aren't enough - they need to be published policies that people can easily use/quote and rely on in order to be useful.


----------



## lordsigma (Dec 16, 2019)

jebr said:


> I took a look at the current refund and cancellation policy, and there's currently no mention of the refund option if a long-distance train is more than two hours late (I think short-distance trains had either 30-minute or one hour late rules.) I'm not sure how long ago that was removed (or if it's now referenced elsewhere.) I know a couple months ago I was able to change my ticket to a later date without any fees (and that was with using a companion coupon.)
> 
> That said, if that policy is no longer written or able to be quoted, then I likely won't take Amtrak for all but the least time-sensitive trips I take (which are rare.) The Empire Builder has far too sporadic on-time performance for me to consider it without at least a refund fallback if it's significantly late. If a trip is also completely nonrefundable or nonchangeable, that just nails the coffin for those fares (and, honestly, considering Amtrak for those trips as driving or taking the bus becomes cheaper and more reliable at that point.)
> 
> It might be time for Congress to start having consumer protections for Amtrak similar to the airlines. When Amtrak had pretty lenient ticket policies, it didn't seem necessary, but there needs to be some protection there for issues that are outside of the customer's control. If Amtrak doesn't seem willing to do that themselves, then they need to be forced to have at least basic protections (like refunds if someone doesn't want to travel due to a late train!) Goodwill measures aren't enough - they need to be published policies that people can easily use/quote and rely on in order to be useful.



We’ll see the reauth is right around the corner. Many members of congress seem annoyed about the arbitration thing - this could add some additional annoyance.


----------



## RSG (Dec 16, 2019)

jebr said:


> I know a couple months ago I was able to change my ticket to a later date without any fees (and that was with using a companion coupon.)


That scenario is under the standard policy, open to anyone for any reason. I've changed a ticket after the scheduled departure for the station I was ticketed from---but before the train actually arrived, with no issues or fees (though it usually requires agent intervention, as the WWW site interface isn't programmed to handle exceptions). I can foresee them getting into a very sticky situation if they make rescheduling difficult or penurious for late trains.


> It might be time for Congress to start having consumer protections for Amtrak similar to the airlines. When Amtrak had pretty lenient ticket policies, it didn't seem necessary, but there needs to be some protection there for issues that are outside of the customer's control.


I was thinking the same thing when this thread first started. Though calls for a Passenger Bill Of Rights for the airlines didn't make much headway until planes were parked on tarmacs for hours on end with no food or beverage availability and overflowing lavatories. Since some of these situations are already _de rigeur_ with Amtrak, let's hope that there are proactive policies put in place before the overall situation worsens.


----------



## jis (Dec 16, 2019)

jebr said:


> It might be time for Congress to start having consumer protections for Amtrak similar to the airlines. When Amtrak had pretty lenient ticket policies, it didn't seem necessary, but there needs to be some protection there for issues that are outside of the customer's control. If Amtrak doesn't seem willing to do that themselves, then they need to be forced to have at least basic protections (like refunds if someone doesn't want to travel due to a late train!) Goodwill measures aren't enough - they need to be published policies that people can easily use/quote and rely on in order to be useful.


Some keep saying that the railroads should do everything differently from airlines because they are different. I happen to believe that while they are different they do share a lot of commonality as passenger and freight transport businesses. Specifically I believe that:

1. Passenger railroads have a lot to learn about how to report OTP and regulators of passenger railroads have a lot to learn from the FAA on how to structure regulations for enforcing such. This has actually been suggested to the FRA, and they appear to be very receptive to picking up ideas from the FAA regulations on OTP tracking and remedies for failure to meet on both infrastructure providers and airlines.

2. Airline industry has a so called "Bill of Rights" for passengers. While it is nowhere near as strong as the European one, it still is something. I think it would be a good idea to adopt ideas from that to create a rail specific one and enforced by FRA like the air one is enforced by the FAA.

Will there be issues to address? Of course. But that should not keep us from increasing consumer protection in the rail sector to at least match the one, as sorry as it is, in the air sector, given that collectively we have had progressively more hostile management in the rail sector.


----------



## Qapla (Dec 16, 2019)

There are similarities and differences in passenger air and passenger rail travel. While they both move people from one place to another, all of their circumstances are not the same.

"One size" does not fit all

Passenger airplanes do not have travel in airspace owned by freight airplanes like the passenger rail does ... this has a large impact on the OTP.

Trains are not subject to the weight restrictions of air travel so adding additional cars to the same train is possible where you cannot just add more room to the plane.

LD trains take longer to get across large distances but can stop at intermediate points - planes are just the opposite.

While some of the airline techniques will work for rain - not all will. This seems to be one of the problems with the current situation. Those in charge of Amtrak want to install the things that do NOT work as well for rail instead of the things that will work.

Since people will spend much more time on LD travel while on a train that a plane - making it "simpler" is the wrong way to go. Reducing the "amenities" may work for people in a hurry (air travel) but, amenities are far more important to people who choose to travel in a more relaxed method - and since it is a "choice" for them to ride rail, increasing the number of those who choose rail would make more sense than reducing the costs of those already riding rail.

There are two ways to increase profits ... raise sales and lower operating costs. Both, used together, produce the best results. When you cut costs to the point that you reduce sales you have cut too many costs.


----------



## jis (Dec 16, 2019)

And would all those differences lead to the conclusion that:

1. OTP reporting and corrective measure metrics would be drastically different at least for major checkpoints en route? Of course who is fined for what would be different in case of rail. But I suspect the measurement of OTP and reporting requirements would not be terribly different.

2. Passenger rail should not have a passenger's bill of rights somewhat similar to air market ones? Of course some of the details will be different to fit the needs of rail passengers.


----------



## neroden (Dec 16, 2019)

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gardner don't seem to fully understand that 535 members of Congress are their bosses. If they don't want to be micromanaged, they have to do a better job and stop doing customer-unfriendly moves which get their bosses angry letters from constituents. 

*Nobody* should have mandatory arbitration clauses -- they're blatantly unconstitutional under the Seventh Amendment, regardless of what a corrupt Supreme Court stacked with corporate lackeys has said in the past -- and it's just arrogant for Amtrak to think that that sort of abuse wouldn't attract the attention of their Congressional bosses.

While nonexchangeable tickets are constitutional, they're also prone to generating angry constiuent letters. And that nickel-and-diming restriction doesn't benefit Amtrak one whit -- the revenue from forfeited tickets or change fees is dwarfed by the loss in revenue from angry customers. (Now, I understand Amtrak's former policy of "full value in a voucher, less if you want cash", because that encouraged people to keep taking Amtrak. That made sense. Change fees don't make sense. They don't make sense for airlines either, really.)


----------



## F900ElCapitan (Dec 17, 2019)

neroden said:


> Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gardner don't seem to fully understand that 535 members of Congress are their bosses. If they don't want to be micromanaged, they have to do a better job and stop doing customer-unfriendly moves which get their bosses angry letters from constituents.



I do agree with much of what you mentioned, but there is one opinion that you’ve failed to mention. The country as a whole is very close to 50/50 liberal to conservative. So, whoever the current CEO is and trying to make these changes...there will be communication from both sides that is for and against what is happening. Personally, I hate seeing a $2 billion dollar subsidy to Amtrak, even though I love trains, riding trains and especially riding Amtrak and feel we should support rail travel. It’s just a large amount of money that I wonder if it can’t be spent better (including doing a massive upgrade to US rail travel!) I do think that if Amtrak can show (preferably with best accounting practices) a break even or better operating ratio, then it would make the federal money easier to justify and reduce opposition from both sides of the isle. Which of course would be the biggest possible win for rail travel and Amtrak!!


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Dec 17, 2019)

In regard to the post above the last three years or so Amtrak has become one of the most bipartisan issues in this country. The 95-4 Senate vote to maintain nationwide service is nothing but astonishing in this day and age. The value received for the two billion subsidy is paid back in spades to the communities and country as a whole. RPA had a great write up on economic return to cities along network routes recently. We also have to remember two billion sounds like a lot but it’s a rounding error in the big picture.

Really at this point the only ones wanting to defund Amtrak (or parts of it) are the Administration, Ideologue groups like Cato/Heritage and in a really warped way Amtrak itself through lower grant requests and the admission it wants to gut the network as we know it. Anderson has pissed off people on both sides of the aisle in about a bipartisan way as possible.

I’ll post the latest letter I received yesterday from my GOP Senator later on today. To paraphrase it though he said “we control the money and have the final say but you should consider writing Amtrak’s Board as well about your concerns. Anderson serves at their pleasure”


----------



## Bonser (Dec 17, 2019)

F900ElCapitan said:


> I do agree with much of what you mentioned, but there is one opinion that you’ve failed to mention. The country as a whole is very close to 50/50 liberal to conservative. So, whoever the current CEO is and trying to make these changes...there will be communication from both sides that is for and against what is happening. Personally, I hate seeing a $2 billion dollar subsidy to Amtrak, even though I love trains, riding trains and especially riding Amtrak and feel we should support rail travel. It’s just a large amount of money that I wonder if it can’t be spent better (including doing a massive upgrade to US rail travel!) I do think that if Amtrak can show (preferably with best accounting practices) a break even or better operating ratio, then it would make the federal money easier to justify and reduce opposition from both sides of the isle. Which of course would be the biggest possible win for rail travel and Amtrak!!


Not so sure I agree with your political assessment. Amtrak serves many small towns in red states and that fact alone has tended to de-escalate partisan tensions, one of the few things that does these days. Anderson should capitalize (no pun intended) on this and push for expansion of all Amtrak services, not cherry pick the chosen few.


----------



## jis (Dec 17, 2019)

F900ElCapitan said:


> I do agree with much of what you mentioned, but there is one opinion that you’ve failed to mention. The country as a whole is very close to 50/50 liberal to conservative. So, whoever the current CEO is and trying to make these changes...there will be communication from both sides that is for and against what is happening. Personally, I hate seeing a $2 billion dollar subsidy to Amtrak, even though I love trains, riding trains and especially riding Amtrak and feel we should support rail travel. It’s just a large amount of money that I wonder if it can’t be spent better (including doing a massive upgrade to US rail travel!) I do think that *if Amtrak can show (preferably with best accounting practices) a break even or better operating ratio, then it would make the federal money easier to justify and reduce opposition from both sides of the isle.* Which of course would be the biggest possible win for rail travel and Amtrak!!


It appears that Anderson is at least on the surface trying to do exactly that, though he is not trying to fight the battle with FRA and Volpe or even the Amtrak financial bureaucracy possibly, on changing some of the accounting practices. The problem is that this does not address the non-parity that exists between funding foundational pieces of passenger rail when compared to other transport modes, which leads to requiring rather drastic changes to get there.


----------



## F900ElCapitan (Dec 18, 2019)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> In regard to the post above the last three years or so Amtrak has become one of the most bipartisan issues in this country. The 95-4 Senate vote to maintain nationwide service is nothing but astonishing in this day and age. The value received for the two billion subsidy is paid back in spades to the communities and country as a whole. RPA had a great write up on economic return to cities along network routes recently. We also have to remember two billion sounds like a lot but it’s a rounding error in the big picture.
> 
> Really at this point the only ones wanting to defund Amtrak (or parts of it) are the Administration, Ideologue groups like Cato/Heritage and in a really warped way Amtrak itself through lower grant requests and the admission it wants to gut the network as we know it. Anderson has pissed off people on both sides of the aisle in about a bipartisan way as possible.
> 
> I’ll post the latest letter I received yesterday from my GOP Senator later on today. To paraphrase it though he said “we control the money and have the final say but you should consider writing Amtrak’s Board as well about your concerns. Anderson serves at their pleasure”



Sure, on the surface Amtrak is getting it’s funding, Congress loves spending money, it makes their constituents feel very good that some of their taxes are returning to their district and what they care for and thus helps re-election. But even though Congress approved the spending today, tomorrow they’ll likely double down (through committee and other avenues) about losses and how to “fix” todays percieved problem. Which is exactly the case today with the diner issues (how to “fix” their losses), today it’s the eastern trains, and soon it’ll be the western trains. Today it’s the raising of sleeper “rail fare” portions of a ticket, tomorrow ???? Today there is talk of a leaked email about adding Even more restrictions to ticketing, tomorrow ???? 

I have to admit I’m curious as to how the roll outs of the soon to be released sleeper “improvements” goes and if it’s enough to out do the recent fare increases. But overall there has been a definitive reduction in benefits to riding the train. This is all do to pressures from Congress about operating losses.


----------



## F900ElCapitan (Dec 18, 2019)

Tom Booth said:


> Not so sure I agree with your political assessment. Amtrak serves many small towns in red states and that fact alone has tended to de-escalate partisan tensions, one of the few things that does these days. Anderson should capitalize (no pun intended) on this and push for *expansion of all Amtrak services*, not cherry pick the chosen few.



Yes, I would LOVE to see Amtrak expand. But with what equipment and what funding? I do agree we all want service to small towns in red and blue areas, but it’s the needing of funding that is being hit hard by Congress. Let alone trying to secure additional money for expansion. Today I think most of us are just happy to get some funding for re-fresh overhauls and some RFPs for new equipment that will have a very hard time getting enough funding for straight replacement...let alone expansion.


----------



## neroden (Dec 18, 2019)

F900ElCapitan said:


> I do agree with much of what you mentioned, but there is one opinion that you’ve failed to mention. The country as a whole is very close to 50/50 liberal to conservative. So, whoever the current CEO is and trying to make these changes...there will be communication from both sides that is for and against what is happening. Personally, I hate seeing a $2 billion dollar subsidy to Amtrak,



Why? Basically a little over $1 billion covers the fixed overhead cost of having a national passenger railroad system at all. Any money beyond the first billion is going to expansion and upgrades.

Operation of the individual routes is typically profitable, or state-funded; there may be a couple which run at a loss of a few million dollars (we'd know if Amtrak would publish avoidable costs like it's legally supposed to).

Funding the fixed overhead is like funding Air Traffic Control, or funding the State Highway Police, or funding the Coast Guard. It's worth funding the fixed overhead to "keep the lights on". $1 billion is extraordinarily cheap for that.

If you're looking for somewhere in the federal budget to cut expenses, the only place to look is the military, which burns between $500 billion and $1 trillion every year, loses every war it gets into, can't pass an audit, and provides less economic benefit than literally anything else we could spend the money on (including throwing it out of helicopters for people to pick up off the street). As long as that trough of corruption keeps sucking up $500+ billion per year, it is simply not worth cutting any other government expenses; it's the elephant in the room.

In my opinion, too many politicians just throw money at the military without looking at where it's going, in a misguided and sick attempt to appear "patriotic". Anyway, as long as that is happening, I never criticize any non-military federal government spending which is being used for anything which is actually useful at *all*, since it's better than spending it on the military. (I'll criticize it if they're actively subsidizing pollution or something which is outright bad, though.)


----------



## RSG (Dec 18, 2019)

Tom Booth said:


> Not so sure I agree with your political assessment. Amtrak serves many small towns in red states and that fact alone has tended to de-escalate partisan tensions, one of the few things that does these days.


There's plenty of support in Red States for Amtrak, and in a bipartisan fashion for those states which are more purple than red or blue. US Senator Jerry Moran [R-KS], for example, was very supportive when the _Southwest Chief_ looked like it was going to get re-routed at a cost to existing stations in many places. The divide seems to be more along "AvGeek" and railfan lines and to a lesser degree, urban corridor vs long distance (often translating to rural) route advocates.


----------



## John Bobinyec (Dec 23, 2019)

Is there any word on how this affects buying a ticket with points and then having to alter that reservation? Will there be a surcharge of points taken?

jb


----------



## Anderson (Dec 24, 2019)

@John Bobinyec Seeing as we're in the "rumors of war" phase of this latest mess, there's no good way to tell. My best guess is that there will be a related change over at AGR, but it will come down separately.


----------



## pennyk (Feb 20, 2020)

I have heard a rumor that starting March 1st, there will be new change fees to certain reservations. 

If I am understanding correctly, the change fees will not apply to non-Acela BC, Acela FC and sleepers. It also appears that change fees will not apply to AGR members with Select Executive status.

It appears that lower fare tickets will be subject to new change fees, but I was not informed what those fees would be. 

Since March 1st is right around the corner, if this information is accurate, it should be confirmed in the near future.

EDIT: Thanks to Thirdrail's information, this post/new thread was merged into an existing thread started in December.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 20, 2020)

pennyk said:


> I have heard a rumor that starting March 1st, there will be new change fees to certain reservations.
> 
> If I am understanding correctly, the change fees will not apply to non-Acela BC, Acela FC and sleepers. It also appears that change fees will not apply to AGR members with Select Executive status.
> 
> ...


More "Me too" Airline Stuff from the Flyboys!

They should check out the Southwest Airline Policies, they seem to work and Southwest is consistently successful over the decades.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Feb 20, 2020)

pennyk said:


> I have heard a rumor that starting March 1st, there will be new change fees to certain reservations.
> 
> If I am understanding correctly, the change fees will not apply to non-Acela BC, Acela FC and sleepers. It also appears that change fees will not apply to AGR members with Select Executive status.
> 
> ...



It was enclosed in an article last year. Here is the thread:

More restrictive ticketing non refundable no changes coming soon
https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/th...-non-refundable-no-changes-coming-soon.76633/

MODERATOR NOTE: the new thread was merged into the existing thread. Thanks Thirdrail7


----------



## jebr (Feb 24, 2020)

Details, from the Washington Post:

Effective March 1:

Saver fares are "use it or lose it" after an initial 24-hour window after ticket purchase.
Value fares will be subject to a 25% cancellation fee or 15% change fee if changes are made within two weeks of departure.
No changes to flexible or premium fares. No mention of sleeper fares.

Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ac2700-4e9a-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Feb 24, 2020)

“Amtrak added nonstop Acela service between the District and New York last fall, freshened up train interiors with new carpet, seat covers and cushions, and *upgraded bedding, towels and linens in long-distance accommodations*.”

Untrue


“Executive Vice President Roger Harris, who is Amtrak’s chief marketing and revenue officer and also a former airline executive, said the new rules around low-end fares are a trade-off that will allow the railroad to make “the *very lowest fares even lower.”*
Probably untrue, same guy who touted the new contemporary meals and new amenities.


“Passengers holding flexible, business and Acela First-Class Premium tickets will continue to enjoy the flexibility to *make changes and receive a full refund up to the moment of departure*. Those fares are much more expensive than saver and value fares.”

If they mess with more restrictions on sleepers it could decimate long distance ridership and revenue. Terrible news all and all.


----------



## bretton88 (Feb 24, 2020)

I actually don't mind this change. Amtrak always couldn't provide a good answer on why you would want to pay more for the Value fare, because it was the same accommodation for basically the same conditions. With saver fares going non refundable, there's a real difference between Saver and Value.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 24, 2020)

bretton88 said:


> I actually don't mind this change. Amtrak always couldn't provide a good answer on why you would want to pay more for the Value fare, because it was the same accommodation for basically the same conditions. With saver fares going non refundable, there's a real difference between Saver and Value.


True enough, but when an Emergency occurs requiring a Cancellation of a Rail trip in Coach, you may be out a $100 or so, not a good thought!

Change Fees,Baggsge Fees and No refund Fares are gravy for Companies that use them! How does Southwest Airlines stay in business ???


----------



## Bex (Feb 24, 2020)

Yikes, this is terrible news for me, I only buy Saver fares (often during sales) and I buy them months in advance so that I can get that fare. 90% of the time I know my schedule well enough to not need to make any change but that 10% is going to be terribly costly.

Edited, just thought of a few questions:
a. if you bought a Saver fare before 3/1, does this apply?
b. If you do not ride a train but get charged anyway because it's non-refundable, do you get the TQP's?
c. Will this begin a secondary market for ticket resale? (I have literally never had my ID checked and I've been riding twice a week for seven years).


Edited again, found the answer to my first question, fees will not apply to "the first change to a reservation made prior to March 1, 2020." https://media.amtrak.com/2020/02/updated-fares-provide-increased-options-for-savings/

And if that link is telling the truth and Saver fares are going down, it may end up a wash for me. I guess we'll see.


----------



## lordsigma (Feb 24, 2020)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> “Amtrak added nonstop Acela service between the District and New York last fall, freshened up train interiors with new carpet, seat covers and cushions, and *upgraded bedding, towels and linens in long-distance accommodations*.”
> 
> Untrue
> 
> ...



Why would they put such change restrictions on sleepers? I can’t imagine that. They are the most expensive tickets in the system. Airlines don’t do it for first class and that is the equivalent of first class on those trains and they are modeling this off the airlines. They aren’t even doing it for business class on the regionals. I don’t see how this has any unique effect on long distance trains. This change could effect ridership on corridors as well if people reject it. These are annoying changes but I don’t even think these guys are cynical enough to put change fees on the premium offerings. This is aimed at coach passengers.


----------



## iplaybass (Feb 24, 2020)

lordsigma said:


> Why would they put such change restrictions on sleepers? I can’t imagine that. They are the most expensive tickets in the system. Airlines don’t do it for first class and that is the equivalent of first class on those trains and they are modeling this off the airlines. They aren’t even doing it for business class on the regionals. I don’t see how this has any unique effect on long distance trains. This change could effect ridership on corridors as well if people reject it. These are annoying changes but I don’t even think these guys are cynical enough to put change fees on the premium offerings. This is aimed at coach passengers.


Airlines do put restrictions on first class tickets. They offer a choice: "flexible" fares have no restrictions, and are generally the most expensive fares. However, there are non-refundable first class tickets, subject to change fees.

Unless your business requires it, or there are no "lower bucket" fares available, I can't think of any reason you would buy a flexible first class fare, but there are those who do. It's only a matter of time before the airline executives in charge of Amtrak bring this proven airline practice to the train.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 25, 2020)

Amtrak must be bursting at the seams to keep adding more restrictions and harsher penalties. Yet when I travel I tend to see emptier trains than before. On a Western LD trip last year they didn't bother taking reservations for lunch or dinner and the diner never reached more than about 30% full. That was a new experience for me. During holiday travel periods I used to see numerous trains sold out, but that hasn't been the case in a couple years now. Makes me wonder how the passenger numbers are supposedly still improving.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 25, 2020)

Yep, I'm done frakking around with Amtrak. I'm probably going to limp in at Select Plus this year (and then mainly because of the CCs; without them, S+ would be an open question), but that represents close to a 2/3 drop in my business (16k TQPs dropping to about 6k TQPs), most of which will be limited to certain circumstances (mainly attending SF conventions on the NEC where there are lousy air alternatives). I'm also going to check fares ORF-WAS for the RPA spring meeting (I'll probably end up driving, but that's because my Eldorado needs to get dropped off with a repair guy and the timing is just right). I wish Amtrak nothing but the absolute worst with these changes.

@Devil's Advocate You're right that the LD trains aren't seeing ridership growth (if anything, this BS is causing them to lose business there). I think that's part of the plan. However, the NEC is dealing with capacity issues (I remember observing some years back that the NEC was going to hit a capacity crunch eventually), and even if this dents ridership the ability to milk non-refundable ticket revenue probably makes up for some of those losses. A theoretical 1% hit to ridership would be offset if Amtrak is able to "take the money and run" on 2.5% no-shows, and those numbers seem reasonable.


----------



## lordsigma (Feb 25, 2020)

iplaybass said:


> Airlines do put restrictions on first class tickets. They offer a choice: "flexible" fares have no restrictions, and are generally the most expensive fares. However, there are non-refundable first class tickets, subject to change fees.
> 
> Unless your business requires it, or there are no "lower bucket" fares available, I can't think of any reason you would buy a flexible first class fare, but there are those who do. It's only a matter of time before the airline executives in charge of Amtrak bring this proven airline practice to the train.


Didn't realize airlines were doing that is it pretty universal? I still feel (and some may disagree) that Amtrak will leave the premium offerings alone at least for now. I frankly don't feel that boycotting is going to solve any of this. The best option, as usual with Amtrak, is for those that oppose these changes to contact your legislator. Re authorization is right around the corner and it is an opportunity to reign in the management for some of their more problematic decisions such as this. I am not going to stop riding for one because it doesn't change the fact that I enjoy train travel, and two if the goal is to sabotage ridership I don't see how boycotting helps particularly those that boycott the long distance trains as a result of the change fees but continue using corridor services. Not that I am arguing that people should just accept any fare and blindly accept fare increases and fees every time, but I just don't think boycotting out of principle really works with a situation like this.


----------



## jis (Feb 25, 2020)

Maybe it just happens to be the airlines that I deal with, but I am yet to come across a so called non-refundable upper class and even standard coach fare that is not bankable for reusing the value for a fee later. The fee is usually of the order of $200 for domestic and $400 for international. In my experience the entire value is reusable, but when it is reused a fixed fee is collected. Note that I am not saying that there aren't examples where it is done differently. It is just that I have never come across such in my travels.

Since typical train fares are much lower than typical plane fares, as the typical train journey is for much shorter distances than typical plane journeys, of course the fee for reuse would have to be handled differently, and in effect they appear to have specified it as a percentage of the fare rather than a fixed amount.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 25, 2020)

jis said:


> Maybe it just happens to be the airlines that I deal with, but I am yet to come across a so called non-refundable upper class and even standard coach fare that is not bankable for reusing the value for a fee later. The fee is usually of the order of $200 for domestic and $400 for international. *In my experience the entire value is reusable, but when it is reused a fixed fee is collected*. Note that I am not saying that there aren't examples where it is done differently. It is just that I have never come across such in my travels.
> 
> Since typical train fares are much lower than typical plane fares, as the typical train journey is for much shorter distances than typical plane journeys, of course the fee for reuse would have to be handled differently, and in effect they appear to have specified it as a percentage of the fare rather than a fixed amount.


I don't think that qualifies as "the entire value is reusable". Whether the dent occurs at the time of cancellation or of reuse, a portion is hacked off.

To be fair, this suggests that you haven't encountered Basic Economy (where restrictions like that come into play).

Moving on to one other relevant point: I've said before that I'm regarding Amtrak's touted sleeper improvements as vaporware. They've been talking them up for long enough; at this point they need to put up or shut up with at _least_ a hard roll-out date.


----------



## jis (Feb 25, 2020)

Never ass-ume  I do know about basic economy. I guess in your hurry to respond you missed my specific use of the phrase "standard coach fare".  I specifically excluded basic economy by not mentioning it. I have never used it and never will. Similarly I never us the new fangled lowest fare level on Amtrak. It does not suit my lifestyle.

Also if I know that there is a significant chance that a ticket will need to be changed, I do take care to buy an appropriate fare class that allows such change if that fare is lower than the fare plus the change fee for a lower fare class that is available. The latter still keeps a risk in that the same lower fare class may not be available when the change is made. Again depending on the situation I may choose to take that risk or not.

Kind of pointless to argue the semantics of whether the entire amount is available for a fee or something is hacked off.  Tomayto Tomaato. Have it your way. The result is the same. 

However since the fee can be larger than the value of the ticket carried forward one could and sometimes does land up with a negative amount to apply to a new ticket. Needless to say, that is a pretty dumb thing to do.  Using the Amtrak percentage of the fare witheld method you can never land up with a negative value. In that sense the Amtrak method is better since you never forfeit the entire value of a canceled ticket, unless it is a ticket of the truly non-refundable kind.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Feb 25, 2020)

So Amtrak is reducing the Saver fare in exchange for less flexibility in usage. That is airline ticketing practices. Deep discounts available, but you're out of luck if plans change. Checking a random date in May for the Wolverine from Ann Arbor (a major boarding station) to Chicago, the Saver fare is now $32 instead of $34. That $2 savings will be recouped by Amtrak when more people elect to buy cancellation insurance (if it applies to that fare)


----------



## Bex (Feb 25, 2020)

Michigan Mom said:


> So Amtrak is reducing the Saver fare in exchange for less flexibility in usage. That is airline ticketing practices. Deep discounts available, but you're out of luck if plans change. Checking a random date in May for the Wolverine from Ann Arbor (a major boarding station) to Chicago, the Saver fare is now $32 instead of $34. That $2 savings will be recouped by Amtrak when more people elect to buy cancellation insurance (if it applies to that fare)


According to the link in my previous post, which is Amtrak's own PR, the new bottom of the basement fares begin on 3/2, so I wouldn't look for them now.

I have a few trips to buy before summer and I'm trying to decide whether to buy them now and have the flexibility to change once if needed or see if they'll be cheaper next week. My conclusion will probably be to buy now and change once to the cheaper fare if it exists.


----------



## Barb Stout (Feb 25, 2020)

Do the saver, value, and flexible fares relate in any direct way to low bucket, medium buckets, and high buckets?


----------



## John Bobinyec (Feb 25, 2020)

Here's a situation that happens to me sometimes. I've got a Value reservation on train 77 to Charlotte. Let's say things are so bad that it is known that 77 will probably be cancelled. Usually this is weather related. Suppose all this happens so that I could rebook on an earlier train, 75 (same day). Do I get charged the penalties or because Amtrak is having severe problems I won't get charged the penalties?

jb


----------



## Anderson (Feb 25, 2020)

John Bobinyec said:


> Here's a situation that happens to me sometimes. I've got a Value reservation on train 77 to Charlotte. Let's say things are so bad that it is known that 77 will probably be cancelled. Usually this is weather related. Suppose all this happens so that I could rebook on an earlier train, 75 (same day). Do I get charged the penalties or because Amtrak is having severe problems I won't get charged the penalties?
> 
> jb


It depends. Most airlines would, at this stage, issue a waiver in advance (anywhere from 1-5 days out). If Amtrak does that, it's one thing; if Amtrak doesn't...*sighs*


----------



## Anderson (Feb 25, 2020)

Barb Stout said:


> Do the saver, value, and flexible fares relate in any direct way to low bucket, medium buckets, and high buckets?



Sort-of. Saver is usually going to be at or below "low bucket". Flexible fare is usually going to be "high bucket". Value lands somewhere in the middle.

(NB Sometimes Business/First fares seem to attach to "saver" fares and odd stuff happens on the computer end.)


----------



## JC_620 (Feb 25, 2020)

So, question: If Amtrak is now charging $2,038 on their high bucket fare for #28 from PDX-CHI, what do you think that the "Saver Fare" would be if they offered one for this?


----------



## jacorbett70 (Feb 25, 2020)

All I know is that change fees for value fares will have me cutting back enough on Amtrak travel that I plan to cancel the fee Mastercard and downgrade to the non-fee one since the fee one was only to obtain status that I will no longer be pursuing.
For example, the flexible one-way PHL-NY regional/Keystone coach fare has gone up to $120. There are other options for the trip (including the Trenton Shuffle SEPTA/NJT) and I should know when to fold when the fares and airline terms/conditions get this crazy for a 90-mile trip.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 26, 2020)

So, this involves an airline, not Amtrak _per se_, but dang if I don't see the irony of this:
https://www.jetblue.com/travel-alerts?source=MKTEM20200226_4586385

Congratulations, Amtrak: For the first week and a half of your glorious, brilliant new policy, B6 has you beat on change/cancel.

*slow clap*


----------



## Lacunacoil (Feb 28, 2020)

I am a customer that amtrak will lose due to this no free change rule. I already have a ticket for 150 I need to use someday. But I dont know when. My plans are day to day, and once I can, I jump on the train from nyc to florida, or nyc to los Angeles. 2 trips to florida 2 to west coast, plus another one or 2 to DC from ny. But now I cant since I like to decide often the morning of my trip. There's alot not to like about amtrak, like the cars smelling of sewage especially the double deckers. The low lifespan that I've seen start fights, steal, try and start fights, I could tell so many stories the stuff I see. But this change will lose me, I'll start flying even though I'm afraid of it. I already take greyhound often due to Amtrak high prices. 100 bucks to philly from nyc. Bus 12 dollars. The trains used to have large lounge areas. They shrunk them, made the conductors use the few seats they have for office, and now dont let you eat your own food in the lounges unless it's the one from chicago to los Angeles. It used to be a party in that lounge to florida. Drinking eating playing cards.


----------



## jacorbett70 (Mar 1, 2020)

The new terms are on Amtrak's web site
https://www.amtrak.com/terms-and-conditions.html#faresModificationsAndRefunds-aboutFares


----------



## BLNT (Mar 1, 2020)

jacorbett70 said:


> The new terms are on Amtrak's web site
> https://www.amtrak.com/terms-and-conditions.html#faresModificationsAndRefunds-aboutFares



I have not been following this, what's the change (in a nutshell) ?

Thanks


----------



## pennyk (Mar 1, 2020)

jacorbett70 said:


> The new terms are on Amtrak's web site
> https://www.amtrak.com/terms-and-conditions.html#faresModificationsAndRefunds-aboutFares


I just phoned the SE AGR number about a question regarding upgrading a saver fare reservation on the Acela in a few weeks, which reservation was made prior to March 1. The agent to whom I spoke told me that implementation of the rule regarding inability to ugrade from saver fares has been postponed from March 1 to May 1. However the information on Amtrak's website provides contrary information. I am not sure what to believe, but it is what it is.


----------



## Bex (Mar 1, 2020)

pennyk said:


> I just phoned the SE AGR number about a question regarding upgrading a saver fare reservation on the Acela in a few weeks, which reservation was made prior to March 1. The agent to whom I spoke told me that implementation of the rule regarding inability to ugrade from saver fares has been postponed from March 1 to May 1. However the information on Amtrak's website provides contrary information. I am not sure what to believe, but it is what it is.



I noticed this too. Whereas before sometimes agents just didn't realize you could upgrade from Saver, now it is codified that you cannot. I received my "Congratulations, you have reached Select Plus" email today and I couldn't help but roll my eyes at the bullet point, "Four One-Class Upgrade Coupons" since I will now never be able to use them.

I do have one Acela Saver booked in late March. I guess we'll see if they'll accept the coupon.


----------



## Barb Stout (Mar 2, 2020)

pennyk said:


> I just phoned the SE AGR number about a question regarding upgrading a saver fare reservation on the Acela in a few weeks, which reservation was made prior to March 1. The agent to whom I spoke told me that implementation of the rule regarding inability to ugrade from saver fares has been postponed from March 1 to May 1. However the information on Amtrak's website provides contrary information. I am not sure what to believe, but it is what it is.


Someone posted on the coronavirus thread this: https://www.amtrak.com/ibcontent/changeFeeWaived.html
So the agent you talked to appears to be correct and the change fee waive notification just hadn't been posted yet. 

Oh, wait, your post was different from what my brain first read. I don't know about upgrades, but apparently the change fees that were supposed to go into effect yesterday have been delayed until May.


----------



## neroden (Mar 3, 2020)

Utterly dumb policy. Mr. Anderson removed all incentives to keep money "in Amtrak" in vouchers, and now created a fare class which will drive people to the airplanes. Offering free changes of ticket (as opposed to refunds) is a perk for passengers which costs Amtrak essentially nothing, so they've saved $0.00 in order to annoy passengers.

The upgrade coupons are all useless all the time, I don't know why they even offer them.


----------



## daybeers (Mar 27, 2021)

Change fees are now being waived for all reservations made by September 6, 2021. Has anyone confirmed if the website is true that upgrade coupons are not allowed on Saver fares?


----------

