# Help! SEA-LAX-NYP as a 3 zone



## zephyr17

I tried to book a 3 zone award by forcing it as a 1 zone SEA-ABQ, then a 2 zone ABQ-NYP, as suggested here. The AGR agent said in order to do that, I'd have to stay overnight in Albuquerque, I couldn't redeem it that way staying on the same train.

I am determined to use this trip to take the Southwest Chief so to ride the current route at least this one more time.

Does anyone have any advice on how to approach the agent to get this routing. The Starlight is over $500 one way for a roomette on the dates I want to travel, and I really don't want to pay it. It would be cheaper to stay overnight in Albuquerque, but I really don't want to break up the trip. For one thing, I like the rhythm of a long, continuous train ride, the other thing is this trip is taking long enough as it is there are other expenses associated (like getting back).

It is kind of funny, because I could do a routing via the Sunset and Crescent or via the CZ perfectly legally.

Finally, if I decide to bite the bullet and take what's offered, does anyone have any hotel suggestions for Albuquerque near the station?


----------



## fairviewroad

Well, you could simply book SEA-ABQ with Agent 1 and then call back and book ABQ-NYP with agent 2.

You could request the same room as you got for the first portion of the trip. Worst case is you'd have to

change rooms in ABQ but since that would happen in the middle of the day it wouldn't be a hardship. But you

certainly wouldn't miss the connection since it would be the same train. The agent you spoke with obviously

isn't the creative type.


----------



## Rail Freak

I'D SUGGEST TO CALL AGAIN & TALK TO ANOTHER AGENT &/OR SUPERVISOR!!!!

Good Luck


----------



## the_traveler

My advice is to call again. I did something similar last year, going ELP-LAX-ABQ for 1 zone and then the same train ABQ-CHI-NYP-PHL for 2 zones.


----------



## chrsjrcj

It might be because of the overnight stay required in LA anyway. If you're only going one way, try going westbound. When I do NYP to SEA on Amtrak.com, the SWC comes up as a valid route.


----------



## the_traveler

A new part of the rules say if an all sleeper route is available, an overnight is allowed. (There are no sleepers on the SJ or Thruway buses.)


----------



## zephyr17

The agent was fine with the overnight as long as my destination was an SWC station. It was going onewards that was the problem.


----------



## Ryan

Try a better agent. PM AGR insider and ask they provide retraining for the clueless agent.


----------



## crescent2

I'd say try another agent or a supervisor, too. I've read every word I can find regarding the new guidelines, and I don't understand why the agent wouldn't let you book your trip, especially as a 1-zone and a 2-zone. Not understanding why they'd insist on an overnight between two awards. Good luck with it, and please let us know how it turns out.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

fairviewroad said:


> The agent you spoke with obviously isn't the creative type.


&


Rail Freak said:


> TALK TO ANOTHER AGENT &/OR SUPERVISOR!!!!


&


the_traveler said:


> My advice is to call again.


&


Ryan said:


> Try a better agent.


&


crescent2 said:


> I'd say try another agent or a supervisor, too.


Apparently most folks believe this is just some rogue agent running amok, but I've heard this exact same claim from multiple agents on my own phone calls.


----------



## crescent2

DA: That is what is so frustrating in trying to plan a trip.

Compare this thread's OP's experience to that of Rail Freak's thread. He fortunately got a very cooperative agent.

I just like to know what to expect before I call, but I'm not sure there's a way to know even with the published guidelines.


----------



## Ryan

Devil's Advocate said:


> Apparently most folks believe this is just some rogue agent running amok, but I've heard this exact same claim from multiple agents on my own phone calls.


Which is why I also said:



Ryan said:


> PM AGR insider and ask they provide retraining for the clueless agent.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

If the agents were really just "clueless" then wouldn't they be coming up with different claims and answers from each other? It seems rather unlikely that multiple agents just randomly invented the exact same claim out of nothing. This has all the hallmarks of an actual policy that may or may not still be in effect. Maybe these conflicting policies will be clarified in our favor. Maybe they won't.


----------



## the_traveler

Also the new redemption rules were just put into place a couple of weeks ago. (June 6, 2013 IIRC.) So it is possible that the agent didn't know, or thought "... we've always did it that way!", thus the advice to try another agent or a supervisor.


----------



## AlanB

Devil's Advocate said:


> If the agents were really just "clueless" then wouldn't they be coming up with different claims and answers from each other? It seems rather unlikely that multiple agents just randomly invented the exact same claim out of nothing. This has all the hallmarks of an actual policy that may or may not still be in effect.


Or more likely, the agents were all trained by the same person.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the agents were really just "clueless" then wouldn't they be coming up with different claims and answers from each other? It seems rather unlikely that multiple agents just randomly invented the exact same claim out of nothing. This has all the hallmarks of an actual policy that may or may not still be in effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Or more likely, the agents were all trained by the same person.
Click to expand...

So now the theory is a rogue trainer. Fair enough.

How do we explain excalation to supervisors resulting in confirmation of the original claim?

Are the supervisors also going rogue?


----------



## zephyr17

Called back talked to another agent and then talked to a supervisor. No dice, they are really adament about this, in a polite way. However, he did suggest an alternative of topping off my AGR account by buying enough points so I have another 1 zone redemption available to cover the Starlight. Turns out that is a LOT cheaper than flat out buying a Starlight roomette ticket.

I've hit a brick wall here. The bad news is they are sticking to those new guidelines to the letter, the good news is at least they are clear and appear be being applied consistently.

I also PM'd AGR Insider on Flyertalk.com, but he hasn't replied yet.

Finally, the reason I am not going the "legal" other direction (NYP-LAX-SEA)is that one of the major points of this trip is to ride the Canadian westbound and Via is running the 50% off sale now I have been waiting for. I did eastbound a couple of years ago and want to go the other way.

PS-It also appears they are noting things in my customer record there, so to call back to shop for a yes may no longer work. I was very polite to everyone, by the way.


----------



## fairviewroad

I guess I don't understand. Is the "problem" that you are making back-to-back awards reservations for the same train?

If so, just buy a cash ticket from ABQ-LMY for $20 or so in coach, then make your second AGR redemption from LMY-NYP.

Yeah, you'd have to schlep your stuff around the train (though you could probably just leave your bags in the same sleeper

downstairs racks) but it would be much cheaper than burning another 15,000 points for a separate one-zone award on the CS.

And you wouldn't be violating some rule--real or imagined--about back-to-back awards reservations. People make award-paid

"transfers" on the same train all the time.

And you wouldn't have to tell any phone agent what you are planning, since you would make the SEA-ABQ reservation with

Agent 1, buy ABQ-LMY online, then make LMY-NYP with agent #2.

Downside is that if there is a "note" in your customer service record, they may figure out what you're up to.


----------



## zephyr17

Don't know the reason. The agent gave me some song-and-dance about it could kick them out because of "duplicate reservations" although since they are between different points that seems like BS to me. But both agents and the supervisor said the same thing and did mention a rule against back-to-back awards. It didn't occur to be to book a ABQ-LMY coach ticket, though.

Burning the other award was a better alternative for me than buying a SEA-LAX ticket, that would have blown too big a hole in my budget. After talking to the supervisor, I figured I was at the end of the road and went ahead with the 3 + 1 redemption to do the trip.

The agents I talked to and the supervisor did mention they were noting my AGR account. They presented it as a positive, that once I got the extra points they'd be able to understand what I wanted and help me with minimal fuss. But it was clear they were noting unusual requests.


----------



## the_traveler

I also don't understand the "problem.

Last October, I did KIN-ELP, then on the same train ELP-ABQ, then on the same train ABQ-PHL. (Of course I didn't list all the connecting cities.) In March, I did KIN-ELP, then on the same train ELP-WPT,then on the same train WPT-KIN. (Again I didn't show the connecting cities.)

Every time I travel on an AGR award, I separate the 2 zone award and the 1 zone award at the border city. I always stay on the same train also.


----------



## zephyr17

I don't pretend to understand the "problem" either, but 3 different folks at AGR said it was a "problem". Traveler, when was the last time you did it? I get the feeling this "problem" started when they put the guidelines into effect this month.


----------



## crescent2

17: Please elaborate on what you were originally trying to do. I don't think I understand, either. I'm trying to learn the AGR rules. Thanks-


----------



## Devil's Advocate

zephyr17 said:


> I don't pretend to understand the "problem" either, but 3 different folks at AGR said it was a "problem". Traveler, when was the last time you did it? I get the feeling this "problem" started when they put the guidelines into effect this month.


In my experience the forced stopover rule has been in effect for months prior to the most recent changes.


----------



## zephyr17

crescent2 said:


> 17: Please elaborate on what you were originally trying to do. I don't think I understand, either. I'm trying to learn the AGR rules. Thanks-


I wanted to travel SEA-NYP using a routing SEA-LAX on 11, LAX-CHI on 4, and CHI-NYP on 48 on a 3 zone award. This was disallowed by 3 different AGR folks (2 agents and a supervisor). The basic reason is that routing is not a "designated route" in the Arrow system between SEA-NYP. Trying to do it as a 1 zone award, SEA-ABQ, and a 2 zone award, ABQ-NYP did not work, even though both those segments are in Arrow as "designated routes" (even with the overnight layover in LA) because what Devil's Advocate aptly calls the "forced stopover rule"...that they won't book award travel into and out of the same station on the same day on the same train as two awards. You apparently now must stay overnight for to book it with 2 award redemptions. The rationale they gave for it didn't make a lot of sense to me ("could look like a duplicate booking and be cancelled"?!), instead it really seems to boil down to "we make the rules for this and we say so."

It is a little absurd because both SEA-SAC (11), SAC-CHI (6), CHI-NYP (48) and SEA-LAX (11), LAX-NOL (2), NOL-NYP (20) are legal designated routes SEA-NYP. I could have swung down through LA and New Orleans (with an overnight layover), which about as indirect a routing as you can get, and booked that as legitimate 3-zone award. But I couldn't do it via LA and Chicago. Further, exactly the same routing is a legal designated route going the other direction NYP-SEA: NYP-CHI(49),CHI-LAX(3),LAX-SEA(14).


----------



## zephyr17

Devil's Advocate said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to understand the "problem" either, but 3 different folks at AGR said it was a "problem". Traveler, when was the last time you did it? I get the feeling this "problem" started when they put the guidelines into effect this month.
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience the forced stopover rule has been in effect for months prior to the most recent changes.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree. Since they just made pretty significant changes this month and absent other information and that was all right sometime in the past, it seemed a reasonable hypothesis that they put that in place with the other changes. I take it as disproven.


----------



## crescent2

zephyr17 said:


> crescent2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 17: Please elaborate on what you were originally trying to do. I don't think I understand, either. I'm trying to learn the AGR rules. Thanks-
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to travel SEA-NYP using a routing SEA-LAX on 11, LAX-CHI on 4, and CHI-NYP on 48 on a 3 zone award. This was disallowed by 3 different AGR folks (2 agents and a supervisor). The basic reason is that routing is not a "designated route" in the Arrow system between SEA-NYP. Trying to do it as a 1 zone award, SEA-ABQ, and a 2 zone award, ABQ-NYP did not work, even though both those segments are in Arrow as "designated routes" (even with the overnight layover in LA) because what Devil's Advocate aptly calls the "forced stopover rule"...that they won't book award travel into and out of the same station on the same day on the same train as two awards. You apparently now must stay overnight for to book it with 2 award redemptions. The rationale they gave for it didn't make a lot of sense to me ("could look like a duplicate booking and be cancelled"?!), instead it really seems to boil down to "we make the rules for this and we say so."
> 
> It is a little absurd because both SEA-SAC (11), SAC-CHI (6), CHI-NYP (48) and SEA-LAX (11), LAX-NOL (2), NOL-NYP (20) are legal designated routes SEA-NYP. I could have swung down through LA and New Orleans (with an overnight layover), which about as indirect a routing as you can get, and booked that as legitimate 3-zone award. But I couldn't do it via LA and Chicago. Further, exactly the same routing is a legal designated route going the other direction NYP-SEA: NYP-CHI(49),CHI-LAX(3),LAX-SEA(14).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the details. I'm really confused now, as I've never heard of the "forced stopover rule." Where is that stated in the new AGR guidelines?

I totally don't understand why your itinerary wouldn't be allowed.

I guess one of my tentative alternate plans wouldn't be allowed either, then. I was thinking of flying into DEN, doing a 1-zone (western) award DEN-PDX-WPT (the only way--other than via Seattle which is about the same thing-- to get from DEN to WPT within the western zone, and no more indirect than going DEN-CHI-WPT would be). Then redeeming a separate 2-zone award (central and eastern) beginning in WPT to get home CHI-WAS-ATL. (Or possibly another 1-zone award and coming home CHI-NOL-ATL.) I certainly was not going to spend the night in WPT, as there would be no "connection" to possibly miss; I'd already be on the train. I think the route is too circular to legitimately do it with one 3-zone award, so I was going to spring for two separate awards.

So, is AGR saying I'd have to do an overnight in WPT between redeeming the two separate awards? If so, that makes no sense at all. If I'm willing to pay the additional points for an extra award to get the routing I want, why should they care whether I do an unnecessary overnight layover? If I could do each award at separate times (say one in March and the other in April), why can't I do one right after the other?

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding all of this. If so, please enlighten me, someone. Thanks much!


----------



## PRR 60

crescent2 said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 17: Please elaborate on what you were originally trying to do. I don't think I understand, either. I'm trying to learn the AGR rules. Thanks-
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to travel SEA-NYP using a routing SEA-LAX on 11, LAX-CHI on 4, and CHI-NYP on 48 on a 3 zone award. This was disallowed by 3 different AGR folks (2 agents and a supervisor). The basic reason is that routing is not a "designated route" in the Arrow system between SEA-NYP. Trying to do it as a 1 zone award, SEA-ABQ, and a 2 zone award, ABQ-NYP did not work, even though both those segments are in Arrow as "designated routes" (even with the overnight layover in LA) because what Devil's Advocate aptly calls the "forced stopover rule"...that they won't book award travel into and out of the same station on the same day on the same train as two awards. You apparently now must stay overnight for to book it with 2 award redemptions. The rationale they gave for it didn't make a lot of sense to me ("could look like a duplicate booking and be cancelled"?!), instead it really seems to boil down to "we make the rules for this and we say so."
> 
> It is a little absurd because both SEA-SAC (11), SAC-CHI (6), CHI-NYP (48) and SEA-LAX (11), LAX-NOL (2), NOL-NYP (20) are legal designated routes SEA-NYP. I could have swung down through LA and New Orleans (with an overnight layover), which about as indirect a routing as you can get, and booked that as legitimate 3-zone award. But I couldn't do it via LA and Chicago. Further, exactly the same routing is a legal designated route going the other direction NYP-SEA: NYP-CHI(49),CHI-LAX(3),LAX-SEA(14).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the details. I'm really confused now, as I've never heard of the "forced stopover rule." Where is that stated in the new AGR guidelines?
> 
> I totally don't understand why your itinerary wouldn't be allowed.
> 
> I guess one of my tentative alternate plans wouldn't be allowed either, then. I was thinking of flying into DEN, doing a 1-zone (western) award DEN-PDX-WPT (the only way--other than via Seattle which is about the same thing-- to get from DEN to WPT within the western zone, and no more indirect than going DEN-CHI-WPT would be). Then redeeming a separate 2-zone award (central and eastern) beginning in WPT to get home CHI-WAS-ATL. (Or possibly another 1-zone award and coming home CHI-NOL-ATL.) I certainly was not going to spend the night in WPT, as there would be no "connection" to possibly miss; I'd already be on the train. I think the route is too circular to legitimately do it with one 3-zone award, so I was going to spring for two separate awards.
> 
> So, is AGR saying I'd have to do an overnight in WPT between redeeming the two separate awards? If so, that makes no sense at all. If I'm willing to pay the additional points for an extra award to get the routing I want, why should they care whether I do an unnecessary overnight layover? If I could do each award at separate times (say one in March and the other in April), why can't I do one right after the other?
> 
> Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding all of this. If so, please enlighten me, someone. Thanks much!
Click to expand...

While we can speculate, your best bet is to head to the Amtrak forum at Flyertalk and ask your question there. If you are not a member of FT, you will have to sign up. AGR has an official representative who participates in that forum and answers questions just like this (and does a great job of it).

I cannot see any reason your routing should not be bookable. Maybe he will have some reason, or maybe you'll find out that the reps were wrong.


----------



## crescent2

PRR60: Thanks. I am a recent FT member and have asked Insider a few questions. I was hoping to get clarification without becoming a regular penpal with him or her, though.  I imagine Insider is inundated with PM's since June 6, but maybe I canget an answer.

Is my tentative itinerary very similar to the OP's? If not, someone please clarify the differences.

Is the "forced stopover rule" in the new guidelines? What does it mean?

Thanks, I've never used AGR before and am trying to learn the ropes.


----------



## zephyr17

I didn't see the "forced stopover" thing in the publicly published version of the new guidelines, I just ran into it with the same story from 3 different AGR folks. I don't think it is official terminology, but rather a good shorthand description of the effect coined by Devil's Advocate.


----------



## crescent2

Thanks, Z17. What is the gist of the rule? I still (obviously) don't get it.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

c2, just go over to FlyerTalk and ask you AGR questions there. You don't need to PM AGRInsider, just start a thread with your questions. There may be people on FT, who are not on AU, who can answer them.


----------



## zephyr17

According to those 2 AGR agents and the supervisor, they won't allow you to arrive at a given station as the terminating station of one award and depart from that same station on the same day on the same train as the originating station of a second award.

In my case, I wanted to take train 4 to Albuquerque as a 1 zone SEA-ABQ award, then depart on that same train 4 the same day as the the start of a 2 zone ABQ-NYP award (i.e. just continue on train 4 through Albuquerque on 2 different award tickets).

It would be allowed if I got off the train at Albuquerque, stayed overnight, and left Albuquerque the next day on train 4 with the second award ticket, hence the "forced stopover" name. They force you to get off and stop over.

I will say that I did give serious thought to staying over in Albuquerque to do it. It seems like pretty neat town in many respects and I could have gone up to Santa Fe on the RailRunner, too. Wolf Point, not so much.


----------



## VentureForth

I guess I just want to know why you don't want to book two separate itineraries? Because you may have to change rooms? You'll have to if you spend the night... How far out is your trip? You can call and ask if room such and such is available between LAX and CHI on the SWC. Then, make two calls to AGR - one between SEA and ABQ, requesting that room number. Then call back make the rest of your trip (acting like it's your only trip) and request the same room from ABQ to CHI.

But I can think of worse things than spending the night in ABQ. It's a fascinating city.


----------



## Rail Freak

zephyr17 said:


> According to those 2 AGR agents and the supervisor, they won't allow you to arrive at a given station as the terminating station of one award and depart from that same station on the same day on the same train as the originating station of a second award.


Then why do they offer 2 & 3 zone redemtions????? :unsure: :angry: Craziness!!!


----------



## pennyk

Last November, I booked the following AGR trip (2 zone, 1 zone, 2 zone) which was planned for April 2013:

ORL - NYP - CHI - ELP;

ELP - LAX - PDX - WPT;

WPT - CHI - NYP.

Because of many reasons (including the fact that I would be spending 9 (I think) straight nights on a train, with "no stopovers") I canceled the trip. It appears, based on Zephyr17's experience, that I would not be able to book this same trip again. It will cost me a few more points when I take a similar trip in 2014, but I will have some peace of mind and a couple of nights in a hotel room.


----------



## VentureForth

Rail Freak said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to those 2 AGR agents and the supervisor, they won't allow you to arrive at a given station as the terminating station of one award and depart from that same station on the same day on the same train as the originating station of a second award.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they offer 2 & 3 zone redemtions????? :angry: Craziness!!!
Click to expand...

To accomodate people that want to go from Seattle to New York the most cost efficient way for AGR, which is the EB through Chicago, not through LAX, ABQ and Chicago.


----------



## Rail Freak

I originaly thought that th overnight in LAX was the root of the problem, but It is showing it as an option on Amtrak .com???? I'd keep calling!!!!


----------



## VentureForth

BEFORE!!!! YOU ???? FREak out..... BE SURE To understand!!! that Zephyr17 is trying??? to circumvent the rules!!! by travelling from SEA to NYP via LAX and ABQ??? rather than authorized routing of taking the Empire Builder from SEA to CHI!!!

The rules state that you gotta take the routing suggested unless that route doesn't carry that class of service you are trying to redeem. IE: if the Empire Builder only offered coach service, then Zephyr17's routing would be acceptable. Why is it Amtrak's fault that someone is trying to get the most miles (hense, expense to Amtrak) for their reward redemption???

If I were AGR, I'd even call foul on the suggestion that I offered to 'get around it'. If we as a community don't police ourselves, you can likely bet that Amtrak will find ways to discourage that sort of manipulation by increasing the reward points for a 2-zone to 25,000 points. OR they'll get even more restrictive in ways I can't even dream up.


----------



## Rail Freak

VentureForth said:


> If I were AGR, I'd even call foul on the suggestion that I offered to 'get around it'. If we as a community don't police ourselves, you can likely bet that Amtrak will find ways to discourage that sort of manipulation by increasing the reward points for a 2-zone to 25,000 points. OR they'll get even more restrictive in ways I can't even dream up


Sounds like you are an AGR Agent!!!

If I can book SEA-ABQ for one zone & ABQ-NYP for a two zone Then why in the world can't I redeem a three zone for travel SEA-ABQ-NYP??? Reminds me of Logic Class 101!!!

No manipulation to it!!!


----------



## Ryan

VentureForth said:


> BEFORE!!!! YOU ???? FREak out..... BE SURE To understand!!! that Zephyr17 is trying??? to circumvent the rules!!! by travelling from SEA to NYP via LAX and ABQ??? rather than authorized routing of taking the Empire Builder from SEA to CHI!!!


You may want to try and stop freaking out yourself.
If in fact this is a rule, it's stupid that it wasn't published as a part of the recent rules listing.

If it isn't a rule, then he should be allowed to book the trip.


----------



## VentureForth

You know what, maybe this is the wording we're looking for to take back to AGR Insider and the crew over there:



> *■Where a desired itinerary does not exist as a single published route, the trip must be constructed as a series of published routes using multiple redemptions.*


This bullet seems to nullify anything I've said and would appear to support Zephyr17's rule. He WOULD construct a series of published routes using multiple redemptions. I don't see (but I don't have the whole thing in front of me) where it excludes using boundary cities to make that itinerary or requiring an overnight stay.

Sorry for freaking out Railfreak. I shall keep my punctuation down to a normal roar.


----------



## zephyr17

VentureForth, SEA-LAX-NOL-NYP and SEA-SAC-CHI-NYP are both authorized routings and are at least as far out of the way as SEA-LAX-CHI-NYP. Any such "designated route" can be used for an AGR award, basically anything that shows up and can be booked without using a Multi-City option for any two endpoints. That is very clear in the newly published guidelines. So the routing I wanted is no longer and actually shorter than routing via New Orleans, which I could have done with no problem.

Further, the reverse routing NYP-CHI-LAX-SEA actually IS a legal "designated route" and could have been bookable as a 3 zone award with little or no problem within the current guidelines WITHOUT CIRCUMVENTING ANY RULES. My complaint is I could have done the exact same trip, with the same costs to Amtrak, if I just was willing to go the other direction. At some level that does not make sense. Hell, NYP-WAS-CHI-LAX-SEA is a legal designated route generated by Arrow as an NYP-SEA option.

There is not currently a restriction to take the most direct route as an AGR award in the recently published guidelines, just to use a designated route, regardless of how roundabout. That is one of the things that was clarified in the new guidelines.

Also, RailFreak, no one at AGR ever said that the overnight in LA was the problem. The problem was the lack of a "designated route." The overnight was fine if I wanted to go to Albuquerque. All 3 AGR people were completely consistent in their answers and those answers consisted of two basic points:

- If it is a route generated by "the computer" (to be completely accurate, they did not call it Arrow in their conversation) it can be booked with a single award. Multi-city routings require one award per continuously generated segment. That is actually what I ultimately did, 1-zone SEA-LAX, 3-zone LAX-(CHI)-NYP. That is completely consistent with the new guidelines.

- You cannot redeem two awards in order to travel through the destination of the first award on the same day on the same train. You must get off and take another train for the second award. That does not appear to be in the published guidelines, but it appears to be consistently enforced.

The fact that they were that they were completely consistent is what convinced me to give in, burn the addtional 1-zone award, and quit trying.


----------



## Rail Freak

VentureForth said:


> You know what, maybe this is the wording we're looking for to take back to AGR Insider and the crew over there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *■Where a desired itinerary does not exist as a single published route, the trip must be constructed as a series of published routes using multiple redemptions.*
> 
> 
> 
> This bullet seems to nullify anything I've said and would appear to support Zephyr17's rule. He WOULD construct a series of published routes using multiple redemptions. I don't see (but I don't have the whole thing in front of me) where it excludes using boundary cities to make that itinerary or requiring an overnight stay.
> 
> Sorry for freaking out Railfreak. I shall keep my punctuation down to a normal roar.
Click to expand...

That's quite alright, I'm originally from Rome,Ga!! I understand. :hi:


----------



## VentureForth

I see a lot of freaking out when Rome plays Savannah in baseball. Quite the rivalry!


----------



## Rail Freak

zephyr17 said:


> VentureForth, SEA-LAX-NOL-NYP and SEA-SAC-CHI-NYP are both authorized routings and are at least as far out of the way as SEA-LAX-CHI-NYP. Any such "designated route" can be used for an AGR award, basically anything that shows up and can be booked without using a Multi-City option for any two endpoints. That is very clear in the newly published guidelines. So the routing I wanted is no longer and actually shorter than routing via New Orleans, which I could have done with no problem.
> Further, the reverse routing NYP-CHI-LAX-SEA actually IS a legal "designated route" and could have been bookable as a 3 zone award with little or no problem within the current guidelines WITHOUT CIRCUMVENTING ANY RULES. My complaint is I could have done the exact same trip, with the same costs to Amtrak, if I just was willing to go the other direction. At some level that does not make sense. Hell, NYP-WAS-CHI-LAX-SEA is a legal designated route generated by Arrow as an NYP-SEA option.
> 
> There is not currently a restriction to take the most direct route as an AGR award in the recently published guidelines, just to use a designated route, regardless of how roundabout. That is one of the things that was clarified in the new guidelines.
> 
> Also, RailFreak, no one at AGR ever said that the overnight in LA was the problem. The problem was the lack of a "designated route." The overnight was fine if I wanted to go to Albuquerque. All 3 AGR people were completely consistent in their answers and those answers consisted of two basic points:
> 
> - If it is a route generated by "the computer" (to be completely accurate, they did not call it Arrow in their conversation) it can be booked with a single award. Multi-city routings require one award per continuously generated segment. That is actually what I ultimately did, 1-zone SEA-LAX, 3-zone LAX-(CHI)-NYP. That is completely consistent with the new guidelines.
> 
> - You cannot redeem two awards in order to travel through the destination of the first award on the same day on the same train. You must get off and take another train for the second award. That does not appear to be in the published guidelines, but it appears to be consistently enforced.
> 
> The fact that they were that they were completely consistent is what convinced me to give in, burn the addtional 1-zone award, and quit trying.


I think you should keep trying, why spend those points if you dont have to?


----------



## zephyr17

Well, it's a done deal now, it's booked. I talked to two agents and escalated it to a supervisor, and got the same answer with the same reasoning from all of them (although at somewhat more length from the supervisor). Particularly, once the supervisor said so, and let it be known that they had put notes in my customer file, I felt I was at the end of the road.


----------



## Rail Freak

I really do hate to keep beating a dead horse, but the horse is still breathing! I just got off the phone with AGR. I told the agent I was planning that trip & she said that I could, for a 3 zone award(roomette - 35k pts)!!!!

Like I said, Craziness!!!

I'm gonna move on now!

Good Luck

RF


----------



## crescent2

Rail Freak said:


> I really do hate to keep beating a dead horse, but the horse is still breathing! I just got off the phone with AGR. I told the agent I was planning that trip & she said that I could, for a 3 zone award(roomette - 35k pts)!!!!Like I said, Craziness!!!
> 
> I'm gonna move on now!
> 
> Good Luck
> 
> RF


RailFreak, when I get ready to book my trip, I'm going to let you do the calling! You have the magic touch, apparently. 

I still don't understand why there is an unpublished rule that you can't end one award and begin another in the same city on the same day. If you could do award 1 and then wait a week to do award 2, why can't you do them back to back? You would NOT be trying to cheat the system; you'd be paying exactly the same number of points as if you did the awards a week or month or year apart. They are two separate awards.

Or is the problem that AGR won't allow it on a single award? I still don't get that, if they allow similar routing or the reverse routing.

I am hoping I'm misunderstanding the rule. And, why on earth was it not included in the recently published guidelines?

AmtrakBlue: This is a discussion forum for Amtrak Guest Rewards. I prefer to discuss it here and I'm enjoying the posts here.


----------



## AlanB

zephyr17 said:


> Particularly, once the supervisor said so, and let it be known that they had put notes in my customer file, I felt I was at the end of the road.


No, the end of the road would have been an appeal to AGR Insider. And it's still not too late, things can be adjusted if need be. I can't predict the answer of course, but that would be the end of the road.


----------



## zephyr17

I do have a PM conversation with AGR Insider over at FlyerTalk. He responded to my first one outling the situation, but hasn't gotten back to me after I responed to him and I said I had already booked with the extra award, but still thought the routing should be valid as a single 3-zone award given all the reasons I also went into here. We shall see.


----------



## the_traveler

I still say that since a 3 zone award costs the same as a 1 zone award plus a 2 zone award, why not just book a 1 zone award then on another call book a 2 zone award? They can't say they're duplicates since one award ends in ABQ and one begins in ABQ.


----------



## zephyr17

the_traveler said:


> I still say that since a 3 zone award costs the same as a 1 zone award plus a 2 zone award, why not just book a 1 zone award then on another call book a 2 zone award? They can't say they're duplicates since one award ends in ABQ and one begins in ABQ.


That is EXACTLY what I tried to do, 1 zone SEA-ABQ, 2 zone ABQ-NYP. I said before here I didn't understand that reasoning to justify the "forced stopover" rule and it felt like BS. They still applied that unpublished rule and disallowed it. By 3 AGR people.


----------



## I always rode the Southern

VentureForth said:


> BEFORE!!!! YOU ???? FREak out..... BE SURE To understand!!! that Zephyr17 is trying??? to circumvent the rules!!! by travelling from SEA to NYP via LAX and ABQ??? rather than authorized routing of taking the Empire Builder from SEA to CHI!!!
> The rules state that you gotta take the routing suggested unless that route doesn't carry that class of service you are trying to redeem. IE: if the Empire Builder only offered coach service, then Zephyr17's routing would be acceptable. Why is it Amtrak's fault that someone is trying to get the most miles (hense, expense to Amtrak) for their reward redemption???
> 
> If I were AGR, I'd even call foul on the suggestion that I offered to 'get around it'. If we as a community don't police ourselves, you can likely bet that Amtrak will find ways to discourage that sort of manipulation by increasing the reward points for a 2-zone to 25,000 points. OR they'll get even more restrictive in ways I can't even dream up.


what is the difference in cost to amtrak if you book it with the forced stop over? None, you are still using 3 zones on the same route just 2 different days. Now if you tell me that amtrak owns, or gets a commisssion from the hotels in ABQ then I can see them losing money by not forcing a stopover.

I really needed that ability to split my awards into a 2 zone to ABQ and 1 zone ABQ to San Francisco. I needed to be there for a family wedding when arrow was only offering the Zephyr(which although one of my favorite routes) was having a disasterous year for cancellations mid trip. I had no problem booking it, and I appreciate the ability to do that. I earn my points, and don't try to take advantage of loopholes or such. I don't expect AGR to take advantage of me by restricting my ability to use my rewards in a reasonable manner.


----------



## Ryan

Another alternative may be to ask for the SEA-LAX-NYP routing to be programmed into Arrow.

Since SEA-EMY-NYP and SEA-LAX-NOL-NYP are already entered, I would guess that they'd do that.

Then it can be booked as a "normal" 3 zone.


----------



## zephyr17

I did ask if it could be added as a valid route when I talk to the supervisor, but he said I'd have to call Customer Relations to ask for that. I am still kind of hoping that AGR Insider might do that.

Southern, I can't see a financial reason for the restriction either. You are still using just as many services on two trains over two days as you would on one, just one of many reasons it was frustrating. And it is apparently a rather recent development, based on your and other's experiences.


----------



## amamba

Ryan said:


> Another alternative may be to ask for the SEA-LAX-NYP routing to be programmed into Arrow.
> Since SEA-EMY-NYP and SEA-LAX-NOL-NYP are already entered, I would guess that they'd do that.
> 
> Then it can be booked as a "normal" 3 zone.


Exactly. That really seems to be the solution - PM AGR insider and ask for the routing to be added to Arrow. The nice thing about htat is then a) anyone can book such a trip via AGR and b) it will automatically pop up for revenue pax, also.


----------



## crescent2

crescent2 said:


> Rail Freak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really do hate to keep beating a dead horse, but the horse is still breathing! I just got off the phone with AGR. I told the agent I was planning that trip & she said that I could, for a 3 zone award(roomette - 35k pts)!!!!Like I said, Craziness!!!
> 
> I'm gonna move on now!
> 
> Good Luck
> 
> RF
> 
> 
> 
> RailFreak, when I get ready to book my trip, I'm going to let you do the calling! You have the magic touch, apparently.
> 
> I still don't understand why there is an unpublished rule that you can't end one award and begin another in the same city on the same day. If you could do award 1 and then wait a week to do award 2, why can't you do them back to back? *You would NOT be trying to cheat the system; you'd be paying exactly the same number of points as if you did the awards a week or month or year apart. *
Click to expand...

I, too, just don't see that OP is trying to circumvent any rules or is doing anything that would cause AGR to raise the points required on redemptions.

Hopefully the forced stopover rule will go away, or be published along with the other guidelines.


----------



## VentureForth

zephyr17 said:


> I did ask if it could be added as a valid route when I talk to the supervisor, but he said I'd have to call Customer Relations to ask for that. I am still kind of hoping that AGR Insider might do that.
> Southern, I can't see a financial reason for the restriction either. You are still using just as many services on two trains over two days as you would on one, just one of many reasons it was frustrating. And it is apparently a rather recent development, based on your and other's experiences.


 My rationale for my original opposition was that you are getting several more meals in the diner as well as occupying more potential revenue space. That was based solely on the SEA - LAX - ABQ - CHI - NYP vs SEA - CHI - NYP routings. After Zephyr17 mentioned that it was perfectly fine to book through LAX - NOL, my argument went out the window.



zephyr17 said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still say that since a 3 zone award costs the same as a 1 zone award plus a 2 zone award, why not just book a 1 zone award then on another call book a 2 zone award? They can't say they're duplicates since one award ends in ABQ and one begins in ABQ.
> 
> 
> 
> That is EXACTLY what I tried to do, 1 zone SEA-ABQ, 2 zone ABQ-NYP. I said before here I didn't understand that reasoning to justify the "forced stopover" rule and it felt like BS. They still applied that unpublished rule and disallowed it. By 3 AGR people.
Click to expand...

 I think what we were suggesting is that you do it on two separate phone calls.



crescent2 said:


> I, too, just don't see that OP is trying to circumvent any rules or is doing anything that would cause AGR to raise the points required on redemptions.Hopefully the forced stopover rule will go away, or be published along with the other guidelines.


The first apparent rule was that he was trying to circumvent the direct routing rule. But there is a bullet that says you can take another routing if you redeem separate rewards. This brought up the 2nd rule which doesn't seem to be published anywhere that a second redemption can't be made on the same exact train that a previous redemption ends. I think this is where the real point of contention is.

As an Amtrak person, I would probably ONLY allow a single redemption from SEA - CHI - NYP. I really don't know why SEA - LAX - NOL - CHI - NYP is an option. But if it is, then SEA - EMY - CHI - NYP and SEA - LAX - ABQ - CHI - NYP and SEA - LAX - SAN - CHI - NYP should all be allowed aas a single, 3-zone redemption.


----------



## zephyr17

SEA-EMY(actually MTZ or SAC)-CHI-NYP is a published route and so is an allowed option.

I did make two separate phone calls on separate days. The first day I just talked to an agent, the second day I talked to a different agent and then escalated it to a supervisor.

There is NOT a "direct routing rule" in the redemption guidelines. I wasn't trying to circumvent it because it is not there to circumvent. I understand that some agents have tried to enforce such a "rule" in the past before those guidelines were published, but it is certainly not there now. The rule I was trying to circumvent was the "published route" rule, because, like you, I thought that it should be a valid route given the other routes that are vaild, like through NOL. The relevant rules from the redemption guidelines are:

•A travel itinerary for a single redemption must follow a published route between the initial origin and final destination. A published route is an itinerary automatically generated by Amtrak's reservation system.

•Where a desired itinerary does not exist as a single published route, the trip must be constructed as a series of published routes using multiple redemptions.

Trying to do it with a 1 zone to ABQ and a 2 zone from there to NYP technically would have put me in compliance with the second rule, but ran afoul of the unpublished "can't stay on the same train"/"forced stopover" rule. If you parse the language closely, I think you could argue that the "forced stopover" rule is implicit in the "final destination" wording of the rule. If you are staying on the same train and continuing on, you aren't at the final destination.

If I just wanted a grand tour to maximize train time, I could have done that going via NOL or MTZ/DEN/CHI. The thing was I wanted to ride the Southwest Chief because of the potential reroute, and I wanted to go eastbound because of other considerations. The NYP-CHI-LAX_SEA route via SWC is a "published route" westbound. My requirements were too rigid to fully take advantage of the system. The trade-off was to relax some of my requirements or use up another award and I chose the later.


----------



## crescent2

Not to split hairs, although sometimes AGR does, I take the _final destination_ wording of the "single redemption" rule to mean the final destination of _that single redemption_, not the final destinations of other, separate, redemptions. If you are paying the points for each separate award, I see no reason for AGR to not allow them to be made back-to-back. It makes no sense. They are not losing anything!


----------



## zephyr17

Well, I don't see a good reason why they shouldn't allow it either and you are certainly right about them not losing anything. But at the end of the day, it doesn't have to make sense. It's AGR's bat, ball, and ballfield and "because we said so" can serve as a reason.

On the upside, and little noted, is there remains the flexibility to take any "published route". That is a really good perk all on its own. AGR certainly could have put in a "most direct routing" rule, as VentureForth thought there already was, and make it much more restrictive. As it stands, I had the choice of a few interesting routes for a 3-zone redemption fully within the guidelines, including through New Orleans, or via the California Zephyr. I wasn't restricted to the direct Empire Builder/Lakeshore Limited routing, I just couldn't have the particular (and admittedly somewhat peculiar) route that I wanted. Sometimes I think we can get so focused on what we can't do than what we can. Here at AU a lot of us, me included, want to maximize train time, so we are probably more interested than most AGR members in "pushing" the system.


----------



## PRR 60

crescent2 said:


> Not to split hairs, although sometimes AGR does, I take the _final destination_ wording of the "single redemption" rule to mean the final destination of _that single redemption_, not the final destinations of other, separate, redemptions. If you are paying the points for each separate award, I see no reason for AGR to not allow them to be made back-to-back. It makes no sense. They are not losing anything!


I could not agree more.

Consider the scenario of calling once and booking a one-zone SEA-ABQ trip, then an hour or a day later or a week later, calling again and booking a two-zone ABQ-NYP. Would that have been blocked unless you stayed an overnight in ABQ? I doubt it. Yet, because you tried to do it at one shot, they come up with a required overnight? Seriously?

I'm really interested in hearing how this ends up with AGR Insider. I cannot imagine a valid reason they would prohibit this booking, and if there is one, it should have been published with the booking guidelines.


----------



## crescent2

PRR 60 said:


> crescent2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to split hairs, although sometimes AGR does, I take the _final destination_ wording of the "single redemption" rule to mean the final destination of _that single redemption_, not the final destinations of other, separate, redemptions. If you are paying the points for each separate award, I see no reason for AGR to not allow them to be made back-to-back. It makes no sense. They are not losing anything!
> 
> 
> 
> I could not agree more.
> 
> Consider the scenario of calling once and booking a one-zone SEA-ABQ trip, then an hour or a day later or a week later, calling again and booking a two-zone ABQ-NYP. Would that have been blocked unless you stayed an overnight in ABQ? I doubt it. Yet, because you tried to do it at one shot, they come up with a required overnight? Seriously?
> 
> I'm really interested in hearing how this ends up with AGR Insider. I cannot imagine a valid reason they would prohibit this booking, and if there is one, it should have been published with the booking guidelines.
Click to expand...

And I could not agree with you more, either, PRR60. I'm very interested in hearing how this ends up with Insider, too, as it's probably going to directly affect my future trip(s). And there's nary a hint of such a rule in the recently published guidelines. In fact, in all I've read about AGR (a lot!), I'd never heard of the "forced stopover" thing until this thread.

When I get enough points and get around to booking my trip (hopefully for next year), I may try your two separate phone calls (one for each separate award) thing, unless Insider gets it all straightened out.



zephyr17 said:


> Well, I don't see a good reason why they shouldn't allow it either and you are certainly right about them not losing anything. But at the end of the day, it doesn't have to make sense. It's AGR's bat, ball, and ballfield and "because we said so" can serve as a reason.
> On the upside, and little noted, is there remains the flexibility to take any "published route". That is a really good perk all on its own. AGR certainly could have put in a "most direct routing" rule, as VentureForth thought there already was, and make it much more restrictive. As it stands, I had the choice of a few interesting routes for a 3-zone redemption fully within the guidelines, including through New Orleans, or via the California Zephyr. I wasn't restricted to the direct Empire Builder/Lakeshore Limited routing, I just couldn't have the particular (and admittedly somewhat peculiar) route that I wanted. Sometimes I think we can get so focused on what we can't do than what we can. Here at AU a lot of us, me included, want to maximize train time, so we are probably more interested than most AGR members in "pushing" the system.


"The boss ain't always right, but s/he's always the boss." I have to remind myself of that from time to time! 

You are correct, in some ways the new guidelines are less restrictive. Insider her/himself told me that logical, direct routes that are not currently published would still be allowed using AGR. I also think she/he has seen to it that some of them are now showing on Arrow. Also, the "all sleepers" and "<23.5 hr layover" exceptions are less restrictive.

Have you (or has anyone else here) asked Insider about the phantom "forced stopover" rule per se?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Being a published route programmed into Arrow made no difference with regard to the forced stopover rule, at least in my personal experience. Although my first reporting of this seemingly random restriction was largely ignored I think it's finally starting to don on some folks that this was not a made up excuse by a single clueless agent or rogue trainer or [insert other kneejerk response]. The forced stopover rule appears to be actual AGR policy, at least insofar as I can determine such, and is not merely a misunderstanding by a silly yokel out in bumblefork Texas. That being said, nothing would make me happier than being proven wrong after the fact thanks to intervention by or on behalf of AGRI.


----------



## zephyr17

I agree. It sure looks to me like the "forced stopover" rule is policy and not, as you said, something someone clueless or rogue thought up on their own and are enforcing on their whim. Also, that the route programmed into Arrow ("published route") is a separate, though related thing. The rule seems to be you can't hook two published routes together at the same station on the same day as two awards.


----------



## Rail Freak

zephyr17 said:


> I agree. It sure looks to me like the "forced stopover" rule is policy and not, as you said, something someone clueless or rogue thought up. Also, that the route programmed into Arrow ("published route") don't either. The rule seems to be you can't hook two published routes together at the same station on the same day as two awards.


I've been doing it from day1!!! Are you saying that you have to depart the train at all AGR Border Stations? (I dont think so!!!!)


----------



## zephyr17

If your are traveling on a different award on a different "published route" it certain seems to be. That is what this hidden "forced stopover" rule appears to be. They certainly didn't allow me to do it SEA-ABQ then ABQ-NYP. The only option they would allow to do that was to detrain in Albuquerque and take the next day's train.

The recently published guidelines appear to change things that were previously customarily allowed or disallowed. Some things previously disallowed, or only inconsistently allowed are now explicitly allowed by published guideline. But some things that had been allowed, even inconsistently, are now no longer allowed (even if if they didn't publish this "forced stopover" policy as part of the publically published guidelines).

I wouldn't count on being able to do that on a future redemption.


----------



## MrFSS

zephyr17 said:


> If your are traveling on a different award on a different "published route" it certain seems to be. That is what this hidden "forced stopover" rule appears to be. They certainly didn't allow me to do it SEA-ABQ then ABQ-NYP. The only option they would allow to do that was to detrain in Albuquerque and take the next day's train.


What if you were paying cash for the entire trip and tried to buy it as two separate legs. (Reason being one of the legs might have to be changed and you didn't want to mess the entire trip up). Wonder if they would sell the trip to you that way without the overnight?

If so, it destroys their argument as to why they want you to stay overnight.


----------



## Rail Freak

zephyr17 said:


> If your are traveling on a different award on a different "published route" it certain seems to be. That is what this hidden "forced stopover" rule appears to be. They certainly didn't allow me to do it SEA-ABQ then ABQ-NYP. The only option they would allow to do that was to detrain in Albuquerque and take the next day's train.


What is a Garaunteed Connection? (BTW- Istill think you will be allowed that connection, if you dont give up!)


----------



## Rail Freak

I hope my posts dont sound too gruff! I'm on your side & hope like hell you get the route you want!!!


----------



## zephyr17

Any guaranteed connection almost by definition is part of a published route, so that would not be a problem. The real problem appears to be stitching 2 different published routes together at a zone boundary without laying over.


----------



## Rail Freak

zephyr17 said:


> Any guaranteed connection almost by definition is part of a published route, so that would not be a problem. The real problem appears to be stitching 2 different published routes together at a zone boundary without laying over.


In this case, the Garaunteed Connection really doesnt apply, you're on the same darn train. That's what doesnt make a bit of sense to me!!! Whew, I dare you to call one more time!!!


----------



## PRR 60

Rail Freak said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any guaranteed connection almost by definition is part of a published route, so that would not be a problem. The real problem appears to be stitching 2 different published routes together at a zone boundary without laying over.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, the Garaunteed Connection really doesnt apply, you're on the same darn train. That's what doesnt make a bit of sense to me!!! Whew, I dare you to call one more time!!!
Click to expand...

The problem is that AGR has added the dreaded "note in the customer file" to Zephyr17's record. That alerts any agent who pulls up Zephyr17's AGR info what's has been going on and warns the agent to not change the decision. Nasty.


----------



## zephyr17

MrFSS said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your are traveling on a different award on a different "published route" it certain seems to be. That is what this hidden "forced stopover" rule appears to be. They certainly didn't allow me to do it SEA-ABQ then ABQ-NYP. The only option they would allow to do that was to detrain in Albuquerque and take the next day's train.
> 
> 
> 
> What if you were paying cash for the entire trip and tried to buy it as two separate legs. (Reason being one of the legs might have to be changed and you didn't want to mess the entire trip up). Wonder if they would sell the trip to you that way without the overnight?
> 
> If so, it destroys their argument as to why they want you to stay overnight.
Click to expand...

I don't what would happen if you tried to buy something like LAX-ABQ and ABQ-CHI as a multi-city or even as separate tickets. I do know their cancel duplicates process doesn't appear to take place real time at booking but appears to be some kind of batch process, so if you did a trial booking and it accepted it, I don't think that would definitely answer the question. You'd have to do a real reservation and then see if Amtrak came through and cancelled it. I wouldn't want to run that experiment myself, though.


----------



## Rail Freak

PRR 60 said:


> Rail Freak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any guaranteed connection almost by definition is part of a published route, so that would not be a problem. The real problem appears to be stitching 2 different published routes together at a zone boundary without laying over.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, the Garaunteed Connection really doesnt apply, you're on the same darn train. That's what doesnt make a bit of sense to me!!! Whew, I dare you to call one more time!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that AGR has added the dreaded "note in the customer file" to Zephyr17's record. That alerts any agent who pulls up Zephyr17's AGR info what's has been going on and warns the agent to not change the decision. Nasty.
Click to expand...

WELL, that sounds like a lot of BS to me on AGR's part! I sure hope AGR Insider fixes this!!!!


----------



## crescent2

I sure hope so, too!

And it's not a duplicate or impossible booking, because you are going from A to B (one separate award), and then from B to C (another separate award). Nothing is duplicated and there is nothing impossible about it.

Zephyr, would it be worth a chance to PM AGR Insider about "the unpublished forced stopover rule"? He or she could get your awards changed if the so-called rule is nonexistent. (Which for the life of me, I can't figure out why that would ever be a rule--it does not benefit Amtrak at all.) And then the rest of us would know, too.  You have a current vested interest in it, after all.


----------



## crescent2

zephyr17 said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your are traveling on a different award on a different "published route" it certain seems to be. That is what this hidden "forced stopover" rule appears to be. They certainly didn't allow me to do it SEA-ABQ then ABQ-NYP. The only option they would allow to do that was to detrain in Albuquerque and take the next day's train.
> 
> 
> 
> What if you were paying cash for the entire trip and tried to buy it as two separate legs. (Reason being one of the legs might have to be changed and you didn't want to mess the entire trip up). Wonder if they would sell the trip to you that way without the overnight?
> 
> If so, it destroys their argument as to why they want you to stay overnight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I don't what would happen if you tried to buy something like LAX-ABQ and ABQ-CHI as a multi-city *or even as separate tickets*.* I do know their cancel duplicates process doesn't appear to take place real time at booking but appears to be some kind of batch process, so if you did a trial booking and it accepted it, I don't think that would definitely answer the question. You'd have to do a real reservation and then see if Amtrak came through and cancelled it. I wouldn't want to run that experiment myself, though.
Click to expand...

I've actually entered my tentative itinerary (similar situation) into Arrow as Multicity, and was quoted prices, selected my sleeper accommodations, applied the senior discount, etc. Went as far as passenger information screen. I didn't actually complete the reservation, of course. I can't imagine that they would not let you book it.

Just plain weird!!


----------



## zephyr17

Honestly I think it would (and should) work and that this "duplicate" excuse that AGR made was BS. The thing is that the duplicate itinerary check isn't done real time at reservation time. So you could book it but if it runs afoul of the the duplicate itinerary check it then would be auto-cancelled. However, if that duplicate check actually did kick out a non-overlapping itinerary, it is poorly designed.


----------



## crescent2

OK, I asked about the "rule" over on FT; didn't want to PM Insider again. We'll see what shakes out, I guess!


----------



## zephyr17

Thanks, he hasn't responded to my own PM yet. I told him I went ahead and redeemed the extra award so he figures it is a dead issue, but I said I thought the SEA-LAX-CHI-NYP routing should be a "published route" for all the reasons I've already gone into on this thread. I look forward to seeing what your thread brings up over at FlyerTalk.


----------



## zephyr17

I just remembered something about having 2 tickets for the same train on the same day one from point A to point B, the next from point B to point C on the same the train for a paid fare. I actually did that a couple of years ago.

I had a one-way coach ticket EVR-SPK that I bought on the website to go to Spokane and help move my daughter back from college. I chose Everett because that station has free parking, not Edmonds which is closer to where I work (I was leaving after work). A co-worker offered to drive me to Edmonds and I'd rather board in Edmonds because it was more convenient and there'd be a better choice of seats. So I called Amtrak up and asked to change my origin point to Edmonds. What she did was issue another ticket, EDM-EVR and charge me $6. That was fine by me because I could board in Edmonds which was handier, and I'd get 100 AGR additional AGR miles for that short ride in addition to the points for the original EVR-SPK ticket.

So there is no problem in the system with that. I've done it myself, booked by an Amtrak agent.


----------



## crescent2

Insider has not yet replied to the FT thread, but someone else who did says he's done two back-to-back AGR awards before.

Quote from FT:

_"I've booked awards such as that (coach to zone boundary, sleeper the rest of the way) but not in the past year.

Pending clarification, it seems you can just: 1) Book them separately, or 2) Hang up, call back, and try a different agent."_

Well, we know 2) doesn't always work!

I hope that Insider will reply with an official answer.


----------



## crescent2

Well, I felt silly phoning about a trip for Sept. 2014, but curiosity got the better of me, and I want to know what I'm working with when I'm planning. I just phoned AGR and got a very helpful and polite agent. I asked him about this tentative itinerary, along with some general questions:

(Fly into DEN a day before)

DEN to WPT on a 1-zone award (western zone)

WPT to ATL on a separate 2-zone award (central & eastern)

This would get my elusive trip down to eight days, assuming no missed connections.

Each of these segments is published on Arrow, but not the entire itinerary (unless using Multicity).

Long story short: No, not without a forced overnight stopover in Wolfpoint. :unsure:

I inquired why this was so, and he said it is to prevent booking routes that do not come up on Arrow. I explained that I would be paying additional points to book the extra award, and that I totally understand why it can't be booked as a single 3-zone award (at the beginning, it's too circuitous, which is a legit restriction). He understood my point, understood that each award is legit on its own, and agreed that the forced overnight does not benefit Amtrak, but said that's just the policy.

He also suggested, although it would result in a 1-zone award plus a 3-zone award (ouch), that I consider booking DEN-PDX on one award, overnight in PDX, and then do a 3-zone award from there. His reason was the tight connection from the CS to the EB in Portland. *sigh* Any thoughts on this vs an overnight in WPT?

He had been very patient, and presumably he did not write the guidelines, so I didn't bother to ask him why this policy is not stated in the published guidelines.

RailFreak has *twice* gotten agents, recently, who would allow two awards without the overnight stopover. I need to make friends with him before I call back. 

Let's hope that AGR Insider will do something about this policy!


----------



## Rail Freak

Could it be that demand is overtaking supply???


----------



## zephyr17

crescent2 said:


> Well, I felt silly phoning about a trip for Sept. 2014, but curiosity got the better of me, and I want to know what I'm working with when I'm planning. I just phoned AGR and got a very helpful and polite agent. I asked him about this tentative itinerary, along with some general questions:
> (Fly into DEN a day before)
> 
> DEN to WPT on a 1-zone award (western zone)
> 
> WPT to ATL on a separate 2-zone award (central & eastern)
> 
> This would get my elusive trip down to eight days, assuming no missed connections.
> 
> Each of these segments is published on Arrow, but not the entire itinerary (unless using Multicity).
> 
> Long story short: No, not without a forced overnight stopover in Wolfpoint. :unsure:
> 
> I inquired why this was so, and he said it is to prevent booking routes that do not come up on Arrow. I explained that I would be paying additional points to book the extra award, and that I totally understand why it can't be booked as a single 3-zone award (at the beginning, it's too circuitous, which is a legit restriction). He understood my point, understood that each award is legit on its own, and agreed that the forced overnight does not benefit Amtrak, but said that's just the policy.
> 
> He also suggested, although it would result in a 1-zone award plus a 3-zone award (ouch), that I consider booking DEN-PDX on one award, overnight in PDX, and then do a 3-zone award from there. His reason was the tight connection from the CS to the EB in Portland. *sigh* Any thoughts on this vs an overnight in WPT?
> 
> He had been very patient, and presumably he did not write the guidelines, so I didn't bother to ask him why this policy is not stated in the published guidelines.
> 
> RailFreak has *twice* gotten agents, recently, who would allow two awards without the overnight stopover. I need to make friends with him before I call back.
> 
> Let's hope that AGR Insider will do something about this policy!


That is pretty much the exact same answer that I got, right down to using a 1 zone and a 3 zone. As to Wolf Point, it is a TINY town with very little there. At least the forced stopover option for me was Albuquerque, which is an interesting place, but I still bit the bullet and used the 1 zone and 3 zone awards.

Sounds like they clarified the policy, at least internally, so most if not all agents are enforcing it now. It would be nice if they published it, nicer if they dropped it.


----------



## crescent2

zephyr17 said:


> crescent2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like they clarified the policy, at least internally, so most if not all agents are enforcing it now. It would be nice if they published it, *nicer if they dropped it.*
Click to expand...

YES. It's a pointless restriction (gains Amtrak nothing) and a very inconvenient one, both in time and in $$.

Also, I don't get the 'unless the whole route is published on Arrow' thing. If it was, ONE award would be all that was needed, no need to use two awards. So what does that have to do with redeeming two awards?


----------



## Ispolkom

I'm amused, but not particularly surprised, that the newly published rules are apparently instantly supplemented by additional new unpublished rules.

Here's what I'd do:

I'd book Denver-Wolf Point as a one-zone award. Note that you'd be in the Portland sleeper. Note that you'd be on train #28

I'd buy a coach ticket Wolf Point-Minot on #8.

Book your two-zone award Minot-Atlanta on *train #8, *the Seattle sleeper. You'll have plenty of time to move to the front of the train, since Minot is a crew change and refueling stop.

Note that trains #8 and #28 are completely separate trains as far as Amtrak's system goes, so how would anyone be the wiser? You could book the 2nd award Wolf Point-Atlanta, but it's rude to trundle through the dining car while they're serving dinner.

As a more general rule, I'd never, never, never call Amtrak to have them clarify an issue. Why bring attention to something when you suspect that their answer might not be what you want? I think it much better to wait until you're ready to book, then call. If you get what you want, fine. If not, then you can clarify all you want. Remember, though, that with Amtrak's unwritten rules any clarity lasts only as long as you are on the line with that agent. Then it all fades into the fog again. YMMV, of course.


----------



## crescent2

Thanks, Ispolkom, for your suggestions for making this work--the creative ideas here are part of what I enjoy on AU.

I didn't mention at any time clarifying anything in my call, or bring up the subject of an overnight, or mention any rule. I started out by simply telling the agent what I would like to do (redeem two awards for a trip on the CZ from DEN, and back to ATL via the EB.) All on his own, he said I could do it in two awards and would have an overnight between. I said my trip was already long, and I didn't really want to stay an overnight. He said it was the policy, etc. and we then had a nice chat with various questions and suggestions. He said I could call back within 11 months of my trip. That'll be months from now if I can make things work.

From other posts, apparently AGR is now (at least sometimes) disallowing a paid ($$) segment in conjunction with an AGR award. So I'm not sure they'd even let me follow your suggestion.  Assuming they'd let me book those segments, would there be even a remote chance they'd give me any problems about it on the trip when it was discovered? Or if they book it, are you totally safe with it? I can just see myself abandoned in Wolf Point! Oh me oh my. (No that is NOT hilarious, y'all.)

For the record, I don't see how they can forbid purchasing a paid segment before and/or after an AGR award, but obviously they sometimes do. If they sell it, why can't everyone buy it? Seems it would be almost illegal or something.

I don't understand what you mean about trundling through the dining car if I booked WPT-ATL. Please explain, thanks.


----------



## yarrow

agr must be scratching their heads, for some reason, over this. no response on flyertalk from the insider to what seems a straightforward question


----------



## amamba

crescent2 said:


> Thanks, Ispolkom, for your suggestions for making this work--the creative ideas here are part of what I enjoy on AU.
> I didn't mention at any time clarifying anything in my call, or bring up the subject of an overnight, or mention any rule. I started out by simply telling the agent what I would like to do (redeem two awards for a trip on the CZ from DEN, and back to ATL via the EB.) All on his own, he said I could do it in two awards and would have an overnight between. I said my trip was already long, and I didn't really want to stay an overnight. He said it was the policy, etc. and we then had a nice chat with various questions and suggestions. He said I could call back within 11 months of my trip. That'll be months from now if I can make things work.
> 
> From other posts, apparently AGR is now (at least sometimes) disallowing a paid ($$) segment in conjunction with an AGR award. So I'm not sure they'd even let me follow your suggestion.  Assuming they'd let me book those segments, would there be even a remote chance they'd give me any problems about it on the trip when it was discovered? Or if they book it, are you totally safe with it? I can just see myself abandoned in Wolf Point! Oh me oh my. (No that is NOT hilarious, y'all.)
> 
> For the record, I don't see how they can forbid purchasing a paid segment before and/or after an AGR award, but obviously they sometimes do. If they sell it, why can't everyone buy it? Seems it would be almost illegal or something.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean about trundling through the dining car if I booked WPT-ATL. Please explain, thanks.


I would do what ispolkom suggested in three calls. First call, to AGR, book the first part to WPT.

Second call (or online), book the coach ticket.

Third call, call AGR and book Minot - ATL.

Don't mention your other trips and other stuff because that just draws attention to it.

I agree with Ispolkom, calling and attempting to clarify things only draws attention. Also, you don't want them writing notes in your record like zephyr.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

amamba said:


> You don't want them writing notes in your record like zephyr.


Add me to the list of folks who are apparently on Amtrak's enemies list after asking where I was supposed to stay in a place like Wolf Point while traveling along a published route.


----------



## tomfuller

To take this 3 calls idea a bit farther, get the sleeper only as far as Havre on #28. Even if the EB is late to Havre, they take at least 10 minutes to fuel. Call 2-Book a coach ticket from Havre to Wiliston ND on #8 (about $52 if you buy early).

Book your sleeper on #8 from WTN on the AGR points all the way to ATL.

When you leave the sleeper in Havre you should be able to put your heaviest luggage on the lower levelof the sleeper car you will be moving to in Williston. You won't have to spend much time in your coach seat. Spend several hours in the sightseer lounge and get your evening meal in the cafe. When you get to Williston, you can go through the dining room after serving has been completed sometime after 7:15 PM Central time.

If you were required to spend 24 hours off the train, Havre has better lodging options than Wolf Point.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

What are folks who mix completely separate itineraries for a single trip supposed to do when there's a serious delay or service disruption or personal matter that requires assistance or re-booking?

*???*​


----------



## zephyr17

Devil's Advocate said:


> What are folks who mix completely separate itineraries for a single trip supposed to do when there's a serious delay or service disruption or personal matter that requires assistance or re-booking?*???*​


Excellent point, DA.


----------



## Ispolkom

zephyr17 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are folks who mix completely separate itineraries for a single trip supposed to do when there's a serious delay or service disruption or personal matter that requires assistance or re-booking?*???*​
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point, DA.
Click to expand...

In such a case I'd call Amtrak and ask for help, and have a plan B available. Given the flexibility you have with canceling and making AGR reservations at the last minute, I wouldn't have any particular concern with the itineraries I suggested. What's the worst that could happen? You might spend a night in Wolf Point. That's not so bad, it's not Jordan, after all.

Maybe I'd like AGR to be different than it is, but I'm a realist. I'll take their published rules, and unpublished rules, and super-secret not-to-be-disclosed rules, and work it as well as I can. The alternative for me would be to fly, drive, or (God help us) buy an Amtrak ticket for cash. None of those alternatives seem as palatable to me as embracing some ambiguity and risk, but YMMV.

I'm not so fond of *tomfuller*'s varient. It does have the great advantage of getting you that legendary Havre chicken dinner, but I wouldn't want to walk the train at the Williston stop. It's often very, very busy, and the crew tries to make the stop as short as possible. Minot seems safer to me.


----------



## crescent2

Thanks, all, for coming up with a plan! Hopefully, the phantom rule may disappear before time for me to book my trip. *wishing*

A few things I need to reiterate:

When I called I did not ask for any clarification per se. I called and said what I would like to do, and just waited for the agent's response. We then discussed several questions I had, and he made some suggestions. For example, after he suggested the overnight in PDX instead of one in WPT because of the tight connection there, I asked him about missed connections. He even told me what particular scenery I'd miss with a bustitution. Just a lot of things in general. He said end of Sept. might be a better time to travel as it's past the peak time, and there'd be a better chance of sleepers being available. I'd told him I'd never used AGR before so he gave me a mini-primer. Told me about the PPC on the CS. I couldn't have asked for more pleasant customer service. I doubt he put any notes in my file, but if he did, that's fine with me. I didn't say a thing that I'd mind anyone at AGR knowing. He even indicated AGR might be cooperative with me when I finally get around to booking. So I totally doubt there'd be anything like, "Make this woman stay an overnight."

Therefore, I don't consider myself to be on any "bad list" with AGR at this time. I was just someone calling to ask about booking a trip. Remember, we didn't have an answer from Insider yet, and it was too early to actually book my trip. Too early to push very hard. After he said I'd have to stay overnight, I did tell him I didn't want to and that it didn't make any sense to me, but that if it was the policy, then that's the way it was. At no time were either of us confrontational about it.

DA-- Yeah, I admit I'd be nervous about "the plan"! It's not the way I'd prefer to do things. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

:excl: On another note: We have a reply from Insider, if no answer yet!

Quote from thread on FT:

" _To all -- I thank you for your patience as this topic is researched and we discuss with our reservation sales and operations staff to get you the answers you are seeking._"

I for one really appreciate the fact that they are at least listening to our concerns!  I'm hopeful that they'll see that this "rule" (including the no-mix paid/AGR) doesn't help them any and inconveniences the heck out of us. If not, as Ispolkom says, we'll just have to work within the rules.

The stickler with my trip is that no matter what options I look at, the trip just stretches out so loooong, even with one flight added. To do a 1-zone plus a 3-zone, I need more points, but when I get them, I'd be willing to spend them. The extra days and hotel stays, I'm not loving so much. I guess I just live too far from Amtrak! (Where is the CHI-ATL route when you need it?)

Now I'm very curious as to what AGR will decide about the phantom!!


----------



## zephyr17

I just want to say that I was dealt with politely by AGR through all of this. The first agent was a little brusque (and sounded a bit horrified). When I called back the second day the agent was quite polite, though I had to request a supervisor several times as that agent kept saying he couldn't do anything more than she did. I finally said I wanted to speak to him anyway and could she please connect me.

When the supervisor mentioned that they noted my file, he didn't say it in a threatening way, it was to "help me" so when I called back to book the 1 zone and 3 zone they could "help me more quickly." That I took with a large grain of salt, knowing the reason for noting was more likely so they could continue to deny me if I kept on trying, not to "help me." But at least it was not presented as a threat.

I was polite and professional to all the AGR staff. I am anyway, people in front line customer service positions have tough jobs, but I especially wanted to avoid being perceived as an entitled jerk so they'd at least have some motivation to help.

It sure seems that I stirred up a hornet's nest with this.


----------



## AlanB

Devil's Advocate said:


> What are folks who mix completely separate itineraries for a single trip supposed to do when there's a serious delay or service disruption or personal matter that requires assistance or re-booking?


They do what every other passenger who mis-connects does, go to the customer service rep at the Amtrak station.

The fact that one may have ABQ-LAX-PDX on one reservation and PDX-CHI or whatever, doesn't change the fact that the connection between the CS & the EB is a guaranteed connection. One doesn't have to have everything on the same PNR to have a guaranteed connection.


----------



## AlanB

crescent2 said:


> :excl: On another note: We have a reply from Insider, if no answer yet!
> 
> Quote from thread on FT:
> 
> " _To all -- I thank you for your patience as this topic is researched and we discuss with our reservation sales and operations staff to get you the answers you are seeking._"


I think that all should keep in mind that this is the weekend. The last Insider only posted 9-5/M-F. The fact that the new one has chosen to give of their own Free time to post after hours and on weekends is a bonus; a big bonus IMHO, as that is above and beyond the call of duty.

Throw on top of that the fact that the top level management doesn't work on the weekends and the need to talk with some of the supervisors and it's pretty easy to see why there is no clear answer as yet.



crescent2 said:


> I for one really appreciate the fact that they are at least listening to our concerns!


I agree and please know that the above was not intended to suggest that you felt otherwise. I just wanted people to understand that even getting any response from AGR Insider on a weekend would have been unthinkable a year ago or so.



crescent2 said:


> I'm hopeful that they'll see that this "rule" (including the no-mix paid/AGR) doesn't help them any and inconveniences the heck out of us. If not, as Ispolkom says, we'll just have to work within the rules.


We don't even know if this is really a rule that came down from headquarters. And if not, then it's not really a rule at all.


----------



## crescent2

Thanks as always, Alan. I'd be surprised if Insider doesn't have a slew of PMs to answer as well as the threads. And if he or she wants to go on vacation, the sky won't fall either.  I wasn't impatient, just interested in what the reply might be.

That's why I put _rule_ in quotes, not sure if it is one. But it seems from reading this thread that recently the agents are mostly on the same page about this and are saying a forced overnight stopover is required, correct or not. (And perhaps that paid/AGR segments can't be combined?) Jim made a very good post on the FT thread about that issue. In any case, I'm very favorably impressed that AGR pays attention and truly considers concerns expressed on an anonymous online forum. :hi: That is going the extra mile, imo.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> We don't even know if this is really a rule that came down from headquarters. And if not, then it's not really a rule at all.


If it prevents me from booking the trip I want then what's the difference? Is AGR really going to claim they had no idea that trainers, agents, and supervisors were all in on this? What possible reason would they have for doing this if it wasn't coming from above? Just to **** us off?



AlanB said:


> I think that all should keep in mind that this is the weekend. The last Insider only posted 9-5/M-F. The fact that the new one has chosen to give of their own Free time to post after hours and on weekends is a bonus; a big bonus IMHO, as that is above and beyond the call of duty.


So far as I'm concerned AGR can take their time to come up with a more logical restriction than this silly forced stopover nonsense. Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not nearly as pissed at AGR as I am toward the self entitled travelers who helped convince AGR we couldn't be trusted in act in good faith as a result of their intentional and repeated abuse of the original redemption structure. Where are they now? Awfully quiet of late. Not as much to brag about I suppose.


----------



## City of Miami

Devil's Advocate said:


> trainers, agents, and supervisors were all in on this?


In on what?? I really don't get what this conversation is all about. Maybe it's because I booked without problem the trip that I wanted and just can't see any further than that. But what is the big deal for the average person??


----------



## Rail Freak

I have read the word ABUSE a few times. Can someone give me an example?


----------



## Ispolkom

Rail Freak said:


> I have read the word ABUSE a few times. Can someone give me an example?


Two possible definitions:

1) It's like obscenity, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

2) It's a trip that I wish I had booked, when it was still possible.

I don't think abuse is a very useful term. Perhaps I should do a poll, listing itineraries and asking people to vote which are abusive.


----------



## yarrow

Devil's Advocate said:


> Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not nearly as pissed at AGR as I am toward the self entitled travelers who helped convince AGR we couldn't be trusted in act in good faith as a result of their intentional and repeated abuse of the original redemption structure. Where are they now? Awfully quiet of late. Not as much to brag about I suppose.


so, who and what exactly are you talking about? the old slidell loophole? yarrow's and my spk-atl 2 zone redemptions where agr routed the connections through was instead of nol? who and what are you talking about?


----------



## Ryan

Ispolkom said:


> Rail Freak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the word ABUSE a few times. Can someone give me an example?
> 
> 
> 
> Two possible definitions:
> 
> 1) It's like obscenity, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
> 
> 2) It's a trip that I wish I had booked, when it was still possible.
> 
> I don't think abuse is a very useful term. Perhaps I should do a poll, listing itineraries and asking people to vote which are abusive.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty good example of someone ruining things for others:



AlanB said:


> 'had8ley' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'jimhudson' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Tony' said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are some good one-zone loopholes that Amtrak offers?
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite is ElPaso-LA-Portland-Wolf Point. 3 Nice Trains (SSL/CS/EB), 3 Days/3 Nights, 7 meals including the PPC on the CS!I was one of the fortunate ones that got to do the Slidell and Kirkwood-KCY-LAX-CBS Loopholes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> before Amtrak made them Disappear!
> 
> 
> 
> I seldom disagree with my friend Jay but contrary to popular belief Posting these Loopholes on web sites did NOT make Amtrak suddenly wake-up and take them away!
> 
> Not quiet a Loophole but the NOL-ATL Sleeper Deal on the Crescent is the Best Deal Amtrak has IMO!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess I'm buying the refresments in Seattle...
> 
> 
> 
> Just how did they disappear? Too many loopholers ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, AGR was well aware of the "loopholes" but never considered the abuse to be large enough to worry about. That is until one day a loophole reservation got screwed up during booking. When the person with the reservation that got screwed up ended up needing to now travel on a blackout date, the agent denied the rebooking at that point. The person escalated the issue all the way to the top insisting that since it was Amtrak's mistake, that they override the blackout and allow him to travel.
> 
> Management capitulated and provided the trip. Management also decided that loopholes were now worth worrying about and closed them.
Click to expand...


----------



## crescent2

City of Miami said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miami said: ...... I really don't get what this conversation is all about. Maybe it's because I booked without problem the trip that I wanted and just can't see any further than that. But what is the big deal for the average person??
Click to expand...

Edit: The quotes are messed up, sorry.

The conversation is about AGR's requiring a forced overnight stopover when using two legitimate AGR awards for a trip.

At least three of us have recently been told this. Z-17 was told by two agents and a supervisor, and had a note added to his file. He could not book the trip as he wanted to do. I was told I wouldn't be able to book mine, either, without the forced overnight. DA has apparently been told the same. That's the big deal. In my case, I don't want to be forced to spend a night in Wolf Point, adding an extra day and more expense to an already long trip. I'm paying extra points for the two separate awards, not trying to milk it from one single award.

I'm glad your trip worked out for you without any problems. Rail Freak seems to also have the magic touch with AGR. Alas, some of us don't.

There is nothing about a requirement for a forced stopover in the published guidelines, and requiring one makes no sense. It doesn't help Amtrak.

From reading this forum, apparently in the past some unusual trips were taken under the old rules. Whether they were legit or taking unfair advantage of the system, I have no idea and it's not my business. However, that really should not have anything to do with the current issue. AGR is fine with each award on its own. Using them back to back is the issue.

If Amtrak wants to prevent long circuitous routes on a SINGLE award, that's fine with me and understandable. No one in this discussion is trying to do that. We are trying to redeem TWO legit and valid awards (using points for each of them), and use them back to back. There is no overlap or anything else that should prohibit that. This has nothing to do with taking unfair advantage of AGR in an award. Each separate award is legit and AGR has no problem with each of them on its own. They just throw an unneeded overnight between them which is of no benefit to Amtrak and a pain for us.

For the life of me, I can't understand why if a product is offered for sale (using points), a customer would be prohibited from buying and using it. I could use the two awards on different trips, but not on the same trip even though I've paid for each of them. It's like Amtrak is saying, "Long trips cannot be used to travel around the West, even if you buy a series of tickets to do it." Crazy. If I was using $$, they'd book it in a heartbeat. It does not involve "abuse"!


----------



## crescent2

Ryan, what an interesting story. Thanks for sharing it. (It posted while I was typing mine.)

This "two awards" issue is totally different, though. Each award is well within the guidelines (even shows up on Arrow) and the agents have no problem with each award. They just won't let us use them one right after the other. In no way is it abusing the system. We're paying for each award. Like buying a series of tickets to do a longer trip.

It's like a restaurant not offering "steak with brownie" on the menu, but they offer "steak" and separately they offer "brownie." I don't expect them to add my entree to the menu or give me the brownie for free, but can't I pay for each item separately and eat them together-- without having to wait for the next mealtime to eat the brownie? :unsure: 

I just want to take the wb CZ and the eb EB to see the sights. That's not so crazy. Why can't I pay a zillion points for separate awards and do that? Why throw Momma from the train in WPT? Again, I'm NOT trying to milk it from a single award. I just don't get it. Hopefully Amtrak will see the light on this. 

Edit: Also, some have not been able to add a paid segment before or after the end of an AGR award. That seems just as crazy.


----------



## Ryan

Yes, I understand completely what the issue is, thanks.

Until our friends at AGR decide to clarify if this is indeed the proper policy (and if it is, why the heck wasn't it a part of the rules that they just published), this is nothing more than a bunch of speculation.


----------



## AlanB

Ryan said:


> Until our friends at AGR decide to clarify if this is indeed the proper policy (and if it is, why the heck wasn't it a part of the rules that they just published), this is nothing more than a bunch of speculation.


Thank You!


----------



## crescent2

I see what you're saying, but when you've actually phoned and had your trip denied, it's more than speculation then. The deed was done.


----------



## amamba

crescent2 said:


> I see what you're saying, but when you've actually phoned and had your trip denied, it's more than speculation then. The deed was done.


But you can't book any travel yet for September 2014.


----------



## Ryan

Indeed. And by the time you are able to book it, who knows what the policy will be (doubly so since we *don't* know what it is now). Given AGR's seeming new focus on publishing a rules that establish a level playing field, I would think that this'll be settled one way or another before that point.


----------



## zephyr17

amamba said:


> <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="crescent2" data-cid="450620" data-time="1372108386"><p>I see what you're saying, but when you've actually phoned and had your trip denied, it's more than speculation then. The deed was done. </p></blockquote>
> 
> But you can't book any travel yet for September 2014.


I phoned and my September 2013 trip was denied for these reasons. That was not speculation. The deed was indeed done.


----------



## Ryan

It's a good thing she was quoting someone else, then.

The premise that this is an actual AGR rule is still speculation until you get a response from AGR Insider.


----------



## AlanB

Ryan said:


> The premise that this is an actual AGR rule is still speculation until you get a response from AGR Insider.


Again, Thank You!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> The premise that this is an actual AGR rule is still speculation until you get a response from AGR Insider.


We have multiple reservation agents and supervisors who work for AGR saying this is a rule. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you, but to continue to call it speculation at this point is just being dense.



AlanB said:


> Again, Thank You!


Says one of the most prolific speculators on here.


----------



## AlanB

Devil's Advocate said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise that this is an actual AGR rule is still speculation until you get a response from AGR Insider.
> 
> 
> 
> We have multiple reservation agents and supervisors who work for AGR saying this is a rule. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you, but to continue to call it speculation at this point is just being dense.
Click to expand...

I know that it's hard for you to imagine that things can happen far from the corporate office that the corporate office doesn't always know about. After all, who ever heard of a supervisor who didn't train the people under them?

I first heard about AGR posting rules from a few sources about 6 months ago. Probably 3 months ago I started hinting in posts from time to time that they were coming. So I for one find it odd that management would spend 6 months working on rules only to forget to put a rule into the list of rules. And the response so far from Insider would tend to indicate, at least to me and those who are less suspicious of everyone having ulterior motives, that they're trying to figure what's going on and why.



Devil's Advocate said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Thank You!
> 
> 
> 
> Says one of the most prolific speculators on here.
Click to expand...

It's only your highly speculative nature that makes you think that much of what I write is speculation.


----------



## Ryan

Devil's Advocate said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise that this is an actual AGR rule is still speculation until you get a response from AGR Insider.
> 
> 
> 
> We have multiple reservation agents and supervisors who work for AGR saying this is a rule. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you, but to continue to call it speculation at this point is just being dense.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, we have agents that allow it and a published rule set that doesn't include it. We also have someone that Knows People in here strongly hinting that it isn't a rule, so not being ready to jump on the "It's a rule!" bandwagon isn't being dense. I'll wager at the end it'll be the right call.

After all, this is Amtrak, we're talking about here - consider this example:

We had multiple conductors and LSAs saying that you have to pay for the third meal in a roomette, along with customer service agents that agreed and refused to provide compensation after the fact. By your logic, that would be sufficient proof that the "2 meals per roomette" rule is true.

On the contrary, we have a published rule book that states the exact opposite.

It would be awesome if it weren't this way, but Amtrak employees (in any number) saying "it's a rule" does not make a rule.

On the practical side, what does it mean? Not much today. If AGR ever gets around to clarifying the policy (or lack thereof), I would suspect that a polite, but firm, message from you, the OP, and anyone else that has gotten screwed by rogue agents making up redemption rules to AGR insider would make things right.


----------



## Ispolkom

> After all, this is Amtrak, we're talking about here - consider this example:
> We had multiple conductors and LSAs saying that you have to pay for the third meal in a roomette, along with customer service agents that agreed and refused to provide compensation after the fact. By your logic, that would be sufficient proof that the "2 meals per roomette" rule is true.
> 
> On the contrary, we have a published rule book that states the exact opposite.
> 
> It would be awesome if it weren't this way, but Amtrak employees (in any number) saying "it's a rule" does not make a rule.


If the people on board the train tell you the third person has to pay for dinner, and the Customer Relations people afterwards agree and you don't get any compensation, how is third person pays not a rule, except in some sort of theoretical or theological sense?

It isn't as though the rule book employee manual is some sort of magical self-enforcing device.

In the same way, it might be that *AGR Insider *(who seems to be a very nice person) will vindicate *zephyr17*'s rights, and we can blame this on "rogue agents," I'm not that sanguine. I've always seen AGR as a chaotic program whose parts don't really mesh. For me that has been a feature, allowing redemptions that a more rational, rules-based system wouldn't allow. If you want a rational frequent-traveler program, go to Southwest Airlines. Nice program, with no mysteries, but also few angles to exploit.


----------



## crescent2

It doesn't matter to me whether it's _called_ a rule or not. What it's called isn't the issue. What matters is what actually _happens_. Amamba and Ryan, I still have some time before booking my trip, but others in this thread have had their trips denied. I'm not the only one here. This issue is important to some of us and we obviously wanted to discuss it.

Alan, you seem uncharacteristically grumpy about this. Yes, this thread has turned into something of an on-line chat at times, but no one has to read it unless they choose. And this thread is mild compared to some.

What Insider will have to say about this is of great interest to some of us. What happens in the meantime is also of great interest to some of us. I don't see a need for anyone to get all sour about it one way or the other. Goodness.

On another note (OT but at least still about Amtrak), while cleaning out some old things I found a copy of "Amtrak's America" from 1994! Interesting to read about the Gulf Breeze, Pioneer, Desert Wind, and single and double Slumbercoaches. Despite my decluttering intentions, it's going into the "keep" pile for a little longer.

Edit to get rid of the gibberish marks.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Youll need to forgive Alan Dear! Its Summertime in New York City and the Natives are Restless! :giggle:


----------



## Ryan

There's a pretty good chance that Alan's "uncharacteristically grumpy" because he knows something we don't and is dropping hints (I have no direct knowledge, but have learned over the years to read between the lines).

AGR Insider just acknowledged your question 2 days ago (on a Sunday afternoon on his/her own personal time).

I don't see what the big rush to get into a frenzy about things is all about give him/her a chance to work this, and you'll likely be able to book your trip just the way that you want. The OP (and others) will maybe even get some points back, and agents and supervisors properly retrained.

I know that you've want to discuss this thing to death, and have worked yourself into a frenzy about it, but just relax and let things run their course.

If we do find out that this is a legit rule, than you'll have plenty of time to build it into your plans before the window even opens for you to book your trip. An enforced overnight or two probably will ally many of your concerns about missed connections if you make them at strategically located places.


----------



## amamba

I don't think anyone is sour. We are just saying be patient. 

I have learned that patience is key with amtrak. You will quickly learn that when you get on a late train that gets even later. You can freak out about it, or you can take some xanax, have a drink, and just say "it is what it is."


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise that this is an actual AGR rule is still speculation until you get a response from AGR Insider.
> 
> 
> 
> We have multiple reservation agents and supervisors who work for AGR saying this is a rule. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you, but to continue to call it speculation at this point is just being dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that it's hard for you to imagine that things can happen far from the corporate office that the corporate office doesn't always know about.
Click to expand...

There, I fixed that for you.



AlanB said:


> 3 months ago I started hinting in posts from time to time that they were coming. So I for one find it odd that management would spend 6 months working on rules only to forget to put a rule into the list of rules.


Three months ago is around the time I first starting hearing about this new limitation. Obviously calling it a "rule" was wrong because using that term gave dissenters like you an opening to twist the discussion into a pointless disagreement over irrelevant semantics. Oh well such is life.



AlanB said:


> And the response so far from Insider would tend to indicate, at least to me and those who are less suspicious of everyone having ulterior motives, that they're trying to figure what's going on and why.


What ulterior motive have I given? That Amtrak is trying to cut down on abuse of their loyalty program?



AlanB said:


> It's only your highly speculative nature that makes you think that much of what I write is speculation.


I believe this is what Freud referred to as psychological projection. I have no specific issue or problem with speculation myself. In fact I routinely encourage and engage in speculation here and elsewhere as a way to enjoyably pass the time. I do however have a major problem with blatant _hypocrisy_ by those who only criticize speculation in one direction.


----------



## crescent2

Jim, I agree that Alan is definitely a dear.  We're cool.

As for my posts, they merely gave reasons for my opinion or position re the original topic. They were not critical of anyone. So, what's up with this "frenzy", "freaking out", and "impatient" stuff? :huh: No need for that.

Not giving Insider a chance? Big rush? Honestly, I don't recall anyone having anything negative to say about Insider (here or on FT posts) or even questioning the fact that he or she is working on an answer, much less being impatient. I thought his/her reply was very timely. I think Insider goes over and above, and have stated that I'm impressed that AGR even bothers to listen to what's on an anonymous forum. I've plainly stated my totally positive feelings about Insider. So where did _that _come from? Those certainly aren't _my_ feelings you're talking about.

Edit to clarify: When I'm meaning the person AGR Insider, I say "Insider." When I say only "AGR," I mean Amtrak Guest Rewards (the program). Maybe that caused confusion.

You can't be an elementary teacher for 25 years and lack patience; hopefully without Xanax. 

Some of us were just discussing the issue at length/"to death" (guilty, but is that even a misdemeanor on AU?), and perhaps some of you kept reading a little too long and got tired of it. I feel like we have been lectured for having our discussion. *misses 5 minutes of recess today--talking after warning*

Peace.


----------



## Rail Freak

Please everyone! Let's all chill til the decision comes to us! (Save up your energy :giggle: )!!!


----------



## AlanB

Devil's Advocate said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise that this is an actual AGR rule is still speculation until you get a response from AGR Insider.
> 
> 
> 
> We have multiple reservation agents and supervisors who work for AGR saying this is a rule. I'm sorry that's not good enough for you, but to continue to call it speculation at this point is just being dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that it's hard for you to imagine that things can happen far from the corporate office that the corporate office doesn't always know about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There, I fixed that for you.
Click to expand...

And I restored it to the correct statement. After all it was pure speculation on your part that this rule had to have originated at headquarters, since you got a sampling of 3 agents and maybe one supervisor. All of whom were probably trained by the same person.



Devil's Advocate said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 months ago I started hinting in posts from time to time that they were coming. So I for one find it odd that management would spend 6 months working on rules only to forget to put a rule into the list of rules.
> 
> 
> 
> Three months ago is around the time I first starting hearing about this new limitation. Obviously calling it a "rule" was wrong because using that term gave dissenters like you an opening to twist the discussion into a pointless disagreement over irrelevant semantics. Oh well such is life.
Click to expand...

They weren't writing the rules 3 months ago. The training on the new rules started about a month before they went public. And I don't object so much to your calling it a rule, but rather that based upon your limited sampling it must be a rule that originated in headquarters.

I freely admit that I don't know for sure one way or the other where the rule got its start. But based upon the post & reaction of AGR Insider, and the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the newly published list of rules which were intended to try to cover all contingencies, I for one don't believe that it came from headquarters.



Devil's Advocate said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the response so far from Insider would tend to indicate, at least to me and those who are less suspicious of everyone having ulterior motives, that they're trying to figure what's going on and why.
> 
> 
> 
> What ulterior motive have I given? That Amtrak is trying to cut down on abuse of their loyalty program?
Click to expand...

Your very nature as a "Devil's Advocate" gives you the ulterior motive. You can't accept anything that anyone says, even when if you put your thinking cap on, you would know that I don't speculate and often do have better info than most railfans.


----------



## zephyr17

AlanB said:


> And I restored it to the correct statement. After all it was pure speculation on your part that this rule had to have originated at headquarters, since you got a sampling of 3 agents and maybe one supervisor. All of whom were probably trained by the same person.


There is no "maybe" about the one supervisor, because I am the one that spoke with a supervisor, and I am the OP. I spoke with 2 agents myself in addition to the supervisor, DA spoke with one agent, and crescent2 spoke with one agent. That makes 4 agents and a supervisor, period. With 4 different calls at different times by 3 different individuals, that implies that there is a significant group at AGR enforcing this because of the randomness of call routing at AGR's call center.
I agree that this "rule" business is a semantic quibble. Regardless of whether or not it is a rule conciously developed as official AGR policy, or a convention that a group of agents and supervisors or a trainer interpreted themselves out of existing guidelines and rules, the effect is the same. At the very least a significant group of agents and their supervisors are enforcing this restriction on a consistent basis and at least 3 of us have run up against it recently. Those are facts, and even if you don't call it a duck, it is still quacking.

I appreciate AGR Insider's efforts and if you go over to the thread over in Flyertalk.com, you will note that no one has been trash-talking in crescent2's thread over there, and all have been respectful efforts to get clarification. Had there been trash-talking, I would have been the first to defend him over there. As it is, there appears no need to protect him here from anything as he investigates.

Given the evidence to date, I think most folks planning itineraries which would require back-to-back awards should be aware there is a very real possibility, even probablility, that they will run up against this restriction.

I am fine with waiting for AGR Insider's results. In the meantime, whether you call it a rule or Fred, this restriction is quite real.


----------



## crescent2

And I would be the second to defend Insider. No one that I can recall has disparaged Insider in any way, and I'm certain that I have not. I think I've reiterated my feelings, and my posts can be reread. I didn't like my (or whoever else's) posts being spinned as something they're not, or words put into my (our?) mouth/s that I/we did not say. I initially thought a lot of it was directed at me, but who knows.

I was not upset with anyone, even the AGR program. Not understanding their reasoning on the issue, but not upset. And we are unbelievably lucky to have access to Insider.

I'm still not sure why this thread turned south. Can we all be friends again? ALL of you guys really are the bomb when it comes to Amtrak! :hi:


----------



## amamba

Group hug, Crescent2. :wub:


----------



## crescent2

Thanks, amamba!


----------



## AlanB

zephyr17 said:


> There is no "maybe" about the one supervisor, because I am the one that spoke with a supervisor, and I am the OP. I spoke with 2 agents myself in addition to the supervisor, DA spoke with one agent, and crescent2 spoke with one agent. That makes 4 agents and a supervisor, period. With 4 different calls at different times by 3 different individuals, that implies that there is a significant group at AGR enforcing this because of the randomness of call routing at AGR's call center.


Zephyr,

There isn't that much "randomness" for call routing at AGR. There are only 2 locations that calls can go to, Philly or California. And the point that I was trying to get across is that culprit could easily be 1 senior supervisor or a director in the California facility, as these are the people who train supervisors and the front line people, to have started for whatever reason, this "rule" of forced stopovers. Which would explain why more than one person has gotten the same response. DA however preferred to believe that this "rule" originated at headquarters.

I honestly don't know where it started. But knowing that AGR headquarters in DC consists of about 5 or 6 people; that they had just spent 6 months or so to come up with the rules, and it would seem odd not to include this "rule" after that effort; I read into Insider's post about investigating things with "reservation sales and operations staff" that the "rule" originated at the larger CA facility.



zephyr17 said:


> I appreciate AGR Insider's efforts and if you go over to the thread over in Flyertalk.com, you will note that no one has been trash-talking in crescent2's thread over there, and all have been respectful efforts to get clarification. Had there been trash-talking, I would have been the first to defend him over there. As it is, there appears no need to protect him here from anything as he investigates.


I'd defend Insider myself; especially this one who gives so freely of personal time.


----------



## zephyr17

Alan, just FYI by "random" I meant routing of calls to individual agents within a center, not between multiple centers, and that that level of "randomness" would tend to work against the idea it was just a few rogue agents or small groups. My point was it is widespread enough that whether or not it was "rule", it had the practical effect of being one since its enforcement appears pretty consistent and widespread. I didn't even know that there were two call centers for AGR, I think I assumed there was just good-sized one for AGR. Learn something new every day.

The hypothesis that it originated at the CA facility and is enforced there fits the fact that it seems widespread, yet allows for it not to be official policy. I think I had something smaller in mind, like a team of 10 people, when you said trainer or supervisor(don't remember your exact words, and too lazy to re-read the thread)..

Thanks, Alan.


----------



## PRR 60

Just as a point of information, the call centers are not part of the AGR organization. That includes the agents and supervisors in the call center who handle AGR reservations and inquiries. AGR certainly provides the call centers with the guidelines for handling AGR matters, but the overall policies and procedures followed by the call centers are formulated by the call center management, not AGR.

I can't say for sure, but it is certainly possible that call center management imposed this requirement for all reservations, including AGR reservations, and AGR had no clue it happened. Interdepartmental communications has never been an Amtrak strong point. Having worked with Amtrak for many, many years, a situation with conflicting organizational requirements would not be unusual - indeed it sometimes seemed almost the norm. Sorting out stuff like that can take a while, particularly within Amtrak where upper management does not like to get involved in what they consider minutia.


----------



## AlanB

Bill,

No, that was the original setup, AGR had hired Carlson to provide all support & services for AGR. However, a few year ago AGR brought all agents within the Amtrak umbrella; Insider put up a big post on this at the time. They are Amtrak employees in all ways. This is why they can now book regular Amtrak travel, and in fact why when they're not busy and the regular Amtrak 800 number is busy, they will be given calls from those looking to book paid travel.

The actual AGR database is still farmed out and not directly under Amtrak & AGR's direct control; but the agent most certainly are.


----------



## Ryan

I think what Bill was getting at is that the call center folks, while Amtrak employees, aren't necessarily under the AGR management structure (not sure if that is true), thus making the problem not one of Amtrak not communicating properly with a contractor, but not communicating effectively internally between organizations (a.k.a. "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" syndrome).


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> Bill,
> No, that was the original setup, AGR had hired Carlson to provide all support & services for AGR. However, a few year ago AGR brought all agents within the Amtrak umbrella; Insider put up a big post on this at the time. They are Amtrak employees in all ways. This is why they can now book regular Amtrak travel, and in fact why when they're not busy and the regular Amtrak 800 number is busy, they will be given calls from those looking to book paid travel.
> 
> The actual AGR database is still farmed out and not directly under Amtrak & AGR's direct control; but the agent most certainly are.


No, I'm talking internal Amtrak organizations. I'm well aware that AGR is in-house (did you seriously think I was that out of touch?), but the Amtrak AGR call center is a part of the main call center and is managed by that organization, not AGR. AGR is a stakeholder and provides guidelines to the call centers for handling AGR matters, but the policies and procedures for all call center activities are set by call center management, not AGR.


----------



## zephyr17

Wow, this forum is a font of information. I would have had no idea that the AGR agents aren't part of the AGR organization, but are part of the regular call center (I did know it's handled in-house now). That certainly would go a long way toward explaining the possibility that the agents could be doing something that AGR management wouldn't have thought of.


----------



## AlanB

PRR 60 said:


> No, I'm talking internal Amtrak organizations. I'm well aware that AGR is in-house (did you seriously think I was that out of touch?), but the Amtrak AGR call center is a part of the main call center and is managed by that organization, not AGR. AGR is a stakeholder and provides guidelines to the call centers for handling AGR matters, but the policies and procedures for all call center activities are set by call center management, not AGR.


Bill,

The way you phrased it and my reading of it did have me wondering if you had fallen asleep there for a bit. :loll: Sorry! 

Now, I'm not 100% certain of all the details and division of duties, but I do know for certain that when an AGR Supervisor has a problem with something AGR related, they call AGR HQ; not a call center person. And they call either HQ or the vendor, or both if need be, for problems with the AGR front end program. It is quite possible that they call higher ups in the call center for issues that relate to the ARROW front end.

And while I've never directly asked the question, my understanding is that the agents are considered as part of AGR's employee roster and not as part of the national call center.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> ...
> 
> And while I've never directly asked the question, my understanding is that the agents are considered as part of AGR's employee roster and not as part of the national call center.


That is not my understanding of the reporting relationship of AGR and the AGR call center staff. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> And I restored it to the correct statement.


Not unless you can read minds you didn't.



AlanB said:


> After all it was pure speculation on your part that this rule had to have originated at headquarters, since you got a sampling of 3 agents and maybe one supervisor. All of whom were probably trained by the same person.


I have no idea where this restriction came from. I only care what happens when I call to book. I've received the same basic story from seven employees now, two of which were supervisors. Others are receiving the same information from their own inquiries, also involving supervisors. If you're going to play the numbers game then perhaps you should tell us how many employees you have saying this restriction never existed.



AlanB said:


> I freely admit that I don't know for sure one way or the other where the rule got its start.


I guess there's a first time for everything.



AlanB said:


> But based upon the post & reaction of AGR Insider, and the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the newly published list of rules which were intended to try to cover all contingencies, I for one don't believe that it came from headquarters.


At this point I've seen three months of corroboration followed by a week's worth of silence by AGRI.



AlanB said:


> Your very nature as a "Devil's Advocate" gives you the ulterior motive. You can't accept anything that anyone says, even when if you put your thinking cap on, you would know that I don't speculate and often do have better info than most railfans.


Ulterior implies that it's hidden, yet here you are using my *public* nickname as your evidence? I'm a "Devil's Advocate" in that I support the underdog, which in the case of AU is the Amtrak critic. It's as obvious as you can get with nothing hidden about it. I have no problem with speculation. I repeat, I have *no* problem with speculation. I *enjoy* speculation. I'm not criticizing you for speculating. I'm criticizing you for being a hypocrite who only approves of speculation when it benefits Amtrak. Unfortunately trying to explain that to you appears nearly impossible.


----------



## PaulM

I'm disappointed. It's now over a week and no response. I thought this thread might be different where we would get an answer to the question, not endless speculation, philosophical argument, and name calling, and then the topic dies.



> To all -- I thank you for your patience as this topic is researched and we discuss with our reservation sales and operations staff to get you the answers you are seeking.


Speaking of speculation, can anyone speculate what "topic" is being "researched"? Or what's the implied direct object of the word "discuss"? Some possibilities: Is there such a rule? If so, should it be rescinded? If not, should it be rule? If it becomes one, should it be published? If it is a rule, why wasn't it included in the published rules? If it isn't a rule, who started enforcing it? I just got back from a long vacation and need to check my messages  .

From the first time I saw this post, I thought the wording was a bit odd, although some of the posts here regarding the organizational structure make it sound less odd.


----------



## yarrow

PaulM said:


> I'm disappointed. It's now over a week and no response. I thought this thread might be different where we would get an answer to the question, not endless speculation, philosophical argument, and name calling, and then the topic dies.
> 
> 
> 
> To all -- I thank you for your patience as this topic is researched and we discuss with our reservation sales and operations staff to get you the answers you are seeking.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of speculation, can anyone speculate what "topic" is being "researched"? Or what's the implied direct object of the word "discuss"? Some possibilities: Is there such a rule? If so, should it be rescinded? If not, should it be rule? If it becomes one, should it be published? If it is a rule, why wasn't it included in the published rules? If it isn't a rule, who started enforcing it? I just got back from a long vacation and need to check my messages  .
> 
> From the first time I saw this post, I thought the wording was a bit odd, although some of the posts here regarding the organizational structure make it sound less odd.
Click to expand...

i've been wondering the same thing. to me, it is just a question of whether agr will allow what is sort of a loophole, that is can you, where a 3 zone redemption routing is not allowed can you do it as a 2plus1 zone? nothing from the insider on the flyertalk agr thread on this topic either.


----------



## AlanB

Devil's Advocate said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all it was pure speculation on your part that this rule had to have originated at headquarters, since you got a sampling of 3 agents and maybe one supervisor. All of whom were probably trained by the same person.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea where this restriction came from. I only care what happens when I call to book. I've received the same basic story from seven employees now, two of which were supervisors. Others are receiving the same information from their own inquiries, also involving supervisors. If you're going to play the numbers game then perhaps you should tell us how many employees you have saying this restriction never existed.
Click to expand...

No, you decided way back on page #1 that this was policy and therefore had to have come from AGR HQ when you were running in your speculative mode. Here, let me remind you:



Devil's Advocate said:


> This has all the hallmarks of an actual policy that may or may not still be in effect.


Only HQ can set "actual" policy.



Devil's Advocate said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> But based upon the post & reaction of AGR Insider, and the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the newly published list of rules which were intended to try to cover all contingencies, I for one don't believe that it came from headquarters.
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I've seen three months of corroboration followed by a week's worth of silence by AGRI.[/quote
> 
> Which proves nothing, except that we don't yet know what went on. Again, all it takes is one higher up at the call center to have started this ball rolling. That doesn't make it policy or a rule. Yes, it does currently mean that you can't get what you want. But it still doesn't make it policy as you've claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your very nature as a "Devil's Advocate" gives you the ulterior motive. You can't accept anything that anyone says, even when if you put your thinking cap on, you would know that I don't speculate and often do have better info than most railfans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ulterior implies that it's hidden, yet here you are using my *public* nickname as your evidence? I'm a "Devil's Advocate" in that I support the underdog, which in the case of AU is the Amtrak critic. It's as obvious as you can get with nothing hidden about it. I have no problem with speculation. I repeat, I have *no* problem with speculation. I *enjoy* speculation. I'm not criticizing you for speculating. I'm criticizing you for being a hypocrite who only approves of speculation when it benefits Amtrak. Unfortunately trying to explain that to you appears nearly impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, frankly you just seem to like to try to stir up trouble and I think you relish the responses that your posts invoke.
> 
> If you recall the one time that I met you in person in DC, you'll remember that I showed you and others something that you've not seen anyplace else. There are many times that I actually know, even if I can't say so and how I know. And when I don't know for sure, I'm often making an educated guess based upon what I do know. Which is not speculation! And if I have no clue, then I say nothing.
> 
> You on the other hand have decided based upon your small survey that this has to be policy; that is speculation!
> 
> AGR just spent 6 months comparing what the agents are saying to people vs. what HQ originally set as rules. Then they reviewed everything for potential changes and for new rules; before releasing a set of rules to the public and training/retraining their agents on those rules. If one is going to go to the trouble of setting up a set of rules to clarify things, then it makes no sense to leave off a rule.
> 
> AGR Insider when alerted to this issue appears almost surprised and suggests that HQ needs to contact the staff at the call centers to see what is going on, before getting back to us.
> 
> With all that in evidence, I don't need to speculate that HQ didn't make up this policy/rule.
> 
> My worry is that with the continued silence that they may be thinking that it should be a rule going forward. And that I will admit is speculation.
Click to expand...


----------



## AlanB

PaulM said:


> I'm disappointed. It's now over a week and no response. I thought this thread might be different where we would get an answer to the question, not endless speculation, philosophical argument, and name calling, and then the topic dies.


Paul,

I'm sure that an answer is coming; of this I have no doubt.



PaulM said:


> To all -- I thank you for your patience as this topic is researched and we discuss with our reservation sales and operations staff to get you the answers you are seeking.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of speculation, can anyone speculate what "topic" is being "researched"? Or what's the implied direct object of the word "discuss"? Some possibilities: Is there such a rule? If so, should it be rescinded? If not, should it be rule? If it becomes one, should it be published? If it is a rule, why wasn't it included in the published rules? If it isn't a rule, who started enforcing it? I just got back from a long vacation and need to check my messages  .
> 
> From the first time I saw this post, I thought the wording was a bit odd, although some of the posts here regarding the organizational structure make it sound less odd.
Click to expand...

As I noted in my other post, based upon things that I know, and Insider's reaction to Crescent's question; this is not a rule that originated at AGR HQ. Which is why it wasn't listed in that newly published list. This is something that happened at the call center for some reason. Which is why HQ is now talking to the call center people.

If HQ does decide that they like this "rule", then I would expect that they will publish it.


----------



## VentureForth

[disclaimer]

This is total speculation.

[/disclaimer]

I'll agree with Alan here. It does seem like this has been an enforced, yet unpublished defacto rule. I would imagine that it will take some time to come up with the right answer that addresses all the concerns that were addressed not only in this thread, but other scenarios.

These include the following, I imagine:

1) First and foremost, the most elusive rule - are forced stopovers policy or practice? Does this conflict with the published rule that allows for multiple rewards for unpublished routes?

2) If a three zone trip from SEA to BOS can be made going through EMY - CHI and LAX - NOL, why not LAX - CHI via ABQ?

3) If a forced stopover is required, will this include money reservations combined with AGR reward?

I can imagine that there will be some high level discussions regarding this issue and so I am not suprised that that it is taking a while. I'm just happy to see that the topic is being discussed and I hope that Zephyr17 can get his trip through ABQ on one reward!


----------



## PRR 60

I'll reiterate what I said earlier. The call center operates using call center policies and procedures. The published AGR guildelines are a subset of those P&P's that were developed by AGR and presented to and adopted by call center management. That need to get call center "buy-in" is what took so long for the AGR guideline to go live.

The Amtrak call center acts as a contractor to AGR. AGR reservations are handled by the call center within the policies and procedures of the call center, including those worked out jointly with AGR. AGR cannot enact a new booking policy without first clearing it through the call center, but the call center certainly can enact a policy without getting AGR approval. The bottom line is that the call center is a big dog, and AGR is a little dog in the Amtrak kennel.

This is not to suggest that there is an adversarial relationship between AGR and the call center. There is not. But it is to suggest that _if_ this forced stopover policy was put in place by the call center, perhaps in response to some perceived operational desire presented by Transportation, and since there is no AGR guildeline that specifically states a one train, one passenger, two PNR booking is allowed, then there was nothing to stop the call center from imposing the policy on all reservations, including AGR reservations. While it would be nice for such changes to be communicated to all stakeholders, including AGR, it does not mean that happens.

Assuming AGR disagrees with this new policy (and they do) and may even think it is silly (they might), then AGR can certainly go to the call center management and try to work things out. With reasonable people on both sides (and there are), there is every hope that a solution can be found that satisfies all parties and concerns. However, in the end, it is a call center decision. Short of AGR running the issue up the considerable number of rungs of the Amtrak organization ladder to find a common manager and hoping that manager could impose AGR's will on the call center (very, very unlikely), AGR has to use their power of persuasion, and if that fails, then the have to grin and bare it. What Alan describes as "HQ", meaning AGR leadership, does not have as much power in this kind of cross-organizational issue as might be assumed. In the case of "HQ" being AGR, whether they like the rule or not may not, in the end, make a difference.

It does not surprise me that this issue is taking a while to resolve. I don't consider that either good news or bad news. I do consider it a strong indication that my "educated guess based on what I know" is correct. If this problem was solely within AGR's span of control, then resolution would have been as easy as a phone call followed by a directive. Once there is an issue outside the span of control, then the phone calls, conference calls, proposals, reviews, revisions, counter-proposals, etc., etc., etc. simply take a while with absolutely no guarantee of success. My suggestion is to chill out and let the wheels of the Amtrak organization grind away in that special way that only Amtrak wheels can.


----------



## Ryan

That sounds like a hell of a way to run a railroad.


----------



## PRR 60

Ryan said:


> That sounds like a hell of a way to run a railroad.


LOL! Oh, the stories I could tell, particularly sitting back while one Amtrak department fights with another while we really, really needed a decision - any decision. I think all big companies are like that to a degree, but Amtrak takes it to a new level.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> You decided way back on page #1 that this was policy and therefore had to have come from AGR HQ when you were running in your speculative mode. Here, let me remind you:
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has all the hallmarks of an actual policy that may or may not still be in effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Only HQ can set "actual" policy.
Click to expand...

You're free to continue splitting hairs between de rigueur and de facto policies, but I see no practical difference as it concerns me or my travels



AlanB said:


> Frankly you just seem to like to try to stir up trouble and I think you relish the responses that your posts invoke.


In this case I'd relish being proven wrong. Not by endlessly arguing semantics, but by having the policy further clarified in our favor with clear and consise wording.



AlanB said:


> If you recall the one time that I met you in person in DC, you'll remember that I showed you and others something that you've not seen anyplace else. There are many times that I actually know, even if I can't say so and how I know. And when I don't know for sure, I'm often making an educated guess based upon what I do know. Which is not speculation! And if I have no clue, then I say nothing.


It's apparently very important to you that we agree on where this restiction did or did not come from. That is not something I'm terribly concerned with myself. I simply do not see the relevance with regard to average travelers like myself. Between the information provided by you and PRR60 I can imagine all sorts of possible explanations, but in the end I'm still stuck with the same result regardless of who or what caused it. So, to me, this is really more about what the call center will allow me to book rather than who told them what to allow and why.


----------



## PaulM

Ryan said:


> That sounds like a hell of a way to run a railroad.


Not only that, but I now know why you can't book meaningful AGR itineraries via the internet. The telephone people won't allow it.


----------



## AlanB

Devil's Advocate said:


> It's apparently very important to you that we agree on where this restiction did or did not come from. That is not something I'm terribly concerned with myself. I simply do not see the relevance with regard to average travelers like myself. Between the information provided by you and PRR60 I can imagine all sorts of possible explanations, but in the end I'm still stuck with the same result regardless of who or what caused it. So, to me, this is really more about what the call center will allow me to book rather than who told them what to allow and why.


No, it was important to me that you not speculate on where the rule came from, or if it was even an actual rule, based upon your meager evidence. Yet by page #4 you had already decided that this was an official rule, and that it had to have originated at AGR HQ; and apparently it was important enough at the time for you to declare that's where it came from.



Devil's Advocate said:


> The forced stopover rule appears to be actual AGR policy,


And then you had the nerve to tell me that I was the one speculating! :angry:

Without regard to whether I'm correct or PRR60 is correct in just how the AGR agents are staffed; it is quite clear that this rule originated at the call center, which is what I had said right from the start. If this was a rule from HQ, we'd already have a response from Insider one way or another.


----------



## crescent2

yarrow said:


> PaulM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm disappointed. It's now over a week and no response. I thought this thread might be different where we would get an answer to the question, not endless speculation, philosophical argument, and name calling, and then the topic dies.
> 
> 
> 
> To all -- I thank you for your patience as this topic is researched and we discuss with our reservation sales and operations staff to get you the answers you are seeking.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of speculation, can anyone speculate what "topic" is being "researched"? Or what's the implied direct object of the word "discuss"? Some possibilities: Is there such a rule? *If so, should it be rescinded?* If not, should it be rule? If it becomes one, should it be published? If it is a rule, why wasn't it included in the published rules? If it isn't a rule, who started enforcing it? I just got back from a long vacation and need to check my messages  .
> 
> From the first time I saw this post, I thought the wording was a bit odd, although some of the posts here regarding the organizational structure make it sound less odd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i've been wondering the same thing. to me, it is just a question of whether agr will allow what is *sort of a loophole*, that is can you, where a 3 zone redemption routing is not allowed can you do it as a 2plus1 zone? nothing from the insider on the flyertalk agr thread on this topic either.
Click to expand...

I would like to reiterate that I'm not trying to use any "loophole." When you PAY (redeem using your points) for each separate, legitimate segment of travel, that's not exploitation in any way. It really is like buying two separate tickets (A-B, B-C) in order to take your desired trip. It hurts Amtrak/AGR in no way, and they cheerfully allow both of the separate awards. In the case of coach and bedroom travel, the two awards require paying additional points over those required for a single longer award, so AGR actually benefits. Also, the accommodation is sold for a longer segment on that train.

In my case, I think of it as the "throw Momma from the train" rule (or non-rule, whatever the case may be, but it's currently being enforced). AGR wanted to throw me from the train in Wolf Point between my two entirely legal awards. I still see absolutely no logical reason for that restriction. Therefore, "If so, should it be rescinded?" should be the topic imo, and I thought my question to Insider about it was pretty straightforward.

To me it's as simple as "Will we allow our customers to buy more than one of our products at a time, without imposing a penalty on them?"

Again, "AGR" = the AGR program. As Insider (the person) deals with us only out of the goodness of his or her heart, I personally have no problem being patient. Of course, it also helps that my proposed travel is for next year. 

As with the earlier revised AGR sleeper refund policy, it might be beneficial to us if we present a more united front on this.


----------



## PaulM

PRR 60 said:


> I can't say for sure, but it is certainly possible that call center management imposed this requirement for *all* reservations, including AGR reservations, ..


You sound like you know what you are talking about, but if I understand you correctly, I still find this bizarre. When you say "all" I presume you are talking about paid reservations. I can see call center management being responsible for hiring, scheduling, training, disciplining personnel and setting rules like no chewing gum while on duty. But you seem to be saying that they could arbitrarily rule that you can't buy a ticket less than 87 hour prior to departure, or that calls made between 6.37PM and 5:02AM result in a 13% surcharge on all tickets sold.

This is like a sheet metal shop superintendent dictating the product line and pricing schedule.


----------



## PaulM

zephyr17 said:


> I tried to book a 3 zone award by forcing it as a 1 zone SEA-ABQ, then a 2 zone ABQ-NYP, as suggested here. The AGR agent said in order to do that, I'd have to stay overnight in Albuquerque, I couldn't redeem it that way staying on the same train.
> I am determined to use this trip to take the Southwest Chief so to ride the current route at least this one more time.


With all the debate about the origin of the forced overnight "rule", are you missing something? As I understand it, your problem is that SEA to NYP using the SWC is not a published route. Therefore you can't do it with a 3 zone award. But over at Flyertalk, the AGR rep promised to personally see about getting missing routes published. Now if SEA to NYP via CS, SL, and Crescent, with an overnight in New Orleans is a published route, the one you want is certainly more reasonable and deserves to be published.


----------



## zephyr17

PaulM said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to book a 3 zone award by forcing it as a 1 zone SEA-ABQ, then a 2 zone ABQ-NYP, as suggested here. The AGR agent said in order to do that, I'd have to stay overnight in Albuquerque, I couldn't redeem it that way staying on the same train.
> 
> I am determined to use this trip to take the Southwest Chief so to ride the current route at least this one more time.
> 
> 
> 
> With all the debate about the origin of the forced overnight "rule", are you missing something? As I understand it, your problem is that SEA to NYP using the SWC is not a published route. Therefore you can't do it with a 3 zone award. But over at Flyertalk, the AGR rep promised to personally see about getting missing routes published. Now if SEA to NYP via CS, SL, and Crescent, with an overnight in New Orleans is a published route, the one you want is certainly more reasonable and deserves to be published.
Click to expand...

Doing it as a straight 3-zone award was certainly my first choice. Trying to do it as a 1 zone and a 2 zone redemption was Plan B. I did reach out to AGR Insider to see if that routing could be added, pointing out that the longer SEA-LAX-NOL-NYP routing was published. He took a few days to respond to my initial PM, and said he'd look into it. But I had wanted to firm up my travel plans and already booked Plan C, which was a 1 zone to LA, then a 3 zone LAX-NYP. I responded to his message that I'd already booked it, but I still thought that the routing via LA and the SWC should be published. I didn't hear back after that, and I assume that since I had already booked, he had other things to do for open cases.
SEA-LAX-CHI-NYP is still not a "published route" -- at least on Amtrak.com


----------



## crescent2

And, my scenario is even more straightforward and simple. My two segments ARE published on Arrow. AGR agent has no problem with my buying (redeeming) them, but says I can't use them unless I stay overnight between them, which is just crazy.


----------



## zephyr17

crescent2 said:


> And, my scenario is even more straightforward and simple. My two segments ARE published on Arrow. AGR agent has no problem with my buying (redeeming) them, but says I can't use them unless I stay overnight between them, which is just crazy.


My "Plan B" segments, SEA-ABQ/ABQ-NYP, are published, too.


----------



## amamba

zephyr17 said:


> crescent2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, my scenario is even more straightforward and simple. My two segments ARE published on Arrow. AGR agent has no problem with my buying (redeeming) them, but says I can't use them unless I stay overnight between them, which is just crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> My "Plan B" segments, SEA-ABQ/ABQ-NYP, are published, too.
Click to expand...

So the solution is to go back to AgR Insider and get Sea - NYP via lax and chi added to arrow.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

amamba said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, my scenario is even more straightforward and simple. My two segments ARE published on Arrow. AGR agent has no problem with my buying (redeeming) them, but says I can't use them unless I stay overnight between them, which is just crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> My "Plan B" segments, SEA-ABQ/ABQ-NYP, are published, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the solution is to go back to AgR Insider and get Sea - NYP via lax and chi added to arrow.
Click to expand...

 In my experience having a trip published in Arrow had no bearing whatsoever on the forced stopover rule.


----------



## Rail Freak

Devil's Advocate said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, my scenario is even more straightforward and simple. My two segments ARE published on Arrow. AGR agent has no problem with my buying (redeeming) them, but says I can't use them unless I stay overnight between them, which is just crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> My "Plan B" segments, SEA-ABQ/ABQ-NYP, are published, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the solution is to go back to AgR Insider and get Sea - NYP via lax and chi added to arrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my experience having a trip published in Arrow had no bearing whatsoever on the forced stopover rule.
Click to expand...

In my experience, I've never heard of the "Stop Over Rule"!!!!!


----------



## Bob Dylan

Rail Freak said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience having a trip published in Arrow had no bearing whatsoever on the forced stopover rule.
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, I've never heard of the "Stop Over Rule"!!!!!
Click to expand...

Neither had any of us until some Agent @ AGR Made it UP!! It's being "Discussed" in the Councils @ AGR according to AGR Insider but because of the Holiday, and the Fact that it's Amtrak, it seems to be taking awhile for a Definitive Answer on this Agent Creation!!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Rail Freak said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amamba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, my scenario is even more straightforward and simple. My two segments ARE published on Arrow. AGR agent has no problem with my buying (redeeming) them, but says I can't use them unless I stay overnight between them, which is just crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> My "Plan B" segments, SEA-ABQ/ABQ-NYP, are published, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the solution is to go back to AgR Insider and get Sea - NYP via lax and chi added to arrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my experience having a trip published in Arrow had no bearing whatsoever on the forced stopover rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my experience, I've never heard of the "Stop Over Rule"!!!!!
Click to expand...

 Oh, so close. You were just one more exclamation point away from convincing me this never happened.


----------



## Rail Freak

Devil's Advocate said:


> Rail Freak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amamba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, my scenario is even more straightforward and simple. My two segments ARE published on Arrow. AGR agent has no problem with my buying (redeeming) them, but says I can't use them unless I stay overnight between them, which is just crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> My "Plan B" segments, SEA-ABQ/ABQ-NYP, are published, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My "Plan B" segments, SEA-ABQ/ABQ-NYP, are published, too.</p></blockquote>So the solution is to go back to AgR Insider and get Sea - NYP via lax and chi added to arrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my experience having a trip published in Arrow had no bearing whatsoever on the forced stopover rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my experience, I've never heard of the "Stop Over Rule"!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so close. You were just one more exclamation point away from convincing me this never happened.
Click to expand...

! ( There ya go) Now, will you chill till a decision is made?


----------



## amamba

I'm just saying that in the midst of all of this uncertainty regarding the forced stopover, a simple solution exists. And that is getting your desired routing added to arrow. I had great success with getting my desires routing of PVD - Houston added. It took about a week.

That should work for someone trying to piece together a 1 zone and a 2 zone changing at ABQ or another zone border if the route is booksable as a three zone.


----------



## Ryan

That would work for Z17.

That wouldn't work for for Crescent2, since she's trying to string together a pair of 3 zones to cross the country and back without an overnight.

Agreed on the "chill until we here something", every time the thread comes back to the top I think "Oh, we have an answer", and every time I'm sadly disappointed.


----------



## AlanB

Devil's Advocate said:


> In my experience having a trip published in Arrow had no bearing whatsoever on the forced stopover rule.


Actually, in Zephyr's case, having it as a valid published route in ARROW would make all the difference for him.

He's only bumping into this "rule" because he cannot book the Starlight to LA, connecting to the Chief on to Chicago as a normal legal trip. So because it is legal to book the CS to LA and the Chief to ABQ, he wanted to string two awards together. If SEA-LAX-CHI-NYP were legal in ARROW, he'd be booking one 3 zone award award and the idea of any type of stop over or trip interruption in ABQ would not exist and the "rule" would not apply.

However, I'm not so sure that the powers that be will accept a request from Insider to add such a routing to ARROW. The problem being that for someone booking such a trip via Amtrak.com, they might not realize that the overnight in LA is on their dime, not Amtrak's. Someone booking a sleeper award must call, and therefore Amtrak can be more certain that said passenger was warned. But sadly one can't force people to read all the time. So Amtrak tends not to put such connections into ARROW.


----------



## amamba

Ah OK Alan that makes sense. However the routing that Insider added for me of PVD to Houaton includes an overnight in NOL.


----------



## crescent2

No answer yet, Ryan. 

Yes, if the whole thing was published on Arrow, you could do it with a single award and all this other would be moot.

In my case, my entire route DEN-EMY-PDX-CHI won't ever be published on Arrow, and rightly so. It loops around too much to be done on a single award, and I have no problem with that. My problem is that AGR won't let me use my two perfectly legal awards without throwing me off the train in WPT for no logical reason. I can get them, just can't use them!


----------



## TinCan782

zephyr17 said:


> Finally, if I decide to bite the bullet and take what's offered, does anyone have any hotel suggestions for Albuquerque near the station?


Not "near" the station but I had a good experience here for a Navy reunion last year.

http://mcmelegantealbuquerque.com/

They have a courtesy shuttle that will pick you up at/take you to the station or other nearby locations.


----------



## PRR 60

From AGR Insider at Flyertalk:



> There is no forced stopover rule. The redemption guidelines stand as published. The call center leadership has been instructed to allow multiple redemptions to be booked with no forced overnight, as long as each individual redemption follows the guidelines (i.e. published route). If you call to book such an itinerary and are told an overnight stay is required between two redemptions, please ask for a lead agent or a supervisor.


Flyertalk


----------



## Ryan

Thanks.







Also from way back on page 1:



Ryan said:


> Try a better agent. PM AGR insider and ask they provide retraining for the clueless agent.



Also this:



Devil's Advocate said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the agents were really just "clueless" then wouldn't they be coming up with different claims and answers from each other? It seems rather unlikely that multiple agents just randomly invented the exact same claim out of nothing. This has all the hallmarks of an actual policy that may or may not still be in effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Or more likely, the agents were all trained by the same person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now the theory is a rogue trainer. Fair enough.
> 
> How do we explain excalation to supervisors resulting in confirmation of the original claim?
> 
> Are the supervisors also going rogue?
Click to expand...

To answer your question, "yes".

At last, our long national nightmare is over.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Glad to be proven wrong after the fact.

Next time I'll be more careful when reporting my experiences.


----------



## Ryan

No problem reporting experiences, it's using them to make universal generalizations that gets problematic.

It does suck that you've been wronged by the folks in the call center making up their own rules.


----------



## Rail Freak

!!!!


----------



## VentureForth

CHEERING!

That took quite an effort - of which I only participated in the peanut gallery watching. Kudos to all who were directly involved and I hope Z17 can save 15,000 points on his trip now.


----------



## amamba

Huzzah!


----------



## crescent2

:wub:

Logic has prevailed!


----------



## saxman

Wow, how did I miss this whole topic. I'm just now literally pulling into DEN at the end of one redemption on #6. And I'm about to continue on another redemption to SC. I booked them both separately on different days too, and was totally oblivous to this whole discusion. Glad I didn't see it, because I would be churning.


----------

