# Unbelievable Southwest Chief Prices



## printman2000 (Jul 10, 2013)

I know, i do this every year. I finish one vacation and immediately start planning next years. Last year I was complaining about much higher opening prices on the Southwest Chief between Chicago and Lamy. Roomettes were opening at $408. They eventually went down a few months after opening. But for me, who gets to plan very early, that is just horrible. I use to be able to buy the low bucket tickets on the day they opened and still can on other trains. But not the Southwest Chief.

So looking at next years prices, roomettes are opening at $620 for Chicago to Lamy. $620! One way!

Dates before March 31st, 2014, the price drops to $250.

I can do the Texas Eagle from Chicago to Fort Worth for $177 for a roomette. Shoot, I can go all the way from Chicago to Los Angeles on the Eagle for $460.

Going Lamy to Chicago, the prices open at $435.

I know there is nothing anyone here can do, but I needed to vent. I am sick and tired of Amtrak messing with the Southwest Chief like this. The Texas Eagle and California Zephyr are not having this happen.

Unbelievable.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 10, 2013)

I know that it frustrates you, but I'm happy to see Amtrak managing revenue intelligently and decreasing their dependance on Congress for operating money.


----------



## amtkstn (Jul 10, 2013)

One reason is Amtrak does not have enough sleepers to have more then three in the summertime.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 10, 2013)

amtkstn said:


> One reason is Amtrak does not have enough sleepers to have more then three in the summertime.


Number of sleepers does not really have anything to do with it. The prices will come down three months later. It is more Amtrak trying to gouge people who are willing to give them their money 11 months before travel.

Right now, I have to either wait the three months and hope that the dates I need are still low bucket, or plan to drive 6 hours to Fort Worth or Denver (instead of four to Lamy).


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 10, 2013)

It could be that travel agencies book those in advance and then release them. That happens occasionally.

I've been holding off on Christmas because roomettes were $350+, and they just fell back to $250 last night. That's low-bucket, so I'll probably get our tickets this weekend.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 10, 2013)

printman2000 said:


> The prices will come down three months later. It is more Amtrak trying to gouge people who are willing to give them their money 11 months before travel.





Sorcha said:


> It could be that travel agencies book those in advance and then release them. That happens occasionally.


Put these two together. High open prices discourage the agencies from scarfing up all the low bucket rooms.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 10, 2013)

Well, again, you would think that would be the case on more than this train. Especially the California Zephyr. Not to mention the new cancellation policy probably took care of a lot of the travel agency issues.


----------



## Rail Freak (Jul 10, 2013)

printman2000 said:


> Well, again, you would think that would be the case on more than this train. Especially the California Zephyr. Not to mention the new cancellation policy probably took care of a lot of the travel agency issues.


What cancelation policy are you refering to?

Thanx


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 10, 2013)

Rail Freak said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, again, you would think that would be the case on more than this train. Especially the California Zephyr. Not to mention the new cancellation policy probably took care of a lot of the travel agency issues.
> ...


The fact that you cannot get a full refund anymore.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 10, 2013)

Ryan said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > The prices will come down three months later. It is more Amtrak trying to gouge people who are willing to give them their money 11 months before travel.
> ...


Ohhhhh... that makes sense. ^_^


----------



## AlanB (Jul 10, 2013)

printman2000 said:


> Well, again, you would think that would be the case on more than this train. Especially the California Zephyr. Not to mention the new cancellation policy probably took care of a lot of the travel agency issues.


No, I'm seeing this happen on the Auto Train and I believe I've seen it on the LSL. I really haven't checked other trains that much.

As for the return policy, travel agents are not bound by the same terms & conditions that we individual travelers are bound by.

Furthermore, travel agents have access to the inventory before it goes on sale to us.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 10, 2013)

Craig: The High Prices on the SWC, and the CZ are perhaps a factor in the continuing increase in Ridership and Prices on the TE/Sunset to/from California ! I like the SWC myself but those Prices are not affordable for me!.(unless I use AGR Points) it's good that we have amsnag.net to use as a tool for those of us that be flexible in our travel dates! I've always thought that the LSL and EB were too Expensive(I understand Supply and Demand) and now the Cap Ltd. and the Silver Trains seem to be joining the Race to High Bucket Advance Fares!


----------



## TinCan782 (Jul 10, 2013)

Could it be a simple matter that the SWC is faster and I would guess more popular than the TE traveling CHI to LA? Supply and demand and if passengers are buying tickets, why not.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 12, 2013)

If I went ahead and booked on the Texas Eagle at a low price, and then a few months later the Southwest Chief prices came down, can I switch trains without paying the refund penalty? If I understand the policy, I can. But wanted to see what other think/know.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 12, 2013)

If the net result of moving from the Eagle to the SWC is a refund is due, then you will still pay the 10% penalty if you take a refund. If you take it in a voucher, then no penalty.

If it's an even swap in costs or if you owe a bit more, then no penalties are involved by cancelling the Eagle to exchange for the SWC.

This of course all assumes that you're outside the 15 day no refunds rule. Then you'd have no choice but to take a voucher if Amtrak owed you money after the swap.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 12, 2013)

AlanB said:


> If the net result of moving from the Eagle to the SWC is a refund is due, then you will still pay the 10% penalty if you take a refund. If you take it in a voucher, then no penalty.
> If it's an even swap in costs or if you owe a bit more, then no penalties are involved by cancelling the Eagle to exchange for the SWC.
> 
> This of course all assumes that you're outside the 15 day no refunds rule. Then you'd have no choice but to take a voucher if Amtrak owed you money after the swap.


That is what I thought. Thanks


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 12, 2013)

AlanB said:


> If the net result of moving from the Eagle to the SWC is a refund is due, then you will still pay the 10% penalty if you take a refund. If you take it in a voucher, then no penalty.
> If it's an even swap in costs or if you owe a bit more, then no penalties are involved by cancelling the Eagle to exchange for the SWC.
> 
> This of course all assumes that you're outside the 15 day no refunds rule. Then you'd have no choice but to take a voucher if Amtrak owed you money after the swap.


What about AGR? One way of my trip will being using AGR. I assume no issues at all changing. Correct?

This would all be done 7-8 months in advance of traveling.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 12, 2013)

If you booked with AGR points, they'll just apply the points to the SWC. No penalties.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2013)

Sorcha said:


> It could be that travel agencies book those in advance and then release them. That happens occasionally.


The more I thought about this the more I am pretty certain this is not the case. Simply because every date 11-9 months out is at this extremely high price. Surely travel agencies are not buying tickets every day for three months all year long.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2013)

In the past, I have been on record (here at AU) stating I think Amtrak should charge what they can get. Even if it is really high. And I still believe that. However, I take issue at trying to get such high prices so far out. I cannot believe that is is making them much, IF ANY money. People would be crazy to pay those high prices 11 months out.

I guess it comes down to not trusting Amtrak to make the best decisions.


----------



## stntylr (Jul 16, 2013)

Just do what I do and ride coach.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2013)

stntylr said:


> Just do what I do and ride coach.


Okay, that brought a smile to my face.  I have done coach overnight before and I pretty much vowed to not do it again. Was not horrible, just not good.

However, upon checking, the same thing is happening with coach prices. Chicago to Lamy opens at $170 whereas low bucket looks to be $136. Course, that is not two and half times the cost like with the roomettes.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 16, 2013)

printman2000 said:


> In the past, I have been on record (here at AU) stating I think Amtrak should charge what they can get. Even if it is really high. And I still believe that. However, I take issue at trying to get such high prices so far out. I cannot believe that is is making them much, IF ANY money. People would be crazy to pay those high prices 11 months out.
> I guess it comes down to not trusting Amtrak to make the best decisions.


The ridership and revenue numbers we're seeing point to the fact that it is actually making them money.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2013)

Ryan said:


> The ridership and revenue numbers we're seeing point to the fact that it is actually making them money.


There is no way to tell that they are selling any rooms at these really high prices. Ridership numbers only tell you how many were on the train. Not when or how much they paid for their tickets.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 16, 2013)

That's why I said ridership *AND REVENUE*.

Generally speaking, revenue is increasing faster than ridership. You can debate how much of that is just a function of overall higher prices versus opening at low bucket, but without any hard data to suggest otherwise Amtrak's revenue management seems to be having the desired outcome.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2013)

Ryan said:


> That's why I said ridership *AND REVENUE*.
> Generally speaking, revenue is increasing faster than ridership. You can debate how much of that is just a function of overall higher prices versus opening at low bucket, but without any hard data to suggest otherwise Amtrak's revenue management seems to be having the desired outcome.


Yeah, your right.

However, I still highly doubt having these high prices 9-11 months out is contributing to it.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 17, 2013)

If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms. I'm not sure if that's because some people just panic and think it's going to go even higher later, or if some just don't know the game, or what. But nonetheless with as proactive as revenue management has become with moving rooms around in the various buckets at various times, if this strategy wasn't selling any rooms, they would stop doing it. Of that I'm sure.<br />


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 17, 2013)

I guess that it's come down to: if you can afford the prices you buy and if not you walk.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 17, 2013)

AlanB said:


> If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms. I'm not sure if that's because some people just panic and think it's going to go even higher later, or if some just don't know the game, or what. But nonetheless with as proactive as revenue management has become with moving rooms around in the various buckets at various times, if this strategy wasn't selling any rooms, they would stop doing it. Of that I'm sure.<br />


You have a lot more faith than I do.

I could easily see that this is the way they tried it at some point and it is still happening simply because no one ever changed it back.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 17, 2013)

dlagrua said:


> I guess that it's come down to: if you can afford the prices you buy and if not you walk.


Or you wait for the prices to come down as they almost always do, except maybe around Thanksgiving & Christmas.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 17, 2013)

printman2000 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms. I'm not sure if that's because some people just panic and think it's going to go even higher later, or if some just don't know the game, or what. But nonetheless with as proactive as revenue management has become with moving rooms around in the various buckets at various times, if this strategy wasn't selling any rooms, they would stop doing it. Of that I'm sure.
> ...


It's not faith.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 17, 2013)

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


So you have first hand knowledge of this particular issue on this particular train? If so, I would love to know how many rooms they actually sell at this rate.

(Alan, I am not being snide with you, just trying to understand)


----------



## Ryan (Jul 17, 2013)

I think that this is another one of those cases when Alan says "I know what I'm talking about" he actually knows what he's talking about.

It's probably also another one of these cases where broadcasting exactly what he knows and why he knows it to the whole internet isn't appropriate.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 17, 2013)

Ryan said:


> I think that this is another one of those cases when Alan says "I know what I'm talking about" he actually knows what he's talking about.
> It's probably also another one of these cases where broadcasting exactly what he knows and why he knows it to the whole internet isn't appropriate.


And that is fine. I would assume he would tell me if that were the case, though.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 17, 2013)

You've got to read between the lines.

Disclaimer: I've got no idea what Alan knows and doesn't know. All I know is that when he makes a bold declarative statement like "It's not faith", I'm going to push the "I believe" button and not ask questions.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 17, 2013)

Printman, read between the lines. It's not faith so much as logic.

"If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms."

If Amtrak weren't selling any rooms at that price, they'd stop, but they haven't. Therefore, it's easy to assume they ARE selling rooms for that price.

A = B

It's a basic business model. If nobody bought rooms at that price, they'd lower the prices. The fact that they open at that price year after year shows at least a few people purchase them for that price. Otherwise, Amtrak would skip straight to the lower price.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 17, 2013)

Ryan said:


> You've got to read between the lines.
> Disclaimer: I've got no idea what Alan knows and doesn't know. All I know is that when he makes a bold declarative statement like "It's not faith", I'm going to push the "I believe" button and not ask questions.


Sorry, Ryan, while I understand what you are saying, I need to hear more from Alan. What he said could mean "I know this is how revenue management generally operates" or he could have meant "I know this is how revenue management is operating on this train". Big difference. That is why I am asking for clarification.

And, if he does not want to speak publicly, he can certainly send me a message.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 17, 2013)

Sorcha said:


> Printman, read between the lines. It's not faith so much as logic.
> "If they weren't selling any rooms at those high prices early on, then revenue management would stop doing it. However, the simple fact that they haven't stopped indicates that they are selling at least some rooms."
> 
> If Amtrak weren't selling any rooms at that price, they'd stop, but they haven't. Therefore, it's easy to assume they ARE selling rooms for that price.
> ...


Again, that would assume there were people doing their jobs well. I have no reason to believe that because prices are high, they must be selling rooms. Like I said, maybe it was set that way a year ago and they have never really looked at it again.

Maybe it is. I just have nothing from my experience to prove that other than what Alan says. While I do trust Alan and what he knows, I am just trying to clarify what he knows.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 17, 2013)

In conclusion, the issue then, is one of supply and demand, but as I stated in another post, the taxpayer is funding Amtrak to a point. Whether you agree that government should be in the "for profit" business or not is bound to influence ones opinion on what the ticket prices should look like. One side of the argument is that Amtrak isn't making a profit but the other argument is what do we get in return for our tax dollars? The question is a difficult one to answer.

I regularly use the service, wish to see Amtrak survive and grow, but when I am already forking over 50-60% or my income ( in all the combined taxes that I pay) the least that should be expected of government, is an attempt to keep ticket prices affordable. The bigger problem is that the hatred of passenger trains in Washington runs rampant. Amtrak doesn't spend millions lobbying congress, so politicians derive no benefit from it. Its all about the money and who can support election campaigns


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 17, 2013)

printman2000 said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> > Printman, read between the lines. It's not faith so much as logic.
> ...


Fair enough.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 17, 2013)

printman2000 said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> > Printman, read between the lines. It's not faith so much as logic.
> ...


Maybe via email, ie, not in a public forum, he'd be able to say more.... you might try such and see what happens.

But along the same lines, it would be nice to see afterthefact real numbers in terms of what they sell and for how much - my special interest is the CZ.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 17, 2013)

printman2000 said:


> So you have first hand knowledge of this particular issue on this particular train? If so, I would love to know how many rooms they actually sell at this rate.
> (Alan, I am not being snide with you, just trying to understand)


Did you even provide a particular date? I don't recall seeing anything; so I couldn't have had that checked.

But that said, there was a recent post over at FT where someone made similar complaints regarding the AT. I'm not going to get into details, but I will say that I know that rooms were sold at the high bucket for that train.

Again, revenue management has been very proactive of late. They're not resting on their heels at all. The quantities of both seats and sleepers in each bucket on all trains are routinely rearranged based upon sales and available inventory. Things will move up or down as needed so as to maximize revenue, while still trying not to hurt ridership.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 17, 2013)

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > So you have first hand knowledge of this particular issue on this particular train? If so, I would love to know how many rooms they actually sell at this rate.
> ...


Sounds like a younger, more data driven management team... if they can walk that fine line, where they in fact maximize (or at least improved) the bottom line; while not alienating future potential customers... that would be a win-win for all.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 17, 2013)

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > So you have first hand knowledge of this particular issue on this particular train? If so, I would love to know how many rooms they actually sell at this rate.
> ...


I was not referring to a particular day. I just meant the Southwest Chief and how prices are opening high and staying that way for 3 or so months. So what I meant is do you know for certain what you know also applies to the Southwest Chief?


----------



## AlanB (Jul 17, 2013)

printman2000 said:


> I was not referring to a particular day. I just meant the Southwest Chief and how prices are opening high and staying that way for 3 or so months. So what I meant is do you know for certain what you know also applies to the Southwest Chief?


The same revenue management rules apply to all trains, which is why some start out high while others don't. Have I looked specifically at the SWC to see if rooms sold this week for 11 months out at high bucket? NO. But the fact that it is opening with largely only high buckets means that it must be selling rooms. If it wasn't selling them right after the sales start, then like some other trains it wouldn't be opening at high bucket prices.


----------



## chakk (Jul 18, 2013)

And if Amtrak upper management really wanted to get rid of some LD trains, they could direct the rate department to set fares at high bucket, and then if no one bought up the tickets, management could use that result to justify train-off petitions.

So the real proof of the pudding is to look at the ridership statistics. Have the number of passengers on the SWC declined substantially since the agressive revenue management operation was rolled out? If the answer to this question is "No", then the Amtrak managers may well be correct to continue this procedure.


----------



## gmushial (Jul 18, 2013)

chakk said:


> And if Amtrak upper management really wanted to get rid of some LD trains, they could direct the rate department to set fares at high bucket, and then if no one bought up the tickets, management could use that result to justify train-off petitions.
> So the real proof of the pudding is to look at the ridership statistics. Have the number of passengers on the SWC declined substantially since the agressive revenue management operation was rolled out? If the answer to this question is "No", then the Amtrak managers may well be correct to continue this procedure.


Such takes care of the short-term bottom line... but potentially adversely affects longer term ridership, ie, the never taken an Amtrak LD, with low bucket prices lower or more readily available, might be more willing to test the waters, but if they're faced with higher prices, then testing the waters becomes more difficult and as such potentially precludes a "possible" from becoming a 'believer." Again, as a company owner, we're always worrying about making this quarter fat, at the expense of multiple quarters down the road... and luckily being privately owned, can and do plan and execute for the long term, assuming that the short term in 90 days will be history and forgotten.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 18, 2013)

gmushial said:


> chakk said:
> 
> 
> > And if Amtrak upper management really wanted to get rid of some LD trains, they could direct the rate department to set fares at high bucket, and then if no one bought up the tickets, management could use that result to justify train-off petitions.
> ...


While that may be true, most first timers aren't looking to buy 11 months out. That's probably more people who are regulars and used to know that the trick for getting the best fare was to book early. Yes there might be a few who would book that early, but I don't think that its a huge number.


----------



## calwatch (Jul 19, 2013)

Generally the best time to buy airfare is one to two months out, so this is reasonable. The only time you would want to book early is if there was an artificial limit on the number of spots available, such as the Portland sleeper or the Cardinal - but then you could tell how many had sold with the "Only X Rooms Left" banner.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jul 19, 2013)

calwatch said:


> Generally the best time to buy airfare is one to two months out, so this is reasonable. The only time you would want to book early is if there was an artificial limit on the number of spots available, such as the Portland sleeper or the Cardinal - but then you could tell how many had sold with the "Only X Rooms Left" banner.


I've noticed the _*X Rooms Left*_ flag only comes up when inventory is low, say 3 or 4 accommodations left. Another trick is to test book for 8 pax and see how many Rooms come up.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 19, 2013)

Seems like more and more Amtrak supporters are apparently being priced out of riding their preferred routes and schedules. What I want to know is who's paying fares higher than first class domestic or intercontinental coach flights for a 1970's fiberglass compartment that sometimes struggles to exceed the speed of smell.

:lol:


----------



## gmushial (Jul 19, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Seems like more and more Amtrak supporters are apparently being priced out of riding their preferred routes and schedules. What I want to know is who's paying fares higher than first class domestic or intercontinental coach flights for a 1970's fiberglass compartment that sometimes struggles to exceed the speed of smell.
> :lol:


Mindful that the inflation corrector for 1975->2013 is 4.34x (ie, $1 1975 = $4.34 2013).... and for other dates a simple but effective calculator http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl


----------



## gmushial (Jul 19, 2013)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> calwatch said:
> 
> 
> > Generally the best time to buy airfare is one to two months out, so this is reasonable. The only time you would want to book early is if there was an artificial limit on the number of spots available, such as the Portland sleeper or the Cardinal - but then you could tell how many had sold with the "Only X Rooms Left" banner.
> ...


I like the "trick" / approach... if the system won't give one the data one wants directly... then work it to one's advantage until it does... well done - my hat's off to you.


----------



## JoeBas (Jul 19, 2013)

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="dlagrua" data-cid="455431" data-time="1374073195"><p>

I guess that it's come down to: if you can afford the prices you buy and if not you walk.</p></blockquote>

This.

I buy well in advance to guarantee the dates I want, then every couple of weeks as part of my regular semi-monthly online bill paying check Amsnag and rebook downward as prices drop. If they stay high, I'm at least partially offset by cheaper midweek hotel rooms connecting. But they usually drop.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jul 19, 2013)

JoeBas said:


> I buy well in advance to guarantee the dates I want, then every couple of weeks as part of my regular semi-monthly online bill paying check Amsnag and rebook downward as prices drop.


You can set up amsnag to send you an alert when the price of a ticket on your train changes. Amsnag will give false alerts, since it dings you whenever any price changes on your day's train (coach, roomette, bedroom, family bedroom), but it still is pretty useful.


----------



## PaulM (Jul 19, 2013)

Ispolkom said:


> You can set up amsnag to send you an alert when the price of a ticket on your train changes. Amsnag will give false alerts, since it dings you whenever any price changes on your day's train (coach, roomette, bedroom, family bedroom), but it still is pretty useful.


An alert is triggered only when a price *drops* or a seat or room *becomes available* after being sold out. Or at least I hope it works that way. You are correct that it doesn't take into consideration the type of ticket you are interested in.


----------



## Bus Nut (Jul 19, 2013)

Why has nobody mentioned the planned route change for the SWC? Isn't this a big deal right now that some mileage is going away--possibly forever--and some people are riding now to take advantage? Wouldn't that railfanning push up short-term demand until the big reroute occurs?

Does anybody know the timeframe and if it applies?

That could be the reason for the "unbelievable" price if true, right?


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 19, 2013)

Bus Nut said:


> Why has nobody mentioned the planned route change for the SWC? Isn't this a big deal right now that some mileage is going away--possibly forever--and some people are riding now to take advantage? Wouldn't that railfanning push up short-term demand until the big reroute occurs?
> Does anybody know the timeframe and if it applies?
> 
> That could be the reason for the "unbelievable" price if true, right?


There have been multiple threads about the route change. I believe the decision to stay or go is due in 2014, but I'm sure one of the true foamers will correct me if I'm wrong. 

Our SCA (Anna Maria) hyped that possible route change a couple times during our trip last Thanksgiving. She got on the PA, gave us some history of the areas we passed through (which I thought was nice), and mentioned, "This could be one of your last trips through this area," so I'm sure there are some people booking trips to catch the Raton Pass while they can. I'm glad I've taken multiple pictures and videos over the years. I'm going to try to get even more video on our next trip.


----------



## Nathanael (Jul 19, 2013)

dlagrua said:


> I regularly use the service, wish to see Amtrak survive and grow, but when I am already forking over 50-60% or my income ( in all the combined taxes that I pay) the least that should be expected of government, is an attempt to keep ticket prices affordable. The bigger problem is that the hatred of passenger trains in Washington runs rampant. Amtrak doesn't spend millions lobbying congress, so politicians derive no benefit from it. Its all about the money and who can support election campaigns


I understand this point of view. It looks different from where I'm sitting. I am giving less than 15% of my income in taxes to the government, and almost all of that is to the state government. This is because the federal government favors my "type" of income (unearned investment income) to a ridiculous and obscene degree. So from my point of view, I haven't paid the federal government hardly anything, and I might as well give the money to Amtrak.
If my income were taxed at the same rates as your income, perhaps there would be plenty of money from Washington to keep ticket prices affordable.  There is something very wrong with a country where the working man and woman is taxed much more heavily than the guy who got lucky on the stock market.


----------



## Bus Nut (Jul 19, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> If my income were taxed at the same rates as your income, perhaps there would be plenty of money from Washington to keep ticket prices affordable.  There is something very wrong with a country where the working man and woman is taxed much more heavily than the guy who got lucky on the stock market.


Well said. What you are talking about is part of the reason I kind of got out of actively investing (even though it cost me financially). It was an emotional (even moral) trip and I hated myself. I know the government is trying to encourage savings and investment but it really burned me that the sweat of my brow was taxed so heavily as compared to short term cap gains from basically "playing", doing nothing productive but basically gambling on the direction of the economy.

I think I transaction tax would strike a fair balance and put the focus back on long term investment rather than short-term churn (which often gives corporate boards the wrong incentives for the long-term health of our economy anyway).

If they would have indexed long term cap gains to inflation years ago they would have protected little-guy savers. Instead they chose to drastically cut cap gains across the board, with all the negative consequences we've seen.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 19, 2013)

I would be happier if I could pick and choose where my taxes go, or at least move the percentages in certain "required categories" up and down. That would be kind of cool.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 19, 2013)

That would be really fascinating to see how things got funded when people are allowed to vote with their dollars. It'd be the free market at work!


----------



## Rail Freak (Jul 19, 2013)

Ryan said:


> That would be really fascinating to see how things got funded when people are allowed to vote with their dollars. It'd be the free market at work!


Actually, I believe that's what's happening now. It's just not possible for the individual to compete against the corporations & government entities that have their own agendas.I live in Florida & am quite familiar with "Hanging Chads"!!!!!


----------



## chakk (Jul 19, 2013)

I seriously doubt that anybody -- including died-in-the-wool-FLIMS (FLIM = "Foamer LIving with Mother") -- are booking up sleepers on the SWC many, many months in advance with hopes of catching a final ride over Raton Pass. Enjoy the alternate route with dreams of riding the San Francisco Chief.


----------



## nem (Jul 20, 2013)

Just checked and the price on the roomette on SWC has gone up since I booked in June for travel Sept.10th this year.Price for our ticket from FLG.-CHI and CHI-WAS. was $934.60 the price right now is $1149. Doesn't look like it is coming down. Price for Roomette is $421. FLG-CHI and $292. CHI-WAS via of Capitol Limited


----------



## Rail Freak (Jul 20, 2013)

nem said:


> Just checked and the price on the roomette on SWC has gone up since I booked in June for travel Sept.10th this year.Price for our ticket from FLG.-CHI and CHI-WAS. was $934.60 the price right now is $1149. Doesn't look like it is coming down. Price for Roomette is $421. FLG-CHI and $292. CHI-WAS via of Capitol Limited


A lot of time left, keep tracking AMSNAG!!!


----------



## The Trainman (Aug 10, 2013)

We just bought a BEDROOM from LAX-CHI for $653. Got Bedroom E on Car 430. Three weeks from now. It would appear that this was the first bedroom sold on a train that far out . . . .

The numbers showed a Roomette being $679 . . . and the bedroom was $653 - rarely I see a bedroom for less than a roomette. . . .


----------



## rainyday6 (Aug 10, 2013)

Still have not gotten the call to get to Baltimore, but when I first started looking at prices, they were about 1400. one way and last night I checked several dates in the next 2 weeks and they're down around 900, with about every other day being available for H room.

Also confused about when the CZ starts, in terms of sleepers. I heard Emeryville and then Seattle? If I have to, I would go to EMY on the CCorridor and board there to ensure a room.


----------



## NW cannonball (Aug 10, 2013)

rainyday6 said:


> Still have not gotten the call to get to Baltimore, but when I first started looking at prices, they were about 1400. one way and last night I checked several dates in the next 2 weeks and they're down around 900, with about every other day being available for H room.
> Also confused about when the CZ starts, in terms of sleepers. I heard Emeryville and then Seattle? If I have to, I would go to EMY on the CCorridor and board there to ensure a room.


The CZ California Zephyr originates at EMY - there are no through sleepers from anywhere. There are connections (meaning other sleeper cars but you have to change trains) at EMY from the Coast Starlight that runs from Seattle to Los Angeles. EMY to Baltimore is a long long ride and you have to change trains in Chicago at least.


----------



## June the Coach Rider (Aug 10, 2013)

printman2000 said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> > Printman, read between the lines. It's not faith so much as logic.
> ...


Having worked in Price Analysis for a large retail company, even the smallest item matters. Therefore if we were not making sure that every single item was priced accurately, we would hear from the higher ups when they looked at the bottom line for each department. Same thing goes for Amtrak, but probably easier to see. If the price is at high bucket for 3 months and there is NO revenue for the route, it would raise huge red flags and someone would have to answer for it, this I am sure of,


----------

