# Amtrak vs. Airlines:



## guest who likes trains (Feb 13, 2010)

Here's a good reason for considering Amtrak: the airline pilot announcement of the (near) future!!

Good afternoon, everybody, this is your captain speaking. We've reached our cruising altitude. Just want to give you a quick rundown of the amenities available for purchase on this flight.

In a few minutes we'll be cutting off the supply of oxygen in the economy cabin. Additional oxygen can be purchased for a nickel per minute, just slip your coins into the slot in the armrest. Exact change is required. If you need change, our attendants will provide it to you, for an additional fee of $1 per nickel.

In about an hour, we'll be flying over the Grand Canyon, and you can take a look by inserting a $5 bill in the slot beside your window. The window shade will pop up for exactly 23 seconds.

Thirty dollars to use the restroom -- $10 a flush. And when you get back to your seat our attendants will be happy to recline it for you -- for $57. Or, for $5 they'll punch you in the head so hard you'll black out for the whole flight.

That's about it. Now just sit back, relax and enjoy the next two hours. At that point passengers who refuse to pay our $200 completion fee will be thrown off the plane 36,000 feet above Wichita, while the rest of us continue on to New York.

Thanks again for traveling with us. We know you have a lot of choices when flying, and they're all bad, so shut up.


----------



## sunchaser (Feb 13, 2010)

:lol: Too funny! I was watching the news today when they mentioned that Air Traffic Controllers in Spain make $800,000.00 a year!! Unbelievable !!!!


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 13, 2010)

You forgot to include the statement where they say



> We have now closed the cabin door, so stay in your seat. We should be taking off within the next 3 hours!


----------



## Acela150 (Feb 13, 2010)

Really good! My mother in law would love this as she was stuck in vegas for two days trying to get a flight into BOS.

Stephen


----------



## saxman (Feb 13, 2010)

guest who likes trains said:


> Here's a good reason for considering Amtrak: the airline pilot announcement of the (near) future!!
> Good afternoon, everybody, this is your captain speaking. We've reached our cruising altitude. Just want to give you a quick rundown of the amenities available for purchase on this flight.
> 
> In a few minutes we'll be cutting off the supply of oxygen in the economy cabin. Additional oxygen can be purchased for a nickel per minute, just slip your coins into the slot in the armrest. Exact change is required. If you need change, our attendants will provide it to you, for an additional fee of $1 per nickel.
> ...



You must have been listening to NPR the other night. :lol:


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 13, 2010)

umm don't airlines already do this.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2010)

Playing the devils advocate here:

After only a couple of hours from the terminal station you will sit on a siding for over 12 hours with no announcements while the toilets back up. Then you will be transferred to a greyhound bus for the two day ride to your destination. Don't forget about the 1AM transfer on the bus ride too.


----------



## saxman (Feb 13, 2010)

Guest said:


> Playing the devils advocate here:
> After only a couple of hours from the terminal station you will sit on a siding for over 12 hours with no announcements while the toilets back up. Then you will be transferred to a greyhound bus for the two day ride to your destination. Don't forget about the 1AM transfer on the bus ride too.


I don't think this has ever happened on Amtrak. What are we? A third world country?


----------



## jis (Feb 13, 2010)

saxman said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Playing the devils advocate here:
> ...


:lol: Good third world countries do not cancel trains at the drop of a hat, like it appears to be common practice in certain other countries.


----------



## guest doth protest (Feb 13, 2010)

Guest said:


> Playing the devils advocate here:
> After only a couple of hours from the terminal station you will sit on a siding for over 12 hours with no announcements while the toilets back up. Then you will be transferred to a greyhound bus for the two day ride to your destination. Don't forget about the 1AM transfer on the bus ride too.


Well, this is clever in its own way.

But there's a BIG difference between the airline and train situations.

An incredibly unusual service disruption could (and does) happen once in a great while on Amtrak.

The nickel-and-diming, nee dollar-squeezing, by the airlines is an everyday occurrence!!! Amtrak isn't in the same league by a country mile!


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2010)

guest doth protest said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Playing the devils advocate here:
> ...


Yes, airlines nickel and dime, but your scenario is actually more ridiculous than mine. No one is actually chagrining those fees, yet anyways. My situation would be a worse case scenario based on the way Amtrak is operates today.

The reality is that folks complain about airlines charging coach passengers for things like blankets and refreshments. It is important to realize that Amtrak charges coach passengers for those things as well. I haven't flown since last summer, but my last flight on Expressjet dba Continental Express (yeah AGR points  ) was still giving out soft drinks for free for with my coach ticket. I have never received a free soft drink in Amtrak coach. Amtrak has the upper hand on the baggage issue, but there are airlines out there that like Southwest that have chosen to be competitive on that issue as well. In the end though everyone has to do a cost comparison of what amenities they want in their travel experience and what kind of stress each mode of transportation affords and see what makes the most financial sense.


----------



## gregoryla (Feb 13, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> :lol: Too funny! I was watching the news today when they mentioned that Air Traffic Controllers in Spain make $800,000.00 a year!! Unbelievable !!!!


Actually, it's both more and less outrageous than this. According to The Times (of London):

"Of 2,300 controllers, ten were paid between €810,000 (£725,000) and €900,000 last year. A further 226 were paid between €450,000 and €540,000 and 701 were paid between €270,000 and €360,000. The average basic salary is €200,000 but most double or triple this amount by working overtime."

So it's more outrageous than $800,000 per year because it is actually Euros, not Dollars. So in dollars, it's more like $1.1 million. It's less outrageous because most of the controllers earn substantially less than this (but still outrageous amounts!).


----------



## guest doth protest (Feb 13, 2010)

Guest said:


> guest doth protest said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...



Let's see now: airlines TODAY are assessing fees for a first bag (all but Southwest), for blankets and pillows (United, US Air, Continental, American), for food and beverage (all), for reservations made by phone or in person (all but Southwest), for a window or aisle seat (United and American), for stand-by opportunity (American and Delta), etc. etc. etc. etc.

And the head of Ryan Air in Europe has SERIOUSLY broached the idea of toilet fees.

So if you want to compare Amtrak to the airlines, come up with a funny script where Amtrak charges extra for the toilet, for the right to have a seat, for the right to visit the cafe/diner or sightseer lounge, for the right to take a nap when desired, for the right to get off the desired station, and so forth.

And then we'll be having apples to apples in the satire business.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 13, 2010)

guest doth protest said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Playing the devils advocate here:
> ...


Amtrak has been squeezing dollars for its entire existence. That absolutely is an everyday occurrence.

Other than checked baggage (which Amtrak addresses by not even offering the service to half the stations in the system), what do airlines charge fees for that Amtrak provides for free?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 13, 2010)

also some airlines not only charge you for check baggage they also charge you to pay that luggage fee. so $5 luggage will cost you another $5 to pay the first $5.


----------



## ayndim (Feb 13, 2010)

rmadisonwi said:


> guest doth protest said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


Well today I had to change a reservation for 2 days later for my trip back from New Orleans. My sister-in-law is travelling back with me and her son's college graduation is on the day we were scheduled to leave. Guess what they didn't charge - a change fee. Then when I had to change it again to the accessible room because I am a ditz and forgot she has a "mobility impairement" as amtrak calls it, they didn't charge me either. I am thinking I saved a few hundred in fees on that one. Wonder if the airlines would have charged us for her to preboard?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 14, 2010)

also amtrak has no hidden fees. the price your quoted is what you pay. unlike airlines the main fair is say $100 then add tax fuel surcharge baggage fees etc etc etc it becomes like $500.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 14, 2010)

I'll grant you that I forgot about change fees.

I didn't include taxes because 1) airlines don't charge them, per se (i.e. they're imposed by governments, not the carriers themselves), and 2) many airlines/travel websites will quote you the full, all-in fare.

I was thinking more of once your travel has begun (assuming your ticket is already purchased), and responding to the "nickel and diming" comment. Some airlines are charging for things they used to provide for free (baggage, on-board food, blankets, etc.), whereas (except for checked baggage) Amtrak has always charged for these things (well, blankets are free to use if you're in a sleeper). I don't see how one can say that Amtrak is in a different league.

Think about it. Six or seven years ago, if you traveled in a sleeper, you got unlimited free soft drinks (there were small cans or bottles of Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Sierra Mist, etc. available on the drink stand or the lower-level luggage rack). Now, all that's available is bottled water and a couple of cartons of juice from which you can pour a glass for yourself.

Back then, if you wanted a "refill" (second can) of soda in the dining car, no problem. Now: $1.75 extra.

A few years ago, riding business class to Michigan, you could get unlimited complimentary non-alcoholic beverages, plus $3 off any other purchase in the cafe. Then they got rid of the $3 off deal, and you got *one* free non-alcoholic beverage, provided you signed a document in blood, under penalty of perjury, witnessed by a dozen officials and notarized by an attorney, stating that you were in fact a business class passenger, and that was in fact your PNR that you just wrote down.

Now, I am in no way stating that they should or shouldn't have made these changes. Costs do increase, and in order to stay competitive, sometimes you have to cut services to keep prices the same. However, I am saying that you can't criticize the airlines for their so-called "nickle-and-dime" fees while suggesting that Amtrak is somehow above all that.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 14, 2010)

Really do think amtrakwolverine nailed this one! A $200 advertised airline ticket can end up costing $500 with all the fees/taxes/extras/security theater etc, added! (not to mention the prison like setting that airports and planes have become!)



When Amtrak advertises a fare, that's what you pay! If YOU decide to upgrade or spend more you can but IMO, and Ive traveled alot on all kinds of transportation, Amtrak has em all beat for honesty,customer service and fun! (Ive never felt cheated or been unhappy after a trip except when it ended too soon! :lol: )


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 14, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> also amtrak has no hidden fees. the price your quoted is what you pay. unlike airlines the main fair is say $100 then add tax fuel surcharge baggage fees etc etc etc it becomes like $500.


$100 to $500? Maybe just a little exaggeration?

The only reason Amtrak does not add taxes to tickets is that there are no taxes of fees to add. Amtrak gets a free ride from the feds, and is immune from taxes or fees imposed by local authorities. Next time you book an airline ticket and you see that 30% of your fare is taxes and fees paid to the feds or the airports, think of that.

While were talking about "nickel and diming" passengers, only on Amtrak can you book in business class (Acela) or what used to be considered "First Class" (sleeper), and then have to pay for a soft drink or a bag of chips. Plus, my favorite, is tipping service attendants. You pay for First Class or sleeper service. Then, if you actually get the service that you paid Amtrak to provide, you are expected to tip the service provider for providing it. Pay maybe $1000 for a sleeping car room, then if you don't kick-in another $20 for the attendant, your a cheapskate. Interesting.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 14, 2010)

at least Amtrak doesn't yet charge a fuel surcharge that's part of your airline ticket that's not part of your original fair. how do you explain the airlines policy of charging you $5 to pay the $5 luggage fee.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 14, 2010)

this is from delta airlines website the base fair from det to lax is $186 for may 5th now add these fees that apply what is the total cost hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

U.S. Excise Tax

(aka U.S. Domestic Transportation Tax; U.S. Ticket Tax)

Percentage of fare; applies to flights within the continental United States or Canada/Mexico 225-mile buffer zones U.S. Domestic and International US 7.5%

Travel Facilities Tax

(aka Alaska/Hawaii Ticket Tax)

Applies to certain flight segments to or from Alaska or Hawaii U.S. Domestic and International US $16.20

U.S. Federal Segment Fee

Per-segment inflation-adjusted fee applicable to flights within the continental United States U.S. Domestic and International ZP $3.70

Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)

A maximum of 4 charges per itinerary applies to PFC-approved airports for facilities improvement U.S. Domestic and International XF up to $4.50

September 11th Security Fee

(aka U.S. Passenger Civil Aviation Security Fee)

U.S. government-assessed fee of $2.50 per U.S. enplanement per ticketed journey for security costs not to exceed $5.00 one-way or $10.00 round-trip (fees accrue incrementally with multi-segment travel itineraries) U.S. Domestic and International AY $2.50 per U.S. enplanement

U.S. International Transportation (Arrival/Departure) Tax

Applies to all flights arriving in or departing from the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands International US $32.20

U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Fee

Applies to all flights originating abroad and landing in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands International XA $5.00

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Fee

Applies to international arrivals to the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands International XY $7.00

International Taxes and Fees

Various foreign taxes, inspection fees, and security charges typically excluding airport departure taxes International Varies up to $299*

International Surcharges

Carrier-imposed surcharges pursuant to applicable international tariff filings International YQ/YR up to

$260*

each way

Online Booking Fee

There are no online booking fees at delta.com unless the credit card billing address is in Denmark or Sweden. Denmark

Sweden

40 (DKK)

50 (SEK)


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 14, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> this is from delta airlines website the base fair from det to lax is $186 for may 5th now add these fees that apply what is the total cost hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
> U.S. Excise Tax
> 
> (aka U.S. Domestic Transportation Tax; U.S. Ticket Tax)
> ...


And the only fees listed above that are not included in the base quoted fare are the segment fees (PFC and 9/11). All fees are included when you get an on-line quote.

Somehow I don't think the various international taxes and fees would apply to a trip from Detroit (DTW) to LAX.

So, no, a $100 or even a $200 fare will not go up to $500 in even the worst case scenario.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 14, 2010)

notice i said add the ones that apply to that flight


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 14, 2010)

If you go to orbitz.com and book there, the price you see is the total price you pay. They include taxes and fees in what they advertise to you.

Just curious, what airline charges $5 to pay for a $5 baggage fee?

For what it's worth, I just checked delta.com, and entered an imaginary trip from Detroit to Los Angeles. I saw the total fare (all-in, including taxes/fees) listed right there. Nothing hidden at all.


----------



## Chris J. (Feb 14, 2010)

guest doth protest said:


> Let's see now: airlines TODAY are assessing fees for a first bag (all but Southwest), for blankets and pillows (United, US Air, Continental, American), for food and beverage (all), for reservations made by phone or in person (all but Southwest), for a window or aisle seat (United and American), for stand-by opportunity (American and Delta), etc. etc. etc. etc.And the head of Ryan Air in Europe has SERIOUSLY broached the idea of toilet fees.


I think one of the low-cost european carriers has a fee to print your own ticket and do a web-check in, or pay a more expensive one to check in at the airport. This is on top of the fee to check your bag, the fee to pay by credit card, and the fee to pick your own seat.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 14, 2010)

rmadisonwi said:


> If you go to orbitz.com and book there, the price you see is the total price you pay. They include taxes and fees in what they advertise to you.
> Just curious, what airline charges $5 to pay for a $5 baggage fee?
> 
> For what it's worth, I just checked delta.com, and entered an imaginary trip from Detroit to Los Angeles. I saw the total fare (all-in, including taxes/fees) listed right there. Nothing hidden at all.


someone posted on here a link that airlines were going to charge you to pay the $5 per bag baggage me


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 14, 2010)

rmadisonwi said:


> I didn't include taxes because 1) airlines don't charge them, per se (i.e. *they're imposed by governments*, not the carriers themselves)


Please tell me the name if the Government agency that imposes fuel surcharges? :huh: I want to write to them and tell them that since they set the fee, why is the fee different for British Airways, American Airlines and United Airlines - even though you are flying between the same 2 cities! 

And if it is not a "tax", I refuse to pay it! Will they still issue me a ticket? :huh:


----------



## rrdude (Feb 14, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't include taxes because 1) airlines don't charge them, per se (i.e. *they're imposed by governments*, not the carriers themselves)
> ...


Yes they will MAKE you pay it, and if you don't pay it, you'll have to, "gulp" take the train........


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2010)

rmadisonwi said:


> I'll grant you that I forgot about change fees.


Just clarifying a matter of detail .... at least the legacy airlines typically do not charge change fees on "Refundable Fare Rule" tickets. They are applied typically only on "Non-refundable Fare Rule" tickets.


----------



## The Metropolitan (Feb 14, 2010)

I've got a few...

On Amtrak, when myself and my friend take a trip in LD coach, I've always had the Conductor delberately seat us together. We're flying down to Tampa later this month and returning on the Star. Airtran was all too glad to charge us $12 for the same privlege of being assured of sitting together on the 717. Southwest will even gladly take $5 for person to allow you to check in 12 hours earlier to get a more opportune seat.

The Value-Added issue has been raised a few times, and I'd like to add my perspective:

Upgrade to FC on Acela Boston-Washington costs about $115. In those 5 or so hours, I get 2 meals and all the hooch I care to drink. Sure I'll feel the tip pressure, but still even with that, I'll come out wayyyyyyy ahead of what it would cost to upgrade a coach ticket to first class for a 5 hour plane ride, or EVEN one from Boston to Washington!!!

Value-Added again - Economy Plus anyone? - paying at least $29 on United to get an extra 6 to 8 inches of legroom while still sitting 3 abreast, and as a result getting still less space than on an A-II or Superliner.

Value-Added AGAIN! To me, the change/cancel issue is HUGE! I give Southwest a lot of credit for giving me full credit, but in every other instance I've seen, you'll take a $50 to $75 bath prior to any credit being offered. On a $90 ticket, that's a whopping amount. Yes, the airlines offer refundable fares, but the same $90 fare will typically be $300-$400. If you take the trip, you feel fleeced for what you could have spent, but even if you get it refunded, its a pretty penny to have held up in the Airline's bank drawing them interest and not you.

As to the baggage issue:

I've encountered a $5 surcharge for not checking in my baggage online.

Southwest's fares tend to have the baggage costs incurred within anyway.

What one is able to "carry-on" on Amtrak tends to be larger and more versatile, leaving one to have to check bags on planes that would have been readily carried aboard Amtrak.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2010)

rrdude said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > rmadisonwi said:
> ...


The reason that there is no fuel surcharge in Amtrak is because effectively since Amtrak's operating account is perpetually in the red, the difference funded by the feds, at least a part of the cost of fuel is paid for using the direct subsidy, the part that presumably would have been recovered from the passenger as a fuel surcharge, were such direct subsidy not available to cover it.

If Amtrak direct operating subsidies get reduced, you can bet your favorite anatomical feature that Amtrak will have to add various fees, but given the victim mentality that its management appears to suffer from, they will probably just come up with some **** and bull story and cut some more service borderline illegally like they have done with Sunset East.

Admittedly airlines do get subsidized ATC etc. but they do not get any direct subsidy for their day to day fuel costs.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2010)

If one values ones time, then the general rule that, when available, trains come out ahead for short to medium distance depending on the speed of the service, whereas air comes out ahead for long distance and over water travel generally holds true. The rest of the variation that we are passionately discussing here are relatively at the margins IMHO.

So for example, going from New York to Washington DC I never fly, always take the train, and typically all of the minutea that are being discussed don't even enter into my decision making. Same is true whenever I travel from London to Paris even though the train there has every bit of security and immigration crazyness that one faces in planes. OTOH, to go to Palo Alto CA from NJ, to visit HQ for a meeting, I always fly. The notion of taking Amtrak even if I had an entire car to myself with double bed, kitchen and dining room even if it was cheaper than the air ticket would not enter into my mind for such a trip.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> And if it is not a "tax", I refuse to pay it! Will they still issue me a ticket? :huh:


Heh... then you should refuse to pay the fare too, since it is not a tax, and see how far you get with that :lol:


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 14, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't include taxes because 1) airlines don't charge them, per se (i.e. *they're imposed by governments*, not the carriers themselves)
> ...


If you read my post, I said "taxes." Tell me who, other than a government agency, imposes taxes.

Nonetheless, nobody seems to be reading what I'm saying. If I go to orbitz.com, or even delta.com, and choose a flight, they are showing me the total, final cost (including taxes and fees) of the flight. Meaning that the price they're quoting me is what they'll be taking from my credit card to book the flight. Different airline websites will show things differently, and some will not show the taxes/fees in the first screen (that's one of the reasons I choose Orbitz, I only mention delta.com because someone else brought up Delta as an airline having "hidden" fees).



The Metropolitan said:


> I've got a few...
> On Amtrak, when myself and my friend take a trip in LD coach, I've always had the Conductor delberately seat us together. We're flying down to Tampa later this month and returning on the Star. Airtran was all too glad to charge us $12 for the same privlege of being assured of sitting together on the 717.


AirTran offers preassigned seats. Amtrak doesn't. The conductor doesn't "have" to honor your request. If, by the time you board, there are no pairs of seats available, well...there's nothing the conductor can do.

So, this is an example of the airlines charging for something they used to offer for free, but something that Amtrak has never offered.

Seating on Amtrak is closer to Southwest than any other airline.



> Southwest will even gladly take $5 for person to allow you to check in 12 hours earlier to get a more opportune seat.


Southwest lets you check-in 24 hours early and reserve a place in the boarding line (or, even earlier, if you pay the fee you note above). This is an example of an airline charging for something that previously wasn't offered. Back in the day, on Southwest, you had to just get to the airport really early on the day of to get a low number boarding card, and they'd still "cattle call" board you.

Amtrak, on the other hand, doesn't offer any opportunity to "reserve" a place in the boarding line. It's simply first come, first served.

So again, this is something that an airline charges for that Amtrak simply doesn't offer at all.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2010)

rmadisonwi said:


> Southwest lets you check-in 24 hours early and reserve a place in the boarding line (or, even earlier, if you pay the fee you note above). This is an example of an airline charging for something that previously wasn't offered. Back in the day, on Southwest, you had to just get to the airport really early on the day of to get a low number boarding card, and they'd still "cattle call" board you.
> Amtrak, on the other hand, doesn't offer any opportunity to "reserve" a place in the boarding line. It's simply first come, first served.
> 
> So again, this is something that an airline charges for that Amtrak simply doesn't offer at all.


Actually, if Amtrak were consistently first-come-first-served I would be absolutely delighted. The problem with Amtrak is that it is more or less arbitrary, depending on the personal whims of the station manager and the train crew. If I counted the number of times I have had to arm wrestle an Amtrak conductor to get me a window seat or keep me from getting hounded off to some other car because they want to give the seat I am sitting in to someone else for whatever reason, or board at Metropark to not find the guaranteed reserved seat at all, and have to hang out in the cafe, it would not be an insignificant number.

On the matter of seat assignment I'd take the airline method any day over Amtrak's thank you. At least the outcome is generally more predictable.


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 14, 2010)

rmadisonwi said:


> If I go to orbitz.com, or even delta.com, and choose a flight, they are showing me the total, final cost (including taxes and fees) of the flight. Meaning that the price they're quoting me is what they'll be taking from my credit card to book the flight. Different airline websites will show things differently, and some will not show the taxes/fees in the first screen (that's one of the reasons I choose Orbitz, I only mention delta.com because someone else brought up Delta as an airline having "hidden" fees).


I pulled up a random flight reservation on continental.com for April. The outbound segment *IN BIG LETTERS* says "*FROM $308*". The return segment *IN BIG LETTERS* says "*FROM $308*". So I chose them both thinking the fare is $308 - the fare is *$354.50*!  (I chose the $308 flights, not a $354.50 flight! :blink: )

Using the same amounts, if on Amtrak, you chose a train that is $308, your fare is $308 - not $354.50, or even $320!


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 14, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> I pulled up a random flight reservation on continental.com for April. The outbound segment *IN BIG LETTERS* says "*FROM $308*". The return segment *IN BIG LETTERS* says "*FROM $308*". So I chose them both thinking the fare is $308 - the fare is *$354.50*!  (I chose the $308 flights, not a $354.50 flight! :blink: )
> Using the same amounts, if on Amtrak, you chose a train that is $308, your fare is $308 - not $354.50, or even $320!


Then book Delta next time, not Continental (or visit Orbitz, and see the full amount up front).

And yes, there actually are examples of Amtrak fares not adding up to what you think they are.

Try booking business class from Chicago to Detroit and see if your rail fare plus accommodation charge equals your final fare. The last couple of times I did that, Business Class was far more than rail + accom.


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 14, 2010)

rmadisonwi said:


> Try booking business class from Chicago to Detroit and see if your rail fare plus accommodation charge equals your final fare. The last couple of times I did that, Business Class was far more than rail + accom.


May 12, 2010

Depart DET #351 Arrive CHI

Coach = $30

BC = add $12

Total fare = $42

AAA fare = $39 ($27 + $12) - You receive a discount on the coach fare, but not on the add on!


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> I pulled up a random flight reservation on continental.com for April. The outbound segment *IN BIG LETTERS* says "*FROM $308*". The return segment *IN BIG LETTERS* says "*FROM $308*". So I chose them both thinking the fare is $308 - the fare is *$354.50*!  (I chose the $308 flights, not a $354.50 flight! :blink: )
> Using the same amounts, if on Amtrak, you chose a train that is $308, your fare is $308 - not $354.50, or even $320!


So when you go to a Supermarket what is the price that you see displayed on the shelf? Does it include the taxes, assuming that your state has a sales tax? The fact that Amtrak is able to display the prices the way they do rather easily is because they do not have to collect varied amount of taxes on the tickets depending on the origin, destination and routing of the journey, like airlines have to.

Admittedly, airlines could take the trouble to update their programs to display the entire amount as some reservation systems do, but there is a marketing reason that they tend not to.

While not defending the current airline practices, unfortunately there is considerable evidence from the marketing and sales folks that the base price tends to attract travelers to an airline. If that were not the case airlines like Ryanair would not be eating the lunches of traditional carriers in spite of their completely convoluted way of advertising and then charging for everything separately. If consumers insist on being the way they are, they get exactly what works the best with them unfortunately.

Amtrak prices primarily appear the way they do because they do not have to collect taxes on the fare. It would be kind of silly to charge taxes on Amtrak tickets when the ticket does not pay the direct cost of most Amtrak trips. The balance is paid for by a direct subsidy from either a state or federal or both governments. If taxes were levied on Amtrak tickets then we could have an apples to apples discussion of the matter. Admittedly all this is a result of various funding practices in place in the US, but that is the way it is for the time being.


----------



## acelafan (Feb 14, 2010)

jis said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I pulled up a random flight reservation on continental.com for April. The outbound segment *IN BIG LETTERS* says "*FROM $308*". The return segment *IN BIG LETTERS* says "*FROM $308*". So I chose them both thinking the fare is $308 - the fare is *$354.50*!  (I chose the $308 flights, not a $354.50 flight! :blink: )
> ...


Sure, and I agree. But let's not forget that several rural airline routes are subsidized as well, thanks to the Essential Air Service Program.

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Ro...lairservice.htm

A 2007 USA Today article describes the subsidies:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...p-flights_N.htm


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 14, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> > Try booking business class from Chicago to Detroit and see if your rail fare plus accommodation charge equals your final fare. The last couple of times I did that, Business Class was far more than rail + accom.
> ...


Try February 27, train 352:

Coach = $30

BC = add $12

Total fare = $83

And that's with no taxes, fuel surcharges, passenger facility charges, assigned seat charges, baggage charges, paying for baggage charges charges, etc.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 14, 2010)

jis said:


> Amtrak prices primarily appear the way they do because they do not have to collect taxes on the fare. It would be kind of silly to charge taxes on Amtrak tickets when the ticket does not pay the direct cost of most Amtrak trips. The balance is paid for by a direct subsidy from either a state or federal or both governments. If taxes were levied on Amtrak tickets then we could have an apples to apples discussion of the matter. Admittedly all this is a result of various funding practices in place in the US, but that is the way it is for the time being.


When I book a flight on expedia, I know right up front when I select the flight how much the taxes are. No mystery there.


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 14, 2010)

I see what you mean on that train. Even though it says "Estimated $42", as soon as you hit "chose this train", it shows a higher price! :blink:


----------



## rrdude (Feb 14, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> I see what you mean on that train. Even though it says "Estimated $42", as soon as you hit "chose this train", it shows a higher price! :blink:


So what's up with that Dave?


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 14, 2010)

I just think it's some kind of glitch. I've done some random checks for other dates, and it works fine. But for some reason, not for that train on that day.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2010)

acelafan said:


> Sure, and I agree. But let's not forget that several rural airline routes are subsidized as well, thanks to the Essential Air Service Program.
> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/X-50%20Ro...lairservice.htm
> 
> A 2007 USA Today article describes the subsidies:
> ...


Yes, absolutely. No disagreement there. But since those are a small portion of the total air services market I suppose they have not bothered to create special tax treatment for those. It is just extra make work for everyone when one first pays someone to run something and then collects part of what they pay back as a tax. Might as well just pay that much less and be done with it.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 14, 2010)

I used to fly frequently for business and pleasure but it recent years we have leaned towards taking Amtrak.

This is an opinion from someone that has thousands of airline and train miles under his belt.

The airports are, filthy ,crowded places and the savages that work in security are idiots. They treat eveyone in a rude and dehumanizing way.

Airports ARE government owned and operated facilities that provide a place for the airlines to base their operations at a subsidezed cost. To the contrary a railroad must own and maintain its own right of way. Train stations are far less crowded (most of the time)

All airlines are now charging $25 per checked bag. Thats $50 each for the average vacationer, then add in the fuel surcharges. It can take you 1 hour or more to pick up your luggage.

Airline seats are cramped and uncomfortable. Sometimes "your neighbor" comes from a third world culture that doesn't believe in bathing or using deodorants.

Airline food, whatever is available (and it most often isn't) is among the worlds worse cuisine. I wouldn't give this crap to a dog. You also eat at a seat just like an animal! Amtrak food is good and in many cases very good. There is a selection. You also dine at a table with a nice view.

Airline travel is very unhealthy. You have 120 or so people locked in a small sealed capsule all breathing the same stale virus filled air. The oxygen content is kept at a low minimum level, as the oxygen concentrators are turned off to save fuel shortly after liftoff . Rail travel offers FAR better ventilation.

The airlines at the major airports have terrible ontime records. It is common to be on the tarmac for 30-90 minutes waiting in line for takeoff. Just a small amount of rain or snow can cause hours of delay. I'll grant you that Amtrak is sometimes late but the times that I have experienced this, we were in our room stretched out and relaxing comfortably or in the lounge car enjoying a drink.

If an airplane crashes most often everyone is lost. When a train derails (or in the rare case crashes) most often evryone lives.

Admitedly train travel is slow while air travel is fast. We get around that by leaving in the late evening and we sleep while we travel. We wake up, shower, go to breakfast, return to our room for a bit and we are there. Traveling in an Amtrak bedroom is no more expensive than a first class airline ticket and rail coach is usually far less than airline coach. Did you know that on the NE corridor route Amtrak handles more travelers along this route than the six airports that serve it combined? Savy travelers have discovered that the Boston to Washington DC route is more comfortable and more convenient to use than air travel and in many instances ( like from NY/NJ to DC) its even faster.


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 14, 2010)

One last note (hopefully) from me for this topic.

Most of what I've been posting is as a devil's advocate, but I only do so because of my recent experiences both flying and riding the train. Fact is, both have their pluses and minuses. On a forum such as this, the pluses of train travel and the minuses of air travel tend to be exaggerated. I see lots of folks in this thread comparing the worst-case-scenario airline experience to the best-case-scenario Amtrak experience. That's fine for a feel-good thread preaching to the choir, but it's not going to stand up in any serious debate about the merits of train travel vs. air travel.

I take several long-distance train trips per year, and about as many air trips per year. I've seen the best both have to offer, and I've read/heard about (though, thankfully, never experienced) the worst both have to offer.

My most recent trip involved both air and rail, traveling Chicago to Wilmington, DE, flying Southwest from Midway to BWI, and Amtrak from BWI to Wilmington (and reverse).

I gave myself plenty of time to get to the airport (but really didn't need it, I was just being on the safe side). From when I entered the terminal to when I had my baggage claim check in hand (for free, as Southwest doesn't charge a fee to check a bag, nor do they charge a fee to not pay a fee to check a bag) was less than five minutes. From there, it was less than five minutes to get through security (despite having to take everything out of my pockets, take off my shoes, take my laptop out of my bag, etc.). Once through security, it was perhaps a 2-3 minute walk to the gate (though it took me considerably longer, mainly because I stopped to get lunch).

My position in the boarding line was secured 24 hours in advance (and Southwest didn't charge me a fee to secure my position in the boarding line 24 hours in advance, nor did they charge me a fee not to pay a fee to secure my position in the boarding line 24 hours in advance). They did, of course, give me the option of securing my position in the boarding line prior to 24 hours, for a fee (I forget if it was $5, 10, or $15). That fee was optional. I declined. In fact, after paying for my ticket during the reservation process, I did not give Southwest Airlines an additional penny.

Boarding was controlled and orderly.

We pushed back on time. We did not spend 30-90 minutes taxiing around the airport before takeoff (I'm sure our taxi time was under 10 minutes, but I couldn't tell you exactly how long it was). The flight was fine. Soft drinks were complimentary (and I didn't have to show a ticket stub or sign anything to get one). After landing, we did not spend 30-90 minutes taxiing to the gate, though we did sit for about 2 minutes just outside the terminal area because two planes were taxiing out. We pulled up to the gate about 10-15 minutes earlier than scheduled.

It did not take me an hour to pick up my checked bag. In fact, I didn't wait at baggage claim for more than 10 minutes.

The return flight was basically the same experience in every way, except that we arrived about five minutes late due to strong headwinds.

Though I don't fly Southwest that often, most of my flight experiences have been basically the same as described above (except that, due to assigned seating, the check-in and boarding process is slightly different). On some occasions, I will purchase a snack on board. The last time I flew from the West Coast to Chicago (via Houston), I received a meal in coach, for free (yes, Continental still does that).

The Amtrak trains to/from Wilmington were more or less on time (maybe 5-10 minutes late southbound, on time Northbound). All passengers were standing on the platform before the train arrived. Everybody found their own way onto the train, and found their own way to empty seats.

While I don't travel along the NEC that often, most of my short-distance Amtrak trips have been a similar experience. Boarding at major terminals is a bit more regulated than boarding at midpoint stops.

So, Amtrak isn't horrible, as long as things go well. The airlines aren't horrible when things go well, either. The definition of "going well" will vary from person to person, and you'd expect on a forum like this that Amtrak is given a bit more leeway than the airlines are in that category.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2010)

I also have the same sort of approach to this discussion as rmadison does. I am an Amtrak Select Plus and a Continental and Star Alliance Gold Elite, so evidently I have relatively large amount of travel by both modes under my belt year in and year out. I agree with rmadison's assessment.

As you might have noticed my focus generally is on trying to understand why things are the way they are, and trying to figure out ways of improving them both for train and air. A vast proportion of my travels are such that train is just not a viable alternative, so I am unwilling to write air off altogether. That is why I am eagerly anticipating the introduction of the B787 and A350 with their higher humidity, higher Oxygen content, higher pressure cabin. 

OTOH, wherever train is a viable alternative I am not willing to use air and I would rather see trains developed to the extent that short haul air service, which is inherently inefficient and wasteful, could be phased out, thus releasing valuable airport and airway slots for long haul flights, which serve a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by other modes.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 14, 2010)

rmadisonwi said:


> One last note (hopefully) from me for this topic.
> Most of what I've been posting is as a devil's advocate, but I only do so because of my recent experiences both flying and riding the train. Fact is, both have their pluses and minuses. On a forum such as this, the pluses of train travel and the minuses of air travel tend to be exaggerated. I see lots of folks in this thread comparing the worst-case-scenario airline experience to the best-case-scenario Amtrak experience. That's fine for a feel-good thread preaching to the choir, but it's not going to stand up in any serious debate about the merits of train travel vs. air travel.
> 
> I take several long-distance train trips per year, and about as many air trips per year. I've seen the best both have to offer, and I've read/heard about (though, thankfully, never experienced) the worst both have to offer.
> ...



Robert: I respect and appreciate your opinion but must respectfully disagree. Airline travel and the filthy, crowded, unhealthy, dehumanizing conditions that I have expereinced in my post have always been the norm for the 100's of flights that I have taken in my lifetime not the exception, except I'll grant you that flights are ontime once in a while! At the airport you also have to put your laptop bag, carry-on or purse in containers for xray that contain 100's of pairs of smelly, filthy scummy shoes- gross, disgusting, -yuuuuch! As far as I'm concerned air travel is the pitts and I will only do it due to necessity. At this point I officially stopped flying. You can fly all you want but thats my .02.


----------



## BobWeaver (Feb 14, 2010)

I'd like to take this in parts.



dlagrua said:


> The airports are, filthy ,crowded places and the savages that work in security are idiots. They treat eveyone in a rude and dehumanizing way.


 To make such a blatant stereotype is rather ignorant, as well as largely incorrect. I traveled through 10 different airports (2 several times) last year, and all of the terminals were clean, bright, and modern facilities. Airport management knows that in many cases, the airport will serve as the first gateway to the city that they represent, and to have a dirty and/or poorly run airport operation would not be in the best interest of the city, or for continued travel through the airport itself. Unfortunately, TSA employees have high and low points. The only airport that I thought they weren't especially friendly was at LGA. Not necessarily rude, but not very outgoing at the same time. At all of the other airports, I found the TSA representatives to be very courteous, efficient, and friendly for the numbers of passengers they process on a daily basis.



dlagrua said:


> Train stations are far less crowded (most of the time)


 Yes, but they also handle far fewer passenger numbers. It's all relative.



dlagrua said:


> All airlines are now charging $25 per checked bag. Thats $50 each for the average vacationer, then add in the fuel surcharges. It can take you 1 hour or more to pick up your luggage.


 All? Let's not forget about Southwest, although they have been at least exploring the concept. They would be stupid not to, as the nation's carriers brought in an additional $739.8 million in revenue from baggage fee collections through 3rd quarter 2009. Interestingly, there is no evidence that shows that Southwest's competitors lost passenger traffic as they implemented/increased add-on baggage fees. The real question should be how many hundreds of millions of dollars is Southwest giving up by not joining the crowd. Southwest typically gets credit for being more of an industry leader than a follower. This time, Southwest may need to do some catching up. In these trying times for an airline, the additional revenues simply cannot be ignored. Aside from the added revenue from the baggage fees, a baggage fee also encourages passengers to use carry-on baggage, which decreases aircraft weight (which therefore will burn less fuel), lessens lost/mishandled baggage rates and their associated costs, and potentially shortens turnaround times, among other benefits. I'm reasonably sure that no domestic airline currently has a fuel surcharge policy in effect. Fuel surcharges were a must when the price of oil spiked so unbelievably high a couple of years ago, and the airlines simply had to pass on that cost to their customers. They didn't have a choice. But, as the cost of oil has come down, the fuel surcharges have disappeared. Not once did I see a "fuel surcharge" tacked onto my fare last year, including the "taxes and fees" section. An hour or more to retrieve luggage at baggage claim? Who are you trying to fool here?



dlagrua said:


> Airline seats are cramped and uncomfortable. Sometimes "your neighbor" comes from a third world culture that doesn't believe in bathing or using deodorants.


Cramped and uncomfortable? I'm 6'2" and I am perfectly fine sitting in a mainline aircraft seat for at least 4-5 hours before I need to get up and walk around just to stretch out a little. Now a CRJ may be a little bit of a different story, but for the most part those flights don't last very long. Amtrak isn't immune to the "stinky neighbor" issue. I have yet to experience one, Amtrak or airline. Granted, airline coach class could stand to have a few more inches, and coach class on an LD train is better space-wise, but one simply cannot compare the travel times.



dlagrua said:


> Airline food, whatever is available (and it most often isn't) is among the worlds worse cuisine. I wouldn't give this crap to a dog. You also eat at a seat just like an animal! Amtrak food is good and in many cases very good. There is a selection. You also dine at a table with a nice view.


I don't mind airline food, in fact I actually think it is quite good all things considered. Indeed, it has come a long way. I've only dined onboard a handful of times, but a good friend of mine flew Delta to South Africa and back this summer and commented that it was the best flight of his life in coach, food included. This coming from a guy who has close to 40,000 SkyMiles and who has flown on many different airlines, both domestic and international. He also said that his food to/from France in December was good as well. I actually find it pretty cool that I can put a fork-full of something in my mouth and then turn my head and see the world passing 5-7 miles down below us. Amtrak food is pretty good from my experience, but one simply cannot compare a commercial aircraft's galley to the full kitchen in Amtrak dining cars.



dlagrua said:


> Airline travel is very unhealthy. You have 120 or so people locked in a small sealed capsule all breathing the same stale virus filled air. The oxygen content is kept at a low minimum level, as the oxygen concentrators are turned off to save fuel shortly after liftoff . Rail travel offers FAR better ventilation.


You can't be serious. Airline travel is not unhealthy by any means. Airliners don't even have oxygen concentrators. In an airplane cabin, new air is constantly introduced into the cabin from engine bleed and is constantly recirculated and filtered by HEPA-grade filters. Ventilation is continuous. Outside-air mixing replenishes the cabin air constantly, and replenishment assures that the recirculated portion does not endlessly recirculate but rather is rapidly diluted and replaced with outside air. During cruise or on the ground, outside air is drawn in at the same rate that cabin air is exhausted out of the airplane.



dlagrua said:


> The airlines at the major airports have terrible ontime records. It is common to be on the tarmac for 30-90 minutes waiting in line for takeoff. Just a small amount of rain or snow can cause hours of delay.


Terrible ontime records? I had only one ground delay last year and that was in Charlotte before the new third parallel runway opened up. In fact, the nation's largest airlines set a single-month record in November for on-time performance for the nearly 15 years the U.S. Department of Transportation has collected data. It was the highest since 2003. Hardly terrible OTP.



dlagrua said:


> If an airplane crashes most often everyone is lost. When a train derails (or in the rare case crashes) most often evryone lives.


Did you drive your car today? If so, you were far more likely to be in a crash than you are when you take to the skies.



dlagrua said:


> Admitedly train travel is slow while air travel is fast. We get around that by leaving in the late evening and we sleep while we travel. We wake up, shower, go to breakfast, return to our room for a bit and we are there. Traveling in an Amtrak bedroom is no more expensive than a first class airline ticket and rail coach is usually far less than airline coach. Did you know that on the NE corridor route Amtrak handles more travelers along this route than the six airports that serve it combined? Savy travelers have discovered that the Boston to Washington DC route is more comfortable and more convenient to use than air travel and in many instances ( like from NY/NJ to DC) its even faster.


You have to pick your battles. Not everyone that takes a flight somewhere has the luxury of having days to travel to the destination via train. If I had had a few extra days to get out to Denver when I went last fall, I would have considered using some AGR points and taking Amtrak. But, I had a certain time frame that I had to deal with, and anything other than flying was simply out of the question.


----------



## acelafan (Feb 14, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> The airports are, filthy ,crowded places and the savages that work in security are idiots. They treat eveyone in a rude and dehumanizing way. Airports ARE government owned and operated facilities that provide a place for the airlines to base their operations at a subsidezed cost. To the contrary a railroad must own and maintain its own right of way. Train stations are far less crowded (most of the time)


I agree with most of what you said - except for the filthy airports. I'd say that train stations tend to be dirtier than the airports. This is especially true of the rest rooms in very busy stations like NY Penn and Washington Union (even Philadelphia). Large airports I've been to like Atlanta, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Denver, have much cleaner facilities.

The waiting areas in airports are nosier and busier, but I think they tend to be cleaner (in general) often times because the homeless are not allowed to live or sleep in the public waiting areas (for example Newark, NJ). Of course there are exceptions to this...just my observation.


----------



## amamba (Feb 14, 2010)

Speaking of airline travel, anyone catch the twitter war between Kevin Smith and Southwest airlines today? Pretty freaking ridiculous behavior on the part of Southwest airlines. I have refused to fly that airline because I can't stand their cattle call boarding practice.

Here is a link to gawker with a transcript of many of the tweets.

http://gawker.com/5471463/update-the-kevin...epic-proportion

If one was going to talk about airlines that they liked, southwest would NOT be at the top of my list.


----------



## GOOD GRIEF!!! (Feb 14, 2010)

Geez, it seems to me a lot of people missed the point of the original poster with his funny pilot announcement.

I took from the posting the sense, which I think is accurate, that airline service is steadily degrading across this nation. I find it hard to argue with that point (Southwest Airlines stands out in so many postings here precisely because it IS so different from the average airline today.

For all the faults that Amtrak has, you can make a persuasive argument that the trend in service is on the upswing. The long-distance trains EB and CS have been definitely improved, and changes are coming for the other lines as well. The California and Northeast Corridors are better than they were 1, 2 5, or 10 years ago. And Amtrak has added services elsewhere.

So tell me if I'm wrong, but the Amtrak trend is up and the airline trend is down.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 14, 2010)

Bob: You took some time to rebuke the points about the crowded, filthy, unhealthy dehumanizing conditions at the airports so I will make my points based on *indesputable facts:*

*Unhealthy*- the more people confined to a smaller area makes it more unhealthy. The oxygen levels in planes are low that why I frequestly get headaches on aircraft.. All passengers also breath the same air. You don't call this unhealthy? At 30,000 ft they couldn't be using outside air as it is too thin to breath.

*Dehumanizing*- Deal with those uneducated rude as*holes in airport security that treat you like a criminal and tell everyone here that you disagree.

*Crowded*- you don't call 120 people stuffed into a 90' x 8' space crowded? Then explain what is crowded by your definition.

*Filthy-* you don't call being forced to put all of your personal carry on belongings into bins that contained 1000's of pairs of scummy, dirty, smelly fungus filled shoes FILTHY? Surely you must be joking! Those bins contain some of the dirtiest most repulsive filth on the face of this earth.

*Travel Times *- I must admit you win when you talk about long distance travel. However, from where I live in NJ Amtrak gets you to downtown WASHINGTON DC in about 1 hour less time.

Since you work for the airlines it is obvious that you have a biased opinion but you have a right to promote the airlines if you wish. One need to only open his eyes to see the above.

I would also like to agree with our guest_ good grief that the Amtrak trend is up and the airline trend is down.


----------



## saxman (Feb 14, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> The oxygen content is kept at a low minimum level, as the oxygen concentrators are turned off to save fuel shortly after liftoff.


Umm not really true how that works. It doesn't save fuel to "turn down" the oxygen. The systems are not really related. Almost all commercial aircraft cabins are kept at an equivolent of 8000 feet above see level. Oxygen content in the atmosphere is the same, 21%. Sure the oxygen masks will give 100% oxygen if needed, but its actually impossble to control oxygen content. Sure, pressurization is maintained off the engines bleed air system, but it does not save fuel to turn it down. The crews really don't want to fly with a huge oxygen mask on all the either.


----------



## Gingee (Feb 14, 2010)

I am definitely more for train travel but I wish they would put a little more security in it like the airlines. I feel like a sardine in a airplane and I am 5-1.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 14, 2010)

Gingee said:


> I am definitely more for train travel but I wish they would put a little more security in it like the airlines.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO this is why we take the train so we don't have to go through the hail Hitler security guards. :angry:


----------



## amamba (Feb 14, 2010)

saxman said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > The oxygen content is kept at a low minimum level, as the oxygen concentrators are turned off to save fuel shortly after liftoff.
> ...


Well I live at 0 ft above sea level, and frankly, the last time I traveled to a high altitude location (Santa Fe, NM) I had altitude sickness for two days that included headaches, nausea, etc. So 8000 feet could make some pax uncomfortable with the lack of oxygen.


----------



## volkris (Feb 14, 2010)

Quick thought: it's telling that as terrible, horrible, unhealthy, dehumanizing, etc, etc as some of you perceive air travel to be, lots and lots of people still choose it over rail.

That doesn't say much for the service offered by Amtrak 

The airlines charge fees because they can: people will pay because they judge the service to be worth it. It's hard to objectively say that arrangement is wrong. Same with the crowded airports: the crowding exists precisely because people are choosing to travel by air even when rail is an alternative. Airlines charge ticket change fees because their flights are often full; Amtrak can afford to let people cancel and change their reservations because their trains are not.

Nearly every flight I take (all over the eastern US) is full or almost full. To me that means the airlines should be charging MORE, if anything, and delays caused by time it takes to shove luggage into the hold means baggage fees are entirely appropriate.

Anyway, just the other side of the coin. High prices aren't necessarily the negative they're seen as.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 14, 2010)

people have been choosing to fly over passenger rail since the day commercial airlines were invented. why do you think amtrak came about. cause other passenger trains lost passengers due to the airlines along with cars and buses. either way amtrak ridership is up and still growing so there(sticks out tongue).


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2010)

amamba said:


> Well I live at 0 ft above sea level, and frankly, the last time I traveled to a high altitude location (Santa Fe, NM) I had altitude sickness for two days that included headaches, nausea, etc. So 8000 feet could make some pax uncomfortable with the lack of oxygen.


It is true that some people have altitude sickness at rather low altitudes and they should refrain from flying. Normally it is uncommon for people to suffer from altitude sickness below 10 to 12 thousand feet. I get altitude sickness above about 13,000' or so, and so far at least have always acclimatized in 2 days enough to be able to proceed to higher altitude without any problem. But as I said, each individual is different and they should make sure to know their limits and stay safely within them.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 15, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> ...All passengers also breath the same air. You don't call this unhealthy? At 30,000 ft they couldn't be using outside air as it is too thin to breath.


Wrong again. Modern aircraft refresh cabin air about every 5 minutes.

Have you ever been to Penn Station (New York). If that is not filthy, what is your definition of filthy? I would greatly prefer spending time at virtually any airport compared to Penn Station. And, no, I do not work for an airline.


----------



## BobWeaver (Feb 15, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Bob: You took some time to rebuke the points about the crowded, filthy, unhealthy dehumanizing conditions at the airports so I will make my points based on *indesputable facts:*
> *Unhealthy*- the more people confined to a smaller area makes it more unhealthy. The oxygen levels in planes are low that why I frequestly get headaches on aircraft.. All passengers also breath the same air. You don't call this unhealthy? At 30,000 ft they couldn't be using outside air as it is too thin to breath.
> 
> *Dehumanizing*- Deal with those uneducated rude as*holes in airport security that treat you like a criminal and tell everyone here that you disagree.
> ...


Unhealthy: The air that you breathe onboard a commercial aircraft is 100% bleed air that comes in off the compressor stage of the engine. This air is pressurized to around the equivalent of 8000' or so while at altitude, which is why you are able to breathe it. How else would the cabin become pressurized if no new air was introduced? Like I said earlier, the air circulating the cabin is constantly recirculated and diluted by fresh air that is constantly being introduced into the cabin from the outside environment which, at altitude, is the cleanest air on Earth. So no, the air onboard an aircraft is not unhealthy. In actuality, the air you're breathing on the ground on a train is likely of lesser quality.

Dehumanizing: Not sure where to go on this one, since I deal with TSA employees on a fairly regular basis. Like I said earlier, the vast majority of the times that I proceed through security checkpoints, TSA employees (the frontline TSOs) are efficient, effective, and courteous to the passengers.

Crowded: I'm not sure what aircraft you're referring to that seats 120 people while being only 8' across. That's about at narrow as a CRJ cabin that seats no more than 90 in its largest form. Any bigger and you'll have a wider cabin. Are CRJs "crowded"? Perhaps, but again, they're only for the feeder segments that tend to be short in duration, so most people don't mind them. I have no problem with mainline aircraft, even at 6'2". I find that an Amfleet I coach is really not significantly more spacious than a typical airline coach class seat.

Filthy: No, I don't actually, and I think that I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that most people don't mind either, much less think about it. I'm not sure what kind of shoes you wear in your house, but I know mine aren't scummy, dirty, smelly, or fungus filled. That's quite an elaborate stereotype there. Besides, the bins are regularly sanitized, so relax. I'd think that the surfaces one touches onboard a train or airplane would be more likely to have more germs on them than the security bins.

Travel times: I am not ignorant of the fact that Amtrak does have an advantage over short distance jaunts, and is a nice way to get somewhere if one has time to do it. If I lived in the Northeast, I believe that I would be a frequent rider to various surrounding destinations. Not to brag, but I do have more than 40,000 AGR points, so please don't address me as some kind of know-nothing newcomer. I was here long before you.

I work for the airlines? Hardly. My purpose was not to promote the airlines, but rather to clear up various misconceptions that much of the general population tend to have, which would seem to include you in this particular case. Aviation and railroading are both passions of mine, and I simply cannot stand on the sidelines when people pass around incorrect information regarding either.



rmadisonwi said:


> On a forum such as this, the pluses of train travel and the minuses of air travel tend to be exaggerated. I see lots of folks in this thread comparing the worst-case-scenario airline experience to the best-case-scenario Amtrak experience. That's fine for a feel-good thread preaching to the choir, but it's not going to stand up in any serious debate about the merits of train travel vs. air travel.....
> 
> So, Amtrak isn't horrible, as long as things go well. The airlines aren't horrible when things go well, either. The definition of "going well" will vary from person to person, and you'd expect on a forum like this that Amtrak is given a bit more leeway than the airlines are in that category.


rmadisonwi's post was spot on. I've had my fair share of jackass Amtrak employees, late trains, shoddy equipment, sketchy train stations, and to be honest, sketchy passengers before, but I am in no way attempting to make a case that an airline will have the opposite of this at all times (except the safety part - I fly with great confidence that the aircraft I am flying on is properly maintained and the flight crew well trained. Thank you, FAA). Other than security and what some people like to call 'cramped quarters' onboard, an airport is really no more than a glorified train station, and flying is rather similar to riding a train.



PRR 60 said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > ...All passengers also breath the same air. You don't call this unhealthy? At 30,000 ft they couldn't be using outside air as it is too thin to breath.
> ...


dlagrua was wrong, but so are you I'm afraid. Like I said, new air is constantly introduced into the cabin from engine bleed. Perhaps you mean that the air one breathes at one instant will be completely evacuated within 5 minutes and will have been replaced by new air from the outside environment? If that is the case, that's more than likely true, yes.


----------



## D T Nelson (Feb 15, 2010)

jis said:


> Admittedly airlines do get subsidized ATC etc. but they do not get any direct subsidy for their day to day fuel costs.


Air Traffic Control in the USA is paid for out of the federal government's Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is funded by several different excise taxes on passenger airline operations. Some of these excise taxes are levied directly on the passenger, and show up as line items on the ticket stub, and some are levied on the airline and so are embedded in the price of the passenger ticket. If you don't fly, you don't pay for Air Traffic Control. I would not call that "subsidized ATC."


----------



## jis (Feb 15, 2010)

D T Nelson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Admittedly airlines do get subsidized ATC etc. but they do not get any direct subsidy for their day to day fuel costs.
> ...


Most of it is. But in the last couple iof years it has needed a bit of infusion from general funds to keep the whole thing going. So there is a small subsidy now from general funds. Look up the accounts of FAA and it will be pretty obvious. This is relatively recent.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 15, 2010)

Bob: It looks like you strongly disagree with my points and certainly that is your right but if there is only one good reason I won't take air travel its because it it IS filthy. Consider the following and tell us why you believe shoes are so clean. .

First off, where are shoes used? They tread everywhere on the street, in bird droppings, animal feces, soot, road dirt, and sewerage. They are also full of sweat and bacteria.

When you are forced to put all of your personal carry on belongings into bins that contained 1000's of pairs scummy, dirty, smelly fungus filled, shoes each day, your laptop bag, purse, etc. gets infested with germs that have the potential to bring diseases. Those bins contain some of the dirtiest most repulsive filth on the face of this earth and its gets all over YOUR stuff. You then touch your contaminated belongings and eventually it works its way into your mouth via your hands.. If it is not filthy why not eat off the bottom of your shoes?

All I can say is that I guess that we hold to a far different sanitary standard. Give me the slower, healthier, more relaxing train any day.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 15, 2010)

jis said:


> Admittedly airlines do get subsidized ATC etc. but they do not get any direct subsidy for their day to day fuel costs.


Depends how you look at it. Airlines pay 4.4 cents tax per gallon on fuel. Gasoline tax at the pump is at 18.4 cents.


----------



## jis (Feb 15, 2010)

PetalumaLoco said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Admittedly airlines do get subsidized ATC etc. but they do not get any direct subsidy for their day to day fuel costs.
> ...


Most airlines in this day and age do not use gasoline either. 

Also a lower tax in my thinking is an indirect subsidy, not a direct one, since it does not appear in any account statement of the organization. I have never claimed that they do not get various indirect subsidies.


----------



## jis (Feb 15, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> When you are forced to put all of your personal carry on belongings into bins that contained 1000's of pairs scummy, dirty, smelly fungus filled, shoes each day, your laptop bag, purse, etc. gets infested with germs that have the potential to bring diseases. Those bins contain some of the dirtiest most repulsive filth on the face of this earth and its gets all over YOUR stuff. You then touch your contaminated belongings and eventually it works its way into your mouth via your hands.. If it is not filthy why not eat off the bottom of your shoes?


Actually, I have never placed anything that I care to keep clean in any of those bins. The only thing you are forced to put there is your laptop, (and those I clean with Lysol wipe soon after passing through security, rather easy to do if one cares about such things) and your shoes. Everything else, at least for me, is stuffed into my carryon baggage for them to run through X-Ray, and then I retrieve them at the other end. And none of the carryon bags go into bins, they go directly on the belt. Takes a bit of planning that's all. Of course those that insist on carrying their kitchen sink along with them in the cabin have no such recourse. So I think this argument is mostly a very red herring one.

So tell me, what gives you the comfort that those seats on the train are pristine clean given some of the characters that seem to ride on them and blithely put their feet with shoes on, onto them?


----------



## BobWeaver (Feb 15, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Bob: It looks like you strongly disagree with my points and certainly that is your right but if there is only one good reason I won't take air travel its because it it IS filthy. Consider the following and tell us why you believe shoes are so clean. .First off, where are shoes used? They tread everywhere on the street, in bird droppings, animal feces, soot, road dirt, and sewerage. They are also full of sweat and bacteria.
> 
> When you are forced to put all of your personal carry on belongings into bins that contained 1000's of pairs scummy, dirty, smelly fungus filled, shoes each day, your laptop bag, purse, etc. gets infested with germs that have the potential to bring diseases. Those bins contain some of the dirtiest most repulsive filth on the face of this earth and its gets all over YOUR stuff. You then touch your contaminated belongings and eventually it works its way into your mouth via your hands.. If it is not filthy why not eat off the bottom of your shoes?
> 
> All I can say is that I guess that we hold to a far different sanitary standard. Give me the slower, healthier, more relaxing train any day.


Well, if shoes in the security bins is the only part of the flying process that may be filthy or unhealthy, I'll accept that. Shoes do have the undignified task of treading the surfaces of the ground and shoes do have germs on them. But here again, the bins are regularly sanitized. In all likelihood, your own cell phone poses much more of a health risk. A recent study in the U.K. revealed that cell phones were dirtier than toilets, and dirtier than the bottom of your shoe, at least from a germ standpoint, in amounts large enough to potentially make you sick. I usually give my BlackBerry a wipe down with an alcoholic cloth about every 2 weeks or so, and I think everyone would be wise to do the same thing.

But enough on this. If I cleared up some misconceptions about airline travel, then I have succeeded. I would do the same in an airline forum regarding Amtrak.


----------



## haolerider (Feb 15, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Bob: It looks like you strongly disagree with my points and certainly that is your right but if there is only one good reason I won't take air travel its because it it IS filthy. Consider the following and tell us why you believe shoes are so clean. .First off, where are shoes used? They tread everywhere on the street, in bird droppings, animal feces, soot, road dirt, and sewerage. They are also full of sweat and bacteria.
> 
> When you are forced to put all of your personal carry on belongings into bins that contained 1000's of pairs scummy, dirty, smelly fungus filled, shoes each day, your laptop bag, purse, etc. gets infested with germs that have the potential to bring diseases. Those bins contain some of the dirtiest most repulsive filth on the face of this earth and its gets all over YOUR stuff. You then touch your contaminated belongings and eventually it works its way into your mouth via your hands.. If it is not filthy why not eat off the bottom of your shoes?
> 
> All I can say is that I guess that we hold to a far different sanitary standard. Give me the slower, healthier, more relaxing train any day.


Sounds to me like there is no appreciable difference in a sanitary standard, but there certainly is a difference in your definition of the dirt and germs on shoes. No, people aren't going to eat off the bottom of their shoes and I for one, know that my shoes are not scummy, dirty and filled with smelly fungus. I don't walk through bird droppings, animal feces and sewage - maybe you do - but I think the majority of people do not share your opinions of the dirt in airports. I am sure you use hand sanitizers on a regular basis and wipe down everything you may have to touch, but I think you have gone off the deep end on the germ/filth issue. Airports generally are cleaner and more up to date than train stations, basically since many of them are relatively new compared to rail stations. When you walk down to the train platforms in NYP, PHL or other older cities, you are in some pretty disgusting areas from a cleanliness standpoint + to your phobia, just think of all the pigeons just waiting to drop their filth on you!!


----------



## D T Nelson (Feb 15, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> If an airplane crashes most often everyone is lost.


This is quite wrong.

From the Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents, Worldwide Operations, 1959 - 2008 (jump to page 17):

From 1959 to 2008, there have been 1630 jetliner accidents worldwide. Of those, only 582, or 36%, had ANY fatalities at all. And although the linked report doesn't break out the numbers, most accidents with fatalities have survivors, too; very few airline accidents involve total loss of life.

From 1999 to 2008, there have been 370 jetliner accidents worldwide. Of those, only 91, or 25%, had ANY fatalities.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 15, 2010)

D T Nelson said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > If an airplane crashes most often everyone is lost.
> ...


Most airline accidents are on the ground, taxiing. These are lumped in with the sudden termination of flight stats (crashing and burning).


----------



## D T Nelson (Feb 15, 2010)

PetalumaLoco said:


> D T Nelson said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


If you had read the linked report, specifically page 23, you would know that 12% of accidents in the period 1999-2008 were during taxi, loading, unloading, towing, and while parked. Not all of those accidents were during taxi, but even if they were, 12% is less than "most."


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 15, 2010)

D T Nelson said:


> PetalumaLoco said:
> 
> 
> > D T Nelson said:
> ...


OK, help me out here.

Are you referring to page 22 or 23? I don't see any percentages on page 23.

On page 22, they're saying 12% of fatals happened on the ground, not 12% of accidents, right?


----------



## Trogdor (Feb 15, 2010)

I really don't see the point in debating the relative safety of a plane crash vs. a train (or other crash).

It's like being struck by lightning. If it happens, there's a decent chance you might die.

On the other hand, the US major airlines have not had a passenger fatality resulting from a crash since November 2001. Even if a major US airline were to suffer a crash tomorrow, it wouldn't really change the odds, because such an event has basically become a statistical anomaly. Even in the 1990s, when US major airlines suffered 1-2 fatal accidents per year, they were still so safe that it doesn't make sense to compare the percentage of fatalities to total occupants on a plane to that of other modes without also comparing the relative rates at which such incidents occurred.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 15, 2010)

ok a lighter note take a look at this landing


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 16, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> ok a lighter note take a look at this landing


Airline drivers training plane


----------



## Heading North (Feb 16, 2010)

rmadisonwi said:


> I really don't see the point in debating the relative safety of a plane crash vs. a train (or other crash).
> It's like being struck by lightning. If it happens, there's a decent chance you might die.
> 
> On the other hand, the US major airlines have not had a passenger fatality resulting from a crash since November 2001. Even if a major US airline were to suffer a crash tomorrow, it wouldn't really change the odds, because such an event has basically become a statistical anomaly. Even in the 1990s, when US major airlines suffered 1-2 fatal accidents per year, they were still so safe that it doesn't make sense to compare the percentage of fatalities to total occupants on a plane to that of other modes without also comparing the relative rates at which such incidents occurred.


I agree that the odds are remote enough--like lightning--that the relative safety debate is pretty pointless. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen.

But, to clarify, limiting it to "the US major airlines" is ignoring the small-airline subsidiaries that do operate a large number of domestic flights, under the aegis of the major carriers. The Comair/Delta crash in Lexington, KY that involved taking off on the wrong runway, and the Continental partner (I forget the minor carrier name) that crashed in Niagara Falls are both fairly recent incidents with fatalities.


----------



## BobWeaver (Feb 17, 2010)

Heading North said:


> The Comair/Delta crash in Lexington, KY that involved taking off on the wrong runway...


It is still beyond me that the flight crew failed to realize their mistake before continuing the takeoff run. Runway numbers correspond to their respective heading; in this case, the copilot should have definitely noticed that his heading was 260° instead of about 220°!



Heading North said:


> ...and the Continental partner (I forget the minor carrier name)...


Colgan Air, flight 3407


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 17, 2010)

amamba said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


Here's a pilot's blog I read with an entry about air pressurization on aircraft.


----------



## jis (Feb 17, 2010)

PetalumaLoco said:


> Here's a pilot's blog I read with an entry about air pressurization on aircraft.


Neat blog. It should be noted that with the introduction of the 787, the rules of the pressurization game will change significantly. The cabin will be pressurized a bit more,i.e at an equivalent altitude of 5000-6000', more importantly the air will be humidified more, thus alleviating various dry air related sinus problems, and the pressurization system, for the first time in a large commercial airliner, will not use bleed air from the engine but will be driven by a separate electrical system. Some say that this constitutes the first significant change in the pressurization system in decades. Also incidentally the windows will almost be double the size in surface area when compared to current typical jetliners.


----------

