Youtube Video Explaining Amtrak's High Cost

[seat38a]

https://youtu.be/fwjwePe-HmA

What do you think?

 

[KmH]

Well.

They don't actually explain Amtrak's, or the airlines, costs.

The airlines, and the highway system, are way more heavily subsidized by the feds than Amtrak is.

Basically the information is spun.

I quit watching at about the 4 minute mark because my waders didn't come up high enough to keep the BS from getting in and running down my legs.

 

[CCC1007]

An amfleet car for $400,000? How do I sign up to buy them and lease them to Amtrak???

 

[seat38a]

Well.

They don't actually explain Amtrak's, or the airlines, costs.

The airlines, and the highway system, are way more heavily subsidized by the feds than Amtrak is.

Basically the information is spun.

I quit watching at about the 4 minute mark because my waders didn't come up high enough to keep the BS from getting in and running down my legs.

Well if you bothered to watch the whole video instead of stopping it at 4 minutes, then you would have found the ending message was pretty positive and why the train is still needed at the high cost and how it is actually lower cost than flying for small rural America. Or at mark 6:33 where he makes a point that it cost the same to operate the train with 5 passengers vs 500 passengers so its important to fill the seats even at lower ticket prices. But then again instead of taking an objective view or watching the whole video before making a comment, you just throw around the damn subsidy excuse like every other blind Amtrak supporter.

 

[amtkstn]

Amfleet cars were paid for almost thirty years ago. I don't know where they got the 400,000 price. The same way with the first generation Superliners.

 

[seat38a]

An amfleet car for $400,000? How do I sign up to buy them and lease them to Amtrak???

If you were to depreciate the Amfleet since the late 70's its possible. As a business required to keep records and accounting, Amtrak (I'm guessing) needs to depreciate their assets overtime like every business. I had to do all the depreciation on my taxes this week.

 

[seat38a]

Amfleet cars were paid for almost thirty years ago. I don't know where they got the 400,000 price. The same way with the first generation Superliners.

He might be talking about the residual / scrap value of the cars.

 

[jis]

I would find it hard to believe that the basic Amfleet Car is not fully depreciated. Some capitalized improvements made to them more recently may not be.

 

[TinCan782]

Well.

They don't actually explain Amtrak's, or the airlines, costs.

The airlines, and the highway system, are way more heavily subsidized by the feds than Amtrak is.

Basically the information is spun.

I quit watching at about the 4 minute mark because my waders didn't come up high enough to keep the BS from getting in and running down my legs.

Well if you bothered to watch the whole video instead of stopping it at 4 minutes, then you would have found the ending message was pretty positive and why the train is still needed at the high cost and how it is actually lower cost than flying for small rural America. Or at mark 6:33 where he makes a point that it cost the same to operate the train with 5 passengers vs 500 passengers so its important to fill the seats even at lower ticket prices. But then again instead of taking an objective view or watching the whole video before making a comment, you just throw around the damn subsidy excuse like every other blind Amtrak supporter.

Yes, the ending did provide something positive.

 

[XHRTSP]

This isn't his first about Amtrak. There's also 'Why Trains Suck in America':

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Well.

They don't actually explain Amtrak's, or the airlines, costs.

The airlines, and the highway system, are way more heavily subsidized by the feds than Amtrak is.

Basically the information is spun.

I quit watching at about the 4 minute mark because my waders didn't come up high enough to keep the BS from getting in and running down my legs.

Well if you bothered to watch the whole video instead of stopping it at 4 minutes, then you would have found the ending message was pretty positive and why the train is still needed at the high cost and how it is actually lower cost than flying for small rural America. Or at mark 6:33 where he makes a point that it cost the same to operate the train with 5 passengers vs 500 passengers so its important to fill the seats even at lower ticket prices. But then again instead of taking an objective view or watching the whole video before making a comment, you just throw around the damn subsidy excuse like every other blind Amtrak supporter.

That's a problem with the video itself. If the goal is to drum up support for trains you don't paint a negative or BS picture in the first four minutes and risk people forming their opinion already and then at the last minute say "here's the real message". Some people may have stopped watching and never got the real message.

 

[snvboy]

I also tuned out halfway through, as some of the comparisons with the airline industry were getting to be just too sloppy. Of course the airline loves paying flight attendants for one hour of labor on a flight from DC to NY. Does that mean Amtrak is paying for too much labor, or that the airlines have been screwing their staff since forever by only paying for the "door closed" time?

I also came close to spitting out my coffee right at the beginning on the line about the "wildly profitable airline industry". It might be pretty profitable today, but it's not wildly profitable. Bankruptcies are also a fabulous way to shed legacy labor costs and shift future pension costs onto the shoulders of the taxpayer.

The position of "If a plane costs $50 million, and the train $10 million, how can you loose money on the train?" entirely ignores the fact that A LOT of planes are not owned by the airlines. They are owned by leasing companies that put up the capital and package the leases as investments. Not to mention a whole slew of government tricks to make the plane cheaper.

$1 million to build a mile of railroad? I have no clue if that's accurate, but it's probably a bargain compared to an interstate - especially over the long term, and especially in the dense urban area of the Northeast.

Plus, the point of the video isn't trains. It's eyeballs for the ad clicks and stock footage house that sponsored the video to show off their stock footage. Which I think there are more effective videos to accomplish that goal.

 

[KmH]

Well.

They don't actually explain Amtrak's, or the airlines, costs.

The airlines, and the highway system, are way more heavily subsidized by the feds than Amtrak is.

Basically the information is spun.

I quit watching at about the 4 minute mark because my waders didn't come up high enough to keep the BS from getting in and running down my legs.

Well if you bothered to watch the whole video instead of stopping it at 4 minutes, then you would have found the ending message was pretty positive and why the train is still needed at the high cost and how it is actually lower cost than flying for small rural America. Or at mark 6:33 where he makes a point that it cost the same to operate the train with 5 passengers vs 500 passengers so its important to fill the seats even at lower ticket prices. But then again instead of taking an objective view or watching the whole video before making a comment, you just throw around the damn subsidy excuse like every other blind Amtrak supporter.

Later I did watch the entire video.

It's still a quite biased hatchet job.

The comment about paying Amtrak to kill people as part of your fare sure wasn't a positive message, and there is lots of erroneous information about Amtrak financials in the piece.

The end message was an advertisement for the video clip service the author subscribes to.

The subsidy issue is a valid point of contention when comparing government support of air travel vs government support of long distance passenger rail.

You might find it useful to wonder just how objective your view is.

 

[KmH]

That's a problem with the video itself. If the goal is to drum up support for trains you don't paint a negative or BS picture in the first four minutes and risk people forming their opinion already and then at the last minute say "here's the real message". Some people may have stopped watching and never got the real message.

Yep. Except IMO the real message was the majority of the video and the last bit was disingenuous.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Note that the video says the passenger from New York to Washington subsidizes the cost to serve passengers in Havre. Well technically that passenger subsidizes 94% of that cost. Check that hole in your wallet for the other 6%.

 

[seat38a]

I also tuned out halfway through, as some of the comparisons with the airline industry were getting to be just too sloppy. Of course the airline loves paying flight attendants for one hour of labor on a flight from DC to NY. Does that mean Amtrak is paying for too much labor, or that the airlines have been screwing their staff since forever by only paying for the "door closed" time?

I also came close to spitting out my coffee right at the beginning on the line about the "wildly profitable airline industry". It might be pretty profitable today, but it's not wildly profitable. Bankruptcies are also a fabulous way to shed legacy labor costs and shift future pension costs onto the shoulders of the taxpayer.

The position of "If a plane costs $50 million, and the train $10 million, how can you loose money on the train?" entirely ignores the fact that A LOT of planes are not owned by the airlines. They are owned by leasing companies that put up the capital and package the leases as investments. Not to mention a whole slew of government tricks to make the plane cheaper.

$1 million to build a mile of railroad? I have no clue if that's accurate, but it's probably a bargain compared to an interstate - especially over the long term, and especially in the dense urban area of the Northeast.

Plus, the point of the video isn't trains. It's eyeballs for the ad clicks and stock footage house that sponsored the video to show off their stock footage. Which I think there are more effective videos to accomplish that goal.

Unless the law is changed, bankruptcies are perfectly LEGAL way to reset your business. Also, many businesses lease equipment to run their businesses and how its financed in the back is really not the business owners concern. Railroads are littered with bankruptcy and reorganization as well. The mighty Union Pacific even has bankruptcy in its history.

 

[seat38a]

This isn't his first about Amtrak. There's also 'Why Trains Suck in America':

I thought his explanation on why it sucks was pretty much spot on. Unless someone else who watched the full video can point out what he said was alternative facts, I agree with his explanation.

 

[seat38a]

Well.

They don't actually explain Amtrak's, or the airlines, costs.

The airlines, and the highway system, are way more heavily subsidized by the feds than Amtrak is.

Basically the information is spun.

I quit watching at about the 4 minute mark because my waders didn't come up high enough to keep the BS from getting in and running down my legs.

Well if you bothered to watch the whole video instead of stopping it at 4 minutes, then you would have found the ending message was pretty positive and why the train is still needed at the high cost and how it is actually lower cost than flying for small rural America. Or at mark 6:33 where he makes a point that it cost the same to operate the train with 5 passengers vs 500 passengers so its important to fill the seats even at lower ticket prices. But then again instead of taking an objective view or watching the whole video before making a comment, you just throw around the damn subsidy excuse like every other blind Amtrak supporter.

Later I did watch the entire video.

It's still a quite biased hatchet job.

The comment about paying Amtrak to kill people as part of your fare sure wasn't a positive message, and there is lots of erroneous information about Amtrak financials in the piece.

The end message was an advertisement for the video clip service the author subscribes to.

The subsidy issue is a valid point of contention when comparing government support of air travel vs government support of long distance passenger rail.

You might find it useful to wonder just how objective your view is.

So what exactly do you think liability insurance is? Wether you like it or not your homeowners or renters insurance premium is you or others paying to burn down your home one day and get indemnified. If his financial numbers are wrong, then why don't you show us the correct one?

 

[seat38a]

Well.

They don't actually explain Amtrak's, or the airlines, costs.

The airlines, and the highway system, are way more heavily subsidized by the feds than Amtrak is.

Basically the information is spun.

I quit watching at about the 4 minute mark because my waders didn't come up high enough to keep the BS from getting in and running down my legs.

Well if you bothered to watch the whole video instead of stopping it at 4 minutes, then you would have found the ending message was pretty positive and why the train is still needed at the high cost and how it is actually lower cost than flying for small rural America. Or at mark 6:33 where he makes a point that it cost the same to operate the train with 5 passengers vs 500 passengers so its important to fill the seats even at lower ticket prices. But then again instead of taking an objective view or watching the whole video before making a comment, you just throw around the damn subsidy excuse like every other blind Amtrak supporter.

That's a problem with the video itself. If the goal is to drum up support for trains you don't paint a negative or BS picture in the first four minutes and risk people forming their opinion already and then at the last minute say "here's the real message". Some people may have stopped watching and never got the real message.

Well its the fault of the individual watching not the messenger. I see it more and more these days, people don't watch OR READ, the whole thing, get stuff out of context or make up their mind after the first paragraph or sentence. I've taken and seen plenty of basic skills test by employers designed to week out people with this problem. Some tests are quite simple. It says to read the full page before filling anything in, the applicant fills it in on the spot hands it in and as soon as they leave it goes right in the shredder. Why? Because the last sentence says, "Do not fill out this application here. Please take it home and put some thought into your answers."

 

[dlagrua]

I watched the entire video. There is some good info there but when you make a claim that trains are so expensive you must make a fair comparison.

As for airlines, you must calculate the cost per mile per airline passenger that includes the government transportation subsidy. Also 70% of airports lose money and government makes up the difference.. From estimates I read a few years back US airports will need $71.3 billion for infrastructure development over the next five years. Sounds pretty expensive to me.

Then it is pointed out that airlines have a lower employee cost which is true but what about the 1000's of people employed at the airport for runway/building maintenance, TSA "security", 24 hr police presence, flight /airport management and other functions. Yes the airlines pay a share of this but this was a point overlooked in the video. Also the narrator said nothing about the complete Amtrak fare system. What fare buckets were used for his estimates of fares? Did he include the saver fares? It looks at though he compared the cheapest air fares to the more expensive train tickets. A $59 airfare NY-CHI is hardly the middle fare but most likely the special saver fare. I don't have all the numbers but it would be nice if we had a fair comparison of rail travel to air travel. When I did business in Baltimore and D.C., the Amtrak fare was always less than the airline fare and you got off right in the city. The portal to portal times were better by rail.