Airlines retrenching

[jis]

I seem to recall an interview with the president of I think JetBlue that said essentially that he would rather not fly his planes short distances and would gladly "interline" with HSR to complete trips rather than fly a half-full 757 for 200-500 miles-I believe specifically referring to California's plans, which would hugely reduce the number of flights needed between LA and SF, opening those slots for much longer flights.

It is quite unlikely that anyone from JetBlue talked about flying 757s half full or otherwise. JetBlue does not own or fly an single Boeing plane let alone a 757. Their entire fleed is Airbus 320 and Embraer E190, of which the latter fly most of the short hop routes.

True. I couldn't find the whole interview when i first posted so I pretty much picked a random plane that doesn't seem like the sort that should be flow short distances. But regardless of the plane in question, this quote does exist: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/07/jetblue-sees-benefits-of-hsr/. The link to the original interview is broken now and i can't find it, but both SF-LA and the existing NEC are mentioned as "complimentary" to long-distance jet travel. Perhaps other airlines are realizing/coming around to this as well.

United (Continental) already uses Amtrak and even Buses as co-listed flights in the Newark area. So they have taken the next step.

But one problem with Amtrak on the NEC is lack of checked baggage which makes the Regionals unsuitable as connections to long haul flights to final destination. Hence, until that changes I do not see all short haul connecting flights disappearing. Ones that can provide sufficient O/D for filling up long hauls (specially international) will continue because they are essentially subsidized by long haul profits in order to enable said revenue. Only the French and the Germans have so far been able to make a dent in that equation so far. The Brits so far have failed miserably due to inconvenient rail connectivity as substitute for short hauls at Heathrow.

 

[Anderson]

This all actually brings up an interesting thought: How high do airfares from NYC-Montreal have to go before some pressure starts building for a high(er) speed line there from the business community?

 

[RCrierie]

Yes, overnight trains can be a hit among business folks, but to tap that market Amtrak needs to redesign their sleeper cars to have single person sleeping roomettes or berths with privacy curtains etc.

Gee, you mean like the old Pullman open sections?

 

[jis]

IMHO Amtrak needs to rethink the whole sleeping accommodation mix issue. At present a Viewliner has a theoretical capacity of 11x2 + 3x2 = 28 IIRC. It accordingly charges accommodation fee assuming 2 per room, which makes the price relatively steep for a single. The Amtrak Sleeper fares are by no means even remotely suitable for a normal middle class person to use frequently. Some means must be discovered to provide less lavish but considerably less expensive sleeping accommodation if it is to become a means of mass transportation. There is absolutely no getting away from it. This does not imply that the current relatively lavui=ish sleeping accommodation should disappear. It only means that these will be used by those who are able and willing to pay for it.

 

[jmbgeg]

IMHO Amtrak needs to rethink the whole sleeping accommodation mix issue. At present a Viewliner has a theoretical capacity of 11x2 + 3x2 = 28 IIRC. It accordingly charges accommodation fee assuming 2 per room, which makes the price relatively steep for a single. The Amtrak Sleeper fares are by no means even remotely suitable for a normal middle class person to use frequently. Some means must be discovered to provide less lavish but considerably less expensive sleeping accommodation if it is to become a means of mass transportation. There is absolutely no getting away from it. This does not imply that the current relatively lavui=ish sleeping accommodation should disappear. It only means that these will be used by those who are able and willing to pay for it.

Your post prompts me to ask a question related to single vs. double occupancy of roomettes and bedrooms. Obviously, the current accomodation rates are blended based on a mix of rooms occupied by single and multuple occupants. It would be interesting to see data on how many rooms are typically sold to singles vs. multiple occupants. I always travel solo. Obviously, a business model that would offer materially lower accomodation rates than double occupancy is unworkable. Hotels generally don't do it. If there were to be an concession, it would be nice if there was a distinction between single occupancy and double occupancy rates for sleeper accomodations based upon the meal count variance.

 

[dlagrua]

I can see business travel returning to the Eastern/Mid West routes if railroads were set up for it. Years ago the 20th Century Limited departed New York City at 6 PM EST and arrived at Chicagos LaSalle Street station at 9 AM CST. The trip was 16 hours/950 miles and that was with a steam locomotive. The 20th Century Limited was a first class train,had a barber shop, offered secretarial services, valet services,had a business lounge with desks, observation/buffet/lounge, a dining car, a grill diner and 6 sleeper cars with every conceivable type of sleeping accomodation. They had sections, drawing rooms, double bedrooms, and compartments. I don't believe that they even bothered to carry any coaches. Point is that the train was set up for the business/family traveler and traveled during non-business hours. Todays technology would allow a train such as this to offer far more for the business traveler than ever before. What is lacking is the will and the investment to do it. Meanwhile LD routes continue to sell out and some politicans (and many people) still say "nobody rides the trains anymore". People continue to flock to the airports to be interogated, felt up, abused,dehumanized, subjugated and no one cares.

 

[TimePeace]

>>Heck, I don't even want your "intermediate class" that includes food. All I want is a flat bed. I can bring my own food and drink except for coffee. <<

Agreed. Also:

Sharkey says the train from Tampa to NY was 26 hr and driving would be 19 hr. Who is going to drive 19 hrs alone and then be awake and sharp for a meeting the next morning?

It takes 3 days to cross the country but I doubt if anyone except Neal Cassidy is going to drive it in any less than 4 by themselves. And the gas and tolls cost a lot more than the roomette fare.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I seem to recall an interview with the president of I think JetBlue that said essentially that he would rather not fly his planes short distances and would gladly "interline" with HSR to complete trips rather than fly a half-full 757 for 200-500 miles-I believe specifically referring to California's plans, which would hugely reduce the number of flights needed between LA and SF, opening those slots for much longer flights.

It is quite unlikely that anyone from JetBlue talked about flying 757s half full or otherwise. JetBlue does not own or fly an single Boeing plane let alone a 757. Their entire fleed is Airbus 320 and Embraer E190, of which the latter fly most of the short hop routes.

True. I couldn't find the whole interview when i first posted so I pretty much picked a random plane that doesn't seem like the sort that should be flow short distances. But regardless of the plane in question, this quote does exist: http://www.cahsrblog...nefits-of-hsr/. The link to the original interview is broken now and i can't find it, but both SF-LA and the existing NEC are mentioned as "complimentary" to long-distance jet travel. Perhaps other airlines are realizing/coming around to this as well.

United (Continental) already uses Amtrak and even Buses as co-listed flights in the Newark area. So they have taken the next step.

But one problem with Amtrak on the NEC is lack of checked baggage which makes the Regionals unsuitable as connections to long haul flights to final destination. Hence, until that changes I do not see all short haul connecting flights disappearing. Ones that can provide sufficient O/D for filling up long hauls (specially international) will continue because they are essentially subsidized by long haul profits in order to enable said revenue. Only the French and the Germans have so far been able to make a dent in that equation so far. The Brits so far have failed miserably due to inconvenient rail connectivity as substitute for short hauls at Heathrow.

The ICE doesn't have checked baggage either. I can book a Lufthansa flight to Cologne and my final segment will be listed as "Lufthansa flight XX provided by DeutcheBahn" for the Frankfurt to Cologne segment. I still have to schlep my bags from the train station to the airport and vice versa. The bags stay with me on the train too.

 

[Anderson]

On checked bags: Do remember that Amtrak has a very generous practice on what you can carry onto the train. There's a lot of luggage that gets taken onboard trains that doesn't clear Amtrak's luggage policy in terms of weight/size, I believe...and that's to say nothing of that luggage clearing an airline's carry-on policy.

On roomettes: There's precedent for charging a differing accommodation charge for sleeping accommodations. Pullman did it for bedrooms all the time, and we're basically still using that billing structure. It would also help address the "upside down fare situation" that sometimes happens (where a private room for two is cheaper than coach for two...I've seen it happen more than once). I'd say that adding a percentage surcharge on double occupancy would do it (say, add 25%)...but you'd probably need to drop the base roomette charge by about 10%. Too many fare increases too fast could cause problems such as they did under Warrington, and Amtrak is already being as aggressive as I suspect they think they can be.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I agree with you Anderson, I think there was an implication that DeutscheBahn does through baggage service with airlines when I don't believe that is the case the majority of the time.

 

[RRUserious]

After Colgan 3407 crashed and the investigation showed how many corners regional airlines cut, I thought there was a definite need for a ground alternative to regional airlines. Economics prevent such airlines from operating safely. I mean, reason says they should simply charge as much per ticket as needed to do all the safety things right. Then see what the real customer demand is. Maybe this would level the playing field so the passenger flow goes where it should, some of it to trains, some of it to cars, some to buses, some to planes.

 

[Anderson]

After Colgan 3407 crashed and the investigation showed how many corners regional airlines cut, I thought there was a definite need for a ground alternative to regional airlines. Economics prevent such airlines from operating safely. I mean, reason says they should simply charge as much per ticket as needed to do all the safety things right. Then see what the real customer demand is. Maybe this would level the playing field so the passenger flow goes where it should, some of it to trains, some of it to cars, some to buses, some to planes.

Well, I think the answer may ultimately be that regional airlines simply need to be told that:

1) They are not allowed to cut those corners, period; and

2) If they do cut those corners, the penalties will be rather catastrophic.

Put another way, if they can't afford to operate safely then they just can't afford to operate, period.

 

[railbuck]

But one problem with Amtrak on the NEC is lack of checked baggage which makes the Regionals unsuitable as connections to long haul flights to final destination. Hence, until that changes I do not see all short haul connecting flights disappearing. Ones that can provide sufficient O/D for filling up long hauls (specially international) will continue because they are essentially subsidized by long haul profits in order to enable said revenue. Only the French and the Germans have so far been able to make a dent in that equation so far. The Brits so far have failed miserably due to inconvenient rail connectivity as substitute for short hauls at Heathrow.

Checked baggage is secondary; the point is that there are too few places where the rail network (especially LD rail) can be accessed directly from the airport. This is commonplace at major EU hubs (FRA, CDG, AMS, ZRH) but rare at major US airports (EWR now, MIA under construction). There are a few smaller airports with reasonably convenient access (MKE, BUR, PVD?) but in most cases the connection between airport and Amtrak, if there is one, involves a separate commuter train or bus that effectively breaks the connection and makes it too inconvenient for most people to consider the rail leg as an extension of the flight.

 

[Blackwolf]

In the vein of this thread, I have been wondering something for a very long time.

I am about ready to write a letter and ask the question to Amtrak California and the CCJPA, but will first drop it here for debate.

Why is there no Amtrak California Thruway Bus service to any of the airports? I am more familiar with the NorCal setup as opposed to SoCal, but the shortest connection point between train to plane is at Oakland... And you still need to get onto a separate bus connector which requires a lengthy walk from the Amtrak station @ Oakland Colosseum to the BART station.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me. There is already Thruway service to places such as downtown SF from Emeryville and Oakland Jack London, why not to Oakland and San Francisco airports from either of those two stops? Or San Jose airport from SCJ?

I think the easy answer is politics... But alas!

 

[Texan Eagle]

Checked baggage is secondary; the point is that there are too few places where the rail network (especially LD rail) can be accessed directly from the airport. This is commonplace at major EU hubs (FRA, CDG, AMS, ZRH) but rare at major US airports (EWR now, MIA under construction). There are a few smaller airports with reasonably convenient access (MKE, BUR, PVD?) but in most cases the connection between airport and Amtrak, if there is one, involves a separate commuter train or bus that effectively breaks the connection and makes it too inconvenient for most people to consider the rail leg as an extension of the flight.

Regarding Amtrak-airport connectivity, if and when the Texas Eagle is allowed to run over the TRE route between DAL and FTW, is there any probability that a stop will be introduced for TE at DFW/Center Point station to provide connectivity to DFW Airport? Yes, it will still require taking a bus to the terminals but the bus is free and not much of a hassle.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Seems a little risky putting yourself in a situation where catching your flight depends on having the Texas Eagle arrive on time.

 

[edding]

But one problem with Amtrak on the NEC is lack of checked baggage which makes the Regionals unsuitable as connections to long haul flights to final destination. Hence, until that changes I do not see all short haul connecting flights disappearing. Ones that can provide sufficient O/D for filling up long hauls (specially international) will continue because they are essentially subsidized by long haul profits in order to enable said revenue. Only the French and the Germans have so far been able to make a dent in that equation so far. The Brits so far have failed miserably due to inconvenient rail connectivity as substitute for short hauls at Heathrow.

Checked baggage is secondary; the point is that there are too few places where the rail network (especially LD rail) can be accessed directly from the airport. This is commonplace at major EU hubs (FRA, CDG, AMS, ZRH) but rare at major US airports (EWR now, MIA under construction). There are a few smaller airports with reasonably convenient access (MKE, BUR, PVD?) but in most cases the connection between airport and Amtrak, if there is one, involves a separate commuter train or bus that effectively breaks the connection and makes it too inconvenient for most people to consider the rail leg as an extension of the flight.

You forgot BWI which has great rail connectivity( and DCA if you count the Metro which I do). Also LGW, MAN, and BRU are great in UK & Europe ( among others)

 

[PRR 60]

But one problem with Amtrak on the NEC is lack of checked baggage which makes the Regionals unsuitable as connections to long haul flights to final destination. Hence, until that changes I do not see all short haul connecting flights disappearing. Ones that can provide sufficient O/D for filling up long hauls (specially international) will continue because they are essentially subsidized by long haul profits in order to enable said revenue. Only the French and the Germans have so far been able to make a dent in that equation so far. The Brits so far have failed miserably due to inconvenient rail connectivity as substitute for short hauls at Heathrow.

Checked baggage is secondary; the point is that there are too few places where the rail network (especially LD rail) can be accessed directly from the airport. This is commonplace at major EU hubs (FRA, CDG, AMS, ZRH) but rare at major US airports (EWR now, MIA under construction). There are a few smaller airports with reasonably convenient access (MKE, BUR, PVD?) but in most cases the connection between airport and Amtrak, if there is one, involves a separate commuter train or bus that effectively breaks the connection and makes it too inconvenient for most people to consider the rail leg as an extension of the flight.

You forgot BWI which has great rail connectivity( and DCA if you count the Metro which I do). Also LGW, MAN, and BRU are great in UK & Europe ( among others)

And, don't forget PHL which has SEPTA rail stations right in the airport terminals. That is actual commuter rail off the NEC, not rail transit or light rail. Plus the stations are inside the airport, not a people mover or bus ride away. I'm not aware of any other US airport with that distinction.

Twenty years ago, Amtrak briefly served PHL with direct trains to and from Atlantic City. The Amtrak trains operated as codeshare "flights" for Midway Airlines, which at the time hubbed at PHL. That incarnation of Midway went bust, and with it went the Amtrak service at PHL airport. PHL has been SEPTA only since Amtrak left.

 

[Donctor]

Theoretically, Amtrak could make a second Pennsylvanian frequency, leaving CHI around 8 AM, PGH at 9 PM, and arriving at NYP near 7 AM.

An additional CHI-East Coast frequency would be great. Before this happens (if it happens at all), I assume the Cap/Penn thru cars will have to have run for a few years, and will have to expand to the point of warranting their own train. This, however, is many ifs (and some equipment deliveries and reallocations) away.

More for business travelers, if Amtrak could cut around 6 hours off the LSL schedule (faster times through NYS, get the railroads to give Amtrak priority, so fewer delays, etc.), a theoretical LSL could have 6 PM - 8 AM times between Chicago and NY (and vice versa). Such a train would have a tremendous chance of being a hit. (Yes, I know, it's mostly a pipe dream).

This wasn't ever done, even by the Century, was it?

 

[Donctor]

PRR ran the All Pullman Pittsburgher from NYP to Pittsburgh into the mid 1960s 6 nights per week.

What were the travel times?

Schedule effective 01/18/54

Train 60/86

2300 PGH

2314 East Liberty, PA

2359 LAB

0145 ALT

0410 HAR

0550 PAO

0617 PHN

0648 TRE

0742 NWK

0800 NYP

Sleepers open at 2130.

Train 61/87

2359 NYP

0014 NWK

0059 TRE

0129 PHN

0242 LNC

0331 HAR

0549 ALT

0739 LAB

0753 GNB

0821 East Pittsburgh, PA

0835 East Liberty, PA

0900 PGH

Sleepers open at 2200.

 

[Anderson]

Theoretically, Amtrak could make a second Pennsylvanian frequency, leaving CHI around 8 AM, PGH at 9 PM, and arriving at NYP near 7 AM.

An additional CHI-East Coast frequency would be great. Before this happens (if it happens at all), I assume the Cap/Penn thru cars will have to have run for a few years, and will have to expand to the point of warranting their own train. This, however, is many ifs (and some equipment deliveries and reallocations) away.

More for business travelers, if Amtrak could cut around 6 hours off the LSL schedule (faster times through NYS, get the railroads to give Amtrak priority, so fewer delays, etc.), a theoretical LSL could have 6 PM - 8 AM times between Chicago and NY (and vice versa). Such a train would have a tremendous chance of being a hit. (Yes, I know, it's mostly a pipe dream).

This wasn't ever done, even by the Century, was it?

Acc. to the Official Guide to the Railways, December 1956, the 20th Century left NYG at 6:00 PM and arrived at LaSalle Street Station a 8:45 AM (15:45 travel time accounting for the time change). The Commodore Vanderbilt (the second-tier train on the route, which had more stops) left NYG at 5:30 PM and arrived at LaSalle Street Station at 8:30 AM (16:00 travel time). Eastbound, the times were 4:45 PM/9:30 AM for the 20th Century and 4:00 PM/9:00 AM for the Vanderbilt, for the same travel times net of the time change.

As to how to do this: HSR in upstate NY, HSR in Michigan, and an agreement with Canada to run a train non-stop from Buffalo/Niagara to Detroit through southern Ontario, thereby avoiding most of the slower territory on the NYP-CHI run. It's not likely, but I think it's at least theoretically doable, and there is plenty of precedent for a train on such a route (the Niagara Rainbow ran such a route until the 1990s IIRC).

Serious question involving the NYP-PGH overnight idea: Would it be viable to run a through section from Boston with about a 5-6 PM departure? It would arrive in NYP around 9-10 PM, which is far enough off-peak that it would be akin to 66/67 sitting in the station such as it does. EB, the connection would be messier (this is always a headache: You've got more flexibility in the evening than in the morning), but it would add single-seat service along there (and to a non-trivial set of markets, too).

 

[dlagrua]

Theoretically, Amtrak could make a second Pennsylvanian frequency, leaving CHI around 8 AM, PGH at 9 PM, and arriving at NYP near 7 AM.

An additional CHI-East Coast frequency would be great. Before this happens (if it happens at all), I assume the Cap/Penn thru cars will have to have run for a few years, and will have to expand to the point of warranting their own train. This, however, is many ifs (and some equipment deliveries and reallocations) away.

More for business travelers, if Amtrak could cut around 6 hours off the LSL schedule (faster times through NYS, get the railroads to give Amtrak priority, so fewer delays, etc.), a theoretical LSL could have 6 PM - 8 AM times between Chicago and NY (and vice versa). Such a train would have a tremendous chance of being a hit. (Yes, I know, it's mostly a pipe dream).

This wasn't ever done, even by the Century, was it?

Acc. to the Official Guide to the Railways, December 1956, the 20th Century left NYG at 6:00 PM and arrived at LaSalle Street Station a 8:45 AM (15:45 travel time accounting for the time change). The Commodore Vanderbilt (the second-tier train on the route, which had more stops) left NYG at 5:30 PM and arrived at LaSalle Street Station at 8:30 AM (16:00 travel time). Eastbound, the times were 4:45 PM/9:30 AM for the 20th Century and 4:00 PM/9:00 AM for the Vanderbilt, for the same travel times net of the time change.

As to how to do this: HSR in upstate NY, HSR in Michigan, and an agreement with Canada to run a train non-stop from Buffalo/Niagara to Detroit through southern Ontario, thereby avoiding most of the slower territory on the NYP-CHI run. It's not likely, but I think it's at least theoretically doable, and there is plenty of precedent for a train on such a route (the Niagara Rainbow ran such a route until the 1990s IIRC).

Serious question involving the NYP-PGH overnight idea: Would it be viable to run a through section from Boston with about a 5-6 PM departure? It would arrive in NYP around 9-10 PM, which is far enough off-peak that it would be akin to 66/67 sitting in the station such as it does. EB, the connection would be messier (this is always a headache: You've got more flexibility in the evening than in the morning), but it would add single-seat service along there (and to a non-trivial set of markets, too).

There is only one problem rerouting the NYP to CHI trains through Ontario. You lose all the passengers traffic on the trip through OH and IN. Those stops do generate some revenue.

 

[Ryan]

That's why you don't do it to all of the trains. At a minimum you'll still have the Cap making those stops.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

PRR ran the All Pullman Pittsburgher from NYP to Pittsburgh into the mid 1960s 6 nights per week.

What were the travel times?

Schedule effective 01/18/54

Train 60/86

2300 PGH

2314 East Liberty, PA

2359 LAB

0145 ALT

0410 HAR

0550 PAO

0617 PHN

0648 TRE

0742 NWK

0800 NYP

Sleepers open at 2130.

Train 61/87

2359 NYP

0014 NWK

0059 TRE

0129 PHN

0242 LNC

0331 HAR

0549 ALT

0739 LAB

0753 GNB

0821 East Pittsburgh, PA

0835 East Liberty, PA

0900 PGH

Sleepers open at 2200.

That would be utterly perfect for biz travel to NYP! I could work in NYC all day and then come back home that night, straight back to the office the next morning!

 

[afigg]

Acc. to the Official Guide to the Railways, December 1956, the 20th Century left NYG at 6:00 PM and arrived at LaSalle Street Station a 8:45 AM (15:45 travel time accounting for the time change). The Commodore Vanderbilt (the second-tier train on the route, which had more stops) left NYG at 5:30 PM and arrived at LaSalle Street Station at 8:30 AM (16:00 travel time). Eastbound, the times were 4:45 PM/9:30 AM for the 20th Century and 4:00 PM/9:00 AM for the Vanderbilt, for the same travel times net of the time change.

As to how to do this: HSR in upstate NY, HSR in Michigan, and an agreement with Canada to run a train non-stop from Buffalo/Niagara to Detroit through southern Ontario, thereby avoiding most of the slower territory on the NYP-CHI run. It's not likely, but I think it's at least theoretically doable, and there is plenty of precedent for a train on such a route (the Niagara Rainbow ran such a route until the 1990s IIRC).

Serious question involving the NYP-PGH overnight idea: Would it be viable to run a through section from Boston with about a 5-6 PM departure? It would arrive in NYP around 9-10 PM, which is far enough off-peak that it would be akin to 66/67 sitting in the station such as it does. EB, the connection would be messier (this is always a headache: You've got more flexibility in the evening than in the morning), but it would add single-seat service along there (and to a non-trivial set of markets, too).

There is only one problem rerouting the NYP to CHI trains through Ontario. You lose all the passengers traffic on the trip through OH and IN. Those stops do generate some revenue.

The route from Niagara Falls to Detroit or Ann Arbor Michigan through Canada is the Twilight Limited proposal linked to in the Amtrak Proposed New Routes in 2001 thread. While it would not serve Erie PA, OH, or northern IN, that route would provide connections to the east for southern MI. The idea is not to replace or reroute the Lake Shore Limited, but to add another NYP-CHI LD train. Which will not happen anytime soon.

The benefit of the Twilight Limited route is that if NY state can achieve 110 mph service NYP to Buffalo (got $2 or $3 billion anyone?), upgrade the Buffalo to Niagara Falls segment to decent speeds, and a decent average speed is possible on a non-stop route through Canada, the route would bridge across two upgraded 110 mph corridors. On the other hand, if Ohio and Cleveland were to get behind the Midwest Regional Rail plan and build a 110 mph HrSR CHI-CLE corridor service with the projected goal of a 4 hour 20 minute trip time, NY state reduces NYP-BUF trip times by several hours, and some modest upgrades are made to the BUF-CLE segment, the LSL route would see serious reductions in total trip time. Enough that a day train along with an overnight train could be run over the route. But it is going to be a long wait for a 90 or 110 mph CHI-CLE corridor service.