I glanced at the posts in the
New Coach Seating Procedure: Long Distance Trains on NEC when this happened and this was kind of predictable as we said. However, this thread is rife with the actual problems that are faced, I suppose it is worthy of its own thread. That being said, I do agree with this:
Amtrak's handling of seating in Coaches has been a flaming mess for a long time, specially for singles. I will probably be roasted here by the mindless Amtrak apologists for stating my feeling that I am glad that the chicken are coming home to roost.
Actually, a lot of this would be avoided if the policy was clear and cut. Instead of "suggesting" or "recommending" how the trains should operate to the front line employees, spell it out to everyone and the passengers in a clear and concise matter (even though the terms of conditions state they reserve full control and discretion over seating) and specify what it means on the actual trains.
Instead, you have mish-mosh policies, which leads to exactly what happened. passenger boards a train, that typically didn't carry local travel on the NEC until last year and thinks its a normal regional. Such trains wouldn't have a boarding plan. Indeed, the whole intent in abolishing the loading plans on the NEC is to provide a more consistent experience:
You should probably change the title. This isn't just the Meteor. They basically abolished the boarding plan for long-distance trains to accommodate the NEC, who are accustomed to sitting anywhere they want. They want to speed the train over the NEC and they believe the boarding plan prolongs station stops. So, now it will be a sort of free for all.
There were concerns about families being separated or passengers needing to move and I made special mention of the Carolinian:
I'm not aware of Western LD trains plying the NEC.
Seriously, I know the trains plying the NEC that had boarding plans will no longer have them. This includes the long-distance trains like the Palmetto (which actually carried add on cars to accommodate local NEC passengers) and the Carolinian, which is a state-supported train but has a boarding plan (which was impossible to enforce on the NEC but everyone just blamed the employees on the front line since some attempted to follow the procedures while others said no way." )
The problem is, the Carolinian is a state-supported train. It is not a long-distance train so it operates in accordance with the agreement reached with the state. As such, the Carolinian kept its original boarding plan. So, it does have certain cars for designated stops since that is part of the operating agreement.
On the other hand, it could well be racial discrimination, perhaps combined with the conductor simply wanting to 'assert his authority' and/or be 'commanding'. So he decided to pick on a woman that seemed (to him) willing to comply with his orders. It would likely be difficult to prove discrimination, however, unless any nearby passengers that witnessed the exchange come forward with their testimony.
Regardless of what the cause of Ms Ifill being asked to move, it's clear the conductor(s) both need some additional training in doing their job.
This is pretty funny but I'm interested in why you automatically assumed it was "he" wanted to assert "his authority" and "he" wanted to pick on a woman....because that is the best part of this story. A typical NEC train has a conductor, an assistant conductor (or two) and the LSA, who mans the cafe car. As such, Ms Ifill said the "junior conductor" asked her to move seats. However, this is a Carolinian, which is a state-supported train....and this particular state has paid for a bunch of attendants that you wouldn't find on a regional train. They have manifests and are charged with arranging the passengers according to the boarding plan. They are also instructed to use the manifest, to identify families, and groups and are "encouraged" to block off seats for these parties. It is similar to the long-distance trains and is one of two trains on the NEC without sleeping cars you'll see with attendants.
So, the "junior conductor" was actually an attendant, (and for those of you keeping score, she's an older black woman that's been around for decades and close to retirement...not a "man" trying to assert his authority) who had blocked off seats (As per the manifest and guidelines) and even put out down signs for the forthcoming passengers. Naturally, they were moved and single passengers took the aisle seats. So, when the attendant comes up (with a mother and her young daughter looking for seats together) she starts trying to move people together and basically rearrange the car to accommodate the family and the future groups' of riders. She never actually moved and since Baltimore was next, someone else moved.
The conductor wasn't even involved until he was approached in Baltimore. Of course, his mouth was open when she charges up, announces her title "I'm a lawyer for...." and in her own words " was laying her (the attendant that she identified as a junior conductor) out to the lead conductor. " He let her vent, apologized and the train left. It is definitely not "contrary" to the policy for this particular train but it may be contrary to the practice which is why I made this statement some weeks ago when the set up was being announced:
Well for starters, we’ve all seen Amtrak crews directly disobey rules when it comes to food service operating hours, dining car procedures, etc. so I’m guessing some crews will still assign seats.
They can also still assign by car, as certain cars will train / detrain at certain platforms.
Will be an interesting experiment.
Another way to drive away customers?
Have to relocate passenger in the middle of the night so a family can sit together? Is it going to be up-to the family to ask people to move, or will the conductor do it?
Well, basically when you're aren't given clear guidelines, you'll get freelancing crews. A lot of questions and situations were broached and the guidelines aren't clear. So, you get a "yes" with a "but" or a "no" with an "if" which translates into a "maybe" with a "when."
At the end of the day, it boiled down "do what you think is best," so I fully expect some to carry out a boarding plan based upon the manifest while others just throw in the towel and "give them what the want."
Some crews refuse to get involved. They will not ask people to move, shuffle, shift, be quiet or much else, while others will engage, regulate, dictate and given the chance, incarcerate.
You'll always have an inconsistent application when you have a vague policy, particularly if people do not feel empowered.
As such, you have a passenger, staring at a vague policy that is contrary to what happens on most trains on the route and an attendant, following her guidelines, and possibly lacking support (aside from witnesses who often appear in these situations.)
As this continues down the road, I'm wondering how this will ultimately play out for passengers that start threads like
Will our fam be seated together? and
Boarding at Different Stops-Sitting Together on 91 because what is the real option if you ask someone to move and they don't want to? I'm pretty sure throwing them off would look bad, particularly without a clear policy that is readily available. Until a permanent solution is reached, either they should let everyone fend for themselves or provide a definite answer on which trains will have assigned (not preselected ) seating, why they will have assigned seating and make it publically available.
So, to summarize, I'm with Jis. Hopefully, this will provide guidance.
