Amtrak Guest Rewards 2.0 Coming January 2016

[AmtrakBlue]

I have a strong feeling the membership on this board will drop substantially next year once this program kicks in and many of us turn elsewhere for our travel needs.

Probably the same amount it "dropped" after they removed the flowers from the diners.

Watch it Sarah, now you are hitting close to home!
Seriously, flowers, "alone" doesn't mean much, but taken in conjunction with everything else....

Told ya so!

Nobody can take a joke, eh? Did you happen to read any of my other responses?

Sarah, I took his post as joining you in your joke.

 

[Ryan]

Too far with that one d.a.

Concur. But I'm one of those people as well, since I'm not in the pitchforks and torches brigade.

 

[Everydaymatters]

After all is said and done, it will be interesting to see how many of those who will never ride Amtrak again actually do. I agree with Sarah. Not much has changed since the ammenities were cut and I suspect not much will change with 2.0.

 

[jis]

After all is said and done, it will be interesting to see how many of those who will never ride Amtrak again actually do. I agree with Sarah. Not much has changed since the ammenities were cut and I suspect not much will change with 2.0.

I can tell you up front that as a side activity I will be riding some more Amtrak through the month of September, including two trips in Sleeper on the Star (simply because it is cheaper) just 'cause I like to ride trains, and they are all paid trips. I will even collect a few AGR points, and probably even make Select+ for what it may or may not be worth. But that is somewhat secondary. The primary thing is riding trains, whether in the US or anywhere else. No matter what happens to AGR or whatever, I will find a way to ride trains, even Amtrak. I expect to ride something like 5,000 to 7,000 miles of Amtrak in 2016. Due to my move of residence to a somewhat Amtrak sparse area my Amtrak ridership has about halved from the usual 12,000 to 15,000 or so (the balance was on NEC), but that has little to do with either service changes or AGR changes or anything like that. It is just that it is harder for me to get to Amtrak than it was in NJ.

 

[tonys96]

Too far with that one d.a.

Disagree.

 

[rrdude]

I have a strong feeling the membership on this board will drop substantially next year once this program kicks in and many of us turn elsewhere for our travel needs.

Probably the same amount it "dropped" after they removed the flowers from the diners.

Watch it Sarah, now you are hitting close to home!

Seriously, flowers, "alone" doesn't mean much, but taken in conjunction with everything else....

Told ya so!

Nobody can take a joke, eh? Did you happen to read any of my other responses?

Sarah, I 'got it', just didn't respond properly in a way that communicated that.

 

[tonys96]

Those who can afford sleepers and want to ride, will do so. Those who ride sleeper on points, like me, will likely do less, especially those of us here where there are fewer destinations that are accessible for a reasonable amount of points. This change to AGR will not affect my coach trip frequency at all. But it will severely limit my sleeper trips. Just sayin'.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Too far with that one d.a.

Concur. But I'm one of those people as well, since I'm not in the pitchforks and torches brigade.

Let's go back to the replay then...

My point was that most of the people who freaked out about the amenity cuts threatened to never, ever, ever use Amtrak again, and yet they were posting trip reports just a few months later.

As we can see Sarah is back to harping on her "Flowergate" diatribe again and this time she has some rather specific claims to go along with it. So who exactly is she talking about and where is the evidence to back up all this big talk? It's bad form to make big bold claims and then run off without explaining how you came to your big bold conclusions. Normally this is what Ryan would be saying long before I could get there but he seems to have his kid gloves on for some reason.

After all is said and done, it will be interesting to see how many of those who will never ride Amtrak again actually do. I agree with Sarah. Not much has changed since the ammenities were cut and I suspect not much will change with 2.0.

Since you seem to know enough about it to weigh in why don't you tell us how the year over year passenger numbers look for the last few months?

 

[tricia]

The revised program injects a little bit more rationality into AGR. A certain number of travelers seek to construct the longest possible itinerary...days and miles...for the fewest possible number of points. This group will now have to pay for it or plan a more rational and direct itinerary.

Too bad the revised program does nothing to rationalize the skeleton network that created these irrational routings in the first place..... [this sentence is a quote from D.A.--not sure why it fell out of its quote box]

---------------------------------------------------

For many of us, in many parts of the country, the AGR zone redemption system helped compensate for a "skeleton network" that REQUIRES us to construct very long and roundabout routes to get from where we live to most destinations on Amtrak's national system map. For us, taking those long roundabout routes certainly hasn't been about "gaming the system"--it's been the ONLY option for traveling by train to most parts of Amtrak's system map.

This problem has been noted in several posts relating to Florida in this thread, but affects folks living in many more places that Amtrak purports to serve.

For example, for those of us living in the southeast to travel on Amtrak anywhere west of home (other than New Orleans), we need to first take one train to Washington, then another to Chicago, then at least one more train to our final destination. (Heck, just to get to Florida, those of us served ONLY by the Crescent have to travel two nights, via Washington to have a reasonable connection.)

Under the current zone system, with AGR redemption costs based strictly on departure station and destination station, traveling west from the southeast was reasonably affordable (in points, though not necessarily in time spent to get to one's destination). The new AGR system will make travel from the southeast to anywhere OTHER than the northeast vastly more expensive than just about any other option for getting from point A to point B.

I worry about this aspect of the change in AGR further eroding the already-tenuous viability of Amtrak as a national network. I personally will probably no longer be able to use Amtrak for travel other than perhaps to D.C. and points north in the NEC. I'm sure others on this forum who live in other parts of the U.S. have been reaching similar conclusions, given the limited options Amtrak offers for routing to most places on its system map.

 

[jis]

Those who can afford sleepers and want to ride, will do so. Those who ride sleeper on points, like me, will likely do less, especially those of us here where there are fewer destinations that are accessible for a reasonable amount of points. This change to AGR will not affect my coach trip frequency at all. But it will severely limit my sleeper trips. Just sayin'.

I think that is an accurate assessment of what will happen with many who like to ride trains but cannot afford the Sleeper fares. The open question is if there are enough people with money to spend that will be willing to take on the slack in Sleepers created by those who were riding Sleepers on AGR awards. I have no idea. We'll have to see. But I think it is safe to say that if the slack is picked up then Amtrak will likely come out ahead on he revenue side. If not then they will not.

 

[rrdude]

Those who can afford sleepers and want to ride, will do so. Those who ride sleeper on points, like me, will likely do less, especially those of us here where there are fewer destinations that are accessible for a reasonable amount of points. This change to AGR will not affect my coach trip frequency at all. But it will severely limit my sleeper trips. Just sayin'.

I think that is an accurate assessment of what will happen with many who like to ride trains but cannot afford the Sleeper fares. The open question is if there are enough people with money to spend that will be willing to take on the slack in Sleepers created by those who were riding Sleepers on AGR awards. I have no idea. We'll have to see. But I think it is safe to say that if the slack is picked up then Amtrak will likely come out ahead on he revenue side. If not then they will not.

JIS, that is the 64 thousand dollar question. I have to believe that Amtrak has the data of "Redeemed vs. Paid" for sleeper space??

Another question, which Amtrak seems to have answered as part of the rationale for some of the AGR policy changes: Is, even if the "Redeemed" ratio of sleeper reservations is high(er) than Amtrak would like, Amtrak must feel that the "cash" from the partners that buy points, is substantially less than what they could get from the traveling public on the open market. (i.e.

"paid" sleeper reservations vs. "redeemed") Otherwise, what is the base reason for changing the sleeper redemption guidelines?

I've seen tidbits speculating what the BASE or MAJOR reason is/was for making these changes, What do YOU think the main reason(s) is/are? (Absent AGR's "official reason"...............)

Financial? (Increase revenue potential)

Political? (Show Congress-Critters they are "trying" to do "something"...)

Better for their BEST customers? (this makes sense, but not if you are not a "Best" customer)

What say you?

 

[Everydaymatters]

Too far with that one d.a.

Concur. But I'm one of those people as well, since I'm not in the pitchforks and torches brigade.

Let's go back to the replay then...

My point was that most of the people who freaked out about the amenity cuts threatened to never, ever, ever use Amtrak again, and yet they were posting trip reports just a few months later.

As we can see Sarah is back to harping on her "Flowergate" diatribe again and this time she has some rather specific claims to go along with it. So who exactly is she talking about and where is the evidence to back up all this big talk? It's bad form to make big bold claims and then run off without explaining how you came to your big bold conclusions. Normally this is what Ryan would be saying long before I could get there but he seems to have his kid gloves on for some reason.

After all is said and done, it will be interesting to see how many of those who will never ride Amtrak again actually do. I agree with Sarah. Not much has changed since the ammenities were cut and I suspect not much will change with 2.0.

Since you seem to know enough about it to weigh in why don't you tell us how the year over year passenger numbers look for the last few months?

Too far with that one d.a.

Concur. But I'm one of those people as well, since I'm not in the pitchforks and torches brigade.

Let's go back to the replay then...

My point was that most of the people who freaked out about the amenity cuts threatened to never, ever, ever use Amtrak again, and yet they were posting trip reports just a few months later.

As we can see Sarah is back to harping on her "Flowergate" diatribe again and this time she has some rather specific claims to go along with it. So who exactly is she talking about and where is the evidence to back up all this big talk? It's bad form to make big bold claims and then run off without explaining how you came to your big bold conclusions. Normally this is what Ryan would be saying long before I could get there but he seems to have his kid gloves on for some reason.

After all is said and done, it will be interesting to see how many of those who will never ride Amtrak again actually do. I agree with Sarah. Not much has changed since the ammenities were cut and I suspect not much will change with 2.0.

Since you seem to know enough about it to weigh in why don't you tell us how the year over year passenger numbers look for the last few months?

Ouch! I don't know. Purely speculation. Flaming does not have to be a part of this forum. Friendly conversation, even about a different point of view, is always welcome.

 

[City of Miami]

I can remember when AGR instituted the 100 point minimum - when was it, 6 or 8 years ago? What was it before that, just the straight 2pts/$? Was that the beginning of points runs? AGR also used to give us 100 points on our birthdays! And you could get 100 points for filling out a survey and stuff like that from time to time.

 

[JayPea]

I can't speak for anyone else but I won't stop riding Amtrak. I take one or in a couple of cases two long distance trips a year with my uncle. I live in Eastern Washington and he lives in east central Illinois, near Champaign. We meet, usually by my flying to his neck of the woods, then begin our trips from Chicago. This year we altered the plan somewhat as we are meeting in Boston, taking a flipping bus to Albany and riding in bedrooms the rest of the way to Seattle by way of the LSL to Chicago, the TE to Los Angeles and the CS to Seattle. In fact we leave from Boston two weeks from today. I suspect we won't be taking such elaborate trips again, at least in bedrooms. Maybe in roomettes. But what I suspect will happen is we will be taking more trips east than west. From the looks of it those trips from Chicago to anyplace east have gotten much cheaper now. And we've wanted to do that, particularly the Cardinal, but haven't done it because we haven't wanted to spend our points on shorter trips like that. Or it may be we take the EB to Seattle from Chicago, a more direct route. We both like Seattle, and, as much as we hate to admit it, aren't getting any younger and gets just a bit harder every year to spend days on end on trains.

So I'm sure things will change but one thing that will not change is riding Amtrak.

 

[tonys96]

The revised program injects a little bit more rationality into AGR. A certain number of travelers seek to construct the longest possible itinerary...days and miles...for the fewest possible number of points. This group will now have to pay for it or plan a more rational and direct itinerary.

Too bad the revised program does nothing to rationalize the skeleton network that created these irrational routings in the first place..... [this sentence is a quote from D.A.--not sure why it fell out of its quote box]
---------------------------------------------------

For many of us, in many parts of the country, the AGR zone redemption system helped compensate for a "skeleton network" that REQUIRES us to construct very long and roundabout routes to get from where we live to most destinations on Amtrak's national system map. For us, taking those long roundabout routes certainly hasn't been about "gaming the system"--it's been the ONLY option for traveling by train to most parts of Amtrak's system map.

This problem has been noted in several posts relating to Florida in this thread, but affects folks living in many more places that Amtrak purports to serve.

For example, for those of us living in the southeast to travel on Amtrak anywhere west of home (other than New Orleans), we need to first take one train to Washington, then another to Chicago, then at least one more train to our final destination. (Heck, just to get to Florida, those of us served ONLY by the Crescent have to travel two nights, via Washington to have a reasonable connection.)

Under the current zone system, with AGR redemption costs based strictly on departure station and destination station, traveling west from the southeast was reasonably affordable (in points, though not necessarily in time spent to get to one's destination). The new AGR system will make travel from the southeast to anywhere OTHER than the northeast vastly more expensive than just about any other option for getting from point A to point B.

I worry about this aspect of the change in AGR further eroding the already-tenuous viability of Amtrak as a national network. I personally will probably no longer be able to use Amtrak for travel other than perhaps to D.C. and points north in the NEC. I'm sure others on this forum who live in other parts of the U.S. have been reaching similar conclusions, given the limited options Amtrak offers for routing to most places on its system map.

Agreed. The zone maps made if affordable in points for those of us who have little choice in destinations from home stations. Having to pay more in points to go to Chicago to start a trip to a final destination will make it be far more onerous. Seems that might have been a 'fairness' rationale for the one system. It was for me. To allow for affordable access to s estimations for all of America, not just the hub stations and surrounding areas.

 

[JoeBas]

Those who can afford sleepers and want to ride, will do so. Those who ride sleeper on points, like me, will likely do less, especially those of us here where there are fewer destinations that are accessible for a reasonable amount of points. This change to AGR will not affect my coach trip frequency at all. But it will severely limit my sleeper trips. Just sayin'.

I think that is an accurate assessment of what will happen with many who like to ride trains but cannot afford the Sleeper fares. The open question is if there are enough people with money to spend that will be willing to take on the slack in Sleepers created by those who were riding Sleepers on AGR awards. I have no idea. We'll have to see. But I think it is safe to say that if the slack is picked up then Amtrak will likely come out ahead on he revenue side. If not then they will not.

Not just "can't afford", but also "Don't see the value".

I see this as AGR charging me a $250/year membership fee.

 

[jis]

It depends on specific segments. For example, I can see more AGR usage in Sleeper travel between the NEC and Chicago, since it is likely to be less expensive in AGR terms than a two zone award used to be. OTOH, Florida to New York is sort of some plus and some minus depending on bucket status. What is really clobbered as far as AGR travel is concerned is the multi train trips. Who knows? Maybe shorter payed segments with multiple turnovers is going to become more prevalent. it is hard to predict what will happen overall.

 

[JoeBas]

It depends on specific segments. For example, I can see more AGR usage in Sleeper travel between the NEC and Chicago, since it is likely to be less expensive in AGR terms than a two zone award used to be. OTOH, Florida to New York is sort of some plus and some minus depending on bucket status. What is really clobbered as far as AGR travel is concerned is the multi train trips. Who knows? Maybe shorter payed segments with multiple turnovers is going to become more prevalent. it is hard to predict what will happen overall.

Which, given AMTK's skeletal nature, means what's really clobbered is 3/4 of the country.

I'm starting to wonder if some of this isn't political (third rail of Amtrak, I know, still)... this change basically rewards people in the blue states, who happen to "support" Amtrak (such as it is), and punishes the red ones, who "don't" (such as it is). Of course, this will do nothing but HURT the whole system's eyes in those red states... but sooner or later someone's gonna have to realize that on top of having several of the largest cities in the country (Dallas/Atlanta/Houston) having only once daily (at best, half that in the case of Houston) service, AND basically telling them to go pound sand with the rewards program, is not going to ever garner any love for them in these areas.

 

[jis]

I don't know if it has directly anything to do with Red/Blue, though indirectly it does work out that way to quite an extent. What is being favored, by their own admission as presented to LOSSAN Board, is corridor travel. So naturally where corridors are more prevalent that is where you see the greatest advantages. Also you see advantages where in the past a zone boundary was gratuitously placed at an unnatural place to make a 900 mile journey more expensive. So wherever there is corridor service they come out ahead, and guess where much of the corridor services are. Of course irrespective of Red or Blue,

One thing that does surprise me though that the Sleeper tickets do not get a TQP bonus, but that would be consistent with the corridor focus with incidental usability on LD trains. One could argue that this is bad and one would probably be right too. But such as it is, here we are where we are....

Bottom line seems to be that Amtrak focuses on and rewards those areas wherever there is strong political support for it, and for the rest it just tries to preserve the core existing service and leaves it at that. If political support develops somewhere where there wasn't before it does pay heed to such. That was the story of the Texas Eagle which from the verge of being cancelled became a daily train, or the Heartland Flyer, which came into existence.

 

[jebr]

Since AGR redemptions are now tied to the cash fare, isn't the biggest complaint is that the cash fare on many routes is simply way too high, especially when a connection is involved?

If so, using AGR as a way to make those specific routes "cheaper" (as it was in some cases under AGR 1.x) seems like a really odd way for Amtrak (or the mechanism people would want Amtrak to use) to have that happen. It doesn't help the majority of people who look at taking Amtrak for the first time, see a sky-high fare, and decide to book travel another way instead. It doesn't help those who don't want to wait to earn points through a loyalty program (either by credit card, spend through the AGR portal, or partner earning) and dedicate that purchasing power to Amtrak instead of another rewards program or cash back program. It doesn't help those who can't afford the points, or don't want to purchase points in hopes that the redemption will be cheaper than the cost of the points. AGR, as it was before, was not exactly intuitive (especially to the value of points and how even purchasing points could make a trip cheaper than paying cash for the same trip.)

It would be much better if Amtrak would somehow use this opportunity to reform the system and make those trips cheaper and more available to everyone, not just those who happen to be "in the know" of AGR. Maybe that will happen; as rooms go unsold or can't command the higher rates (and AGR members aren't taking them) sleeper prices may very well drop for cash fare, helping everyone. This may very well help Amtrak as well, as my understanding was that the cost AGR pays Amtrak for a trip is lower (potentially, in some cases, much lower) than what the cash price is for that room at any given point in time. Maybe that revenue movement has changed as well, essentially "forcing" the change onto AGR.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Excellent summation jis.

And we miss Kay Bailey in the Senate!, (one of the Saviours of Amtrak and the godmother of the Texas Eagle!)

 

[NorthShore]

Unless something changes on the "new" AGR Card the only way to get 10,000 Points for $5,000 spending is for that spendiing to be on Amtrak.

I would argue, "As it should be!" Since this makes it a reward for spending money upon and riding Amtrak, itself.

Which is another reason why eliminating the 100 point minimum befuddles me a bit. This is a reward for encouraging people to pay cash for ride service. Which ought to be maximized rather than minimized. Yes, some (a relative few, I suspect) may "game" that aspect a bit, and benefit from it. But they are spending money riding the train, and therefore (at least minimally) helping to fill up seats, raise demand, and increase ticket prices. All a good thing, from a business perspective, which I'd say deserves to be rewarded.

 

[jis]

It seems to me that the 100 point minimum has to do more with encouraging very short low fare trips. Maybe there was a time when Amtrak though that was a good idea. now with trains overflowing maybe it is not such a good idea afterall, encouraging clogging up seats with very short haul which prevents medium haul passengers from getting them. Just a random alternate explanation.

 

[tonys96]

Unless something changes on the "new" AGR Card the only way to get 10,000 Points for $5,000 spending is for that spendiing to be on Amtrak.

I would argue, "As it should be!" Since this makes it a reward for spending money upon and riding Amtrak, itself.

Which is another reason why eliminating the 100 point minimum befuddles me a bit. This is a reward for encouraging people to pay cash for ride service.

Agree that it is good for you, in Chicago, where there are several daily trains in all directions. For those of us without those choices, maybe not so much.....just sayin'

 

[NorthShore]

Unless something changes on the "new" AGR Card the only way to get 10,000 Points for $5,000 spending is for that spendiing to be on Amtrak.

I would argue, "As it should be!" Since this makes it a reward for spending money upon and riding Amtrak, itself.Which is another reason why eliminating the 100 point minimum befuddles me a bit. This is a reward for encouraging people to pay cash for ride service.

Agree that it is good for you, in Chicago, where there are several daily trains in all directions. For those of us without those choices, maybe not so much.....just sayin'

So, would you say that elimination of the 100 point minimum might be a good thing, then? A sort of national equalization factor?