Amtrak Guest Rewards 2.0 Coming January 2016

[Bob Dylan]

Those of us who "gamed the system" are getting what we deserve since we used our "free points" for so many LD trips, and had so many $25 Amburgers, that cheated Amtrak out of Billions in revenue!

"Yeah, that's the ticket!" Joe Liar/SNL Character

 

[siberianmo]

My two cents regarding "gaming the system":

Let's see, one is gaming when cashing in on a reward system? A system which promises and delivers to those who pay their way? Hmmmmmm. Extrapolating
a bit, I suppose there are those who think military retirees are "gaming the system," along with social security recipients, et al.

As someone much wiser than I said, "You can't fix stupid." Add to that, my own - "Everyone is entitled to their own ridiculous opinion."

What a way begin the day!

The attached foto is from my latest rail adventure wherein I gamed the system!

The old Santa Fe Depot in San Diego - awaiting boarding for the Pacific SurfLiner to LAX for connection with the Sunset Ltd/Texas Eagle.

Cheers from Missouri!

 

[D.P. Roberts]

A well written and rational look at how the new system plays out systemwide. Even has charts and maths and stuff.

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/observation-tower/archive/2015/09/15/how-will-you-fare-under-the-redesigned-amtrak-guest-rewards.aspx

The bottom line is unsurprising:

In summary, it seems like the vast majority of frequent Amtrak travelers will be better off under the redesigned Amtrak Guest Rewards system, especially those who book well in advance of travel. Those who will lose out, however, are those who wait until the last minute to book (when fares, and thus the number or points required, will be higher), prefer to earn a lot of points quickly through many inexpensive trips, those who can maximize the value of their points under the current zone system (see my El Paso to Wolf Point example, all within the West Zone), and most who redeem points for Bedrooms and Viewliner Roomettes except at the very lowest fare buckets.

And there's my problem with the new system- it hurts people who travel long distances in sleepers (except, as the author states, in the lowest fare buckets). Some here stating that the new system only hurts people who were "gaming the system", and the author of this article says that the "vast majority" will be better off. This is patently untrue if it negatively affects almost everyone in the sleepers.

I'd add two more groups of people to this list of those negatively affected by sleeper travel:

1) Those who travel together - the quoted price of $422 in a roomette from CHI-PDX were based on only one adult in the room. Under the old system, adding a second person in the roomette was free. Now, you'll have to pay extra for that.

2) Those who travel when it's busy - for example, during the summer. Buckets are a lot higher when it's busy, and those people will pay a lot more.

3) Those who make connections - the article assumes that everyone is traveling endpoint to endpoint. Sure, there are several trips of different lengths in the article, but I'd say the majority of Amtrak travelers make one (or more) connections. Under the old system, any connection within a zone was still considered one zone. Now, you're paying for those connections.

The author's low bucket for 1 person in November was $422, but for two people on the same route in the same roomette in the summer is $708; almost twice as much. And, at 24,000 points (booked now, when the price is probably at or near its lowest point), that's still a 20% increase, and will probably only go up from there. If you're making a connection (as many do), it's going to be even higher.

So, I'm not saying that it's bad for everyone, but there are a whole bunch of "normal" circumstances that will make it bad for pretty much everyone who travels, especially in sleepers, not just those who are gaming the system.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

I suppose there are those who think military retirees are "gaming the system," along with social security recipients, et al.

As someone much wiser than I said, "You can't fix stupid." Add to that, my own - "Everyone is entitled to their own ridiculous opinion."

Wrong forum for this subject. However why does our military personal now get to draw from three different sources of income. When they retire? Just because a law is past, it does not mean its a good idea.

Death by a thousand cuts. Soon only the military will be able to be funded by the federal government.

My ridiculous opinion. Why yes I am ex-military.

 

[BCL]

Those of us who "gamed the system" are getting what we deserve since we used our "free points" for so many LD trips, and had so many $25 Amburgers, that cheated Amtrak out of Billions in revenue!

"Yeah, that's the ticket!" Joe Liar/SNL Character

You may be thinking of "Tommy Flanagan" as played by Jon Lovitz on SNL. Possibly mixing it up with "Joe Isuzu" who was played by David Leisure in a series of car commercials.

 

[tonys96]

A well written and rational look at how the new system plays out systemwide. Even has charts and maths and stuff.http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/observation-tower/archive/2015/09/15/how-will-you-fare-under-the-redesigned-amtrak-guest-rewards.aspxThe bottom line is unsurprising:

In summary, it seems like the vast majority of frequent Amtrak travelers will be better off under the redesigned Amtrak Guest Rewards system, especially those who book well in advance of travel. Those who will lose out, however, are those who wait until the last minute to book (when fares, and thus the number or points required, will be higher), prefer to earn a lot of points quickly through many inexpensive trips, those who can maximize the value of their points under the current zone system (see my El Paso to Wolf Point example, all within the West Zone), and most who redeem points for Bedrooms and Viewliner Roomettes except at the very lowest fare buckets.

And there's my problem with the new system- it hurts people who travel long distances in sleepers (except, as the author states, in the lowest fare buckets). Some here stating that the new system only hurts people who were "gaming the system", and the author of this article says that the "vast majority" will be better off. This is patently untrue if it negatively affects almost everyone in the sleepers.I'd add two more groups of people to this list of those negatively affected by sleeper travel:1) Those who travel together - the quoted price of $422 in a roomette from CHI-PDX were based on only one adult in the room. Under the old system, adding a second person in the roomette was free. Now, you'll have to pay extra for that.2) Those who travel when it's busy - for example, during the summer. Buckets are a lot higher when it's busy, and those people will pay a lot more.3) Those who make connections - the article assumes that everyone is traveling endpoint to endpoint. Sure, there are several trips of different lengths in the article, but I'd say the majority of Amtrak travelers make one (or more) connections. Under the old system, any connection within a zone was still considered one zone. Now, you're paying for those connections.The author's low bucket for 1 person in November was $422, but for two people on the same route in the same roomette in the summer is $708; almost twice as much. And, at 24,000 points (booked now, when the price is probably at or near its lowest point), that's still a 20% increase, and will probably only go up from there. If you're making a connection (as many do), it's going to be even higher.So, I'm not saying that it's bad for everyone, but there are a whole bunch of "normal" circumstances that will make it bad for pretty much everyone who travels, especially in sleepers, not just those who are gaming the system.

Agreed. The destinations listed were cherry picked to make the change look less drastic than it is for those of us who are not located in the NEC or near a major hub. Note nearly all LD trips posted were from major hubs, and all single passenger, while current system is for two pax.

Anyone can always find something to boost their own opinion on the inner web, and that is all that post was for.

 

[willem]

Changes or cancellations to point redemption reservations made after Jan. 24 will come with a 10% penalty if they result in points being returned to your account (the amount returned will be 10% less than the amount you initially redeemed).

Should that be 10% of the points that are no longer being redeemed? If I redeem 11,000 points, and then the price drops to where it would cost 10,000 points and I modify my redemption, then do I get 900 points (90% of the 1,000 point reduction) back? The article says that I would pay a penalty of 1,100 points (10% of the amount initially redeemed). In other words, i would need to pony up 100 points to take advantage of the lowered fare. Who knows? That might be right; it certainly would cut down on modified redemptions when the price drops.

The window of account inactivity beyond which one's points expire will be extended from two years to three years, and redeeming points will now count as eligible account activity in addition to earning points.

I thought the window of inactivity was three years. Did I have that wrong?

 

[willem]

... free companion coupons cannot be used for sleepers...

Since the second person in a sleeper rides at low coach bucket, the coupon cannot be worth less in coach than for a companion in a sleeper. And since the second person in the sleeper now costs extra in a reward trip, it would be a small but welcome bone for those in LD hinterlands if the companion coupon could be redeemed for sleeper travel. The most obvious reason not to allow the companion coupon in a sleeper is that the AGR decision makers expect the coupon to go unused by those in the LD wasteland, thus saving the cost of redemption.

 

[jis]

Naturally for everyone, their own needs are the center of the world, and many of those oxen have been thoroughly gored by AGR 2.0. There is no doubt in my mind about that. The question that I have, and it is not clear how one gets an answer to that definitively, is whether those oxen are the important ones for Amtrak or not.

In my case about a third to half of my normal usage pattern of points in AGR 1.0 become non-viable. I will have to be more selective about where I use points and where I opt either to pay for Amtrak or for airline to cover the non-viable gaps. Ever since moving to Florida I have been doing some of that anyway due to want of time. When I am going to the west coast where the main part of the train journey is west of Chicago, I am no longer spending 2 days to get to Chicago from Florida, but I am flying to Chicago early morning of the departure of the western train (convenient 6am flight gets into O'Hare at a little after 8am). This as it turns out works well for me both time-wise and points-wise in AGR 2.0. Since I never had the time available to go on the grand tour of the west using a 2 zone award, the fact that those grand tours have now become points cost prohibitive does not affect me in the least. OTOH, almost all my KIS to WAS/NYP trips booked sufficiently in advance now cost less in points in AGR 2.0 than in AGR 1.0, and clearly I might be using points a lot more on the NEC.

So I guess everyone has a different ox that they ride, and AGR 2.0 gores different oxen in different ways. If Malcolm's riding pattern happens to be what he uses in his examples, who would anyone else be to judge whether his ox is better or worse than mine or theirs, in some general sense? It is a set of useful data points. If it fits someones travel needs so be it. If not, it does not.

 

[Kat314159]

The flip side of the two person sleeper redemption is that I don't throw away point riding single in a sleeper. As a person who says the heck with y'all I'm going to see/do ___ in ____ city I don't need to find a traveling companion to get "value" from a sleeper redemption.

 

[Ryan]

Well said.

If the majority of Amtrak ridership is in the corridors, what exactly is the problem with making their affinity program to match?

The membership of this forum skews in a different direction, which makes the pitchforks and torches brigade sadly predictable.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I wonder if it's possible to openly criticize AGR without having to hear from the megaphones and pompoms brigade? The only thing more silly than the overreaction to AGR is the overreaction to the overreaction. Personally I find this line of discussion rather fascinating and rather than marginalize or ridicule those who are being squeezed out I'd like to take it a bit deeper. For instance, are we on our way to reaching the point were the only way for Amtrak to survive without pricing their services out of reach of most Americans? Currently we're dealing changes to AGR but for many of us the AGR program was the crutch that allowed us to keep riding even after we've been priced out on the revenue side. I'm also curious who is routinely spending thousands of dollars on long sleeper trips, or if these trips are likely to dry up as Babyboomers begin to pass on in greater numbers. If that's true then will the prices eventually drop or will they need to keep rising in order to appease the politicians. Lots of interesting dynamics in play right now.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Well said.

If the majority of Amtrak ridership is in the corridors, what exactly is the problem with making their affinity program to match?

The membership of this forum skews in a different direction, which makes the pitchforks and torches brigade sadly predictable.

Because it's a national system.

 

[jis]

Broadly speaking the redemption side is now biased towards shorter cheaper journeys rather than very long expensive journeys on the whole, as was the case in AGR 1.0. Of course corridors fit the bill nicely. That is on the redemption side. OTOH, the most time efficient way to collect a pile of points, pending the additional ways yet to be announced for getting TQMs and points in corridors, would be to do a grand expensive bedroom trip. And yes, there is no way left to collect 5000 points spending only$600. In some sense on the acquisition side the bias has moved from short trips to long trips, or at least expensive trips.

 

[Ryan]

I wonder if it's possible to openly criticize AGR without having to hear from the megaphones and pompoms brigade? The only thing more silly than the overreaction to AGR is the overreaction to the overreaction. Personally I find this line of discussion rather fascinating and rather than marginalize or ridicule those who are being squeezed out I'd like to take it a bit deeper. For instance, are we on our way to reaching the point were the only way for Amtrak to survive without pricing their services out of reach of most Americans? Currently we're dealing changes to AGR but for many of us the AGR program was the crutch that allowed us to keep riding even after we've been priced out on the revenue side. I'm also curious who is routinely spending thousands of dollars on long sleeper trips, or if these trips are likely to dry up as Babyboomers begin to pass on in greater numbers. If that's true then will the prices eventually drop or will they need to keep rising in order to appease the politicians. Lots of interesting dynamics in play right now.

I think we've reached a new level of meta in this thread, complaining about the complaining about the complaining...

I didn't think that offering the viewpoint that the population of AU and the general ridership of Amtrak are wildly different qualifies as megaphones and pompoms or marginalizing and ridiculing, but whatever floats your boat.

Edit to add: If anything, acknowledgement of "hey, it sucks for you" is the opposite of marginalization.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I wonder if it's possible to openly criticize AGR without having to hear from the megaphones and pompoms brigade? The only thing more silly than the overreaction to AGR is the overreaction to the overreaction. Personally I find this line of discussion rather fascinating and rather than marginalize or ridicule those who are being squeezed out I'd like to take it a bit deeper. For instance, are we on our way to reaching the point were the only way for Amtrak to survive without pricing their services out of reach of most Americans? Currently we're dealing changes to AGR but for many of us the AGR program was the crutch that allowed us to keep riding even after we've been priced out on the revenue side. I'm also curious who is routinely spending thousands of dollars on long sleeper trips, or if these trips are likely to dry up as Babyboomers begin to pass on in greater numbers. If that's true then will the prices eventually drop or will they need to keep rising in order to appease the politicians. Lots of interesting dynamics in play right now.

I think we've reached a new level of meta in this thread, complaining about the complaining about the complaining...

 

[NW cannonball]

I wonder if it's possible to openly criticize AGR without having to hear from the megaphones and pompoms brigade? The only thing more silly than the overreaction to AGR is the overreaction to the overreaction. Personally I find this line of discussion rather fascinating and rather than marginalize or ridicule those who are being squeezed out I'd like to take it a bit deeper. For instance, are we on our way to reaching the point were the only way for Amtrak to survive without pricing their services out of reach of most Americans? Currently we're dealing changes to AGR but for many of us the AGR program was the crutch that allowed us to keep riding even after we've been priced out on the revenue side. I'm also curious who is routinely spending thousands of dollars on long sleeper trips, or if these trips are likely to dry up as Babyboomers begin to pass on in greater numbers. If that's true then will the prices eventually drop or will they need to keep rising in order to appease the politicians. Lots of interesting dynamics in play right now.

Meta Meta -- nobody understands Meta meta.

The very reasonable changes to the AGR progam make super-long zone-based points redemptions more expensive.

Because -- Amtrak can sell LD sleepers for a LOT more money than what the old zone-based system AGR redemptions used to cost.

Sorry, DA, actually, marketing to Boomers is a profitable but losing strategy - I'm a Boomer.

Actually, and obviously, there's a lot of people in their teens, 20's even 30's -- who will never buy a car - who will and do buy LD sleeper trips, just for the time out.

It's like back in the 1920's -- the old geezers had gold, but the world changed.

The new generation might or might not use slow trains -- my interaction with 20-somethings indicates they might. Fast trains -- for sure.

Speaking with 20-somethings -- they love rail, they don't give a rat's "beehind" about what "green stamps, ("points)" some rail authority used to give out.

The new generation wants efficient (cause they have such less cashflow) and effective transport, and to hell with the ancient political inherited BS

Times change.

Nobody cares about ancient demographics.

 

[Bob Dylan]

NW Cannonball: re " Nobody cares about Ancient demographics."

I'm not a marketer or ad person, but have you noticed the type of commercials and ads that are dominating the media and the junk mail ( snail and spam)today?

Most are targeted to the "Senior" and Boomer Markets, evidently because we are last so called generation that are "better off" than our parents! ( it's the Golden Rule, those that have the Gold Rule.)

Those that aren't targeting those "markets" ( aka older people) are trying to the sell the latest and greatest toy to the new generations you speak about. ( ie Apple, Samsung etc.)

I often ride Amtrak LD Trains all over the Country ( this will change with the New and Unimproved AGR2.0) and notice that the Sleeping Cars are mostly full of Middle Aged and Seniors, I very seldom see youngsters, they are mostly in Coch ( which, all things considrted, are under priced but a bargain for LD Travel).

Most youngsters don't have the time, patience or money to ride LD Trains, just the opposite of the Boomers and we Seniors. ( I'm 71)

Amtrak markets heavily to Seniors for LD Travel because that's where the Money is.

In my view Amtrak LD Trains will be gone in 10-15 years because today's Seniors will all be gone, but the Corridor and Commuter Trains will be booming because that's a growth market among the generations you speak about! YMMV

 

[tonys96]

I wonder if it's possible to openly criticize AGR without having to hear from the megaphones and pompoms brigade? The only thing more silly than the overreaction to AGR is the overreaction to the overreaction. Personally I find this line of discussion rather fascinating and rather than marginalize or ridicule those who are being squeezed out I'd like to take it a bit deeper. For instance, are we on our way to reaching the point were the only way for Amtrak to survive without pricing their services out of reach of most Americans? Currently we're dealing changes to AGR but for many of us the AGR program was the crutch that allowed us to keep riding even after we've been priced out on the revenue side. I'm also curious who is routinely spending thousands of dollars on long sleeper trips, or if these trips are likely to dry up as Babyboomers begin to pass on in greater numbers. If that's true then will the prices eventually drop or will they need to keep rising in order to appease the politicians. Lots of interesting dynamics in play right now.

Meta Meta -- nobody understands Meta meta.

The very reasonable changes to the AGR progam make super-long zone-based points redemptions more expensive.

Because -- Amtrak can sell LD sleepers for a LOT more money than what the old zone-based system AGR redemptions used to cost.

Sorry, DA, actually, marketing to Boomers is a profitable but losing strategy - I'm a Boomer.

Actually, and obviously, there's a lot of people in their teens, 20's even 30's -- who will never buy a car - who will and do buy LD sleeper trips, just for the time out.

It's like back in the 1920's -- the old geezers had gold, but the world changed.

The new generation might or might not use slow trains -- my interaction with 20-somethings indicates they might. Fast trains -- for sure.

Speaking with 20-somethings -- they love rail, they don't give a rat's "beehind" about what "green stamps, ("points)" some rail authority used to give out.

The new generation wants efficient (cause they have such less cashflow) and effective transport, and to hell with the ancient political inherited BS

Times change.

Nobody cares about ancient demographics.

This is not what my experience shows. I cannot recall a single 20 something in a sleeper in any of my sleeper excursions.

 

[Kat314159]

As one in my mid 20s the reason you don't see junk mail or TV ads directed at us is because we don't care for those media. I haven't responded to a mailing for anything since I got the internet. Most of us stream our TV shows over the internet not via Rabbit Ears or cable subscriptions. The flip side is how many seniors do you see responding to Vine, Intagram, or Twitter?

In casual conversation it seems like my friends who aren't opposed to flying would take LD trains that are 1 overnight or less. Which really is true of me too for a short trip like a wedding.

If Amtrak could support VPN (even if it was a paid upgrade) outside NEC for me and my friends in IT that time frame would extend significantly. I can log in and work from a roomette or BC seat just as nicely as I can from my kitchen. Unless LD goes high speed and has some serious WiFi saturation you're right us kids these days won't burn the extra vacation days to ride the train.

 

[jebr]

This is not what my experience shows. I cannot recall a single 20 something in a sleeper in any of my sleeper excursions.

To be honest, I can't recall too many of my sleeper companions, so I'm not going to speculate on what age they are. While I would not be surprised if most "20 somethings" take coach (due to money) or fly (due to time and money,) there are certainly some (including myself!) that will take Amtrak, even sleepers, if the timing and pricing is right. I've sometimes thought about taking Amtrak one way to Chicago for a weekend trip, and taking a sleeper would not be a bad way to go if it's low-bucket.

I have quite a bit of PTO where I don't need to be connected while I'm out of the office, which is rare for many 20 somethings. That's probably why you don't see many of them taking long-distance sleepers.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

This is not what my experience shows. I cannot recall a single 20 something in a sleeper in any of my sleeper excursions.

To be honest, I can't recall too many of my sleeper companions, so I'm not going to speculate on what age they are.

My experience mirrors Tony's. Rarely if ever seen twenty somethings in the sleepers. Most of the time it's fifties or higher.

 

[rrdude]

This is not what my experience shows. I cannot recall a single 20 something in a sleeper in any of my sleeper excursions.

To be honest, I can't recall too many of my sleeper companions, so I'm not going to speculate on what age they are.

My experience mirrors Tony's. Rarely if ever seen twenty somethings in the sleepers. Most of the time it's fifties or higher.

DITTO

 

[Bex]

This is not what my experience shows. I cannot recall a single 20 something in a sleeper in any of my sleeper excursions.

To be honest, I can't recall too many of my sleeper companions, so I'm not going to speculate on what age they are.

My experience mirrors Tony's. Rarely if ever seen twenty somethings in the sleepers. Most of the time it's fifties or higher.

DITTO

TRITTO.

 

[tricia]

This is not what my experience shows. I cannot recall a single 20 something in a sleeper in any of my sleeper excursions.

To be honest, I can't recall too many of my sleeper companions, so I'm not going to speculate on what age they are.

My experience mirrors Tony's. Rarely if ever seen twenty somethings in the sleepers. Most of the time it's fifties or higher.

DITTO

TRITTO.

Perhaps this has more to do with aging bodies than with generational differences. When I was in my 20s, sitting up overnight in a train (or car, or bus) cost me a lot less in discomfort the next day than it would now, in my increasingly creaky 50s. At this point, if I can't afford a sleeper, I don't travel overnight on a train.

If 20-somethings are disproportionately rare in sleeper cars, do they make up a greater proportion of overnight coach riders? If so, as they get older might many of them switch to sleeper, if they can afford it?

That's a whole lot of "ifs" for which I don't pretend to have any sort of statistical backing.