Amtrak Guest Rewards 2.0 Coming January 2016

[me_little_me]

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.

A big issue is that having zones allowed people to make up somewhat for the deficiencies in Amtrak's routes. e.g. in the past ATL to MIA was reasonable as a one zone because there is no direct route between these major cities. Now you have to pay ATL to WAS and WAS to MIA. That means that what could have been a reasonably priced ticket on a direct route is unreasonably priced both in cash and therefore in points.

 

[jebr]

It'd make far more sense for Amtrak to make up that deficiency through a means that everyone could use on all trips (including cash fares,) though, instead of only fixing it for those that have the points to redeem for the trip and wish to redeem those points for that trip.

 

[Carolina Special]

Seems like the best solution to ATL-MIA involves a bus between ATL-SAV, not going all the way to WAS and back. It may not be popular, but it would be more cost effective for Amtrak.

 

[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.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.

A big issue is that having zones allowed people to make up somewhat for the deficiencies in Amtrak's routes. e.g. in the past ATL to MIA was reasonable as a one zone because there is no direct route between these major cities. Now you have to pay ATL to WAS and WAS to MIA. That means that what could have been a reasonably priced ticket on a direct route is unreasonably priced both in cash and therefore in points.

Same for DAL to anywhere not on TE route. Go to CHI or LA first. Huge points expense.

 

[nferr]

Not all trips come out worse in points. Just priced out BRP to SFC in July, then SFC to LAX, and LAX to BRP. Roomette all the way. Used Amsnag to get decent buckets. Came to $1752 or 60,444 points. That trip would be 85,000 points under the old system although I would probably pay for the SFC/LAX portion since that's not worth burning 15,000 points IMO. Even with a second passenger it's about 83,000 points (that's where the new system really hurts IMO). So it's not necessarily a killer. Does do away with the real roundabout trips where you could really get a bargain under the old rules. Did a couple of those myself.

 

[Ispolkom]

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.

This statement is patently untrue. The vast majority of Amtrak passengers don't ride sleepers. Heck, a large majority of Amtrak trains do not have sleepers.

AGR isn't there to reward sleeper passengers. They are already a captive market, after all. AGR is a marketing program to encourage people to ride trains in major corridors rather than fly or drive. The fact that you earn and can spend points on long-distance trains is a ancillary aspect of the program.

 

[jis]

That is true. It is only a vast minority that rides Sleepers, admittedly one that might have a disproportionate feeling of entitlement because of the higher fares that they pay. But when computed on a per mile basis it is the NEC passengers that really shell out the big bucks.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

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.

This statement is patently untrue. The vast majority of Amtrak passengers don't ride sleepers. Heck, a large majority of Amtrak trains do not have sleepers.

AGR isn't there to reward sleeper passengers. They are already a captive market, after all. AGR is a marketing program to encourage people to ride trains in major corridors rather than fly or drive. The fact that you earn and can spend points on long-distance trains is a ancillary aspect of the program.

That is true. It is only a vast minority that rides Sleepers, admittedly one that might have a disproportionate feeling of entitlement because of the higher fares that they pay. But when computed on a per mile basis it is the NEC passengers that really shell out the big bucks.

Okay, I'll completely concede the point about "vast majority" - of course the majority of Amtrak passengers are in the NEC. Whether it's a "vast majority" or not is simply a matter of semantics.

But I completely disagree with the points both of you made about the AGR program & the response of people like myself who are unhappy with the changes.

For one, to state that AGR "isn't there to reward sleeper passengers" is simultaneously false and irrelevant. False because under both the old and new AGR systems, passengers can earn points and spend points for long distance travel. It "exists" for everyone who travels on Amtrak. This point is also irrelevant, as who exactly can state the "purpose" of AGR- or the purpose of Amtrak itself for that matter? Amtrak takes passengers from point A to point B. Amtrak serves its purpose when passengers take Amtrak trains; all train travel serves this purpose. The NEC may be far more popular and financially beneficial, but it is no more purposeful than any other area of the country.

Secondly, I have not stated - and I haven't seen anyone else state - that they are "entitled" to any benefits as part of the AGR program, or that we're entitled to an AGR program at all. I'm simply disappointed that I no longer get the benefits I used to get. I'd also be upset if my local grocery store suddenly doubled its prices, or if my favorite restaurant closed its location near me, yet I'm not entitled to either of those things. How, exactly, am I supposed to react to these changes to AGR? Am I supposed to be excited that I'll be paying more? Does paying more for stuff generally make people happy? I understand WHY Amtrak made these changes, I just don't LIKE it, and for good reason. I don't understand people like you two, and the author of the article previously mentioned, who expect people like me to be happy about this.

 

[tonys96]

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.

This statement is patently untrue. The vast majority of Amtrak passengers don't ride sleepers. Heck, a large majority of Amtrak trains do not have sleepers.

AGR isn't there to reward sleeper passengers. They are already a captive market, after all. AGR is a marketing program to encourage people to ride trains in major corridors rather than fly or drive. The fact that you earn and can spend points on long-distance trains is a ancillary aspect of the program.

That is true. It is only a vast minority that rides Sleepers, admittedly one that might have a disproportionate feeling of entitlement because of the higher fares that they pay. But when computed on a per mile basis it is the NEC passengers that really shell out the big bucks.

Okay, I'll completely concede the point about "vast majority" - of course the majority of Amtrak passengers are in the NEC. Whether it's a "vast majority" or not is simply a matter of semantics.

But I completely disagree with the points both of you made about the AGR program & the response of people like myself who are unhappy with the changes.

For one, to state that AGR "isn't there to reward sleeper passengers" is simultaneously false and irrelevant. False because under both the old and new AGR systems, passengers can earn points and spend points for long distance travel. It "exists" for everyone who travels on Amtrak. This point is also irrelevant, as who exactly can state the "purpose" of AGR- or the purpose of Amtrak itself for that matter? Amtrak takes passengers from point A to point B. Amtrak serves its purpose when passengers take Amtrak trains; all train travel serves this purpose. The NEC may be far more popular and financially beneficial, but it is no more purposeful than any other area of the country.

Secondly, I have not stated - and I haven't seen anyone else state - that they are "entitled" to any benefits as part of the AGR program, or that we're entitled to an AGR program at all. I'm simply disappointed that I no longer get the benefits I used to get. I'd also be upset if my local grocery store suddenly doubled its prices, or if my favorite restaurant closed its location near me, yet I'm not entitled to either of those things. How, exactly, am I supposed to react to these changes to AGR? Am I supposed to be excited that I'll be paying more? Does paying more for stuff generally make people happy? I understand WHY Amtrak made these changes, I just don't LIKE it, and for good reason. I don't understand people like you two, and the author of the article previously mentioned, who expect people like me to be happy about this.

Ditto.

And this statement: "AGR is a marketing program to encourage people to ride trains in major corridors rather than fly or drive." is patently ridiculous. If this were the case, only NEC riders (vast majority in coach) would get points, and only the NEC trains would be available for rewards.

 

[Ispolkom]

D.P. Roberts, if AGR wasn't invented to lure passengers in the NEC, why did it appear as part of the roll out of Acela? Why do all the benefits of status except extra points only benefit people in corridors? And honest, I don't care how you feel about the changes to AGR. They affect me negatively, but I don't pretend that the reduction of free sleeper travel to me might not improve things for most AGR members. Important note, our disagreement isn't about semantics, but about arithmetic. To repeat, the vast majority of Amtrak passengers ride coach. These AGR changes don't affect them.

tony96, please note my last sentence. Key word there is ancillary. Just because a program provides a function doesn't mean that the intent or the goal of the program was to provide that function.

My whole hobby of exploiting frequent-traveler programs is based on this concept. Corporations create programs with some intent. I use them to create value for myself, in ways that often have nothing to do with that intent. I don't expect the corporation to like it, and I'm not surprised if they change things to eliminate my exploit. It's all in the game, as Omar Little said. Me, rather than complaining about changes, I'm on to the next thing. This ain't my first rodeo.

 

[tonys96]

D.P. Roberts, if AGR wasn't invented to lure passengers in the NEC, why did it appear as part of the roll out of Acela? Why do all the benefits of status except extra points only benefit people in corridors? And honest, I don't care how you feel about the changes to AGR. They affect me negatively, but I don't pretend that the reduction of free sleeper travel to me might not improve things for most AGR members. Important note, our disagreement isn't about semantics, but about arithmetic. To repeat, the vast majority of Amtrak passengers ride coach. These AGR changes don't affect them.

tony96, please note my last sentence. Key word there is ancillary. Just because a program provides a function doesn't mean that the intent or the goal of the program was to provide that function.

My whole hobby of exploiting frequent-traveler programs is based on this concept. Corporations create programs with some intent. I use them to create value for myself, in ways that often have nothing to do with that intent. I don't expect the corporation to like it, and I'm not surprised if they change things to eliminate my exploit. It's all in the game, as Omar Little said. Me, rather than complaining about changes, I'm on to the next thing. This ain't my first rodeo.

I totally disagree with your premise. IMHO, it is a false narrative.

AGR is there to entice all travelers to try/use Amtrak. Not those in any particular location or "corridor". That said, the new changes do seem to benefit the NEC more than any other part of the system, but the AGR program is still a marketing tool for all of the system. Again, IMHO.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I'm totally with Tony on this, but since Amtrak and AGR didn't ask their customers for input on the New and Unimproved AGR2.0, there's really nothing we can do except vote with our wallet by spending travel money on other affordable means of transportation!(Amtrak currently is not affordable nor worth what they charge for the declining level of services)

But they don't care, the NEC is all that matters to them and the apologists that approve of this devaluation and favoritism certainly are entitled to their opinions. (however wrong they may be! )

 

[D.P. Roberts]

And honest, I don't care how you feel about the changes to AGR. They affect me negatively, but I don't pretend that the reduction of free sleeper travel to me might not improve things for most AGR members. Important note, our disagreement isn't about semantics, but about arithmetic. To repeat, the vast majority of Amtrak passengers ride coach. These AGR changes don't affect them.

My whole hobby of exploiting frequent-traveler programs is based on this concept. Me, rather than complaining about changes, I'm on to the next thing. This ain't my first rodeo.

1. I don't care that you don't care how I feel. (Yay, we're getting meta again!)

2. Who implied that "the reduction of free sleeper travel" "might not improve things for most AGR members"? Like many people, I'm simply expressing my own frustration - not just at Amtrak, but at all the people (like you) who aren't just stating that my concerns are irrelevant to Amtrak, but that they don't EXIST.

3. Personally, exploiting frequent-traveler programs isn't my hobby. I don't participate in any other frequent traveler programs, or travel long distance (more than a few hours) by any other means other than Amtrak. Taking long-distance train travel might even be considered a hobby for some, but for me it's how I choose to actually get around the country. And if it affects me, it also affects a whole lot of other people who travel long distance in sleepers, and might affect my future ability to travel that way (if enough other sleeper passengers are also affected). So yeah, I can see how it bothers me more than it might bother you.

 

[jis]

I have not said anything about anyone being happy about it. At least I did not intend to.

Personally I am happy about some aspects and unhappy about others. It is a mixed bag. How happy one is or not overall depend on how the new scheme fits ones normal travel patterns or not.

 

[Carolina Special]

So just to confuse the whole NEC/LD issue, Amtrak on comes out with their "500 Destinations. Infinite Stories." nationwide ad campaign, said to be the first in 15 years. Includes nice shots of the Rockies and the desert in their videos and stills.

 

[tricia]

I'd bet that Amtrak passenger usage would be less disproportionately on the NEC if Amtrak's routes and frequencies weren't so skeletal in most of the rest of the US.

Changing AGR to further favor NEC travelers can only make this worse: Making it even less attractive to travel outside the NEC makes it likely that even fewer passengers will do so.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

I absolutely agree, tricia!

There seems to be some disconnect between Amtrak's marketing department, which does a lovely job of portraying Amtrak the way it should be, and the actual management, which seems to be praising long-distance while secretly trying to get rid of it. I live along the NEC, but I truly wish that the rest of the country had the amount of stations and trains that we take for granted here.

 

[Carolina Special]

Perhaps the savings from devaluing the AGR program are going into the new national advertising campaign. Since the price of LD travel is effectively going up, there is more incentive to advertise and put rear ends in the seats and berths than there was previously.

The video with the couple saying they have done "Europe, Asia, even Africa, now America" suggests an appeal to the high end market.

 

[tonys96]

I'd bet that Amtrak passenger usage would be less disproportionately on the NEC if Amtrak's routes and frequencies weren't so skeletal in most of the rest of the US.

Changing AGR to further favor NEC travelers can only make this worse: Making it even less attractive to travel outside the NEC makes it likely that even fewer passengers will do so.

Agreed.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Really nice posts Carolina Special, tricia and MRD!!

I wish the mica-managers @ Amtrak saw it this way!

 

[siberianmo]

More of My Two Cents:

This topic has become magnetic - really something that has triggered all sorts of oh-pin-yuns, commentary, insights, etc. Cannot keep away . . .

My BOA M/Card is all set up and has arrived in the mail. Fortunately, we have just had a rather extensive home project completed - that will go

"on the card."

Called Chase once again to reaffirm how to cancel that Freedom Signature card - cancel their Guest Rewards card and that is that.

This 'n that:

I have been in the camp of those who love traveling by train, but could really care less who the operator is (providing of course, rail safety standards

are adhered to!). An earlier comment regarding Amtrak's advertising as opposed to the reality of the travel is spot on. The boardroom apparently

has not seen the light of day through a coach or bedroom window in many moons.

I wonder: How can someone decide what is "best" when that someone has not either conferred with those who do the job or gained first hand experience

by getting on the scene themselves? Far too many times I have witnessed changes to what used-to-work to what-became-annoying, only to find out from

the crew members that they were not asked. Most probably just the way it goes when you have those at the top breathing the rarified air.

A shame the Guest Rewards Moguls are not reading the comments or more importantly, traveling with us.

Another foto from my recent "gaming the system" trip (aka: cashing in Guest Rewards points)!

Foto is of a private car coupled to my sleeper car at Ft. Worth aboard the northbound Texas Eagle #422.

The car? Northern Charters #800710 - Sleeper Lounge, Northern Dreams. (One can find this outfit on Northern Sky Rail Charters.)

Enjoy this fine day!

 

[Eric S]

But was AGR changed to favor NEC riders only, or corridor riders more generally?

 

[PaulM]

But was AGR changed to favor NEC riders only, or corridor riders more generally?

Based on the complaints about NEC high prices, I would say eliminating the 100 point minimum targets Midwest corridors. CHI-QCY typically $28; CHI-STL typically $27 (they can get much higher close to departure date).

 

[Eric S]

But was AGR changed to favor NEC riders only, or corridor riders more generally?

Based on the complaints about NEC high prices, I would say eliminating the 100 point minimum targets Midwest corridors. CHI-QCY typically $28; CHI-STL typically $27 (they can get much higher close to departure date).

True, I hadn't considered the 100 point change. Although that affects any corridors with fares under $50, which would also include California corridors and others.

 

[jis]

Then again NEC lost the 500 and 750 Acela minimums between select city pairs.

I think the system was always biased towards the NEC. It was most likely not a coincidence that it was introduced with the Acelas. Also the 500 minimum is unlikely to be just a coincidence that it is exactly the same number of minimum miles per segment that Continental had back then, and it was also unlikely to be a coincidence that Amtrak points were transferable to Continental miles one for one. The rest of AGR was bolted onto the basic need to make Acela competitive with airlines on the NEC, at which it did succeed BTW.

I am not saying that therefore things should not be improved viz a viz LD service. But to forget the origins would lead one astray in the attempts to understand the evolution.

Perhaps what is needed is two separate plans, one for corridors that are airline competitive and another for the rest with some cross redemption features. The business imperatives and the nature of the customers of these two groups almost appear to be irreconcilably different.