Amtrak moving forward to stop all, most LDT

[Thirdrail7]

Oh geez.  That is the hammer being dropped.  Amtrak will probably have to restore LSL meal service among other things.

Until Anderson waves PRIIA and says "this is what you asked for. If you disagree with our position, THIS is how much it will cost you."  Will Congress fork over the funds? He's putting the ball in their court. We'll soon find out how much support is available...and what is being supported.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Until Anderson waves PRIIA and says "this is what you asked for. If you disagree wit hour position, THIS is how much it will cost you."  Will Congress fork over the funds? He's putting the ball in their court. We'll soon find out how much support is available...and what is being supported.

It’s minimal in the big picture. They appropriated $50 million extra for the SWC pretty easily. Less than that should cover the food and beverage mandate. Amtrak will ask for 4x that I’m sure though. Hence the problem Amtrak management can’t be trusted at this point to be transparent.

It can be argued contemporary   dining is actually costing Amtrak money in ridership and revenue. Unfortunately it will take 2-3 years to prove it, first year numbers will look good until ridership drops. 

Same can be said for unmanned stations, some people still pay by cash or don’t have net access. 

Biggest expense for LDT trains is the refleeting or overhaul of the Superliners.  I don’t even think that’s a problem with this Congress. If anything I could see Congress being upset about the delivered CAF cars not being used effectively. I understand convection type ovens are being installed, is that the reason half them are parked? Anderson needs to be asked hard questions IN PERSON, not writing. I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t respond to last weeks letter at all. 

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Am I alone in getting this feeling?:

 

[cpotisch]

This took me way too long, but I have turned the letter into actual text. This makes quoting and searching infinitely easier, so...you're welcome. ^_^

February 22, 2019

Mr. Richard Anderson

President and Chief Executive Officer

Amtrak

1 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington, DC. 20001

Dear Mr. Anderson:

We write to raise concerns shared with us by various stakeholders regarding changes that Amtrak has recently implemented and is reportedly considering making to its operations. We are concerned that such changes will diminish the valuable service Amtrak offers the public, and we request that Amtrak provide us with additional information on these actions.

As you know, Amtrak plays an important role in our national transportation system. Every year, millions of passengers rely on Amtrak to reach their destinations. This includes the 12.1 million people who traveled the Northeast Corridor and the nearly 20 million passengers served by Amtrak’s state—supported and long—distance routes in Fiscal Year 2018. While Amtrak plays a significant role in the NEC, the railroads national network is crucial to maintaining a truly national passenger railroad system. Amtrak’s web of state-supported routes and 15 long-distance routes provide service to 40 percent of the country’s rural and small communities, creating a vital link between urban and rural centers. Through its customers and direct employment of more than 20,000 workers, Amtrak helps contribute tens of billions of dollars to our national economy.

Given the benefits Amtrak provides to its passengers, our communities, and our economy, it is crucial that we maintain a viable intercity passenger rail network. Doing so requires that Amtrak provide the quality service its passengers want and expect. This is why we are concerned by recent changes Amtrak has reportedly implemented, such as eliminating station agents at stations that average fewer than 40 passengers a day. This change eliminates more than 20 agents at 15 stations throughout the country, limiting passengers’ access to onsite travel support at those facilities. Reportedly, some of those agents were replaced with contract employees responsible for caring for the station’s facilities but not providing comparable passenger support. Amtrak also recently closed its reservation call center in Riverside, California, where nearly 500 personnel remotely assisted passengers in securing and adjusting Amtrak travel. Shuttering this facility reduced the number of personnel familiar with Amtrak’s routes, schedules, and amenities who are available to capably support passengers in need of assistance.

We have also heard from numerous stakeholders who are concerned about the future of onboard food and beverage services, a feature of intercity passenger rail travel that bolsters ridership by drawing travelers to Amtrak In June 2018, dining car service was eliminated on Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited long-distance routes. Passengers traveling these routes no longer have access to meals freshly prepared onboard, including sleeper car passengers whose premium ticket fare includes the cost of meals. Instead, sleeper car passengers receive reheated pre-cooked meals and other passengers only have access to quick-service foods, such as sandwiches and snacks. As a result of this change, career Amtrak employees who provided dining car service lost their jobs with little warning.

We also understand that Amtrak has issued a Request for Information (RFI) soliciting information on “transformational service models and industry best practices” relating to food and beverage services — information that Amtrak may use to develop a Request for Proposal. As the RFI explains, past attempts by Amtrak to reduce the quality of this service were reversed after the ridership objected to the changes. Stakeholders worry this RFI may lead to attempts by Amtrak to contract-out food and beverage service — reducing the quality passengers expect at the expense of Amtrak employees.

In addition, we understand Amtrak has reduced benefits enjoyed by its ridership community, including ending discounts for veterans, AAA members, and students while raising the qualifying age and reducing the discount for seniors. Amtrak has also nearly eliminated all charter services or special trains and has significantly scaled back opportunities for private cars to travel on Amtrak trains, instituting switching location restrictions and increasing fees.

We are concerned that the changes Amtrak has made and those it may be. considering will erode ridership and harm the viability of Amtrak, especially the National Network. Maintaining an intercity passenger rail system that is truly national in scope is crucial to providing transportation access to many rural and small communities. Moreover, it is required by law. When Congress created Amtrak, we specifically called for a national system in which Amtrak would operate a national rail passenger transportation system that includes not only the NEC, but also state supported and long- distance routes.

As a quasi-public corporation entrusted with this statutory responsibility, Amtrak must uphold the law. Amtrak cannot seek to circumvent obligations by enacting a series of unilateral
changes that harm ridership until the provision of a national passenger railroad becomes untenable. Rather, any changes to the National Network or Amtrak’s duty of providing a national service must be sanctioned by Congress alone. Lastly, as a railroad subject to federal law and labor standards“, it is incumbent upon Amtrak to provide quality jobs with the appropriate benefits. It must not seek to reduce costs by replacing its employees with a contracted workforce.

To address these concerns, we request that Amtrak reply to each of the following questions no later than March 8, 2019:

• Does Amtrak remain committed to meeting its statutory responsibility of providing a national intercity passenger rail network that includes state-supported and long- distance routes in addition to the NEC? Will Amtrak continue to maintain current state- support and long-distance routes, until directed otherwise by Congress?
  

• Is Amtrak considering further reductions in the assistance it provides passengers at stations throughout the system? If so, what services are under consideration and which stations may be impacted?
  

• Is Amtrak considering additional changes to its reservation call center service?
  

• What led Amtrak to eliminate dining car service on the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited routes? Is Amtrak considering eliminating dining car service or otherwise altering food and beverage services currently offered on other long- distance routes?
  

• Regarding the RFI referenced above, how will Amtrak measure whether the service models or best practices submitted will improve Amtrak’s financial performance and customer experience — the goals stated in the RFI? W111 Amtrak consult with Congress and stakeholders during its examination and consideration of submissions and prior to issuing any potential food and beverage Request for Proposals?
  

• The RFI asks each responding entity to indicate whether it would “be deemed a ‘Rail Carrier’” under federal regulations — a designation that obligates significant worker benefits. The RFI also requests entities to consider staffing “with and without Amtrak employees now performing” food and beverage services and poses a series of staffing-related questions. Is Amtrak considering contracting- out this work? How will replies relating to the “rail carrier” designation impact Amtrak’s assessment of the response? How does Amtrak perceive its responsibility to comply with the protections included in 49 USC 24321 (Section 11207, PL 114-94), which protect workers from involuntary separation as a result of a plan to eliminate onboard food and beverage service operating losses?
  

• Is Amtrak considering further changes that would limit the ability of private car owners to travel on Amtrak trains? If so, please provide the basis for such changes, as a recent Inspector General report critiqued Amtrak’s management of the private car service, including a lack of information on the costs of the service (OIG—A-2019-003).
  

• Is Amtrak considering or planning to make changes to its maintenance facilities, including closing or consolidating them or contracting—out the work currently performed at them? If so, please describe such changes.
  

We look forward to receiving your response. If you have questions or need further information, please contact the majority staff of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials at (202) 225-3274.

 ​

Sincerely,​

[Five pages of Signatures]​

This part really stood out to me since it covers some of the ambiguous language regarding station staffing that was mentioned with the FY2019 appropriation.

Reportedly, some of those agents were replaced with contract employees responsible for caring for the station’s facilities but not providing comparable passenger support.

So 1@Thirdrail7[/USER], would you say that it seems like Congress is finally getting fed up with all these service cuts and loopholes and such?

 

[Thirdrail7]

So 1@Thirdrail7[/USER], would you say that it seems like Congress is finally getting fed up with all these service cuts and loopholes and such?

Nope. It sounds like they are speaking in double talk and are ignorant of the legislation they pass. They also seem to have forgotten they are not dealing with a politicians in Mr. Anderson and Mr. Naperstak.  In the case of Mr. Gardner, well, he had a hand in drafting PRIIA and has experience in legislation.

Such men will have a field day with the letter posted.

Hell, most of the people on this board can shoot down this posturing letter.

What group passed the law regarding Amtrak's funding?

What group passed a law that basically states (paraphrasing) NO FEDERAL FUNDS ARE TO USED FOR F&B LOSSES BY 2020 (which is right around the corner and the direct cause of the loss of dining services, the exploration of outsourcing, the box lunches)?

What group instructed Amtrak to reduce  its losses, subsidies and operate more like a business?

What group instructed Amtrak to explore different routes and explore new opportunities?

What group failed to stop Amtrak from closing Riverside when they had the chance?

What group doesn't want to properly fund Amtrak to cover the services it already has?

Do you really think these men aren't going to shove this right back into the laps of Congress??? The set up is as clear as day! We've already seen them do it, particularly in the case of Riverside.  It is easy for Congress to posture and write letters. Now, will they put their money where there mouth is when it comes time to put money to mouth?  Perhaps they will.

Then, we'll see if they are fed up.

 

[cpotisch]

Nope. It sounds like they are speaking in double talk and are ignorant of the legislation they pass. They also seem to have forgotten they are not dealing with a politicians in Mr. Anderson and Mr. Naperstak.  In the case of Mr. Gardner, well, he had a hand in drafting PRIIA and has experience in legislation.

Such men will have a field day with the letter posted.

Hell, most of the people on this board can shoot down this posturing letter.

What group passed the law regarding Amtrak's funding?

What group passed a law that basically states (paraphrasing) NO FEDERAL FUNDS ARE TO USED FOR F&B LOSSES BY 2020 (which is right around the corner and the direct cause of the loss of dining services, the exploration of outsourcing, the box lunches)?

What group instructed Amtrak to reduce  its losses, subsidies and operate more like a business?

What group instructed Amtrak to explore different routes and explore new opportunities?

What group failed to stop Amtrak from closing Riverside when they had the chance?

What group doesn't want to properly fund Amtrak to cover the services it already has?

Do you really think these men aren't going to shove this right back into the laps of Congress??? The set up is as clear as day! We've already seen them do it, particularly in the case of Riverside.  It is easy for Congress to posture and write letters. Now, will they put their money where there mouth is when it comes time to put money to mouth?  Perhaps they will.

Then, we'll see if they are fed up.

So you're saying that you don't think this letter will have any effect or is any indication of real change to come?

 

[Thirdrail7]

So you're saying that you don't think this letter will have any effect or is any indication of real change to come?

I'm saying what I've said all along. Words are cheap. Action speaks louder and words and I've said for quite time, we're dealing with an evil genius:

I see a petition has formed. Perhaps Mr. Anderson is an evil genius. I will elaborate in the CEO thread.

Truthfully, I wouldnt go that far, Mystic. The reality of the situation is no sane railroader wants the job. He came in to run it like a business and he knows the airline business. Plus, he has made it perfectly clear that he is attempting to run it according to the PRIIA. Others have attempted to ignore certain points of it but he isnt. I

If PRIIA allowed him to lose a ton of money in F&B service, Im not sure hed go for it but at least there wouldnt be a timeline for eliminating the losses. This is why I suggested he may be an evil genius He'll ram PRIIA right up their nostrils and say this is what you wrote and Congress will have to put their money where their mouths are or stand aside.

These are just proposals. Nothing is firm yet. There is plenty of time for negotiation, politics, ploys and other shenanigans. That being said, I still have high hopes we are dealing with an evil genius. I've mentioned it before. Sometimes, you have to give people what they want and let them see how it plays out. In this case, the 'people" are "Congress,' and instead of sidestepping the issues, he's diving right into it...and people are taking notice:

Let's see. He's overseeing the cuts in amenities, services and sooner or later, probably routes or stops. However, it is also going after things like specials, charters and pet projects of supporters. He wants to get back to the "core" business, but wants to make a profit.

 

As such, people are writing their representatives, high profile groups are starting to complain and that leads to lobbying.

 

All the while, he's clutching PRIIA and saying this is what you want!

 

At that point, they'll either say continue on and he'll be justified or they'll either have to fund what he cuts or write it into some kind of law, at which point he'll say "stop complaining."

 

This was similar to Gunn's way of doing things. Perhaps he is starting to push the right buttons.

 

Continue to write....and soon!

 

 

People are writing ( I hope) which means Congress will start paying attention. They already are. A senator already proposed adding staffing requirements to the funding. Who knows what the next person will add/ It may say you WILL operate the SW Chief.....

 

There may never be a better time to take action.

He constantly weaponizes PRIIA and shoves it right back in the face of Congress. He'll likely do the same thing again. If Mr. Anderson states he is considering further reduction in F&B services and outsourcing based upon the provisions of PRIIA, will Congress change the law? Will they change the provisions of PRIIA? 

I don't think letters will change much. Funding will and if they don't want to increase funding the entire operation, then I believe we are back to where I suspected we'd be quite some time ago...particularly the last little paragraph:



 

 

[jis]

Actually all that this message from the Congresscritters indicates is the sort of things that they are now aware of and will probably address in the Amtrak Reauthorization Bill. That is where both PRIIA and PRRIA initiated regulations are open for rescission and modification. In the past it has been hard to get the attention of the Congresscritters on this subject, since in the overall scheme of things, Amtrak's budget is so tiny that it has a tendency to get lost in the noise and then get dropped through the cracks by some nut case extreme ideologue attacking it. So my thought is that the "Evil Genius" is succeeding in his mission. At this point, what the reply to those questions are, if any is forthcoming at all, is less important than the bigger picture.

 

[DSS&A]

Actually all that this message from the Congresscritters indicates is the sort of things that they are now aware of and will probably address in the Amtrak Reauthorization Bill. That is where both PRIIA and PRRIA initiated regulations are open for rescission and modification. In the past it has been hard to get the attention of the Congresscritters on this subject, since in the overall scheme of things, Amtrak's budget is so tiny that it has a tendency to get lost in the noise and then get dropped through the cracks by some nut case extreme ideologue attacking it. So my thought is that the "Evil Genius" is succeeding in his mission. At this point, what the reply to those questions are, if any is forthcoming at all, is less important than the bigger picture.

Thirdrail and jis are correct.  PRIIA legislation, along with decades of underfunding, has created the current situation.  A new a better Amtrak Rauthorization with passenger train supportive language AND MORE MONEY can change the direction for Amtrak's future. Anderson is giving the legislature a true picture of the results of THEIR directives and limited funds in PRIIA. So, contact your representatives and tell them how you want the new reauthorization language to read and ask for more funding.  Labor, new equipment, track improvements, stations, signal systems and track access fees for curewnt and more service are expensive. 

 

[jis]

Actually, the money amount put in Authorization Bill are at best aspirational. More often than not Congress appropriates much less, and of late they have even gone out and appropriated a bit more than authorized AFAIR. Part of the problem now is, after the reorganization of the line items in appropriation, it is not always clear which ones count against what is in the previous Authorization bill.

It is the policy directives that find their way into regulations (read CFRs and such) which are more critical. Money battles have to be fought each year in THUD Appropriations. Making Amtrak a formula automatic base amount like FHA plus additional something if so desired, has failed so far.

 

[TiBike]

I read the letter a little differently. Looking at what the top concerns are, and at the buzz about it elsewhere on the interwebs, the letter is about union issues, and not about long distance service as such, or rail fan angst of any kind. It's signed by democrats and focuses on the loss of union jobs – it's the kind of letter politicians are happy to sign on behalf of major campaign contributors, and for the members who signed it, there is no bigger contributor than labor.

I've seen this many times before, in my industry: unions jump into legislative debates and regulatory proceedings, apparently in opposition, in order to have a seat at the table when deals are cut. Sometimes agreement can't be reached and the status quo is preserved. More often, unions negotiate a sufficiently large slice of the pie, and then flip and back the deal wholeheartedly. There's a lot on the table this year, including billions in infrastructure repair/upgrades, which is also a union concern. Construction unions, not rail, but they'll want their piece too.

This is the legislative sausage machine at work.

 

[Thirdrail7]

 the letter is about union issues, and not about long distance service as such

This is hardly conclusive. According to the railroads, what is their biggest costs?

LABOR.

This is not unique to the railroad industry and this is not unique to Amtrak. This is why the intent of acts such as PRIIA was to control your costs. In an ideal world, they would do it through a creative process like finding a way to get people to your train.  By filling the seats on the train instead of cutting the size of the trains. However, legislators probably recognize the easiest thing to cut is labor. That is likely why they stated in PRIIA that they should eliminate F&B losses without just cutting the entire product. Clean up your house, identify your costs, identify your expenses and refine your product.

Another example is the private cars. They made wholesale changes to product, declared that it was too expensive to perform services en route, and the delays were too much. Yet, there was no documentation that backed up these claims. Indeed, the IG basically stated that Amtrak has no idea about the costs or controls of this operation.

Then, they allegedly have dubious accounting claims regarding the costs, allocations of their products.

Yet, have we seen refined accounting? Have we seen a definition of the allocations? Have we seen consistent application of how the expenses are calculated?

No.

What have we seen?

The LD trains lose a ton of money.

The LD trains only carry a small percentage from end point to end point.

The Dining car (which competes against your cafe car on a train that the company slashed the capacity to divert equipment to various state supported services) losses too much, but if we outsource it, it might help.

The stations agents cost too much money and everyone can but tickets on the internet.

Speaking of the internet, we no longer need as many reservation offices since they cost money. After all, out website (which still doesn't have the correct schedules and STILL hasn't mentioned that ALL of the San Joaquins are reserved) is always up to snuff and a chock full of information.

Now, I'm not saying some of this may not have merit. However. it is called low hanging fruit, Tibike.  The solutions offered are the typical low hanging fruit solutions.  Continued hacks at labor, while not addressing the trunk issue: your accounting process, your allocation process, your billing process, your  marketing process.

That is why PRIIA also stated in the bid to  operate 3 long distance trains, the compensation must be comparable. This was put into to keep some company from saying "Ok, we'll pay everyone $9.00 an hour and save a fortune. We'll easily meet the 90% of Amtrak subsidy  requirement." 

 

[neroden]

Until Anderson waves PRIIA and says "this is what you asked for. If you disagree with our position, THIS is how much it will cost you."  Will Congress fork over the funds? He's putting the ball in their court. We'll soon find out how much support is available...and what is being supported.

Yeah, no.  Anderson is having his head handed to him.  I'm thinking of going to RPA/NARP's Day on the Hill and handing out copies of RPA's White Paper on Amtrak's fraudulent route accounting. Once the members of the Transpo Committee see that (and I suspect many have already seen it), they're going to be completely unsympathetic to bullshitting from Mr. Anderson.

He's going to be told that he doesn't get to cut anything until he gets his accounting straight.  Which is as it should be; it's appalling that they haven't gotten their accounting straight in 40 years.

 

[neroden]

Another example is the private cars. They made wholesale changes to product, declared that it was too expensive to perform services en route, and the delays were too much. Yet, there was no documentation that backed up these claims. Indeed, the IG basically stated that Amtrak has no idea about the costs or controls of this operation.

Then, they allegedly have dubious accounting claims regarding the costs, allocations of their products.

Yet, have we seen refined accounting? Have we seen a definition of the allocations? Have we seen consistent application of how the expenses are calculated?

No.

This is the biggest issue.  And frankly Congress doesn't like falsified accounting, once they notice it.  They really don't.

What have we seen?

The LD trains lose a ton of money.

Which is a lie on the part of Amtrak.

The LD trains only carry a small percentage from end point to end point.

Which is irrelevant.

The Dining car (which competes against your cafe car on a train that the company slashed the capacity to divert equipment to various state supported services) losses too much, but if we outsource it, it might help.

That one *might* be true, but who knows?

The stations agents cost too much money and everyone can but tickets on the internet.

Speaking of the internet, we no longer need as many reservation offices since they cost money. After all, out website (which still doesn't have the correct schedules and STILL hasn't mentioned that ALL of the San Joaquins are reserved) is always up to snuff and a chock full of information.

Now, I'm not saying some of this may not have merit. However. it is called low hanging fruit, Tibike.  The solutions offered are the typical low hanging fruit solutions.  Continued hacks at labor, while not addressing the trunk issue: your accounting process, your allocation process, your billing process, your  marketing process.

Exactly.  Now, I think Congress is waking up to this "Distraction tactic" by Amtrak.  Get the White Paper in the hands of enough Representatives... see what happens....

Frankly, Mr. Anderson shouldn't like falsified accounting either.  I'm very sick right now and have to focus on medical stuff, but I'm happy to lend my weight to the effort to force Amtrak to get its accounting straight.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Yeah, no.  Anderson is having his head handed to him.  I'm thinking of going to RPA/NARP's Day on the Hill and handing out copies of RPA's White Paper on Amtrak's fraudulent route accounting. Once the members of the Transpo Committee see that (and I suspect many have already seen it), they're going to be completely unsympathetic to bullshitting from Mr. Anderson.

I'd love for you to be right but can you show me all of this "having his head handed to him?" When Congress stepped in with their letter to not close Riverside for 30 days, he shut it anyway and quoted PRIAA. The response it right in my post above.

Some Congressperson wanted them to save the Solari board.  it is gone.

West Virginia was the lead cheerleader regarding private car operations. They have been severely curtailed....even though the independent IG stated there isn''t really a basis for it.  Now, the NRG train is no more.

When they raise the issue about the dining cars, PRIIA has it in black in white....and he will wave it at them...just like he did when he shut Riverside.

When  he refused the Toys For Tots train, he stated it wasn't in their charter and not a thing happened...except someone else operated it. 

Even if he blinks, it still comes with a bill. He wants to curtail the LD trains. He floated a proposal to hack up the SWC.  Congress ordered him not to do AND GAVE AN APPROPRIATION to fund track work. Once that happened, he released the funds. Sounds like you received funding to me and that is a victory that I hope is repeated.

Although there has been some set backs, he's had a fair amount of success...although I'm not sure you want Congress staring at you.

He's going to be told that he doesn't get to cut anything until he gets his accounting straight.  Which is as it should be; it's appalling that they haven't gotten their accounting straight in 40 years.

I like this! Whatever happened to that letter you wrote to the Board? Did you ever get a response?

 

[jis]

Actually the odd thing about the so called appropriation for SWC is that it is just a set aside from the general appropriation for National System telling him he cannot spend it on anything else. If they trusted him (e.g., if he was someone like Claytor) they would most likely not have done a set aside. Just a minor detail worth noting. I think he can expect a lot more of micro management of this sort, which at the end of the day is bad IMHO.

My fear is that Congress will simply remove the F&B language and possibly replace it with F&B restoration language and not add anything in appropriation and let him figure out how to restore F&B. Congress is very well known for doing unfunded mandates. Personally I like things to be above board. But for that to happen, Anderson also needs to be above board and fix his frickin' accounting which through no fault of his, he inherited. But there is no reason for him to blindly follow its nonsensical outcomes.

At the end of the day everyone might come out bloodied and Amtrak still on the verge of collapse. That is the fear I have and I don't like it.

 

[TiBike]

This is hardly conclusive. According to the railroads, what is their biggest costs?

LABOR.

-- snip --

Now, I'm not saying some of this may not have merit. However. it is called low hanging fruit, Tibike.  The solutions offered are the typical low hanging fruit solutions.  Continued hacks at labor, while not addressing the trunk issue: your accounting process, your allocation process, your billing process, your  marketing process.

That is why PRIIA also stated in the bid to  operate 3 long distance trains, the compensation must be comparable. This was put into to keep some company from saying "Ok, we'll pay everyone $9.00 an hour and save a fortune. We'll easily meet the 90% of Amtrak subsidy  requirement." 

Without knowing the back story, it wouldn't be conclusive. It just looks that way to me, based on seeing it happen time and again in my world. Yes, Amtrak is going to target labor costs and the unions are going to use whatever political influence they have – universal on the democratic side, as the letter shows, but they have republican allies too – to push back. The comparable compensation requirement you cite is a perfect example. It's there to protect union jobs, same as so called prevailing wage requirements on public sector construction projects. It's always dressed up as a social equity issue, but it's about economics: more union employment means more union wages means more union dues means more political contributions. The letter is focused on items that impact union jobs, not on service issues as such. Nothing is said about on time performance, cleanliness, profitability or anything else that might reflect poorly on employees.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with going after low hanging fruit – you'd be a fool not to. Of the four things you cite, only marketing has a direct impact on the overall bottom line: Amtrak takes in X dollars and spends Y dollars, resulting in Z(ero) profit. Marketing is the X. The other three items impact how the company is managed and how the pie is cut. Those impact the bottom line, but indirectly. Marketing isn't just about advertising and promotion. It also involves pricing, product design, distribution and geographic targeting. I'd argue that Amtrak's biggest marketing sin is not changing the product mix.

Assuming Amtrak's subsidy and what it does with it generates enough political heat this year, the outcome will be determined by negotiations in Washington, with the biggest dogs at the table getting the biggest say in the outcome. This letter serves notice that labor is going to be one of the big dogs.

 

[cpotisch]

My fear is that Congress will simply remove the F&B language and possibly replace it with F&B restoration language and not add anything in appropriation and let him figure out how to restore F&B.

If they do put that sort of language in, do you think Anderson can be expected to really interpret that the way it's intended? I mean, for pretty much any change he's made, can't he just spin it as positive?

 

[jis]

If they do put that sort of language in, do you think Anderson can be expected to really interpret that the way it's intended? I mean, for pretty much any change he's made, can't he just spin it as positive?

Depends. At the end of the day Congress always has the upper hand, unfortunately in their bumbling way since they hold the pursestrings and can rescind anything they wish.

Actually, so far Anderson has been operating by the letter of the law using goofy accounting which is blessed by the Volpe Center and the FRA. It is not like he has been randomly inventing things. He certainly is waking many people from the wishful thinking stupor. I know this is an unpopular position to hold, but I think this hypothesis squares with the observed facts and all the panicked name calling and what not.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Without knowing the back story, it wouldn't be conclusive. It just looks that way to me, based on seeing it happen time and again in my world.

Yes, it is an old story.  As I said, it isn't unique to Amtrak. For years, companies have blamed labor, asked for concessions and since they don't go after the root issues, the place still shuts down, folds etc. The root cause was never addressed and yet it continues. It worked like a charm on you. Here you are, carping about Union protectionism yet the suspicious accounting, misappropriations that may show "Hey, we can actually afford the people we have and these routes aren't ANYWHERE NEAR as bad as we say" sail right over your head.  It even makes you say something uniformed like:

Of the four things you cite, only marketing has a direct impact on the overall bottom line

If your books are phony, your allocations misplaced and your billing process is flawed, you may not only cheat yourself of needed revenue, but not allocate costs to the appropriate line---which means you may target THE WRONG THINGS TO CORRECT. ALL of these things have a DIRECT impact to your bottom line. That was one of the biggest things in the private car IG report. You have no idea what it cost to perform this service so how can you say if it loses money, causes delays or makes money? You can't even answer if you're charging enough since there is no basis for your charges.  Therefore, you can't prove you're losing money based on its operations.   You can SAY it, but there is no  identifiable basis. The same can go for the LD trains. The costs of providing the train only fluctuate so much once the train is operating. If you run a three car train or a 14 car train, the ticket agent costs the same. The conductor costs the same. The reservation costs the same. The terminal fees costs the same. So, when you PURPOSELY divert resources from this operation (let's right size the train size) it is easy to claim your aren't recouping your losses. You have limited your capacity and have undermined your product, with logic like "well, only a small percentage travel end point to endpoint" . We've covered this before. How much of the costs of running the terminal are you attributing to the Starlight vs the Cascades? Are you billing the LD trains more for catenary costs than the Acela, making it look like it is losing less and the LD trains are losing more?

Yet, all of that is lost in the diversionary "It's the unions!"

The letter addresses what Amtrak is supposed to be----service. Are you providing the service as provided for by Congress? Do you intend to provide the service as provided for by Congress? Are you going to address your core issues, because cutting the Parlour car didn't really help the people stuck on the Coast Starlight. Changing from a full dining car to prepackaged meals didn't help with the OTP performance issues that plaque the trains and I don't think cutting the dining car off the Star was really a factor when it collided with freight trains.

 

[TiBike]

Yes, it is an old story.  As I said, it isn't unique to Amtrak. For years, companies have blamed labor, asked for concessions and since they don't go after the root issues, the place still shuts down, folds etc. The root cause was never addressed and yet it continues. It worked like a charm on you. Here you are, carping about Union protectionism yet the suspicious accounting, misappropriations that may show "Hey, we can actually afford the people we have and these routes aren't ANYWHERE NEAR as bad as we say" sail right over your head.  It even makes you say something uniformed like:

Dude, you're reading too much into what I'm saying. The only thing I'm attributing to Amtrak's unions is the letter from the congress critters. Amtrak's funding and governance is a political matter, and the unions are as involved in that game as anyone else is. Organised labor, in general, plays that game better than most. But I can just as easily and willingly point to corporate capture of political processes too. Labor or management, everyone is acting rationally, in their self interest. If I have a beef, it's with the game, not the players (with exceptions, but none that apply here).

Bad accounting can lead to bad decisions by executives and line managers. That's what I call an indirect effect. As opposed to executives and line managers (and rank and file) who simply make bad decisions about line functions, like marketing, regardless of the information at hand. That's a direct effect. It's A provides bad data that causes B to make a bad decision, versus B just makes a bad decision. If you define it differently, no argument from me. Second order versus first order effect, maybe?

The decisions that management is supposed to be making isn't "can we afford the people we have" or "is this product as bad as we think"? The proper decisions go more like "can we improve profitability by reducing (or increasing) the labor cost associated with this product" or "is this product as good as it can be", or "should we shift to a product that is more profitable"? I agree, management needs good data to make those decisions, but I've yet to see a perfect, or even perfectly objective, cost allocation system. But I am also assuming that there's a difference between the numbers that Amtrak makes public (or shares with rank and file) and the numbers that management sees and crunches. The public numbers might or might not be valid – I know a lot of people don't like them, but they don't particularly bother (or impress) me – but I'm assuming there's a lot more sophisticated bean counting going on behind the curtain. If there isn't, that's executive malfeasance. I'm not seeing that, though.

Maybe a Jobsian reality distortion field is working its charm on me, but that's my read.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Dude, you're reading too much into what I'm saying. The only thing I'm attributing to Amtrak's unions is the letter from the congress critters.

Bad accounting can lead to bad decisions by executives and line managers. That's what I call an indirect effect. As opposed to executives and line managers (and rank and file) who simply make bad decisions about line functions, like marketing, regardless of the information at hand. That's a direct effect. It's A provides bad data that causes B to make a bad decision, versus B just makes a bad decision. If you define it differently, no argument from me. Second order versus first order effect, maybe?

The decisions that management is supposed to be making isn't "can we afford the people we have" or "is this product as bad as we think"? The proper decisions go more like "can we improve profitability by reducing (or increasing) the labor cost associated with this product" or "is this product as good as it can be", or "should we shift to a product that is more profitable"? I agree, management needs good data to make those decisions, but I've yet to see a perfect, or even perfectly objective, cost allocation system. But I am also assuming that there's a difference between the numbers that Amtrak makes public (or shares with rank and file) and the numbers that management sees and crunches. The public numbers might or might not be valid – I know a lot of people don't like them, but they don't particularly bother (or impress) me – but I'm assuming there's a lot more sophisticated bean counting going on behind the curtain. If there isn't, that's executive malfeasance. I'm not seeing that, though.

Maybe a Jobsian reality distortion field is working its charm on me, but that's my read.

My mistake, Tibike. This make a lot more sense.

 

[bmjhagen9426]

I know what PRIIA is, but what are PRRIA and PRIAA?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I know what PRIIA is, but what are PRRIA and PRIAA?

My guess - typos

 

[jis]

My guess - typos

PRIAA is a typo (not mine, but typo nonetheless). It should be PRIIA.

PRRIA was the 2015 Amtrak Authorization passed by the House in early 2015 It was eventually incorporated in toto in the omnibus surface transportation authorization act called the FAST Act as the Amtrak Title in it - a first for Amtrak to be recognized as an integral part of surface transportation, not an afterthought outlier with its own separate authorization. The FAST Act was signed into law by Obama end of 2015. Amtrak currently is authorized to exist by PRRIA or the Amtrak Title in FAST 2015.

As an overview ... The much quoted Authorization from PRIIA expired in 2015. PRRIA reauthorized Amtrak by being incorporated as the Amtrak Title in the FAST Act, which incidentally expires in 2020. What we are starting to work on this year is the reauthorization that needs to be in place in 2020 for Amtrak - the followup to PRRIA.

To jog your collective memory, here is an excellent summary slideset from Amtrak Government Affairs (PDF):

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/SCORT NGEC Committee Meeting 2 18 16.pdf