Thanks for your reply, that is kinda what I thought it was. Under the philosophy, the red states with the most mileage and fewest boarding passengers get hit the hardest, with Florida already eliminated, and Texas, Arizona next on the chopping block.
On one hand, food service should be a revenue cash cow, can't imagine any restaurant staying in business that would give away food at a loss. If Amtrak food service is not generating a positive cash flow, something is definitely wrong. Surely it isn't rent, insurance, marketing, advertising, or any of the other things that a normal restaurant has to pay, because there is none of that cost on a train, just the amortization and pulling of a 60 year old rail car, some water tanks that have to be filled and hauled around, and a little bit of locomotive electricity that would be burned anyway. You can't tell me that with the purchasing clout a government corporation has in making mass=purchase of food, that they can't vend and serve it at a cost that generates profit. There aren't that many employees on a dining car, so where is this notorious labor overhead coming from? I see fast food establishments daily that have 15-20 employees working at minimum wage, so it must be volume of food that is lacking rather than quality. The food service model today is like wal mart, buy it cheap, use part time employees, and push as much of the product as you can. But, hotels and cruise ships don't follow that model, they go for the high priced spread, and do just fine, thank you.
Suppose the time has come to start accounting for the food as part of the first class ticket, much as sleeping car is currently billed separately from coach fare on most first class tickets. The sleeping car portion of the first class fare is only worth a portion of the difference between coach, with the food and other services accounting for the rest. Right now the food portion of the trip is getting under-billed.
Have no problem with accounting on this basis, but the net result is always that the rural area (red states) are receiving a disproportionate share of federal subsidy. If you apply this same approach to the highway system, there could be no roads in North Dakota, it isn't financially possible without support from the rest of the country pumping funds into the red states. If Montana or Alaska had to fund their projects without being a "receiving" state from subsidy of the rest of the country, there would be no infrastructure in those states at all. Isn't that what the "United" States is all about anyway, joining together for the common good?
I find it really ironic that a red state Republican controlled congress wants to shoot the red states off the map, and esentially leave the US with only a truncated blue state commuter rail system where everyone brings brown bags and sports drinks on board with them. I wonder if these same red state congresspeople will carry this philosophy forward, and turn back or cut all other forms of federal subsidy to their rural constituents.