Business Class on the Crescent

[cpotisch]

I could never figure out why they didn't include Dining Car meals in the Long Distance Business Class. Wasn't the point of including them in sleepers to help the dining car financials? So having Business Class passengers eat in the dining car would help the dining car financials more right?

While I agree that LD business should have gotten meals included, it would have actually hurt the dining car financials to do so. Any possible revenue from business pax paying to dine would have been lost. Instead, the diner would lose money on every BC passenger that dined.

How so? Do they lose money on every Sleeping Car passenger that dines? what is the difference?

That business pax getting 'free' meals in the diner would be worse for its financials than to charge for meals. With the current system, BC pax either pay for a meal in the dining car (in which case Amtrak makes a profit), or they don't dine at all (which doesn't cost Amtrak anything). If meals are included, Amtrak would take a loss on each meal. They could obviously raise BC fares, but that still wouldn't show up on the dining car's books, and would probably hurt BC ridership. I fully support bundled meals for business class, I just don't think it would help the diner's financials.

 

[jebr]

I think the dining car revenue is allocated from sleepers based on what they "sell" to those passengers. Thus, the sleeping car fund transfers money to the dining car fund based on what people order. I'd imagine it'd be similar for any included meals for business class passengers. Thus, it'd likely be better for the dining car financials if meals were included (the dining car gets more revenue but costs likely don't increase by the same or greater amount.)

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Seaboard92]

Honestly the business class on the Palmetto really isn't that much better. It's in a business class amfleet I whole coach is generally two to three amfleet IIs with a single amfleet I coach. If you are going a long distance coach makes far better sense. If it's an amfleet II even has I think two less seats in the car.

 

[cpotisch]

I think the dining car revenue is allocated from sleepers based on what they "sell" to those passengers. Thus, the sleeping car fund transfers money to the dining car fund based on what people order. I'd imagine it'd be similar for any included meals for business class passengers. Thus, it'd likely be better for the dining car financials if meals were included (the dining car gets more revenue but costs likely don't increase by the same or greater amount.)

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Thanks, that explains a lot. That does strike me as a pretty ridiculous way to figure out expenses, though.

 

[GaSteve]

They don't really vary that greatly. At most +/- one Coach and on rare occasions +/- a Sleeper. But generally the consists are pretty consistent. Very rarely on special occasions there may be greater variation, and those will be discussed for days in place like AU.

19 and 20 have always carried 2 sleepers. Before BC, 3 coaches sometimes increased to 4 on weekends. After BC always 3 coaches.

 

[IndyLions]

I suspect they will come back, but after they figure out how to make it a true upgrade (crescent business class was a joke, more like a quiet car). I suspect Anderson as a former airline guy didn't like Amtrak trotting out such a poor product.

If you don’t like the quality of the service - how about fixing it before taking it away? How is that a good strategy? But no - the answer to a “poor” product is no product at all! The answer to “poor uniformity” is a third class experience for everyone! No Dining, No Business Class! It may suck, but it’s uniform! Can’t wait until he implements that nationwide!

Rant aside, Business Class on the LSL was the only way I have been able to justify 2 trips for Business purposes on the LSL this year. The sleeper rate was too high, and coach was too chaotic to get any work done. The perfect option was Sleeper one-way (to be fresh for my meetings) and Business Class on the return (to keep expenses down but still get my follow-up work done). Still way cheaper than that last minute flight, and much more efficient and safer than driving a long distance on bad roads.

Call Business Class a quiet car if you want - I could care less. If you are going to fix it, fix it. Cutting it before replacing it with something better is not fixing it.

Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum

 

[PVD]

BC on the LSL is much smaller, and uses a car they would haul anyway.

 

[jis]

BC on the LSL is much smaller, and uses a car they would haul anyway.

Exactly! The BC on LSL is a distinct hard product, unlike what was offered on the Crescent.

The BC product that is offered on the Palmetto is laughable since there is almost negligible soft product enhancement and the hard product is actually inferior to the Coach hard product on the train! The Carolinian BC OTOH does actually have a discernible soft product enhancement, as does the BC service on all Amtrak California trains that offer it.

 

[Skyline]

BC on the LSL is much smaller, and uses a car they would haul anyway.

Exactly! The BC on LSL is a distinct hard product, unlike what was offered on the Crescent.

The BC product that is offered on the Palmetto is laughable since there is almost negligible soft product enhancement and the hard product is actually inferior to the Coach hard product on the train! The Carolinian BC OTOH does actually have a discernible soft product enhancement, as does the BC service on all Amtrak California trains that offer it.

The only BC experience I have is on the Maple Leaf and the Cascades. Both of those "products" are definitely superior to plain old coach. IMHO those would be a minimal level of service and accommodation to shoot for if revamping BC elsewhere.

 

[Trogdor]

I think the dining car revenue is allocated from sleepers based on what they "sell" to those passengers. Thus, the sleeping car fund transfers money to the dining car fund based on what people order. I'd imagine it'd be similar for any included meals for business class passengers. Thus, it'd likely be better for the dining car financials if meals were included (the dining car gets more revenue but costs likely don't increase by the same or greater amount.)

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Thanks, that explains a lot. That does strike me as a pretty ridiculous way to figure out expenses, though.

How else would you propose doing it without making every passenger pull out their credit card for every meal?

Often, including something for "free" (even if the person is paying for it up front through a higher initial price) is psychologically more appealing to customers than making them pay for things separately, even if the final price paid would be the same.

 

[jis]

BC on the LSL is much smaller, and uses a car they would haul anyway.

Exactly! The BC on LSL is a distinct hard product, unlike what was offered on the Crescent.

The BC product that is offered on the Palmetto is laughable since there is almost negligible soft product enhancement and the hard product is actually inferior to the Coach hard product on the train! The Carolinian BC OTOH does actually have a discernible soft product enhancement, as does the BC service on all Amtrak California trains that offer it.

The only BC experience I have is on the Maple Leaf and the Cascades. Both of those "products" are definitely superior to plain old coach. IMHO those would be a minimal level of service and accommodation to shoot for if revamping BC elsewhere.

You are absolutely right. Both have a distinctly different hard product with different kind of seat etc. The soft product enhancements are relatively small - $6 coupon for food on Cascades and free hot and cold soft drinks, within some limits on the Maple leaf in the US.

I completely agree with your sentiment that those should be the baseline for BC across the system.

The California BC even though 2-2 seating still makes up some with a superior soft product, which includes complementary snacks on their longer runs, and of course complementary soft drinks on all runs.

 

[cpotisch]

I think the dining car revenue is allocated from sleepers based on what they "sell" to those passengers. Thus, the sleeping car fund transfers money to the dining car fund based on what people order. I'd imagine it'd be similar for any included meals for business class passengers. Thus, it'd likely be better for the dining car financials if meals were included (the dining car gets more revenue but costs likely don't increase by the same or greater amount.)

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Thanks, that explains a lot. That does strike me as a pretty ridiculous way to figure out expenses, though.

How else would you propose doing it without making every passenger pull out their credit card for every meal?

Often, including something for "free" (even if the person is paying for it up front through a higher initial price) is psychologically more appealing to customers than making them pay for things separately, even if the final price paid would be the same.

Just that I would have figured (and not saying this is actually the right way) that the diner fund would pay for those bundled meals, instead of bothering to have the sleeper fund take up the bill.

 

[Ryan]

That would be somewhat ridiculous, and the diner financial sheet would look even worse that it already does. You have to account for the portion of the sleeping car passenger fare that goes towards the meals served somehow.

 

[jis]

There is no Diner fund, and no one really knows how one would go about computing an amount to fund said Diner fund. That is why money is moved from the Sleeper Revenue account to the Diner account based on actual consumption of the Sleeper passengers in the Diner.

 

[Anderson]

I think the dining car revenue is allocated from sleepers based on what they "sell" to those passengers. Thus, the sleeping car fund transfers money to the dining car fund based on what people order. I'd imagine it'd be similar for any included meals for business class passengers. Thus, it'd likely be better for the dining car financials if meals were included (the dining car gets more revenue but costs likely don't increase by the same or greater amount.)

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

This is more or less correct; there's a reason that I recall someone from Amtrak's dining car department being at the NARP meeting in Salt Lake and jokingly encouraging those in sleepers to order the steak.

So if meals were included for Business Class passengers, it would actually help the diners' performance through the magic of an accounting transfer.

(For this matter, you could probably "fix" a large portion of the diners' losses if you simply allocated a charge from the sleepers to the diners, period. Conceptually it wouldn't be too hard to do, though you could argue about how much should be transferred.)

 

[TiBike]

The California BC even though 2-2 seating still makes up some with a superior soft product, which includes complementary snacks on their longer runs, and of course complementary soft drinks on all runs.

As far as I know, business class passengers get snacks, coffee, wine or soft drinks on the Surfliner regardless of distance -- I always have, anyway. Maybe if it's a real short hop -- one or two stops -- there might not be time for it though. There's no business class on the Capitol Corridor or San Joaquins (but there is, of course, on the Starlight).

I agree completely -- that's what business class service should be. Even with 2x2 seating and sold out business class (not unusual at all) it's very nice on the Surfliner.