Could we ask compensation for lack of SSL?

[Anderson]

That's the point. For two years they make a claim about their amenities knowing full well they are not providing it. That's an outright lie and is dishonest and illegal. This is not a case of not having something available on a particular day because of an unanticipated issue but a deliberate policy not to update and correct misinformation.
If it were me and I expected an amenity and had no idea they were not providing it and had not been for years, then I'd ask for compensation and, if denied, would demand arbitration. An honest arbitrator should rule that Amtrak knowingly provided false and misleading promises and award something. It may not be much but the cost to Amtrak's reputation might make them scream "uncle".

I tend to concur with this (without being a lawyer). Their unwillingness to compensate for previously-booked fares when they dropped dining car service comes to mind as a similarly "problematic" moment (since diner service was advertised on those trains at the time of booking), and IINM they did something similar with the PPC discontinuation.

 

[Ryan]

Obviously, it's more complicated than that and everyone agrees that it lives in some sort of quasi-government grey area.

Let's go back to the original quote that I took issue with and put it in context.

My biggest concern is that this is a societal issue throughout our country which can be corrected when customers stand firm and push back.

As Amtrak is a government institution that becomes a difficult proposition...

In the case of reacting to market forces in the providing or withholding of amenities onboard, Amtrak is 100% accountable to those market forces. You can't go to a different Social Security agency if you don't like the way the SSA handles your case. You can't ask for a different fire department to show up when your house is on fire. If Amtrak prides crap service, people can absolutely choose not to travel or travel by a different mode/carrier. Claiming that Amtrak doesn't have to listen to the customer because they are the government misses the mark.

I'm not saying that they're good at listening to the customer and reacting, mind you. But their failings in this area aren't attributable to their status as a independently chartered, for-profit corporation that happens to be owned by the government and run by a board of people appointed by the government.

 

[Anderson]

Obviously, it's more complicated than that and everyone agrees that it lives in some sort of quasi-government grey area.

Let's go back to the original quote that I took issue with and put it in context.



In the case of reacting to market forces in the providing or withholding of amenities onboard, Amtrak is 100% accountable to those market forces. You can't go to a different Social Security agency if you don't like the way the SSA handles your case. You can't ask for a different fire department to show up when your house is on fire. If Amtrak prides crap service, people can absolutely choose not to travel or travel by a different mode/carrier. Claiming that Amtrak doesn't have to listen to the customer because they are the government misses the mark.

I'm not saying that they're good at listening to the customer and reacting, mind you. But their failings in this area aren't attributable to their status as a independently chartered, for-profit corporation that happens to be owned by the government and run by a board of people appointed by the government.

I'd add in an asterisk here: When it comes to the LD trains, Amtrak has a semi-captive situation (nobody else seems to want to run those trains, even for a fee)...a situation I think they've abused quite a bit over the last few years with various cuts/cut attempts and other antics.

As far as state trains...outside the NEC-adjacent trains, that's a trickier thing. I've heard occasional rumblings of one or more states looking at going with another operator (WA/OR/CA are the usual suspects here). But the issue here is LD-specific.

 

[Ryan]

Which is why I said the choices are another mode or not traveling. I'm aware of the fact that there aren't non-Amtrak LD trains out there.

 

[BlackDiamond]

I was wondering, when Amtrak runs an LD train with no SSL, how do they provide cafe service for the coach passengers? Or are they left with no food on what could be a 3 day trip?

 

[jis]

I was wondering, when Amtrak runs an LD train with no SSL, how do they provide cafe service for the coach passengers? Or are they left with no food on what could be a 3 day trip?

The trains lacking SSL normally carry a CCC which is equipped to serve both as a Diner and Cafe. Or they may carry one of those Coach/Cafes.

 

[Exvalley]

In the case of reacting to market forces in the providing or withholding of amenities onboard, Amtrak is 100% accountable to those market forces.

As long as Amtrak has a steady source of federal funding, they are not 100% accountable to market forces. But, yes, they are competing more than a typical government institution.

 

[jis]

The bottom line though still remains that we can certainly ask for compensation though we are unlikely to get any in cash/refund form.

 

[Exvalley]

The bottom though still remains that we can certainly ask for compensation though we are unlikely to get any in cash/refund form.

That sums it up perfectly.

 

[me_little_me]

I tend to concur with this (without being a lawyer). Their unwillingness to compensate for previously-booked fares when they dropped dining car service comes to mind as a similarly "problematic" moment (since diner service was advertised on those trains at the time of booking), and IINM they did something similar with the PPC discontinuation.

That might be a different case. For example, although Amtrak said you could change (but not cancel) without cost when I booked my June trip, I called and specified I wanted a full refund because I was promised twice, including in an email received the day they said they were once again delaying traditional meals. They gave it to me without question.

If those purchasers claimed they wanted to cancel w/o penalty because they found out that their upcoming train trip would not have dining, that is a legitimate claim because Amtrak does not intend to meet their promise. But if they decided to go anyway then claim they did not get what was originally promised, they would have a problem as they made an informed decision to go.

 

[Ryan]

As long as Amtrak has a steady source of federal funding, they are not 100% accountable to market forces. But, yes, they are competing more than a typical government institution.

You believe that if the trains ran completely empty because they've chased customers away that Congress would continue providing it with money?

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't occur.

 

[20th Century Rider]

Sure, you can ask for anything.



No it isn't.

This elaborates a bit more about this quasi topic which tends to be a bit on the 'fuzzy' side:

https://railroads.dot.gov/passenger-rail/amtrak/amtrak

 

[Danib62]

It never hurts to ask. I recently got $100 for a cold shower and being woken up by announcements at NYP on train 67.

 

[Exvalley]

You believe that if the trains ran completely empty because they've chased customers away that Congress would continue providing it with money?

I never said that. What I said was: As long as Amtrak has a steady source of federal funding, they are not 100% accountable to market forces.

I stand by that.

 

[Burns651]

People imagining that an arbitrator can get them money for lack of a SSL need to read this relevant language from a current ticket envelope, which I guarantee is also somewhere on the web site. It's quite impressive and thoroughly airtight, including up to and beyond the sun exploding.

"Disclaimers and limitations of liabilities: Fares, time schedules, routes, equipment, services, products, accessibility information, customs information and all other information are (1) not guaranteed, (2) provided "as is" without any warranties of any kind, either express or implied, (3) subject to change without notice and (4) form no part of the contract between Amtrak and a customer. A possibility exists that there may be errors or inaccuracies. Although Amtrak attempts to ensure accuracy, Amtrak makes no guarantees as to the completeness or correctness and disclaims any liability for any errors.

Amtrak disclaims liability for inconvenience, expense or damage resulting from errors, shortage of equipment or delayed trains, except that when such a delay causes a passenger to miss a guaranteed connection, Amtrak will provide alternate transportation on Amtrak, another carrier or overnight hotel accommodations at the discretion of Amtrak. Amtrak acts only as selling agent for Thruway connecting carriers and disclaims liability for travel on other carriers.

Neither Amtrak nor any of its subsidiaries, affiliates, licensors, suppliers, advertisers or sponsors, no our or their directors, officers, employees, contractors, consultants, agents or other representatives, are responsible or liable for any indirect, incidental, consequential, special, exemplary, punitive or other damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business, or loss of profits), under any contract, negligence, strict liability or other theory arising out of our relating in any way to any product or service purchased from or through Amtrak."

 

[DCAKen]

I was wondering, when Amtrak runs an LD train with no SSL, how do they provide cafe service for the coach passengers? Or are they left with no food on what could be a 3 day trip?

What the crew did on the SWC when it ran without the SSL on my trip was to use half the diner as a cafe car, selling a smaller selection of the usual fare. This meant dining space for the sleepers was more limited and they asked if we were willing to share our table with another party. We did that for lunch on the second day, mostly because that gave us a better seating time.

 

[Cal]

That sums it up perfectly.

Jis has a way of wording things just right

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The bottom [line] though still remains that we can certainly ask for compensation though we are unlikely to get any in cash/refund form.

So long as the customer receives a goodwill gesture and Amtrak creates a paper trail it's a success IMO.

 

[neroden]

People imagining that an arbitrator can get them money for lack of a SSL need to read this relevant language from a current ticket envelope, which I guarantee is also somewhere on the web site. It's quite impressive and thoroughly airtight, including up to and beyond the sun exploding.

"Disclaimers and limitations of liabilities: Fares, time schedules, routes, equipment, services, products, accessibility information, customs information and all other information are (1) not guaranteed, (2) provided "as is" without any warranties of any kind, either express or implied, (3) subject to change without notice and (4) form no part of the contract between Amtrak and a customer. A possibility exists that there may be errors or inaccuracies. Although Amtrak attempts to ensure accuracy, Amtrak makes no guarantees as to the completeness or correctness and disclaims any liability for any errors.

Amtrak disclaims liability for inconvenience, expense or damage resulting from errors, shortage of equipment or delayed trains, except that when such a delay causes a passenger to miss a guaranteed connection, Amtrak will provide alternate transportation on Amtrak, another carrier or overnight hotel accommodations at the discretion of Amtrak. Amtrak acts only as selling agent for Thruway connecting carriers and disclaims liability for travel on other carriers.

Neither Amtrak nor any of its subsidiaries, affiliates, licensors, suppliers, advertisers or sponsors, no our or their directors, officers, employees, contractors, consultants, agents or other representatives, are responsible or liable for any indirect, incidental, consequential, special, exemplary, punitive or other damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business, or loss of profits), under any contract, negligence, strict liability or other theory arising out of our relating in any way to any product or service purchased from or through Amtrak."

IMO, that was written by an *****. By attempting to disclaim non-disclaimable warranties, without a severance clause, they potentially rendered the entire disclaimer void. It's a form of overreach. Less over-the-top disclaimers are more likely to hold up in court.

In practice, Amtrak will pay out when it violated an implied warranty of fitness or merchantability or something similar, so they seem to know this disclaimer isn't really effective.

 

[Ryan]

I never said that. What I said was: As long as Amtrak has a steady source of federal funding, they are not 100% accountable to market forces.

I stand by that.

If you're going to be an absolutist about it, one can also say "As long as insert_any_private_business_here are subject to government regulation, they are not 100% accountable to market forces". It becomes a statement that's universally correct and completely without value.

In the case we're talking about here, the government connections to Amtrak have little to do with their decision to include a lounge car on a train or not. Their government-ness isn't germane to the conversation.

 

[Exvalley]

If you're going to be an absolutist about it, one can also say "As long as insert_any_private_business_here are subject to government regulation, they are not 100% accountable to market forces". It becomes a statement that's universally correct and completely without value.

Another straw man.

I was responding statement to your statement:

In the case of reacting to market forces in the providing or withholding of amenities onboard, Amtrak is 100% accountable to those market forces.

Amtrak receives a level of government support that the overwhelming majority of businesses can only dream about. You also have Congress dictating, from time to time, what amenities must be offered when Congress doles out money to Amtrak.

Thus, they are not 100% reliant on market forces. I’m not sure how this can be debated.

 

[toddinde]

If you're going to be an absolutist about it, one can also say "As long as insert_any_private_business_here are subject to government regulation, they are not 100% accountable to market forces". It becomes a statement that's universally correct and completely without value.

In the case we're talking about here, the government connections to Amtrak have little to do with their decision to include a lounge car on a train or not. Their government-ness isn't germane to the conversation.

When the highways are accountable to the market, I might agree.

 

[Anthony V]

I. E. There just isn't any policy that covers that.

Lest we forget the sad day they removed the Pacific Parlor Car from the CS for no apparent reason... We were ranting and griping that we would now be relegated to the SSL.

The real issue that surrounds all this is that there is no clear policy regarding levels of passenger service!

View attachment 24622
View attachment 24623

The real reason Amtrak removed the PPC from the Coast Starlight is because they were getting too expensive to maintain. Remember, they one of the last of the Heritage Fleet rolling stock, which meant that parts for the cars were very difficult to find. This means that Amtrak often had to custom-order parts for the PPC's, making maintenance projects on them very expensive. I can't blame them for wanting to escape the expense of owning these cars.

While I know why Amtrak retired the PPC's, they should've immediately ordered replacement rolling stock to fill the void left by their retirement. To make such an order economical, they could have ordered replacements not only for the Coast Starlight, but for all the LD Superliner trains, thus expanding the service to more trains.