Senate amendment to eliminate food/beverage on Amtrak (LD too)

[ne52]

A northeastern Senator should bring a counter proposal, requiring the same of aircrafts, including subsidies for airports, ATC, etc.

I'm sure this amendment going after LD services has NOTHING to do with this...

US AirwaysFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US Airways is a major U.S. airline owned by the US Airways Group, headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.

Well, you're probably not that far off base:

http://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/28128/jeff-flake#.UfMGfUDVBsk

My take on it was that it's coming from someone with zero professional experience outside of politics. Looking at his resume, it would seem that's also right.

The bill to require that pets be allowed to ride trains will make it farther than this trash.

 

[Bob Dylan]

"The Problem with Political Jokes is that too many get elected!" -- Will Rogers

 

[D.P. Roberts]

I've got another suggestion for the Senator from Arizona: I think the US should stop subsidizing the state of Arizona. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state), Arizona collects $35.4 billion in federal taxes each year, but spends $48 billion, for a net loss of $12.6 billion per year, or $1976 per Arizona resident.

Here's my suggestion: let Arizona go free and become its own independent Republic. Pay for Amtrak's dining with the money the government would save by not supporting Arizona. Use the surplus to re-fund Amtrak properly. There would probably be enough left over to start building high-speed rail for the rest of the US.

 

[gmushial]

I consider the key word in the proposed amendmentn to be "subsidize". Perhaps Sen. Flake is really saying that food and drink services and first class services need to be priced by Amtrak to recover all of their actual costs. I think it is certainly true that most airlines today price their first class services and food and (alcoholic) drink services to cover their costs -- and much more!

It's all a question of cost allocation. As long as you don't have a plane that is all first class, you always have some wriggle room to move things around so it looks as if one part is paying its way and anothr part isn't. What percentage of the pilot's salary can you tag to first class passengers? What percentage of fuel? Of airport and security costs? I venture to say that most commercial flights would cease to be profitable if economy class passengers were suddenly eliminated.

A northeastern Senator should bring a counter proposal, requiring the same of aircrafts, including subsidies for airports, ATC, etc.

I'm sure this amendment going after LD services has NOTHING to do with this...

US AirwaysFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US Airways is a major U.S. airline owned by the US Airways Group, headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.

But doing such would be much too rational for small-brained corporate-owned "representatives." ... wish America would wake up and understand that our mega-billion dollar elections, inc., allow for only corporate sponsored candidates to run, resulting in the "representation" that we currently have - many many other democracies have long seen this failing and have banded political advertising / or severely limited it (the major cost item in elections), finding no loss in information flow to the electorate, but finding a vast improvement in the quality/representation of the candidates. ... climbing down off his soapbox.

But at the same time, plenty of regular people are stockholders in those companies or their retirements depend on it. Why should their voice not carry weight just because they use a proxy mouthpiece?

But why should they be awarded two or more votes - they already have a voice, ie, one vote like all other citizens... or, are you arguing that because they have retirement funds invested therefore they are super citizens? My recollections of the US Constitution awards a single vote per citizen, independent of status, or investments - no? ... sorry, but I suspect that Citizens United v. FEC will prove to be the Dred Scott v. Sanford of the 21st Century... and history will hold Chief Justice Roberts in approximately the same esteem and regard as Chief Justice Roger Taney of his era, ie, not very well or highly. [and if one bothers to read the actual text of the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific decision (118 US 394 (1886)) and not the clerk's synopsis - which is too often quoted - one will find that corporations are not citizens and as such do not enjoy the rights thereof.]

 

[Anderson]

I have another take on this...
Some experts believe that Amtrak's greatest expense is in maintaining the infrastructure of the NEC. What would it do to Amtrak's bottom line if they were not responsible for that actual upkeep of the corridor. They would continue to own it and operate it but would not have to pay to maintain it.

Who then were take on this expense. Simple, the mid-Atlantic and New England states the NEC serves. Mass/RI/CT/NY/NJ/PA/MD/DE and maybe even Virginia.

How would they pay for it? This is where it gets politically interesting. If it is fact true that the so called "blue-states" of which the NEC is located in pay out more in taxes than they receive in benefits, the Democratic reps in these states need to say, we want to keep more of our tax dollars here in our areas as oppossed to giving them to other parts of the country (ie the "red-states"...the Jeff Flake states). The NEC is a very crucial part of the economy in the northeast. If in fact these states are paying out more in taxes than they are receiving in benefits, they need to point this out to their Republican counterparts. If certain red states have some programs cut, they can simply raise there own taxes to make up the difference.

Without the expense of maintaining the NEC, it would be much easier to get a handle on Amtrak's actual finances, and determine if the LD trains are as much a drag on the system as some maintain.

This is a tough issue but one that needs to be had.

Well, the rub here is that Amtrak isn't the only user of the NEC. Ignoring folks only operating on a mile or two of the NEC, you've got MARC, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR, SLE, and MBTA running commuter trains on the NEC. Add in the LIRR and VRE for "minor" operators (the LIRR only shares tracks in and around NYP; VRE only at WAS), and possibly the Cape Cod folks as well if that train is counted separately (since IIRC it departs from BOS). So either everyone would get to "ride for free" (not the worst idea in the world, frankly) or you'd need some mess of a cost-sharing agreement (good luck hashing that out!). Of course, on top of that, CT owns the New Rochelle-New Haven segment of the line...

 

[NW cannonball]

Perhaps the Senate could cut back on its own dining subsidies? http://radining.compass-usa.com/ussenate/Pages/Home.aspx

 

[Anderson]

You know, I think you just hit on something slick for some pro-Amtrak folks to do: If it's allowed in the rules, move an amendment to these sorts of amendments to slash that stuff as a poison pill. Granted, it might be non-germane, but it would be some fun showboating.

 

[Bus Nut]

But at the same time, plenty of regular people are stockholders in those companies or their retirements depend on it. Why should their voice not carry weight just because they use a proxy mouthpiece?

Recent history has shown that stockholder (ie pensioner) interests are not in any way aligned with those of the corporate boards.

Why do you think C-class fights so hard these days to prevent shareholders from voting at annual shareholder meetings?

Most of the 20% who own stocks own funds which are diversified and which engage in balancing, which means as industries die they gradually invest in other things. The main exceptions are those whose retirement was essentially purchasing discounted shares in their own employer's stock through a 401K.

PS: the US no longer holds the secular advantage it held among industrialized nations after WWII and simply does not exist in a vaccuum. As the car industry has proven, throwing up walls to protect moribund industries or failing to invest in R&D will only lead to an eventual punishment by countries which follow clear, well-managed, goal-oriented industrial policies. You can cry about the Chinese stealing your IP all you want. Our biggest exports are resources and agricultural, the latter industry we've already done massive amounts of harm to. Time will tell.

 

[the_traveler]

I have another take on this...
Some experts believe that Amtrak's greatest expense is in maintaining the infrastructure of the NEC. What would it do to Amtrak's bottom line if they were not responsible for that actual upkeep of the corridor. They would continue to own it and operate it but would not have to pay to maintain it.

Who then were take on this expense. Simple, the mid-Atlantic and New England states the NEC serves. Mass/RI/CT/NY/NJ/PA/MD/DE and maybe even Virginia.

How would they pay for it? This is where it gets politically interesting. If it is fact true that the so called "blue-states" of which the NEC is located in pay out more in taxes than they receive in benefits, the Democratic reps in these states need to say, we want to keep more of our tax dollars here in our areas as oppossed to giving them to other parts of the country (ie the "red-states"...the Jeff Flake states). The NEC is a very crucial part of the economy in the northeast. If in fact these states are paying out more in taxes than they are receiving in benefits, they need to point this out to their Republican counterparts. If certain red states have some programs cut, they can simply raise there own taxes to make up the difference.

Without the expense of maintaining the NEC, it would be much easier to get a handle on Amtrak's actual finances, and determine if the LD trains are as much a drag on the system as some maintain.

This is a tough issue but one that needs to be had.

Well, the rub here is that Amtrak isn't the only user of the NEC. Ignoring folks only operating on a mile or two of the NEC, you've got MARC, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR, SLE, and MBTA running commuter trains on the NEC. Add in the LIRR and VRE for "minor" operators (the LIRR only shares tracks in and around NYP; VRE only at WAS), and possibly the Cape Cod folks as well if that train is counted separately (since IIRC it departs from BOS). So either everyone would get to "ride for free" (not the worst idea in the world, frankly) or you'd need some mess of a cost-sharing agreement (good luck hashing that out!). Of course, on top of that, CT owns the New Rochelle-New Haven segment of the line...

You also have to add in the freight companies that operate on the NEC. Among them are the P&W, CSX, Conrail and I think NS. Plus you also must consider all the other Amtrak trains that use the NEC, including the SM/SS, Crescent, Cardinal, Keystones, Pennsylvanian, Vermonter and of course all the Regionals! And to a certain extent, the CL, LSL and all trains going thru upstate NY use parts of the NEC too!

 

[Bus Nut]

Perhaps the Senate could cut back on its own dining subsidies? http://radining.compass-usa.com/ussenate/Pages/Home.aspx

I'm sure they'll get right on it after they freeze their salaries, institute energy savings plans in their offices, take away franking privileges, and start buying their health insurance through the Exchange.

 

[Bus Nut]

I've got another suggestion for the Senator from Arizona: I think the US should stop subsidizing the state of Arizona. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state), Arizona collects $35.4 billion in federal taxes each year, but spends $48 billion, for a net loss of $12.6 billion per year, or $1976 per Arizona resident.

Most of that money over is probably Social Security payments but... anyway... here's my modest proposal: Okay, AZ, you can keep getting that 12B$ surplus that your residents are entitled to, but we're going to require that X amount of your transportation grants go to transit. You can use them on local transit or Amtrak. We suggest Amtrak to fund Ambuses around the state so more of your residents will have access to transportation that doesn't include unhealthy amounts of driving for distinguished ladies and gentlement of their age or a nauseating sojourn in a turboprop or small jet. Another portion could go to feasability studies to make SSL improvements. Since it's a busy freight corridor maybe you can bribe UP with grade crossing closures and suchlike.

 

[gmushial]

But at the same time, plenty of regular people are stockholders in those companies or their retirements depend on it. Why should their voice not carry weight just because they use a proxy mouthpiece?

Recent history has shown that stockholder (ie pensioner) interests are not in any way aligned with those of the corporate boards.

Why do you think C-class fights so hard these days to prevent shareholders from voting at annual shareholder meetings?

Most of the 20% who own stocks own funds which are diversified and which engage in balancing, which means as industries die they gradually invest in other things. The main exceptions are those whose retirement was essentially purchasing discounted shares in their own employer's stock through a 401K.

PS: the US no longer holds the secular advantage it held among industrialized nations after WWII and simply does not exist in a vaccuum. As the car industry has proven, throwing up walls to protect moribund industries or failing to invest in R&D will only lead to an eventual punishment by countries which follow clear, well-managed, goal-oriented industrial policies. You can cry about the Chinese stealing your IP all you want. Our biggest exports are resources and agricultural, the latter industry we've already done massive amounts of harm to. Time will tell.

99% agree... the only disagreement I'd offer is: those that own the stock, own the company, ie, the funds which own 70-90% of the shares of the SPX companies, typically have multiple positions on the board - so, by definition they are coincident in their views/goals... the biggest problem is the quarter to quarter earnings goals of the funds, vs, the longer term view, eg, Buffet et al... but again, some of that is forced in that a fund that underperforms for a couple quarters (even if with a longer term view), will be downrated by Morningstar etc, and funds will flow out - and where compensation is percentage of on balance funds + gains, that aversely affects the pay of the managers, hence they become q-to-q oriented. That is also why I manage our portfolio one position at a time, and would like to think that's why we've done so much better than matching the market/SPX etc.

 

[the_traveler]

I've got another suggestion for the Senator from Arizona: I think the US should stop subsidizing the state of Arizona. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state), Arizona collects $35.4 billion in federal taxes each year, but spends $48 billion, for a net loss of $12.6 billion per year, or $1976 per Arizona resident.

Okay, AZ, you can keep getting that 12B$ surplus that your residents are entitled to, but we're going to require that X amount of your transportation grants go to transit. You can use them on local transit or Amtrak. We suggest Amtrak to fund Ambuses around the state so more of your residents will have access to transportation that doesn't include unhealthy amounts of driving for distinguished ladies and gentlement of their age or a nauseating sojourn in a turboprop or small jet. ...maybe you can bribe UP with grade crossing closures and suchlike.

But remember that according to AZ Senator John McCain, "Amtrak doesn't serve Arizona"! So why should AZ "waste" money on Amtrak or Ambuses? :huh:

 

[gmushial]

I've got another suggestion for the Senator from Arizona: I think the US should stop subsidizing the state of Arizona. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state), Arizona collects $35.4 billion in federal taxes each year, but spends $48 billion, for a net loss of $12.6 billion per year, or $1976 per Arizona resident.

Okay, AZ, you can keep getting that 12B$ surplus that your residents are entitled to, but we're going to require that X amount of your transportation grants go to transit. You can use them on local transit or Amtrak. We suggest Amtrak to fund Ambuses around the state so more of your residents will have access to transportation that doesn't include unhealthy amounts of driving for distinguished ladies and gentlement of their age or a nauseating sojourn in a turboprop or small jet. ...maybe you can bribe UP with grade crossing closures and suchlike.

But remember that according to AZ Senator John McCain, "Amtrak doesn't serve Arizona"! So why should AZ "waste" money on Amtrak or Ambuses? :huh:

And as a corollary: AZ doesn't (really) serve the rest of the country (actually kind of an embarrassment and a net financial liability), then why should the rest of the country serve AZ?

 

[Palmland]

I did not read in the amendment that it would do away with dining and first class services, rather it said that it would stop subsidy of any losses associated with these services. While this may have the same result, I think the difference is worth noting. So, I wonder if this is an attempt to do away with those service provided by Amtrak and open the door for some private entity (Iowa Pacific's Pullman subsidiary perhaps) to charge whatever was necessary to make those services at least break even.

Regardless of the intent, I wrote Mr. Flake and said congress has no business micro managing Amtrak. When the government is involved it often makes things worse (ie. diner lite/CCC initiative). Rather, congress should look at a long term solution for Amtrak including funding and a more effective management/labor force. Since we have in-laws in Arizona I thought I could claim some vested interest in what that state's representatives do.

 

[the_traveler]

While other companies may (if they chose - but no one seems to be in line) want to operate the Dining Car services, are you willing to pay $30 for breakfast or $80 for dinner? :huh: After all, they must cover their expenses (food, supplies, rent, employees, benefits, etc...) and still make a profit! And if not enough passengers purchase that $30 breakfast, they may have to raise the price to $40!

 

[gmushial]

I did not read in the amendment that it would do away with dining and first class services, rather it said that it would stop subsidy of any losses associated with these services. While this may have the same result, I think the difference is worth noting. So, I wonder if this is an attempt to do away with those service provided by Amtrak and open the door for some private entity (Iowa Pacific's Pullman subsidiary perhaps) to charge whatever was necessary to make those services at least break even.
Regardless of the intent, I wrote Mr. Flake and said congress has no business micro managing Amtrak. When the government is involved it often makes things worse (ie. diner lite/CCC initiative). Rather, congress should look at a long term solution for Amtrak including funding and a more effective management/labor force. Since we have in-laws in Arizona I thought I could claim some vested interest in what that state's representatives do.

Or, said differently: sometimes business will lose money providing one service in exchange for making even more on another associated service... it's the net at the bottom line that counts. It's pure political correctness to go after the food "subsidy" - got to keep those tea baggies happy - when doing such might just worsen the bottom line, ie, as you said: Congress has no business interfering. [A corollary: our company does not charge for tech support - and in fact providing it for free is quite expensive - but on the otherhand, we know and have heard that quite a few of our customers spend more in products as a result - because they know they'll be supported, and their initial outlay is all they'll be asked to put out; and likewise, they don't like being asked to pay for tech support with the competition.... sometimes one loses a little here, to make quite a bit more there.]

 

[Bob Dylan]

While other companies may (if they chose - but no one seems to be in line) want to operate the Dining Car services, are you willing to pay $30 for breakfast or $80 for dinner? :huh: After all, they must cover their expenses (food, supplies, rent, employees, benefits, etc...) and still make a profit! And if not enough passengers purchase that $30 breakfast, they may have to raise the price to $40!

Sounds like New York City to me!

 

[dlagrua]

While other companies may (if they chose - but no one seems to be in line) want to operate the Dining Car services, are you willing to pay $30 for breakfast or $80 for dinner? :huh: After all, they must cover their expenses (food, supplies, rent, employees, benefits, etc...) and still make a profit! And if not enough passengers purchase that $30 breakfast, they may have to raise the price to $40!

Back in the 1940's The Fred Harvey Company ran the diners on a few trains going West.. I believe that the Santa Fe Super Chief and the Californian offered Harvey service but the service was heavily subsidized by the railroad company. From what I read in the history books, dining cars on every railroad,( even during the Golden Years) never made any money. Snack cars, café cars and dining cars today cannot make money. As a accommodation, primarily for the sleeping car passengers, they are necessary. If you remove the dining service, you effectively shut down all the long distance routes.

What I do not understand is why anyone in Washington would want to harm a public service that does so much good and only accounts for 3% of the transportation budget.

 

[gmushial]

While other companies may (if they chose - but no one seems to be in line) want to operate the Dining Car services, are you willing to pay $30 for breakfast or $80 for dinner? :huh: After all, they must cover their expenses (food, supplies, rent, employees, benefits, etc...) and still make a profit! And if not enough passengers purchase that $30 breakfast, they may have to raise the price to $40!

Back in the 1940's The Fred Harvey Company ran the diners on a few trains going West.. I believe that the Santa Fe Super Chief and the Californian offered Harvey service but the service was heavily subsidized by the railroad company. From what I read in the history books, dining cars on every railroad,( even during the Golden Years) never made any money. Snack cars, café cars and dining cars today cannot make money. As a accommodation, primarily for the sleeping car passengers, they are necessary. If you remove the dining service, you effectively shut down all the long distance routes.

What I do not understand is why anyone in Washington would want to harm a public service that does so much good and only accounts for 3% of the transportation budget.

1) political expediency,

2) ignorance,

3) has head where sun doesn't shine.

BTW if one is interested: there two books specifically about The Fred Harvey Company and its history in association with the railroads:

The Southwestern Indian detours : the story of the Fred Harvey/Santa Fe Railway experiment in detourism

ISBN 9780918126115

Appetite for America: How Visionary Businessman Fred Harvey Built a Railroad Hospitality Empire That Civilized the Wild West

ISBN 9780553804379

and two about the "Harvey Girls" the company employed

The Harvey Girls: The Women Who Civilized the West

ISBN 9780802783028

The Harvey Girls: Women Who Opened the West

ISBN 9781557784612

 

[Paulus]

From what I read in the history books, dining cars on every railroad,( even during the Golden Years) never made any money. Snack cars, café cars and dining cars today cannot make money. As a accommodation, primarily for the sleeping car passengers, they are necessary. If you remove the dining service, you effectively shut down all the long distance routes.

You shut down the sleepers, but the sleepers are not the long distance train and coach does perfectly well with a cafe car, as the Palmetto demonstrates. Kill the full diners and the sleepers, and you start losing a lot less money.

 

[Ryan]

People that ride in coach use the diners, too.

Also, nearly every LD run is longer than the 15 hour daytime run of the Pamletto.

Using that as a model for the rest of the system is woefully shortsighted. You should run for Senate, sounds like you'd fit in nicely.

 

[tonys96]

I guess I still have a problem figuring.out how sleepers lose money. My upcoming trip is $424 for coach. Adding a roomette is $1113 more. Meals would cost me (if I ate in the diner) about 50 a day, so say 150 total. That is still about 975 dollars extra fare for the roomette.......multiply by 14 per car + say, conservatively 100 extra fare for 5 bedrooms = 18,000 extra fare not counting family and H bedrooms.........Does it cost Amtrak more than 18,000 to add a sleeper to a consist?

(Assumes full house, that is why I left out the Family and H rooms, to reflect possibly two rooms vacant, which on CS and EB are a bit rare here lately)

Where is my thought process off the rails? (pun intended)

 

[Nathanaelh]

Back in the 1940's The Fred Harvey Company ran the diners on a few trains going West.. I believe that the Santa Fe Super Chief and the Californian offered Harvey service but the service was heavily subsidized by the railroad company. From what I read in the history books, dining cars on every railroad,( even during the Golden Years) never made any money.

History lesson follows.

Originally, long-distance trains *stopped for meals*. Everyone got off the train and it sat still for an hour while people got their meal at the Fred Harvey (or other) restaurant. (In practice this currently actually happens for the eastbound Lake Shore Limited at Albany, but not really for any other train.)

Obviously, this slows the train down. Therefore the dining car was invented. The dining cars lost money on food service from day one, but they allowed the train to *run faster*, because it no longer had to stop for an hour for breakfast, an hour for lunch, and an hour for dinner. The amount of money saved by running the train faster, combined with the added revenue from higher prices which could be charged for faster running, paid for the dining car.

The economics are exactly the same today.

Perhaps Amtrak should figure out how to estimate the cost of running each of the trains on a schedule several hours slower (I believe it would be six hours slower for the California Zephyr), and should credit that much money from ticket revenue to the diner. The trouble is that you're just guessing how much revenue you'd lose by making meal stops. A lot of revenue, definitely.

 

[Nathanael]

From what I read in the history books, dining cars on every railroad,( even during the Golden Years) never made any money. Snack cars, café cars and dining cars today cannot make money. As a accommodation, primarily for the sleeping car passengers, they are necessary. If you remove the dining service, you effectively shut down all the long distance routes.

You shut down the sleepers, but the sleepers are not the long distance train and coach does perfectly well with a cafe car, as the Palmetto demonstrates. Kill the full diners and the sleepers, and you start losing a lot less money.

Try it and you'd lose a *lot* more money. Both the sleepers and the diners add to Amtrak's bottom line -- there's a reason why Amtrak is buying more sleepers and new diners *out of operating profits*; they'll pay for themselves. The diners are necessary for ridership on the long runs, and the sleepers are simply profitable (if you can sell the berths, adding a sleeper to a train increases the train's net profit).

It may be hard to see the sleeper profits due to the fact that Amtrak doesn't publish avoidable costs. And the diner economics are pretty hard to pin down in numbers without doing stupid experiments. The best way to prove that diner economics still work the way they always have, would be to reschedule the Lake Shore Limited to start serving dinner eastbound, eliminate the hour-long stop at Albany, and watch revenues increase.

Now, you want to get rid of diners? *Make the trains so fast that you don't need diners*. If a train is only running across one mealtime, it'll do fine with a cafe. If it's running across three, many people demand a diner. If it's running across *no* mealtimes, you don't need food service. I've said this before: the key is *always* making the trains run faster. Always always always. It lowers staffing costs and increases ticket revenues, simultaneously.