PaulM
Engineer
The July issue of trains magazine contains an article entitled "Find your Amtrak summer rail travel deals" that mirrored two types of AU threads: one a recent hot topic and the other a frequently reoccurring one. The hot topic was sleeping car prices, or more precisely. has Amtrak's revenue management strategy changed. The perennial topic was on-board upgrades and how to outwit conductors who refuse them
The sleeping car price threads quickly veered off into a discussion of whether Amtrak should maximize revenue or not (no - lose as much money as possible?????), But based on the discussions and my experience checking prices on the SWC, I concluded that something had changed, and speculated that Bucketolgy 101 needs to be rethought. The article seems to concur. Like most articles of the type, it tried to personalized the subject with an example, in this case someone wanting to go from CHI to DEN on business. After giving the usual advice to check various dates within a range, it suggests to check back two weeks prior to departure because if too much space remained unsold, the price would drop. It also mentioned that space doesn't always start out at the lowest price. While this makes perfect sense from a revenue management standpoint, it certainly violates the principles of Bucketolgy 101.
The passenger in question checked prior to departure and, judging the price to be still too high, opted to try for an on-board upgrade, a frequent subject of discussion here. When the "recalcitrant" conductor refused, the passenger contacted someone at Amtrak and found that there were 5 roomettes available, not counting any no-shows at Chicago. When confronted with this information, the conductor suddenly became very "friendly" and completed the transaction. Sure, if I had been caught sabotaging my employer, I'd change my tune quickly. Did the conductor become aware that the passenger was a writer for Trains magazine.
The article suggested that the reason the conductor refused was that it was too much work. There was no blarney about the conductor's job being to ensure the safety, blah, blah, blah. Sure, it is the conductor's job, along with the AC, to ensure safety. But according to Amtrak policy and procedures, it is also their job to sell unused space, thus helping the bottom line. If Amtrak thought having conductors and AC's sell space would put the public in danger, they would have someone else sell space. or collect tickets for that matter. After all, there is no federal regulation (oops maybe there is) requiring conductors to sell space. It's merely an age old tradition.
It would be nice if main a stream publication some how or another go a hold of this theme. We might see fewer thread on this topic.
Disclosure: I have no idea how often this occurs or how much money Amtrak loses, if any. I'm just reacting to what on other forums would be called fan-boy defenses of the behavior in question.
The sleeping car price threads quickly veered off into a discussion of whether Amtrak should maximize revenue or not (no - lose as much money as possible?????), But based on the discussions and my experience checking prices on the SWC, I concluded that something had changed, and speculated that Bucketolgy 101 needs to be rethought. The article seems to concur. Like most articles of the type, it tried to personalized the subject with an example, in this case someone wanting to go from CHI to DEN on business. After giving the usual advice to check various dates within a range, it suggests to check back two weeks prior to departure because if too much space remained unsold, the price would drop. It also mentioned that space doesn't always start out at the lowest price. While this makes perfect sense from a revenue management standpoint, it certainly violates the principles of Bucketolgy 101.
The passenger in question checked prior to departure and, judging the price to be still too high, opted to try for an on-board upgrade, a frequent subject of discussion here. When the "recalcitrant" conductor refused, the passenger contacted someone at Amtrak and found that there were 5 roomettes available, not counting any no-shows at Chicago. When confronted with this information, the conductor suddenly became very "friendly" and completed the transaction. Sure, if I had been caught sabotaging my employer, I'd change my tune quickly. Did the conductor become aware that the passenger was a writer for Trains magazine.
The article suggested that the reason the conductor refused was that it was too much work. There was no blarney about the conductor's job being to ensure the safety, blah, blah, blah. Sure, it is the conductor's job, along with the AC, to ensure safety. But according to Amtrak policy and procedures, it is also their job to sell unused space, thus helping the bottom line. If Amtrak thought having conductors and AC's sell space would put the public in danger, they would have someone else sell space. or collect tickets for that matter. After all, there is no federal regulation (oops maybe there is) requiring conductors to sell space. It's merely an age old tradition.
It would be nice if main a stream publication some how or another go a hold of this theme. We might see fewer thread on this topic.
Disclosure: I have no idea how often this occurs or how much money Amtrak loses, if any. I'm just reacting to what on other forums would be called fan-boy defenses of the behavior in question.