Well, given the way Amtrak simply decided to pay replace concrete tiles in the NE corridor that broke 40 year too early (rather than having the company that built them replace them as was guaranteed), the labor contract Amtrak is in the process of signing, that Amtrak is scheduled to receive .5 billion dollars more from the federal government than they have received in past years, and that ridership is at an all time high, I'd say that Amtrak, with better management, should be swimming in money.
There are a whole slew of reasons for them paying for the labor to replace the concrete ties to go into. But suffice to say, its not as stupid as you make it out to be.
Next, Amtrak is about $3
billion in debt. They are not swimming in money. The reason for that debt is that the government attempted to force them to become profitable in the infamous "Glidepath to Self Sufficiency". Didn't work, couldn't work. No railroad in the world operates without government subsidy in some form or another. Actually, no mass transit industry does so, period, be they direct (Amtrak) or indirect (airlines, busses, etc)
Amtrak is operating on other peoples tracks. They are operating a set of tracks built by several railroads over a hundred years ago. They need constant work to just be usable. They are dealing with rolling stock, some of which are 60 years old, and most of it is 30+ years old. This stuff needs repair, and in many cases, they really need replacement. They need more equipment. While leaving pricing levels at they are, Amtrak could probably invest $10 billion and waste less of it than any other government agency.
I believe that the comparison of airline fares to train fares is illconcieved - Amtrak's major competition and an industry they should be studying is that of cruising. The train is a form of vacation to many, many people and could be for many more with a little better promotion in that area - a cruise offers a way to see places you want to see while always having a place to eat and sleep. Many people want to see more of the US and Canada or even Mexico for that matter and are willing to pay for first-class service which Amtrak does not offer. I just completed traveling cross country first class by train to board a cruiseship for a week and then returned home by first class train and the difference is staggaring while the cost is similar on a per diem basis. First class on a train means you have a bed, mediocore food and nothing else - you can't even get preferential treatment when it comes to a seat in the observation car. The cruise industry has developed many ways to add revenue i.e. photos, gambling, bingo, excursions at different stops, etc., etc.; Amtrak needs to do the same or raise prices. Given some of the numbers I have seen on this site it looks as though first class passengers are the most profitable so why not first class only trains? The Coast Starlight with the first class only lounge car with movie theater and couples dining is close but they need to upgrade the rooms slightly. First class only trains once or twice a month with planned itineraries ( like cruises ) would succeed. How about a train on which you stay and eat that stops for a day at Niagara Falls, departs that night for 2 days in NYC ( play tickets included ) or the Grand Canyon............... Where do I sign up!!
I just got finished saying that they do not provide simply rail cruises. If you happen to think this, you are wrong. Passengers traveling, for instance, on the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle, or from on the CZ from Chicago to SF, or similar itineraries, are possibly taking rail cruises. Most are not. You fail to recognize the nature of turn over on these routes.
Take the
City of New Orleans. The CONL runs one and a half sleeping cars, or more specifically, one sleeping car and a crew dorm. That sleeping car is rarely full. Very few people ride this train CHI-NOL. What the CONL does, more so, is function as a patch work of local trains, ferrying many people between short distance jaunts along the local stops of its line. It just happens to run the whole route. A few people use it for such. If you look at their trains, you'll notice the vast majority of people riding the long distance trains do so between shorter points.
And yes, overnight travelers do use it for transportation, as well. For example, the CL is used by business travelers to Chicago. The California Zephyr transports so many people between Chicago and Denver that a couple of sleepers act as a ferry between those stops, picked up by one train in Chicago, left in Denver, and taken back by the trains opposite number. Amtrak provides serious transportation, just like any other company. Some people use it simply for pleasure, just like I occasionally do with commuter rail.
While occasionally on particular days or routes Amtrak is of comparable cost to flying, this is not generally the case in my experience. For long routes it is rarely competitive with budget airlines (LAX-CHI is $143 on Amtrak booked in advance, while Frontier makes the same trip for $123). Much worse, however, are corridor routes, where Amtrak charges much higher fares than bus operators on the same route ($59 for NYP-BOS booked in advance, which is $15 walkup on a Chinatown bus and $1 in advance on Megabus). High Amtrak pricing on such routes seems to be an attempt to price people off trains and reduce crowding, but since the purpose of Amtrak is to provide transportation rather than to make money, it should be running as many trains with as much space as possible, with fares low enough to fill them.
I don't know where you got the impression that Amtrak isn't supposed to make money. They don't make money, but they are supposed to try to. It is a cardinal flaw in the Amtrak law. Amtrak's job should be to transport as many people as they can in reasonable comfort for the best value possible. Their actual job is to make money, preferably by transporting passengers.
Amtrak has limited capacity. They manage to do a pretty good job filling their trains at current prices. They'd be idiots to charge less than the market will bear.
Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.
