Why is Amtrak coach more expensive than flying?

[Ryan]

All thats left for TSA to do is to dole out the yellow I.D. badges that will say "air traveler"! Airline travel is fast becoming travel, Auschwitz style.

Boy am I glad that a 9 month old thread was raised from the dead so that we could read trash like this.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

All thats left for TSA to do is to dole out the yellow I.D. badges that will say "air traveler"! Airline travel is fast becoming travel, Auschwitz style.

Boy am I glad that a 9 month old thread was raised from the dead so that we could read trash like this.

Why it´s true. Airline travel is no longer luxurious and wondrous like it used to be when it first started. Now it´s just a means to get to point A and point B and that´s it. It´s for people who are in a hurry. There is nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.You no longer get a 3 course meal on flights now your lucky if you get a bag of peanuts with more then 3 in the bag and some airlines you have to pay for those bags of peanuts.

 

[Ryan]

No, it isn't true. Comparisons to the treatment of air travelers to the treatment of Jews (and other "undesirables") under the Third Reich are wildly overblown and inappropriate.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

No, it isn't true. Comparisons to the treatment of air travelers to the treatment of Jews (and other "undesirables") under the Third Reich are wildly overblown and inappropriate.

Agree!

 

[amtrakwolverine]

So i didn´t catch on to his Jews comment so what? What I said still stands. There's nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.

 

[Guest]

So i didn´t catch on to his Jews comment so what? What I said still stands. There's nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.

It never was. Its not an ocean cruise

 

[Guest]

Why should air travel have to be luxurious? You can still buy a first class ticket if you want to feel special or if that is not enough just charter your own flight. Flights are cheap these days and you get what you pay for.

 

[RCrierie]

There's no denying that a lot of the romance has gone out of air travel these days, largely because of the intrusive security measures instituted after 9/11.

It's no longer enough to get to the airport about 45 minutes before your flight (to be sure), -- you now have to budget at least 1.5 hours -- maybe two if you are flying out of a popular tourist destination -- to clear security. Also, you have to pack special -- liquids no larger than x ounces, and god help you if you have any medicines or assistive devices. It means you now have to go to a store before your flight to pick up 'travel size' toothpaste tubes, or stop at a store after your flight to get toiletries.

It's an added hassle that makes flying not fun.

Also, you can no longer have family members wait at the gate with you -- now everyone needs a ticket; which also eliminates a lot of the lure of going to the airport and simply....watching planes take off.

This also means they can't greet you at the gate anymore.

That said -- they haven't eliminated windows on planes ---- yet. Which means that air travel is still a bit fun if you have a window seat to look out. It's just that the negatives are starting to outweigh the experience of looking out during takeoff/landing or cruising at 30,000 ft.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

So i didn´t catch on to his Jews comment so what? What I said still stands. There's nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.

It never was. Its not an ocean cruise

When flying first became popular it was advertised has being luxurious. you could get a five coarse meal and sexy flight attendants would bring it to your seat. The romance of flying is gone.

 

[JayPea]

No, it isn't true. Comparisons to the treatment of air travelers to the treatment of Jews (and other "undesirables") under the Third Reich are wildly overblown and inappropriate.

When I saw that I just . I was going to respond, but knew Ryan would probably see this post.......and he has a much better way with words than I do. And would put it so much better than I could. And he didn't disappoint! :lol: I couldn't agree more with Ryan.

 

[guest]

So i didn´t catch on to his Jews comment so what? What I said still stands. There's nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.

It never was. Its not an ocean cruise

When flying first became popular it was advertised has being luxurious. you could get a five coarse meal and sexy flight attendants would bring it to your seat. The romance of flying is gone.

That is still availabe on longer flights.But I do not know where you ever saw 5 course meals.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

So i didn´t catch on to his Jews comment so what? What I said still stands. There's nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.

Do you also lament the $5,000 inflation-adjusted domestic airfares that accompanied those fancier flights in the days before you were born? Luxurious air travel still exists to this very day in the form of charter contracts and fractional ownership arrangements. If and when you're willing and able to pay pre-deregulation airfares those same luxurious flights that catered to the rich and famous back then are ready and waiting to serve you today. Enjoy!

 

[user 1215]

Most non-American airliners offer incredible experiences for their first class passengers. Most American carriers offer descent first class service ag a much lower price than their international counterparts and it shows.

If you want to have a five course meal and a sexy flight attendant to bring it to you, rent a Gulfstream at $5k+ per hour.

 

[Ryan]

No, it isn't true. Comparisons to the treatment of air travelers to the treatment of Jews (and other "undesirables") under the Third Reich are wildly overblown and inappropriate.

When I saw that I just . I was going to respond, but knew Ryan would probably see this post.......and he has a much better way with words than I do. And would put it so much better than I could. And he didn't disappoint! :lol: I couldn't agree more with Ryan.

Thanks for the kind words - I appreciate it.

I just don't get how some people can lack such a fundamental perspective on things...

 

[benlugosch]

I still don't get it. I like trains. It's a much more humane way of traveling than flying, but the price is insanely high. I looked into prices from Charlotte, NC to Syracuse, and it was double the airfare. I'd take a hit on the time, nearly ten times the flight, but I can't justify both the time and the price. One year, I packed up my three daughters for train trip to south Florida because Amtrak was offering an outstanding price. The train, due at 1 AM, was five hours late in arriving, and three hours late leaving our station in south Florida (even though it was the point of origin for the route). I'd still take the train again. It's green and much more comfortable than flying -- if the prices weren't so outrageous.

What I don't understand is why, if a train moves goods and people more efficiently, they can't bring their price down to something a little more affordable. The complaint that tickets have to be expensive because so few ride the train is inverting the cause and effect. Try offering a year of dramatically reduced prices across the system and see what happens. If it doesn't work, then shut it down.

 

[Ryan]

What I don't understand is why, if a train moves goods and people more efficiently, they can't bring their price down to something a little more affordable.

Compare how much your trip on that airplane is subsidized (a lot) to how much your train trip is (not much).

Try offering a year of dramatically reduced prices across the system and see what happens. If it doesn't work, then shut it down.

This has three arguments against it:

1. Amtrak doesn't need to lower prices - it can be argued that Amtrak has been more proactive in keeping ticket prices high over the last year, and at the same time had record high ridership.

2. Amtrak doesn't have the capacity to carry the increased ridership that you're envisioning. Trains are running full, or nearly so.

3. Since you're not going to increase ridership greatly by lowering prices, all you're going to do is lower the amount of income that Amtrak takes in, causing it to need more Federal subsidy money, which has no chance of happening.

In a perfect world, lower prices are great. But in that perfect world, Amtrak would have 3 times as much rolling stock and have a much wider variety of routes to take advantage of the increased ridership that those lower prices would bring, and trains would be a much more significant piece of the transportation pie. Sadly, here in the real world that isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

[guest]

Most non-American airliners offer incredible experiences for their first class passengers. Most American carriers offer descent first class service ag a much lower price than their international counterparts and it shows.

If you want to have a five course meal and a sexy flight attendant to bring it to you, rent a Gulfstream at $5k+ per hour.

Hopefully, the descent service comes well after the ascent service. And on transatlantic and transpacific flights, U.S. airlines' services are nearly identical to those of overseas carriers in all classes, because that is the point where they have REAL competition, as opposed to the collusion that occurs within the U.S.

 

[Guest]

I still don't get it. I like trains. It's a much more humane way of traveling than flying, but the price is insanely high. I looked into prices from Charlotte, NC to Syracuse, and it was double the airfare. I'd take a hit on the time, nearly ten times the flight, but I can't justify both the time and the price. One year, I packed up my three daughters for train trip to south Florida because Amtrak was offering an outstanding price. The train, due at 1 AM, was five hours late in arriving, and three hours late leaving our station in south Florida (even though it was the point of origin for the route). I'd still take the train again. It's green and much more comfortable than flying -- if the prices weren't so outrageous.

What I don't understand is why, if a train moves goods and people more efficiently, they can't bring their price down to something a little more affordable. The complaint that tickets have to be expensive because so few ride the train is inverting the cause and effect. Try offering a year of dramatically reduced prices across the system and see what happens. If it doesn't work, then shut it down.

Why should the price be the same or cheaper? You said yourself that the Amtrak ride is more comfortable, etc. It would probably be cheaper to drive your family than fly or train, but nobody asks why a car trip is cheaper than airfare or Amtrak. You are paying for a service that you prefer.

There is currently much more demand for air service from Charlotte to Syracuse than rail service. They can fill a few planes a day from point to point and pay their employees to handle hundreds or thousands of passengers a day rather than Amtrak having to pay their employees to serve the few passengers that may elect to take Amtrak from Charlotte to Syracuse.

Amtrak's fare structure is based on distance rather than how airlines price by market. Because Amtrak would be taking you from Charlotte to Syracuse through several other cities, Amtrak will have to charge you more to go from Charlotte to Syracuse than the fare from Charlotte to Charlottesville, Charlotte to DC, Charlotte to Philadelphia, Charlotte to Newark, etc. When trains are full, it would make no sense for Amtrak to sell you a cheap seat form Charlotte to Syracuse when they could get more money for the seat that you're occupying from someone traveling from Charlotte to Washington, DC.

Where Amtrak is almost always a better deal than flying is for purchases/reservations very close to departure date and for shorter distance trips.

Nobody asks why the airlines charge so much more to fly from Charlotte to Charlottesville than Amtrak charges, but this is a particular market of where Amtrak is always a tremendous value.

 

[Ispolkom]

And on transatlantic and transpacific flights, U.S. airlines' services are nearly identical to those of overseas carriers in all classes, because that is the point where they have REAL competition, as opposed to the collusion that occurs within the U.S.

That certainly hasn't been my experience on transatlantic flights. In coach Virgin Atlantic is clearly superior to Northwest or Delta. Heck, I enjoyed a KLM plane and crew that was codeshared as a Delta flight much more than I did the return flight, which was a Delta plane and crew codeshared KLM. I'd like to imagine that my flight next week on American Airlines to Rome will be better, but my hopes aren't very high.

With regard to Amtrak's prices, Ryan hit the nail on the head. Why lower fares if long-distance trains are filled to capacity at present prices?

 

[Texan Eagle]

1. Amtrak doesn't need to lower prices - it can be argued that Amtrak has been more proactive in keeping ticket prices high over the last year, and at the same time had record high ridership.

Record high ridership compared to what? It's own meager ridership figures of past years. That's like a frog living in a well who was able to swim only 10 feet per day claiming record high when it is able to swim 15 feet once. It projects it is a great achievement, not knowing (or not wanting to be told) that frogs in rivers outside can swim 100 feet per day effortlessly.

Agreed Amtrak does not have enough rolling stock or infrastructure or financial ability to expand itself, but that being said, I still find the price structure of Amtrak quite insane. The coach fares are themselves equal or higher than Economy class airfares between most major city pairs, and one level above it you go straight to roomettes and bedrooms which are ridiculously expensive (please don't point out a few random city pairs which have very low bucket sleepers, I am talking about a general trend I have observed for whatever trains I wanted to take which includes TE, SWC, LSL, CL among others). This price structure puts long distance train travel out of contention for single folks like myself, because either I have to pay substantial fare and spend two or three nights sitting/crouching in a Coach seat (it may have generous legroom and incline and all, but frankly it is not a substitute for a bed for a a night sleep) or pay an insanely high price and book a roomette meant for two people even if I am travelling alone. I do not know the reason why does Amtrak not consider having an intermediate class, like someone mentioned in a post at the very start of this thread- a no-frills sleeper class. Buy a ticket and you get a seat during daytime which doubles up as bunk beds during night time, one bunk per person, no need to book entire cabins or rooms. This is the concept used in "Hard sleeper" class in Chinese trains and "AC Sleeper 3 Tier" in Indian trains- you get a bunk bed, clean sheets, a blanket and a pillow.. no free meals or turn down service or private restrooms, though there are common-use restrooms in every car. In these days of not-so-great economy, I am positive a lot of folks would be willing to take the train over a plane or driving long distances if it costs considerably lesser than plane tickets while offering a basic facility to sleep during the night. I, for one, would surely move almost all my travel to train then!

 

[Ryan]

And in a perfect world, Amtrak might be able to offer that kind of a service.

Here in the real world with the rolling stock that Amtrak owns, that isn't going to happen.

 

[Ziv]

In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!

I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change 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.

I agree. In Ukraine where I am from almost all trains are "sleepers". It's not luxury, it's just the way trains should be. The standard room is for 4 adults (4 beds). So even if you travel for 2 hours you get a bed. The size of the room is approx. size of Amtrak "bedroom". You may also buy "luxury" room for 2 adults with the same size. No toilet or shower in the room, only a public restroom in the car. No meal included, you may go to the dinner car and buy meals yourself. This way one car takes 52 passengers, passengers get more room than in Amtrak roomettes, they pay for travel only, not for meals, shower, etc. and tickets for overnight trip are as low as $10-20. This is the way it should be. Price of $950 for one night in bedroom on Florida trains that I see very often is nonsense. I took it once (for points, not for cash!) and it was not any special from any Ukrainian trains for $10-20.

I agree with Colobok on the European couchette type of railcars being something Amtrak should look into. There are as many types as there are countries, but most have the aisle/hallway on one side of the car and either semi-open or nearly fully enclosed rooms with 4 to 6 seats that fold into 3' by 6'6" beds. They are pretty comfortable, and I am 6'4". Most of the cars for nearly every train convert into couchettes so there is none of the half-sleep in coach that a lot of us have suffered through. The porter converts the couch into 4 beds (6 beds in second class, but that is a bit crowded) at 10 pm, you kick off your shoes, read for a bit, nod off and wake up at 7 am when the porter comes back through to convert the bunks back into couch seats. The couches aren't quite as comfortable as reclining Amtrak seat, quite, but the bunks are much more comfortable than an Amtrak seat to sleep in. No comparison. With the View Liner and Dining cars to hang out in, a Couchette car is a great value for someone that is traveling overnight but doesn't want to spring for a roomette. It would be cool if Amtrak would convert a dozen cars to couchettes and sell them at a slight premium from the regular coach on a couple routes, but with no meals included.

They might be surprised by the reception.

Ziv

 

[amtrakwolverine]

You want amtrak to offer services like the TGV etc Then cough up the money to make it happen cause our goverment is doing everything in there power to kill amtrak. The american government is anti-rail and will always be.

 

[amamba]

I don't think american's will go for couchettes. Americans crave privacy and don't want to share things with strangers.

 

[Anderson]

A couple of points:

1) The fare isn't strictly distance-based. Plug in WAS-ATL and WAS-NOL for an example (though that is an odd situation)...basically, if load factors are really bad on part of a route, the price may come down to try and entice through traffic.

2) I agree on Americans not going for Couchettes. Heck, VIA up in Canada is having trouble selling sections as I understand it, and the mechanics of a section vs. a couchette aren't that different. You'd be better off shooting for slumbercoaches again.

3) I'd like to see the bottom line on those Ukranian trains you mentioned. If I had to guess, they're netting a decent state subsidy of some kind (as is the case with most train systems). The other thing is that airline service in that part of the world is...shall we say "not the best", as I understand it.

Edit:

4) The airfare/rail coach fare numbers are a mixed bag. I'm actually taking the train from Virginia to Iowa at Christmas, and I got a low bucket sleeper WAS-CHI/CHI-WAS. The cost of the rail trip, round trip, was less than a six-month advance airline booking direct into Des Moines. With some major markets, airfares do come down on volume (and Amtrak fares go up on higher buckets), but it's variable based on demand and capacity.

5) As to the international fares...remind me how much you're paying for that service you get on international flights?