My plan to help Amtrak Reduce Losses

I was thinking that Amtrak needs to reduce losses to improve it's finances and improve it's image with congress my plan would involve these things noted below
Cut 70% of Surplus Excutives
Be more strict on emplyoee screwups
Won't guarntee any connections under 4 Hours
Improve productivity cut 75% surplus emplyoees
Make the Unions Work
Start charing for a 2nd soda, Ala Moe and Chesse or Bacon on a Burger for Sleeping Car Passengers
Renegotiate incentive payments
Sue the RR's for poor OTP
Sue RR's for accidents.

This will make Amtrak a better Company.

John Poshepny

AmtrakFan wrote:I was thinking that Amtrak needs to reduce losses to improve it's finances and improve it's image with congress my plan would involve these things noted below
Cut 70% of Surplus Excutives

Theoretically, if they're "surplus," then they should all be cut. Do you know how many such executives exist, and how much would be saved by cutting them?

Be more strict on emplyoee screwups

In what way, and what will that accomplish? Besides, how many "employee screwups" are really a result of company policy rather than of their own doing?

Won't guarntee any connections under 4 Hours

There goes at least 1/3 of your ridership on Chicago's LD trains.

Improve productivity cut 75% surplus emplyoees

What surplus employees? Everywhere I can think of, there's a shortage. Otherwise, if they're "surplus," why not cut 100% (see above)?

Make the Unions Work

What does this mean?

Start charing for a 2nd soda, Ala Moe and Chesse or Bacon on a Burger for Sleeping Car Passengers

1) I think they're already doing this.

2) Why be so cheap and alienate the passengers that spend the most money by charging them for an item that costs the company 25 cents?

Renegotiate incentive payments

Only works if the hosts agree.

Sue the RR's for poor OTP

The last thing Amtrak wants to do is further alienate the hosts. Besides, doesn't this contradict your third point above?

Sue RR's for accidents.

Not going to work. The contract indemnifies them. If you want to take away indemnification, then either:

1) Track access costs will skyrocket (Amtrak currently gets them cheap)

or

2) They'll just say no, and not let Amtrak on their railroad. They'd probably sue over it, you'd have even worse relations with the hosts, and who knows, they might just win the suit. Then what?

This will make Amtrak a better Company.

Simplistically, I suppose.

AmtrakFan wrote:I was thinking that Amtrak needs to reduce losses to improve it's finances and improve it's image with congress my plan would involve these things noted below
Cut 70% of Surplus Excutives
Be more strict on emplyoee screwups
Won't guarntee any connections under 4 Hours
Improve productivity cut 75% surplus emplyoees
Make the Unions Work
Start charing for a 2nd soda, Ala Moe and Chesse or Bacon on a Burger for Sleeping Car Passengers
Renegotiate incentive payments
Sue the RR's for poor OTP
Sue RR's for accidents.

This will make Amtrak a better Company.



John

Amtrak is quite strict now with employee screw-ups. These are not a
common occurrence.
You might as well not gurantee any connections at all, will not win Amtrak
any friends or passengers.
Make the unions work, sorry the unions do not work for Amtrak although
they do work for their members, that is their job. Only Amtrak's employees work for Amtrak and I think on the whole, they are doing a
good job.
Most decent restaurants do not charge for a refill on a drink and I do not
think Amtrak should either. If it is in a separate bottle or can, maybe but
if it comes out of a fountain or a big bottle, no the stuff in this item is
nickel and dime stuff at best.
Noel Weaver

I'm sure there are lots of opportunities for Amtrak to improve financial performance by finding and implementing more productive practices and improving preventive maintenance. The company has already invested heavily in new technology, i.e. internet, to handle many functions previously done by humans.

However, the cost of running a train is largely fixed, and there is far greater leverage to be gained by putting more fannies in the seats. This means more effective marketing investment and service improvements, particularly OT performance, to drive sales.

OK Mr. Madison, the rest of the surplus excutives will be cut the next Fiscal Year. My Dad says the Unions don't work well I do take back what you said about the 4 Hour Connections it will go down to 1.5 Hours.

John Poshepny

Part 2 of the plan will involve
Better Marketing
Guarntee all connction 1.5 Hours and above
Better Fares
More Service on several corridors like Chicago to Detroit, Chicago to St. Louis, Chicago to Minneapolis, Dallas to Houston, Seattle to Portland etc.
Cut NEC Supervisiors by 60% and all the surplus excutives left
Make the Cardinal Daily
Repair All Superliners that can be that mean more Fannies in the seats which means more $$$$.

AmtrakFan

AmtrakFan wrote:I was thinking that Amtrak needs to reduce losses to improve it's finances and improve it's image with congress my plan would involve these things noted below


Sue the RR's for poor OTP
Sue RR's for accidents.

This will make Amtrak a better Company.

John Poshepny

Sounds like a great idea, even includes two ideas I have pitched from tme to time. The last two.

I'm certain both Messrs "Railfan from Eastern Washington University" and Poshepny are aware that Amtrak is contractually barred, absent gross negligence, from seeking legal remedies against a Class One for poor OTP, or for damage to Amtrak equipment arising from derailments.

I once learned circa 1975 that Amtrak did seek damages from the Penn Central Estate for deterioriated track conditions that resulted in poor OTP. As I understand, the nature of the remedies sought did not directly address late trains, but rather that any party to the May 1, 1971 Agreement was obligated to maintain tracks "at the same degree of utility as preexisted' (I had to surrender my copy of that Agreement when I left the industry during 1981).

In short, the issue was poor track; poor performance was only a consequence.

Naturally applicable provisions "sunseted' during 1996, so the condition existing today where if forfeiture of any performance based payments (penalties, bonuses; what's the diff?) is not enough to "hold feet to the fire", then I'm afraid it is a "sorry 'bout that" for Amtrak.

I knew that they sued SP in 79 over the Sunset OTP but I never knew they sued PC. That is so stupid from being barred to get damages.

AmtrakFan/John Poshepny

Without the limitations on Amtrak being able to sue and recover damges from the host freight railroads, and to indemnify the freight railroads for claims arising from Amtrak operations, the freight railroads would simply not allow Amtrak to ustilize their tracks. The freight railroads are investor-owned private property.

AmFan Poshepny notes That is so stupid from being barred to get damages.

As a very pragmatic English philosopher, Robert Walpole, once observed:

"Every man has his price'

'Man", of course is quite synonomus with "institution', or "party".

The price that railroads wanted from Amtrak for absoloute priority of their trains and for complete indemnification in a railroad caused incident was simply more that Amtrak was willing, and even prudently willing, to pay.

Quite simply, there 'aint no free lunch' out there.

The point is simply that Amtrak would have to "prepay' the railroads for damages that they, being a government supported entity, are quite prepared to absorb themselves. In short, the existing contractual relationship represents self-indemnification to the extent of a party's financial capacityto bear a loss.

But be thankful here on Thanksgiving Day that Amtrak is not contractually bound to repair a railroad's right of way, lineside structures, and indemnify for injuries to trespassers; after all, any of the preceeding could have come to pass.

AmtrakFan wrote:I knew that they sued SP in 79 over the Sunset OTP but I never knew they sued PC. That is so stupid from being barred to get damages.

AmtrakFan/John Poshepny

I am getting tired of Amtrak being told to pay for itself, and being blocked at every turn from doing so, and then to seek legal recourse against one of the biggest obstacles to that happening. It is getting to be wierd.

Am I the only one with the idea that Amtrak management salaries are a tad-------------excessive? Visit their Job Opportunities web-site & scope out the pay range for a Road Foreman of Engines. IIRC, the high end of the scale is $100,000.00. I think one would be hard pressed to find any RFE on a freight railroad realizing more than $75,000.00/yr.

Don't forget that is high end salery, but is it not sad that the supervisor of locomotive enginereers makes Less than the personal he supervises ??
granted the Engineer has his salery and arbitraries but stiil 60% of engineers make near or above $100k in north east.

DutchRailnut wrote:Don't forget that is high end salery, but is it not sad that the supervisor of locomotive enginereers makes Less than the personal he supervises ??
granted the Engineer has his salery and arbitraries but stiil 60% of engineers make near or above $100k in north east.

On most railroads I've been associated with, management does make less than the hourly employees. That's understood as part of the game plan, the trade off between the on-call, extra-board, 12hr.+ shifts, rotting in a Motel 6 on Thanksgiving day, for a semi-regular lifestyle. Yes, I do realize that the management types are subject to be called at anytime for de-railments, serious rules violations, etc. Under normal circumstances though, their (management) schedules are far preferable to the hourly employees.