Amtrak ticket refund policies to change

[SouthernRailway]

I can fly from LGA to DCA or BOS on American and get same-day ticket changes for FREE if I'm in paid first class, and if I bought a coach ticket, FREE standby on earlier or later flights. I almost always am able to go standby on whatever flight I want, too.

Exactly my point. If you pay for first class on American you can get a same-day ticket change for free. In other words, you get something of value in exchange for paying the higher fare.

As far as standby and coach tickets are concerned, American charges a fee of $75 to fly standby, which is an important detail. Their rules are here: https://www.aa.com/i18n/plan-travel/ext ... travel.jsp

Generally speaking, airline ticketing rules are more strict than Amtrak. So you may not want to cite the airlines as the example for Amtrak to follow if you don't like restrictions.

My take on this is very simple. If you pay more you should get more. Amtrak is trying to add value to the more expensive tickets, which seems more than fair.

Thanks. You're exactly right.

American waives standby fees for "elites" (I dislike that word)---people who fly the most.

Amtrak should do the same.

[rcthompson04]

How would this impact corridors where you have unrestricted coach tickets that last a year like the Keystone between Philadelphia and Harrisburg?

[exvalley]

Thanks. You're exactly right.

American waives standby fees for "elites" (I dislike that word)---people who fly the most.

Amtrak should do the same.

You've done it again. You are focusing on something that is completely independent from what I am talking about.

My point is that, if Amtrak is charging two different prices for the same exact seat on the same exact train, they should offer something of value in exchange for the higher price point. My contention had nothing whatsoever to do with what is offered to elites. My comments pertain to individual price points as set by Amtrak, not total spending over the course of numerous trips.

[Suburban Station]

How would this impact corridors where you have unrestricted coach tickets that last a year like the Keystone between Philadelphia and Harrisburg?

Unreserved trains would be unaffected since tou dont need to change tickets. Only changes to the cancellation fees would affect unreserved riders unless amtrak has more changes in store

Only low cost carrier Frontier Airlines was ranked behind American this year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/grantmarti ... ines-2019/

[Suburban Station]

Thanks. You're exactly right.

American waives standby fees for "elites" (I dislike that word)---people who fly the most.

Amtrak should do the same.

You've done it again. You are focusing on something that is completely independent from what I am talking about.

My point is that, if Amtrak is charging two different prices for the same exact seat on the same exact train, they should offer something of value in exchange for the higher price point. My contention had nothing whatsoever to do with what is offered to elites. My comments pertain to individual price points as set by Amtrak, not total spending over the course of numerous trips.

Demand based pricing does not require that this be the case. Companies can sell the simar seats on the same train at different prices. People pay different prices for the same product all the time

[Suburban Station]

The main reason why airline style fees are not the right move are various: [SNIP]

You are introducing a lot of arguments that don't address my point. My contention is thus: If Amtrak offers tickets at different price points for the same exact seat on the same exact train, the more expensive ticket should offer something of value in exchange for the higher price. In Amtrak's case, they are offering increased flexibility. They aren't exactly blazing a new path. Greyhound and the airlines are doing this already. Greyhound, for example, has three different levels of tickets that come with an increase in benefits with an increase in price.

Fundamentally, this is not the case. Prices can differ for any number of reasons.
I am merely bringing up relevant points which you choose to ignore as is your prerogative.
The basic point is that it has nothing to do with the mees for variances in prices. Amtrak competes in a marketplace and has to both maximize operating revenue and provide utility in exchange for a subsidy. Introducing fees to boost short term revenue is counterproductive, all things being equal. If amtraks intent is to offer inexpensive fares like many other modes, then having this change coincide with fare decreases makes sense. If they intend to simply gouge on top of already high prices, it smacks of a company out of ideas.

[exvalley]

Thanks. You're exactly right.

American waives standby fees for "elites" (I dislike that word)---people who fly the most.

Amtrak should do the same.

You've done it again. You are focusing on something that is completely independent from what I am talking about.

My point is that, if Amtrak is charging two different prices for the same exact seat on the same exact train, they should offer something of value in exchange for the higher price point. My contention had nothing whatsoever to do with what is offered to elites. My comments pertain to individual price points as set by Amtrak, not total spending over the course of numerous trips.

Demand based pricing does not require that this be the case. Companies can sell the simar seats on the same train at different prices. People pay different prices for the same product all the time

Ugh. This is getting really frustrating. I have NEVER suggested that Amtrak cannot have different price points in the form of fare buckets. All I have said is that if Amtrak is going to have tiered pricing for a seat at any given moment in time, there should be some value offered in exchange for the higher price point. My position is beneficial to the consumer, since I am demanding that they get something for paying more.

[exvalley]

Prices can differ for any number of reasons.

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

But let me ask you a simple question. Two vendors set up two adjacent tables selling the exact same 20 oz bottle of Coca Cola. Everything about the vendors and their product is the same - except the price that they charge. One vendor sells the Coke for $1. The other sells it for $1.50. Which bottle are you going to buy? The answer is quite simple.

The point of the story is that companies cannot charge different prices just because they feel like it. In order to justify a higher price they have to offer value for what is being paid. That value can come in many forms. For example, this is why a grocery store cannot sell a bottle of Coke for the same price a convenience store charges. Believe me. If they could they would.

[Suburban Station]

Prices can differ for any number of reasons.

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

But let me ask you a simple question. Two vendors set up two adjacent tables selling the exact same 20 oz bottle of Coca Cola. Everything about the vendors and their product is the same - except the price that they charge. One vendor sells the Coke for $1. The other sells it for $1.50. Which bottle are you going to buy? The answer is quite simple.

The point of the story is that companies cannot charge different prices just because they feel like it. In order to justify a higher price they have to offer value for what is being paid. That value can come in many forms. For example, this is why a grocery store cannot sell a bottle of Coke for the same price a convenience store charges. Believe me. If they could they would.

nobody has claimed prices vary just because amtrak feels like it, though in this example the ticket policy may vary just because they feel like it.

in this case there is only one vendor and prices vary based on a number of factors. the grocery store comparison is not particularly apt since coke is bought in advance for consumption later and it stores well. people would not shop at a grocery store that sold you the right to drink coke at a specific time and tried to charge you more if you drank the coke at a different time. people want to be able to drink their coke at their discretion. that is also how they want their transportation, ideally, but there are tradeoffs involved. ticket prices, otoh, vary based on time of day, seasonal demand, trip time, etc every single day. an amfleet set might have its seats sold at twice the price on one trip than other. there is no fundamental need to have the ticket policy change to justify price variability. if you don't like the price, you can drive, take a commuter train, ferry, or bus. unlike with soda, the savings can be dramatic...enough to buy many cases of soda. introducing a new restriction amounts to either a devaluation of the existing ticket value or price increase.

[exvalley]

Let me try to make this very simple because you don't seem to appreciate the scope of my argument.

As of right now, Amtrak is offering the following coach fares for train #449 between Albany and Chicago on November 11, 2019.
Saver: $82
Value $103
Flexible: $198

Here is my point: Amtrak should offer something of value in exchange for the customer paying a higher fare. In other words, someone who purchases the Value fare should receive something of value above and beyond what the Saver fare offers. And someone purchasing the Flexible fare should receive something of value above and beyond what the Saver and Value fares offer.

I really don't think that this is contentious. If you spend more you should get more. My position is pro-consumer in that regard.

[SouthernRailway]

Thanks. You're exactly right.

American waives standby fees for "elites" (I dislike that word)---people who fly the most.

Amtrak should do the same.

You've done it again. You are focusing on something that is completely independent from what I am talking about.

My point is that, if Amtrak is charging two different prices for the same exact seat on the same exact train, they should offer something of value in exchange for the higher price point. My contention had nothing whatsoever to do with what is offered to elites. My comments pertain to individual price points as set by Amtrak, not total spending over the course of numerous trips.

Yes, again, you're correct, and noted.

My point is that Amtrak is noncompetitive in terms of the benefits that it offers to frequent travelers.

Despite my preference for trains generally, if I'm heading to Boston or DC for a meeting, and I need flexibility for my ticket, I can either:

1. Buy a coach ticket on American and have FREE standby and pretty much be able to take any flight I want, without any extra charges, since I'm an "elite" frequent flyer. (Buying a first-class ticket also gets free same-day ticket changes, but sometimes you get downgraded to coach if you change, even if you bought a first-class ticket.)

OR

2. Take Amtrak, and even if I were an "elite" with Amtrak (I'm not), I'd have to buy a brand-new ticket, at the walk-up fare, if I wanted to change my ticket.

Now which will a person pick if the person needs flexibility with his or her ticket?

[exvalley]

My point is that Amtrak is noncompetitive in terms of the benefits that it offers to frequent travelers.

Despite my preference for trains generally, if I'm heading to Boston or DC for a meeting, and I need flexibility for my ticket, I can either: [SNIP]

Respectfully, your anecdotal situation in regard to the Northeast Corridor is not a compelling argument.

If you look at seats filled and revenues generated, there is no question that Amtrak is competitive in the Northeast Corridor.

You focused on a single aspect of their competitiveness: Whether or not you can change the time of your departure without paying anything extra. Okay... so for you that's a deal breaker. But you are just you. Other people clearly have different priorities than you have. Perhaps they like the fact that they don't have to schlep to the airport and deal with TSA. Perhaps they like the fact that Amtrak is less likely to be impacted by weather. Perhaps they like the more spacious seating. The list can go on an on.

The bottom line is that, despite being less competitive in regard to the single metric that you cite, Amtrak is extremely competitive overall in the Northeast Corridor. If you broaden your analysis beyond just your single priority, you will see why.

But let's not get distracted. Let's get back to my actual point. Do you disagree with my contention that, if Amtrak is going to charge different fares for the same seat on the same train at a single point in time, Amtrak should provide something of value in exchange for payment of the higher fare?

[Suburban Station]

Let me try to make this very simple because you don't seem to appreciate the scope of my argument.

As of right now, Amtrak is offering the following coach fares for train #449 between Albany and Chicago on November 11, 2019.
Saver: $82
Value $103
Flexible: $198

Here is my point: Amtrak should offer something of value in exchange for the customer paying a higher fare. In other words, someone who purchases the Value fare should receive something of value above and beyond what the Saver fare offers. And someone purchasing the Flexible fare should receive something of value above and beyond what the Saver and Value fares offer.

I really don't think that this is contentious. If you spend more you should get more. My position is pro-consumer in that regard.

I understand what you are saying, it just isn't fundamentally true. I'll try it again since I think you are missing the bigger picture. Amtrak's prices vary within "saver, value, flexible" which are additional constructs. Each tranche has pricing buckets so that fares vary. you can pay $45 value, $61 value, etc. amtrak has always done this, airlines do it, it is demand management. people pay different prices and do not demand different services. arguing that change fees are pro-consumer is a mental feat in itself.

Amtrak is in a competitive market, regional service isn't that much faster (if at all) than driving except in very select markets

Between the major airline markets of the Northeast Corridor Amtrak commands a 63 percent share of the combined rail-air market. This includes services operating between New York and both Washington/Baltimore and Boston/Providence as well as between Boston/Providence and both Washington/Baltimore and Philadelphia.

But there is a lot more travel along the Northeast Corridor than by trains and planes.

When buses are included the market share of rail among the commercial travel modes falls to 41 percent. Buses carry 34 percent, while airlines carry 25 percent (Figure 1). But the “elephant in the room” is the car. Cars carry much more Northeast Corridor travel that any of the three other modes. Between the major metropolitan air markets, cars account for 78 percent of travel, more than 3.5 times the combined rail, air and bus ridership

https://www.newgeography.com/content/00 ... dor-travel

[exvalley]

I understand what you are saying, it just isn't fundamentally true. I'll try it again since I think you are missing the bigger picture. Amtrak's prices vary within "saver, value, flexible" which are additional constructs. Each tranche has pricing buckets so that fares vary. you can pay $45 value, $61 value, etc. amtrak has always done this, airlines do it, it is demand management. people pay different prices and do not demand different services. arguing that change fees are pro-consumer is a mental feat in itself.

I am going to say it really loudly this time: I am not talking about fare buckets. I have already indicated that I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of fare buckets. Namely, with Amtrak adjusting price based on demand. The change that Amtrak is proposing has absolutely nothing to do with fare buckets. So please don't go there.

I will ask you again. Do you disagree with my contention that, if Amtrak is going to charge different fares for the same seat on the same train at a single point in time, Amtrak should provide something of value in exchange for payment of the higher fare?

[exvalley]

Between the major airline markets of the Northeast Corridor Amtrak commands a 63 percent share of the combined rail-air market. This includes services operating between New York and both Washington/Baltimore and Boston/Providence as well as between Boston/Providence and both Washington/Baltimore and Philadelphia.

But there is a lot more travel along the Northeast Corridor than by trains and planes.

When buses are included the market share of rail among the commercial travel modes falls to 41 percent. Buses carry 34 percent, while airlines carry 25 percent (Figure 1). But the “elephant in the room” is the car. Cars carry much more Northeast Corridor travel that any of the three other modes. Between the major metropolitan air markets, cars account for 78 percent of travel, more than 3.5 times the combined rail, air and bus ridership

https://www.newgeography.com/content/00 ... dor-travel

Now you have moved the goalposts. You claimed that Amtrak was not competitive in the Northeast Corridor with elite travelers vis a vis American Airlines. I disagreed. As a retort, you provided a statistic that shows that Amtrak captures 63% of the airline/train market. Respectfully, that supports my claim. This is especially so when you consider that there are numerous airlines fighting over the remaining 37% of the market. Company to company, Amtrak dominates the Northeast Corridor - even if you personally don't use them because you are opposed to a change fee. Simply put, if you are trying to convince me that Amtrak is not competitive with American Airlines in the Northeast Corridor, you are going to have to do better.

I will say this, though: I agree with you that Amtrak is not competitive with busses. This is because Amtrak doesn't want to compete with busses. There is a reason why they are ordering Acela replacements and not cars that sit three-abreast with 27 inch seat pitch. They aren't going after the segment of the market that is only willing to pay $14 to get from Boston to New York. I can't say that I blame them.

That said, if you want to discuss busses and cars may I suggest that we start a new thread? We are getting very far afield.