Amtrak vs Flying

nyswfan wrote: With our penny-wise and pound-foolish gov't we have here in the US, you would think that they could learn from the Euros. I flew from Newark to Reno last week, with a stop over in pheonix. While boarding in Newark, there a dash-8 boarding at the next gate bound for Philadelphia. A flight from EWR to PHL is absolutely obnoxious. A ticket on this flight ths afternoon cost $350 one way.

So, with rail becoming inadequate after 5 hours, the faa should outlaw regional jets where rail can adequately replace the flight.

If it was such an obvious choice between the two, why would the government need to step in to outlaw something? Why should it be against the law to do something silly... you can do something silly if you wish.

However, the price you quoted is almost certainly not at all a fair comparison. Flight prices skyrocket a few days before and day-off. If I look at the price of this ticket a couple weeks away (EWR to PHL) (and I'm reporting air fares here, not Amtrak fares), I see many available for $75, which is pretty comparable with a NY/NWK to Philly train ticket, depending on the details.

I agree with you that I'd never fly that, but pricewise with more than momentary notice, the choice isn't "silly". Even if it were, silly & illegal are different things.

You also overlook other uses. Perhaps most the people on that plane are not doing simply EWR to PHL, but are connecting from a place further away where train service would be very slow to go to Philly, or nonexistant. Perhaps they're flying from Nashville or Shreveport or Las Vegas to Philly. Rather than having more directly flights to smaller airports (not that Philly is small, but its not the NY three), perhaps its more cost effective for some airlines to bring people to the NY area and then put them on a short hop elsewhere. That's yet another reason why not only shouldn't it be illegal, but perhaps its not even silly at all.

Those EWR-PHL flights are not there to serve the EWR-PHL market. They're there to serve the markets connecting though EWR or PHL to/fron the other city. EWR is a major hub for Continental and PHL is a major hub for US Airways. Yes, there are rail stations at both airports but for the connecting air passenger, a connecting flight, even as short as that (although there are plenty shorter), makes more sense and is faster than connecting to a train. And when you factor in things like very limited checked baggage service on Amtrak on the Corridor, using Amtrak for the "last miles" is a non-starter.

Although he did not note such, it would appear Mr. Susie was flying KEWR-KPHX-KRNO on USAir.

Link KPHX, KPHL is a USAir hub; as such the point that Messrs. Connecticut and Stone note that anyone aboard that KEWR to KPHL flight was, if "rev" connecting to another USAir flight. If anyone was paying the walk up (unrestricted) fare, they either 1) can be as blase' about consumption as can these folk or 2) likely a "point chaser' who needed just one more flight in order for the entire family to fly First Class on reward points to somewhere like Hawaii during Spring Break.

Continental hubs at KEWR and has their code share arrangement with Amtrak for Corridor destinations. Likely, Continental would be less than happy about USAir having a similar arrangement with Amtrak, and have an "exclusivity' provision within the code-share Agreement.

I haven't kept up with CO's Amtrak code-share but CO is just as "guilty". Looking at today's schedule, both US and CO fly EWR-PHL 4x/day.

Another factor that needs to be considered is through fares. The connecting passenger is not paying an additional $350 for the connecting flight. It may be just a little more or the same. In some unusual situations, it might even cost less (for instance, I just found where flying US SFO-PHL-EWR is less expensive than flying them SFO-PHL). The passenger who would only fly to PHL and then go by rail up to the EWR area would end up paying a lot more.

Yet to be mentioned in this thread is the revolutionary concept "profit". Does anyone think that the commuter surrogates of either Continental or US Airways would operate this segment if it wasn't in their interests to do so? More important, how could some bureaucrat in Washington know better to make this decision for them? If we're going to allow that then we might as well let the same bureaucrat decide what Amtrak should charge for tickets and what they must and must not serve for dinner on the Empire Builder.

MudLake wrote:Yet to be mentioned in this thread is the revolutionary concept "profit". Does anyone think that the commuter surrogates of either Continental or US Airways would operate this segment if it wasn't in their interests to do so? More important, how could some bureaucrat in Washington know better to make this decision for them? If we're going to allow that then we might as well let the same bureaucrat decide what Amtrak should charge for tickets and what they must and must not serve for dinner on the Empire Builder.

In other words, make it a level playing field.

To a certain extent though, my understanding is that it's not quite as simple as letting the airlines choose. I Believe so many slots at the big eastern airports are reserved by law for regional flights. The bigger boys would dearly love to have those slots, but can't get them. This is one area where I suspect forcing social policy might in the long run be the best thing.

Require a $5 surcharge on the NYC/WAS flights to subsidize the NEC. Build up the NEC to the point where it's clearly a viable alternative to flying and then gradually reduce regional slots and permit more slots for longer range jets. Yes, it's not entirely "free market" and I suspect some would howl louder than others, but some would also appreciate it.

Note too, sometimes it's very hard for a single airline (or business) to do something "different". At the time they stopped permitting smoking on flights, the rumor was that while publicly all the airlines opposed it (didn't ant to upset customers) privately they wanted it since it would cut down on maintenance costs, etc. But no one airline wanted to be the first one to risk going first.

Greg Moore wrote: Require a $5 surcharge on the NYC/WAS flights to subsidize the NEC.

How about a $5 surcharge on Mets games, to prop up the NEC, too? $5 surcharge for Broadway shows? $5 to see the Liberty Bell? $5 to visit the Smithsonian?

Maybe we can have a $5 surcharge on $5 surcharges, too....

Or, maybe Amtrak could, you know, improve service, cut costs, and attract more ridership?

Greg Moore wrote: To a certain extent though, my understanding is that it's not quite as simple as letting the airlines choose. I Believe so many slots at the big eastern airports are reserved by law for regional flights. The bigger boys would dearly love to have those slots, but can't get them. This is one area where I suspect forcing social policy might in the long run be the best thing.

Regional airlines perhaps, but regional flights? I'm skeptical if that's true. And no, they're not the same thing. Regional airlines do plenty of mid-distance flights at least, and long too. I've done Boston to Baltimore (a most-of-the-day train ride) and Detroit to Seattle (a multi-day train ride) on regional airlines. So its not the same thing.

I'm still not clear on why Amtrak fares are generally equal to or higher than air fares. I'm starting with the assumption that moving people by train is inherently more efficient, mainly due to fuel costs, than moving them by air. If this is incorrect, I'd like to know why.
I understand how Amtrak wants to charge what the market will bear - ideally such that either dropping or raising fares will reduce revenue. But, given that their fares are not significantly below air fares, Amtrak should be making a profit (due to the efficiency of trains). Yet they're not.
Is this because of so-called "hidden subsidies" for airlines? Or is there a different reason?

Greg Moore wrote:

MudLake wrote:Yet to be mentioned in this thread is the revolutionary concept "profit". Does anyone think that the commuter surrogates of either Continental or US Airways would operate this segment if it wasn't in their interests to do so? More important, how could some bureaucrat in Washington know better to make this decision for them? If we're going to allow that then we might as well let the same bureaucrat decide what Amtrak should charge for tickets and what they must and must not serve for dinner on the Empire Builder.

In other words, make it a level playing field.

To a certain extent though, my understanding is that it's not quite as simple as letting the airlines choose. I Believe so many slots at the big eastern airports are reserved by law for regional flights. The bigger boys would dearly love to have those slots, but can't get them. This is one area where I suspect forcing social policy might in the long run be the best thing.

Require a $5 surcharge on the NYC/WAS flights to subsidize the NEC. Build up the NEC to the point where it's clearly a viable alternative to flying and then gradually reduce regional slots and permit more slots for longer range jets. Yes, it's not entirely "free market" and I suspect some would howl louder than others, but some would also appreciate it.

Note too, sometimes it's very hard for a single airline (or business) to do something "different". At the time they stopped permitting smoking on flights, the rumor was that while publicly all the airlines opposed it (didn't ant to upset customers) privately they wanted it since it would cut down on maintenance costs, etc. But no one airline wanted to be the first one to risk going first.

That may be the case at LaGuardia and Reagan but not at Newark or Philadelphia which are the two airports mentioned.

As for surcharges, why not a $5 surcharge on each post to this website to support the NEC (the part of Amtrak that needs the least external support)?

I think a $5 surcharge on surcharges would be better....

NE2: What do you mean by "the efficiency of trains"? That's a broad assertion.

NE2 wrote:I'm still not clear on why Amtrak fares are generally equal to or higher than air fares. I'm starting with the assumption that moving people by train is inherently more efficient, mainly due to fuel costs, than moving them by air. If this is incorrect, I'd like to know why.
I understand how Amtrak wants to charge what the market will bear - ideally such that either dropping or raising fares will reduce revenue. But, given that their fares are not significantly below air fares, Amtrak should be making a profit (due to the efficiency of trains). Yet they're not.
Is this because of so-called "hidden subsidies" for airlines? Or is there a different reason?

Please explain?

I've only ever bought same day tickets for Amtrak. Round trip from NY to philly run around $100. Same day tickets for air service is MUCH higher than Amtrak.

Advance purchase flights you can get a cheap deal. Ive got Pittsburgh flights for as cheap as $29 o/w. Amtrak will be higher and take you all day.

fredct wrote:

Greg Moore wrote: To a certain extent though, my understanding is that it's not quite as simple as letting the airlines choose. I Believe so many slots at the big eastern airports are reserved by law for regional flights. The bigger boys would dearly love to have those slots, but can't get them. This is one area where I suspect forcing social policy might in the long run be the best thing.

Regional airlines perhaps, but regional flights? I'm skeptical if that's true. And no, they're not the same thing. Regional airlines do plenty of mid-distance flights at least, and long too. I've done Boston to Baltimore (a most-of-the-day train ride) and Detroit to Seattle (a multi-day train ride) on regional airlines. So its not the same thing.

Both examples are train trips longer than 5 hours. Your better off flying.

delvyrails wrote:NE2: What do you mean by "the efficiency of trains"? That's a broad assertion.

Fuel efficiency. It seems pretty clear that steel wheel on steel rail is more efficient than steel (?) wing on light air.
According to Amtrak, it's not actually as significant as I thought (80%), though looking at a full train/plane might make more sense as a theoretical comparison (is Amtrak still prohibited from significantly lowering fares to fill space that would otherwise be empty?), and the ability to add cars to trains would further tilt it in favor of trains. Is it a lack of equipment?