Amtrak ticket refund policies to change

[Suburban Station]

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.

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

I have not moved the goalposts , you just weren't seeing the goalposts to begin with. You have misunderstood my claims either intentionally or unintentionally. I am not the one who mentioned elite travellers. In your mind everything supports your claim. In fact, it does not support your claim which has nothing to do with the share of the air rail market (itself a tiny slice of the market Amtrak actually serves). The actual point if the blurb is that amtrak makes up an relatively small share of the travel market.

Why would I start a new thread to discuss how fare changes affect amtraks marketshare? Doesnt make sense.

[Suburban Station]

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?

They were already doing this so the question is irrelevant

[exvalley]

I am not the one who mentioned elite travellers.

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

Amtrak should do the same.

Please just stop.

[Suburban Station]

I am not the one who mentioned elite travellers.

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

Amtrak should do the same.

Please just stop.

please get out your reading glasses

[exvalley]

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?

They were already doing this so the question is irrelevant

Do you disagree with their doing so?

[Suburban Station]

Do you disagree with their doing so?

I have answered this question previously.

[exvalley]

Do you disagree with their doing so?

I have answered this question previously.

My apologies. I must have missed it. What was your answer?

[exvalley]

I am not the one who mentioned elite travellers.

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

Amtrak should do the same.

Please just stop.

please get out your reading glasses

Ironically, that's exactly what I did. Thus my posting the quote showing that you, indeed, mentioned elite travellers.

[Suburban Station]

I am not the one who mentioned elite travellers.

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

Amtrak should do the same.

Please just stop.

please get out your reading glasses

Ironically, that's exactly what I did. Thus my posting the quote showing that you, indeed, mentioned elite travellers.

it clearly shows that someone else mentioned it.

[Suburban Station]

Do you disagree with their doing so?

I have answered this question previously.

My apologies. I must have missed it. What was your answer?

what I questioned, or intended to question, was whether this was a good move for amtrak not whether amtrak can or should have different fare types (which they already do without this change). discussing the existence of fare types is not important to whether this changes makes sense. simply because there are fare types does not mean that this is or is not a good.
it makes the reservations worth less than they are today because the offering is less attractive. whether it actually improves the bottom line is what is up for debate.

[exvalley]

I am not the one who mentioned elite travellers.

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

Amtrak should do the same.

Please just stop.

please get out your reading glasses

Ironically, that's exactly what I did. Thus my posting the quote showing that you, indeed, mentioned elite travellers.

it clearly shows that someone else mentioned it.

Doh!!!! My apologies!

[exvalley]

Do you disagree with their doing so?

I have answered this question previously.

My apologies. I must have missed it. What was your answer?

what I questioned, or intended to question, was whether this was a good move for amtrak not whether amtrak can or should have different fare types (which they already do without this change). discussing the existence of fare types is not important to whether this changes makes sense. simply because there are fare types does not mean that this is or is not a good.

Fair enough.

The bottom line is that Amtrak's policies were, by and large, more generous than the competition. I don't like the changes, but it is hard to see how they will impact revenues in a negative way. What little business they may lose will be taken care of by the new fees.

Call me skeptical, but I don't see someone driving from Chicago to San Francisco solely because they are upset with the possibility of having to pay a change fee.

People love to complain that Amtrak doesn't spend money on new equipment and improving service. But then they complain even louder when Amtrak does something that may help their bottom line without increasing atual fares.

It's business. I am all for a financially healthy Amtrak. This proposed change is a reasonable step toward that direction.

[Suburban Station]

Fair enough.
The bottom line is that Amtrak's policies were, by and large, more generous than the competition. I don't like the changes, but it is hard to see how they will impact revenues in a negative way. What little business they may lose will be taken care of by the new fees.
Call me skeptical, but I don't see someone driving from Chicago to San Francisco solely because they are upset with the possibility of having to pay a change fee.
People love to complain that Amtrak doesn't spend money on new equipment and improving service. But then they complain even louder when Amtrak does something that may help their bottom line without increasing atual fares.
It's business. I am all for a financially healthy Amtrak. This proposed change is a reasonable step toward that direction.

I have tried to make clear that these policies will have a detrimental affect on short distance travel. I do not think that long distance travel will be affected for the same reason that they often do not affect airlines. Chicago to SF or Philadelphia to San Diego have relatively poor substitutes and require some planning (at least for leisure). OTOH, a huge number of Amtrak trips are short distance where these changes do make a difference and amtrak's share of travel is disturbingly low (although it's share of chicago to SF is also tiny, it just isn't as relevant to ridership growth or the financial health of the company). I don't believe that these changes will improve amtrak's bottom line. I think they will further limit ridership and revenue potential in short distance markets by making train travel more unattractive at what are already high prices relative to the rest of the world. frankly, it is probably time to talk about forcing amtrak to host a competitor on the nec so we actually do have a choice. Amtrak's financial problems are less due to the lack of fees than the inability to control costs.

[exvalley]

We definitely disagree. Only time will tell. The best I can say is that busses and airlines have already embraced these sorts of fees for the cheapest tickets and they don't seem to have hurt either. I'm not as familiar with busses, but in regard to air travel it's been quite the opposite. Planes are just as full and the airlines are making more money than ever. Anderson, having worked for Delta, is no doubt privy to a lot of research that neither you nor I are privy to.

The airline business is cut throat. And yet the changes have stuck. JetBlue just announced that they are offering a Basic Economy fare. So the trend is for expansion of this type of fare.

[Suburban Station]

We definitely disagree. Only time will tell. The best I can say is that busses and airlines have already embraced these sorts of fees for the cheapest tickets and they don't seem to have hurt either.

like I said, if this is a move that foreshadows the launch of a low fare, "all stops" NEC train as indicated elsewhere, then it makes sense. today's cheapest fares are not cheap so expect southwest like treatment. you expect to get nickel and dimed by bus companies that charge you $12 where amtrak charges $61. if I have to eat me $12 fare so be it, if I have to eat my $45 Amtrak fare, I'm going to be upset. airlines are a different market but as I've stated, they keep more of the fee revenue, dollar for dollar, than they do of ticket revenue. I would argue that, to some extent, the few airlines that are both high fee, high price, and low quality like american perform poorly in customer service surveys. they have also embraced smaller seat pitch for which there is now no noticeable difference between real low fare carriers like frontier and american. it is also the reason southwest has eaten their lunch. amtrak, though, competes with buses and cars not planes..at least on short distance trips.

amtrak will replace its equipment whether or not it institutes these changes.