Passenger Trains > VERY cheap Amtrak sleeping accommodations

It was buried in a post below, but I thought it warranted its own thread: That, as mundo reported, Amtrak conductors are now charging 50% off the lowest bucket for on-board upgrades to sleeping accommodations. Look at the fabulous deals this can produce for standard bedrooms:

NYP-CHI on Trains 41 or 49: $68
WAS-CHI on Train 29: $51
LAX-ORL on Train 2: $101
LAX-OKJ on Train 14: $36
CHI-SEA on Train 7: $76
NYP-MIA on Train 91: $74
LAX-FLG on Train 4: $47
NYP-NOL on Train 19: $75
BOS-WAS on Train 67: $29 (This is cheaper than one Business Class seat!)

Remember to halve these already rock-bottom rates on a per-person basis if you\'re traveling with another person. If all Amtrak travelers knew about these rates I don\'t think there would be a single empty room on any train.

JohnThomas wrote:

> If all Amtrak travelers knew about these rates I > don\'t think there would be a single empty room > on any train.


And isn\'t that sad? You\'re right-O on that one.

I\'ll be going down to sunny Florida by deluxe in late Spring. Railfare was a bargain, but the accomodations charge caused the price to soar, but I don\'t care. In this new world we live in, I want to go as free and wild as I want while we got the chance.

Maybe I\'ll strip in front of the window at night. Pretty certain some of those sleepy towns could use some excitement. Or maybe get a web camera on Yahoo!, then use donate the proceeds to Amtrak\'s Beech Grove. It\'ll pay for a couple of more repairs to the cars there.

I\'ve been spreading the word. Me and my GF are taking the Cardinal from Cincinnati to White Sulphur Springs and return at the end of this month for $32 total. Guess you could say the cheap fares are sort of a tax refund :-)

Cheap fares are great, but also an indication that Amtrak is unable to sell available space at normal fares. Yes, its the slow travel season in most markets, but given the reduction in capacity on many routes over recent years, its not an encouraging sign that Amtrak will make or exceed \'03 revenue targets.

The long distance train I use the most, the Southwest Chief, rarely has rooms available for on board purchase.

On the other hand, I use the Capitol Limited almost every year and it has always had open rooms.

davidp wrote:

> its not an
> encouraging sign that Amtrak will make or exceed \'03 revenue
> targets.

The travel industry as a whole continues to hurt. I\'ve repeated dozens of times that all of Amtrak\'s special deals -- RailSale, eBay, on-board upgrades -- are yield management programs designed to fill space which would otherwise be empty. The marginal cost of operating a train (assuming a fixed consist) after the first passenger is zero, so Amtrak stands to gain a lot in marginal revenue if they can get more people on-board, especially in higher classes of service, even if it means not commanding full fares. There will always be people who are not savvy enough to pay less than they could, and there will always be walk-up customers, especially on the Northeast Corridor.

And then there\'s us, simply taking advantage of the specials at our disposal. It\'s no different than purchasing airline tickets months in advance from such brokers as Travelocity or Expedia, who could get you to Europe for under $300. Of course airlines take no profit from those tickets, but at least they\'re filling seats which would be projected to be empty otherwise.

Right now two of the trains with lots of onboard space to sell is the Capitol and Calif Zephyr.
This can change real fast however, as the spring travel season comes into play.

Most of the other trains, seldom go out with very much open space.

Matt - yes, I know what yield management is and its value, and the downturn in the economy has received considerable publicity recently ;-)

My point is that if Amtrak\'s revenue plan anticipated selling most space at normal fares, than the preponderance of deeply discounted fares probably foretells a revenue shortfall. I\'m not criticizing Amtrak for getting what revenue they can for unsold space - that\'s exactly what they should be doing - just noting that while its good for passengers, its probably not a good sign for how Amtrak\'s financial performance will be this year.

You\'re correct, but I can already see the headlines of articles written by Amtrak bashers: "No one rides the train anymore" -- and they will certainly fail to mention that Amtrak is doing no worse than other modes.

Made use of ATKs special fares last week on 5/6.
Especially on 6 that left NoCal on the 1st, there was a fair amount of open space, with several people that I saw upgrading enroute. Hope they are running some kind of specials in late Sept. because I plan and diong the trip again then.
I have my wife sold on ATK as the way to go if the whole family is going on a long trip. This trip ended up much cheaper than either auto or plane.

Amtrak called me this morning but I did not take the call but called them back this afternoon. I could have had a sleeper from Los Angeles to Chicago for $75.00 on Mar 12. All gone now.

Dennis

JohnThomas wrote:

> You\'re correct, but I can already see the headlines of
> articles written by Amtrak bashers: "No one rides the train
> anymore" -- and they will certainly fail to mention that Amtrak
> is doing no worse than other modes.
>
> [%sig%]

Sadly in the world of LA transit there is a battle like this where the BRU (Bus Riders Union) has a consent degree: see www.brutruth.com a very nice site not yet done.

David MP 15.06 SCRRA Valley Sub

BTW, this morning with the rain a Ford Mustang was on the siding (?) track around MP 23!

NE933 wrote:

> Maybe I\'ll strip in front of the window at night. Pretty
> certain some of those sleepy towns could use some excitement.
> Or maybe get a web camera on Yahoo!, then use donate the
> proceeds to Amtrak\'s Beech Grove. It\'ll pay for a couple of
> more repairs to the cars there.
>
> [%sig%]

Interesting. I remember one time I took the
"Desert Wind" from Chicago to Los Angeles
(remember that train). Some newlywed couple
in my sleeper (on the bottom level) was
traveling to Las Vegas for their honeymoon.
I believe it was the first time they\'d ridden
a train. Anyway, during our layover (no pun
intended) in Salt Lake City, they started to
make love with the drapes in the sleeping
compartment open. Obviously, the maintenance
crew (and the car attendant) who were outside
on the platform had quite an exciting show.
No one tried to stop them, but during
breakfast the next morning, the car attendant
told them about their sex show and needless
to say they were quite embarrassed.


Howard Dean
Alameda, CA

JohnThomas wrote:
> It\'s no different than purchasing airline
> tickets months in advance from such brokers as Travelocity or
> Expedia, who could get you to Europe for under $300. Of course
> airlines take no profit from those tickets, but at least
> they\'re filling seats



I thought Expedia was owned by airlines.

stash wrote:

> I thought Expedia was owned by airlines.

No, Orbitz is owned by the airlines. Expedia is owned by Microsoft.

JohnThomas wrote:

> stash wrote:
>
> > I thought Expedia was owned by airlines.
>
> No, Orbitz is owned by the airlines. Expedia is owned by
> Microsoft.
>

Microsoft is no longer the owner of Expedia.

Expedia\'s direct ownership by Microsoft ended in 1999 when the then MS subsidiary was spun-off through an IPO. Microsoft retained controlling interest until 2001 when USA Networks bought all of the Microsoft owned shares and warrants.

This is a positive thing for Amtrak to do. The standard sleeping car fares are too expensive- even in a good economy. Why should a sleeper NYP-CHI cost as much as a four-star NYC hotel suite? Many first time AMTRAK riders would fork out the high fares and then come away disappointed.

I was always a little miffed to walk through a half-full sleeping car and then find that the conductor wants 3-4 times coach fare for an upgrade. What is the true marginal cost anyway?

Another positive step would be to eliminate meal vouchers. Amtrak imbeds a premium in the sleeper fares that is 30-40% higher than the actual cash value of the meals. Bob

bnsfbob wrote:

> This is a positive thing for Amtrak to do. The standard
> sleeping car fares are too expensive- even in a good economy.
> Why should a sleeper NYP-CHI cost as much as a four-star NYC
> hotel suite? Many first time AMTRAK riders would fork out the
> high fares and then come away disappointed.
>

Even though I remembered disagreeing with you on several previous occasions, I completely agree with you here. Amtrak charges way too much for sleeping accomodations on the runs where getting a coach seat is simply crazy (NY - Florida: $200 one-way coach, or $500-600 with a bed........both are way too high, and a regular person will not want to spend 20 hours sitting up).

As long as a bed on an overnight run is looked upon as a premium, overnight traisn will remain a niche market...........note that I say that as a supporter of those same overnight trains....

While some may moan that these low sleeper charges are a sign Amtrak is having a hard time filling the sleepers, that isn\'t the case.
Only one or two rooms on each train are sold this way, often the last rooms available, it\'s a good example of how yield management should work. It\'s also encouraging because it shows someone is paying attention to these trains trying to squeeze the maximum revenue from them while at the same time making the rider ship figures look as good as possible during what is much worse economic slow down that the stats suggest.
These efforts together with earlier coach fare promotions have really made a difference. The fare increases of the last few years had really priced train travel and especially the sleepers beyond the means of many people and it\'s great to see Amtrak using selective promotions to correct this.

We are seeing an Amtrak pricing it\'s product much the same way as other modes, really competing for the publics travel dollars.

What about Shawmut this weekend?

I\'ll bring the charcoal.......