Passenger Trains > Amtrak employee's testimony in House Committee

In the House Oversight Committee hearing today, Amtrak LSA/Union Rep Dwayne
Bateman suggested that Amtrak not change schedules as often; he says this
would save money.

I don't know about that, nor about how much someone who has been only
an LSA since being hired would know about it. In fact he did admit
that he didn't know HOW MUCH it would save to stop changing schedules
twice a year, but "it MUST be in the hundreds of millions." He said
he was "pretty sure they don't change schedules in Europe twice a
year."

Well yes, actually they do.

Here's where it gets interesting. Bateman said he wants more
supervision on the trains, so that employees wouldn't have to take
time away from "their duties to deal with things like customer
problems."

So if "customer problems" are not among the OBS employees' duties,
what ARE their duties, anyway?

Amtrak's new line, repeated several times in the hearing today, is
that Northeast Corridor food service "MAKES MONEY." Over and over
Bateman and Tom Hall said it. The Northeast Corridor food service
makes money.

If Amtrak's propaganda machine, backed up by cooked numbers, can keep
saying it, "it must be true." And the gullible suckers in the media
will regurgitate it, and talking heads will spread it all across the
land.

It could all be so simple. Just put ONE qualified supervisor on each LD train. Let the Conductors do their jobs. This person would interact with those nasty customers who are just in the way. Any problems or complaints would go through this person. My experience is the Conductors have little or no authority over the on board staff. In most businesses there are supervisors. And the employees report to them and do as they say. So why should this be any different. VIA Rail still has a Service Manager on The Canadian and things seem to work smoothly. Last hear when we were 7 hours late do to crappy CN dispatching, he helped with hotel reservations in Toronto, re-booked some flights for passengers who's cell phones wouldn't work in the middle of Ontario and also helped out in the diner. This isn't brain surgery. But of course its our fine government who can't even get a web site up and running after 3 years notice. So I guess it might be too much to expect.

The UTU has a background piece on the food & beverage issue on its website.

The representative of Amtrak's workers notes that losses from f&b are down considerably, and repeats Mr Boardman's assertion that 99% of f&b losses are due to long distance service. That would infer that corridor and NEC operations could be profitable or near break even.

The UTU also observes, apparently with approval, that the cashless operation will be rolled out in 2014. That will reduce the number of cash transactions, reducing the risk of loss.

Mr Bateman's reported testimony seems consistent with the UTU's official position on their website. The web has more detail and reasoning, etc.


http://utu.org/2013/10/07/amtrak-commits-to-end-food-beverage-losses/

What's unusual here is that those involved in foodservices are not UTU members. (Stewards where, but they're long gone)

Gene- Are sure that what YOU are saying is true or is that just YOUR opinion?

As to dealing with Customer Problems: There are many things the On Board Chiefs used to be able to take care of that are very difficult for the regular OBS & operating crew to deal with- usually situations that involved communications off the train itself (reservation issues, mechanical issues, late train issues, etc).

I'd like to know how exactly schedule changes run into the "hundreds of millions". BS and hyperbole, plain and simple. Even if you didn't change schedules, you're still going to have to print timetables (maybe, just maybe, not so many), so that argument is out. If you run all the employee hours for calculating new schedules and the changes to typesetting for the timetables, there's no way you're at hundreds of millions.

Plus, I'm sure Amtrak has timekeeping amongst their professional staff, and they know what they've paid for contracted work. It would be a relatively trivial exercise to do actual research into what a schedule change costs, but since when do facts and research make for good CSPAN appearances? :)

Nathan

Use the annual operating expenses for the CZ from a few years ago:

Cost of F & B inventory $7M

Income from F & B sales $5M

Labor, overhead, maintenance of car, etc. are not included. It should be
obvious that $7M of product, purchased in bulk/wholesale, was then marked up
200-300% or more and sold for 5M$.

The only way this can be possible:

a.) A tremendous amount of inventory is being stolen
b.) Cash receipts are being stolen
c.) Kickbacks by wholesale providers
d.) Embezzlement
e.) all of the above

These numbers have been in front of management for many years
and they did nothing until outsiders noticed

Corporate irresponsibility.

Abuse of a public trust....and so goes the list.

To: Gene Poon

I think it's safe to say, all these negative remarks about Amtrak are just your opinion. We're all entitled to have one.

We've heard you say so often things like: Boardman tells lies; cooks the books; Acela isn't profitable; 80% cost recovery is a lie; and on and on. The fact that John Mica, in all his glory, despite all his efforts; could never pin such charges like this on Amtrak; "proves he couldn't prove it". So, if Mica couldn't prove it; I very much doubt if you can either.

So, without proof; charges like this is just "throwing mud against the wall" and hoping something sticks. This is the game the "talking heads" and biased media play all time--they call it "spin".

Therefore, until someone officially proves otherwise; in my book, NEC food service makes money.

Joe



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/13 13:08 by floridajoe2001.

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To: Gene Poon
>
> I think it's safe to say, all these negative
> remarks about Amtrak are just your opinion. We're
> all entitled to have one.
>
> We've heard you say so often things like: Boardman
> tells lies; cooks the books; Acela isn't
> profitable; 80% cost recovery is a lie; and on and
> on. The fact that John Mica, in all his glory,
> despite all his efforts; could never pin such
> charges like this on Amtrak; "proves he couldn't
> prove it". So, if Mica couldn't prove it; I very
> much doubt if you can either.
>
> So, without proof; charges like this is just
> "throwing mud against the wall" and hoping
> something sticks. This is the game the "talking
> heads" and biased media play all time--they call
> it "spin".
>
> Therefore, until someone officially proves
> otherwise; in my book, NEC food service makes
> money.
>
> Joe

what standard of proof would be acceptable?

If Mr Boardman says 99% of he f&b losses come from long distance trains, isn't that a good start? Is Boardman lying? Is he cooking the books (duly noted) in a way that NEC losses are laundered into long distance expenses?

Or is the analysis done by Chugchug not convincing?

Amtrak never runs out of "Red Herrings". Schedule changes?
They are expert at deceiving congress, the media, and the
general public.

Too bad they can't put these talents to constructive endeavors.

Was John Mica congress's best shot at reforming Amtrak? The
guy was clueless as Boardman. I think there are quite a few people
on TO who know way more about Amtrak than either of these guys,

To: Lakawanna484

Regarding you remark about "acceptable proof"; you seem to have forgotten a very important legal right that has existed since Magna Carta--no one has to prove his innocence; the one making the charge has to prove guilt.

As applied to Amtrak, they don't have to prove anything. Guys like Mica; Gene Poon; you; or me, who make these negative allegations have the burden to prove Amtrak is guilty.

So, your "acceptable proof" question should be directed at those making the charge. It's the law. If you think Amtrak is committing a criminal offence, like cooking the books, Amtrak doesn't have to lift a finger to prove they're not.

Joe



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/13 13:23 by floridajoe2001.

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To: Lakawanna484
>
> Regarding you remark about "acceptable proof"; you
> seem to have forgotten a very important legal
> right that has existed since Magma Carta--no one
> has to prove his innocence; the one making the
> charge has to prove guilt.
>
> As applied to Amtrak, they don't have to prove
> anything. Guys like Mica; Gene Poon; you; or me,
> who make these negative allegations have the
> burden to prove Amtrak is guilty.
>
> So, your "acceptable proof" question should be
> directed at those making the charge. It's the
> law. If you think Amtrak is committing a criminal
> offence, like cooking the books, Amtrak doesn't
> have to lift a finger to prove they're not.
>
> Joe

Amtrak says 99% of their f&b losses come from long distance trains. Using your logic, why should anyone challenge that, and why isn't that automatically true? Boardman says it, the union says it.

So, should they raise prices, cut the menu, install automats, bring in Subway? Or just that should get more taxpayer money?

Food and beverage service always operated at a loss for the private railroad passenger services prior to Amtrak. Big deal.

To: Lakawanna484

It's not "my Logic"; it's the law. Since I'm not accusing Amtrak of anything regarding food service; so why should I demand they change anything.

My view is; all these guys accusing Amtrak of lying, or cooking books; have no proof whatsoever, and are just spouting negative opinions.

Amtrak has every right to just ignore the winning of these disgruntled few; and concentrate on the record revenue/ridership they are achieving.

Joe

FloridaJoe2001, I usually let the opinions of extremely pro-Amtrak and anti-Amtrak folks go unmentioned, but yours is a little much this time.

I have every right to question Amtrak's pronouncements, especially coming from a company that is subsidized to the tune of more than a billion dollars each year.

I don't begrudge the subsidy. I like trains. I want there to be more trains. I do say that we have the right to question statements that an entrenched bureaucracy makes when they stretch credulity.

Just above, it says that every private railroad lost money on its food service. Do we accept that? Amtrak has said it for years. But now, all of a sudden, Amtrak says in a Congressional hearing yesterday that NEC food service "makes money." Do we believe that? It's hard to believe, I think. Most food establishments struggle to generate a profit when they're paying their employees minimum wage (or less, in the case of waiters/waitresses, who are assumed to supplement their income with tips) and don't offer generous benefits, as Amtrak's on-board staff make. Bricks-and-mortar establishments tend to have steady business and usually aren't constricted by the size of the cafe car or lounge car. Amtrak, on the other hand, pays its OBS employees approximately $27/hour plus benefits; the total amount mentioned in the Congressional testimony was a compensation package of $41/hour. Amtrak's NEC food service has a limited time to sell its stock between Washington, Philadelphia and New York. Amtrak has always said that it loses money on its food service, just like the private railroads did, and that it's a loss-leader. But now, all of a sudden, Amtrak food service makes money in the NEC, but nowhere else. No mention of the Pacific Surfliners. No mention of the Illinois Zephyr. No mention of The Cascades.

And, of course, Amtrak won't mention those services because their losses, assuming they operate at a loss, are covered by the states. Amtrak only has to justify, such as it does, its costs to the state contracting for the service. Only in the NEC does Amtrak have to provide a full accounting. And now, all of a sudden, after all these years, Amtrak says it "makes money" on food service in the NEC.

It might be true. It strains credulity. But it might be true. But, oh, yes, I have every right to ask Amtrak to prove it.

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Regarding you remark about "acceptable proof"; you
> seem to have forgotten a very important legal
> right that has existed since Magma Carta


Since rocks cooled?

Turning off my lava lamp, because your statement may cause this thread to erupt.

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> floridajoe2001 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Regarding you remark about "acceptable proof";
> you
> > seem to have forgotten a very important legal
> > right that has existed since Magma Carta
>
>
> Since rocks cooled?
>
> Turning off my lava lamp, because your statement
> may cause this thread to erupt.

That was part of a Middle English alternative energy project, I believe.

To: Knotch8

Yes sir, you have every right to question Amtrak's pronouncements; I never said you didn't; because at this point it is just an opinion; and we all have the right to "question" anything..

But, when an opinion graduates into a serious accusation--something like "Amtrak is deliberately lying or cooking the books, I'm afraid you have to prove it; which is something guys on this site who constantly accuse Amtrak of these things never do. I think some get away with murder by just "slinging mud" masquerading as inside knowledge; but never offering proof. Am I really being "extremely pro-Amtrak"; or is the mud slinging "extremely anti-Amtrak?

Joe

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To: Knotch8
>
> Yes sir, you have every right to question Amtrak's
> pronouncements; I never said you didn't; because
> at this point it is just an opinion; and we all
> have the right to "question" anything..
>
> But, when an opinion graduates into a serious
> accusation--something like "Amtrak is deliberately
> lying or cooking the books, I'm afraid you have to
> prove it; which is something guys on this site who
> constantly accuse Amtrak of these things never do.
> I think some get away with murder by just
> "slinging mud" masquerading as inside knowledge;
> but never offering proof. Am I really being
> "extremely pro-Amtrak"; or is the mud slinging
> "extremely anti-Amtrak?
>
> Joe


who said anything like "Amtrak is deliberately lying or cooking the books"?

I asked if you agree with Mr Boardman's and the union's statement that 99% of food & beverage losses come from the long distance trains. You won't accept their statements are true. One would assume (I do) that if anyone says something in front of Congress, under oath, that they believe what they are saying is true. Or mostly true.

It's all in the posts above.