Passenger Trains > Chief Executive Profile on Warrington

Chief Executive magazine, a publication for and about corporate chieftains contains an insightful profile on Amtrak's George Warrington and the challenges he faces.

Here's a quote from the article:
"If CEOs feel unusually beleaguered in these nailbiting days of sagging markets, earnings, and stock prices, they can find solace in this thought: At least they don't have the problem that faces George D. Warrington."

The article goes on to suggest that few executives in the private sector would be willing - or are prepared - to take on the challenges of Amtrak's top job. I would urge Warrington critics read the piece in hope that they get a new perspective.

http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=26161026&ID=cnniw&scategory=Transportation&

Thanks, Ellis, for a good article. As for GW...

<< "IN THE CEO JOB, I WOULD NEED TO ADAPT MY APPROACH AND MINDSET ...TO AN ORIENTATION THAT WAS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY AROUND POLITICS AND MONEY."-George D. Warrington, CEO, Amtrak >>

Why did it take him four years to do this? For four years he seems to have been BS-ing Congress et al. about the "glide path" to self-sufficiency. It's been more like a "glide angle," the angle downward, from 0 to 90 degrees, a given model of aircraft assumes when one or more of its engines fail.

Bill in Texas

Never mind the artical. The anti-Warrinton crowd could care less about the problems that Amtrak has, or what the CEO has to manage. They're stuck in a mind-warp that defies reality.

Like the crowds around the guillotine during the French Revolution's Reign Of Terror, all they can do is scream "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" regardless of what else is happening around them.

Yes, Amtrak has serious problems. Yes, Acela is, at best, a corridor-specific solution that cost a lot and only serves one part of the national system. Warrington played the hand that was dealt him and, to his credit, has kept the system intact. He was never given a mandate or the tools ($$$) to grow it.

I'm NOT an apologist for Warrington by any measure, but if you want a top-notch CEO AND A MANAGEMENT TEAM (one can't work without the other) YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE TOOLS TO SUCCEED.

You get what you pay for, period.

Bill -
The quote you cited was made in the context of the trasition Warrington had to make FOUR YEARS AGO when he moved from managing operations of the NEC to the top job. Here is the full quote:

"My management style is fast-paced, being close to the action," he reflects. "But I knew that in the CEO job, I would need to adapt my approach and mindset-in fact my whole professional life-to an orientation that was almost exclusively around politics and money."

I'm sure Warrington has been quite involved in the political hellstorm from the first day he moved into his Union Station office. He's testified effectively at countless hearings over the past few years.

Whether the "glidepath" strategy Amtrak adopted certaintly is a fair subject for debate. Amtrak defenders say it failed due to circumstances largely beyond the railroad's control, maintly Acela delays (perhaps Amtrak could have mitigated this) and the weakening economy.

At any rate, achieving the "self-sufficiency" goal was a long-shot at best. It was imposed upon Amtrak by a group of politicians who lacked understanding of rail's role in America's transportation system and the economics of operating passenger trains. To date, this same group of politicans has yet to offer a constructive solution.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Warrington era has been marked by one of the largest service expansions in Amtrak's history, with increased frequencies on the Northeast, Empire, Keystone, Hiawatha, San Joaquin, San Diegan (Surfiliner), Capital and Cascade Corridors. We now have daily service from Chicago to Louisville (with expansion to Nashville under discussion) and Boston to Portland, ME. The only casualty I can recall is the ill-conceived Lake Country Limited.

If there is a weakness in the current Amtrak regime, it is their inability to effectively manage expectations of rail advocates, the media and politicians. I refer to the Acela delays and limited amount of 150 mph track and the ill-fated Network Growth Strategy. You gain far more credibility by promising less and delivering more than the other way around.

His company has been not been performing well. No amount of spin or fluff pieces in a publication can change the facts. Warrington needs to be canned and replaced, maybe by a railroader.

Stash wrote:
<His company has been not been performing well. No amount of spin or fluff pieces in a publication can change the facts. Warrington needs to be canned and replaced, maybe by a railroader.

Neither have most of the Fortune 500. Should we can all those CEOs, too?

Obviously Stash thinks Amtrak's problems are Warrington's fault. In other words, he thinks Amtrak should be making money despite inadequate capital and mandates to operation money-losing long distance routes requiring subsidies of hundreds of dollars per passenger.

Perhaps he'd like to offer some constructive ideas that could help Amtrak achieve self sufficiency, i.e. survive. Then he could send his resume to Mike Dukakis and get the CEO job for himself. <g>

Ellis: << Here is the full quote: >>

"My management style is fast-paced, being close to the action," he reflects. "But I knew that in the CEO job, I would need to adapt my approach and mindset-in fact my whole professional life-to an orientation that was almost exclusively around politics and money."

And:

<< He's testified effectively at countless hearings over the past few years. >>

It never seemed that way in the televised portions and that one complete hearing I watched online one time. I don't what his intentions were but he kept assuring Congress everything was okay and never once asked Congress for the rest of that ~$5B that was promised. (I know... Congress does that a lot to important agencies. That's why there was a "surplus." The pork always got full funding but the USCG, FCC, NRPC, and others never do.)

Warrington claimed, when he was nominated by the Board, that he didn't really want the job. He blew his first and probably only chance of effecting changes by not insisting upon some changes as a condition of his accepting the job. That's what I always did when I was successful in taking over problem areas. No, I believe he thought he could turn the NEC into a super transit system, a pork project.

As for those increases you mentioned Ellis, most of those were promoted and financed by the states involved. Amtrak is just the contract operator and the product name umbrella.

<< You gain far more credibility by promising less and delivering more than the other way around. >>

That, too.

Bill in Texas

stash wrote:

> Warrington needs to be canned and replaced, maybe by a
> railroader.

A railroader working the system on Capitol Hill? If thats not the dumbest statement I ever heard. What makes a railroader qualified on Capitol Hill?

Obviously, there are some who mistakenly believe that Amtrak and Capitol Hill are 2 mutually exclusive organizations, and that a railroading mentality in the top job will cure all of the ills which afflict an organization governed by Public Policy.

If you want to see a railroader in that job, you need to cut the Federal purse strings, so no political interaction is required. Funny that a past Amtrak railroader-oriented execs couldn't do that..

The Claytors of yesteryear are exactly that, political yesteryear material. In fact, having a railroader at the helm caused Amtrak to do nothing more than focus on "railroady" content, such as unprofitable cruise trains. It took a non-railroader to think outside the box.

Like I said a few month ago....The Chairman of the Moron Section of the Bedrock Knucklehead Club! All those in favor of firing "You know who" say.....

I'm not certain about Warrington being the problem. If he WAS BSing Congress about a glidepath to self sufficiency, he was using numbers and promises made to him by subordinates.
I doubt that any CEO in this country has a perfectly clear grasp of everything occuring within their corporate structures, much less outside. Delegation of authority requires honest facts and figures to be provided to the CEO and their Board for honest evaluation.
I won't lay out specifics, but as an earlier post said, the CEO can't function without the top to bottom management team, and vice versa.
To hold the CEO singularly at fault for the ills of a company that, by its very creation finds it difficult to function like any other corporate entity is ludicrous.

ellissimon wrote:
>> Neither have most of the Fortune 500. Should we can all those
> CEOs, too?

That's up to the stockholders, usually. Most of those companies don't tap into the taxpayers' pocketbooks.



> Obviously Stash thinks Amtrak's problems are Warrington's
> fault. In other words, he thinks Amtrak should be making money
> despite inadequate capital and mandates to operation
> money-losing long distance routes requiring subsidies of
> hundreds of dollars per passenger.

Where does the buck stop? If the guy wants to be the Big Cheese of the railroad company perhaps he should take responsibility for the corporation's performance. Instead, we see new paint jobs, inconsistent service performance, employees who dislike the system (posting here frequently) and the railroad in poor financial straits. The Lake County Loser ought to be enough reason to fire George. Let him take a voucher for another job.


> Perhaps he'd like to offer some constructive ideas that could
> help Amtrak achieve self sufficiency, i.e. survive. Then he
> could send his resume to Mike Dukakis and get the CEO job for
> himself. <g>

If you think you know so much about the company, you should apply for the job. Merely expecting more handouts does little to improve service or increase market share of transportation. There must be some incentives.

Texas Bill wrote:
>As for those increases you mentioned Ellis, most of those were promoted and financed by the states involved.

I don't understand why that should be held against Warrington. It seems to me that's a plus for his administration. When Congress started cutting back on financial support, Amtrak was able to find alternative sources for expansion by partnering with states such as California, Washington, North Carolina and Vermont, to name a few, that recognized the value of passenger rail. If the states didn't have confidence in Amtrak, they wouldn't have gotten involved in these projects.

ellissimon wrote:
> I don't understand why that should be held against Warrington.
> It seems to me that's a plus for his administration. When
> Congress started cutting back on financial support, Amtrak was
> able to find alternative sources for expansion by partnering
> with states such as California, Washington, North Carolina and
> Vermont, to name a few, that recognized the value of passenger
> rail. If the states didn't have confidence in Amtrak, they
> wouldn't have gotten involved in these projects.

It is not that the states, California anyway, have "confidence" in Amtrak. Rather, it has more to do with the fact that Amtrak has access to the national rail system and liability issues locked-up due to their monopoly. California would be happy to partner with other operators. Amtrak has advantages other operators would not have due to Amtrak's special status.

Yes, California tried to partner with such unreliable operators as Herzog, who's bid at one time was less than Amtrak's by, allegedly, the exact amount required for insurance protection. When they were found out, they lost the bid. Amtrak does have advantages.

We all wish that. Unfortunately the Claytor bros. are both dead. There aren't any railroaders left.

Some people on here think that those of us in the provinces are a bunch of dumb bunnies who have to be led around and told what's good for em. You got another think coming and you're gonna hear about it right here in this very space.
Yesterday's railroaders huh? Yall are gonna be wishing you had "yesterday's railroaders" before this is over. The Claytors made the Southern - not this Nazi S trash, the SOUTHERN - the railroad everybody wanted to be when they grew up. It was a railroad that did one hell of a job of moving freight, buildin a better grain hopper and whole lot of other things. Sure they tried stuff that didn't always work, that's how you become the best there is, was and will ever be. But they never forgot what they were supposed to be: a railroad. At least until the Southern men either retired, got pushed out or died. What it is now has been discussed to death on this board.
But the point remains: Amtrak is not doing what it ought to be able to do best: running trains and getting people where they want to go.
OK. It's a political animal. But Amtrak still isn't doin what it ought to be doin. Management has to quit bowin and scrapin to the corrupt politicans, the socialist pressure groups, bean-counters like Mitch Daniels, and go run some trains.
Warrington doesn't speak up for the train-riding public, the employees who actually do the work (the train crews, the crafts and the station agents) or anybody else. He just goes along, sayin "yes boss", never TRIES to much less succeeds at getting the word out that Amtrak is really a pretty good way to travel and the best alternative we've got in the event of another oil embargo (there'll be one), a war (we've got one of those), political stupidity (rampant in Washington) and corruption (ditto).
OK, he was stuck with this so-called reform council by the redneck reich on the Hill, you know: Armey, DeLay, etc., the headless Horsemen. Yes, he's stuck with jerks like Till who wouldn't ride one of those "loser long-haul trains" if their lives depended on em. His mouthpieces still haven't answered the letter I wrote him and posted on this board last spring. But I aint holding my breath.
Warrington's got to start showing some backbone or get out. It's reached that point and yall know it. Somebody has to stand up for Amtrak or it's finished.
He's the face of Amtrak. He's the one who represents it to the public and the press. He's not much of a CEO when he makes excuses for ineptitude instead of kickin butt and fixing things. He's not much of an advocate for passenger trains when he just sits there and takes whatever crap McLame and the rest of those jerks want to dish out. I don't care how many times he goes on CSPAN, unless he's makin the case for Amtrak every time he opens his mouth, he's not doing his job. Period.

Let's get something straight about what ellissimon and others have said about the Lake Country Limited. If one looks at the Network Growth Strategy, the Lake coutnry Limited, the Fond du Lac Service and the Des Moines service all made sense, IF and ONLY IF the Skyline Connection had not been stillborn. There is no capacity left on the Three Rivers and the Pennsylvanian for more express. That is the good news. The bad news is the preponderance of the business for the Lake Country Limited et al was destined EAST not west. There was some westbound business developed out of Janesville, but not enough to make the train viable. George Warrington acted on the Lake Country Limitied and other proposals based on the information he was given and the need for business growth. Throughout history, Ford Motor hasn't taken as much grief over the Edsel as Amtrak has over the Lake Country Limited. It was tried and it didn't work...and Amtrak was mandated by law to leave the servive on for 180 days AFTER the notice of discontinuance...more unnecessary expense.

Mr. Claytor indeed was the right person at the right time, and it was Amtrak's good fortune that he was available. As Mike Shafer noted in his book "All Aboard Amtrak," published shortly after the carrier's 20th anniversary, Mr. Claytor had the rare combination of organizational, railroad and political expertise the job required. And at age 70, he was willing to take on the challenge. He didn't do it for the money, but for his love of the business. At 70, most people in his position would be thinking about playing golf and living in Naples or Palm Beach, Florida.

Unfortunately, the odds of another Graham Claytor coming along are highly remote. To my knowledge, none of the current railroad CEOs have quite the same skill set. Drew Lewis, President Reagan's DOT czar and a former Union Pacific CEO, has the right background, but he is anti-passenger and is hated by labor. (He fired the PATCO air traffic controllers.)

My prediction: The next Amtrak CEO will not be an American. Most likely he or she will be someone working for a world-class rail enterprise in Europe or Asia.

Interesting comments guys, but I agree with Ellismon's comment on the last thread. I don't think any CEO before or after Claytor knew what Amtrak needed, and he wasted no time on upgrading Amtrak, especially reducing it's losses by 80% (which is why they bought the 1ST P40s, the P32 "Pepsi Cans" and those Viewliners and Superliner IIs back in the early 90s) and Amtrak trains actually were representing something! I mean now it's a mess! I agree with the comment on what Warrington should do. He needs to walk the walk because I know a lot of the workers at Amtrak don't like him, and Surflinerhogger's comment a few months back about when he showed up at LAUPT for that ceremony of the PAcific Surfliner, which I was at also, and Surf telling us that he wasn't even into doing that and wanted to take the next flight from LAX back to DC!

All I can say is this, I felt bad about saying how he is and all, but now I know why I say how lazy he is and how bad his managers are. Amtrak's goal that Claytor designed went out the window when Downs made those stupid cutbacks back in 95 and 97, now with Amtrak losing so much money (which I'd love to find out how that happened with loses reduced by 80% 10 years ago when Claytor was about to retire) and all this going on, yeah, Amtrak needs a CEO, but the other thing I'm gonna mention here is also that the Senate is already backing Amtrak on the Reform Council's order for Amtrak to liquidate, but now comes the fun part, since the holidays are here and we won't hear much until JAnuary, I'm hoping, finally, that Congress will actually give Amtrak the money they need to be a successful company. It's proven overseas, it's time to prove it here in the good ol' USA!

He WAS the right man for the job, if the objective was nothing more than freight-railroad-oriented passenger trains and capital budgets focused on F40s and Superliners.

Unfortunately, that concept of intercity rail should have been history by the time Amtraks 10th anniversary came around...let alone its 20th.

THATS wat the leader-politicos should have been tackling. Not whether the CZ passes through Glenwood Canyon at the right time of the day to enable the terriffic view....