Rude Amtrak Employees
Paul Whatley
were extremely rude. No wonder ridership is always low. I wonder how much
repeat business Amtrak does. I would imagine it's not much.
One conductor had a 16 year old girl in tears because he yelled at her for
trying to go the cafe car before he had checked her ticket. One yelled at me
for boarding the train at the last minute, through no fault of my own. The
valet parking attendant at our hotel couldn't find our van. We otherwise would
have been at the station 30 minutes prior to departure.
Stas...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Please write to Amtrak Customer Service at the address in your ticket envelope,
> with EXACT details about what you reported here. Also include the train
> numbers, dates, cars you rode in (near front, near rear), names of conductors
> if you noted it, etc. Include a copy of your ticket stubs, if possible.
>
> If poor employees aren't reported we can hardly expect Amtrak management to do
> anything about them.
Hardly a reason to hire incompetent people in the first place and then
have no supervision. Airline personnel are considerably more
accommodating.
ERIKG3
envelope,
>with EXACT details about what you reported here. Also include the train
>numbers, dates, cars you rode in (near front, near rear), names of conductors
>if you noted it, etc. Include a copy of your ticket stubs, if possible.
And cc: it to the Amtrak Reform Board, while you are at it!
-Erik
RailroadMn
jump in ridership since 1988. And as far as the stupid remark about "uneducated
blacks" is concerned. I can assure you, we have plenty of uneducated "whites"
on Amtrak too and many of them work in management.
As an Amtrak employee and a proud railroader, I can assure you that the vast
majority of us care about the passengers and acknowledge the fact that without
them, we lose our railroad and our way of life. There is absolutely no excuse
for rudeness but remember the famous old adage "there are two sides to every
story." I'm not trying to justify the alleged inappropriate behavior of those
mentioned because if in fact such events did occur, then shame on those
involved, but absurd, racist remarks such as "uneducated blacks" is total
bullshit.
EBR
A.J.Kleipass
HaRRy wrote in message <35c38bd0.352449337@news>...
>
>Please write to Amtrak Customer Service at the address in your ticket
envelope,
>with EXACT details about what you reported here. Also include the train
>numbers, dates, cars you rode in (near front, near rear), names of
conductors
>if you noted it, etc. Include a copy of your ticket stubs, if possible.
>
do
>anything about them.
>
And how about writing Amtrak to report the nice crew members as well. Surely
even in the 1990s a letter saying
" ... so-and-so made my first ride on Amtrak so pleasant and enjoyable that
I'll take the train every chance I get...", must still be of some importance
to management.
While we might tend to look at trains (and even more so the "good old days"
of train travel ) with rose colored glasses, the cold truth is that back
then, like now, for some (?most) people a railroad job is just A job. They
take it for the money, they learn the skills needed, and they do it for the
hours required. As for the passengers ... "I'm here to put food on my table
, NOT to answer to your beckon call ! ".
Having ridden a number of Amtrak trains, and at all hours, I have only good
things to say about the crews that I have met.
A.J.Kleipass owin...@mindspring.com
Webmaster....NYO&W Modelers SIG - http://nyow.railfan.net
Modeling information on the NYO&W and the railroads that served or still
serve her territory.
Member O&W RHS - http://www.nyow.org
Eric Jackson
>On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:05:37 -0500, Paul Whatley <wha...@adams.net> wrote:
>
>»I rode Amtrak this weekend to/from Chicago, Il. The conductors on both trips
>with EXACT details about what you reported here. Also include the train
>numbers, dates, cars you rode in (near front, near rear), names of conductors
>if you noted it, etc. Include a copy of your ticket stubs, if possible.
>
>If poor employees aren't reported we can hardly expect Amtrak management to do
>anything about them.
>
I don't think that you should rat out the poor amtrak workers
like that. I think that if they are rude and you don't like
it you should tell them right to their faces which is what
the original poster did.
I don't think its very nice to call in on someone and mess
with their job because they were rude like that.
Maybe its just that I hate snitches in general
Eric Jackson
Back in the age of steam the job of pullman porter was a job
that could be held by african americans, and it was considered
very a very prestetious job. As far as education from what
I understand a porter needs some kind of licence to opperate
a car in case of emergency so they do have some kind of
training.
On the other hand some of them may speek a rather thick
dialect of ebonics as well as some of them seem to have
come from this proud old school of the deep south.
They were very good when I took my last ride on the
coast starlight.
jaks
ERIKG3
>like that. I think that if they are rude and you don't like
>it you should tell them right to their faces which is what
>the original poster did.
>I don't think its very nice to call in on someone and mess
>with their job because they were rude like that.
>Maybe its just that I hate snitches in general
Folks, Amtrak is in trouble. For every person like the original poster, there
are 100 others who simply never complain, and *never* consider travelling by
train in the future (and tell, on average, 15 of their friends about it). One
of the many real problems that Amtrak has is the lack of consistency in staff
quality. If those who control Amtrak and work for Amtrak do not understand
this, they will do nothing to respond to the problem, and ridership will start
inching back down again.
Overall, I am very impressed by the staff of Amtrak, but there do seem to be a
few more bad apples (of *ALL* colors) at Amtrak then there are at other public
carriers.
Some of this is due to old ways of doing things. Well, guess what. In 2002
the money from the government stops and if Amtrak cannot figure out how to
compete for customers from Southwest, the Delta Shuttle, Rocky Mountain Rail
Tours, and Carnival Cruise Lines, it is Good Bye Amtrak and Good Bye National
Coast-to-Coast Passenger Rail. (Though not necessarily Goodbye Intercity Rail)
It is now time to stop these old mannerisms, stop running delayed trains, stop
tolerating rudeness and start figuring out how to operate a modern, vital and
friendly, *cost-covering* transportation company.
And that is precisely why there is a body created by Congress called the Amtrak
Reform Board, made up mostly of people who would, if they could, liquidate
Amtrak tomorrow.
-Erik
Light, Ed
> >with EXACT details about what you reported here. Also include the train
> >
> >anything about them.
>
> I don't think that you should rat out the poor amtrak workers
> like that. I think that if they are rude and you don't like
> it you should tell them right to their faces which is what
> the original poster did.
Why risk violence from some psychotic employee?
Transportation is a serious service profession and anyone who
abuses it should leave it.
From an old safety truck driver (disabled by EMF beams).
--
Best wishes!
_________________
Ed Light, Eureka, CA, USA - m...@mk.net
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
The Mind Control Forum - http://www.mk.net/~mcf
Resisting the ongoing covert mind control takeover
Bob Scheurle
>As an Amtrak employee and a proud railroader, I can assure you that the vast
>majority of us care about the passengers and acknowledge the fact that without
>them, we lose our railroad and our way of life. There is absolutely no excuse
>for rudeness but remember the famous old adage "there are two sides to every
You're probably right, but I've quit riding Amtrak because of problems
with employee behavior. In particular, the employees on the
Adirondack would smoke on the train and/or refuse to enforce the
train's "no smoking" policy. I got sick and tired of breathing other
peoples' cigarette smoke for 10 hours, so now I drive or take Air
Canada instead of the Adirondack. Air Canada doesn't have a problem
with employees or passengers smoking on the plane, and sometimes the
Air Canada fare is cheaper than Amtrak's!
--
Bob Scheurle
sche...@z-eclipse-z.net
sche...@z-avionics-z.itt.com
NJ Transit schedules at http://www.nj.com/njtransit/
Paul Whatley
and feed my family, but I still do my job in a professional manner and treat
people the way I would want to be treated. This doesn't take any more effort on
my part than being rude and impatient does.
Paul Whatley
though. So far, I have not received any reply, and don't really expect to. I
figured it was probably falling on deaf ears when I wrote.
D.J. Mikulec
public service than just Amtrak.
Try visiting your local fast food establishment. I've seen so many rude
employees and so many filthy restraunts, I lost count of the number of
places on my boycott list! My last fast food experience was to a local
taco establishment that shares it's space with a convenience store. It
took 5 minutes to get someone to the counter to take my order, all the
while a rough looking male employee was sitting on the other end of the
counter flirting with the female convenient store cashier. Another
restraunt to add to my list. And I don't even go to that many fast food
places anymore!
And I won't even mention the condition of some of the McD***** and
Burger K**g restraunts I've seen!
More and more employees just don't take pride in their work anymore.
-David
(still looking forward to his first Amtrak trip --- 1999)
Tom Bigler
around after they leave the train. If Amtrak would get the cabs,
busses and car rental companies to locate within one block of the Amtrak
station then life would be a whole lot easier.
I like to travel by train but to get a rental car from after departing the
train takes a lot of imagination. Not to mention frustration and co$t.
In Champaign, Illinois the mass transit district is building a center that
has the train, city busses and cabs all in one location! When someone
departs the train they can get anywhere they want to. From what I have
found out this type of coordination is found all over Europe.
====t=o=m===b=i=g=l=e=r====
Thomas Bigler Phone: (217)333-1070
Broadcast Operator FAX: (217)244-6386
WILL-TV Internet: t-bi...@uiuc.edu
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Stas...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Folks, Amtrak is in trouble. For every person like the original poster, there
> are 100 others who simply never complain, and *never* consider travelling by
> train in the future (and tell, on average, 15 of their friends about it). One
> of the many real problems that Amtrak has is the lack of consistency in staff
> quality. If those who control Amtrak and work for Amtrak do not understand
> this, they will do nothing to respond to the problem, and ridership will start
> inching back down again.
>
> Overall, I am very impressed by the staff of Amtrak, but there do seem to be a
> few more bad apples (of *ALL* colors) at Amtrak then there are at other public
> carriers.
>
> Some of this is due to old ways of doing things. Well, guess what. In 2002
> the money from the government stops and if Amtrak cannot figure out how to
> compete for customers from Southwest, the Delta Shuttle, Rocky Mountain Rail
> Tours, and Carnival Cruise Lines, it is Good Bye Amtrak and Good Bye National
> Coast-to-Coast Passenger Rail. (Though not necessarily Goodbye Intercity Rail)
>
> It is now time to stop these old mannerisms, stop running delayed trains, stop
> tolerating rudeness and start figuring out how to operate a modern, vital and
> friendly, *cost-covering* transportation company.
>
> And that is precisely why there is a body created by Congress called the Amtrak
> Reform Board, made up mostly of people who would, if they could, liquidate
> Amtrak tomorrow.
Don't worry about Amtrak. The federal government will keep it running
forever. While you're at it, I wouldn't get too concerned with Amtrak
employees as their jobs (as with anything owned by the government) are
safe too. Jobs are one important reason there is an Amtrak.
Keeping any federal program going is an important function of the
taxpayer. And, there are always plenty of them with lots of dollars to
pay the bills.
Mike Stimpson
> I don't think that you should rat out the poor amtrak workers
> like that. I think that if they are rude and you don't like
> it you should tell them right to their faces which is what
> the original poster did.
>
> with their job because they were rude like that.
>
> Maybe its just that I hate snitches in general
You seem to believe that a worker should suffer no negative consequences
for doing their job badly (at least as long as their supervisor doesn't
see them do it).
The real world tends to be pretty hard on people (or organizations) that
believe that...
An employee who believes that they can mess up on their job without it
damaging their career is going to have a rough career - unless they land
at a company that agrees with them. But a company that believes that
you can be rude to your customers with no consequences won't be around
very long (maybe just for a year or two after the public subsidies run
out...)
--
Mike Stimpson (mst...@utsci.com)
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management...
The more I work as an engineer, the more I disbelieve the theory of
evolution.
Kevin Gilhooly
> The biggest problem with Amtrak is the inability for passengers to get
> around after they leave the train. If Amtrak would get the cabs,
> busses and car rental companies to locate within one block of the Amtrak
> station then life would be a whole lot easier.
>
> I like to travel by train but to get a rental car from after departing the
> train takes a lot of imagination. Not to mention frustration and co$t.
I used to do this in Bloomington-Normal all the time, since that was the
closest Amtrak stop to Peoria. I'd come in from Dallas on the Texas
Eagle, take a cab to the airport to pick up my rental car and ask the
rental company for credit for the cab ride. Always ask! Hertz would
credit me $8 off the rental for the cab ride (which was $10 or so with a
tip.)
I did get a really strange look from the cabbie the first time I jumped
off the train, climbed in the taxi and said "Airport, please", though!
kjg
-------------
Kevin Gilhooly - Court Jester for Hire
bart...@kevins-pub.org
Eric Jackson
>> >Please write to Amtrak Customer Service at the address in your ticket envelope,
>> >with EXACT details about what you reported here. Also include the train
>> >
>> >If poor employees aren't reported we can hardly expect Amtrak management to do
>> >anything about them.
>
>>
>> like that. I think that if they are rude and you don't like
>> it you should tell them right to their faces which is what
>> the original poster did.
>
>
I don't think that a very significant number of passangers
have been attacked and killed by porters in this decade.
I think that there was one instance of a porter killing a
woman back in the 1930's but he has been caught already.
So I don't think that there is that much risk. If someone
is rude to you the thing to do is tell them to their face
that they are being rude, not go and stab them in the
back and mess up their job.
Eric Jackson
>Eric Jackson wrote:
>> I don't think that you should rat out the poor amtrak workers
>> like that. I think that if they are rude and you don't like
>> it you should tell them right to their faces which is what
>> the original poster did.
>>
>> with their job because they were rude like that.
>>
>> Maybe its just that I hate snitches in general
>
>You seem to believe that a worker should suffer no negative consequences
>for doing their job badly (at least as long as their supervisor doesn't
>see them do it).
>
>The real world tends to be pretty hard on people (or organizations) that
>believe that...
>
Yes I guess that I do have some amount of simpathey for the slackers
of the world. Maybe I can think if I was slacking a little one day
and some one snitched on me I would not like it. Maybe that is
why I have not always been as successfull as I would like to have
been in the working world.
I mean I get a new job, and everything seems fine for a while but
always after a couple of days some guy comes along and starts telling
you what to do.
I don't think that some manager screaming at these people is going
to make them any more polite. As the unemployment rate drops
more and more marginal people are going to be working in McDonalds.
These people can spot assholes that rat on them to the manager
for being rude and they get revenge by spiting in the food,
but if you would try and talk to them yourself maybe you could
educate them
Lee Winson
> of train travel ) with rose colored glasses, the cold truth is that back
I do not have fond memories of pre-Amtrak trains. The Reading Company
provided good service, but the so-called mighty Pennsylvania RR was
in trouble by the 1960s and service reflected it. Stations were run
down and gloomy. Agents and conductors were surly. The commuter
service had serious problems.
Railfans seem to think EVERY pre-Amtrak train was like the Super Chief,
Twentieth Century Limited, or Broadway Limited. It wasn't like that.
Lee Winson
> public service than just Amtrak.
I'd say it is a mixed bag. I eat out a late, and I feel many
"diner class" establishments are much better than I remember of
years ago. Faster service, better food.
A lot depends on the company. For example, in Phila, we have an
excellent convenience store chain known as Wawa, where the clerks are
very helpful, stores clean and pleasant. The national chain, 7-11,
well, I don't patronize them. (Ironically, Wawa's are company
owned, while 7-11 is often franchises. You'd think an individual
owner would have more of an interest, but perhaps they don't know
how to. Wawa keeps a tight control on quality in its stores.)
And some companies vary by location. I've been in great US post
offices, and in horrible ones.
Unfortunately today, dealing with the public is pretty rough.
It seems to me many people (though far from all) can be extremely
demanding and rude, making it hard for everyone else. People can
be real slobs, leaving behind nasty messes.
Lee Winson
> around after they leave the train. If Amtrak would get the cabs,
> busses and car rental companies to locate within one block of the Amtrak
> station then life would be a whole lot easier.
In Philadelphia, the city's entire commuter railroad network stops at
the main Amtrak station. Further, branch trains share Amtrak
stations in outlying areas, making connections very easy. You get
a free transfer from Amtrak 30th Street to downtown with your Amtrak
ticket on local trains. The subway station is across the street.
But yes, Chicago is a pain. I wish there was a rent-a-car adjacent
to the station, it is a pain to get a cab to Avis on Clark St.
(Though admittedly, not really any different than taking a shuttle
bus at the airport to the car lots.)
Lee Winson
It may take a while. I wouldn't depend on email, though--what email
address did you use? A lot of company's generic email address ends
up in the "bit bucket". A hard copy letter (even a postcard) is more
effective.
Access Systems
> > While we might tend to look at trains (and even more so the "good old days"
> > of train travel ) with rose colored glasses, the cold truth is that back
> Railfans seem to think EVERY pre-Amtrak train was like the Super Chief,
> Twentieth Century Limited, or Broadway Limited. It wasn't like that.
yer right there, I rode the Broadway, once, just to say I had ridden it,
but normally I was on the Penn Texas, or Night Crawler, I mean Night owl!
and down South, want to take forever to get somewhere, try the Gulf Coast
Special. sit a milk crate on end and stand there, it would make a full
station stop for you.
give me a Metroliner, or an AMD 103 hauled Capitol Limited anyday!
Bob
illinois...@real.railroading.com
: I don't think its very nice to call in on someone and mess
: with their job because they were rude like that.
: Maybe its just that I hate snitches in general
If everyone had persisted with that general attitude, The Cape Cod Dinner
Train would have finished the delicate ecological balance off. I'm sure
that people can think of many railroad incidents that required public
attention and/or noise.
--
Understanding |\___________________________________ is a three-edged sword.
/============/ www.highlander-official.com \ ..Ve'ni,Vi'di,Vi'ci..
\============\ ___________________________________/
Your side, |/ Their side, and the truth.
YST+ B5+ FK+ DW+ HG+ IC+ KCS+ NYC+ | William H. O'Hara (oh...@tiac.net)
Yoriden Samurai Troopers! | http://www.tiac.net/users/ohara/ronin/
George Conklin
>> While we might tend to look at trains (and even more so the "good old days"
>> of train travel ) with rose colored glasses, the cold truth is that back
>
>provided good service, but the so-called mighty Pennsylvania RR was
>in trouble by the 1960s and service reflected it. Stations were run
>down and gloomy. Agents and conductors were surly. The commuter
>service had serious problems.
>
>Twentieth Century Limited, or Broadway Limited. It wasn't like that.
>
I was on the Twentieth Century Limited once in the 1950s,
and the conductors were terrible. The roadbed was also
getting rough, just like today. By comparison, Amtrak crews
are quite good. The labor is not the problem. It is
obsolete roadbeds, rough rides, slow travel times and
Amtrak's problem, like all rail, with high underlying costs
compared to all other modes of transit.
Drrocks
job of both continued on-the-job training and service quality monitoring. BUT
there is also no doubt that train travel now is infinitely better now than it was
during the last days of private road service.
My last pre-Amtrak experiences were spread around quite a bit, from the California
Zephyr (rude employees aplenty) to PRR's Manhattan Limited (limited to every town
with more than 12 people between Chicago and Pittsburgh, 2 inches of water on the
floor out of Ft Wayne after a big Indiana thunderstorm, crew? What crew??). Even
the Denver Zephyr suffered from worn-out equipment and employees who were facing
the sunset and not liking it.....
And I disagree with some others that have contributed to this thread. If you have
a bad experience, complain.
BAC
Access Systems wrote:
> In misc.transport.rail.americas Lee Winson <lwi...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> > > While we might tend to look at trains (and even more so the "good old days"
> > > of train travel ) with rose colored glasses, the cold truth is that back
>
> > Railfans seem to think EVERY pre-Amtrak train was like the Super Chief,
> > Twentieth Century Limited, or Broadway Limited. It wasn't like that.
>
Doug Smith
> Yes I guess that I do have some amount of simpathey for the slackers
> of the world. Maybe I can think if I was slacking a little one day
> and some one snitched on me I would not like it. Maybe that is
> why I have not always been as successfull as I would like to have
> been in the working world.
>
And Smitty wonders:
And whose fault is that?
> I mean I get a new job, and everything seems fine for a while but
> always after a couple of days some guy comes along and starts telling
> you what to do.
And you think that you're just there for the paycheck or something?
You're being paid to provide a service or function for the company you
work for. Unless it's a totally moronic job, two days of work is not
going to give you any experience. I've worked for the railroad for over
three years and haven't begun to learn all there is to know. I have a
great respect for the older heads who take the time to see that I learn
what I need to. I will admit I don't have much for those who treat me
like an idiot in the process.
>
> I don't think that some manager screaming at these people is going
> to make them any more polite. As the unemployment rate drops
> more and more marginal people are going to be working in McDonalds.
>
> These people can spot assholes that rat on them to the manager
> for being rude and they get revenge by spiting in the food,
> but if you would try and talk to them yourself maybe you could
> educate them
I doubt anyone trying to talk to such a person is going to educate
them. I agree with the policy you have about screamers, though. We
have an MYO at a yard on our system that screams at people and all it
does is create disharmony. It certainly doesn't solve anything. I will
admit that some people can be jerks. I have them on the train all the
time. But one thing remains constant: the customer has the right to
courteous, prompt, and efficient service because he or she is paying for
the privilege. You, OTOH, are being paid to perform. If you cannot,
your employer will find someone who can. Until you learn this
principle, you will NEVER succeed, especially if you're in business for
yourself. And if you are not an asset to your company, you are likely a
liability. There isn't much room for neutrality. Frankly, I think the
majority of people in this country have a good work ethic and I think
the general opinion is turning to the fact that slackers will no longer
be tolerated. The rest of us can't afford it.
Doug Smith/UP Engineer/Conductor
Drrocks
David S
(Eric Jackson) wrote:
>So I don't think that there is that much risk. If someone
>is rude to you the thing to do is tell them to their face
>that they are being rude, not go and stab them in the
>back and mess up their job.
And if they tell you tough sh** and continue to be rude? Then can you mess
up their jobs? The point is, they are not DOING the job properly and their
supervisors need to know about it.
David Streeter
--
opinions expressed are probably not those of
Little "Q" Model Railroad Club
Aurora, Illinois
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114/littleq.html
to reply, remove AUNTIESPAM. from email address
if replying by both newsgroup post and email, please say so
"Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints."
Eric Jackson
David S <AUNTIESPAM...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:54:49 GMT, someone claiming to be ja...@netcom.com
>(Eric Jackson) wrote:
>
>>So I don't think that there is that much risk. If someone
>>is rude to you the thing to do is tell them to their face
>>that they are being rude, not go and stab them in the
>>back and mess up their job.
>
>And if they tell you tough sh** and continue to be rude? Then can you mess
>up their jobs? The point is, they are not DOING the job properly and their
>supervisors need to know about it.
>
>David Streeter
See Dave, I hate to tell you this but the next time you go
to taco bell they will probably be spiting in your taco
and then be going out in the parking lot smoke a joint,
because they can just tell that your the kind of guy who
will snitch them off the the boss. All the while they
will be laughing at you for being so uptite.
You don't get that much for the minimum wage any more,
all the hard working types have been promoted to the
managers that people like you go to complain to about
the slackers of the world.
But I guess that its not going to be possible for
you to possibly understand my point of view because
you have a really fixed opinion on the subject so
there is no way that anyone can change it and your
just going to go right on snitching on people because
you feel that its the thing that people like you are
supposed to do, and the people who you see as rude
will hate you for it and be even more rude or maybe
just do rude things to you behind your back.
David S
(Eric Jackson) wrote:
>Yes I guess that I do have some amount of simpathey for the slackers
>of the world. Maybe I can think if I was slacking a little one day
>and some one snitched on me I would not like it. Maybe that is
>why I have not always been as successfull as I would like to have
>been in the working world.
First of all, there is a difference between being a slacker and being rude.
The worst Amtrak employee I can remember was in a lounge car on the
southwest Chief in 1984. I pointed out to him that the waste basket was
full. He mumbled "okay" and trudged off indifferently, BUT WITHIN A FEW
MINUTES HE EMPTIED THE WASTE BASKET. I did not report him for his apparent
bad attitude because he did the job. Maybe he was just having a bad day.
That happens to me sometimes. If he had NOT emptied it, I would have
mentioned it to the On-Board Chief.
>I mean I get a new job, and everything seems fine for a while but
>always after a couple of days some guy comes along and starts telling
>you what to do.
Are you doing anything in the first place? Do his instructions help you do
the job more efficiently or safely? Making sure you do your job right is
his job. OTOH, if his instructions serve no purpose or actually slow you
down (unless in your speed you were being unsafe), then you're right and he
should leave you alone. You might try going to HIS supervisor, since he's
not doing his job properly.
>I don't think that some manager screaming at these people is going
>to make them any more polite.
If it happens often enough, it will make them either more polite or less
employed.
> As the unemployment rate drops
>more and more marginal people are going to be working in McDonalds.
>
>These people can spot assholes that rat on them to the manager
>for being rude and they get revenge by spiting in the food,
If I saw that happen, I wouldn't even go to the manager. I'd go straight to
the Health Department and mess up the job of every single person working
there, from the floor mopper right up to the franchise owner.
>but if you would try and talk to them yourself maybe you could
>educate them
Try it once. If it works, fine. If not, then go to the manager, and tell
him/her that you have already talked to the employee yourself. If it
happens a third time, let the owner of the franchise know why you will not
be patronizing his establishment in the future.
Dash9dave
>»like that. I think that if they are rude and you don't like
>»it you should tell them right to their faces which is what
>»the original poster did.
>»
>»with their job because they were rude like that.
>»
>»Maybe its just that I hate snitches in general
It is THEIR job to serve you, not YOUR job to serve them. After spending 12
years in fast food management with a great company, I know it is possible to
find good people, train them well, and have them exceed guest expectations. In
my opinion, you are NOT doing anyone any favors by looking the other way when
they are rude or unsanitary. Nobody can afford it. I'm all for talking
directly to the employee, but, as their leader, it is ultimately my job to help
them be successful or help them to the door. You need to let me do my job,
because that employee will not feel accountable to the guest, especially if
they've already been rude.
As the years go by (and I'm only 31), I am becoming more and more intolerant
of the indifference I see in the service sector. Trust me, it won't change
unless you take action. Either speak to a supervisor, or let them know (tell
them in person, call, write, scribble on a napkin,or whatever) that you won't
be coming back because of whatever reason. And then don't go back! At least
not for a reasonable amount of time.
Whooops! I forgot to put in something about trains. Can't wait for those new
F59PHI's in Talgo colors to arrive here in Seattle!
Dave Riffle
Auburn Observations
DASH...@AOL.COM
Gustav Foseid
> In Champaign, Illinois the mass transit district is building a center that
> has the train, city busses and cabs all in one location! When someone
> departs the train they can get anywhere they want to. From what I have
> found out this type of coordination is found all over Europe.
I can confirm that.
But on the other hand, trains are much more important mode of
transportation in Europe than in the USA. Therefore the
railwaystations become a much more natural center for local
communications.
Car rental companies are not very often seen in the railwaystations in
Europe though.
- Gustav
George Conklin
Gustav Foseid <gus...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>But on the other hand, trains are much more important mode of
>transportation in Europe than in the USA. Therefore the
>railwaystations become a much more natural center for local
>communications.
>
Only moderately more so in terms of % of intercity trips
such as Amtrak runs. The main difference is that Europe has
limited profit-making air travel while subsidizing
money-losing rail travel.
The issue is not whether employees of either mode are
more polite than that of the other mode. It comes down to
high cost for rail passenger travel anywhere in the world,
and that this money-losing function of rail has to be
heavily supported by someone. In the USA Vranich gives the
'subsidy' of road and air travel at under 1/2 cent per mile,
but Amtrak at 22 cents per mile. Being polite does not undo
this cost disadvantage.
toml...@wmich.edu
2. Complain about bad service when you get it, but be just as quick to
compliment good service. When travelling by Amtrak last September, I watched
as my local station agent had to deal with a grand total of four cancelled or
delayed trains out of the eight through Kalamazoo each day. [BTW, Amtrak was
not responsible for any of the delays or cancellations, just suffering the
consequences of life happening]. I watched him deal with about 100 travellers
who were screwed by the situation. I never saw him be less than completely
courteous with any of the travellers, even when repeating the same story for
the 150th time, and trying to point out to yet another reality-challenged
passenger that no, *he* didn't personally screw up the trains, and Amtrak
wasn't picking on that traveller in particular. (Not everybody got the story
the first time through). In short, I was impressed. So I wrote to Amtrak to
tell them how good their employee was. I won't say that Amtrak has no
employees bad enough to make me want to write to complain, just that I
haven't met them yet. When I do, I'll write.
3. Let's not turn this thread into another "What's wrong with Amtrak" thread
without changing the subject line.
Mark Tomlonson
Kalamazoo MI
Access Systems
> >I don't think that you should rat out the poor amtrak workers
> >»like that. I think that if they are rude and you don't like
> >»it you should tell them right to their faces which is what
> >»the original poster did.
> It is THEIR job to serve you, not YOUR job to serve them. After spending 12
I think a lot of folks don't get it!
I own my business, if I am rude to my customers, my competitor will thank
me!
> directly to the employee, but, as their leader, it is ultimately my job to help
> them be successful or help them to the door. You need to let me do my job,
> Whooops! I forgot to put in something about trains. Can't wait for those new
> F59PHI's in Talgo colors to arrive here in Seattle!
and to add a customer comment on the new Talgo's. AMTRAK was at first
unwilling to make the food service car accessible, a number (quite large)
made it clear that as customers we wanted access to the food service.
it didn't even take a lawsuit (for AMTRAK that's progress) to convince
them to change thier minds, the new Talgos will be the first with a wider
passageway between cars, making it possible for people with disabilities
to pass between the cars. (and it didn't even cost AMTRAK any $$$)
Bob
Frank Kelley Jr.
>
> HaRRy wrote:
> >
> > Please write to Amtrak Customer Service at the address in your ticket envelope,
> > with EXACT details about what you reported here. Also include the train
> > if you noted it, etc. Include a copy of your ticket stubs, if possible.
> >
> > If poor employees aren't reported we can hardly expect Amtrak management to do
> > anything about them.
>
> have no supervision. Airline personnel are considerably more
> accommodating.
I also suffered a "trip from hell" once on the Lake Shore limited. It
was due to rail traffic, a derailment, and bad cars on Amtrak. It got so
bad we had to be put up in Utica,NY for a night then take buses to
Boston.
I wrote to Amtrak Customer relations with all the details and got a call
from them. They refunded my first class ticket and gave me a coach seat
anywhere on Amtrak as a bonus. It pays to write
Eric Jackson
Doug Smith <mus...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
>And you think that you're just there for the paycheck or something?
Remember that I don't actually work for amtrak, and I was not
actually the one that is being accused of being rude to the
paying custimers. I was just trying to explain a little about
what the mentality of the kind of people that the frustrated
original poster. I admitted that I myself have slacked off
once in a while, but I am not really all that proud of it.
But I think that your probably right Doug, the allegedly
rude amtrak worker could very well be there for a pay check
and does not feel particularly well motivated to do any
more than is required of him, and infact would probably
feel happy to actually do a little less that this if he
can get away with it.
I have my own software and web development company and I
try to do a good job for the people that pay me.
>You're being paid to provide a service or function for the company you
>work for. Unless it's a totally moronic job, two days of work is not
>going to give you any experience. I've worked for the railroad for over
>three years and haven't begun to learn all there is to know. I have a
>great respect for the older heads who take the time to see that I learn
>what I need to. I will admit I don't have much for those who treat me
>like an idiot in the process.
>
>>
>> I don't think that some manager screaming at these people is going
>> to make them any more polite. As the unemployment rate drops
>> more and more marginal people are going to be working in McDonalds.
>>
>> These people can spot assholes that rat on them to the manager
>> for being rude and they get revenge by spiting in the food,
>> but if you would try and talk to them yourself maybe you could
>> educate them
>
>I doubt anyone trying to talk to such a person is going to educate
>them. I agree with the policy you have about screamers, though. We
>have an MYO at a yard on our system that screams at people and all it
>does is create disharmony. It certainly doesn't solve anything. I will
>admit that some people can be jerks.
>I have them on the train all the
>time.
OK I was sort of speculating on the same thing. That this worker
may have seen some rudeness on the part of the disgrunteled
passinger as well. Another possibility is that the passinger
before the one that started this post was a jerk and that the
worker was just taking it out on the poster.
> But one thing remains constant: the customer has the right to
>courteous, prompt, and efficient service because he or she is paying for
>the privilege.
I was thinking about this statement last night as I watched
an educational program about the economey. Part of the show
talked about right after world war II, and showed a speach
by FDR, where he was saying something that seems kind of strange
to us today. He was talking about his new economic bill of
rights. He was saying in this speach that his bill was going
to give "every americal the ****RIGHT**** to a good paying job
in our nations factories, mines and farms"
While I was listening to good old FDR I noticed that he did
not mention these new low paying service jobs that seem to
be the mainstay of our econimey these days. It made me
think about the old days when if right out of high school,
if you got a girl pregnant you could get a job in a
factory and make enough money to support her and the rug
rat with out her even having to go to work.
And here FDR was saying that every american had the
***RIGHT*** to a good paying job.
Anyway the show went on to explain in a rather simplistic
way about the theory of monitaty policy, and how there
is a relation between the unemployment rate and inflation.
Turns out you can't let everyone have a job because if
you do in our market system this will create
inflationary pressures on the economey.
There was this other weird theory that between the
consumer market and the capital that people invested
there was just not enough spending to keep things
humming along so that the government had to spend
some money as well to make it all work.
On this show they showed this graph to explain it.
On one side they had this bar that was the total
GNP. They had another bar that was consumer spending
that was shorter than the the GNP bar. So they
put another bar on the top if it which was investment
spending. They put this on top of the consumer spending
one but they were still not high enough to match the
GNP bar, Oh no not enough demand, what will we do.
The econimist answered, We need ***Government spending***
to make up the difference.
I don't pretend to understand it all and it does
in fact sound a bit fishey to me, but maybe in this program
it shows the mentality that is at the root of the problem.
Some people figure that this allegidly rude amtrak worker
has a ***Right*** to a job. But people in the private
sector are not spending enough money to keep him
working so we do some government spending to create a job
for him.
And what I think the original poster is suggesting is that
he wants to take away this guys right to a job, and create
another rude unemployed person. Maybe he is right but
what might be the effect of this is that this disgruntaled
now unemployed guy will just feel that since the good
paying job that FDR told him he has a ***RIGHT*** to has
been taken away that he now has the right to climb
into my window and seal the TV set and we wind up paying
$40,000 a year to keep him in jail instead.
Now as far as this consumer "right" to be treated a certain
way. In a sence your right Doug, if I had people working
for me I would try to convince them of this so that I
could keep my customers and make more money. But what
war did these consumers fight in to gain the "right"
to polite service? Is this in the constitution?
You already know the answer its not of course!
The only right that the consumer really has it to take his
money else where. And I am cool with that, but since
amtrak is loosing money with every customer it does not really
hurt them all that much.
I can only speculate but I think that the people in these
low paying service jobs act rude because maybe they feel
that its their rights that are being steped on. That they
have the ***Right*** to a good paying job and that they
are not getting it.
Some posters have suggested that these people in these
meinal low paying service jobs should work harder for
the pitance that they are being payed, and should
kiss up to the customers more because if they do they
will "get ahead in the world"
So if you want to you can think of it like this. Think
of "getting ahead in the world" as a product that you
are offering to sell these people in these low paid
service jobs. The price your asking for this getting
ahead is that they be polite and kiss up to the
customers more. I would submit that the don't seem
to be buying into this. And they are just opting for
their right as a consumer of the "getting ahead in the
world" product to not buy it just like your probably not
going to ride amtrak any more.
As I see it maybe the problem could be that the original
poster is the one that is not doing enough, maybe he has
not kissed enough customer ass, and manager ass him self
and has not "gotten far enough ahead in the world" if he had
he would have enough cash to ride in a private rail car
with friendly polite attendtands. But no he can't afford
this kind of service, and so he is stuck on the government
subsidised amtrak, because he is not far enough ahead of
this poor dissatisfied amtrak worker.
Probably there is no solution to the problem but to just
hope that he has better luck next time and gets some
people who are nicer than the ones that he ran into
this time.
> You, OTOH, are being paid to perform. If you cannot,
>your employer will find someone who can. Until you learn this
>principle, you will NEVER succeed, especially if you're in business for
>yourself. And if you are not an asset to your company, you are likely a
>liability. There isn't much room for neutrality. Frankly, I think the
>majority of people in this country have a good work ethic and I think
>the general opinion is turning to the fact that slackers will no longer
>be tolerated. The rest of us can't afford it.
>
>
Doug Smith/UP Engineer/Conductor
Sage advice indeed on how to get ahead in the world! I am going to
see a potential customer right now and I will remember to be
polite so that I can get his money!
Most of the people that I work for these days seem to be really
happy and feel really luckey to have some one as smart as me
working for them. I guess that its because there are not enough
people who know how to program web pages with java script and
things like that to go around so they know that they have to take
good care of me or I will find some one else that will.
And really there is no excuse for being mean and rude to anyone
and I promise myself to never ever do it again, but I was just
trying explain a little about the mentality of the people that
do act that way. I know its probably hard for most people to
understand what I was trying to say. Thats because its always
hard to see things from another point of view.
jaks
Light, Ed
>
> Oh God here we go with the politically correct statement of the year. They are not
> "african-american" they are black or american. If they want to be called African
> anything they can go back to Africa. And "ebonics"...that is solved with an
> education.
>
> This statement written by a white american (how come we're never called
> Euro-American).
We kidnapped them, so we now respect them.
--
Best wishes!
_________________
Ed Light, Eureka, CA, USA - m...@mk.net
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
The Mind Control Forum - http://www.mk.net/~mcf
Resisting the ongoing covert mind control takeover
Light, Ed
> you feel that its the thing that people like you are
> supposed to do, and the people who you see as rude
> will hate you for it and be even more rude or maybe
> just do rude things to you behind your back.
Or be fired and replaced with 1. other cruds by mistake
or 2. someone courteous, if you want to persue it.
TBO
[ the usual effluvium ]
George, you're back! Got that old prostate under control, eh?
God I'm so glad, life here has been so dull without you!
Tim O'Connor
toco...@avici.com
Eric Jackson
David S <AUNTIESPAM...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:02:49 GMT, someone claiming to be ja...@netcom.com
>(Eric Jackson) wrote:
>
>
>First of all, there is a difference between being a slacker and being rude.
OK I guess that the guy could have politely told you that he
could not empty the trash because he had to be googing off or
one could be busting there ass and yet still get the job done
but I have noticed that there is a coorilation between people
who slack off, are lazy and don't really want to work and ones
that are rude to the custimers. Seems like these things go
together in a package deal most of the time.
But yes I admit that you can have one problem or the other but
not both, it is possible I admit, but I suspect in the majority
of cases you have both at the same time.
>
>Are you doing anything in the first place?
Well thinking back to my rude slacker days, back then my answer
would have been heck, no I am just slacking off and collecting
my paycheck, of course I have long since repented but I still
remember something of the mentality which is what I was trying
to explain.
>Do his instructions help you do
>the job more efficiently or safely?
Well now days I am my own boss, so I have a real asshole for
a boss now, makes me work late all the time and expects a lot
out of me. But back in my slacker days of working for some
one else, and to speculate on what the mentality of this rude
amtrak worker is to the manager trying to tell him how to do
his job.
Back in those days I really wouldn't know or care if his
instructions would be of any help to me or not because I
would hardly even be listening to him. I would be thinking
about how I was going to get laid when I got off work or
something. I would be saying right boss, what ever you say
boss just to get the boss off my back and then go back to
my old slacker ways.
This would be even more true I imagin if I had a
gobment job, but of course I am just speculating.
>Making sure you do your job right is
>his job. OTOH, if his instructions serve no purpose or actually slow you
>down (unless in your speed you were being unsafe), then you're right and he
>should leave you alone. You might try going to HIS supervisor, since he's
>not doing his job properly.
>
>>I don't think that some manager screaming at these people is going
>>to make them any more polite.
>
>If it happens often enough, it will make them either more polite or less
>employed.
>
>> As the unemployment rate drops
>>more and more marginal people are going to be working in McDonalds.
>>
>>These people can spot assholes that rat on them to the manager
>>for being rude and they get revenge by spiting in the food,
>
>If I saw that happen, I wouldn't even go to the manager. I'd go straight to
>the Health Department and mess up the job of every single person working
>there, from the floor mopper right up to the franchise owner.
>
I know that you would, it might be hard for you to believe it but
I think that they spitting in your food almost every time! Well
at least the slackers are. Hey your looking to mess with their
jobs at the first oppertunity, and they can pick up on it, and
they have their ways of getting back.
And unfortunately this vast pool of unemployed people which you
seem bent on creating in order to keep all these slackers under
control is shrinking faster and faster all the time.
Thing is since these slackers all have their anti-snitching
rule in place they can get away with it. If someone like you
went to work in a place like that you would quickley get
promoted to a manager level so that other people like you would
run to you to complain about the slackers if they were in
fact caught so you would not be around in the trenches to snicth
off on your fellow workers.
I am not trying to justify this I was just trying to explain
how these people think, and that I don't think that going around
trying to mess up their pitfull little jobs is going to make
them act any better
>>but if you would try and talk to them yourself maybe you could
>>educate them
>
Access Systems
> Jack S wrote:
> >
> > Oh God here we go with the politically correct statement of the year. They are not
because it is common courtesy to refer to any person by the term THEY
prefer.
> >
> > This statement written by a white american (how come we're never called
> > Euro-American).
if you prefer this term then as a courtesy I would use it for you
> We kidnapped them, so we now respect them.
not neccesarily the reason, the term is used out of courtesy, resepct is
earned by an individual.
the term "politically correct" is how rude people make fun of common
courtesy.
Bob
and this on a thread about "rude" employees??????
Jim Fahlstedt
> On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:54:49 GMT, someone claiming to be
> ja...@netcom.com
> (Eric Jackson) wrote:
>
> >So I don't think that there is that much risk. If someone
> >is rude to you the thing to do is tell them to their face
> >that they are being rude, not go and stab them in the
> >back and mess up their job.
>
> And if they tell you tough sh** and continue to be rude? Then can you
> mess
> up their jobs? The point is, they are not DOING the job properly and
> their
> supervisors need to know about it.
>
> David Streeter
> --
> opinions expressed are probably not those of
> Little "Q" Model Railroad Club
> Aurora, Illinois
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8114/littleq.html
> to reply, remove AUNTIESPAM. from email address
> if replying by both newsgroup post and email, please say so
> "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints."
Exactly! This very morning I encountered a very angry Amtrak passenger
who had not been informed by the reservation center that her bicycle had
to be disassembled to be placed in a box as checked baggage. She also
was unhappy that this reservation clerk had been rude as well as
uninformative during her phone conversation. Since this happened
shortly before train time and the station personnel were busy, I helped
her with her problem and then explained how to help us (those of us who
give a damn, be they Amtrak employees, riders or friends) by complaining
about this treatment. When she boarded the train, she thanked me and
the station personnel for helping her. Moral, if we do not complain,
then these insensitive lumps will continue to drive off customers.
Jim
Jim Fahlstedt
> In article <35c5eeee...@news.megsinet.net>,
> David S <AUNTIESPAM...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:54:49 GMT, someone claiming to be
> ja...@netcom.com
> >(Eric Jackson) wrote:
> >
> >>So I don't think that there is that much risk. If someone
> >>is rude to you the thing to do is tell them to their face
> >>that they are being rude, not go and stab them in the
> >>back and mess up their job.
> >
> >And if they tell you tough sh** and continue to be rude? Then can you
> mess
> >up their jobs? The point is, they are not DOING the job properly and
> their
> >supervisors need to know about it.
> >
> >David Streeter
>
> See Dave, I hate to tell you this but the next time you go
> to taco bell they will probably be spiting in your taco
> and then be going out in the parking lot smoke a joint,
> because they can just tell that your the kind of guy who
> will snitch them off the the boss. All the while they
> will be laughing at you for being so uptite.
>
> You don't get that much for the minimum wage any more,
> all the hard working types have been promoted to the
> managers that people like you go to complain to about
> the slackers of the world.
>
> But I guess that its not going to be possible for
> you to possibly understand my point of view because
> you have a really fixed opinion on the subject so
> there is no way that anyone can change it and your
> just going to go right on snitching on people because
> you feel that its the thing that people like you are
> supposed to do, and the people who you see as rude
> will hate you for it and be even more rude or maybe
> just do rude things to you behind your back.
Eric, we are talking about Amtrak employees here. Even the part time
ones make over $11.00 per hour. This is far from minimum wage unless my
employer has been lying to me.
Jim Fahlstedt
Eric Jackson
Dash9dave <dash...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I don't think that you should rat out the poor amtrak workers
>>»like that. I think that if they are rude and you don't like
>>»it you should tell them right to their faces which is what
>>»the original poster did.
>>»I don't think its very nice to call in on someone and mess
>>»with their job because they were rude like that.
>>»
>>»Maybe its just that I hate snitches in general
>
>find good people, train them well, and have them exceed guest expectations.
This is no doubt due to your keen powers of observation. Given the
detailed observations that I have read about in your posts about
the alburn area if you pay even half as much attention to your work
you would probably be able to pick up on things that the average
manager would miss!
I would imagin that its no easy job finding and training people
to do this is the fast food industry, but it would not surprize
me if the people that you are able to find and train are actually
far above average.
> In
>my opinion, you are NOT doing anyone any favors by looking the other way when
>they are rude or unsanitary. Nobody can afford it. I'm all for talking
>directly to the employee, but, as their leader, it is ultimately my job to help
>them be successful or help them to the door. You need to let me do my job,
>because that employee will not feel accountable to the guest, especially if
>they've already been rude.
>
>As the years go by (and I'm only 31), I am becoming more and more intolerant
>of the indifference I see in the service sector.
This worries me a little because intolerance is not a good thing to have
with others in general I have found. But I bet that another thing
that you do is keep your people having a good attitude and moral
using positive methods, more than the negitive when ever possible.
> Trust me, it won't change
>unless you take action. Either speak to a supervisor, or let them know (tell
>them in person, call, write, scribble on a napkin,or whatever) that you won't
>be coming back because of whatever reason. And then don't go back! At least
>not for a reasonable amount of time.
>
That of course is the one real right the consumer does have, to select
another place to patronize.
>Whooops! I forgot to put in something about trains. Can't wait for those new
>F59PHI's in Talgo colors to arrive here in Seattle!
>
>
>Dave Riffle
>Auburn Observations
>DASH...@AOL.COM
>
>
Keep up the good Auburn Observation posts I always enjoy reading them.
I don't know what it is about amtrak but I guess that its one of those
things that people are really sensitive about and the discussion
always seems to get a little more heated in these threads than
others.
ERIKG3
>limited profit-making air travel while subsidizing
>money-losing rail travel.
First, all modes are subsidized.
Second, Europe has tended to look at transportation as something that needs to
be balenced.
France has surely subsidized Air France far more than it has SNCF (The French
Railways). European nations see that it is a better choice to have good
domestic rail service versus oversericed domestic air service.
Considering the impact of airports on small countries, this is not a bad idea.
-Erik
Stas...@ix.netcom.com
>
> >The main difference is that Europe has
> >limited profit-making air travel while subsidizing
> >money-losing rail travel.
>
> First, all modes are subsidized.
From what I see the railroad industry in the United States pays its own
way. Certainly, Amtrak is heavily subsidized by the government and has
never made a dime. But the railroads that haul the goods not only
compete against subsidized competition, but make money at it.
Drrocks
subsidized branches or branches that are owned by government entities,
subsidized/acquired to avoid abandonment. There are also a number of
subsidized commuter operations such as those UP inherited from C&NW, but
their number shrinks as they are acquired by the likes of CalTrans and
SEPTA.
Somebody is sure to bring up land grants, so I will first<grn>. IIRC There
were seven land grant railroads, as follows (of course not all the routes
that now operate under the banners that remain were originally land grant
roads):
Illinois Central
Michigan Central
Southern Pacific
Union Pacific
Northern Pacific
Central Pacific
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Most railroads also got rights-of-way, station and yard land, etc., for
free or at little cost in return for serving certain areas and
communities. So most if not all railroads were subsidized in a sense at
the time they were constructed. HOWEVER, nobody can reasonably argue that
the cost to the taxpayer of such "subsidies" hasn't been returned many
times over through property taxes (yes, the land grant roads pay taxes on
those lands, although much of what remains in their hands is of little
value), community growth brought about by their presence and taxes people
by the people they brought in, lower freight rates for gummit cargo, etc.
etc. etc.
Federal subsidies to highways, aviation, and water transportation are
staggering, totalling around $50 BILLION a year, while rail transportation,
including Amtrak and all mass transit and commuter subsidies, is getting
around $5 billion (even though it passed and was signed by Slick Willie
Congress is still twiddling with the transportation bill regarding who gets
what, so it's hard to tell exactly).
The one fact that must be remembered as this endless argument continues is
that THERE IS NO MODE OF MOVING PEOPLE THAT IS NOT HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, in
this country or anywhere else. I personally don't see why Amtrak has been
singled out to be the first, one and only mode of public transportation
that must pay its own way, but that is the crux of the discussion, isn't
it?
BAC
James Bow
>
> This statement written by a white american (how come we're never
> called Euro-American).
We are.
Best,
James
Randall Hees
>
I believe that there were more than 7 land grant railroads...
At least you need to add the Western Pacific of 1862, which was given
federal land grants in a 1864 reworking of the Pacific Railroad Act (of
1862) This line was chartered to build from Sacramento CA to San Jose
CA. Under the original promoters it built 20 mile from San Jose to near
Sunol in Niles Canyon. It was then taken over the the same men who
owned the Central Pacific and compleated.
You may consider it part of Santa Fe, but I believe there were land
grants held by the Atlantic and Pacific.
I thought that the Kansas Central held land grants (possibly under the
name, Union Pacific, Southern Division)
Randy Hees
denni...@mailexcite.com
are Euro-Americans. For example, Danny Thomas was
a Lebanese-American, also a white man, but certainly
his background was not European. I like to refer to
people who belong to the same race as I do as members
of the Caucasian race, and this does include some people
whose background is not European. To me, terms such
as European-American, Irish-American, Arab-American,
etc., are terms of an ethnic, rather than racial nature.
Eric Jackson
>Jack S wrote:
>>
>> This statement written by a white american (how come we're never
>> called Euro-American).
>
>We are.
>
>Best,
>James
I like to think of myself more as White-Trash or Cracker
but I am thinking about becoming offended unless they
start calling me a
Crackro-americal!
:-)
John & Lisa Higham
Companies with rude employees going out of business? Unfortunately
this doesn't appear to apply to healthcare.
John
David S
(Eric Jackson) wrote:
>In article <35c5eeee...@news.megsinet.net>,
>David S <AUNTIESPAM...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:54:49 GMT, someone claiming to be ja...@netcom.com
>>(Eric Jackson) wrote:
>>
>>>So I don't think that there is that much risk. If someone
>>>is rude to you the thing to do is tell them to their face
>>>that they are being rude, not go and stab them in the
>>>back and mess up their job.
>>
>>And if they tell you tough sh** and continue to be rude? Then can you mess
>>up their jobs? The point is, they are not DOING the job properly and their
>>supervisors need to know about it.
>
>See Dave, I hate to tell you this but the next time you go
>to taco bell they will probably be spiting in your taco
>and then be going out in the parking lot smoke a joint,
First, I never go to Taco Bell (and it has nothing to do with the
employees).
Second, if they're smoking joints I have NO sympathy for them whatsoever
and if I caught them I wouldn't just snitch them out to their boss but to
the police.
>because they can just tell that your the kind of guy who
>will snitch them off the the boss. All the while they
>will be laughing at you for being so uptite.
And I will be laughing at them for sitting in jail for the drug offense.
>You don't get that much for the minimum wage any more,
>all the hard working types have been promoted to the
>managers that people like you go to complain to about
>the slackers of the world.
>
>But I guess that its not going to be possible for
>you to possibly understand my point of view because
>you have a really fixed opinion on the subject so
>there is no way that anyone can change it and your
>just going to go right on snitching on people because
>you feel that its the thing that people like you are
>supposed to do, and the people who you see as rude
>will hate you for it and be even more rude or maybe
>just do rude things to you behind your back.
You seem to have missed the point of the question I asked. To repeat:
You said: If someone is rude to you the thing to do is tell them to their
face that they are being rude, not go and stab them in the back and
mess up their job.
And I asked: And if they tell you tough sh** and continue to be rude? Then
can you mess up their jobs?
How do answer that?
I once read a "letter" to teenagers from a businessman. It said something
like "Teenagers today complain that no one will hire them. But I did hire a
teenager today. I interviewed several of them and most of them just came in
and sat down and answered my questions and when I said I would let them
know about the job, they just mumbled 'Okay' and left. But this one that i
hired showed some real interest in my business. He asked what his job would
involve. He wore a tie for the interview. In general, he acted like he
wanted to work for me."
BTW, I don't usually flame people in this newsgroup (except for Wormbrain)
about spelling or grammar, but in your post, you twice said "your" when you
should have said "you're." You also had a run-on sentence. Do you do this
on your clients' web pages, too? I hope not, or else you soon won't have
any clients left.
John Wilson
...
> If poor employees aren't reported we can hardly expect Amtrak management to do
> anything about them.
>
> Regards, HaRRy, San Diego
> --
> (http://members.home.net/trains2/traincoi.htm)
> Expect a train on any track, at any time, in any direction!
> (Anti-spam actions are required.
> To e-mail reply change nospam.com to home dot com)
Yes we can. One of the awful facts of life in any service business is
that management has to be actively sampling the "product" all the time
(just like in a manufacturing business, if you think about it) to assure
quality. This doesn't mean that some Amtrak bigwig rides a train once in
a while so everybody will be on their best behavior while the boss is in
earshot. It means that they need to have unknowns, who are briefed on
what they should expect, riding as fare-paying passengers and reporting
on what they observe and how they're treated.
The reason is simple; most customers, faced with the kind of treatment
the original poster described, will simply not go back, and will warn
their friends. The service provider will never see them again. This is
disastrous, whether you're running a restaurant, hotel, railroad, or
whatever. So far as I can see, Amtrak management does not do this. It's
their job, not the customers', to keep service up to standards. If
management relies on customer complaints, they'll hear about maybe one
percent of the bad actors while they wonder why they can't attract any
business.
A problem; most union contracts, I believe, prohibit exactly the kind of
surveillance I describe in the first paragraph, to protect the bums who
see Amtrak as "a great place to work if it weren't for all these
passengers getting in the way". This is why Amtrak service is so spotty.
With no effective way to require service employees to treat the
customers right, you depend on whether the individual you deal with is a
nice person with no hangover. Does this mean it's hopeless? Possibly.
73,
JohnW
RailroadMn
>surveillance I describe in the first paragraph, to protect the bums who
>see Amtrak as "a great place to work if it weren't for all these
>passengers getting in the way". This is why Amtrak service is so spotty.
As far as the UTU is concerned, there are no provisions in our agreement with
Amtrak which prevent Amtrak from hiring "spotters" to survey trains. I'm sure
Amtrak has plenty of undecover agents out there riding trains catching ALL of
those oh so many bad employees we have out there....God forbid if we hint about
all the good Amtrak employees out there who give a damn and care about the
passengers.
As an Amtrak employee with close to 20 years of service, and one has has ridden
just about every train throughout the Amtrak system, I can justifiably say that
the vast majority of the people out there nowadays working for Amtrak really do
give a damn.
Even as a pass rider back in the early 1990's, I experienced nightmarish trips
that had me second thinking my decision to travel by train.
But believe it or not, things are changing and have been changing for some time
now.
You can't encourage a good working relationship and or environment when the
most important element of such is missing.......That being trust.
EBR
E. Brian Radovich
railr...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/railroadmn/index.html
Lee Winson
holding up our train for two hours, and a Chicago freight holding us up
for another 30 minutes.
Unfortunately, to most passengers, they have no idea whether it is
Amtrak or the host freight railroad, and blame Amtrak none the less.
When you're sitting dead for two hours, people do get antsy and nerves
frayed, of both employees and passengers.
Allan Thomas
slightest idea what your talking about! I could never say that to a paying
passenger, because when I'm at work the passenger is always right
I'm sorry I missed the original post because I would like to apologize on
behalf of my brothers and sisters that commit a good part of their lives
trying to satisfy Amtrak Passengers; also I'm very interested in learning
what train this passenger was riding.
.>But back to your comments John; We do have "unknowns" riding the
trains,we call them spotters but in reality they work out of the revenue
protection department in D.C. They are not briefed but trained.They ride as
fare-paying passengers and believe me they report on what they see good and
bad.
.>It does a lot of good for passengers to report bad treatment back to
management stating the employees name, the time, train, and date.This
creates a paper trail on this employee, each incident is investigated, and
the employee can be put on the ground or even fired.
.>No union contracts prohibit the kind of surveillance you describe, where
did you get that bs?
.>John, do you have a hangover?
I encourage every pax that feels mistreated to let management know the
facts, that is the only way for us to weed out the "bad actors"(?). But
also let us know when we do a good job, we get bashed a lot on this news
group, when ever you can manage to muster up a little pat on the back please
do!
Chef Allan Thomas
"City of New Orleans"
Wes Leatherock
AUNTIESPAM...@ameritech.net (David S) wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 04:16:11 GMT, someone claiming to be
> ja...@netcom.com (Eric Jackson) wrote:
>
>>In article <35c5eeee...@news.megsinet.net>,
>>David S <AUNTIESPAM...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:54:49 GMT, someone claiming to be
ja...@netcom.com
>>>(Eric Jackson) wrote:
[ ... text deleted ... ]
> BTW, I don't usually flame people in this newsgroup (except for
> Wormbrain) about spelling or grammar, but in your post, you twice said
> "your" when you should have said "you're." You also had a run-on
> sentence. Do you do this on your clients' web pages, too? I hope not,
> or else you soon won't have any clients left.
And there was also this sentence of his:
> Anyway the show went on to explain in a rather simplistic way about the
> theory of monitaty policy, and how there is a relation between the
> unemployment rate and inflation.
I'm guessing he meant *monetary* policy.
Incidentally, the Taco Bells and other such places around here,
as well as convenience stores, are advertising for people for their
starting jobs at above the minimum wage, and with benefits, too.
Wes Leatherock
wle...@sandbox.telepath.com
George Conklin
The whole thread is dedicated to stating that the problems
with rail passenger travel are not cost and structure, but
merely rude employees. It is a fake argument anyway.
Lee Winson
fairness to them and their counterparts in commuter rail service, some
passengers are very difficult to deal with, despite their best efforts.
In an earlier post, someone complained a conductor made a girl burst
into tears. I saw an incident like that myself, except the girl was a
nutcase; she got hysterical for no justifiable reason and really made a
scene (her ticket wasn't good for some reason and she had to pay a step
up, the conductor explained it calmly.)
I've seen other passengers deliberately be beligerent, trying to pick a
fight. (I won't go into the psychology or social attitudes of such
passengers; but we have to remember we have plenty of them on the
trains. Now that trains are owned by the government, some passengers
see a protest as a demonstration of their civil rights.)
Any person employed in public service, such as a trainmen or transit
operator, must be well trained to deal with public indiosyncracies and
have a thick skin. You must like people.
Lee Winson
> one complaint with even some of the best of them. Passengers would be MUCH
> more understanding of delays if they are just told what is going on, in simple
> easy to understand terms. And given frequent updates. All too often they
> aren't. Or not in a timely manner.
Yes, we were told in simple terms and quite frequently the cause of the
delay. (In fact, the frequent PA announcements blasted into my roomette
were annoying to me; I wish you could shut your roomette speaker off or
at least mute the volume on it in the Viewliner.)
An everyday passenger doesn't know who "Conrail" is, nor care. They want
to get to their destination and don't like sitting in the middle of nowhere
frozen.
George Conklin
>It seems like everyone is real quick to jump on Amtrak employees. In
>fairness to them and their counterparts in commuter rail service, some
>passengers are very difficult to deal with, despite their best efforts.
>
the fact that passenger rail travel is not economical to
provide. Some blame the Amtrak employees with the myth that
if only they were all fired and replaced with posters who
post here, then 35-cent-per-mile transit could compete with
the 8.8 cent-per-mile passenger plane.
ERIKG3
>the 8.8 cent-per-mile passenger plane.
Really?!?
On a flight from Tacoma to Kelso? (WA)
(Neither of which have a large airport)
Love to see it.
-Erik
George Conklin
Those are the national underlying costs. For
coast-to-coast, you can get tickets for 8.8, since the true
cost is under that figure. Local flights are more. US
Airways has one of the worse costs at about 11 cents, still
very low compared to Amtrak.
Paul Whatley
ordinary 15 or 16 year old girl who made the terrible mistake of trying to go to
the cafe car before the conductor could check her ticket. He yelled at her to
sit down. We hadn't even pulled out of the station yet.
I got a very strong impression from this conductor that he, his train, and it's
schedule were much more important than the passengers.
Stas...@ix.netcom.com
I've dealt with people working on passenger trains like that. My
attitude is that I am paying for a train ride and I have no intention of
waiting until someone takes a ticket when I could be in a dining car or
lounge car enjoying myself. After all, I paid for the train ride and
shouldn't be bothered by slow motion employees.
Some workers think they're God on the train and want to subject to you
chicken---- rules for their convenience. I shovel it right back in their
faces. The customer is most always right and are there to enjoy the
ride.
Dash9dave
>attitude is that I am paying for a train ride and I have no intention of
>waiting until someone takes a ticket when I could be in a dining car or
>lounge car enjoying myself. After all, I paid for the train ride and
>shouldn't be bothered by slow motion employees.
>
>Some workers think they're God on the train and want to subject to you
>chicken---- rules for their convenience. I shovel it right back in their
>faces. The customer is most always right and are there to enjoy the
>ride.
I, in no way, support that conductors actions. Having said that, the fact is
that there needs to be some order, some organization to things. Just because
you paid for a ticket doesn't give you the right, however you justify it, to do
whatever you want and the system be damned. I work in a very similar
environment to that of Amtrak, and we try very hard to accomodate variances
from the norm, such as people who don't listen and then yell because they
weren't told xyz. "I don't care what you say, screw you, I'm the guest and I
want that table over there!!!" (Never mind there are already guests sitting
there). But if every guest we had took the attitude that you did, it would be
anarchy, and businesses, while there for the guest, do not need to accept
anarchy as part of the price of the ride. Some order and patience not only
would help avoid an uncomfortable situation, but would benefit the pleasantness
of the trip for everybody.
If I'm mis-understanding your point or taking it too literarlly, my apologies.
I'm just tired of the "The customer is always right" attitude. The fact is,
the customer is not always right, but there are ways to work around this
without hostility, aggression, or disrespect. Simple courtesy, in both
directions, is all that is needed.
By the way, a relative of mine is a flight attendant. She speaks frequently of
the degradation of courtesy onboard aircraft these days. Put the blame where
you want (I can't defend airlines, that'd be a full-time job!), but it
parallels this attitude of "I paid for the ticket, now
I'm in charge!" Screw you, is what I'd say. I may be serving you, but I'm
human and I have a job to do. Let me do it, and everyone is happier.
Now I'm rambling.
I believe in going out of your way to exceed guest expectations, in big ways
and small. But if the guest has an attitude from the outset, or refuses to
respect the way that some things need to be done, they will not be getting
above-and-beyond service. I'll give that to someone who deserves and
appreciates it.
Until next time.
ERIKG3
>coast-to-coast, you can get tickets for 8.8, since the true
>cost is under that figure. Local flights are more. US
>Airways has one of the worse costs at about 11 cents, still
>very low compared to Amtrak.
Because the airlines *DO NOT* cover their capital costs.
Who builds the airports?
Who covers any extra costs in the ATC system?
And who trains the pilots?
Not the airlines!
-Erik
Adam H. Kerman
>Somebody is sure to bring up land grants, so I will first<grn>. IIRC There
>were seven land grant railroads, as follows (of course not all the routes
>that now operate under the banners that remain were originally land grant
>roads):
> Illinois Central
> Michigan Central
Are you counting state or federal land grants, or both?
>Most railroads also got rights-of-way, station and yard land, etc., for
>free or at little cost in return for serving certain areas and
>communities. So most if not all railroads were subsidized in a sense at
>the time they were constructed.
You forgot the timber and mineral lands the railroads got as well.
>HOWEVER, nobody can reasonably argue that the cost to the taxpayer of such
>"subsidies" hasn't been returned many times over through property taxes (yes,
>the land grant roads pay taxes on those lands, although much of what remains
>in their hands is of little value),
This is not true. Timber and mineral rights retain, if not increase, their
value over time.
>community growth brought about by their presence and taxes people
>by the people they brought in,
Good God. It cannot be argued that exploitation of the West was cost effective.
Talk about waste land. Neither agricultural nor urbanized areas of the West
are self-sustaining without subsidies from the rest of the country. The
railroads simply started the train down the track . . .
>
>The one fact that must be remembered as this endless argument continues is
>that THERE IS NO MODE OF MOVING PEOPLE THAT IS NOT HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, in
>this country or anywhere else. I personally don't see why Amtrak has been
>singled out to be the first, one and only mode of public transportation
>that must pay its own way, but that is the crux of the discussion, isn't it?
Amtrak, of course, isn't planning to pay its own way. In the tradition of
Congress, they will attempt to cross-subsidize passenger services from new
business opportunities and holding the states hostage, er, 403(b) grants.
The purpose of transportation isn't to move people and freight, but to allow
for the transaction of business at either or both ends of the journey. To be
fair about subsidies, they should come from the places served, not the
traveller or the general funds.
JeffFinchX
writes:
>I have already notified Amtrak by e-mail, without naming names of employees
>though. So far, I have not received any reply, and don't really expect to.
>I
>figured it was probably falling on deaf ears when I wrote.
I have written both commendatory and complaint letters to Amtrak and have
always received a reply that was not just a standard form letter (at least in
total). On one occasion I even received a voucer for future travel.
Jeff
A D&H fan transplanted to B&A and NYNH&H territory.
*********************************
To reply via email, delete: X
*********************************
George Conklin
ERIKG3 <eri...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Those are the national underlying costs. For
>>coast-to-coast, you can get tickets for 8.8, since the true
>>cost is under that figure. Local flights are more. US
>>Airways has one of the worse costs at about 11 cents, still
>>very low compared to Amtrak.
>
>Because the airlines *DO NOT* cover their capital costs.
Air carriers certain do cover their own capital costs and
generate a profit besides.
>Who builds the airports?
Let me speak of our local airport, since I know the
details. Abroad right now airports are being privatized at
a rapid rate, and turning a profit too. Locally the runway
is paid for by landing fees, the buildings paid for
basically by the parking lot, and retained earnings (which
would be called profits most places) pay for improvements.
RDU pays for its own police protection, has its own fire
department, its own telephone switch and pays for its own
roads. Fees are kept low for several parking lots, where
you can park for 24 hours for $4 and get a free ride to the
terminals. That 10% ticket tax and PFCs cover expenses too.
So, charge Amtrak passengers 100% of operating costs, 100%
of capital costs, THEN add 10% to the ticket for station
improvement and track and so forth, and THEN add a $3-4
station tax (PFC).
>Who covers any extra costs in the ATC system?
Again, ATC has been privatized in Switzerland and made a
profit in year 1. You know, the big 7 want that to happen
here too to get the FAA out of the way. Increased
efficiency would pay for any trivial fees.
>And who trains the pilots?
Pilots must pay for their own training. If a company
wants an accountant, it does not take a high school student
and send him to college at company expense. It hires an
accountant with a CPA.
>Not the airlines!
>
>-Erik
>
>
Yes, the air carries cover their own costs. If we could
only get government out of the airline business, privatize
airports and so forth, you could find increased efficiency
in the whole system.
Vranich is one of North America's top public transit advocates. His
research impresses me, and it soundly contradicts the Sierra Club "poop
sheet". ("America's Autos on Welfare").
Joseph Vranich wrote the book, _Derailed - What Went Wrong and What to
Do About America's Passenger Trains_, published 1997. He helped found
Amtrak almost 30 years ago, and he has served as the president of the
High Speed Rail Association, as an Amtrak public affairs spokesperson,
and as executive director of the National Association of Railroad
Passengers.
He gives a detailed analysis of Amtrak, Amtrak's problems, and the
proposals for high-speed passenger rail systems. Vranich is one of the
top, if not the top national supporters of U.S. high-speed rail. I am
impressed with his research, and I am impressed with some of his ideas
about how to build public-private partnerships that could provide
successful high-speed rail lines.
Not once does he attempt to blame "car subsidies" or "road subsidies"
for the problems of long-distance passenger rail or metropolitan
passenger rail. Quite the contrary. On page 42:
"The Congressional Budget Office tried to put a value on aid to Amtrak
in a 1982 study entitled _Federal Subsidies For Rail Passenger
Service_. The comparison showed that on a passenger-mile basis, Amtrak
passengers were subsidized at a level more than one hundred times the
next closest means of passenger travel. Each Amtrak passenger was
subsidized at the rate of 23.6 cents per passenger mile, while
commercial airline passengers received two-tenths of one cent, and
private auto passengers about one-tenth of one cent".
"Subsidies become confusing for commercial aviation and highways, where
on an _absolute_ basis the subsidies are greater than Amtrak's. Yet so
many people use these systems that on a _relative_ basis the subsidies
are lower per passenger mile. Hundreds of millions of users regularly
rely on the aviation and highway systems; about 9.5 million passengers
fly on commercial airlines _daily_, and a greater (incalculable) number
rely on streets and highways. To put it another way, subsidies for air
and auto travelers at least go to systems enjoying an astonishing level
of use. America just can't survive without its aviation and highway
systems, while Amtrak's disappearance would be insignificant because if
its infinitesimal market share outside of a few routes. Thus, on a
quantitative basis, Amtrak's subsidies are excessive and indefensible".
This excerpt is in context with the whole book, and nothing suggests
that the 1982 ratios are different from 1997.
Again, subsidies per passenger mile, according to Vranich:
Amtrak passengers......... 23.6 cents
Commercial airline........ 0.2 cent
Private auto.............. 0.1 cent
--
Scott M. Kozel koz...@richmond.infi.net
John Wilson
>
> >My
> >attitude is that I am paying for a train ride and I have no intention of
> >waiting until someone takes a ticket when I could be in a dining car or
> >lounge car enjoying myself. After all, I paid for the train ride and
> >shouldn't be bothered by slow motion employees.
> >
> >Some workers think they're God on the train and want to subject to you
> >chicken---- rules for their convenience. I shovel it right back in their
> >faces. The customer is most always right and are there to enjoy the
> >ride.
>
> I, in no way, support that conductors actions. Having said that, the fact is
> that there needs to be some order, some organization to things. Just because
> you paid for a ticket doesn't give you the right, however you justify it, to do
> whatever you want and the system be damned.
As a customer, you do have the right to expect that the "system" will be
designed to accommodate your needs and expectations, not that you have
to be subordinate to the organization. This is basic quality; you can
read up on it in Deming's literature and other sources. Specifically,
reasonable customers get on a train and expect to be able to go use
lounge cars, diners, etc., without being confined to coach seats for
half an hour or more for administrative procedures. Amtrak should figure
out a way to accommodate this, not yell at passengers who want use the
facilities they're paying for. When I rode the Pennsylvania and New
Haven railroads in the 1960s, there was no problem with passengers
getting on the train and going right for the diner or lounge car. The
conductors just lifted tickets there too. These were not railroads
famous for courtesy toward passengers; they just had a different system.
> I work in a very similar
> environment to that of Amtrak, and we try very hard to accomodate variances
> from the norm, such as people who don't listen and then yell because they
> weren't told xyz. "I don't care what you say, screw you, I'm the guest and I
> want that table over there!!!" (Never mind there are already guests sitting
> there). But if every guest we had took the attitude that you did, it would be
> anarchy, and businesses, while there for the guest, do not need to accept
> anarchy as part of the price of the ride.
Scratch "guest", substitute "customer". A guest is there at your
invitation, expense, and pleasure. A customer is paying for goods and
services and has expectations about what he will receive and how he will
receive them. The use of the term "guest" to describe a paying customer
is a tip-off to an organization that puts other things first.
Who is Amtrak's customer? Follow the money; Amtrak doesn't live or die
by individual passengers; it lives or dies by the whim of 535 political
animals in Washington, DC. An Amtrak passenger is much closer to being a
"guest" than a customer of a normal business.
> Some order and patience not only
> would help avoid an uncomfortable situation, but would benefit the pleasantness
> of the trip for everybody.
>
> If I'm mis-understanding your point or taking it too literarlly, my apologies.
> I'm just tired of the "The customer is always right" attitude. The fact is,
> the customer is not always right, but there are ways to work around this
> without hostility, aggression, or disrespect. Simple courtesy, in both
> directions, is all that is needed.
Seems to me that's the original point; simple courtesy on the part of
Amtrak employees is lacking in enough cases that many people who try
Amtrak won't go back, including several friends of mine who tried it at
my suggestion and were completely grossed out. It's not new with Amtrak
but seems to be a railroad tradition dating back to the start of the
industry.
>
> By the way, a relative of mine is a flight attendant. She speaks frequently of
> the degradation of courtesy onboard aircraft these days. Put the blame where
> you want (I can't defend airlines, that'd be a full-time job!), but it
> parallels this attitude of "I paid for the ticket, now
> I'm in charge!" Screw you, is what I'd say.
There's an old saying that's absolutely true; "Nobody ever won an
argument with a customer."
I may be serving you, but I'm
> human and I have a job to do. Let me do it, and everyone is happier.
>
> Now I'm rambling.
>
> I believe in going out of your way to exceed guest expectations, in big ways
> and small. But if the guest has an attitude from the outset, or refuses to
> respect the way that some things need to be done, they will not be getting
> above-and-beyond service. I'll give that to someone who deserves and
> appreciates it.
>
> Until next time.
>
> Dave Riffle
> Auburn Observations
> DASH...@AOL.COM
One further comment: In my experience, while the individual employee
makes a huge difference, which crew you have makes an even bigger
difference. When you get a "good" crew where everybody gets along and
tries to please the passengers, Amtrak is the best possible travel on
land. When you get a "bad" crew that's disorganized and mutually
hostile, everybody seems to be rough on the passengers too. The problem
is that you can't know, getting on a train, which kind of trip you'll
have. If a new passenger's first trip has an obnoxious crew, it'll also
be their last trip. This is not a personnel problem; it's a management
problem that needs to be a top priority with Amtrak's management. I'm
outside looking in, so I don't know what the specific fix is. Management
is inside and it's their job.
This is where quality control comes in. If I get on Southwest Airlines,
I have a very specific idea what to expect, and they've never either
disappointed or pleasantly surprised me. (No unexpected meal service, no
planes with leg room). On Amtrak, I've had trips that span the entire
spectrum from big pleasant surprises to disasters. Amtrak's service
quality is simply too variable.
73,
JohnW
Adam H. Kerman
>If someone is rude to you the thing to do is tell them to their face that they
>are being rude, not go and stab them in the back and mess up their job.
So be a brave guy and tell the jerk, "Your behavior is unacceptable. I will
report you." And give him your name and address. If you aren't anonymous,
you aren't a "snitch".
Adam H. Kerman
Jim Fahlstedt <jfa...@netmcr.com> wrote:
>Exactly! This very morning I encountered a very angry Amtrak passenger
>who had not been informed by the reservation center that her bicycle had
>to be disassembled to be placed in a box as checked baggage.
The last time I shipped a bicycle, I just shoved it in box as best I could
without disassembling it. You can force the pedals into the cardboard box.
There's plenty of room in the baggage car; this is a silly rule.
Unless you've been properly trained to repair bicycles, you aren't qualified
to remove the pedals, let alone the handlebars. You'll wreck it.
I haven't had an argument with an Amtrak baggage attendant.
Eric Jackson
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>In article <35BFE223...@ix.netcom.com>,
>Jack S <ae...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Oh God here we go with the politically correct statement of the year. They are
>>not "african-american" they are black or american.
>
>"Black" was a term chosen by the young in the mid-60's and likely few
>retired Pullman-car porters would have referred to themselves that way.
>
>"African-American" was used in a speech by Jesse Jackson a few years ago. The
>point of his speech was ignored at the time and has been forgotten today. The
>mainstream media picked it up almost immediately and so declared it valid.
>
>Given the accidental manner in which "African-American" entered the language,
>it's difficult to argue that use of the term is PC. Perhaps it's more polite
>if we attempted to avoid labels entirely.
Well said George, you know I might be about to eat my words
about when I was talking about rude people, and saying that you
should not go to their boss and have then fired. Because now
I am having some real problems with some one in a place that
I really like to go to and I feel like because of their inappropriate
behavior I am being excluded from participation and that if I
want to participate that I need to have them eliminated.
I tried talking to them but they were in my mind completely
unreasonable. So now I am faced with being a real hypocite
here because I am thinking about doing exactly the thing that
I before said I was so against.
Sorry if I got some people bent out of shape in this thread
but this always seems to be the case with these amtrak threads,
because I guess that its a really emotional subject with us
rail fans.
I don't know if passenger service like they have in europe
is possible here in the states because of.... Well you guys
go on and on about this all day long.
Some one else ask me what I would do if I tried to talk to
someone nicely but they were still just so totally unreasonable
that there was nothing that you could do with them.
Before I would have said, maybe its your fault and if you had
only done a better job of reasoning with them you could have
turned then around, but now this time I am starting to think
that this person that I am dealing with is so unreasonable
that I do need to take it up the chain of command.
So in the last analysis, here is my point. Hey man
I wasn't there OK, so I don't really know what was going on
and who was at fault.
Right now in my situation I am feeling that it will do no
good to complain up the chain of command and that the higher
I go the more unreasonalbe that the people will be. So for
now what I am thinking about doing is to simply do knothing
and just suffer quitely and cool of for a while because I
have to admit that I am angry about the situation.
But I don't know if I will stay quite for ever and just suffer
on scielence for ever of if I will ever start to demand
improvement to the higher levels of management.
As far as the spelling and puncuation of my posts in this news
group. Yea I probably could improve on that if I put in the
effort. But normally I don't ever run a spell checker on these
posts or some times even go back and read over them and
see if I want to make changes to what I said before I post it.
And funney thing, normally if I am answering a question about
rail opperations or even asking one no body brings up
the fact that a post has typos. Like if I have a post about
a train that I waw that had an interesting consist, but by
accident I say it had an interesting cxnsist people will
figure its just a friendly discussion and will not care.
If I do write a letter to this guys boss, you can believe that
it will be on really nice paper and will be spell checked and
I will read over and over it to make sure that its really
what I wanted to say and that after that I will get some one
else to proof read it because sometimes there are mistakes
that a spell checker does not check
I think most of you ***sea*** what I mean about that.
So anyway have fun with your little amtrak thread but for me
its starting to get to emotional so I am going back to
discussion freight opperations. Normally the discussion
in those threads is a lot more cival than some of the stuff
that has been going on in this thread.
jaks
ERIKG3
>generate a profit besides.
Key word is "their own" meaning aircraft , but not airports and jetways, none
of which have been built with out public financing, or public tax-breaks.
-Erik
ERIKG3
>wants an accountant, it does not take a high school student
>and send him to college at company expense. It hires an
>accountant with a CPA.
Ever heard of the U.S. Air Force???
(where do most pilots get their training, and at who's expense?)
-Erik
ERIKG3
>details. Abroad right now airports are being privatized at
>a rapid rate, and turning a profit too. Locally the runway
>is paid for by landing fees, the buildings paid for
>basically by the parking lot, and retained earnings (which
>would be called profits most places) pay for improvements.
>RDU pays for its own police protection, has its own fire
>department, its own telephone switch and pays for its own
>roads. Fees are kept low for several parking lots, where
>you can park for 24 hours for $4 and get a free ride to the
>terminals.
Easy to privatize once the initial costs are paid off. But who paid those
initial costs?
Also, this formula works now that the nation has realized (after the DIA
debaucle) that no new airports will *ever* be built.
Also, I'd be curious what the roads look like, and how much of the approach to
the airport you regard as airport provided. (I have only been to RDU once, as
a transit passenger)
-Erik
ERIKG3
>only get government out of the airline business, privatize
>airports and so forth, you could find increased efficiency
>in the whole system.
Great idea, but I'll bet you'll see a huge demand for more intercity train
service, as the fares on the airlines will skyrocket.
-Erik
ERIKG3
profit in year 1.
ATC in Switzerland covers how many flights? Few if any domestic. And as for
international, very little time can be spent in Swiss airspace at 500 miles per
hour.
-Erik
Wormburner
I expect yo are going to blow off at me for this but there are some good
reasons why Amtrak asks the pedals and handlebars be removed or turned.
Your claim that there is plenty of room in baggage cars is in most cases
completely untrue. I've seem more cars than not with baggage and express
stacked to the roof of the car. Anything loaded at the origin point of a
train may end up at the bottom of a very large pile of baggage. Each
station will add it's load of baggage and express to the car, you would be
amazed at the volume and weight of material in some of these cars. While
bike should be loaded upright it isn't always possible and some do end up
being stacked flat. Pedals and handlebars can and do get bent, they can
also poke through the bike box and damage other passengers baggage.
The station employee that insisted on following the rules actually is doing
you a favor in the long run.
If your bike is important enough to take along why isn't it worth the few
minutes to pack it properly?
Wormburner
_____________________________________
The Combat Railfans of Arizona
Check out our site at
http://members.home.com/claygill
New pictures @
http://members.home.com/claygill/allstan.html
_____________________________________
George Conklin
ERIKG3 <eri...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Air carriers certain do cover their own capital costs and
>>generate a profit besides.
>
>of which have been built with out public financing, or public tax-breaks.
>
>-Erik
The ticket tax is not public financing. It is
user-fee-financing, as in the PCF, which Amtrak users ought
to have to pay to use a station: $3 for each and every trip
or stop up to $12 per trip, just like air passengers. Air
carriers pay directly for runways, by law on a break-even
basis. You don't know your financing or law, Erik. Lastly,
I think airports ought to be privatized and pay taxes, but
remember users already paid for the land and buildings, not
the taxpayers.
George Conklin
ERIKG3 <eri...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Again, ATC has been privatized in Switzerland and made a
>profit in year 1.
>
>international, very little time can be spent in Swiss airspace at 500 miles per
>hour.
>
>-Erik
Well then what about Canada?
George Conklin
ERIKG3 <eri...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Let me speak of our local airport, since I know the
>>details. Abroad right now airports are being privatized at
>>a rapid rate, and turning a profit too. Locally the runway
>>is paid for by landing fees, the buildings paid for
>>basically by the parking lot, and retained earnings (which
>>would be called profits most places) pay for improvements.
>>RDU pays for its own police protection, has its own fire
>>department, its own telephone switch and pays for its own
>>roads. Fees are kept low for several parking lots, where
>>you can park for 24 hours for $4 and get a free ride to the
>>terminals.
>
>
>initial costs?
Users paid for our runway. The air carriers must pay all
costs for the runways, including land costs, construction
costs and maintenance costs. The buildings are paid for
through fees too, not a dime from the taxpayers. When a
building goes up, it is paid for by the cash-flow from the
airport users, not taxpayers.
As for one of our terminals, American Airlines paid for
that privately and pays off all costs associated with it,
including the personnel. They carry that as corporate debt.
George Conklin
ERIKG3 <eri...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Pilots must pay for their own training. If a company
>>wants an accountant, it does not take a high school student
>>and send him to college at company expense. It hires an
>>accountant with a CPA.
>
>
The armed forces offer training in dozens of technical
areas, and advertise that fact widely to recurit. But it
does not matter. The rest of the pilots must pay for their
own training, and fly in freight and private service until
they get about 2,000 hours. So what? The air force gets
its blood out of the pilots first anyway.
Give it up Erik. You can't make a high-cost operation
like passenger rail pay for itself no matter what you do.
Air carriers do and can and will do so in the future, and
provide cost-effective high-speed travel. Railroads do well
with heavy freight, not with people.
George Conklin
ERIKG3 <eri...@aol.com> wrote:
>>If we could
>>only get government out of the airline business, privatize
>>airports and so forth, you could find increased efficiency
>>in the whole system.
>
>service, as the fares on the airlines will skyrocket.
>
>-Erik
Costs would fall if we could get governmental
inefficiency out of the air system.
Drrocks
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> In article <35C1DBC8...@rof.net>, Drrocks <ba...@rof.net> wrote:
>
> >Somebody is sure to bring up land grants, so I will first<grn>. IIRC There
> >were seven land grant railroads, as follows (of course not all the routes
> >that now operate under the banners that remain were originally land grant
> >roads):
> > Illinois Central
> > Michigan Central
>
> Are you counting state or federal land grants, or both?
Federal only, state grants, which so far as I know never came close to federal
20-mile checkerboards, usually r-o-w only, are included in:
> >Most railroads also got rights-of-way, station and yard land, etc., for
> >free or at little cost in return for serving certain areas and
> >communities. So most if not all railroads were subsidized in a sense at
> >the time they were constructed.
>
> You forgot the timber and mineral lands the railroads got as well.
No, I most certainly did not. Almost all of these lands have been mined out, cut
off, are presently leased to others, or have been spun off to public companies such
as Santa Fe Minerals, UP Resources, etc.
> >HOWEVER, nobody can reasonably argue that the cost to the taxpayer of such
> >"subsidies" hasn't been returned many times over through property taxes (yes,
> >the land grant roads pay taxes on those lands, although much of what remains
> >in their hands is of little value),
>
> This is not true. Timber and mineral rights retain, if not increase, their
> value over time.
As I said the RAILROADS own very little if any of these lands that are of any
value. These rights have been "used," that is the resources are long gone,
presently leased, or spun off. I worked for a company formed in the early 1970s to
develop coal on as-yet undeveloped land grant lands of a western railroad that
shall remain nameless. Much to our amazement almost 30 years ago we found
virtually nothing of value that hadn't already been mined or leased and the company
was dissolved after a couple years. Others came along later and did open a couple
of successful mines (after the price of coal doubled) but for the most part there
just wasn't much left.
> >community growth brought about by their presence and taxes people
> >by the people they brought in,
>
> Good God. It cannot be argued that exploitation of the West was cost effective.
> Talk about waste land. Neither agricultural nor urbanized areas of the West
> are self-sustaining without subsidies from the rest of the country. The
> railroads simply started the train down the track . . .
Uh huh. So that explains why Colorado gets back 97% of of what it sends to
Washington. And why worthless unirrigated desert with no utilities within 10 miles
at the end of a muddy unsurfaced road costs $3000 an acre. What subsidies from
elsewhere are required to sustain Denver? Salt Lake City?? Aside from those sucked
up by every other urban area in the country? I live in a rural area, and since the
REA isn't subsidized any more (and in fact paid us back a whole months' average
usage in June) the only subsidy that I'm aware of that I benefit from is whatever
Colorado gets to maintain I-70. Which I suspect Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas get too....
Most of the riches produced by the exploitation of the West went elsewhere, to
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, London, Amsterdam. And a lot of it still does. If
it had stayed in the West perhaps the imbalance that still does exist for some
states would have disappeared long ago.
Incidentally, I know it's awful when facts get in the way of a good argument, but
in 1996 six of the twelve states I consider as "the West" (MT, WY, CO, TX, NM, UT,
ID, NV, AZ, CA, OR, WA) paid more in total federal taxes than they got back. The
biggest bloodsucking region of the country? The solid conservative South, where of
12 states 11 get more than they pay, one breaks even, and not one pays more than it
gets. The East and Midwest are pretty even, like the West: in the 11 Eastern
states 5 get more than they pay, 6 pay more than they get; in the 13 Midwest
states 5 get more, 2 are even, and 6 pay more.
> >The one fact that must be remembered as this endless argument continues is
> >that THERE IS NO MODE OF MOVING PEOPLE THAT IS NOT HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, in
> >this country or anywhere else. I personally don't see why Amtrak has been
> >singled out to be the first, one and only mode of public transportation
> >that must pay its own way, but that is the crux of the discussion, isn't it?
>
> Amtrak, of course, isn't planning to pay its own way. In the tradition of
> Congress, they will attempt to cross-subsidize passenger services from new
> business opportunities and holding the states hostage, er, 403(b) grants.
There are no 403(b) grants in the West that I know of, except for CA, OR, and WA
<grn>.
> The purpose of transportation isn't to move people and freight, but to allow
> for the transaction of business at either or both ends of the journey. To be
> fair about subsidies, they should come from the places served, not the
> traveller or the general funds.
Hey, you finally said something that makes some sense! That means we get
subsidized from all those states to which we ship Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana,
and New Mexico coal, California and the Pacific Northwest for all the power we
generate in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and Montana so the
superior beings on the Left Coast don't have to breathe the smoke, natural gas,
wheat, meat, molybdenum, copper, etc. etc. etc.....
Ted
Glad to see you two are talking again...
How about some news form the front lines, Smitty?
Trains flowing in Roseville, Jaks?
Ted in BC
kk1a
> Date: 3 Aug 1998 10:38:31 -0500
> From: "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com>
> Newsgroups: misc.transport.rail.americas
> Subject: checking bicycles (was: Rude Amtrak Employees)
>
> In article <35C0F212...@netmcr.com>,
> Jim Fahlstedt <jfa...@netmcr.com> wrote:
>
> >Exactly! This very morning I encountered a very angry Amtrak passenger
> >who had not been informed by the reservation center that her bicycle had
> >to be disassembled to be placed in a box as checked baggage.
>
> The last time I shipped a bicycle, I just shoved it in box as best I could
> without disassembling it. You can force the pedals into the cardboard box.
> There's plenty of room in the baggage car; this is a silly rule.
>
> Unless you've been properly trained to repair bicycles, you aren't qualified
> to remove the pedals, let alone the handlebars. You'll wreck it.
>
> I haven't had an argument with an Amtrak baggage attendant.
>
>
Humm - your going to check something big & dirty - no box? Duhh.
Removing the pedals is EASY! Park makes bike-shop tools quality pedal
wrenches, but a box wrench will do it too.
Turning the handle-bars means loosening a single allen-bolt. Again -
EASY
If you're to mechanically inept to do this, Buy A Commuter Bike that
FOLDS, Goes in a bag, And Checks As General Cargo.
Been There - Done That - MANY TIMES.
Karl 'Dead Eye' Dundee - Life Member League of American Wheelmen
hughwh...@my-dejanews.com
hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> In article <199808021816...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> ERIKG3 <eri...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>then 35-cent-per-mile transit could compete with
> >>the 8.8 cent-per-mile passenger plane.
> >
> >Really?!?
> >
> >On a flight from Tacoma to Kelso? (WA)
> >
> >(Neither of which have a large airport)
> >
> >Love to see it.
> >
> >-Erik
>
> Those are the national underlying costs. For
> coast-to-coast, you can get tickets for 8.8, since the true
> cost is under that figure. Local flights are more. US
> Airways has one of the worse costs at about 11 cents, still
> very low compared to Amtrak.
>
>
What is the source for these costs? The airline cost figure seems rather low.
As used in the various messages which have posted on this subject in the past
few days, it seems that many people have taken these cost figures (ie. what
it costs the carrier to deliver the service) to be the same as Revenue (ie.
what tickets sell for). Airline revenue per passenger mile is much higher
than 8.8 cents per mile. Tickets may be available at or near these prices,
but they do not represent cost. In order to advertise their low prices,
Airlines routinely sell a few seats on certain flights at such deep discounts
that they do not make money on those particular seats. These deeply
discounted fares represent neither the airline's cost nor their average
revenue.
In terms of "competition" neither reported cost reflects the subsidies which
both the airlines and Amtrak receive. Air transport is highly subsidized at
the Federal, State and in some cases, Local level. Whether the subsidies the
airlines receive is greater than the Federal, State and Local subsidies
received by Amtrak (expressed on a passenger-mile basis) is certainly open to
question and would make fascinating work for a political think-tank.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
hughwh...@my-dejanews.com
a...@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) wrote:
> In article <35C1DBC8...@rof.net>, Drrocks <ba...@rof.net> wrote:
>
> are self-sustaining without subsidies from the rest of the country. The
>
What is the basis for this assertion?
Lee Winson
tax dollars!) to improve the county airport. This is in direct
competition to Amtrak, as flights from this airport (Eastwind airlines)
compete with many Amtrak destinations. (And also local SEPTA trains to
the Phila airport.)
The question is very simple: why can't Eastwind Airlines do their own
improvements?
(One reason may be all the noise complaints they've been fighting off
since they started operation.)
roger traviss
When I first came to Canada, in 1966, I was surprised when on my first
train journey, all the passengers were herded (forced) to ride in one car
of the three car RDC train that I was on.
When I asked why I couldn't ride in the first, or last car, the conductor
said because he didn't want any passengers in those cars as it was
easier for him to keep tabs on who was on board. When I then asked why
they bothered to put three cars on the train when everyone was forced to
ride in the just the centre car, he just shrugged his shoulders and walked
away.
From this whole discussion, I guess that's somewhat typical of North
American passenger trains.
Cheers,
Roger Traviss
From sunny Victoria, BC Canada