Posts Tagged ‘Amtrak passengers’

Amtrak Passengers to be Required to Wear Masks

May 8, 2020

Amtrak passengers will be required to wear masks or other facial covering starting May 11.

The carrier said the requirement will apply to passengers on trains, Thruway buses and those inside Amtrak stations that are still open during the pandemic.

“The safety of Amtrak’s customers and employees is our top priority and requiring a facial covering is one more way we can protect everyone,” Amtrak President and CEO Bill Flynn said in statement. “Amtrak continues to operate as an essential service for those who must travel during this public health crisis.”

Amtrak said the exceptions to the rule include removing covering to the nose and mouth when eating in designated areas.

Small children who cannot maintain a facial covering will also be exempt from the rule.

Passengers will not be required to have the facial covering on when in private rooms in sleeping car accommodations, or when seated alone or with a travel companion in their own pair of seats.

The intercity rail passenger carrier said it has reduced ticket sales on trains so that they operate at no more than 50 percent of capacity to ensure social distancing.

The $25,000 Question: Was Amtrak Doing the Right Thing or Trying to Avoid Answering Tough Questions?

January 24, 2020

It didn’t take Amtrak long to back pedal away from an effort to charge a group of passengers, half of them using wheel chairs, a $25,000 service fee added atop tickets that normally cost $16 per person.

Actually, it might be more accurate to say the passenger carrier turned tail and ran away from the fee once it began receiving national attention that turned up the political heat to an unbearable level.

As is typical in these situations, Amtrak sought to spin it by framing it as a wrongful application of policy.

If the heat gets high enough, blame a rank and file employee for making a mistake. You might even call it an honest one. Then you apologize.

Yet there is much we don’t know and may never know about what led to this fee.

Amtrak may have appeared in the end to have done the right thing, but let’s not overlook that it reversed course in part to seek to avoid having to answer some tough questions, including why the fee was so high in the first place.

To recap the facts of the situation, a group of 10 members of Access Living, a Chicago disabilities group, wanted to travel together aboard a Lincoln Service train from Chicago to Normal, Illinois, to attend a conference.

Half of the group would be traveling in wheelchairs. It is not that Amtrak can’t accommodate those in wheelchairs, but it is not set up to handle large groups of wheelchair passengers who wish to travel together in the same car.

Each Amtrak coach has space for just one wheelchair. That means that the group had to be spread out over multiple coaches or seats needed to be removed to enable then to be seated in the same car.

The Chicago group has traveled via Amtrak before and the passenger carrier removed seats to accommodate them.

It is unclear how much above the regular fare the wheelchair passengers had to pay for those past trips.

One news account quoted a member of the group as saying they paid a few hundred more while another account quoted an Amtrak employee as saying the carrier absorbed the cost of removing the seats.

The group contacted Amtrak group sales last month to buy tickets and was told by a sales agent that a new policy meant they would have to pay a fee to have seats removed to accommodate additional wheelchairs in the same car.

The fee was an eye popping $25,000. When the group protested, the sales agent wrote back to say it was in line with the carrier’s policy pertaining to reconfiguring a rail car.

“With the removal of seats, it can be quite costly,” the agent wrote.

The group then turned to the news media. Initially, Amtrak stood behind the fee, telling National Public Radio it has a policy of adding “an additional fee when any group requires reconfiguration of our railcars.”

Amtrak also suggested the group split up with some members riding one train and others riding another operating three hours later.

That stance lasted a day or two. Not only did the story get picked up by other news media it also drew the ire of Illinois U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth who described the fee as outrageous.

Duckworth is not just another senator. She lost both of her legs after the U.S. Army helicopter she was co-piloting in Iraq was shot down.

She uses a wheelchair and has taken a great interest in legislation affecting the rights of the disabled.

Duckworth also is the ranking minority party member of the Senate Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on transportation.

After she demanded a meeting with Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson, Amtrak lawyers contacted an attorney for Access Living and offered a deal.

The carrier would remove seats, drop the fee and even offer a buy one get one deal.

The group accepted the offer. Amtrak later said it was dropping the policy that led to the $25,000 fee in the first place.

“After further review, Amtrak has determined to suspend the policy in question,” said Amtrak spokesperson Marc Magliari doing his best impersonation of a referee in the National Football League.

“It was never meant to be applied to this situation. And we apologize for the mistake.”

A news story noted that Magliari spoke shortly after protesters gathered outside an Amtrak station in Illinois and chanted, “We will ride.”

The story seemed to have a happy ending with the group making the trip on Wednesday morning to the conference aboard Amtrak.

Adam Ballard, an Access Living transportation policy analyst, said everything went smoothly.

“Everyone got on the train really great,” he told NPR. “We were treated like kings and queens. There was extra staff to help with bags and work the wheelchair lifts.

“And they had extra staff on the train to attend to our every need. So it was not the typical Amtrak ride.”

Of course it wasn’t. It is no surprise that Amtrak decided to bend over backwards in an effort to save face. That is the substance of good public relations.

It also was an attempt to make the situation and its attending bad publicity go away.

It will, but will anyone in a position of authority ever demand that Amtrak provide a detailed bill showing why it costs $25,000 to remove a handful of seats from an Amfleet or Horizon coach?

There are fees that are designed to enhance revenue and there are fees that are designed to discourage certain customer behavior.

The $30 that airlines charge these days to check a bag on a flight is an example of the former. People grumble about it but they either pay it or take as much as they can aboard with them stow it in the overhead bins or under the seat ahead of them.

However, the $25,000 fee Amtrak wanted to impose on Access Living sure seemed like discouragement. It came across as the type of exorbitant fee someone dreamed up knowing a group such as Access Living couldn’t or wouldn’t pay it.

It not as though Amtrak would have to hire additional personnel to remove the seats. That task would be done by regular employees.

How long does it take to unbolt seats and put them aside on a shop floor? Amtrak would have you believe it’s a very complex and expensive task.

Amtrak is not unique in saying that something is expensive without having to prove it.

Companies of all kinds routinely engage in this behavior to pressure their customers to behave in ways favorable to the company.

What Amtrak doesn’t want to admit is that it wanted to force Access Living to do things its way because it didn’t want to remove the seats.

It either saw removing seats as a hassle and/or it could lead to lost revenue.

Under ordinary circumstances, if a group of 10 disembarks at Normal the seats they occupied from Chicago become available for sale to new passengers boarding in Normal or some other station downstream.

But the chances of selling that space to other wheelchair users probably were slim. It could be days before that space gets back into revenue service.

Amtrak CEO Anderson has been aggressive about cost cutting and revenue enhancement. He has his agenda of trying to do what he can to make Amtrak’s finances look better, which he sees as a bargaining chip to talk Congress into giving Amtrak more money.

The carrier has a lot of decaying infrastructure in the Northeast Corridor that needs to be replaced and that won’t come cheap.

Although Anderson tries to run Amtrak like a private company, the passenger carrier can’t survive without public funding. That creates the perception in the minds of many that it is a public agency.

It didn’t help that the way the $25,000 fee came across in the news media and on social media was that of a heartless organization trying to bully a small group of handicapped citizens into submission.

That’s not how Amtrak would explain it but at some point high-ranking executives at the carrier, perhaps including Anderson himself, concluded that they couldn’t win this public relations battle. So Amtrak went into high gear damage control.

It is tempting to suggest that poor management at Amtrak led to this situation. There may be some truth to that given Anderson’s desire to squeeze every nickel and pick up every dime.

Some middle level manager should have recognized that if a $25,000 fee being imposed on wheelchair users went viral that Amtrak would suffer a great big black eye.

But middle level managers are not always courageous enough to put their jobs on the line. Some would rather curry favor with the managers above them by being all in on company policy.

As those who initially dealt with Access Living probably saw it, the group might protest but in the end would capitulate.

More often than not when Amtrak pulls the rules on its passengers they have no viable recourse. They don’t know how to get their plight publicized on NPR or gain the attention of a powerful policy maker.

But someone at Access Living is media savvy and Amtrak apparently didn’t take that possibility into account.

These types of situations are so long as those whose job it is to enforce rules and policies lack authority to make exceptions when discretion is called for and/or lack the foresight to be able to see the consequences of how the company’s behavior could be seen by others if they find out about it.

It is unclear what the episode involving Access Living means long term for passengers with disabilities traveling as a group.

As one member of Access Living commented to a reporter, getting around can be pretty tough for those in wheelchairs even in the best of circumstances.

Underlying this story is that Amtrak wanted the Access Living travel party to change its behavior to fit Amtrak’s needs rather than Amtrak doing all it reasonably could to meet the group’s needs.

Most people traveling together would like to sit together. It wasn’t as though the Access Living members showed up one morning at Union Station and demanded accommodations on the next train out.

They contacted Amtrak weeks before they planned to travel in recognition of the fact that it takes time to arrange accommodations for a group of wheelchair passengers.

An overarching issue that Amtrak probably would like to dodge for now is what obligation it has to accommodate those with disabilities. That is not necessarily an easy question to answer because at some point it becomes a matter of character.

Amtrak is not insensitive to the needs of those with disabilities. It has been reconfiguring its stations in recent years to better accommodate passengers with disabilities and has taken other steps to be helpful to them.

But a fault line lies where the carrier has to forgo revenue and incur an expense in order to accommodate those with disabilities as they wish to be accommodated.

Amtrak said it suspended its policy which is not necessarily the same thing as repealing it.

The suspension might buy time to let things die down or to rethink and revise the original policy.

It remains to be seen if Amtrak management sees what happened with Access Living as a fluke and goes about doing business as usual or a sign that it needs to make some hard policy choices that come with price tags it doesn’t want to pay but must to avoid a similar PR train wreck down the track.

Amtrak Arbitration Clause Continues to Draw Fire

December 15, 2019

The arbitration clause that Amtrak foisted onto its passengers earlier this year has drawn opposition from 32 groups that have asked Congress to overturn it.

The groups in a letter to Congress described the arbitration clause as a “secret justice system” that is bad for consumers.

“[Amtrak’s arbitration] provision states that it is ‘intended to be as broad as legally possible’ – applying not only to individuals who buy tickets, but to ‘family members, minor passengers, colleagues and companies’ for whom tickets are bought,” wrote Public Citizen. “The provision also lists a litany of claims that cannot be heard in court, including negligence, gross negligence, disfigurement, wrongful death, medical and hospital expenses, discrimination and failure to accommodate an actual or perceived disability.”

The arbitration clause has already drawn criticism from some members of Congress.

House Railroads Subcommittee Chair Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois) said during an Amtrak reauthorization hearing that his committee is looking at ways to void the arbitration clause.

“Apparently there is not anything to bar forced arbitration for an Amtrak passenger, so that is something that we’re now starting to look at legislatively,” Lipinski said.

For its part, Amtrak has told Congress that arbitration provides a more efficient process when they have claims that can’t be resolved directly with Amtrak.

The passenger carrier said in a letter to lawmakers that it implemented the arbitration clause in an effort to follow a congressional directive to save money.

Amtrak noted that its legal costs have been more than $11 million during the past five years.

The website Politico said the letter was a response to congressional criticism.

However, Politico reported that House Transportation Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) said he still thinks the policy “goes too far in limiting opportunities for the customers and American public to hold Amtrak accountable by raising serious issues in a public forum.”

Senators Demand Amtrak End Forced Arbitration

December 4, 2019

Pressure is growing on Amtrak to eliminate a requirement that passengers submit to arbitration rather than filing lawsuits to resolve disputes with the passenger carrier.

Thirteen U.S. senators have written to Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson to ask that the arbitration clause be removed from the contract of carriage that passengers agree to when buying tickets even if most of them are unlikely to know that.

The senators, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), told Anderson in the letter that the arbitration policy “is gravely imperiling traveling Americans’ access to justice and public accountability.”

The letter said the arbitration agreement is “particularly disturbing due to its broadness of scope,” which includes personal injury claims and wrongful death. It would also eliminate potential class-action suits.

In response Anderson rejected the request, saying that arbitration expedites the resolution of disputes at lower cost.

Amtrak quietly imposed the arbitration requirement last January.

“Agreements to arbitrate are desirable precisely because they trade the procedures of federal courts for the simplicity, informality, and expedition of arbitration,” Anderson said.

He said money saved resolving disputes through arbitration instead of in court “can then be spent in safety programs and other passenger service and care programs.”

Blumenthal said Anderson’s response was to be expected. “They say it costs less, it’s quicker, but the rights of plaintiffs are vastly undercut,” Blumenthal said.

The Connecticut senator has introduced legislation to invalidate all forced-arbitration agreements.

Boarding in Waterloo

November 25, 2019

Their train was late and it had to make two stops at the station in Waterloo, Indiana.

That’s because when Amtrak operates on Track 2 on the Chicago Line of Norfolk Southern it doesn’t halt next to the platform.

Instead, passengers board and disembark from a much smaller platform between the two tracks.

Such is life on a busy freight line and on this morning the NS was very busy with faster trains relegated to Track 2 and slower unit trains to Track 1.

So the westbound Capitol Limited made two stops in Waterloo, one for sleeping car passengers and the other for coach passengers as shown above.

With the busy Thanksgiving travel period getting underway this week Amtrak trains and platforms are going to be crowded with holiday travelers.

Amtrak Quietly Imposed Arbitration on Passengers

November 12, 2019

Amtrak quietly has changed the “terms and conditions” of tickets to prohibit passengers from suing the carrier if they suffer injuries while riding trains.

Instead, Amtrak is now forcing aggrieved passengers to submit to binding arbitration.

The arbitration clause effectively prohibits passengers from suing Amtrak for claims “including, but not limited to . . . negligence, gross negligence, physical impairment, disfigurement, pain and suffering, mental anguish, wrongful death, survival actions, loss of consortium and/or services, medical and hospital expenses, expenses of transportation for medical treatment, expenses of drugs and medical appliances, emotional distress, exemplary or punitive damages arising out of or related to any personal injury.”

It also requires that arbitration cases are individual and prohibits class or group actions.

The arbitration clause appears about two-thirds of the way into the 15,500 word statement of terms and conditions that few passengers are likely to read.

Industry observers say the arbitration clause was added after Amtrak paid a $265 million court settlement stemming from a May 12, 2015, derailment in Philadelphia that left eight dead and 238 injured.

The arbitration settlement clause was imposed in January and received little attention until it was reported by the website Politico last week.

The arbitration clause is expected to be the subject of discussion on Wednesday at a hearing on Amtrak by the House Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials.

The Senate Commerce Committee is also expected to review the issue.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) said his office is reviewing the matter.

“‘There’s no reason why consumer complaints about Amtrak should involve mandatory arbitration,” he said. “Consumers might wish to have arbitration . . . but they shouldn’t be forced to.”

By federal law, airlines are banned from imposing arbitration clauses, but many bus operators, cruise ship lines and rideshare companies already have arbitration clauses that prohibits post-accident passenger/survivor lawsuits.

“‘It is one of the most anti-consumer and passenger clauses I’ve ever seen,’ said Julia Duncan, Senior Director for Government Affairs at the American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers, in an interview with Politico.

She said Amtrak’s arbitration clause is unusually broad and detailed. It describes a wide array of possible incidents that would have to go to arbitration.

“Most forced arbitration clauses do not go into much detail about what they cover,” Duncan said.

Amtrak spokesperson Kimberly Woods told Politico the clause was added to resolve customer claims more efficiently, adding that it won’t affect most customer complaints, which are settled directly with the carrier.

Generally, legal observers say, the courts have upheld arbitration clauses because no one is forcing the consumer to buy a particular product.

One source told Politico that forcing customers into arbitration is “the hot new strategy all across corporate America.”