U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–420 PDF 2012

A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART I: 

MISMANAGEMENT OF 

FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES 

(112–97) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

AUGUST 2, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... v 

TESTIMONY 

Joseph H. Boardman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak .............. 24 

Ted Alves, Inspector General, Amtrak Office of Inspector General .................... 24 

Patricia Quinn, Executive Director, Northern New England Passenger Rail 

Authority ............................................................................................................... 24 

Dwayne Bateman, Food and Beverage Worker, Amtrak ...................................... 24 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, of Maryland ................................................................ 50 

Hon. Nick J. Rahall II, of West Virginia ............................................................... 54 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Joseph H. Boardman ............................................................................................... 57 

Ted Alves .................................................................................................................. 70 

Patricia Quinn .......................................................................................................... 91 

Dwayne Bateman ..................................................................................................... 97 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

request to submit Congressional Research Service memo entitled, ‘‘Analyzing Restrictions on Amtrak Food and Beverage Services,’’ from Alissa 

Dolan, Legislative Attorney, to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, July 26, 2012 ....................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Jean Schmidt, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

request to submit written statement of Pete Sepp, Executive Vice President, 

National Taxpayers Union .................................................................................. 14 

Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

request to submit letter from Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of North Carolina, August 2, 2012 ............................ 37 

Joseph H. Boardman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak 1: 

Responses to questions from Democratic members of the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure .................................................. 62 

Responses to questions from Republican members of the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure .................................................. 67 

Ted Alves, Inspector General, Amtrak Office of Inspector General: 

Responses to questions from Hon. John L. Mica, of Florida .................. 84 

Responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida ............... 88 

Patricia Quinn, Executive Director, Northern New England Passenger Rail 

Authority, responses to questions from Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida ........ 95 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida: 

Training and Duties of Amtrak Food and Beverage Workers ............... 105 

Ashley Halsey III, ‘‘Two Planes Taking Off From National Put on 

Collision Course With Plane Trying To Land,’’ Washington Post, 

Aug. 1, 2012 ........................................................................................... 106 

Page

IV 

Hon. Corrine Brown, of Florida—Continued 

Sample airline menu ................................................................................. 109 

1The strategic plan (‘‘Amtrak Strategic Plan FY2011–FY2015’’) referenced 

by Joseph H. Boardman in his responses to questions submitted for the 

record can be found online at the Government Printing Office’s Federal 

Digital System (FDsys) at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT112HPRT76324/pdf/CPRT-112HPRT76324.pdf. 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75420.001

lit .@!. 1I{OUll£ of iR£pr£ll£ntatiu£ll 

CCommittel' on m:ransportation anb J.infrastructure 

jlobn ll.. Jl;llca 

I[f)airman 

MEMORANDUM 

~a~ingtol1, 1)1[ 20515 

July 27, 2012 

TO: Members. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

FROM: Staff. Committee on Transportation and lniraslructure 

.lUrk 3f. l\aIJall. 3l3l 

l\mtking ;/Rtmbrr 

SUBJECT: Oversight Hearing on "A Review of Amtrak Operations, Part I: Mismanagement 

of Food & Beverage Services" 

PURPOSE 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on l1lUrsday. August 2, 

2012, at 10 a.m. to receive testimony on Amtrak's food and beverage operation. Specifically, the 

hearing will investigate the monetary losses associated with Amtrak's food and beverage 

operations; examine management deficiencies identified by the Amtrak Office oflnspector 

General in reviev'Iing Amtrak's food and beverage operations; and explore best practices and 

alternative options for improving the cost-effectiveness and quaJity of food and beverage service 

aboard Amtrak trains. 

BACKGROUND 

Current Amtrak Food and Bel'eraxe Sen'ice 

Tn January 1999, Amtrak executed an agreement with Dobbs International Services, Inc., 

for the management of its commissary, logistics and supply chain operations for food and 

beverage services. This agreement governed only the provision of food and beverage supplies 

for Amtrak's on-board operations. The sale of items aboard trains is performed by Amtrak 

employees. Gate Gourmet InternationaJ, Inc subsequently acquired Dobbs and renegotiated the 

contract in 2006. In 2009, Amtrak conducted an open competition for food and beverage 

services and awarded it to Aramark. The contract tenn was for five years with two options for 

two additionaJ years. Amtrak service agents continue to provide on-board food service to 

passengers. 
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75420.002

Amtrak provides various levels of food and beverage service f3J1ging from 

snacklbeverage services in lounge cars to full meals in dedicated dining cars. Prior to competing 

out its food and beverage servicc operations, Amtrak had acquired supplies and provided food 

and beverage services through Amtrak's own commissaries. As a result of the contract, Amtrak 

has outsourced its procurement of food and beverage stock as well as service supplies. In 

addition to procuring and delivering this stock, Aramark manages. operates, and maintains the 10 

Amtrak-owned commissary facilities throughout the country. 

Amtrak lO-Year Food and Beverage Operations Financial Peiformance In millions of nominal dollars 

. Fl'- Total -

- Xntal NetF&B Loss Liilior . 1B¥ullr JJ:xpenses as a 

. - ruv~nue . • ElIp£ltses" .' .' " ~ " •. E~nW_ .• ,,~Df~i!titl E1lli!BSes 

2 0 

-.------

2003 78.4 .. ~.-------158.8 .. --. 80.4 83.3 52.5% j 2004 80.4 164.2 83.8 89.2 54.3% 

002 841 1645 804 838 5090/, 

2005 90.9 181.4 90.5 98.3 54.2% 

2006 88.3 180.7 92.4 96.3 53.3% 

2007 94.5 177.6 83.1 92.1 51.9% 

2008 102.6 184.0 81.4 97.0 52.7% 

2009 106.4 181.3 74.9 100.0 55.2% 

2010 109.3 191.7 82.4 108.0 56.3% 

2011 121.5 206.0 84.5 117.0 56.8% 

Source: 2002-2005 Government Accowllablhty Office unaudJied estimates. 2006-2011 Amtrak 

The Statutory Framework 

Requirement to "Break Even" and Authority to Contract Out Food and Beverage Services 

Under Amtrak's general authorities listed in section 24305 of title 49, United States 

Code, "Amtrak may ... provide food and beverage services on its trains only if revenues from the 

services each year at least equal the cost of providing the services." (49 U.S.c. §24305(c)(4») 

This provision was first added to the code as part of the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1981 to 

eliminate thc deficit in Amtrak's onboard food 3J1d beverage operations by September 30, J 982. 

Therefore, for nearly 30 years, Amtrak has been statutorily banned from providing food and 

beverage services unless its costs at least equal its revenues of providing the services. 

Contracting Authority 

Amtrak has the authority to contract out its food and beverage services and that right has 

been preserved by Congress. Prior to 1997, Amtrak's statute contained a number of contracting 

bans, but did not include a ban for contracting out food and beverage services. In 1997, section 

121 of the Amtrak Refonn and Accountability Act of 1997 repealed prior restrictions on 

contracting out various functions of Amtrak (49 U.S.C. 24312(b»), and devolved all such issues 

to the collective bargaining process, with the exception of work related to food and beverage 

service. The 1997 legislation made speeifically clear in section 121 (d) that: "The an1enrunent 
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75420.003

made by subsection (a)(1) is without prejudice to the power of Amtrak to contract out the 

provision of food and beverage services on board Amtrak trains .... " 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) 

In 2008, Congress passed PRIIA to, among other things, reform Amtrak's operations. 

Section 209 ofPRIIA directs the Amtrak Board, in consultation with the Secretary of the 

Transportation, to develop and implement a single methodology for allocating operating and 

capital costs among States and Amtrak for the 27 Amtrak routes for which States provide 

financial support, i.e., state-supported routes. The Section 209 cost-allocation methodology goes 

into effect on October l, 2013. It will require States to reimburse Amtrak for the operational 

costs of providing the service, including food and beverage service, on those routes. As States 

take on the full financial responsibility for these routes, they will also have the flexibility to 

determine who should provide the food and beverage service on those routes. Some States, 

namely Maine and North Carolina, already provide food and beverage services on their O\Vll. 

While North Carolina's Piedmont service provides vending serviccs, the Maine's Downeaster 

contracts food and beverage services out. The Committce will hear from Maine rcgarding its 

experience having food and beverage serviccs provided by a private company. 

Recent Legislative Proposals 

American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act (fI.R. 7) 

On February 3, 2012, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructurc reported a 5-

year surface transportation authori7..ation bill, H.R. 7, which ineluded a rail titlc. Section 8106, 

Amtrak Food and Beverage Service, required the Federal Railroad Administration to request 

competitivc proposals for the provision offood and beverage services on Amtrak trains. A 

winning bid was to be selected based on lowest cost and the greatest revenue to Amtrak. This 

provision was based on legislation introduced by Rep . .Tean Schmidt, the Amtrak Food and 

Beverage Service Savings Act (H.R. 3362). H.R. 7 was favorably reported by a vote of 29-24. 

Amtrak Inspector General's Report on Food and Beverage Operations 

In June 2011, the Amtrak Inspector General issued report E-II-03 entitled "Food and 

Beverage Service: Further Actions Needed to Address Revenue Losses Due to Control 

Weaknesses and Gaps." The report examines Amtrak's performancc of food and beverage 

service operations, specifically internal control weaknesses that allow for waste, fraud, and 

abuse. Thc report identifies opportunities to improve its operation effectiveness thereby 

reducing Amtrak's reliance on federal subsidies. 

The Amtrak Inspector General's report found that Amtrak food and beverage operations 

contained vulnerabilities that allowed certain Lead Service Agents to falsifY documents in order 

to hide stolen cash or inventory. Between March 2003 and January 2010, the Amtrak Inspector 

General identified 903 theft, dishonesty, and policy/procedure violations by 306 LSAs, and 

issued 447 administrative referrals to Amtrak managers. Schemes included: 
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75420.004

1. Inflating first -class meal checks 

2. Selling complimentary items 

3. Selling non-Amtrak items 

4. Shorting cash register sales 

5. Stealing Inventory 

6. Providing items at no cost 

The nature of these crimes are difficult to measure, however, restaurant-industry 

estimates oflosses for a typical independent restaurant due to theft range from four to seven 

percent of sales. At these levels Amtrak's on-board food and beverage sales could be at risk of 

theft for between $4 million and $7 million annually. 

The Amtrak Inspector General recommended establishing a pilot project of cashless food 

and beverage sales on selected routes and trains, establishing a loss prevention unit, and 

implementing a plan to address the control weaknesses and gaps. 

GAO Review of Food and Beverage Operations 

In 2005, at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous 

Materials of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, GAO testified that from 2002 

to 2004 Amtrak food and beverage expenses were $487 million while food and beverage 

revenues were approximately $243 million. GAO testified that Amtrak spent two dollars for 

every dollar it received in revenue. 

Best Practices and Contract Rene\1-'al 

Finally, both the Amtrak Inspector General and General Accountability Office have 

found that Amtrak does not utilize industry best practices in its food and beverage operations and 

needs to dramatically change how it delivers those services to the traveling public. According to 

both the Amtrak IG and GAO, Amtrak needs to determine the best practices that are appropriate 

for Amtrak's operations, and implement them. Additionally, Amtrak must refonn its Food and 

Beverage management to address its fragmented leadership, 
ix 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75420.005

WITNESSES 

Joseph Boardman 

President 

Amtrak 

Mr. Ted Alves 

Inspector General 

Amtrak Office of Inspector General 

Ms. Patricia Quinn 

Executive Director 

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority 

Dwayne Bateman 

Amtrak Food and Beverage Employee 
(1) 

A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART I: 

MISMANAGEMENT OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE 

SERVICES 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (Chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I am Congressman Mica. I am pleased 

to welcome you this morning to the Transportation and Infrastructure full committee hearing, and this is the beginning of some of 

the review, investigations, and oversight management and practices at Amtrak, and today we are going to focus specifically on 

mismanagement of the issues relating to food services and beverages at Amtrak. And we have done subsequent—or rather, prior 

reviews. I was looking at the background. 

And before I get into that, the order of business will be opening 

statements by Members, and then we have a panel of witnesses 

who we will hear from. Then we will get into questions after we 

have heard from them. But pleased to work with my distinguished 

colleague and chair of the Rail Subcommittee, Mr. Shuster, on trying to look at ways we can save taxpayer money, do a better job. 

The Federal Government has poured billions of dollars into Amtrak, and some of their activities are—well, have been and continue 

to remain a burden to the taxpayers. And today we are going to 

look at one of those, and again, we have looked at this before, some 

of the history as the committee had reviewed Amtrak expenditures 

for food service in the past. 

In June of 2011, the inspector general issued a report E–11–03 

entitled, ‘‘Food and Beverage Service: Further Actions Needed to 

Address Revenue Losses Due to Control Weaknesses and Gaps.’’ 

And we have, we found in that report the inspector general identified 903 theft, dishonesty, and policy/procedure violations, found 

that they were inflating first-class meal checks, selling complimentary items, selling non-Amtrak items, shorting cash register sales, 

stealing inventory and providing items at no cost. They made a 

number of recommendations from some of these reports, and this 

hearing is a followup to, again, some of the previous reports and 

investigation both by our committee staff and also by the inspector 

general. We will hear from him shortly. 

Today, this hearing is being held again to look at the incredible 

cost that is incurred by the taxpayers to provide food service on 

2 

Amtrak. Last year Amtrak lost $84.5 million, more than $84 million on providing food service on its trains. Every year and during 

the last 10 years they have lost an average of $800 million. In fact, 

Amtrak—where is our little chart here. We will show this chart. 

They have lost over three-quarters of a billion dollars. This is the 

amount they have lost, $833 million in the last 10 years serving 

food and beverages on their trains. That is three-quarters of a billion dollars. 

The food and service expenses in 2011 were $206 million and the revenue from sales was $121 million. That means that Amtrak 

spends a—for every dollar that is spent for food or beverages on 

Amtrak, it costs the taxpayers $1.70. So if you buy this can of Coke 

or Pepsi, excuse me, they use Pepsi products. We also brought in 

some hamburgers here to illustrate. This is the deal we put some 

out. We want to make sure everybody has this. OK. But if you buy 

a can of soda for $2, the loss is $3.40. It is underwritten by the 

taxpayers. Now, this hamburger, they charge $9.50 for that hamburger. It costs the taxpayers $16.15. So this is another outrageous 

cost to the taxpayers, and it continues, unfortunately, every day. The food and beverage service has 1,234 employees and lost $84 

million last year. If you do the math, it comes out to a taxpayer 

subsidy for every Amtrak food and beverage employee of more than 

$68,000. That is what it is costing us right now. What makes this 

loss more astounding is that Amtrak’s food and beverage service is 

legally obligated to operate on a break-even basis. Congress enacted a law that beginning October 1, 1982, food and beverage 

services should be provided on board Amtrak trains only if the revenues from such services are equal to or greater than the total cost 

of such services as computed on an annual basis. 

The Amtrak witnesses testified before this committee in 2005 

that for the past 24 years of the law there has never been an indication that Congress intended the cost to be anything other than 

the cost of food and the cost of commissary operations. The committee asked the Congressional Research Service for its legal opinion of the statute, and we have a CRS memo which I ask unanimous consent to be submitted to the record that lays out the case 

that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. Without 

objection, we will put that in the record. 

[The CRS memo follows:] 

3 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75420.006

• 

r~ ~ Congressional :;;;: 4 ReseC}rch · ~ Servlce-------------------

MEMORANDUM 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Attention: Daniel Moll 

Alissa Dolan, Legislative Attorney, 7-8433 

Analyzing Restrictions on Amtrak Food and Beverage Services 

July 26, 2012 

This memorandum responds to your request for an analysis of the statutory provisions that constrain 

Amtrak's ability to provide food and beverage services on its trains. Jt will evaluate the meaning of 49 

U.S.c. § 24305(c)(4) based on well accepted canons of statutory interpretation, including the plain 

meaning of the text and legislative history, that a reviewing court may consider if the meaning of the 

statute is ever challenged. 

Section 24305(c)(4) ofTitle 49 or the U.S. Code states: "Amtrak may".provide food and beverage 

services on its trains only if revenues from the services each year at least equal the cost of providing the 

services.'" A version of this provision first appeared in the Code in 1981. At that time, the provision stated 

that Amtrak "shall implement policies which will eliminate the deficit in its on-board food and beverage 

operations no later than September 30, I 982. Beginning October I, I 982, food and beverage services 

shall be provided on-board Amtrak trains only if the revenues from such service are equal to or greater 

than the total costs of such services as computed on an annual basis . .,2 

Differing Interpretations of Section 24305 

Based on the information provided, it appears that the House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure Cthe Committee") interprets the language orthis statute to allow Amtrak to provide food 

and beverage services only if the total cost of the service is less than the total revenue earned by the 

service. Under this interpretation, the total cost of providing the service would include not only the cost of 

'49 usc. 9 24305(c)(4). 

297 Pub. Law, 35, § 1177(1.1) (amending.:15 lLS.C. 545. the Ruil Passenger Service Act), A provision discussing Amtrak"s food 

and beverage service \\,1.1:-; first codificd in Title 49 in 1994. Set' (03 Pub. L. 272, § J(e). The text as il appears in Title ·t9 is 

slightly different than the text as it appeared in Tille 45 from 1981 and 1994. It is unclear exactly why this change in text 

occurred. HO\\C\'CL thc committee report states that the orthe hill was "to restate in comprehensive torm, \vithout 

substantive change, certain and permanent laws to transportation and to enact those ];;l\VS as subtitles II. III, and VX oftit!c 49, United States and 10 make other technical improvements in the Code, In the restatement, simple language has 

been substituted for awkward and obsolete terms, and superseded. executed. and obsolete la\' .. 's have been eliminated," 1 herefore, 

this memorandum will adopt this assumption from the committee report, that the recodification of the provision in Title -t9 with 

slightly diffhent text \vas not a substantive change in the statute. 

1-.S7{)O I.Pil'II1.crs,SOI' 
4 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75420.007

Congressiollal Research Service 

purchasing food and beverage supplies, but also the labor costs and other miscellaneous costs associated 

with providing the service. 

Amtrak's most recent interpretation of this statute and the meaning of "costs of providing the services" 

appears to bc different from the Committee's interpretation. In 2005, William Crosbie, a Senior Vice 

President of Amtrak, testified before the Subcommittee on Railroads of the i-louse Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure.' In explaining his understanding of the current statute, Mr. Crosbie 

stated: "For the last 24 years of the law there has never been an indication that Congress intended the cost 

be anything other than cost of the food and cost of the commissary operations.,,4 In response to questions 

posed alier this hearing, GAO, which was conducting a study of Amtrak's food and beverage service 

management,5 explained Amtrak's interpretation of the law to the Committee by stating: " ... the Amtrak 

witness explained that their understanding of this provision was that thc cost to be considered included 

only the cost of the food and commissary operations. Hence, Amtrak did not consider the Amtrak 

employee labor costs of providing the on-board service in their analysis of the food and beverage 

operations.,,6 Thus, it seems that the Committee and Amtrak have different interpretations orthe statutory 

text '"cost of providing the services," that might alter whether Amtrak is in compliance with the law's 

requirement. 

Plain Meaning Rule 

The starting point in construing a statute is the language of the statute itself.' If the language of the statute 

is plain and unambiguous, a reviewing court may interpret the statute according to its terms, without 

evaluating other sources of congressional intent. This test is known as the plain meaning rule. Under this 

text-based analysis, the text at issue should be interpreted as part of the broader statutory scheme in a 

manner that furthers the purpose of the statute. Therefore, a reviewing court might consider the following 

questions as part of its analysis: What is the plain language meaning of the statutory text? Are these terms 

3 "Amtrak Food and Beverage Operations." Hearing before the Subcommilte~ on Railroads of the House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, 109th Cong., June 9, 2005. 

4 {do at 22~23. Arguably, a discrepancy between thi.:; 2005 interpretation of Section 24305 and Amtrak's prior understanding of 

the statute could be inferred from rost~enactment congressional testimony from Amtrak officials regarding continuing efforts to 

reduce the cost of providing Ibod and beverage services. S'ee, e.g., "Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations for 1983," Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, U.s, House of Representatives, 

98th Cong., Feb. 1982, at p_ 528. 601-02: "Department of Trnnsportation anJ Related Agencies Appropriations for 1996," 

Hearings be/ore a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. U.S. House of Representatives, I04th Cong., March 1995, 

at p. 803 (displaying the cost or"food and beverage service" in two categories: labor and other). Hmvevcr. these post-enactment 

discussions will not be discussed in depth in this memorandum since such congressional materials are not considered to be 

authoritative sources for interpreting a statute's meaning. Since they are created after the statute is enacted, these materials cannot 

represent congressional intent as it existed when the statute was being considered and enacted. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 

496 U.S. 617, 628 n.8 (1990); Id. at 631 (Scalia, l, concurring in part). Elsc\\here, Justice Scalia has stated that "[r]eal (preenactment) legislative history is persuashe to some because it is thought to shed light on \'\-hat legislators understood an 

ambiguous statutory text to mean when they voted to enact it But post-enactment leg.islative history by definition 'could have 

had no effect on the congressional votc,"'l3ruesc\\'jtz v. Wyelh LLC, 562 U.S. 1\0.09-152. slip op, at 1& (Feb. 22. 2011), 

quoting District of Columbia \'. I Teller, 554 U.S. 570.605 (2008). 

'i "Improved f-v1anagcmcnt and Controls over Food and Beverage Service Needed:' Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Railroads. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House ofRepr~scntatives, August 2005. GAO-05~867 

(, Letter from IayEtta Z. Hecker, Director. Physical Infrastructure, GAO, to Chainnan Don Young, "Questions ti)f the Record 

Related to Amtrak's Food and Beverage Service," Gi\O-05~893R. 

7 For more information. see CRS Report 97-589, StafufOl:v IntcrlJrelation: General Principles and Recent Trends, by Larry M. 

Eig. 
5 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75420.008

COllgressional Resetlrcll Service 

used elsewhere in the statute? How does the language in this section tit within the statute's structure and 

purpose" 

First, a reviewing court may look at whether the terms being used in the statute are either defined in the 

statute or are terms of art that have a particular meaning. In this instance, neither "cost:' "cost of 

providing the services;' nor "services" is defined in Section 24305 or any other section that would be 

applicable.s Additionally, the text docs not appear to include any terms of art. Because the term is not 

defined in the statute, a reviewing court may then look to the dictionary definition of the words to 

determine their meaning. "Cost" is defined in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as "the amount or equivalent 

paid or charged for something.,,9 It is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "the amount paid or charged 

for something; price or expenditure.",o·'Serviee" is defined several ways in Merriam-Webster's 

Dictionary, including as "the act of serving as useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity," 

"the work performed by one that serves," and a "facility supplying some public demand."" 

These dictionary definitions suggest that the statute requires a calculation of the amount Amtrak pays for 

"providing the [food and beverage] services." The "services" seem to include both the actual food and 

beverages in addition to the work that must be performed to provide those items to the passengers. 

Therefore, under this application of dictionary definitions, it appears that the statute prevents Amtrak from 

providing food and beverage services if the revenue gained from that service is less than the amount 

Amtrak pays for the food, beverage, supplies. and labor necessary to serve passengers onboard. 

This interpretation is bolstered by another basic principle of statutory interpretation: that COlllts should 

"give etTect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction 

which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed."" Thus, the 

meaning of all of the words used in the clause "cost of providing the services" must be given etTeet. An 

interpretation of the statute that considers all of the costs of providing food and beverage services seems 

to give effect to all of the words chosen by Congress. This interpretation prevents an implication that 

Congress was "ignorant of the meaning of the language" it included in the statute by giving the phrase 

"providing the services" its plain meaning, to include the amount paid for food, beverages, and 

equipment, as well as amount paid to hire people to serve the food and beverages to the passengers. An 

alternative interpretation, in which "cost of providing the services" means only the amount paid for the 

food and beverage supplies, may not give full effect to Congress's chosen text. This interpretation may 

render Congress's use of the term "services" insignificant because, by its definition, the term encompasses 

not only the physical supplies but also the act or serving those supplies to passengers. If Congress 

intended to consider only the costs of food and beverage supplies and not the related labor costs, arguably 

it would have written the statute with terms that evinced that intent by using the words "food and 

beverages" instead orthe word "services." 

Next, a reviewing court may look to the rest of the statute to determine if a certain interpretation of the 

instant text is warranted by the structure of the statutory scheme. One other provision of Chapter 234 of 

S The term "cost" is defined in many sCl'tions orthe U.S. Code. See, e.g. 10 USc. * 2324(k)(6)(B); 15 US.C. * 278b{c); 33 

U.S.c. ~ 624(b): 41 U.S.C. * 4310( 1). f{owevcr, it appears that it is only defined once in Title 49. in reference to fees relating to 

air commerce and safety. -1-1) U.S.c. * 45301(b)(5). This definition docs not appear to be relevant to this sratutory analysis of 

Section 24305. 

l) ;\1erriam-Wcbstcr's Dictionary. entry f(Jf "cost (noun)," available at http://wv,,'W,merriam-webstcLcomldictionary!cost. 

III Black's Law Dictionary. 9th ed" (cd. Bryan A. Garner), p. 397. 

II Mcrriam-Webster's Dictionary, entry for "sen ice (noun)," available at http://ww\V.mcrrimn~\\·ebstcr.com/dictionary/scrvice. 

12 Monlciairv.RamsdclI.107U.S.147.152(1883). 
6 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75420.009

Congressional Research Service 

the Title 49 addresses food and beverage services on board Amtrak trains. 13 Section 24312 discusses 

Amtrak labor standards, including the requirements that proposals to contract out labor that would result 

in employee layoffs must be included in negotiations between Amtrak and an organization representing 

Amtrak employees. Work relating to food and beverage services is explicitly exempted from this 

requirement. suggesting that it is easier for Amtrak to contract out food and beverage service labor than 

other types of labor." However. the text of this provision alone does not link this exemption from labor 

negotiation requirements for work related to food and beverage services to the restrictions on food and 

beverage service in Section 24305. 

Legislative History 

After analyzing the text of a statute, a reviewing court may also look to sources of legislative history to 

assist in interpreting the statute's meaning." This examination may include analyzing such materials as 

committee reports for insight into the particular problem Congress was trying to address in passing the 

statute. 

Committee reports published during the consideration and enactment of the original 1981 statutory 

restriction provide discussions of Congress's concern about the rising costs of Amtrak's food and 

beverage services and potential solutions to the problem. In a report that accompanied the Amtrak 

Improvement Act of 1981,16 the House Committee on Energy and Commerce stated: 

The Committee believes Amtrak should operate its food and beverage services without a deficit. As a 

result, the Committee's bill directs Amtrak to eliminate the deficit in its food and beverage 

operation ... In order to realize these savings, the Committee expects that Amtrak will have both to 

reduce the costs of providing food and beverage services and to increase its revenues from such 

services by raising prices. Amtrak already has under study the possibility of substituting a modified 

cafeteria style service with a more limited menu for the dining room service it now offers on most of 

its long-distance trains. In addition the Committee believes Amtrak should evaluate the possibility of 

implementing some form of"self~serve') food service on its short-distance and corridor trains. 

4 

Arguably, these suggestions of how Amtrak can eliminate its food and beverage service deficit support an 

interpretation of Section 24305 that includes food, beverage, equipment, and labor costs as part of the 

"cost of providing the services." The Energy and Commerce Committee's proposals are mostly changes to 

the way Amtrak administers its food and beverage services. These changes would only help Amtrak meet 

the requirement now codilied in Section 24305 iflabor costs are included in the definition of "cost of 

providing the servkes." Por example, switching from a dining room service to a cafeteria-style service 

appears likely to reduce the amount of labor required to run the food and beverage service. This shift, 

however, would not necessarily reduce the amount spent on food and beverage supplies, since the food 

t3 See 49 U.s.c. § 24312 not\!. 

!4 49 U.S.c. ~ 24312 note (imposing requirements on "proposals on the subject matter of contracting out work, other than \vork 

related to food and beveruge service .. .''). The exemption for food and beverage services was original enacted in 1981. Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981,97 Pub. L. 35, § 1177(b). At that time. Amtrak was prohibited from contracting out for any 

servit~e if it would result in the byoffofan employee in a bargaining unit. See 45lLS.C. § 565(e) (1976). This prohibition did not 

apply to food and beverage services provided on Amtrak trains. 97 Pub, L. 35, * 1 J 77(b). 

15 Reliance on these materia!s varies among courts, with the circumstances of a statute's passage and its clarity or complexity 

being factor:>. However, it seems c!carthat the statutory language is the primary tool of interpretation, while other considerations 

or intent or purpose are secondary. ~)'ee Eig, supra nole 7. at 41. 

16 The Amtrak Improvement Act of 1981. H.R. 3568, 97th Cong., 1st Scss" was enacted in10 law as part of the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 19HL 97 Pub, L. 35., Title Xl. Subtitle F. 
7 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75420.010

Congre.%iolllli Hesearch Service 

and beverages may remain exactly the same. Similarly, moving towards a "self-serve" food service 

model. would appear to reduce labor costs even more. Therefore, such a change could only act to reduce 

the deficit, as the Committee clearly believes it would, if the cost side of the deficit equation includes not 

only the amount paid for food and beverage supplies but also the amount spent on labor costs. 

Immediately after this discussion of reducing the food and beverage service deficit. the Committee 

continues: 

If Amtrak determines that alternative methods of providing food service will not result in the required 

level of savings, the Committee's bill gives Amtrak the authority to contract with a private company 

to provide such service. It is the Committee's hope that Amtrak will find cost-effect ways to provide 

food and beverage service and that it will not be necessary for Amtrak to contract-out this service, 

Should Amtrak determine, however, that it can achieve the necessary savings only by contracting-out, 

the Committee believes that Amtrak should negotiation agreements with private contractors". 

Additionally, a supplement to the conference report accompanying final passage of the original 1981 

provisions explicitly links the goal of reducing the deficit with allowing Amtrak to contract out for food 

and beverage services. It states: ..... the Corporation shall not operate 'on-board' food and beverage 

services unless revenues cover costs. Amtrak would be allowed to contract out food and beverage services 

in order to reduce the associated costs.,,17 

These reports appear to draw a direct connection between Congress's desire for Amtrak to eliminate food 

and beverage service deficits and Congress's willingness to allow Amtrak to contract-out the provision of 

such services. This connection suggests that Amtrak's ability to "achieve the necessary savings" required 

by the Section 24305 requirement is directly impacted by the amount that Amtrak spends on labor costs to 

provide food and beverage services. Therefore, from this legislative history. it appears that Congress 

intended to count labor costs as pmt of the '"cost of providing the service" when it directed Amtrak to 

reduce its food and beverage service deficit to zero. 

Finally. discussions about transportation appropriations for fiscal year 1981, within the same Congress 

that passed the Section 24305 predecessor but before it was enacted, may provide further evidence of the 

problem Congress intended to tackle by imposing the new restriction. During a hearing before the House 

Committee on Appropriations. Amtrak officials were questioned about the estimated revenue, cost, and 

losses sustained from its onboard food and beverage service." In response to questions about reducing 

costs, Alan S. Boyd, then President of Amtrak, noted that costs could be reduced significantly if Amtrak 

were allowed to contract out the labor needed to provide food and beverage services. 19 from this 

testimony, it appears that Mr. Boyd believed a way to solve the problem of Amtrak's annual losses in food 

and beverage services would be to drastically reduce labor costs by contracting out. This testimony. in 

addition to the fact that the food and beverage exemption from the prohibition on contracting out for labor 

and the instruction to eliminate the delicit in food and beverage services were enacted in the same piece 

17 "Additional Materials on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (H.R, 3982)," Committee on the Budget. U.s. House 

or Representatives, 97th Cong., August 1981 at p. 82·83 (supplementing the conference report 011 J LR. 3982. see H263-6 and 

H263-7). See also "Omnibus Reconciliation Act or 1981," Report of the Committee on the Budget U.S, Senate, 97th Cong., June 

1981 at p. 322 (noting that removal of the prohibition on contracting out for food and service labor would allow Amtrak 

to save moncy save money on '-food services, on which it loses at least S50 million a year. 

18 "'Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1982:' Hearings BcllWC a Subcommittee of the 

Committee on Appropriations, U.S. f!oust.! of Representatives, 97th Cong .. March 1981 at p. 516, 540 (testimony ofAbn S. 

Boyd, President of Amtrak). 

19 Id. at 516. 
8 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75420.011

Congressional Research Service 

of legislation in this same Congress, could create an inference that Congress intended these two 

provisions to address the same problem of costs in the food and beverage service. Under this theory, the 

two provisions could be complementary only if the cost oflabor is included in the "cost of providing the 

services." 

6 
9 

Mr. MICA. I am pleased that President Boardman is here to respond to some of the concerns I have raised. I think, you know, in 

a time when we are running multitrillion-dollar deficits that we 

have got to look at every activity of Government. Our committee 

has spent some time on GSA waste and abuse, TSA, EPA, and now 

we are focusing, and we are going to continue, this is just the first 

in a series of hearings, to focus on some of the taxpayer expenses, 

which I think are outrageous that are incurred every day by hardworking Americans underwriting these losses. There has to be a 

better way. And every agency, every operation of Government that 

we are involved with, we have got to do a better job in being a responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. So we can’t go on, you know, paying a $3.40 subsidy or what is it, $16 for a hamburger for folks to have. Even though it may be 

a passenger convenience, I can tell you it is a great inconvenience 

to people back home who are struggling every day to make ends 

meet, pay their bills and then send money to Washington and see 

it abused in this fashion. 

With those comments, I am pleased to recognize Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As those fortunate enough to have ridden the great passenger 

trains of America at their peak will recall, no part of the rail experience survives so vividly in the memory of our rail passengers as 

that of a luxurious meal in the dining car. The crisp linens, the polished silver, the attentive service, the passing panorama of American life all accompanied by great food. 

Unfortunately, over the years, award-winning fillet of sole was 

replaced with microwaveable cheeseburgers. I guess that is what 

we have right here, leading to a former Amtrak CEO to lament to 

Congress in 1991, and I quote, ‘‘In trying to make food service 

cheap, we made some of it inedible.’’ 

To some extent, these changes were a business response to 

changing transportation economics and public preferences. Railroads like airlines must consider the effects of food and beverage 

costs on the bottom line. They must decide the effects of particular 

levels of food service on passenger revenue. High-quality service 

may attract additional passengers while a decline in quality may 

cause a loss of passenger revenue. Striking the proper balance, of 

course, is a difficult business decision. 

Unfortunately, Congress has made it even more difficult at times 

for Amtrak to make the best possible decisions. One minute we tell 

Amtrak to provide food and beverage service on a break-even basis. 

The next minute we let it use up to 10 percent of its revenue to 

cover food and beverage leases. Then we pressure it to contract out 

its catering service, which Amtrak did, but the loss of those jobs 

wasn’t enough. We ended up dragging Amtrak back before this 

committee in 2005 to explain that the contract didn’t realize 

enough savings. 

Now the chairman wants to highlight the flawed provisions in 

H.R. 7 that would require the FRA to contract out all Amtrak food 

and beverage service to the lowest bidder. The term ‘‘lowest bidder,’’ by the way, is code for lowest wage, lowest benefits. 

As if that was not bad enough, the Republicans then proposed 

giving that bidder the Federal funds that would have gone to AmVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:00 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\8-2-12~1\75420\75420.TXT JEAN
10 

trak for food and beverage losses, saving zero taxpayer dollars but 

resulting in the immediate elimination of 1,200 Amtrak jobs, not 

to mention the jobs of thousands of workers that Amtrak relies 

upon for obtaining their food supplies. 

Mr. Chairman, I have had some good-tasting whoppers in my 

time, but this is a whopper of a bad idea if I ever heard one, trading good paying jobs with benefits for cheaper cheeseburgers. The 

fact is America’s food and beverage expenses are not a major cause 

of Amtrak’s financial difficulties. They represent about 5 percent, 

about 5 percent of the railroad’s total expenditures. I do believe 

there are some reasonable things that Amtrak can and should do 

to cut their costs, but cutting jobs in this economy should not even 

be under consideration, and that is exactly what this proposal 

would do. 

With that, I yield back and look forward to today’s witnesses. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. 

I recognize the distinguished subcommittee chair, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today. I want to welcome our witnesses here today. 

I look forward to hearing from them. 

Let me start off by saying I support Amtrak. I want Amtrak to 

succeed, but it cannot continue to go down this path that we have 

gone over the last 20 or 30 years. We have got to make some 

changes, and I know there is going to be some here today that say 

this is an attack on labor. This is about, as the ranking member 

said, shedding jobs. 

At the end of the day, if there is a short-term loss, I believe there 

will be a much bigger gain long term. You have got to do some 

tough things to correct the ship of Amtrak, and, Mr. Boardman, I 

have no doubt in my mind, you and I have had many conversations, you want to get the ship right and you have done some 

things, some positive things. But this is one area that is a glaring 

example of you shouldn’t lose money on a service when people on 

the train, it is a monopoly. Monopolies shouldn’t lose money, and 

again, I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today. 

And this is about correcting the problems at Amtrak. This is 

about having a passenger rail service, especially in the Northeast 

Corridor, that should be profitable, highly profitable. But as the 

chairman pointed out, the food and beverage service is an issue 

that has not gone in the right direction. And Congress recognized 

this problem, and in 1981 included a provision to eliminate the deficit in Amtrak’s onboard food and beverage operations and requiring Amtrak to at least break even. So Amtrak is statutorily required to break even. 

Now, I know we are probably going to hear some fuzzy math 

today. At the end of the day, Amtrak loses money. So if you are 

taking revenues from one place to cover up a loss in another place, 

that is not the way accounting works, and we have got to get 

through this. 

In 2005 the committee held a hearing to explore why Amtrak 

continued to lose money on the services, and promises were made 

to look at all the options. However, since 2005 they have continued 

to lose $83 million a year. 

11 

I look forward to the inspector general’s comments towed, and I 

also want to welcome Ms. Quinn, who is executive director of the 

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority which is a 

Maine-based organization that runs the Amtrak Downeaster service between Boston and Portland and which will soon be extended 

an additional 30 miles I am told to Brunswick. The Downeaster is 

a State-supported route that has always used outside food and beverage contract services since its beginning of operations in 2001. 

As my colleagues know, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 included a provision requiring States to assume the costs—assume the costs of providing Amtrak service on 

State-supported routes beginning October 1, 2013. I strongly believe that States need to know all their options as they are to assume the full costs of passenger rail routes, particularly if these options can reduce the States’ cost. Therefore, I am really eager to 

hear from Ms. Quinn. 

And again, we welcome Mr. Bateman. I know that you are here 

representing labor. And this is not an attack on labor. My vision 

of Amtrak is there will be more jobs if we get it right. And so all 

of us, management at Amtrak, the United States Congress, labor, 

all need to sit down at the table and figure out a solution. You 

can’t just say, Oh, no, don’t touch my stuff and get it from somewhere else. These are taxpayer dollars. The American people want 

to see Government work, and Amtrak is draining us of those precious dollars. 

So again, all of us need to sit at the table and make these corrective actions to see Amtrak succeed into the future, and as I said, 

create more jobs, good-paying jobs for people. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. I am pleased to yield now to 

the distinguished gentlelady from the State of Florida, who is the 

ranking Rail Subcommittee member, Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is a full committee hearing, isn’t it? Not a subcommittee. Good. 

There are a lot of issues that this committee needs to be addressing. But Amtrak food and beverage isn’t one of them. We could be 

talking about all of the critical real issues that we left out of the 

surface transportation bill pertaining to the rail title: Positive train 

control, the railroad rehabilitation improvement finance program, 

and freight congestion plans. Or we could be talking about restructuring Amtrak’s debt, saving over $500 million. 

If we really want to save money at Amtrak we could even get 

crazy and talk about how we are going to finance future transportation bills, or hold a markup on a water resource development act 

that will put people to work. 

Or if we really want to talk about food, we could have a hearing 

on the repeat instance of needles being placed in airplane sandwiches. But I guess that would make too much sense. You know, 

common sense is what my grandmamma had and she didn’t go to 

college. 

Amtrak food and beverage operation is not a new target for this 

committee. In fact, since Amtrak was created, Congress has micromanaged the railroad, often making it more difficult for Amtrak to 

make the best possible business decisions. 

12 

In 1981, Congress mandated that Amtrak provide food and beverage service on a break-even basis. This may have been an unsound approach. As the airlines have learned, free and subsidized 

food on some routes will attract enough additional passengers to 

make this a good option. In fact, I discussed this with the airlines 

prior to this hearing. Some spent upward of $6 or $7 per passenger 

on food and beverage service because it makes sense from a business perspective. 

Congress realized in 1983 just after issuing the break-even mandates, the Transportation Appropriations Committee Act allowed 

Amtrak to use up to 10 percent of its revenues to cover food and 

beverage losses. During the 1980s and 1990s, there was considerable congressional pressure on Amtrak to contract out its food and 

beverage service. Amtrak finally agreed to contract it out to a catering service. That contract was with Gate Gourmet as we learned 

in 2005 and it was not successful. It was renegotiated, and now 

Aramark has the contract. 

About 1,200 dedicated Amtrak workers, however, continue to 

prepare and serve the foods on Amtrak trains. But, as you will 

hear from our witnesses, the extent of their duties goes way beyond 

handing out a Coke, and I have for you as a former teacher, I want 

the duties and responsibilities of the Amtrak 1,200 jobs, I want to 

pass that out so you can know something about the duties and responsibilities. The duties and responsibilities include more than 

just handing out a Coke. It also includes safety, many other duties 

and responsibilities. So would you make sure that the Members get 

this information. 

You know, the Republican solution to cost saving is always 

privatizing. This time it will eliminate 1,200 jobs. Privatizing. Giving that work to minimum wage employees, not to mention the immediate elimination of Amtrak jobs. But if you want to talk about 

mismanagement programs and losing opportunities to capture revenue, we cannot forget to talk about the near $4 million in revenue 

that we lost for the Airport and Airways Trust Fund when the 

House Republicans caused the FAA to shut down for 2 weeks. We 

need to talk about that. 

But we should probably be having a hearing on two planes taking off from National put in a collision course with planes trying 

to land. That would be something that this full committee should 

be looking into. But no. We are telling, once again, Amtrak, talking, here in the weeds, talking about a management decision about 

Amtrak and their food program. 

But let me just tell you a little secret. I ride the train constantly, 

and I don’t think it is enough employees. We do things around the 

food car, and it is a cultural thing, and to say that a diabetic can’t 

have hot food on the plane—on the train is ludicrous. I guess you 

want to go back to what the train was like when we get peanuts 

and a drink, and sometimes you don’t even get the peanuts. 

So I yield back my time. I am happy that you all are here. But 

it is amazing to me how this committee has gotten down to the 

weeds as opposed to doing the big things that we used to do on this 

committee. It is a real disappointment. You need to know that. 

Constantly we are talking about how Amtrak needs to operate 

their food service as opposed to talking about a plane that nearly 

13 

collided. Within 12 seconds, three planes went down. That is what 

this committee needs to be doing. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. And let me recognize another 

gentlelady, the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Schmidt. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much 

for bringing attention to this issue because as you well know, I introduced a bill a little while ago on this very important issue. And 

before I get started, I would like to put into the record the National 

Taxpayers Union’s statement regarding this if that is all right. 

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The National Taxpayers Union’s statement follows:] 

14 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75420.012

Natiunal Taxpayer~ Union 

Statement of 

Pete Sepp 

Executive Vice President 

National Taxpayers Union 

Prepared for 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

Regarding the Committee's Oversight Hearing on 

"A Review of Amtrak Operations, Part I: Mismanagement of Food and Beverage 

Services" 

Submitted August 2, 2012 

Contact Information: 

Petc Sepp 

Executive Vice President 

National Taxpaycrs Union 

108 N. A!tred St. 

Alexandria. VA 22314 

703-683-5700 

prcssguy~~),ntu.org 
15 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75420.013

Introduction 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahal!. and distinguished Members of the Committee, I am most 

grateful for the opportunity to provide comments on behalf of taxpayers in regard to your hearing today on 

Amtrak's food and beverage service. My name is Pete Scpp and I am Executive Vice President lor National 

Taxpayers Union (NTU), a non-partisan citizen group j()unded in 1969 to work tor lower taxes and more 

efticient accountable govemment. NT\! is America's oldest non-profit grassroots taxpayer organization, with 

362.000 members nationwide. More about our transportation policy work is available at w\\'vv,ntu,org. 

NTU has long called for significant reforms to the Amtrak passenger railroad, which since its inception 

in 1971 has received cumulative taxpayer subsidies now approaching $40 billion. As far back as 1976, NTU 

advocated a "'serious reevaluation of the federal government's policy towards Amtrak." In 1979 we endorsed a 

proposal from the Department of Transportation (DOT) that would have reduced Amtrak's route miles by more 

than 40 percent all while continuing to serve over 90 percent of its existing passengers. It was projected that 

DOT's plan, had it been adopted, would have saved taxpayers nearly $1.4 billion between 1980 and 1984. 

In subsequent years, our members have sought changes in the law that have ranged from ensuring more 

transparency in Amtrak"s tinancial reporting. to phasing out the most unproiitable routes, to creating a blueprint 

for eventual commercialization of the government-backed enterprise. One NTl] study from 2002 outlined a 

process that would allow Amtrak to partition its most lucrative assets, giving regional railroads a greater 

opportunity to develop routes with potential for private-sector (or state-level) investment. Such a plan remains 

our preferred approach today, even after Congress's decision to take another direction through passage of the 

Passenger Raillnvestmcnt and Improvement Act of 2008. Its four-year. $10 billion price tag notwithstanding, 

this law did include some laudable liscal stewardship initiatives. 

Food and Beverage Service: An Unnecessary Burden on Taxpavers 

We recount this history as a way of comparison to the topic upon which the Committee has t()cused 

today, Like some other aspects of Amtrak, the food and beverage operation has suffered from inconsistent 

oversight, unrealistic financial planning. and insufficient managerial innovation. Yet. unlike some parts of the 

national rail service equation, improving the \vay Amtrak delivers meals and drinks to customers should admit 

to some relatively straightforward solutions that Imvmakers with all manner of opinions on Amtrak's future can 

support. 

NTU became increasingly concerned with Amtrak's food and beverage service maladies after the 

Government Accountability OHice (GAO) testified on the subject in June 200S before the Committee's 

Railroads Subcommittce. In GAO's statemcnt ("'Amtrak: Management and Accountability Issues Contribute to 

Unprofitability of Food and Beverage Servicc," GAO-05-76lT), the agency's Director of Physical 

infrastructure Issues reported that Amtrak lost an average of nearly $82 million annually on its food and 

beverage scrvicc from Fiscal Year 2002 through Fiscal Year 2004. At the time GAO asserted that Amtrak's 

agreement with an outside contractor - which covered stocking and supplying food but not serving it on-board -

\vas structured in a \\lay to fum ish "Iittle incentive fi:)f th~ contractor to reduce or contain costs," 

The testimony went on to contrast this arrangement with that of VIA Rail Canada (which directly 

managed all parts off()od and beverage service On a lixcd government subsidy) and the Alaska Railroad (which 

contractcd out all parts of the lood and beveragc service to a privatc vendor, including on-board duties). One 

key factor to the success or these operations was, according to GAO, t1exiblc labor policies. More than half of 

Amtrak's total t(lod and beverage costs could be chalked up to labor. 
16 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75420.014

While some participants in the hearing qucstioned assumptions underlying GAO"s testimony, another 

source aftlrmed that losses were persistent and pervasive during years that followed. In 201 L Amtrak's Omee 

of Inspector General (OIG) released a report ('"Food and Beverage Service: Further Actions Needed to Addrcss 

Revenue Losses Due to Control Weaknesses and Gaps:' 1'-11-03) estimating a Fiscal Year 20 to net shortlall in 

food and beverage service of$61 million (omitting some indirect costs). 

We understand that for Fiscal Year 2011, the Committee has data indicating direct costs for the food and 

beverage operation of $206 million versus $121.5 million in receipts, for a loss of $84 million, Although this 

would seem to demonstrate that the profitability picture has worsened since Fiscal Year 2010, we have been 

told that other data to be released by OIG might be tracking an improvement versus Fiscal Year 2006. 

Some Amtrak and labor omeials contend it is also important to account for Amtrak ridership ligures, 

which might sho\v ditTcrent trends when comparing losses on a per-passenger basis. Yet, as GAO testified in 

2005, other measurements, such as per-passenger miles. did at the time show a deepening loss trend, 

Thus the situation remains troubling, especially given strictures supposedly militating against large 

losses for taxpayers. As 'Members of the Committee have no doubt discussed at length, according to a law 

enacted in 1981 (Title 40, Section 24305(e)(4)), j()od and beverage service can only be provided on Amtrak 

trains iftbe revenues "'are equal to or greater than the total costs OfSllCh services:' 

It may be true that Congress has permitted j()fbcarance from this statute over time, and that there arc 

diflcrences of opinion over what constitutes .. total costs." As illf as the lattcr point goes, however, none of the 

OIG loss Jtgures cited above include substantial indirect costs such as power or maintenance associated with the 

dining or calc facilities. 

In any case, a la\v directing agencies to exercise prudence with tax dollars should be more than 

decorative. If that law is proving cumbersome or otherwise ill-suited to current conditions, Congress should 

clarify or update it not leave it to languish in a gray area of enforcement for three decades. 

Key Considerations for Reform 

The June 2005 hearing at which GAO presented its testimony included several other panelists 

representing Amtrak's leadership, rail passengers, and the union to which many of Amtrak's workers belong. 

Our review of the proceedings indicates there was considerable debate about other laeets of the food and 

beverage service, including: 

Does Amtrak"s mode of transportation permit meaningful comparisons to restaurant costs at fixed 

locations with employees who need not possess as many skills (e.g., cmergency training) as 

Amtrak's service workers? 

Is it lair to hold up VIA and Alaska Railroad as models for reicmn in Amtrak's own operations, 

when these systems have different route and passenger characteristics from Amtrak'? 

Given less-than-impressive results with some initiatives such as vending machines on trains, is a 

purely-private concession model (as opposed to pat1ial contracting) feasible for Amtrak0 

Can food and beverage service function as a profit center fiJr any form of transportation -- on ground, 

water, or air or should its purpose be as a "loss leader" to allraet more customers in the lirst place" 

Docs an obsession v .. -ith cost controllcad to such poor-quality food as to detcr ticket sales'? 

Some circumstances have changed while others have remained the same since questions like these were 

raised. Still. the urgency of finding answers has nevcr been greater. 
17 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75420.015

For one. Arntrak"s admirers are touting record-breaking passenger figures that topped 30 million in 

2011, representing a more than 30 percent rise since 2001. According to data from the Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, this rate of increase handily beats a similar metric for air carriers on U.S. domestic flights over the 

same period. Yet the fact rcmains that Amtrak's total ridership number was nearly dwarfed by that of just one 

major airline, Continental (the disparity is worse Ielf Amtrak when comparing on a passenger-mile basis). 

Meanwhile, consideration should be given to consumer interest in utilizing particular modes of 

transportation. One imperfect but still useful "ay to illustrate this is through load lactors. BTS reports that in 

2010 roughly 80 percent of available scat miles were tliled on domestic eommerciaillights, compared to an 

equivalent of roughly 50 percent for Amtrak. Airlines have actually rcduccd "complimcntary" meal service on 

flights in favor of charging passengers, even on those lasting several hours. While the two modes of 

transportation are not entirely comparabic, such a disparity in load lactors is not likely to shrink solely by 

translonning Amtrak's cuisine - already about one-third subsidized - into culinary masterpieces that require an 

even bigger boost from taxpayers. 

It is likewise important to bear in mind that with a few exceptions (such as Essential Air Service, which 

also should be rciormed), air travel is not "subsidized" in the way rail travel is, Air passengers t'lee a variety of 

government excises and other charges that comprise roughly 20 percent of an average domestic fare. These are 

otten portraycd to the Hying public as "user Ices" for air traffic control and security. Airlines pay corporate 

income taxes into the Treasury if they manage to earn a profit. Amtrak and its customers do not suffer under 

these same burdens. 

Though we would dispute the notion that past comparisons with other railroads arc inappropriate, or that 

stalled attempts at private meal service options with Amtrak make this 2012 hearing superlluous, in our opinion 

seven years do make a difference. Any of several trends Irom innovations in supply ehain management, to the 

increased sophistication of mobile "food truck" concessions, to upgrades in secure cashless payment networks 

could impact both the qualitative and the linancial pictures lelr Amtrak's own le)od and beverage operation. We 

therclore commend Members ofthe Committee lor inviting witnesses to today's hearing who may have insight 

into such developments, 

In addition, Amtrak's overall tiscal condition remains a m,~jor component ofGAO"s decision to 

designate "Funding the Nation's Surface Transportation System"' as a "High Risk" area of federal operations f()f 

taxpayers, As GAO notes: 

In response to the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act 0[2008, which reauthorized fecleral 

support for intercity passenger rail. Amtrak and the Department of Transportation (DOT) recently 

established minimum performance and service quality standards for Amtrak, Amtrak has also taken 

measures to improve its financial management. ... Ho\vcver, these actions arc too recent to detenninc 

how they will affect Amtrak's tlnancial perlormance. the need tilr fCderal subsidies, and the way 

subsidies arc targeted to achieve public benefits. 

Given GAO's tenuous assessment of Amtrak's financial future, Congress should remain vigilant t()[ 

reform opportunities that preserve managerial flexibility but also protect taxpayers. The railroad's f(lOci and 

beverage operations amply afford such an opportunity. 

Ultimately, however, it is the government's overall financial condition that makes today's hearing more 

relevant than ever before. Since 2005, under two Presidents and four Congresses, gross federal debt as a share 

of national economic output has jumped by nearly two-thirds. Even if the economy recovers, the projected 

growth of entitlement and other federal spending programs (including massive capital expenditure demands 
18 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75420.016

from Amtrak) will ensure that the entire tederal balance sheet remains precarious. In this environment, 

Congress must scrutinize every part of the budget to identify avenues t()r fiscal restraint. 

Action Item: Move Forward with H.R. 3362 

Accordingly. one direction the Committee could take from today"s hearing would be to consider !l.R, 

3362, the Amtrak Food and Bevcrage Service Savings Act authored by your colleague Jean Schmidt. This bill, 

which NTU endorsed in 2011, outlines procedures that would make it more dinieult for bureaucracies to evade 

their responsibility to taxpayers and passengers, The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) would, with 

assistance from the General Services Administration. be directed to issue requests for proposal tram outside 

entities to provide food and beverage contracts on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, long-haul, and state-run routes, 

Winning bidders would be selected based on their ability to Ililfill requirements at the lowest cost (or highest 

return) to Amtrak, 

This legislation has been derisively characterized by its opponents as "privatization" - a tactic designed 

to conjure up images of union-busting and protiteering. Upon rational examination, ho\vever. Il.R. 3362 would 

not herald a new age of railroad robber barons, Amtrak itself would be permitted to participate in any RFP 

proceedings, providing a helpful incentive for employees and managers 10 leverage their own advantages in 

healthy competition with other providers, Furthermore. FRA would be able to grant exceptions to the RFP 

requirement if no qualified bidders responded. thereby addressing a past concern among critics of open 

competition for food and beverage service, 

The bill even goes so far as to require FRA to cover anticipated net losses from a contractor whose 

proposal for a given route is accepted, This provision could be fashioned to answer those who believe food and 

beverage service need not be profitable in itselL and should instead function as a ticket-sale inducement Such 

language, appropriately crafted, could provide latitude for a marketing strategy of this kind in a common-sense 

manner, by ensuring food and beverage losses are deducted automatically from clse\vhere in Amtrak's fixed 

appropriation, Arter all, if Amtrak's backers dcmand this type of business tool, then it should function in the 

way it docs for the commercial \-\torld , .. by requiring managers to make decisions on prioritization of resources. 

In short, while NTU supports additional safeguards, H,R, 3362 is a balanced piece of legislation that 

attempts to accommodate many views from various stakeholders in surface transportation policy, as it makes 

appreciable progress on behalf of taxpayers, Even though the Committee declined to add these provisions to its 

surface transportation reauthorization bill during mark-up, Members now have the chance to give H.R. 3362 

new momentum. 

Additional Actions: Amtrak Management 

As the Committee deliberates and hopefully exercises legislative options, immediate administrative 

steps can also be taken on the part of Amtrak's officials to demonstrate their commitment to more clTeetive 

management. 

For example, a report last month trom Amtrak's OIG ("Human Capital Management Weaknesses in 

Hiring Practices Result in Waste and Operational Risk." OfG-A-2012-14) indicated that in 38 01'50 cascs 

studied. there were "inconsistencies between the employment application and the background investigation 

which raised employment suitability questions. yet the applicant was hired," Eighteen or those 38 hires resulted 

in tennination due to performance or discipline problems shortly afterward, In only i(lUr orthe 50 cases was a 

background investigation report received in a complete fashion prior to the employee entering service, 
19 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75420.017

In separate findings hom last year's report referenced carlier. 010 noted that "fraud, waste. and abuse 

arc long-standing problems" with providing food and beverage service on trains, involving '~falsification of 

documents to conceal missing food and beverage revenues and inventories,~' Between March 2003 and January 

2010, OIG identified over 900 cases where Amtrak's Lead Service Attendants (LSAs) may have engaged in 

"theft, dishonesty, and policy/proccdure violations," generally entailing "the t,t1sification of documents to 

conceal missing food and beverage revenues and inventories," 

While no pcrsonnel selection process can cull all potential "problem workers" from the process, surely 

Amtrak should work to immediately improve its use of background investigation infi.mnation, especially for 

employees like LSAs who are directly responsible itlr handling cash, 

FUl1hennore, although OIG praised Amtrak lel[ introducing some checks and balances, the report stated 

that nintenml control weaknesses and gaps . . still exist." Among its suggestions to bring Amtrak's procedures 

in food and beverage service up to "'industry best practices" were: creation ofa dedicated loss-prevention unit, a 

management~sponsorcd program aimed at preventing fraud in advance, random management searches of 

inventories, and (where possible) creation ofa cashless paymcnt system much like those instituted for sales onboard commercial aircraft. Amtrak's leadership agreed with OIG's rccommendations, and with the exception of 

a cashless system (which management believed could be implemented after introducing a new point of sale plan 

latc this year) providcd various timetables to initiate these rc1()fms in late 2011 and 2012, Hopefully today's 

hearing will encourage Amtrak to continue making progress on OIO's advice, 

Finally, an October 2011 OIG report ("Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act 01'2008: 

Amtrak Has Made Good Progress, but Continued Commitment Needed to Fully Address Provisions," OIG-A2012-001) found that "implementing Amtrak's new financial system is key to completing several remaining 

provisions" of the 2008 act. pertaining to modernization of financial accounting, planning, and data-gathering 

on "perfonnance and service quality of intercity passenger trains, including cost recovery:' At that time, in the 

fall of201l, OIG was told that dcbugging and reliahility checks could take "several more months," Here again, 

NTlJ is hopeful that this system is now completely operational. since its effectiveness is dircctly related to 

remedying some orihe underlying weaknesses of l()()d and beverage service, We urge the Committee to 

monitor this portion of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act with particular care, 

Conclusion 

As my remarks noted earlier, NTU has a wide-ranging interest in reforming the nation'S passenger-rail 

network and moving it toward a model that minimizes federal taxpayer involvement as well as maximizes 

commercial viability, The proposals associated with such rdorm carry with them some degree of controversy, 

but the topic the Committee has explored today should not. For the sake of sound management, solid customer 

service. and above all, simple accountability to taxpayers. Amtrak's food and beverage operations require 

timely, dedicated leadership to ensure their improvement. 

Whatever additional steps Committee Members may deem necessary or desirable, NTU urges you (0 

find a bipartisan consensus and move forward \vith provisions such as those contained in ILR, 3362. Toward 

this end, NTU and its members pledge their support and maximum ef1()rt, 

I appreciate the attention and consideration you have given to these views, and look forward to 

cooperating on solutions with you and your staff in the near future, 
20 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. You know, I realize that there is a 

cost when you are trying to put food out, but I am a little astounded at the whole issue of what the Pepsi costs. It costs Amtrak 

$3.40 to serve a Pepsi that you pay $2 for. 

Each and every week, my husband and I go to the grocery store 

and we buy a 12-pack of either Pepsi or Coke, and it costs about 

$4 for the 12-pack. Now, I don’t have a calculator but it is about 

38 cents a can. And I am paying retail at Kroger’s for that. And 

yet it is costing you $3.40 a can. 

My daughter’s family is in the food management business. She 

married into a family that owns over 60 restaurants. Your model 

is not working. And it is not working because you are not doing it 

in a pro-business way. 

For one thing, you are required by law to break even for your 

food and beverage services. And yet for over 30 years you haven’t 

done this. In an attempt to fix what shouldn’t be a problem in the 

first place, I introduced legislation, the Amtrak Food and Beverage 

Service Savings Act, and I encourage all of my colleagues to look 

at it and sign on to it. You know, we are trillions of dollars in debt. 

But you don’t pay it off all at once. You pay it off at a penny, a 

nickel, and a dime at a time. And when you see the waste that is 

going on here, this is an easy fix. If we did this across the board 

in Government, maybe we wouldn’t be in the deficit that we are 

today. This is common sense. 

In my bill Amtrak may compete for the bids, but the winning 

bids must at a minimum break even, and that includes the cost of 

delivering the service because I think that is where the problem 

comes in. 

While other industries and sports and other modes of transportation make a profit on food and beverage services, Amtrak continues to lose almost $85 million each year, and to me that is not 

chump change. Taxpayers get stuck with this tab and yeah, I am 

a taxpayer, too. But the bitter irony is that the riders are getting 

a bad deal. That hamburger isn’t worth $10 or $9, whatever it is 

costs, $9.50. It is worth about $5. The taxpayers are getting stuck 

with a bad deal in both ways. Riders pay through the roof just to 

get common food, and we aren’t talking about fancy meals. We are 

talking about hamburgers. The last time I checked riders paid 

$4.50 for a hotdog, $4 for cheese and crackers, $2 for a can of soda, 

and $2.25 for fruit juice. And by the way, that hotdog cost you, Amtrak, $6.10 to provide that rider. 

We have got to do it better. We have got to have a business plan 

that does it better. If that means privatizing the whole thing out, 

then do it. If that means in the short run having to eat a loss with 

a contractual obligation, then let us eat that loss in the short run 

instead of continuing to eat the loss in the long run. 

I believe that the legislation states you have to break even on 

this service. You are not breaking even. You need to do things differently. This committee is here to help you do that. But ladies and 

gentlemen, I strongly suggest that you get your head out of the 

sand and look at the right way to deliver something like food and 

beverages in a profitable way. This isn’t rocket science. This is a 

very minor list. I yield back my time. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. 

21 

I recognize the gentlelady from the district, Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. I want to welcome all of the witnesses today. I do 

want to take a moment to make some points. 

First, Mr. Boardman, I want to thank you for the service that 

your employees give on Amtrak. It is a tribute to that service that 

so many, many passengers in the Northeast are leaving airplane 

travel and deciding to run, to take their on Amtrak, on Acela. I 

think those of us who are used to train travel over the years marvel at the fact that one can get the same kind of luxury ride on 

Amtrak now that people used to associate with air travel. Air travel has become more like a Greyhound bus station where people 

wait in line and yearn for the time to get on the plane and find 

themselves in a real sense in sometimes terrible crowds. The fact 

that your trains are more and more crowded speaks to the service 

your employees are providing, and it speaks to the need for more 

and more trains. 

My second point is to congratulate you on the work you did to 

produce a master plan for Amtrak at Union Station that in essence 

is a master plan for Amtrak for the coming decades. That master 

plan I would ask the chairman of the committee to consider holding 

a hearing on because it is so important for the work we do on rail 

travel. 

For decades now, trains have improved in our country step by 

step. And the tax has improved because people wanted train travel. 

But we have never had a vision for train travel for the decades. 

The master plan that you presented at a recent press conference 

gave us a real vision for what train travel in the United States of 

America will look like if Congress, and I think it will, decides to 

bring train travel into the 21st century. And I say that recognizing 

that every single ally of the United States, and many developing 

countries, are light-years ahead of our country on train travel, particularly the kind of visionary plan that would accommodate highspeed rail that sees us as we would hope the world would see us 

when it comes to train travel. 

I must say, Mr. Chairman, it is a source of great embarrassment 

to me as an American that our country is not just a little behind, 

not just somewhat behind, but not even out of the starting gate 

when it comes to train travel in the world today. 

You raise my spirits when I heard and saw the presentation of 

what we are capable of and what the plan could be, and I can tell 

you that my head has been down when it came to train travel as 

I see what countries in the world are doing and when I saw your 

master plan I thought I could hold my head up again when it came 

to train travel, and I thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, everything that needs to be said has been said. Everybody hasn’t said 

it yet. So with that in mind, I am going to be very brief. 

I am not necessarily pointing an accusatory finger at Amtrak. I 

am pointing a finger at the Federal agencies generally. It appears 

recently, Mr. Chairman, that sound responsible fiscal management 

has been at least cast aside or abandoned by many Federal agenVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:00 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\8-2-12~1\75420\75420.TXT JEAN
22 

cies, and if the Amtrak ship is aground, let us get it off the bar 

and back into safe deep water. And I think this, I can’t emphasize 

the significance of fiscal responsibility any more. 

And having said that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to yield my time to Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

I want to do a comparison between the airlines and Amtrak. Fast 

food restaurants, comparing Amtrak to a fast food restaurant is 

like comparing apples and oranges. We spoke to the airlines prior 

to this hearing. They spend upward to $6 or $7 per passenger for 

sandwiches on a long haul. I mean, I just don’t think it is fair to 

compare Amtrak to a fast food place. I mean that is ludicrous. 

I was in a bar last night, a bar, and I got a Coke, a regular Coke, 

that is not in that Pepsi can, in a cup or a glass like this. It was 

over $5 for a regular Coke and ice. When you look at the comparison, Pringles, $3 on the airline. If you look at M&Ms, $2.99. I 

mean, how much is it in the store? Seventy-five cents. 

So to make these kind of silly comparisons, to even be here discussing this when we have major issues is just hard for me to understand why we continually, and we want to have a hearing on 

this, why is it that we don’t have it at our committee area? Why 

would we take full committee time to have a hearing on Amtrak? 

I know, Mr. Boardman, I know this is very important, very important to the committee, very important to the American people. But 

this is something that we should be dealing with in the subcommittee. You have a ranking member, and you have a chair that 

is very interested in this. This is very, very important. Not, you 

know, more important than two planes almost colliding within 12 

seconds that would have killed thousands of or hundreds of people. 

But, you know, that is where we are in this committee. We are 

down in the weeds and we have been down in the weeds since the 

beginning of this Congress. 

So I am very happy that you all are here. I am looking forward 

to the testimony from the committee. I have a lot of questions for 

you in comparison fast food to what you all are doing. And also, 

let us throw in the airline and the additional money that we spend 

in the airline based on security. I know that Amtrak has to consider a lot more things than how much is the cost of a Pepsi. 

So with that, I want to thank Mrs. Johnson, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. I am pleased to yield, he has 

been waiting patiently, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

everyone for coming today. 

My family is in the restaurant business, and we currently have 

a restaurant right now. And I certainly understand how difficult it 

is in the food and beverage business to make money. You really 

need to, I believe in my estimation, either have a very good business model to make money in that business or you need to be there 

all the time, because as I am sure Amtrak could attest to, in the 

food and beverage business many times there is a lot of waste, 

23 

theft, and mismanagement and there is such a small profit margin 

that you are dealing with in the restaurant business. But obviously, the business model here is not working. 

And Congress, for over 30 years, has asked Amtrak that if they 

wanted to be in the food and beverage business that they needed 

to at least break even, not even make a profit. 

So I think it is fair to have this discussion today. And when we 

are seeing that there is an $800 million loss over the last 10 years, 

obviously this business model is not working, and we can give examples where others where it is working. 

So and if we can just momentarily if I could address the airline 

M&M issue. Obviously the cost, what they are charging is not what 

it is costing them. They are making a profit. So again, I am interested to hear what ideas you all have to, again, not break the law 

because Congress did make that a law that Amtrak did need to 

break even. So I am curious to hear what everyone has to say. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I am pleased to yield to Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing. You 

know, I travel Amtrak just about every week. I come in by Amtrak; 

I go back by Amtrak. And I wanted to come to this hearing today 

because I want to hear what you have to say. But I have to tell 

you, I have met nothing but the nicest people that work and treat 

the passengers on the train. 

I would prefer to concentrate on some of the other issues of Amtrak, you know, making the ride more comfortable, more pleasant 

for the passengers. As it is now you can’t get a seat many days. 

You know, we need to encourage that because I have traveled in 

some of the places outside the country and it is really, I am almost 

embarrassed, you know I happened to be in Spain and I traveled 

from Madrid to Barcelona on the AVE. I mean, I couldn’t believe. 

There is no comparison between that ride and the ride that I had, 

you know, outside this country. 

You know, sure there are probably some things you can do, but 

there are so many other issues that we have to address on this 

with Amtrak. And we should be helping and trying to encourage 

more people to use rail. I don’t think this is going to help encourage people to take rail. What is going to help is make it more comfortable, make it more pleasant, make it, you know, and you do a 

great job in terms of on time. I will never take a plane back to 

Newark. I would shoot myself. I mean, that is how bad it gets 

sometimes, but I will take the train to Newark. 

So thank you for the comments, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. MICA. Other Members seek recognition? If not, we will turn 

to our panel of witnesses. 

We have got first the Honorable Joe Boardman, president of Amtrak; Ted Alves, inspector general of Amtrak; Patricia Quinn, executive director of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority; and Dwayne Bateman, who is an employee, works with 

Amtrak Food and Beverage Services. 

First, welcome, everyone. 

24 

Mr. Boardman, you can go first or second. If you wanted to hear 

the inspector general first and then respond, or I will just give you 

a choice. Tell me how you want to do it. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I would just as soon go first. 

Mr. MICA. I am pleased to have you, and welcome, and recognize 

Mr. Boardman. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMTRAK; TED ALVES, INSPECTOR GENERAL, AMTRAK OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL; 

PATRICIA QUINN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHERN NEW 

ENGLAND PASSENGER RAIL AUTHORITY; AND DWAYNE 

BATEMAN, FOOD AND BEVERAGE WORKER, AMTRAK 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all. Good morning. 

Amtrak’s food and beverage record has really been continuously 

improving. Part of that improvement has come from the attention 

that Congress has shown since 1981. No less than eight CEOs have 

focused on the cost and revenues since 1981. Part of that improvement is included implementing recommendations from Amtrak’s IG 

and U.S. DOT’s IG over those years. You should note that Ted 

Alves recognizes that current Amtrak leadership has begun to implement changes with the ticketing, point-of-sale technologies and 

operational reorganization that will help reduce costs and improve 

accountability. I look forward to his testimony today. 

Part of that improvement comes from having great State partners like Patricia Quinn who have innovative ideas that Amtrak 

supports. But most of that improvement comes from Amtrak’s 

women and men who feed people on our trains 7 days a week and 

also take care of their needs for 3 days or more, and in a time of 

bad weather or other problems care for their customers even 

longer. We call them OBS, or Onboard Services people, and I am 

pleased to be with here today with one of our very best, Dwayne 

Bateman. 

Ridership has grown by 44 percent since the beginning of the 

21st century. It will be a century that will appreciate rail the way 

that the 19th century did. In fiscal year 2011 we carried over 30 

million customers and we set ridership records in 8 of the last 9 

years. Operating subsidy requests are some of the lowest we have 

had in the 41 years that we have connected this Nation together. 

That has happened while we maintain good jobs for our employees, 

employees who are often away from home for a week or more at 

a time. Our OBS employees stay with a long-distance train all the 

way to its destination, unlike our train and engine employees. OBS 

employees care for the personal needs of our customers along with 

being able to care for emergencies if they should arise, and they do 

arise. 

These are good jobs that Americans can raise their children and 

take care of their family on, jobs that pay $50,000 or more, similar 

to a rural postal carrier. Amtrak and its customers depend on our 

OBS employees to know what they are doing, and they do their 

jobs well. 

We are focused on our customers and on our bottom line. That 

focus has helped us improve our food and beverage cost recovery 

25 

by 20 percent in the past 5 years from 49 percent in 2006 to 59 

percent in 2011. Our goal is to recover 70 percent by 2015. We 

have competitively outsourced commissary operations, we have 

simplified dining car services, onboard credit card processing, and 

introduced at-seat cart service on select trains. We are installing 

point-of-sale systems on board and have a new inventory program 

called WIMS to better making sales and inventory automate and 

eliminate time-consuming paper processes. We are realigning the 

company to get rid of a disjointed management structure in food 

and beverage operations. Last year, Amtrak published its first 

board of directors-approved strategic plan from fiscal year 2011 to 

fiscal year 2015 and we are executing that plan. 

Making these food and beverage changes are part of running this 

company like a business. Last year, food and beverage accounted 

for less than 8 percent of our total expenses, and we have covered 

most of those costs with revenues from sales. We generate more 

than $2.7 billion in annual revenue and that, and that recovers 85 

percent of our operating costs. Food and beverage is very important 

to our customers, our overall relationship and sometimes during a 

severe snowstorm or other delay, it is life sustaining. 

Further, it is a very small cost to a much larger business. Even 

so, it has grown more efficient, but not efficient enough for us. We 

are not satisfied. We will continue to improve. We are committed 

to improving this business as evidenced by these changes which 

contributed to reducing our operating subsidy need by 17 percent 

this year over last year, and doing so without cutting our service, 

service that our customers and your constituents depend on for 

their mobility and connectivity. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. We will hear now from the inspector general, Mr. Alves. 

Mr. ALVES. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall, Ranking Member Brown and members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on Amtrak’s 

food and beverage service activities. As you know, losses on food 

and beverage have been a longstanding issue. In fiscal year 2011, 

the reported loss was almost $85 million with long-distance routes 

accounting for about $74 million, or 87 percent of the loss. 

Today, I want to address three areas: First, actions Amtrak has 

underway to address our prior recommendations; second, preliminary observations from our ongoing audit indicating that program 

management can be further improved; and, third, best business 

practices work we plan to accomplish. 

Before I address the specifics of these area, I want to note that 

over the last several years, Amtrak has taken action to reduce food 

and beverage losses and improve program management controls 

and these efforts have yielded benefits. 

We believe opportunities remain for further improvement, particularly relating to implementing cashless sales, improving program planning, and identifying and implementing alternative business models. 

In June 2011, we reported that Amtrak needed to improve internal controls to reduce losses due to theft. In response to our recommendations, Amtrak established a loss prevention unit, hired 

26 

four staff for the new unit, plans to provide the staff with 3 weeks 

of training this month, and plans to develop an internal control action plan. However, Amtrak currently has no plan to implement 

our recommendation to establish a cashless pilot. 

Regarding our ongoing work, Amtrak has made progress reducing direct operating losses, increasing cost recovery from 49 to 59 

cents on the dollar between 2006 and 2011. Amtrak also has initiatives for 2012 and beyond to further increase cost recovery, such 

as lengthening the selling period on trains and reducing check-in, 

check-out times for onboard service personnel. 

We encourage these initiatives but note that they will result in 

relatively small efficiency gains because they are being applied to 

the existing food and beverage service business model. Further, 

food and beverage management activities are currently carried out 

in a fragmented and somewhat uncoordinated manner by two Amtrak departments. The marketing department manages commissary 

and support operations, while transportation department manages 

onboard service personnel. 

On July 30, the vice president for operations told us that the 

marketing department responsibilities for food and beverage activities will be transferred to operations as of October 1, 2012. 

This new management structure should help address our accountability concerns. We also believe that once this structure is in 

place, the vice president of operations should develop a 5-year plan 

to reduce operating losses. The plan should include specific initiatives and annual loss, operating loss reduction goals. 

Our future work will focus on identifying ways to help mitigate 

food and beverage service losses while continuing to provide highquality service. We will identify and review best practices used by 

other entities such as foreign passenger railroads, cruise lines and 

airlines. Our analysis will focus on key factors such as cost and 

quality of service as well as workforce, customer, and revenue impacts. 

In summary, Amtrak deserves credit for taking actions to reduce 

food and beverage losses. Planned actions, especially the recently 

announced organizational change, should lead to further improvements. We also believe significant additional improvements could 

be achieved by implementing a cashless system, developing a plan 

for reducing losses, and piloting alternative business models. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing I want to thank the committee for its 

support of the Amtrak Office of Inspector General, and I would be 

glad to answer any questions at this time. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And we will hold questions. And we will 

go now to Ms. Quinn. 

Ms. QUINN. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall, and members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for inviting me here today. 

My name is Patricia Quinn, and I am executive director of the 

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, which I refer to 

as NNEPRA, and am responsible for the overall operation of the 

Downeaster service. The Amtrak Downeaster service began operating between Portland and Boston in December 15, 2001, in response to a citizens’ initiatives led by a group by TrainRiders 

Northeast to reestablish passenger rail service after decades of its 

27 

absence. The vision was to create a service which was part of Amtrak’s national rail system, but a service which was also uniquely 

Maine. 

NNEPRA was created by the Maine State Legislature to manage 

our passenger rail service to and within Maine and to maximize 

the public benefit. 

The Downeaster has been extremely successful. We have carried 

more than 4 million passengers over 300 million miles while maintaining one of the highest customer satisfaction scores in the Amtrak system. Our ridership has more than doubled since 2005 and 

will soon be expanding our service 30 miles north to serve Freeport 

and Brunswick. 

But in addition to providing transportation the Downeaster has 

stimulated hundreds of millions of dollars in economic and private 

investment along the corridor and has truly been an economic engine for our region. Our initial arrangement with Amtrak when we 

started the Downeaster was put into place in 1996, and it included 

provisions for NNEPRA to be able to procure services for marketing, reservations and ticketing, and food service independently. 

This was done to ensure that the Downeaster would continue to 

have a Maine brand and to provide NNEPRA with the ability to 

manage the finances more closely. Because of our geographical location and the fact that we don’t directly connect with other Amtrak services, we are uniquely positioned to pioneer and pilot a 

number of initiatives, some of which have been rolled out nationally. I am here today to talk about the food and beverage. 

A company called Epicurean Feast was selected prior to the start 

of Downeaster service to manage the operation of the Downeaster 

Cafe. Amtrak participated in the development of the agreements 

and contracts to be sure that all appropriate standards were included and has worked with us all along to assure the success. 

Per our agreement with NNEPRA, Epicurean Feast is responsible for the overall operation of the food service including the hiring and management of employees, purchasing of food, and provision of onboard service. Actual revenues and expenses are reported 

to us monthly and a fixed management fee is assessed. NNEPRA 

reimburses Epicurean Feast for the difference between those 

amounts. 

Now our cafe serves light meals, snacks, alcoholic, nonalcoholic 

beverages, and some other sundry items like Boston subway tickets. But we also have a lot of input into the menu and really encourage the use of Maine products. As a result our cafe features 

sandwiches from a local chain, beers from local microbreweries, 

chocolates and whoopie pies from local confectioners and of course 

fresh Maine lobster rolls in the summer. In addition to the sales, 

that exposure is really important to those local merchants. 

The Downeaster achieves the cost and recovery rate of 75 percent 

and in our fiscal year, which runs from July through June. In our 

fiscal year 2012, our total cafe sales were about $575,000. Cafe expenses were about $770,000, which is a net loss of $195,000. Now, 

based on 509,000 riders, that comes out to a net cost of 37 cents 

per passenger. 

Our onboard labor accounts for about 44 percent of the expenses, 

food and liquor purchases account for about 33 percent, and genVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:00 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\8-2-12~1\75420\75420.TXT JEAN
28 

eral operating expenses account for 17 percent. The remaining is 

the commission and the G&A. 

We monitor the financial performance of the Downeaster Cafe 

very closely. We get daily sales reports, monthly P&L statements 

which detail every transaction made for the Downeaster Cafe, we 

track labor costs, purchases, spoilage, comps and many other items. 

We communicate regularly with Epicurean and try to act in a really nimble fashion to make changes to improve the service, increase 

the revenues, and control the expenses. 

While the cafe itself is not profitable, its cost is built into the 

price of a passenger ticket and is a key reason to why people 

choose to ride the Downeaster. 

While it might not work for all, the Downeaster Cafe model is 

one in which other States could consider particularly in light of the 

pending implementation of PRIIA 209. It has provided us an opportunity to have input into a very important part of the service and 

take responsibility for an element of the passenger rail business 

which has both financial and service related impacts. It is a way 

to contribute to the personalization of the service and very literally 

reflect local favor. 

NNEPRA is proud of our cafe. We feel it is a critical component 

of the Downeaster service. The CSI scores that we have, the customer service scores for our food service tend to be higher than 

those in the Amtrak system, and that is due to Epicurean’s dedication, NNEPRA’s involvement and our ongoing partnership with 

Amtrak. Together, we constantly strive to set goals and achieve a 

standard of excellence in the best interest of our passengers and 

the public. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and we will now hear from Mr. Bateman. 

Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you. Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall, and members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, thank you for the opportunity today to come here and talk 

to you about Amtrak food and beverage service. My name is 

Dwayne Bateman. I am a lead service attendant currently working 

on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. I am also vice general chairman 

for Unite-HERE Local 43, representing onboard service workers. I 

have worked almost every craft linked to onboard service for over 

35 years. 

Critics of Amtrak say onboard service workers like me are overpaid and our pensions are too generous. They devalue our work 

and ignore our role in safety, security, and customer satisfaction. 

They are wrong, and I am grateful for this opportunity to explain 

why. 

Obviously, we serve food and drinks to our customers, but like 

flight attendants, protecting passengers, not food service, is our 

first priority. In the environment in which we work, emergencies 

can happen in remote locations and we are usually the first responders. Unlike restaurant employees, we go through mandatory 

training so we can respond to derailments, medical emergencies, 

security breaches and other problems. 

Here are some of the examples of our required training. Emergency preparedness, first aid, onboard passenger safety, emergency 

29 

evacuation, responding to bomb threats and terrorist threats and 

unattended items. 

We also have to know the configuration of all Amtrak cars in 

order to respond to emergencies and to facilitate evacuations. Also, 

when service is disrupted, we are frequently an important point of 

contact for our riders. 

Our critics like to compare us to restaurant workers and say we 

should be working for minimum wage and tips, but that ignores 

the sacrifices and level of commitment we have. These jobs are exhausting. The work is grueling. We have to be on our feet occasionally up to 10 or 20 hours a day in the Northeast Corridor. It is even 

worse on long-distance routes, which last 3 or 4 days, where we 

work an average of 18 hours a day. And during service disruptions, 

we can be on duty for more than 36 hours straight or more. 

There are some who argue we are overly compensated for the 

skill set required to prepare meals and provide customer service. 

The work we do appears quite simple because you only see us passing out a Pepsi-Cola and a burger. That argument ignores not only 

safety but the personal sacrifices for this career: mental and physical exhaustion, sleep deprivation, stress due to vigorous working 

conditions, extremely long hours with limited breaks. Each contribute to a myriad of medical issues we experience. We are not 

only paid for the work we perform, but also the stress to our 

health, the degradation to our bodies, and the pressure in our personal lives caused by the necessity to work long hours under arduous conditions while maintaining a professional and pleasant demeanor. 

Some people say we make too much, again, but the jobs we have pay about $50,000 a year, which is basically a middle-class salary. 

All of us have early retirement at Amtrak, which is funded solely 

by employees in the railroad. I am not ashamed of that. That it is 

what is going to allow me to retire with dignity. 

But some people want to limit these jobs. When this committee 

marked up H.R. 7, it supported language that could outsource the 

jobs and give corporate welfare subsidies to private contractors that 

get the work. I take that personally, and that is an attack on goodpaying, middle-class American jobs. It is unfair to us, who have 

dedicated our lives, given our blood, sweat, and tears to help our 

company survive. It is unfair to Joe Boardman, who has worked feverishly to change our culture and reduce the costs while improving services. And, most importantly, it is unfair to our passengers, 

who pay for, expect, and deserve safe and reliable service on their 

journey. They are owed the assurance that employees are welltrained, qualified to meet their customer service, safety, and security needs. 

I have spent my entire adult life working for Amtrak with the 

promise of earning a fair wage. This job allowed me to provide for 

my family, it helped me send my two girls to college and live a decent, middle-class life. Now some people want to take away my job 

and the job of 1,200 other onboard service workers. For me it is not 

a discussion about 1,200 jobs; it is a discussion about 1,200 people, 

1,200 careers, 1,200 families who can’t survive on minimum wage. 

I urge you to stop trying to privatize my job and start fighting to 

protect middle-class jobs. 

30 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much. 

And let me turn to some quick questions. 

First, to the inspector general, it appears the hemorrhaging is 

getting worse in Amtrak food and beverage service in just the last 

3 years. Is that your observation, the losses? Again, it is a $74 million loss in 2009; $82 million, rounding it out, in 2010; and $84 million this year. Is that correct, we are hemorrhaging worse? 

Mr. ALVES. Losses have increased. 

Mr. MICA. Losses have increased. 

Mr. ALVES. Losses have increased. 

Mr. MICA. The last 3 years. 

Mr. ALVES. And I believe—— 

Mr. MICA. And then we have 1,000—what is it? How many employees do you have? One thousand two hundred and thirty-four. 

The loss last year was $84 million; is that right? 

Mr. ALVES. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. If you divide that, we are subsidizing $68,000,476 per 

employee from the loss. 

Mr. ALVES. I have not done that calculation. 

Mr. MICA. Well, take out your calculator, and you will see that 

that is the case. 

I mean, we have been here before on this. The losses are expanding. And when you are subsidizing this can of Coke that costs $2, 

another $3.40 for the taxpayer—it is $16 for a hamburger. The subsidization on top of the cost of—what is it—$9, it is absolutely outrageous. I mean, who could, in their right mind, say that that is 

the way we operate? 

No one wants to fire anybody. No one wants to get rid of any employees. That is not what this is about. This is about losses. I 

mean, the losses are staggering. In 10 years, it is $833 million. 

Last time I checked, that is over three-quarters of a billion dollars. 

Is that correct? Are our calculations correct, or are we fudging the 

books? 

Mr. ALVES. I am sure you are not fudging the books, sir, but I 

haven’t done that calculation. 

Mr. MICA. All right. Well, we have the figures that we have gotten from you and from Amtrak. 

What is disturbing is, the last report, you recommended that 

they get out of the cash business. They had people that were tapping the till, and we went after them. And some people lost their 

jobs, some people were arrested. And we still have a cash system. 

Is that your observation, Inspector General? 

Mr. ALVES. Yes, sir. And we do believe that there is an opportunity to pilot a cashless system that would help reduce—— 

Mr. MICA. No, no. ‘‘Pilot,’’ here we are again. 

And then you said that four people were going to be trained this 

month for some sort of oversight; is that correct? 

Mr. ALVES. Yes, in response to our recommendations. 

Mr. MICA. Yeah, in response. We have been through the inspector general report, which now has some yellow aging on it, and 

they still haven’t done anything to correct this. A cashless system 

would help stop, again, some of the damage. 

31 

And this isn’t even counted into the calculation, is it? I mean, the 

loss is the loss. We don’t know how much has been stolen or slips 

through. 

Mr. ALVES. No. That is very difficult to estimate. 

Mr. MICA. Well, I tell you, this is extremely frustrating. I may 

be in the weeds, but if you don’t get in the weeds, you know, the 

country is going to go down the tubes. And you start with taking 

a—I call it a Soviet-style Amtrak operation and converting it to a 

modern rail system that provides good passenger service at the 

lowest cost to the taxpayer. And we are not doing that. 

We could employ twice as many people in this industry if we 

would unleash some of the creativity and initiatives from the private sector. So don’t give me this stuff, that we are attacking labor 

or anything. No one is talking about lower wages. You can still do 

this, increase employment and keep good benefits. 

And there are models that we can adopt—we saw a little bit from 

the Northeast model that is here; there are others here—where we 

can cut the losses or find some way to cut back. But if we can’t cut 

$100 million a year in Amtrak food service, something is wrong. 

Let me have Mr. Shuster take over the chair. We have about 5 

or 6 minutes. Mr. Shuster? 

Did you want to go next, Mr. Rahall? 

Mr. RAHALL. Yeah, just a comment, Mr. Chairman. Your overdramatization I think is unnecessary. I don’t believe the food and 

beverage problems of Amtrak are going to cause our country to go 

down the tubes. As I said in my opening statement, what we are 

talking about here is about 5 percent of the railroad’s total expenditures. So I think your overdramatization of this is totally unnecessary and uncalled for. 

Let me ask Mr. Boardman, how many food and beverage workers 

does Amtrak have? And how would they be impacted if the FRA, 

as proposed in H.R. 7, were to contract out its food and beverage 

service to the lowest bidder? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Mr. Rahall, we have 1,234 onboard service food 

and beverage folks on our trains. Obviously, if there was a demand 

by Congress to contract them out, they would be in a very different 

situation, probably without jobs. And I think that would be a very 

negative situation for Amtrak and for the country. 

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Bateman, would you wish to comment further 

on that? I know you did in your testimony, but—— 

Mr. BATEMAN. Well, actually, if we would lose our position, I 

wouldn’t be losing—— 

Mr. RAHALL. Could you turn your microphone on, please? 

Mr. BATEMAN. I beg your pardon. 

I would just like to say, I don’t have a job. This is not my job. 

This job belongs to my family. And if I were to lose it, it would be 

a huge impact on my family because I am responsible for a lot of 

people. And I think a lot of others that I work with would be in 

the same situation. And we would probably be stressed to the point 

where we would have to maybe sell our homes or cash in our 

401(k)s or cash in our savings or whatever we have to do to try to 

survive this. But it would be devastating, sir. 

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Bateman, are States currently able to contract 

out Amtrak’s food and beverage service through section 209 comVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:00 Nov 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\8-2-12~1\75420\75420.TXT JEAN
32 

mittee work—I am sorry, Mr. Boardman, I was going to ask you 

that question. Have you heard from any States that have an interest in contracting out? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes, there are. As a matter of fact, that is what 

Patricia did. We had no commissaries close by, and we worked well 

with them to make that happen. 

There is another example down in North Carolina, where they 

have a run with dedicated equipment. And States will have the 

ability under section 209 to contract out. 

Mr. RAHALL. OK. 

Let me ask Ms. Quinn, why did Maine contract out their food 

and beverage service on the Downeaster? 

Ms. QUINN. Well, while 209 is going to be implemented next 

year, the State of Maine has always taken financial responsibility 

for the service and has paid or reimbursed Amtrak for the cost of 

operating the service. So we have tried to participate in the service, 

again, have it really reflect the Maine brand, and also have been 

extremely conscious of the finances of the operation. We wanted to 

be able to manage some of the things that we could manage ourselves. 

Mr. RAHALL. Were there any workers furloughed because of that? 

Ms. QUINN. No, they were not. 

Mr. RAHALL. Why not? 

Ms. QUINN. It was a brandnew service. It didn’t exist before—— 

Mr. RAHALL. I am sorry, it was what? 

Ms. QUINN. It was a brandnew service that didn’t exist before. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. 

What are your food and beverage workers paid? And what kind 

of benefits do they receive, what sort of training do they receive? 

And do they receive background checks? 

Ms. QUINN. Our food and beverage workers have different job descriptions and duties than the Amtrak LSAs do. They generally are 

food service workers, and their role and responsibility is to get on 

the train and manage the cafe. The conductor stays as the person 

who is in charge of the train. They go through a regular employment review, not necessarily a background check. 

Mr. RAHALL. Training? 

Ms. QUINN. And training is in food service and the operation of 

the cafe, but not in the operation of the train. So it is not as extensive as what the Amtrak LSAs receive. 

Mr. RAHALL. What are they paid? 

Ms. QUINN. They are paid approximately $10 an hour, and then 

they are allowed to get tips. 

Mr. RAHALL. And benefits? 

Ms. QUINN. They have a basic health insurance benefit package. 

Again, that is through the vendor, not through us. 

Mr. RAHALL. All right. 

I see we are running out of time. I will yield back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. [presiding.] Yeah, we have 5 minutes left in this 

vote. I am going to make a statement here. We are going to adjourn, figure about 15 to 20 minutes, be back here around 11:30. 

We have two votes. This one is going to wrap up here probably in 

the next 10 minutes or so, and then we can vote and come on back. 

33 

Before I leave, I just want to again state, this is not an attack 

on jobs. Ms. Quinn just pointed out that you added jobs, you created jobs in what you are doing. And I believe in the long term that 

we can do that on Amtrak. But we have to take a serious look at 

this. 

And Mr. Bateman made the statement about ‘‘privatize these 

jobs.’’ These are private jobs. Amtrak is supposed to be a private 

company. So we are talking about taking a private company and 

making it efficient, making it work. 

And as I said, if we don’t do this, if we don’t take the short-term 

pain—and I know Mr. Boardman has done some things there that 

are positive—we are going to, in the long run, we are not going to 

see these jobs. Because right downstairs, we have hot food we can 

get downstairs out of a vending machine. You know, these are the 

kinds of things we have to look at and say, is that what we want 

on our train service? I don’t think so, but we have to figure out a 

way to get these numbers down. When you have Ms. Quinn saying 

they are losing 37 cents a passenger, my calculation is Amtrak is 

losing $2.80 a passenger on the food car service. 

So, you know, this is a serious—other Members have said that 

we have other serious issues to deal with. Well, the Railroad Subcommittee, this is one of the issues we deal with, and I believe it 

is a serious issue. And to make sure that Amtrak is here for the 

long haul, make sure that we have passenger rail service in this 

country that is at least breaking even across the board, I think that 

should be our first goal. 

But, with that, again, we will adjourn. And we should be back 

in about 15 minutes to resume the questioning. We stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. We are going to reconvene. Sorry about that. It 

was a little longer than 15 minutes. 

All right, we are back in action. Again, I am going to start off 

the same way I ended up, started twice. 

This hearing is—I want it to be constructive. I want to figure out 

ways that we can, as we move forward, find out what has been 

done, ways we can move forward on this, because there is no reason in my mind that you can’t have a food service that at least is 

breaking even. Or if we got down to a 37-cent subsidy per passenger, I think I would jump for joy at that. And now, by my math, 

if someone wants to correct me, my math is about $2.80 is what 

we subsidize the food service with each passenger. 

In fiscal year 2011, Mr. Boardman, can you tell me what was the 

average wage that a food service worker made? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. It is over $50,000 a year. That is what we talked 

about right upfront. That is why we are—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. And then, all in, what are we talking, benefits and 

all that? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Probably adds another—I don’t know exactly 

what the percentage is, but the railroad retirement and the health 

care and so forth, yeah. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. And then Mr. Alves talked about the 

cashless system. What is the situation on a pilot? It seems to me 

it makes a lot of sense. 

34 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I have two answers to that. One is a personal 

one, and it is important to me, and it is something that I know I 

have a ‘‘board of directors’’ with 585 Federal and State members 

and a board of directors that sits at the table that may change 

that. But on this $1 bill, to use a prop of my own, it says, ‘‘This 

note is legal tender for all debts public and private.’’ And I believe 

that we should continue to accommodate people who don’t have 

cashless opportunities. 

And there may be ways to get around some of that, but I believe 

that cash should be allowed in this country and that we should not 

have employees that steal. And we need to find ways—and I know 

the union is totally with me on this—to make an end to that. But 

making an end to it by denying people using cash I think is a mistake. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And your board, you say you think they have different feelings than you? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I don’t know. We really haven’t gotten to a proposal today to actually do this. I think we do have an idea that we 

can do a pilot. 

And it might be different, Congressman, on the Northeast Corridor, Acela. But when you start looking at services like the Cardinal service, which operates through West Virginia and into Cincinnati and on up to the Midwest, a lot of our ridership are the 

Amish and the Mennonites and others who are really not into that 

part of the world at all, and they have needs when they are on the 

train. 

So it is going to be difficult to implement something like that 

fully throughout the system. It may work in some places. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. What about tickets? Now tickets are—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. It is the same way with electronic ticketing, 

which we have rolled out at this point in time. We see that as a 

great benefit. We are still able to sell on the trains, as well, if they 

don’t have a station agent. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Alves, your view on that? I know you have 

made that recommendation. You know, what are your thoughts 

to—well, I guess I should say, I didn’t see a figure. What is the 

magnitude of the theft that is going on? What are we talking? Do 

we now have an idea of how much money is being stolen? 

Mr. ALVES. It is very difficult to estimate how much is lost to 

theft because you can only identify what you detect. You can’t identify what you can’t detect. 

We think that Amtrak is taking steps that are going to address 

a great deal of the schemes that have been—it is really a question 

of putting controls in place. The point-of-sale is going to result in 

significant improvements. When point-of-sale is connected to the 

inventory system, that is an improvement. 

But what we see is that if you fly on an airline today, they are 

not taking cash. Anytime you are dealing with cash, you are subject to a high vulnerability of taking a loss. The other thing that 

the airlines have found out and others have found out is that when 

people use credit cards they buy more, and so that also increases 

revenue. 

I agree with Joe that, particularly at this time, a cashless—onboard cashless may not be appropriate for some of Amtrak’s routes. 

35 

I do think that it should be piloted. There are places where it can 

be used and can work. And there are alternatives, including at the 

station you might be able to put in your cash and get a card that 

is valid on the train. So I do think it is a serious proposal that 

should be looked at. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Ms. Quinn, do you accept cash? 

Ms. QUINN. We do accept cash and credit cards. And we are actually in the process of implementing a point-of-sale system, as well, 

which will tie to the inventory. And I think ‘‘control’’ is really the 

important thing. We have had a manual system up until this point 

because we couldn’t find a machine that would fit in the space, but 

we have one now. And I think, as long as you watch your inventory 

and your cash, you implement basic business restaurant practices, 

like blind drops and those kinds of things, that you—you have to 

watch it all the time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. Bateman, your view on the pilot of a cashless system? As a 

worker, does that make your job easier or harder? 

Mr. BATEMAN. As a worker, we encounter a lot of people that are, 

for lack of a better term, poor. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That are? 

Mr. BATEMAN. That are poor, or they don’t have credit cards. So 

how do you accommodate them? 

I think Mr. Alves’ suggestion is very good as far as maybe having 

a machine somewhere in a station where you could deposit money 

and get a card you can use on the train. But saying that people 

can’t use cash on the train, I think we would lose money doing 

that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. Uh-huh. 

And I just have one more question. To Mr. Boardman, the 1981 

law that was enacted, section 24305(c)(4) of Title 49 of the United 

States Code that states that Amtrak can operate food and beverage 

services only if they bring as much revenue as it costs to provide 

the services; in your testimony, you stated you believe Amtrak is 

within those limits set by the statute. 

However, Amtrak has posted more than, as we have heard, $800 

million in direct losses and $84.5 million in 2011. So, to me—I 

guess you have a lawyer that says that you are within the scope 

of that law. Do you have a legal opinion? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, I think we are in compliance, personally. 

I mean, I won’t say this is a complete surprise that this comes up, 

but for 31 years or whatever it has been that it has been around 

at this point in time, Congress has discussed it. And there is other 

language that has been provided, and talked about, I think, by Ms. 

Brown this morning, about the fact that any business, the airline 

business and any business where you are not primarily in the food 

business, you really wind up with attracting customers by offering 

food at a cost that doesn’t make a profit and doesn’t necessarily 

break even. And part of the discussion that occurred in that whole 

process that you are talking about recognized that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. My time has expired. We are probably going to go 

around for a second round, but, with that, I will yield to Ms. Brown 

for questions. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

36 

Thank you, Mr. Boardman, and thank the entire panel. 

I want to start out by clearing something up. Yesterday I was 

on—well, Tuesday—on a flight. It was a US Air flight that, within 

minutes, could have been crashed. However, I want you to know 

that they only take cash only. They do not take credit cards. And, 

in fact, I bought some Pringles that was $3, and I bought some almonds which was $5. So, I mean, I want you to know that some 

of the airlines, US Air, which is my flight that I take all the time, 

only take cash, they do not take credit cards. And it is also confusing, because some of them only take credit cards, some of them 

only take cash. So it just depends. 

So the point is, I just want you to know that some of them—but 

I want you, Mr. Inspector General, to talk about the long-haul service, because that seems to be where the Republicans want to say 

that we are losing money. But, basically, that is not my position. 

Although their position is always to privatize. Well, what is that? 

What is privatize? It is minimum-wage jobs, Mr. Bateman. It is 

minimum-wage jobs. Although you are still doing the service, somebody is making the money. 

In their proposal, their proposal, their failed transportation bill 

that came to the House—well, it never did come to the House, but 

passed this committee, basically it was you would privatize it, you 

would bid it out; however, any subsidy that we give Amtrak, we 

would give it to this other group, although it would be no savings 

to the taxpayers. 

So can you talk about the long-distance service, sir? Because I 

personally think it is an advantage in providing, making sure that 

people can purchase with cash—some people, that is all they do, 

cash. And I have a note that I am going to submit in the record 

from one of the Members who was on Amtrak, that the tracks went 

out, and the fact is, they provided food and water and other refreshments while they waited 6 hours because it was an emergency 

on the tracks. 

[The information follows:] 

37 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75420.018

G. K. BUTIERFIELD ISTDlSTRIC'T, NORm CAROLINA 

www.house.goviblltterfield C!rongrt.llll of tqt InUtll ~tntts 

){OU.6£ of Itpr£.6£ntatiu£.6 

The Honorable Corrine Brown 

Member of Congress 

2336 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congresswoman Brown: 

August 2,2012 

COMMnTEEON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

ENV!RONMENT & THE ECONOMY 

cmEF DEPUTY wmp 

I write to inform you that Amtrak personnel went beyond the call of duty when my Newark to 

Washington train was delayed in Wilmington, Delaware due to a track emergency. The delay 

was prolonged, but Amtrak personnel kept passengers informed and provided free beverages. 

I am a strong supporter of Amtrak and pray that we will continue our strong support for the 

industry. 

Very truly yours, 

8: K. Butlo"lold 

Member of Congress 

---------------- DlSTRICTOFFlCES ---------------

216 N.E. NASH STREET, STE. B 

WILSON, NC 27893 

(252)237-9816 

(252) 291-0356 

309 WEST THIRD STREET 

WELDON, NC 27890 

TELEPHONE: (252) 538-4! 23 

FACSIMILE: (252) 538-6516 
38 

Ms. BROWN. So would you explain that to the Members? Because, 

basically, it is more than just when you leave and we are going to 

leave on time and we are going to arrive at a certain time. Sometimes things come up. Can you explain the long-distance service 

and why it costs more? 

Mr. ALVES. I will do my best. And long-distance service is very 

different from the Northeast Corridor or the short-distance services. 

Ms. BROWN. Or Ms. Quinn’s services, for that matter. 

Mr. ALVES. Yes, yes. 

Ms. BROWN. OK. Uh-huh. 

Mr. ALVES. And what Mr. Bateman was saying about being on 

the train for 3 or 4 days I think is significant, as well. Let’s start 

with the fact that long-distance service accounts for the bulk of the 

loss on food and beverage service, and labor costs are a large portion of that loss. But the idea that the lead service attendants, the 

onboard service personnel should be paid at a minimum wage at 

the level of a restaurant I believe is not entirely realistic when you 

are asking people to travel 4 or 5 days at a time away from their 

family, in addition to the training and safety that they get. So I 

think it is a different animal. It is not a good comparison. 

But, on the other hand, I think there are opportunities to look 

at different business models, which we plan to do over the next 

several months, and do an analysis. I think we have to be very sensitive to the customer and employees, but I think that there are alternative models that should be looked at and analyzed to see if we 

can reduce the amount of losses on long-distance routes. But we 

have to recognize that it is a very different animal. 

Ms. BROWN. Uh-huh. You know, recently I was at the baseball 

game between the Democrats and Republicans. I gave my staff $20, 

they came back with a little change, and I had a hotdog, fries, and 

a Coke right out here at the ballpark. So where you go at different 

times depends on the cost. 

I told you last night I was at a bar, and—well, it was a—yes, but 

I was at a bar. And I bought a Coke, or maybe it was a Pepsi, I 

don’t know. It was watered down. It was $5 for that drink. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That wasn’t water in that coke. 

Ms. BROWN. No, that is what it was. The actual drink cost $10 

if you were going to get a mixed drink. But a watered-down Coke 

cost $5. And it was in a glass, it was water and I guess some kind 

of syrup. It cost $5. 

So it just depends on where you are. When you go to the 7-Eleven, it costs one thing. When you go to the airport, it costs one 

thing. When you are on a flight, it costs one thing. And when you 

are on the train, it costs different things. But keep it in mind, overhead costs, various factors. When I go to the grocery store, I can 

get a six-pack, three or four, of Coke or Pepsi for $10. It just depends on where you are. 

But I know most of my colleagues don’t have this experience that 

I have. Whether I am in the dollar store or whether I am in WinnDixie, it just depends on where you are, the cost of that Coke. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, we are going to have another round. All right. 

39 

And, Mr. Boardman, I will get to you, because I do want to know 

about those tickets that I heard about 3 o’clock this morning and 

what you all are doing as far as modernizing the service. 

I yield back the balance of my time until my next round. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Schmidt. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. 

And, quite frankly, I continue to be confused by some of the responses to this committee. Mr. Boardman, you stated that you 

wouldn’t want a cashless society on your train, and yet, when Amtrak briefed the T&I Committee July 24th of this year, on page 29, 

they want to promote a cashless environment aboard trains. And 

just let me quote: ‘‘Cashless sales would increase revenue through 

higher average check amounts and improve customer throughput; 

reduces inventory in cash losses due to handling errors, theft, and 

fraud.’’ 

And it also—there is a picture of the amount of paperwork just 

two people have. This is your stuff, this isn’t mine. And that would 

all be eliminated. So you would know exactly what purchases were 

made and what purchases would be made in the future. 

The second part of your nervousness about the Amish and the 

Mennonites, I have both in my district. The Millers are Amish, the 

Klines are Mennonites. And they take credit cards at their facility, 

so it is not like they are adverse to credit cards. 

What we are really trying to do here is to get you to a profitable 

position. I am not against labor. I have taken every tough labor 

vote in this committee. But I want to make sure that Amtrak is 

profitable in the future so that when I want to use it, it is there 

for me to use. And right now we can’t continue to bail this system 

out. 

You know, you are proud in your testimony, sir, that you improved your financial losses from 49 percent in 2006 to 59 percent, 

a 20 percent improvement in 2011. And by 2015, your goal is to 

recover 70 percent of the food and beverage cost. It should be 100 

percent. This is inexcusable. We are here to help you make that 

happen. 

You know, you are allowed to use up to 10 percent of your ticket 

sales to cover your costs, so you get to use this little fuzzy math 

to get over the 30-year-old piece of legislation that says you have 

to be profitable. But, you know, allowing that ticket sale came from 

an appropriation bill 29 years ago in 1982 that I am not sure is 

legal today. 

Where do you get the authority for something that happened in 

1982 for today? That is my first question. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. So I would like to go back and say to you—I 

started out by saying my personal belief is that we need to be allowed to use cash in this country to pay for debts. I did not say 

it was the company belief. So there is no inconsistency and 

shouldn’t be any confusion. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. You said you weren’t sure what the company belief was. I didn’t type this. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. What I said was I don’t know, in the end, what 

the decision will be. And I still don’t. But I don’t believe it works 

everywhere in our system. I just don’t want you confused about 

that. 

40 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Well, the second thing is, I know that you are adverse to using vending machines, and you cite two studies where 

on a short-term ridership you would lose, according to your study, 

$91 million and on a long-term another $93 million. And yet, when 

I look at North Carolina, the Piedmont line, on their short trip, 

they use vending machines. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. It may work on—— 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. And, you know, they are actually making—I 

mean, they are not making grand-scheme-of-things money, but I 

think last year they made just about $1,000 on it, which at least 

keeps them in the black. 

So where does your study support this, when we know in actuality it is working in North Carolina? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, I think it can probably work in some areas. 

I think there is a possibility. We are looking at it on some of the 

shorter distance routes that it could be used on. But it is not going 

to work on that long-distance trip. And I think a large part of what 

we get talking about is the differences between the long distance 

and the short distance. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Well, sir, let me go back to—you point that on a 

short-distance trip you would lose $91 million, and yet in North 

Carolina they are not losing a dime on it. Would you be willing, 

then, on short-term trips—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I think you are going to—I am sorry, I will let 

you finish. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. You know the train is either going to go short- or 

long-term, correct? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Pardon me? 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. You know the route your train is going to take, 

correct? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. We have 21 routes that are short-distance that 

are owned by the States, and the States can decide how they want 

to do that. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. OK. So you know on the short trips you can have 

vending machines, and they work, correct? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I don’t know that. We haven’t done that. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Apparently it is working in North Carolina. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, it works in North Carolina. And I am not 

trying to argue with you, but I don’t know that because we haven’t 

done that. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. What makes you think it can’t work on a longterm trip? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I think it has just been the past experience, but 

it is something we are checking into at this point in time and looking at to see whether it will work somewhere else. North Carolina 

doesn’t have the number of trips that we actually have even on our 

short-distance routes. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I think that my time has expired, and I will come 

back. 

Mr. SHUSTER. With that, Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to yield my time to Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

41 

Would you please clear up the short-distance? Because, first of 

all, States have the option to opt out if they want to and provide 

the services they want. First of all, explain that. And I don’t know where the gentlelady gets the $98 million or $98,000 or whatever she is saying, because the short distance that 

I see that the States supported is $31,000, rounding it off. So would 

you clear that up for us? 

But the first thing, clear up the fact that States have the option 

if they want to. And there are two States that take advantage of 

it. That is the first thing. 

And then the fact is, on the short line—and I don’t even like the 

way we are defining this as losing. Because people, when they go 

on the train, I do not want no vending machine on no train. So it 

is the difference in what is it that you want. I want a hot cup of 

coffee, yes. And I want a hotdog, and I don’t want to spend $20 for 

it, but I spend it in the park. Or $5 for a Coke that I spend it in 

a bar. 

So would you explain to the committee since we are in the weeds 

and I have to discuss in this full committee, when we should be 

talking about needles or other things in sandwiches, would you explain to us the short and the option that the States have if they 

want to? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Certainly. 

One of the things that has happened, under the section 209 provision under PRIIA, is that States need to pay all the costs of the 

services that they provide. And Patricia Quinn was one of the folks 

that worked with us to come up with how that should happen in 

each one of the States. 

Right now, the States, other than North Carolina and Maine, 

have not opted to actually begin to implement something like that, 

but they have that opportunity to do in the future. There are some 

States—one of the States of the 21 is Pennsylvania, with the Keystone service, they don’t have any food service at all. They made 

a decision not to do that. Along with that is the service between 

Albany, New York, and New York City, which doesn’t have any 

food service or coffee or anything else. 

That was where Amtrak actually tried to privatize food service, 

and Subway came on board and lasted a very short period of time 

because there weren’t enough customers from what they expected 

might actually buy Subway sandwiches to actually get a profit for 

them on the train. And that is part of the difficulty. Even on the 

smaller and the shorter routes today, there has to be a really pretty good marketing job going on to make that happen. 

And we are targeting, as much as we can, the right kind of segments of the market. I think Patricia could probably talk about it 

better in terms of what she targets, since she has, I think, a hotel 

food service background, and really has looked at this in a hard 

fashion. And we are trying to learn some lessons from her on those 

shorter distance trains. 

Ms. BROWN. Ms. Quinn, would you like to discuss? I understand that you all pay $10 an hour, and talk about the benefits. But also 

that you have a unique—I guess Maine has some unique foods and 

stuff like that. I would love to go up and check it out. 

Ms. QUINN. I think that you should. We would love to have you. 

42 

I think you have to look at it as a balance. I mean, there are two 

ways to achieve a net cost. One is by controlling your expenses, and 

the other is by increasing revenues. And so we look at both of those 

things. And, again, our route is relatively short, it is isolated, and 

so it is easier to kind of manage those things. 

You know, our operation is pretty barebones. There are about 15 

or 18 employees, food service employees, that are there. The supervisor shares an office in our office. We actually house a commissary, so we don’t have to pay extra rent to other places to keep 

the food. 

But we also work very hard on the sales side. We have one attendant onboard, and the attendant is a fixed cost, and the train 

trip lasts a certain amount of time. So if you can’t reduce expenses 

sometimes, the opportunity is there to increase revenues. This is 

why we introduced those different products and try to sell lobster 

rolls in the summertime and work with employees to do upselling. 

You know, training in terms of if somebody goes up and orders a 

hotdog, then the next thing that would come out of the attendant’s 

mouth would be, ‘‘And would you like some chips with that?’’ Every 

few cents that you bring in at that point in time matters, once you 

are selling food. The margin—somebody mentioned earlier this is 

a business of margins. 

So it really is a matter of not always cut, cut, cut, but how to 

increase the other side. We have been able to experiment with 

some different things. For instance, we experimented with cart 

service on some of our trains. It really wasn’t successful for us, so 

we stopped and said, well, that didn’t work. 

But routes all have their different personality, they have their 

different clientele. And I think maybe a one-size-fits-all solution is 

not something that is achievable. But working in partnership with 

Amtrak and the States, hopefully there will be more creative ideas 

from different regions that can help reduce that net cost, because 

I think all of us are interested in reducing that. 

Ms. BROWN. I guess my—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Last question is, do you—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Use cash? 

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Let me move on 

here. You are going to get a second round. I am going to keep 

things moving here. 

Mr. Boardman, back to you, on the question about whether you 

are in compliance with the law or not. It is in that 1982 bill, the 

appropriations bill. And in discussions with the Appropriations 

Committee, they don’t believe that that language is persuasive 

enough to have a legal ruling. 

So, again, the question I asked you before, do you have a legal 

ruling by your attorneys, your legal department, that says—and 

can you share that with the committee—that this is based on their 

legal opinion? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I am sorry, Congressman. I think I already answered that. I don’t. I didn’t, I don’t. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Microphone. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Thanks. I don’t. 

43 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Again, so you are saying that you are in compliance with the law and there is no legal background? Again, I 

think—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I am not saying anything. I just don’t have it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Well, that is, I guess, one of the main reasons 

we are here, is because we believe that Amtrak is violating the law 

by not breaking even on that. So, again, that clears up that you 

don’t have a legal opinion on that. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. No. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Also, I know in 2006 there was an initiative to reduce the number of onboard food and passenger personnel from five 

to three per dining car, known as the ‘‘simplified dining plan.’’ How 

has that worked? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Some of it has worked, but some has not. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Let me ask one more question. The three to five— 

I have been on a number of Amtrak trains, and I don’t think— 

there are three people in a dining car? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Well, you have to—have you been on the longdistance trains? 

Mr. SHUSTER. No. That is what we are talking about. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. That is why. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Can you talk about whether the simplified 

dining initiative—how is that—— 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Some of it works when we are in a lower part 

of the season, but when ridership really gets heavy, it gets very difficult to do that with three people. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. And I was told that there were 237 employees furloughed as a result of that. Are those people, are they 

back working, are they furloughed, are they gone, or what has happened with that? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I don’t know. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Is that something we can get, find out on 

that? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Sure. 

[The information follows:] 

This information is provided in response to question number 3 on page 67. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And, Mr. Alves, you mentioned, I think, in your 

testimony about the disjointed management of the food service and 

the operations. And can you talk a little bit more about that? Did 

you say Amtrak is in the process of switching or joining this to, I 

guess it would be take it out of the marketing department and put 

it in operations. Can you talk a little bit about that and what problems it has created? 

Mr. ALVES. Yes. Both departments share responsibility for different aspects of food and beverage. So, marketing runs the commissaries, establishes the menus, and delivers the food to the 

trains; and transportation provides the food to the customers. 

This creates, in our view, a couple of issues. One is that nobody 

is—no single person below Mr. Boardman is responsible and accountable for profit and loss. And the second is that it has led to 

a lack of consolidated long-term planning. 

44 

I think that the actions that Amtrak is taking are going to address that problem, but I would like—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. They are going to shift it from marketing into operations? 

Mr. ALVES. Yes. I think that will go a long way to fix the accountability—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Do you think that is the way to go, not the other 

way, take it all and put it into marketing? 

Mr. ALVES. No, I think that Amtrak has made the right decision. 

It should be part of operations. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. 

Mr. ALVES. But I would like to comment more broadly. I think 

it is important to note that these actions link directly to the initiatives that Mr. Boardman was talking about in his testimony, and 

that these—that the direction that the board of directors and Mr. 

Boardman are taking to make Amtrak operate as a profitable business, or as a for-profit business—the company may never actually 

make a profit, but it has the opportunity to operate much more efficiently and effectively than it has in the past. 

And I think that these actions are completely consistent with the 

direction that the board and Mr. Boardman are taking. And I 

would cite the existence of a strategic plan, the reorganization 

along business lines to improve accountability, and efforts to implement Lean Six Sigma to improve processes, make things more efficient and effective. 

And I would like to comment that if that effort is sustained and 

implemented effectively, that it has the potential over a couple of 

years to really make a difference in Amtrak’s operations. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Thank you. 

And, with that, I yield to Ms. Brown for a second round of questions. 

Ms. BROWN. You know, for me, it is just very clear that the Republicans have one agenda, and that is to privatize Amtrak, whether it is Amtrak or the food—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Amtrak is a private company. It is supposed to be. 

Ms. BROWN. ‘‘Privatize’’ meaning take Amtrak and give it to, I 

guess, somebody’s friend and you work at a minimum wage job and 

you don’t have any benefits. That is what it seems to me. 

You know, particularly these jobs, 1,200, they want to take them 

and cut it in half, Mr. Bateman, and I guess privatize them out. 

But, you know, it is just amazing—in their bill that they brought 

before the committee, what they suggested was that we are going 

to privatize it out, but yet any subsidies that we are given now, 

that we are going to give it to the company that get it, even though 

the employees will get low wage, minimum wage. I don’t quite understand that rationale, but it is the rationale that the Republicans 

have. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you 

can’t fool all of the people all of the time. 

Mr. Bateman, if I cut your salary in half, how would you manage. 

Mr. BATEMAN. Well, actually, it would be very difficult to take 

care of all I have to take care of with my salary cut in half. 

I think one point we keep forgetting is that, you know, historically, it has been very difficult for rail service, you know, to operate 

45 

a profit overall, including the food service part of it. And the expectation, to me, is just totally unreasonable. The goal is always to improve and do better. But if rail service was lucrative and was not 

a logistical nightmare, we wouldn’t be here. We can call Chessie or 

whoever, some freight company, and say, ‘‘Well, come on, take it 

back, guys.’’ And that is not going to happen. I mean, can we do 

better? Yes. Are we doing better? Yes. Are we going to continue to 

do better? Yes. But for Amtrak or any other food service on the 

train to ever be at 100 percent, it is impossible. 

One issue they don’t mention is that, every time the train breaks 

down en route or there is a service delay, we have to give away 

food. Restaurants don’t give away food like that. Like, when was 

it, January—excuse me, June 29th, during the storm, the hurricane 

that came through the east coast, we had several trains broken 

down all over the system, and we gave complimentary food service 

to everybody on the train. So this whole expectation that we should 

operate as a restaurant or that we are a restaurant is absurd to 

me. We are not a restaurant. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Ms. Quinn, you were rudely interrupted and were not able to tell 

me about how you operate as far as cash is concerned. You know, 

this is America, and we do use cash. I know all of my Republican 

colleagues have credit cards or some kind of gift cards or something. Would you tell me about cash? Do you all use good old-fashioned money? 

Ms. QUINN. We accept both kinds of payment. We accept cash, 

and we accept credit cards. Obviously, there is a lot more control 

associated with a cashless system, but that doesn’t mean we exclude cash. 

And, also, going forward, with the point-of-sale system, there is 

new technology where people can just kind of wave their card and 

it just kind of goes right into the system. So as technology improves 

and it can be adapted, I think that is something that we all look 

at, because it makes it a lot easier for all of us. 

Ms. BROWN. If you have those technology systems, I just started 

using the ATM card, you know, because I didn’t trust it, but now 

I am more inclined to do it, but I still like cash better. 

Mr. Boardman, would you please expound upon cash? Seems like 

Republicans, I know they like it but they have credit cards and 

they have different means of operations that the average person 

may not have. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Now, Ms. Brown, Democrats have credit cards, 

too. 

Ms. BROWN. Democrats have credit cards too? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, some of them do. Some of them don’t. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. Yes. One of the things from my perspective is 

that it is going to be very difficult, and I think everybody knows 

that, I think Ted knows that as well, when there are a whole lot 

of people on our trains that aren’t necessarily going to have a credit card. They may be young, they may be poor, as Mr. Bateman 

says. They may not want to use credit cards, such as myself and 

maybe a few other folks. 

Ms. BROWN. Me. 

46 

Mr. BOARDMAN. And so the reality of denying somebody the use 

of cash to make a purchase is a problem. And technology surprisingly fails once in a while. And the ability for our lead service 

agents and others to actually continue to do business ends when 

that technology fails, in terms of payment, unless you do have cash. 

So I think in the end there probably will be a need for cash in our 

operation because of the way it operates. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. [presiding.] The gentlelady’s time has expired. I 

recognize Mrs. Schmidt. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. First off, I want to correct a few 

things. Number one, it was in Amtrak’s briefing that they wanted 

to go to a cashless program. So it is not a Republican position, it 

is an Amtrak position. Secondly, in what the average cost is for 

your employee, by your own records, sir, the average fully loaded 

compensation for food and beverage employees, including all of the 

benefits, is $94,000 a year, which I think is a decent amount of 

money to make. Mr. Boardman, in addition to losing $85 million in 2011, Amtrak 

riders would have to pay a lot more for—they had to pay a lot for 

the food. I mean $9.50 for this hamburger I think is too much. 

I would argue that the riders do pay too much for the quality 

that they are getting, but I am curious if you looked at charging 

more to at least cover your costs, and let us say and get rid of the 

$94,000 a year, but you have got to cover your costs. So if it costs 

$16 for the hamburger to break even, are you willing to charge $16 

for the hamburger to break even? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. It would have to be a hell of a hamburger. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Well, you know, I think it is a heck of a ham- burger at $9.50. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t think that is realistic. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Well, sir, I am trying to get you to be profitable 

and there are business models out there that I believe can get you 

to that, and yet I am feeling a resistance here from you to even 

look at such business models such as a cashless program, which 

your briefing book suggests that would take away the waste, fraud, 

and abuse, would take away the accounting, manual accounting, 

would allow you to inventory in a much better mode so that you 

know how many hamburgers you have to produce because the 

razor thin cost of profit in food service is a very delicate matter. 

Again, I said a couple of hours ago my daughter married into a 

family that has a lot of restaurants, and my son-in-law’s job is to 

make sure that they make money. So I get the profitability, and 

it seems exclusive of what they pay for their servers, this is what 

it costs for the food. 

And so there are ways to make you profitable, but you have to 

continue to look at those razor thin margins and make sure that 

you are profitable. But I am not seeing that. 

I think on short trips vending machines may be an opportunity 

for you. To lose, to cost $3.40 to serve this Coke, I think is appalling when, you know, I just spent 85 cents for this Coke in a vending machine downstairs. When I go to the gas station in Cincinnati, 

the BP on Fipe Road, it is 85 cents. If I go to the one out in 

47 

Peebles, it is 55 cents for the same one because they have different 

costs and different profits associated with it. It costs you $3.40 for 

that Coke. That is inexcusable. I am just trying to help you here. 

So my question to you is would you be willing to charge what it 

costs for the delivery of the service. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. No. I didn’t think that you were being serious with charging $16.50 for a hamburger. And so I probably should 

have treated it differently. I didn’t realize you were serious. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I am trying to get you to be profitable, sir. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I understand. So what I would say to you is 

businesswise, the elasticity of the demand for that kind of a product would drop our sales so significantly that we would lose a lot 

more money to charge that kind of money for a hamburger on the 

train. It would only become inelastic if people were actually starving and they couldn’t actually do anything other than be robbed at 

$16.50. So using that example, I guess I didn’t treat it seriously, 

and I apologize for that. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I am trying to figure out a way for you to pay 

your employees and be profitable. What suggestions can you help 

me deliver that? Because in 2015 to only be at 70 percent is not 

enough. Our Nation is in a serious financial crisis. We have to pick 

up the pennies off the floor. We can’t overlook them anymore. And 

losing $85 million in 2011 is inexcusable. How are we going to stop 

the bleed, I ask you? 

Mr. BOARDMAN. So I know that you are looking for details, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I am looking for details, yes. 

Mr. BOARDMAN. I will respond in writing for that question. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, thank you all for being here today. I appreciate it greatly. 

Again, I just want to point out again it is not my intent to eliminate jobs. And in fact, the last 20 years, Amtrak has gone from 

29,000 employees to 19,000 or thereabouts. It is 10,000 people that 

aren’t there. If we don’t continue to make significant improvements 

on Amtrak, that is going to continue to happen. And that is not 

going to be because I am up here trying to figure out ways to reform the system, to reform a company that is private already. 

Again, my colleague keeps saying that it was chartered as a private 

company. It is supposed to be, and it hasn’t been able to do that. 

And I notice some of our friends from labor from the freight rails 

in the room today. We saw what we did when we took that freight 

rail system, which was failing, it was in disrepair, there were railroad companies had gone bankrupt. And now after 30 years of significant reforms to the system, now they have a very profitable, 

self-sustaining, doesn’t require Government subsidies to operate 

the freight rails in this company. Now, it is the envy of the world. 

Now, I am not trying to say, and I have said this in the beginning 

and I think I have been pretty consistent in my 10, 11 years here 

in Congress, I don’t know that the passenger rail can ever make 

a profit. But I think we have got to be moving closer to that break 

even. And then we will talk about above the rail, I think they can 

make a profit. But when you take the whole system in, it is going 

to take the Government having some involvement in it. 

48 

But we can’t continue to sit here and look at the system we have 

in place and not see that there needs to be significant reforms. And 

I know my colleagues here, they for years have tried to move us 

towards the system that they have in Europe which is democratic 

socialism, and now the Europeans are trying to back away from 

that system. And in fact, I believe it is in 2014 all European passenger rail systems have to have competition on the lines. 

Now, I am not an expert. I think we are going to be holding a 

hearing about it, bringing our European friends over to ask them 

how does that work, how is that going to be effective. And, again, 

they have a different system than we do. But, you know, we can 

listen and learn from them. 

But, again, to just sit here and to continue to say we are going 

to just keep on going the way we are, that everybody needs to be 

at the table, management is here today, labor is here today, Congress is here. We have got to sit down and say how are we going 

to do this. And is it going to cause some pain? Sure, it is. Sure, 

it is going to cause some pain. But if we continue to go this way, 

the pain has already been there, 10,000 jobs, 10,000 jobs gone. 

You can sit here and my colleague can accuse me of wanting to 

get rid of all of these jobs, but 10,000 are already gone, and I believe it is going to continue to go down unless we do something to 

seriously reform the system, to take the shackles off of management to be able to do the things they need to do, labor to do the 

things they need to do. And this debate is going to continue to go 

on until we really reform it. 

I believe we need passenger rail in this country. I think one of 

the big reasons for passenger rail’s the increase over the last 10 

years is because of 9/11 because look at what we do to people in 

the airports now. I don’t fly in an airport or a plane to New York 

City. I get on a train. I don’t even drive to Philadelphia when I go 

to Philadelphia. I go to Harrisburg. They have upgraded the system, the Keystone system, the Keystone line, and that is the way 

I go to Philadelphia so I don’t have to deal with the headaches of 

traffic. 

Passenger rail is something that we need in this country. We can 

sit here and we can continue to debate why there is a decline in 

the passenger rail in this country. It was because of the interstate 

highway system, it was because of the aviations, when the aviation 

came about. That is why people got off the trains. They got into 

their cars and they got into airplanes. But now we look at the congestion that is going to occur, it is occurring in this country, especially in the Northeast Corridor but even around the country. We 

are in about 25 or 26 years go from 300 million people, 310 or 

something like that now, to 400 million people, and we need to address the situation, especially in our most congested corridors to 

make sure there is passenger rail to get people, and we are not 

going to be able to add another lane to 95 going up the Northeast 

Corridor. It is impossible to do, I think. 

So I am committed to working with labor, with management, 

with my colleagues across the aisle, but I am not willing to work 

in the same old model. We have got to sit down. We have got to 

figure out what we need to do to make sure we have a vibrant, 

49 

break-even passenger, or close to break-even passenger rail system 

in this country. 

I appreciate everybody coming here today. 

Ms. BROWN. Excuse me. Do I get a closing? 

Mr. SHUSTER. No, you don’t. I close because I am the chairman. 

That is the way it works. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. We need 218 to change it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That is exactly right. 

But I appreciate, Mr. Boardman, you are going to get an answer 

in writing for Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. Alves, Ms. Quinn, and Mr. Bateman, thank you all for being here today. I appreciate it. 

And the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

50 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75420.019

ssman Elijah E. Cummings 

iew of Amtrak Operations, Part I: 

mafi;r2:el)l'ent of Food and Beverage Services" 

August 2, 2012 

I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for 

calling today's hearing to examine food and 

beverage service on Amtrak. 

I am heartened by President Boardman's testimony 

that "Since 1981, Congress has required us to ensure 

that the revenues attributable to food and beverage 

services exceed the costs of providing it, and today 

we are within the limits set by that statute." 
51 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75420.020

Amtrak has taken meaningful steps to increase cost 

recovery - and I hope that Amtrak will aggressively 

pursue its goal of recovering 700/0 of food and 

beverage costs by 2015. 

That said, I am deeply troubled by the Inspector 

General's findings that weak internal controls have 

allowed extensive losses due to waste, fraud and 

abuse. I believe that those who have engaged in 

waste or fraud should be held fully accountable. 

2 
52 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75420.021

That said, as someone who enjoys riding Amtrak, I 

agree that the provision of food and beverage 

services on Amtrak is critical to creating the 

passenger experience that attracts riders to Amtrak. 

I believe that rather than seeking to privatize food 

and beverage service or to reduce it to a very limited 

selection of items, we should support Amtrak's 

efforts to improve the service, to strengthen internal 

controls to prevent waste and abuse, and to improve 

cost recovery. 

3 
53 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75420.022

Opportunities exist to accomplish all of these 

objectives, and I hope that today's hearing will 

enable us to identifY the steps we can take to help 

Amtrak maximize these opportunities. 

Thank you and I yield back.#### 

4 
54 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75420.023

THE HONORABLE 

STATEMENT 

NICK 

OF 

J. RAHALL, 

~ II 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

HEARING ON 

"A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART I: 

MISMANAGEMENT OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES" 

AUGUST 2, 2012 

As those fortunate enough to have ridden the great passenger 

trains of America at their peayrecan, no part of the rail experience 

survives so vividly in the memory of rail passengers as that of a 

luxurious meal in the dining car: crisp linen, polished silver, attentive 

service, the passing panorama of American life - all accompanied by 

great food. 

Unfortunately, over the years, award-winning Fillet of Sole was 

replaced with microwave-able che~seburgers, leading a former 

Amtrak CEO to lament to Congress in 1991: "In trying to make food 

service cheap, we made some of it inedible." 

To some extent, these changes were a business response to 

changing transportation economics and public preferences. 

Railroads, like airlines, must consider the effect of food and beverage 

costs on the bottom line. 

They must decide the effects of particular levels of food service 

on passenger revenue. High quality service may attract additional 

passengers while a decline in quality may cause a loss of passenger 

revenue. Striking the proper balance is a difficult business decision. 
55 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75420.024

Unfortunately, Congress has made it more difficult at times for 

Amtrak to make the best possible decisions. 

One minute we tell Amtrak to provide food and beverage service 

on a break-even basis; the next we let it use up to 10 percent of its 

revenue to cover food and beverage losses; then we pressure it to 

contract-out its catering service, which Amtrak did. 

But the loss of those jobs wasn't enough; we ended up dragging 

Amtrak back before this Committee in 2005 to complain that the 

contract didn't realize enough savings. 

Now the Chairman wants to highlight the flawed provision in 

H.R. 7 that would require the Federal Railroad Administration to 

contract-out ALL Amtrak food and beverage service to the lowest 

bidder. The term "lowest bidder," by the way, is code for "lowest 

wage, lowest benefits". 

As if that was not bad enough, the Republicans then propose 

giving that bidder the Federal funds that would have gone to Amtrak 

for food and beverage losses, saving zero taxpayer dollars but 

resulting in the immediate elimination of 1 ,200 Amtrak jobs, not to 

mention the jobs of thousands of workers that Amtrak relies upon for 

obtaining their food supplies. 

2 
56 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75420.025

Mr. Chairman, I have had some good tasting Whoppers in my 

time, but this is a whopper of a bad idea if I have ever heard one: 

trading good-paying jobs with benefits for cheaper cheeseburgers. 

The fact is Amtrak's food and beverage expenses are not a 

major cause of Amtrak's financial difficulties. They represent about 5 

percent of the railroad's total expenditures. I do believe there are 

some reasonable things Amtrak can and should do to cut costs, but 

cutting jobs in this economy should not even be under consideration. 

That is exactly what your proposal would do. 

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

3 
57 


Insert offset folio 26 here 75420.026

TESTIMONY 

OF 

JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

AMTRAK 

60 MASSACHUSETTS A VENUE, NE 

WASHINGTON, DC 20002 

(202) 906-3960 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE 

COMMITTEE 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON 

"A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART I: 

MISMANAGEMENT OF FOOD & BEVERAGE SERVICES" 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2012 

10:00 A.M. 

2167 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 
58 


Insert offset folio 27 here 75420.027

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahal!, and members of the Committee, good 

morning. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you this morning to discuss our company's 

perfonnance. Amtrak has been working hard to improve service, to realize our inherent 

opportunities for growth, and to manage our company like a business. Our Key Perfonnance 

Indicators show improvement. Amtrak's ridership has grown by 44% since 2000, reaching an 

all-time record of30.2million in FY201l. We've set ridership records in 8 of the last 9 years. 

We arc also 011 track to complete the year with one of the lowest levels of operating subsidy 

Amtrak has ever required, including food and beverage service, in our forty-one years of service. 

Why have these changes occurred? In large part, the management of Amtrak has made it 

our mission to change the way we think and the way wc act, and to begin the process of changing 

Amtrak to run tbe company as a business. Healthy companies look continuously for 

opportunities to improve the service they deliver. At Amtrak, our strategic plan sets out a 

roadmap for improvement. Our focus is not just on cutting costs, but on improving overall 

financial perfol1nance and focusing on the bottom line. Our goal has been to Irans[om1 Amtrak 

so that we catTY out our Federal mandate to operate an efficient business as well as deliver an 

exceptional customer service. The men and women of Amtrak take our responsibilities as 

stewards o[publie funds seriously, and their efforts are directed to deliver the best possible value 

for each dollar of public investment. 

While today's discussion is about food and beverage service, we are focused on 

continuous improvement for all aspects of our business. Food service for passengers is an 

essential component of any transportation service that operates scheduled trips tbat extend for 

more than a very few hours. Since 1981, Congress has required us to ell sure that the revenues 

attJibutable to food and beverage services exceed the costs of providing it, and today we are 
59 


Insert offset folio 28 here 75420.028

within the limits set by that statute. Congressional hearings and studies by the Govcmmcnt 

Accountability Office and the Inspector Generals of US DOT and Amtrak have detailed the 

complexity of our food and beverage service, and eight presidents of Amtrak have devoted 

considerable effort to the challenge of providing these services at the lowest possible cost to the 

public on a system spread across 46 states, and great progress has resulted. 

Our ongoing programs have cCliainly delivered measllreable financial efficiencies. In 

2006, our food and beverage services recovered 49% of their costs. In 2011, these services 

recovered 59% of their costs a 20% improvement. Part of what attracts people to Amtrak 

services is the availability of food, and the manner in which it is offered. I[we were to eliminate 

food and beverage services, we would actually lose more money, because of the loss in 

associated ticket revenue l

. In spite of this fact, we are still looking for ways to improve our cost 

recovery. It took a lot of work to get to where we are today, and we're planning on making more 

improvements in the coming years. Our goal is to recover 70% of food and beverage costs by 

2015. 

These are some of the specific actions we have taken: 

• One, that we out sourced commissary operations, and used a competitive 

procurement process to get better services at a lo\ver cost. 

• Two, we introduced onhoard credit card processing, simplified dining car services 

to reduce costs and introduced an at-seat cart service on several of our trains 

• Three, automation technology has been a big help. We arc in the process of 

introducing an onboard "point of sale" system to manage food and beverage sales 

I See House Report No. 97-783 (August 19,1982), pp. 58-59, whieh stated that, for purposes of satisfying 

the food service cost recovery requirement now codified at 49 USC 24305(c), up to 10% of ticket 

revenues could be attributed to food and beverage service because "substantial revenues would be lost if 

this service were eliminated." Food and beverage costs not covered by food sales are equivalent to 

about 5% of Amtrak's current ticket revenues. 

2 
60 


Insert offset folio 29 here 75420.029

and track inventories. The automated management systems such as "Point of 

Sale" (POS) and Warehouse Inventory Management Systems (WIMS) that we are 

implementing for our food and beverage service willlitcrally transfol1n the way 

we do business. They will automate inventory management both at the 

commissary and aboard the train, and will eliminate timc-consuming paperintcnsive accountability processes. 

When fully implemented, our new management systems will allow us to further optimize 

food sales and maximize revenue, in much the same way modern revenue managemcnt allowed 

us to improve our ticket yields. This is the kind of improvemcnt we need carcful investment 

that leverages thc skills of our on-board service cmployees so they can focus on selling, rather 

than filling out fOl111s. These employees also have an important safety role to play, and are 

trained in basic first aid, emcrgency response and evacuation procedures. Our Food and 

Beverage employees are part of a tcam of transportation pro fessionals. 

While these are examples of things we're doing today to improve our efficiency and cost 

recovery, we are also realigning our company to better respond to our customers' needs. We 

established a set of metrics and perfornlance goals, and we will establish clear lines of 

responsibility for financial performance at every level of the organization and empower 

managers to envision and implement the next round of improvements. A principal goal is to 

develop a stmcture and a culture that continually generate process improvements that will build 

on each other. 

We have a plan to do this - and it is closely integrated with ongoing efforts to improve 

our company's financial perfoDnance. The strategic plan that the company published late last 

year will provide the foundation to realign business processes and build a corporate stmcture 

3 
61 


Insert offset folio 30 here 75420.030

focused on financial efficiency, accountability and improved customer service delivery, To 

ensure the proper focus, we are now creating business lines that will be clearly accountable for 

financial performance and service delivery, but J want to stress that today's food and beverage 

programs are already closely integrated with our financial and service improvement goals, For 

example, in late 2010, we introduced a program of freshly prepared foods on Ace!a Ex:press, 

Based on that success, we expanded that program to all trains in the Northeast Corridor in 20 J I. 

By 2012, we changed our inventory offering to bcttcr reflect consumer tastes, and revenues from 

onboard sales ofthese items doubled. This improvement was a product of our highly effective 

customer experience research program, newly developed business intelligence tools, and our 

contract with Aramark, which provides our commissary service. Future efforts will be carefully 

coordinated with existing and ongoing programs to ensure that we get the full benefit - which in 

this case exceeded a million dollars, 

Let me close where I began, In FY 2011, food and beverage services accounted 

for less than eight percent of our total expenses for the year, and covered most of those costs 

with revenues from sales. In an organization that generated more than $2,7 billion in annual 

revenue, and recovered more than 85% of its costs, this is a very small portion of a very large 

business - and one that has grown more efficient in recent years as demand for our services 

continues to grow. We have made significant improvements (hat have allowed us (0 continue 

operations while reducing our operating subsidy need by 17% over the previous fiscal year. But 

we are not satisfied, We will continue to refine our operation, and I am confident thc company 

and the organization we're building will deliver more improvements in the years to come, 

4 
62 


Insert offset folio 31 here 75420.031

Mr. Joseph Boardman, President and CEO, National Passenger Railroad Corporation 

(Amtrak) 

I. In his testimony, the Inspector General indicated he is looking into (I) alternative means 

of service for Food and Beverage and (2) options to contract out the service. What 

concerns does Amtrak have with having vending machines and food carts or contracting 

out this service'? Are there any particular concerns that you would have with respect to 

the long distance trains with these sorts of approaches'} 

RESPONSE: Vending machines could he a solution tt)[ low volume routes or It)r 

sen ices during non-peak meal periods. The menu profile of a vending program 

\Hluld he limited to snacks. cold hcwragcs and possibly hot bc\'eragcs. Our 

concerns would be the ability to retro-tit space on a train till" a wnding bank. as 

well as sen'icing and security. A lypical vending bank with three standard 

machines would require an 8' x 15' block of space. All of the equipment would 

need rear access for sen'ice and require electrical power and \vater hook-up f(ll" 

hot bcycrages. The wnding machines would need to be installed and secured in 

such a manner to comply Ilith all FRA regulations. Typically vending machines 

are restocked or repaired during non-peak periods. If there I\as not dedicat.:d train 

equipment. it would be difficult to schedule sen icing. The servicing of equipment 

\Iould need tn he performed \,bik the train equipment lias not 111lwing or \\~hile it 

\\'as in the yard o\unigl1l. This would be difticult to coordinate with the managed 

sen'ice provider. If the train equipment \Ias held ov'ernight in the yard. we would 

be concerned \1 ith security and the possibility of lending equipment being 

vandalized, 

Food carts would not he a ,"iable option. Food carts \Iould only pro\'ide a limited 

menu (no hot beverages) and I\oulll need to be resupplied at some point. The 

logistics of managing and supporting this service deli\ery would be problematic. 

In addition. food Calis are not able to operate safely on older style Amt1eet 

equipment due to the un-even \"(;stibules between rail cars. 

Contracting and/or outsourcing these services would be an option. This \Yould 

require a defined scope of work with service guarantees and complex contract 

administration and compliance. Again. the problems would be schedule changes 

and not haling dedicated train equipment. Vlanaging these realities \I~ould make it 

ditlicult tor the managed service provider. 

2. Chairman Mica stated: "It costs passengers $9.50 to buy a cheeseburger on Amtrak, but 

the cost to taxpayers is $16.15. Riders pay $2.00 lor a Pepsi, but each of these sodas costs 

the U.S. Treasury $3.40:' In addition, he said that "[tJhe rail servicc's tood and beverage 

operation has 1,234 employees, and taking into account Amtrak's $84.5 million loss last 

year, that's $68.476 per cmployce ... " Are thesc costs and figures accurate? If not, 

please explain why. 
63 


Insert offset folio 32 here 75420.032

RESPONSE: These numbers \\en: obtained by taking the operating ratio for Food 

and Beverage service and multiplying it by the adwrtised price of the menu item: 

i.e .. the hamburger (",hich sells fix $9.50). The problem with this method is that 

the operating ratio is a system wide average. while the hamburger in question is 

available only on dining cars, which operate on fewer than 10% of our daily trains 

(the basic hamburger. which is available on most Amtrak trains with food service, 

sells for $6.00). This is a very rough mcthod to use when making such a specific 

claim about the costs associated \vith a particular product. As far as the sales 

price goes, the $9.50 burger is a premium Angus beef product that includes 

garnish, chips and a soft drink: it is also sened at yOllr table. This menu item is 

comparably priced to a sit-down casual restaurant. The actual rm\' product cost for 

the hamburger with a soft drink sold on our dining cars is $2.63. 

As of the date of the hearing Amtrak employed 1,234 on-board service employees 

that are directly involved in providing food senicc on-board trains. The loss 

incurred during FYI I was $84.5M. 

3. In your testimony you refCrenced the strategie plan as the "roadmap for improvement". 

For the record can you provide a copy of the "plan" and summarize the goals of it? 

RESPONSE: Allached is a copy of Amtrak's strategic plan. It can also be f(llll1d 

on Amtrak's website. Our strategy <:slablishcs live goals designed to build upon 

our recent corporate improvements to make the bottom line the focus of Amtral(s 

allention by ensuring that we providc the highest value to our customers, be they 

trawlers that buy tickets. commercial partners or the Federal and State 

Governments that provide financial SUPP()1110 our services. 

These goals are: 

• Safety and Security: Become North America's safCs!. most secure 

railroad by creating a collaborative team-oriented workplace culture that 

minimizes risks and maximizes passenger and employee safety. 

• Customer Focus: Advance customer service quality by responding to the 

wants, needs, and expectations of our customers in order to improve their 

experience and maximize pass<:nger and partner satisfi.lCtion. 

• Mobility and Connectivil}': 1111]1ro\ c national mobility and connectivity 

by growing Amtrak's business through new partnerships, routes and 

j)'cquencks to increase ridership system-\\ ide. 

• Environment and Energy: Contribute to the nation's cm'ironmental 

health by attracting automobile and air travelers to trains, while improving 

Amtrak's et1iciency and reducing transportation-related carbon emissions 

and t(lssil tllel consumption. 

• Financial and Organizational Excellence: Attain a standard of 

organizational excellence by aligning our products, services, processes and 

culture with stakeholder expectations to improve financial performance 

and overall business results. 

2 
64 


Insert offset folio 33 here 75420.033

4. During Ms. Quinn's testimony she referenced the term "state supported and the 209 

process". Of your state supported services you operate how many do you provide Food 

and Beverage services for? Additionally, how is Amtrak working with its "state 

partners" to align your Food and Beverage services with their expectations? 

RESPONSE: /\mtrak presently operates 21 routes that are supported in part by 

financial contributions by States or Agencies. Under Section 209 of the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, beginning in Fiscal 

Year 2014 all short-distance trains (those on routes of750 miles or less) \vill 

receive State iinancial support. This \\'ill increase the number of State supported 

routes to 27, assuming all affected States decide to support e"isting routes. Stales 

are responsible for the net cost of Food and Ben~rage service on the trains they 

support tinancially. Food and Beverage scn'ice on these trains does not receive 

any tlmding from Amtrak's operating grant. For these services. some States elect 

to play the lead role in designing the Food and Beverage service. and some States 

rdy on /\mtrak' s recommendations. The States are also fi'ee to contract out this 

scryice. Of the current State-supported truins, 18 contract with Amtrak to 

prO\'ide Food and Be\erage service: t\\O (Northern New England Passenger Rail 

Authority (Maine) and the North Carolina DOT) contract out to othcr entities, and 

one State (Pennsylvania tix the Keys/olle service) has decided that no Food and 

Beverage service is to be prov'ided j(lr that train. 

5. You referenced a "continuous improvement tor all aspects" for the entire company. How 

can this statement be applied to your Food and Beverage service? Please give examples 

of specific improvements or methodologies you employ to reach this goal. 

RESPO:-.JSE: One e"ampk would be using our improved data mining capability 

(CSPMI) tbat is enabling LIS to eliminate poor performing product placements and 

ma"imize our provisioning strategy fllr best-selling products. The success of our 

ti'esh t()od program in the Northeast COITidor can be attributed to this type of 

analysis \\ here reV'enlle and prolit contribution signiticalllly imprO\'ed. We are 

also utilizing rt;;'soltrccs fro1l1 our Managed Services PJ"(1\·idcr in continually 

e"amining our product l11i" and supply chain to optimize pricing and distribution. 

A recent example of this acti"it)' lIas the consolidation of our entree beef 

category to one steak type and col11pctitiyely bidding the business through an RFP 

process on the open market. This initiati"e resulted in sa\'ings in excess of 

appro"imately $800.000 annually. 

6. During the hearing, many of my colleagues took issue with the cost of a hamburger and 

referenced cost associated with it. Please explain the difference between levels of service 

associated with a dining car vs. cafe as it relates to the cost of a "hamburger? 

RESPONSE: Service in dining cars is very similar to a sit-dO\vl1 casual restaurant. 

Passengers will make a reservation jix meal senice in our dining cars. Orders 

, 

-' 
65 


Insert offset folio 34 here 75420.034

from the menu arc taken tablcsidc by an On-Board Lead Service Attendant 

(LSA). similar to a waiter in a restaurant setting. All orders arc prepared by our 

On-Board Chefs. After the meals arc prepared. they arc served to the passenger by 

the LSA. There is no sell~sel'\ice of any menu items. Service in calc cars is vel') 

similar to quick service retail operations. The menu items are designed for grab-llgo service. Passengers place their orders at a counter and the LSA provides 

minimal preparation (l11icrovvaving products) and records the sale on our point-l)t~ 

sale system. Calc cars do nO! have a Chef. 

7. Can you please provide to the committee actual copies of the menus available on your 

long distance service? 

RESPONSE: We cUITently have tvvcmy·five (25) separate long distance train 

menus. Attached. please find a compact disk with POl's of these menus. 

8. You referenced the term "careful investment that leverages the skills of our on-board 

service employees so they can focus on selling. rather than tjlling out forms". What are 

some of the investments you have underway to leverage their skills? 

RESPONSE: We hav'': made significant ill\estmcnts in our point-ot~salc (POS) 

systems and vvarehouse inventory management systems (\VIMS) to improve 

employee productivity and our data mining capabilities. These systems are 

reducing the cycle-time sales accollnting and providing ·'real time" data to 

manage the husincss more clICcti\cly. 

9. Can you explain why you believe Amtrak needs to otTer Food and Beverage service and 

how would your bottom line be affected if you did not'? 

RESPONSE: Food and Beverage (F&B) is an integral part of our product offering 

on long distance trains. It is a pillar or the Brand Architecture and customer 

experience. Intercity passenger service VVi ithout rood service is both problematic 

(due to trav'c! times i1l\l>lyed) and adversely affects ticket re\'t~nues. Also. Amtrak 

is mandated hy PRIIA 207 to improve cllstomer satisfaction scores including (xxi 

service on long distance trains. 

Market research shows that Amtrak customers attach signilicant value to the 

av'ailability of food service on board. which fundamentally difticrentiates inter-city 

passenger rail ti-<1l11 commuter rail "transit-type·' service. 

While the \'alue of F&B sen'ice is partially captured in the direct rcn:nuc from 

on-hoard customer purchases. it is also a component of the higher ticket prices 

that inter-city rail service commands in comparison to commuter rail. 

4 
66 


Insert offset folio 35 here 75420.035

Our studies indicate that the elimination of the dining car sen ice alone would 

result in a revenue rcductilln or $93 million in ticket sales. 

10. This committee has long bcen focused on the "Buy America Law" as bcing a tool to 

strengthen our domestic businesses. With this in mind can you providc an overview and 

examples of the businesses and suppliers your Food and Beverage operation utilizes to 

meet the goal of the law'? 

RESPONSE: ARA]VlARK is our current managed service provider for warehouse 

management. As part of its contract agreement. it procures all Food and Beverage 

products on behalf of Amtrak. All product sourcing requests for proposal (RfP) 

and requests tl)f quote (RFQ) include "Buy Americ~ll1 Act Certification" as a 

required submittaL As an example. \ve recently changed our supplier of 

disposable product n'0111 a mallutllCturcr in Chilla to a U.S. based company. 

5 
67 


Insert offset folio 36 here 75420.036

1. Since Amtrak was created in 1971, has there been a single year or a time period when the 

Food and Beverage Service (F&B) made a profit? 

RESPONSE: During my knure, which began circa 2001. we'ye only measured 

F&B results since FY2006. [do not haw copies 01: and have never seen, a F&D 

Prolit and Loss Statement prior to FY2006 other than Rich Slattery's reference to 

a page in the Grant Request fi'ol1l the early 1980s that had 17& B and ticket revenue 

included. I think it safe to say that. excluding the addition of up to 10% of ticket 

revcnue to the F&B results, F&B has newr turned a prolit. e\en on a direct (labor 

and wmmissary) basis. But I only haw recent experience to back up that claim. 

2. Are any of your Food and Beverage services routes currently profitable? 

RESPONSE: There arc 18 SIDte Suppol1ed routes that break en:n due to the 

addition of State Supported re\'t~nues, but none that 5hO\\ a protit. 

3. How many of the 237 employees that were furloughed as a result of the simplified dining 

initiative were re-instated? 

RESPONSE: 204 employees \\ere lttrloughed as a result of the Simplitied Dining 

Initiative in 2006. l'vlall), of these employees ha\'c returned to senice due to 

senice adjustments on the ('apilof Lilllill!d, ('u/ifiJl'llia Zephyr. and ('OWl 

Slurligill as well as a few smaller initiati\(~s. 

4. What steps has Amtrak taken to decrease labor costs? 

RESPONSE: We continue to \\ork with the unions of our agreement employees 

on a variet: of labor rctil1en1cnts Hnd inlprOVCt11cnts tt) enhance training. cost 

sayings and bargaining. 

5. Does Amtrak have a plan to reduce the cost of labor? 

RESPONSE: \'ic have a number of initiati\\.~s llndemay that arc referenced in our 

Strategic Plan, \\'hose ultimate goal is to make Amtrak's bottom line the center of 

our attention. With this said, I would offer a cop)' of our Strategic Plan as a 

reference guide and share \\ith you the foclls of the plan since it is our starting 

point to carrying out our mission in the most Hnancially effective \\"ely possible. 

To improve the bottom line. \\e identified the follO\\ing goals: 

6 
68 


Insert offset folio 37 here 75420.037

I. Safety and Security: 

2. Customer Focus: 

.'. Mobility and Connectivity: 

-t. Etwironment and Energy: and 

5. Financial and organizational excellence. 

These Il\t~ goals are the tools \\c'lI usc to manage our labor cost by actiwl: 

engaging our uniuns and other key stakeholders in developing a human capital 

management plan. Through better communication with our employees. we can 

focus on additional training and education that will giw them the tools to 

etTeetivcly respond to the wants. needs and expectations of our customers. 

6. Is Amtrak violating the law by not breaking even with its Food and Beverage service 

(F&B)? 

RESPONSE: Under our interpretation of existing legislation. \\c do not believe 

that Amtrak is violating the I,m .. \ re\'iew or th<: legislation is included b<:lu\\. 

49 USC 24305(c)(4L enacted in 1981. states that Amtrak can provide F&B 

sen ice on trains only if "revcnues' from those services at Il?ast equal the costs. 

For purposes of determining Amtrak' s compliance with this requirement. Amtrak 

is permitted under Appropriations Committee report language li'Olll the same 

Congress to attribute up to 10% of its ticket revenues as re\'t~nucs Ii'om F&I3 

sery-ice. since Amtrak would sell a lot I'e\\cr tickets if no F&I3 service I\'as 

available on its trains. The 1982 llouse Appropri(ltions report addressing this 

issue st[lted: 

"The ('ommit"'e agrees thul Oil-hoard Food and Bel'cragc service is WI 

integral olld indispellsah/c part u('inlercily rail pa.lseilger serrice. ulld il is 

,:/ear that .\'uh.\'/anf;u! r",TeIlW!S lI'olild he lo.YI [r Ihis ser)';ce lrere 

eliminaled The percentage uj"tf'(/l1.IjiOr/(lliol1 rerellUC.1 l!'hich mig/I! be 

ul/ri!Jllted 10 the Food lind Ben.:rage (/ccount ShOll!d he less thall I () 

percent. " 

The portion of Amtrak's F&B costs not covered by what passengers pay for food 

and beverages is considerably less than 10% o1'/\.111trak·s ticket rl?vcnucs. It is 

also \\orth noting that the Senate Report for the 1983 DOT Appropriations bill 

(second attachmcnt) also urged Amtrak to attribute a portion of ticket revenues to 

F&B service when measuring compliance \\ith the statutory break-even 

requirement although it did not mention a specitic percentage as in the House 

report ( I 0%). 

7 
69 


Insert offset folio 38 here 75420.038

Amtrak has historically dctined. t()r purposes of Title 49 USC Section 24305. that 

F&B costs include OBS labor and commissary/support. Additionally. Amtrak has 

included up to 10% of Ticket Rewnue per the 1982 Appropriations language. 

7. Has the Federal Railroad Administration issued a legal opinion addressing compliance or 

non-compliance with the break-even statute? 

RESPONSE: Not that I am aware of at this time. 

8 
70 


Insert offset folio 39 here 75420.039

CO/mniltee on TrOi~SV1)rta,tion 

Statement of Ted Alves 

inspe<:tor General 

National Railroad Pa~!'''~llIu~r COl"otll'l'Ilriol1 

TllIlrsday, August 2, 2012 

10:00 a.m. EOT 

OIG·T·2012·015 
71 


Insert offset folio 40 here 75420.040

Good Morning Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahal!, and Members of the 

Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on Amtrak's food and beverage 

service. Losses on food and beverage service have been a long-standing issue at 

Amtrak. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, Amtrak reported a direct operating loss of almost $85 

million. Long-distance routes accounted for about $74 million (87 percent) of these 

losses. 

My testimony today will discuss three areas: 

(1) actions Amtrak has underway to address our prior recommendations to improve 

internal controls that have left food and beverage revenues and inventories 

vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse; 

(2) preliminary observations from our ongoing food and beverage service audit that 

indicate that program improvement initiatives can be enhanced by consolidating 

the fragmented management structure, which is causing weaknesses in program 

accountability and planning; and 

(3) best business practices work we plan to complete over the next 6 months to identify 

ways to help mitigate food and beverage operating losses. 
72 


Insert offset folio 41 here 75420.041

AMTRAK ACTIONS TO ADDRESS INTERNAL CONTROL 

WEAKNESSES THAT CREATE VULNERABILITY TO FRAUD, WASTE 

AND ABUSE 

Amtrak agreed with-and has taken actions to-address our June 2011 

recommendations' to improve internal controls that have left on-board food and 

beverage revenues and inventories vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. 

2 

Prior to our June 2011 report, Amtrak officials had begun actions to improve internal 

controls over on-board food and beverage service. For example, Amtrak had 

established a centralized system to help automate the collection of revenue shortages 

and had introduced on-board electronic credit card technology. Amtrak is also 

deploying an on-board point-of-sale system' and a warehouse inventory management 

system3 that should automate processes, improve data timeliness and reliability, reduce 

paperwork and eliminate error-prone processes. 

Our report last year documented long-standing internal control weaknesses and gaps 

over on-board food and beverage service. We estimated that $4 million to $7 million of 

Amtrak's on-board food and beverage sales could be at risk of theft. Between March 

2003 and January 2010, we identified 903 theft, dishonesty, and policy/procedure 

violations by 306 lead service attendants, and issued 447 administrative referrals to 

Amtrak managers. TIle recurring schemes described in the report involve the 

I Food and Bel'erage Sen' ice: Furtlier Actions Needed to Addr"" Reveulle L.osses Dlie to COlltrol Wfllkllesses and 

Gaps (Report No. E-ll-03, june 23, 20ll). 

2 Point-of-sale is an automated system that tracks food and beverage sales and inventory on trains, in real 

time. 

3111e warehouse inventory management system is an automated system that was deployed in allll 

Amtrak commissaries in March 2011. 
73 


Insert offset folio 42 here 75420.042

falsification of documents to conceal missing food and beverage revenues and 

inventories. Specifically: 

• l1iflatillgfirst-c1ass meal checks. This scheme involves adding items to first-class 

passengers' meal checks-meals are provided free to first-class passengers-and 

selling these items to other passengers for cash. 

• Selling non-Amtrak items. This scheme involves smuggling non-Amtrak items on 

board trains and selling them to passengers. 

• Shorting cash register sales. This scheme involves selling items for their retail value 

and ringing up smaller amounts, with Amtrak employees pocketing the difference. 

• Stealing inventory. This scheme involves directly taking food (rice, oil, eggs, and 

potatoes) and other items such as complimentary beverages, paper products, and 

open wine bottles. 

• Providing items at no cost. This scheme involves providing customers with 

complimentary items and providing free drink refills without authorization. 

Compared with industry best practices, Amtrak lacked 

• a loss-prevention IInit with dedicated staff to manage loss; investigate cash and 

inventory losses; and provide a visible deterrent to fraud, waste, and abuse; 

• a management-sponsored fraud-awareness program for on-board service employees; 

• random, intemai management searches of lead service attendants and other service 

employees to detect possible unauthorized items; 

3 
74 


Insert offset folio 43 here 75420.043

• random, internal management reuie1l's of lead service attendants' inventories of 

deliveries, en route transfers, or end-of-trip stocks to minimize fraud, waste, and 

abuse; 

• random, intemllll1lanagemellt searches of lead service attendants and other service 

employees when departing the train to detect possible stolen items; and 

• cashless sales to remove the opportunity to steal cash. 

We recommended that Amtrak (1) establish a pilot project of cashless food and 

beverage sales on selected routes; (2) provide the resources needed to establish a lossprevention unit; and (3) have the loss prevention unit implement an internal control 

plan to address weaknesses and gaps in on-board food and beverage service. As of last 

month, Amtrak has taken action or has plans to address two of our three 

recommendations. 

4 

First, Amtrak has established a loss-prevention unit and has hired four staff for the new 

unit. Amtrak plans to provide the staff with 3 weeks of training this month. Once the 

training is completed, the team will start to develop an internal control action plan, 

which, according to an Amtrak Transportation Department official, should be 

completed by December. Amtrak has not taken any action on our recommendation to 

establish a pilot cashless project and currently has no plan to implement our 

recommendation. 
75 


Insert offset folio 44 here 75420.044

ADDRESSING THE FRAGMENTED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE CAN 

ENHANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY AND PLANNING 

Our work on food and beverage program management is ongoing, but we do have 

some preliminary observations and a suggested action, which we have discussed with 

Amtrak. We will issue a final report on these issues in the next couple of months. 

Amtrak's food and beverage service incurred a reported direct operating loss of almost 

$85 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. Amtrak made some progress in reducing reported 

direct operating losses-increasing its recovery of costs from 49 cents to 59 cents on the 

dollar between FYs 2006 and 2011. Amtrak has also identified initiatives for FY 2012 

and beyond to help further increase cost recovery, such as lengthening the selling 

period on trains and reducing check-in/check-out times for on-board service personnel. 

We encourage these initiatives, but note that they will result in relatively small 

efficiency gains because they are being applied to the existing business model for food 

and beverage service. 

We believe Amtrak's initiatives could be enhanced with improved program 

management to include consideration of different business models. Food and beverage 

management activities are carried out in a fragmented and somewhat uncoordinated 

manner by two Amtrak departments. 111e Marketing and Product Development 

Department manages commissalY and support operations, while the Transportation 

5 

Department manages on-board service personnel. Two key management weaknesses 

stem from this fragmented program management structure: a lack of (1) accountability 

for program results and (2) program-wide planning. The absence of clear accountability 

for results and program plans that address the primary reasons for operating losses 

hinder the company's efforts to improve cost recovery and service. 
76 


Insert offset folio 45 here 75420.045

Accountability for Program Results 

As noted, two departments share responsibility for food and beverage service, but 

neither is accountable for improving service and/or reducing direct operating losseslet alone eliminating them. And initiatives to improve cost recovery are not wellcoordinated. 

6 

According to Marketing and Product Development's Chief of Food and Beverage 

Service, cost recovery is the most important metric for measuring food and beverage 

results. However, no cost-recovery goal has been established for this metric in Amtrak's 

5-year financial plan. The Transportation Department likewise has no cost-reduction 

goal for food and beverage labor costs. Without a clear program-wide goal, and an 

official accountable for achieving that goal, Amtrak decreases the likelihood that direct 

operating losses will be reduced while maintaining the quality of service. 

As shown in Table 1, the responsibilities for cost-recovery initiatives are divided among 

several departments, principally Marketing and Product Development and 

Transportation. 
77 


Insert offset folio 46 here 75420.046

Revenue 

Increases 

Cost 

Decreases 

Table 1. Initiatives to Improve 

Food and Beverage Cost-Recovery 

(dollars in millions) 

Initiativellmplementation LOlli 

Responsibility" EstimatE 

Increase revenue by increasing selling 

period on trains, improving sales data, and 

tarQeted pricinQ (T and MPD) $3.7 

Enhance revenue loss-avoidance (T) 0.6 

Subtotal, Revenue Increases $4. 

Decrease on-board labor costs by 

reducinQ check-in/check-out times (T) 2.5 

Decrease warehouse costs by eliminating 

manual data entry (MPD) 0.8 

Reduce staff and eliminate manual data 

entry at accountinQ center (F) 1." 

~ase crew base productivity (T) 1.0 

Subtotal, Cost Decreases $5.8 

Total Impact on Cost-Recoverv $10.1 

High 

EstimatE 

$7.4 

1.4 

$8.8 

5.1 

1.4 

1'< 

2.1 

$10.1 

$18.S 

Source: Amtrak Food and Beverage briefing to Amtrak Board of Directors, January 20, 2011 

a MPD stands for Marketing and Product Development, T stands for Transportation, and 

F stands for Finance. 

In discussing these initiatives with officials from these departments in March of this 

year, we learned that these initiatives were not well coordinated. For example, 

Marketing and Product Development estimated in January 2011 that between $2.5 

7 

million and $5.1 million could be saved yearly by reducing check-in/check-out times for 

some on-board food and beverage service personnel. However, these estimates were 

developed without input from the Transportation department, which manages onboard labor. Transportation officials stated that they had already begun implementing 

similar efforts. As a result, this raised questions as to whether these estimates were 

realistic, since some projected labor savings may have already been realized. 
78 


Insert offset folio 47 here 75420.047

8 

On July 19, 2012, the Vice President for Operations announced the establishment of a 

Chief of Customer Service position within the Transportation Department. The Vice 

President explained that this position will help align the company's new business lines 

with Amtrak's September 30, 2011 strategic plan. He stated that the Chief of Customer 

Service will have accountability (with multiple layers of cascading metrics within his or 

her organization) for improving Amtrak's food and beverage service program. On July 

30, he further stated that the Marketing and Product Development's food and beverage 

services activities will be transferred under Operations as of October 1, 2012. We are 

encouraged by these two recent developments and believe that once these actions are 

fully implemented Amtrak will have in place a more effective and efficient framework 

for managing food and beverage services. 

Program-wide Planning 

A key management best practice for helping to reduce food and beverage service losses 

is a program-wide plan for improving cost recovery while maintaining service levels. 

However, such a plan does not exist at this time. As previously discussed, the planned 

initiatives will only result in small efficiency gains because they are being applied to the 

existing business model. Specifically, the initiatives do not adequately address losses on 

long-distance routes or alternative business models for food and beverage service. 

We believe a comprehensive plan to improve cost recovery would include a focus on 

reducing costs in those areas in which losses are the greatest. As shown in Table 2, longdistance routes accounted for about $74 million (87 percent) of FY 2011 food and 

beverage service losses. 
79 


Insert offset folio 48 here 75420.048

Table 2. Reported FY 2011 Food and Beverage Service 

Direct Operating Losses 

(dollars in millions) 

9 

~-~--~--- Direct Costs Percentage 

of total 

Routes Revenue Labor Commissary Total Loss loss 

Northeast 

Corridor $ 31 ~8 $ 19,6 $21.2 $ 40~9 ($90) 11 

State-supported 31,7 19.4 13,9 33,3 (16) 2 

Long-distance 57,9 78~0 53,9 131,9 (739) 87 

Total $121.5 $117.0 $89.0 $206.0 ($84.6) 100 

Source: Amtrak Finance Department, Food and Beverage Marketing Report for FY 2011 

Note: Numbers do not all add due to rounding~ 

Further, between FYs 2006 and 2011, long-distance routes had the lowest cost-recovery 

rate for food and beverage service among all Amtrak routes. For example, in FY 2011, 

Amtrak's 15 long-distance routes collectively recovered only 44 cents of every dollar of 

food and beverage cost. (See Figure 1.) 

Figure 1. Reported Cost-Recovery by Route, FYs 2006-2011 

_--N'orth East Corridor 

Source: OIG analysis of data from Amtrak and U,S, Bureau of Labor Statistics 

NOTE: Amtrak operates 27 short-distance routes, On 21 of these routes, food and 

beverage service breaks even because of state subsidies, which Amtrak counts as 

revenue, Thus any operating losses come from the remaining six short-distance routes 

that no states subsidize, 
80 


Insert offset folio 49 here 75420.049

]0 

However, there is no integrated plan for improving cost recovery and none of Amtrak's 

current initiatives adequately address losses on long-distance routes 

Suggested Action 

Our suggestion at this time is that the Vice President of Operations develop a 5-year 

plan for reducing the operating losses. The plan should include specific initiatives and 

annual operating loss reduction goals while retaining needed services. 

FUTURE OIG WORK WILL FOCUS ON BEST PRACTICES TO HELP 

MITIGA TE DIRECT OPERATING LOSSES 

Over the next 6 months, our food and beverage work will focus on identifying ways to 

help mitigate the food and beverage service direct operating losses while at the same 

time continuing to provide high-quality service. The need for similar efforts has been 

identified previously. For example, in addition to our prior work, a 2005 Department of 

Transportation Office of Inspector General report on alternatives for providing service 

on long-distance routes recommended that Amtrak implement pilot projects to decrease 

losses. 4 However, the food and beverage service business model remains largely 

unchanged. 

Our ongoing work will focus on identifying and reviewing best practices used by other 

public- and private-sector entities that provide food and beverage services to 

passengers, such as foreign passenger railroads, cruise lines, and airlines. While we are 

in the early planning stage of this work, some initial concepts that we have identified 

for review include the following: 

4 CR-2005-068, Allnilf,i, of Cost SO!'in!,s 011 Amtrak's LOllg-DiMollcc Service, July 22, 2005. 
81 


Insert offset folio 50 here 75420.050

11 

• Alternative levels of service. In this area we will look at applying best practices 

using Amtrak personnel to provide food and beverage service. For example, one 

option may be to use cafe cars instead ot dining cars, thus reducing staff but still 

providing food and beverage service that the travelling public depends on. 

Currently, Amtrak offers dining-car service on 14 of its 15 long-distance routes. The 

only long-distance route without a dining-car is the Palmetto, which had the lowest 

food and beverage service loss of any long-distance route in FY 2011. 

• Alternative means of service. In this area we will look at applying best practices 

using Amtrak personnel to furnish food and beverage service through alternative 

methods, such as vending machines and food carts. Other methods could include 

offering food and beverages at boarding gates or platforms, and displaying items for 

passengers to select and having lead service attendants scan bar codes. For example, 

according to a North Carolina official, that state has used vending machines since 

early 2011 on the Piedmont, a state-supported Amtrak route. 

• Third-party provider. A best practice used by many public and private entities is to 

use a third party to carry out non-core-business services. A third party provider 

could be used to offer different levels and methods of food and beverage service in 

conceptually the same, or other, ways as just described. For example, Maine has 

contracted with a third-party provider to furnish food and beverage service since 

2001 on the DOlUlleaster, another state-supported Amtrak route. We recognize that 

any initiatives in this area would have a significant impact on the existing labor 

force and would have to be carefully considered in any new approaches to 

providing food and beverage service. 
82 


Insert offset folio 51 here 75420.051

12 

We will be reviewing the pros and cons of these and other best practices to identify food 

and beverage service alternatives that Amtrak could pilot test or adopt on various 

routes. Our analysis will focus on key factors such as cost, quality of service, workforce, 

and revenue impacts. 

In summary, Amtrak has taken action to address some of our June 2011 

recommendations related to fraud, waste, and abuse. Further, Amtrak has initiatives 

underway to increase cost-recovelY on food and beverage service. Additionally, 

Amtrak has actions underway to improve program management and accountability. 

However, steps can be taken to improve planning. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing I want to thank the Committee for its support of the Amtrak 

OIG. This concludes my testimony and I would be glad to answer any questions that 

you or other members of the Committee may have at this time. 
83 


Insert offset folio 52 here 75420.052

OIG MIS§!()J'LAND CONTA_~!JNFORMATIO~N_~ 

Amtrak DIG's Mission Amtrak OlG's mission is to 

• conduct and supervise independent and objective 

audits, inspections, evaluations, and investigations 

relating to Amtrak programs and operations; 

• promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within 

Amtrak; 

• prevent and detect thud, waste, and abuse in Amtrak's 

programs and operations; 

• review security and safety policies and programs; and 

• review and make recommendations regarding existing 

and proposed legislation and regulations relating to 

Amtrak's programs and operations. 

Obtaining Copies of DIG Available at our website: www.amtrakoig.gov. 

Reports and Testimony 

c:-:c:-:----:- ... -~~-. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, Report suspicious or illegal activities to the OlG Hotline 

and Abuse (you can remain anonymous): 

Congressional and 

Public Relations 

Web: www.amtrakoig.gov/hotline 

Phone: 800-468-5469 

E. Bret Coulson, Senior Director 

Congressional and Public Affairs 

Mail: Amtrak OIG 

10 G Street, N.E., 3W-300 

Washington, D.C. 20002 

Phone: 202.906.4134 

E-mail: bret.coulson(cVamtrakoig.gov 
84 


Insert offset folio 53 here 75420.053

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN .JOHN L. MICA 

COMMITTEI~ ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRCCTlIRE 

Hearing on "A Review of Amtrak Operations, Part 1: 

Mismanagement of Food and Beverage Services" 

Thursday. August 2. 2012 

Questions for Amtrak Inspector General Alves 

1. Amtrak's long distance routes account for 87%. offood and beverage losses. What 

should Amtrak do to decrease these losses'! 

Answer-While Amtrak has developed a series of initiatives to improve food and 

beverage cost-recovery, the planned initiatives will only result in small efficiency 

gains because they only seek to marginally improve the existing business model. In 

particular, as noted, the initiatives do not adequately address losses on long-distance 

routes or alternative business models for food and beverage service. We believe that 

the key to reducing losses on long-distance routes is developing a more cost-efficient 

way of providing services that the company needs. The company needs to apply 

food and beverage service industry best practices. Consequently, we have ongoing 

work to review best practices for providing food and beverage service that will 

examine alternatives such as: 

• Alternative levels of serl'ice. [n this area, we will look at applying best practices 

using Amtrak personnel to provide food and beverage service. For example, one 

option may be to use cafe cars instead of dining cars, thus reducing staff, but still 

providing food and beverage service that the traveling public needs. Currently, 

Amtrak offers dining-car service on ]4 of its 15 long-distance routes. The only 

long-distance route without a dining car is the Palmetto, which had the lowest 

food and beverage loss of any long-distance route in FY 20ll. 

• Alternative means of service. In this area, we will look at applying best practices 

using Amtrak personnel through alternative methods of furnishing food and 

beverage service, such as vending machines, food carts, providing food and 

beverage at boarding gates or platforms, and displaying food for passengers to 

select and having lead service attendants scan bar codes. For example, according 

to a North Carolina official, that state has used vending machines since early 

2011 on the Piedmont, a state-supported Amtrak route. 
85 


Insert offset folio 54 here 75420.054

2 

• Third-party provider. A best practice used by some public and private entities is to 

use a third party to carry out non-core-business services. A third-party provider 

could be used to offer different levels and methods of food and beverage service 

in conceptually the same or other ways as described above. For example, Maine 

has contracted with a third party since 2001 to provide food and beverage service 

on the Downeaster, another state-supported Amtrak route. We recognize that any 

initiatives in this area would have a significant impact on the existing labor force 

and would have to be carefully considered in any new approaches to providing 

food and beverage service. 

We anticipate reporting on this work in FY 2013. 

2. Does Amtrak know how much Food and Beverage revenue is lost as a result of 

waste, fraud and abuse? 

Answer-No. However, it is difficult to accurately estimate this type of activity. In 

June 2011 we reported on long-standing internal control weaknesses and gaps over 

on-board food and beverage service. At that time we conservatively estimated that 

between $4 million and $7 million of Amtrak's on-board food and beverage sales 

could be at risk of theft. The actual amount of theft is likely higher, however, since 

our estimate was based on industry estimates where better controls were in place, 

such as cashless sales. 

3. What are your views on the market study done by Amtrak in early 2012 that 

addresses the potential impact on revenues of various options of providing food and 

beverage service for long distance service'! 

Answer-The market study is still ongoing. In late July, Amtrak provided us with a 

two-page summary that contained some preliminary observations and a brief 

description of the methodology. However, until we review the final report, we 

cannot fully assess the study. Nonetheless, one preliminary observation we have is 

that the study seems to address only the potential impact on lost ticket revenues and 

not the potential cost reductions that will be associated with the various food and 

beverage alternatives. Another preliminary observation is that the study seems to 

assess unlikely alternatives, including the complete elimination of all food and 

beverage services, except on long-distance routes. As I noted in my testimony, a 

much broader examination of alternative service-delivery practices is needed. 

2 
86 


Insert offset folio 55 here 75420.055

3 

4. What steps has Amtrak taken to decrcase the cost of hlbor within food and beverage 

operations'! 

Answer-In early 2006, Amtrak implemented the "Simplified Dining" initiative that 

reduced the base number of on-board food and beverage personnel from five to 

three per dining car. However, according to Amtrak Transportation Department 

officials, a combination of customer complaints and increased ridership led Amtrak 

to reinstate most of the previously eliminated positions. In November 2011, the 

Transportation Department initiated efforts to reduce check-in/check-out times for 

on-board staff, which is on pace to reduce labor costs by about a reported $2.5 

million per year. We are encouraged by this latest initiative, but note that it will 

result in relatively small efficiency gains because it is being applied to the existing 

business model for food and beverage service. Again, we believe significant cost 

reductions can only be achieved by changing the business model. 

5. Docs Amtrak have a plan to reduce the cost of labor within food and beverage 

operations? 

Answer-Amtrak does not have a comprehensive plan to reduce the cost of onboard food and beverage labor. However, on July 19, 2012, the Vice President, 

Operations, announced the establishment of a Chief of Customer Service position 

within the Transportation Department. This individual will have accountability for 

improving Amtrak's food and beverage service program. The Vice President added 

that Marketing and Product Development's food and beverage activities will be 

transferred to Operations as of October 1, 2012. We are encouraged by these recent 

developments and believe that once these actions are fully implemented, Amtrak 

will have in place a more dk,ctive and efficient framework for managing food and 

beverage services, including reducing labor costs. To help further reduce direct 

operating losses in Amtrak's food and beverage service. we recommended that once 

the Chief of Customer Service position is filled, the Vice President, Operations, 

direct that individual to develop a 5-year plan for reducing direct operating losses. 

The plan should include specific initiatives and annual operating-loss-reduction 

goals. while retaining needed services. 

, 

-, 
87 


Insert offset folio 56 here 75420.056

6. Is Amtrak violating the law hy not hreaking even with its food and beverage 

service? 

Answer-Amtrak has stated that they believe the company is in compliance with 

this law. We have not reviewed the process that Amtrak used to make that 

determination or the basis for its position, so [ am not in a position to address that 

issue. 

4 

4 
88 


Insert offset folio 57 here 75420.057

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON 

"A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART I: 

MISMANAGEMENT OF FOOD & BEVERAGE SERVICES" 

AUGUST 2, 2012 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD FROM 

REP. CORRINE BROWN 

Mr. Ted Alves, Inspector General, Amtrak Office of Inspector General 

,. In your written testimon}" you mentioned that Amtrak has begun to improve 

internal controls over on-board food and beverage service. Can you please 

elaborate 011 what steps they have taken? 

Answer-In response to prior orc recommendations regarding on-board services, 

Amtrak recently established a loss-prevention unit and hired four staff for the new 

unit. Once these personnel are trained, Amtrak plans to develop an internal control 

action plan, which, according to an Amtrak Transportation Department officiaL 

should be completed by December of this year. As noted in my testimony, Amtrak 

had not taken any action on our recommend.ltion to establish a cashless pilot 

project. However, subsequently, on August 6,2012, Amtrak's President and CEO 

indicated that the company will conduct a test of cashless sales. In addition, Amtrak 

is in the process of deploying an automated point-of-sale system to track on-board 

food and beverage sales and inventory. Amtrak is also deploying a warehouse 

inventory management system. Together these two systems should automate 

Amtrak's sales and inventory processes, improve data reliability, reduce paperwork, 

and eliminate error-prone processes . 

." In your lvritten tcstirnony, you noted that most of Amtrak's food and beverage 

service losses arc incllrred 011 long distance rOlltes. What call Amtrak do to reduce 

losses on these long-distance routes? 

Answer-While Amtrak has developed a series of initiatives to improve food and 

beverage cost-recovery, the planned initiatives will only result in small efficiency 

gains because they only seek to marginally improve the existing business model. In 

particular, as noted, the initiatives do not adequately address losses on long-distance 

routes or alternative business models for food and beverage service. We believe that 

the key to reducing losses on long-distance routes is developing a more cost-efficient 

way of providing services that the company needs. The company needs to apply 

food and beverage service industry best practices. Consequently, we have ongoing 

work to review best practices for providing food and beverage service that will 

examine alternatives such as: 
89 


Insert offset folio 58 here 75420.058

2 

• Alternative levels of service. In this area, we will look at applying best practices 

using Amtrak personnel to provide food and beverage service. For example, one 

option may be to use cafe cars instead of dining cars, thus reducing staff, but still 

providing food and beverage service that the traveling public needs. Currently, 

Amtrak offers dining-car service on 14 of its 15 long-distance routes. The only 

long-distance route without a dining-car is the I'a/llletto, which had the lowest 

food and beverage loss of any long-distance rou te in FY 2011. 

• Alternative means ofseruice. In this area, we will look at applying best practices 

using Amtrak personnel through alternative methods of furnishing food and 

beverage service, such as vending machines, food carts, providing food and 

beverage at boarding gates or platforms, and displaying food for passengers to 

select and having lead service attendants scan bar codes. For example, according 

to a North Carolina official, that state has used vending machines since early 

2011 on the Piedmont, a state-supported Amtrak route. 

• Third-party provider. A best practice used by some public and private entities is to 

use a third party to carry out non-core-business services. A third-party provider 

could be used to offer different levels and methods of food and beverage service 

in conceptually the same or other ways as described above. For example, Maine 

has contracted with a third party since 2001 to provide food and beverage service 

on the Downcasler, another state-supported Amtrak route. We recognize that any 

initiatives in this area would have a significant impact on the existing labor force 

and would have to be carefully considered in any new approaches to providing 

food and beverage service. 

We anticipate reporting on this work in FY 2013. 

>- In your testimony you utilized the term "theft, dishonesty and policy/procedure 

violations", Please share/elaborate on how you define this statement as it llpplies to 

the scope and range of your core mission as the Inspector Genera!'! 

Answer-The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, directs Inspectors General 

to "provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities 

designed (A) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, and (B) to prevent 

and detect fraud and abuse." In keeping with this statute, between March 2003 and 

January 2010, we identified 903 theft, dishonesty, and policy/procedure violations by 
90 


Insert offset folio 59 here 75420.059

306 lead service attendants, and issued 447 administrative referrals to Amtrak 

managers. The recurring schemes we identified involve: 

• Inflatingfirst-class meal checks. This scheme involves adding items to first-class 

passengers' meal checks-meals arc provided free to first-class passengers-and 

selling these items to other passengers for cash. 

• Selling non-Amtrak itcms. This scheme involves smuggling non-Amtrak items on 

board trains and selling them to passengers. 

3 

• Shorting cash register sales. This scheme involves sellinp; items for their retail value 

and rinp;ing up smaller amounts, with Amtrak employees pocketing the 

difference. 

• Stealing inventory. This scheme involves directly taking food (rice, oil, eggs, and 

potatoes) and other items such as complimentary beverages, paper products, and 

open wine bottl<'s. 

• Providing items at no cast. This scheme involves providing customers with 

complimentary items and providing free drink refills without authorization. 
91 


Insert offset folio 60 here 75420.060

Draft Testimony Of 

Patricia Quinn 

Executive Director 

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority 

7S W Commercial Street, Suite 104 

Portland, Maine 04101 

Before the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

August 2, 2012 

Thank you Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall and members of the Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee for inviting me to testify today. My name is Patricia Quinn, I am the Executive 

Director of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA), and am the person 

responsible for the overall management and oversight of the Amtrak Downeaster. 

The Amtrak Downeaster began operating passenger rail service between Portland, Maine and Boston, 

Massachusetts on December 15, 2001 in response to a citizens' initiative led by TrainRiders Northeast to 

re-establish passenger rail service between Maine and Boston after decades of no service at all. The 

goal of decision-makers at the time was to create a service which was part of Amtrak's national rail 

system but also a service which was uniquely Maine. To assure its care and success, NNEPRA was 

created by the Maine State legislature in 1995. Our purpose is to manage passenger rail service to and 

within Maine, and to maximize the public benefit of the service. The NNEPRA Team consists of six 

dedicated professionals. We manage the operating agreement with Amtrak, host railroads, outside 

vendors and station communities and stay connected with our passengers. 

The initial agreement with Amtrak to operate the Downeaster, which was signed in December 2,1996, 

included provisions for NNEPRA to procure services for marketing, reservations and ticketing, and food 

service independently. This was done to assure that the Downeaster would have a unique "Maine 

brand" and to provide NNEPRA with the ability to more closely manage the finances of the operation, 

which would be funded by the State of Maine. I am here today to talk specifically about our ten-plus 

years of experience managing our on-board food service operation, which we refer to as the 

Downeaster Cafe. 
92 


Insert offset folio 61 here 75420.061

I am pleased to tell you that the Downeaster overall has been extremely successful, carrying more than 

four million passengers the equivalent of over 300 million passenger miles to date. In addition to 

providing transportation, it has stimulated hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment along 

the Downeaster corridor and has maintained one of the highest customer satisfaction (CSI) ratings in the 

entire Amtrak system. 

Prior to the start of Downeaster service, NNEPRA procured the services of Epicurean Feast, a food 

service management company from Maynard, Massachusetts, to manage the Downeaster Cafe. Amtrak 

participated in the development of the contract and requirements and has partnered with us since that 

time to assure the success of the operation. The Downeaster service is based in Portland, so it would 

be awkward to staff the Downeaster Cafe from Amtrak's Boston commissary, and inefficient to create a 

new isolated Amtrak operation in Portland. 

Under the Epicurean-NNEPRA agreement, Epicurean manages the operation including the hiring and 

management of employees, purchasing of food and on board service. They have a supervisor who 

works out of a satellite office in Portland, in the NNEPRA office. 

The financial arrangement between NNEPRA and Epicurean is such that all revenues and expenses are 

reported monthly, including a management fee. NNEPRA reimburses Epicurean for the difference. 

While it was initially envisioned that it was possible to generate surplus revenues from the food service 

operation, we found out quickly that the nature of the operation was such that "profit" was a challenge 

to achieve. 

Although the Downeaster Cafe is not a revenue generator it is an important passenger amenity which 

has contributed significantly to the success of the Downeaster and achieves a cost recovery rate of 

approximately 75%. In FY2012 (which for NNEPRA is July 1, 2011- June 3D, 2012) the revenue per 

passenger was $1.09 and the expense per passenger was $1.46, resulting in a net cost of $.37 per 

passenger. That translates to total sales of $574,505 and total expenses of 769,161 and nets out to a 

total cost of $194,556. labor accounts for approximately 44% of Cafe expenses, food and liquor 

purchases account for 33%, general operating expenses account for 17% and the remaining 6% is for 

commission and G&A. 
93 


Insert offset folio 62 here 75420.062

While the Cafe in an of itself is not profitable, it is amenity built into the price of a passenger ticket and 

is a key reason passengers pay an additional fee to upgrade to Business Class. I believe our business 

would decrease, and overall costs would increase if the Downeaster Cafe did not exist. That said, our 

objective, and my personal challenge is to at least achieve break-even status with our food service 

operation without sacrificing the passenger experience. We work hard every day toward that goal and 

stay actively involved in the day-to-day operation of the Downeaster Cafe. 

The Downeaster Cafe serves light meals and snacks, stocked appropriately to the time of each run. 

NNEPRA has significant input into the menu items, and encourages Epicurean to provide as many Maine 

and regionally-produced products as possible. We serve sandwiches from a local chain, beers from 

local micro-brews, chocolates and whoopie pies from local confectioner- and of course lobster rolls in 

the summer. In addition to the sales, this exposure has proven to be very beneficial to Epicurean's 

vendor partners. 

Because the operation is physically located in-house, we are able to closely monitor trends, and make 

instant decisions which will result in increased revenues, reduced expenses, or improved customer 

service. Those are, after all, the three basic elements to the operation of any business. 

NNEPRA monitors the financial performance of the Downeaster Cafe very dosely. In addition to 

receiving daily reports regarding sales, the monthly P&L statement provided by Epicurean details every 

transaction made for the Downeaster Cafe. We track labor cost, food purchases, spoilage, Business 

Class comps and many other line items. On a quarterly basis, we meet formally with Epicurean 

management to review operations, menus, and financial performance and have even established an 

incentive program if the financial and service goals of the Cafe are met. 

While it would not work for all, the Downeaster Cafe model is one which I think other states could 

consider, particularly in light of the pending implementation of PRIIA 109. It is an opportunity for 

states to have input or even take responsibility for an element of the passenger rail business which has 

both financial and service related impacts. 

NNEPRA considers the Downeaster Cafe to be a critical component of the Downeaster service and a 

success story. C51 scores for the Downeaster are conSistently higher than the Amtrak overall average in 
94 


Insert offset folio 63 here 75420.063

categories of food quality, cafe personnel, and overall cafe experience. In FY12, Downeaster passengers 

rated their overall cafe experience 5% higher than other Amtrak services. I believe this is directly related 

to NNEPRA's involvement in the service, Epicurean's dedication to helping us achieve our goals, and 

Amtrak's ongoing partnership and support. Together, we constantly strive to find ways to increase 

revenues, reduce expenses, and improve customer service. It's our standard of excellence. 
95 


Insert offset folio 64 here 75420.064

FlJLL COMMITTEE HEARING ON 

"A REVIEW OF AMTRAK OPERATIONS, PART I: 

MISMANAGEMENT OF FOOD & BEVERAGE SERVICES" 

AUGUST 2, 2012 

QUESTIONS FOR TilE RECORD FROM 

REP. CORRINE BROW'N 

Ms. Patricia Quinn. Executive Director. Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority 

)..- What are your food and beverage workers paid? What kind of benefits do they receive'! 

What sort of training do they receive'? Do they receive background checks? 

o Cafe attendants are paid on average $10. per hour plus tips. 

o In addition to food handling and customer service training, Downeaster Cafe 

attendants receive onboard training associated with the operation of the 

Downeaster Cafe, and the areas of the train for which they are responsible which 

includes the seating area of the Cafe and Business Class. 

o Epicurean employees have basic benefit packages including health, dental and 

life insurance, the ability to contribute to a 401k. vacation and sick time. 

r What concerns do you see with the Inspector General's thoughts on do\Vngrading 

Amtrak's service to vending machines on its trains') Would this work on your service? 

Based upon your Downcaster food and beverage services, do you think those offerings 

would sustain passengers on a long-distance train where a passenger would spend ~-4 

days on a train'? 

There are distinct "lines" or types of Amtrak service which provide food service: NEC, 

State Supported Routes, and Long Distance Trains. Each route within each line has a 

particular market and ridership mix. What concerns me is that the financial 

performance of Amtrak food service has been presented as one problem, implying that 

there is one solution. In fact, there are likely to be significant variations in the financial 

performance of food service among different Amtrak routes and there are certainly a 

variety of ways to incrementally improve both the efficiency and customer satisfaction. 

It is unrealistic to expect a one-size fits all solution. 

If the intent is to make Amtrak food service more financially viable, the first step would be to 

look at each of the lines and their respective routes independently and evaluate the 

performance of that specific food service operation. 

Replacing the Cafe with vending machines is not a consideration for the Downeaster 

service. The Cafe is part of the travel experience, and a contributing factor to the 

successful ridership. While the actual Cafe P&L indicates a marginal "loss" in the Cafe, 

the fact is that the Cafe attracts riders, and allows NNEPRA to more competitively price 

the service. Additionally, the Cafe provides great exposure to many small Maine 
96 


Insert offset folio 65 here 75420.065

businesses and contributes to the economic vitality of the service. When factoring all 

aspects, the Downeaster Cafe is clearly a revenue generator. That said, we continually 

seek ways to increase revenues and reduce costs with the goal of achieving at least a 

balanced P&L. Amtrak should be doing the same. 

While it may work on some routes, vending would not appear to be a widespread 

solution. First of all, it is unclear what the financial implications of installing, stocking 

and maintaining vending machines on Amtrak trains would be, and whether or not there 

would be a revenue impact. I would not think vending machines would be a viable 

solution on long distance routes when passengers may be travelling for days. 

That said, there are likely many practical and creative ways to make incremental, yet 

significant improvements to the financial performance of Amtrak food service. These 

should be explored on a route by route basis. 

With the implementation of PRIIA 209, States will have the ability to partner with 

Amtrak to determine what the best business plan would be. This will require 

transparency on the part of Amtrak and an assurance that states will have an 

opportunity to get good data and make sound recommendations as to how statesupported food service should be handled on each route. 

,. Why did Maine decide to contract li)()d and beverage service on the Downeastcr'? Wen.: 

any employees furloughed as a result of contracting the service? I f not. why not" 

Maine decided to contract food and beverage to provide the state with the ability to control 

costs and also manage the operation in a way that it helped create a brand identity for the 

service and maximized the economic benefit. Because the Down easter was a new service, this 

decision did not result in the furlough of any employees. The decision did create new jobs for 

Maine residents and created new opportunties for Maine businesses. 
97 


Insert offset folio 66 here 75420.066

Testimony of 

Dwayne Bateman 

Amtrak Food and Beverage Worker 

Before the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

on 

"A Review of Amtrak Operations, Part I: ]Wismanagemellt of Food & Beverage" 

August 2,2012 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall and members of the Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to come here today and speak on behalf of Amtrak 

food and beverage service workers. 

My name is Dwayne Bateman and I am a Lead Service attendant currently working on Amtrak's 

Northeast Corridor route between Washington, D.e. and New York City. I am also Vice 

General Chairman for Unite-HERE Local 43, which represents Amtrak's on-board service 

workers. I started working at Amtrak in January 1977. I have been an on-board food and 

beverage worker for over 35 years, working in virtually every position associated with on-board 

service including train attendant, service attendant, food specialists and lead service attendant. 

During my career I have worked on several Amtrak's routes including; the Capitol Limited and 

the Cardinal between Washington. D.C and Chicago; the Crescent between Washington, D.e. 

and New Orleans; the Montrealer between Washington, D.C and Montreal, Quebec; and the 

Northeast Corridor, which is my current route. 

I have dedicated my working life to this company. I want it to succeed by providing reliable, 

safe service that makes our customers happy. But that is not something that occurs by 

coincidence. It is the result of training, experience and dedication. On-board workers play an 

important role in reliable service, safety and our customers' feelings about Amtrak. 

Amtrak recently celebrated its 40th anniversary. I started working at Amtrak a few years after 

private sector railroads asked the federal government to take over passenger rail in our country. 

This is a different company today than it was four decades ago or even one decade ago. In the 

last few years, Amtrak has made real improvements. We are more efficient, the food is better, 

the passengers are happier and revenues arc rising. The company did it by working smarter and 

more efficiently. We did it by providing a good service at a reasonable price. 

Some people in Washington like to criticize Amtrak. They attack the food service and the work 

that my colleagues and I perform. They claim we make too much and our pensions are too 

generous. They say the federal government should outsource my job to a subsidized private 

company. I think they are wrong and I am grateful for this opportunity to explain why. 
98 


Insert offset folio 67 here 75420.067

Safety and Security Functions 

The first job of every Amtrak worker is safety. Based on what I hear, there appears to be a lack 

of understanding of what we actually do on the job. Obviously, we serve food to passengers and 

this is an important part of the service Amtrak provides. Passengers expect and need this 

amenity and it results in increased ridership. But protecting passengers, not food service, is our 

first priority. Given the environment in which we work, emergencies can occur in remote 

locations that are difficult to access. Emergency responders, such as fire and rescue personnel, 

cannot always arrive on the scene immediately. This means on-board workers are the first 

responders in the event 0 f an emergency. 

Unlike restaurant workers, on-board Amtrak service workers arc required to take several training 

modules that prepare them to respond to anything, hom a derailment, to a medical emergency, to 

a security breach. The following examples outline only some of our training requirements. 

• Emergencv Preparedness Training: We receive training to be prepared to respond to any 

emergency situation, such as a derailmcnt, service interruption or fire. We are also 

required to have emergency preparedness training to respond to injuries and illnesses, 

which includes emergency care that covers CPR and the use of automatic defibrillators. 

This training is required every two years and we are not permitted to work if our training 

is not current. 

• First Aid Training: We receive training to be prepared to respond to an on-board injury or 

illness of a passenger or co-worker and are governed by first aid procedures. 

• On-Board Passenger Safety Training: We receive training to he prepared to assist 

passengers with on-board safety while on the train. We assist passengers with basic but 

important requirements while on board, such as wearing shoes at all times, not standing 

in vestibules, no running, using seatbacks and luggage racks for stability, and safe 

boarding and exit. 

Training to Assist Passengers with Disahilities: We receive training to assist passengers 

with disabilities, hoth non-wheelchair and wheel-chair assistance, and service animals. 

• Emergency Evacuation Training: We receive training to evacuate passengers from trains 

in the event of an emergency, to use emergency on-board equipment and to respond to 

particular types of accidents, such as train emergencies in tunnels. 

• Training on Responding Bomb Threats/Unattended Items: We receive trammg to be 

prepared to respond in the event of a bomb threat or other terrorist activity, and training 

to be vigilant for unattended items and how to respond. 

• Training on FDA Rules and Inspections: We receive tra1l1111g on FDA rules and 

inspections. We are governed by policies and procedures for the safe handling of food, 

the inspection and monitoring of food service equipment, including refrigerators and 

freezers, and safe procedures for supplying coaches with water and refilling storage 

tanks. 

2 
99 


Insert offset folio 68 here 75420.068

In addition to this situation-specific tramIng, on-board service workers have to know every 

different type of car in the train because if thcre is an emergency situation, we have to open and 

lower traps, make train-to-train passenger transfers and direct emergency evacuation. These 

skills are especially important in tunnels and on bridges. Also during most service disruptions, 

on-board service employees are the sale point of contact for passengers for information. 

The examples below help to illustrate the need for this training. 

• In December 1989, in response to an on-board bomb threat, service workers safely 

evacuated train passengers. 

• [n May 2001, the California Zephyr derailed in Iowa. On-board service workers 

responded by evacuating passengers from overturned coaches and provided them 

assistance until local first responders arrived at the scene. 

• In April 2002, the Auto Train derailed in Crescent City, Florida. In response, on-board 

service workers popped out windows and helped passengers to safety, tending to them 

until emergency responders arrived. 

• In June 2011, the California Zephyr had an accident in Nevada. On-board employeesincluding the food service workers \vere essential in order to evacuate and care for 

passengers. 

For additional infonl1ation relating to the extensive safety and security tralI1Jllg we recei\ c, 

please refer to the attached table of contents from Amtrak's Service Standards Manual, which 

governs the work we perform. In addition, annually we are required to attend "Block Training," 

a two-day class that includes safety and security training as well as customer service related 

training. 

As I stated previously, given the usc of titles such as "Service Attendant" or "Food and Beverage 

Service," it is understandable that some may not really understand our jobs, what we do and the 

critical importance of our professional safety and security functions. Before criticizing our pay 

or demanding federal subsidies for corporations that will replace us with a minimum wage 

employee, I urge you to consider the full range of duties we perform. 

Food and Beverage Functions 

The food, beverage and customer service aspects of the work we perform are extremely 

demanding for a host of reasons. Many here in Washington simply do not understand the nature 

of this work. We are on our feet for most of our shift. If it is a single day shift, as I work on the 

Northeast Corridor, then it will last from 12 to 18 hours. Life is more grueling on the long 

distance routes. lfthe trip takes three to six days, then we will work 16 hours every day. If the 

trip is a week or more, then we will work 46 hours in a 68 hour window. That works out to less 

than four hours of sleep a night. The work we do appears quite simple because people only see 

us serving a burger and soda. But the reality is more complicated. It is the parts of our jobs that 

most people do not see or understand that place real demands on Amtrak's service workers. 

In addition to the safety and security functions, On-Board Food Service Attendants must comply 

with extensive policies, procedures and instructions that govern the delivery of food and 

customer services. many of which require specialized training to perform. These responsibilities 

3 
100 


Insert offset folio 69 here 75420.069

include, but are not limited to, on-board accounting procedures, announcements and signage, 

service recovery procedures, baggage handling, customer service and uniform requirements. 

For a Lead Service Attendant - Cafe/Lounge on the ACELA, the job includes extensive predeparture, en-route and end-of-trip responsibilities, Table I (Pre-Trip), Table 2 (En-Route) and 

Table 3 (End-of-Trip) provides a look at a typical day of a Lead Service Attendant-Cafe, 

excluding any unusual occurrences, service delays, emergencies or other incidents. 

LSA-Cafe Work Da on Northeast Corridor- Pre-De arture Work Table 1 

5:15AM Report For Work (Washington to Boston Trip) 

* Sign in and receive safety briefing, uniform inspection with possible bank and tool check 

* Confer with supervisor regarding unusual occurrences, conditions or schedule changes 

* Check bulletin board for recent operation or service memos 

* Review manifest to identify business class customers, or if there are groups, special requests 

* Inventory Stock, report shortages, and submit backorders to vendor 

* Check stock to make sure it is usable, in-date 

* Complete paperwork (896) 

* Properly store stock 

* Inspect equipment and repOlt any defects to mechanical department 

* Check HV AC, water, doors, lighting, seating, contact surfaces, etc .. 

* Check food service equipment and temperatures of refrigerators and freezers 

* Verify Cash register or POS is installed and functioning properly 

* Set up credit card machine 

* Inspect interior of cate car tor cleanliness and defects. 

* Inspect bathroom for cleanliness/properly stocked 

* Check wall menus 

* Check to confirm that the required Forms, tools and supplies are on-board 

* Set-up service display (Counter) 

* Set,up bar-back display 

* Prepare support materials 

* Fill condiment trays 

* Make coffee 

* Greet and assist passengers 

LSA-Cafe Work Da on Northeast Corridor-En-Route Work Table 2 

7:00 AM Depart on Train No. 2154 - Destination Boston 

* Maintain a professional demeanor and appearance 

* Provide high level customer service 

* Make required service announcements 

* Greet and assist passengers 

* Provide customer information 

LSA-Cafc Work Da on Northeast Corridor-End-of-Trip Work Table 3 

11:30PM Arrive on Train No. 21 73 ~ Washington 

* Inventory supplies and separate condemnation 

* Close out cash register 

* Close out credit card machine 

* Complete inventory and sales report form (Transfer Out Form) 

* Reconcile Transfer Out Form and cash register report 

* Note defects on the mechanical report 

* Clean work areas 

4 
101 


Insert offset folio 70 here 75420.070

All of this work is governed by quite rigorous policies, procedures and standards, as illustrated in 

the Service Standards Manual Table of Contents attached with this statement. This example only 

applies to a Lead Service Attendant on the NEC between Washington, D.C and Boston, 

Massachusetts. On a long-distance train, when food service attendants are on trips of three to six 

days, or beyond, working 46 hours in a 68 hour window for instance, the work becomes much 

more demanding. 

As stated previously, this example is based on a normal day. lfthere were to be an emergency, 

service disruption or train failure, the workday would become even more demanding. 

Criticism of the Food and Beverage Service 

The Amtrak Food and Beverage Service Savings Act (RR. 3362), which was included in the 

American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act (H.R. 7), required the Federal Railroad 

Administration to solicit bids for the food and beverage service on Amtrak trains. It also 

redirected Amtrak appropriations to cover a private contractor's losses. In effect, this prohibited 

Amtrak from losing money on food and beverage service, but forced the railroad to use its 

federal funding to subsidize a private contractor's losses. This flawed provision obviously failed 

to appropriately take into consideration the extensive job requiremcnts of on-board service 

workers that provide food and beverage service as well as the training requirements necessary to 

ensure the safety and security of passengers. 

Proponents of privatization justify their proposals by pointing to Amtrak's food and beverage 

budget losses. While scrutiny of food and beverage service is appropriate, it misses a larger 

point. The travel industry as a whole generally does not view food and beverage as directly 

contributing to its bottom line. Rather, it is used as a loss leader to drive ticket sales in an effort 

to increase revenues. Amtrak's food and beverage service is no different in this regard. The 

proponents of privatization actually ignore this very important lesson from the private sector. 

Congress has tried to micro-manage Amtrak's food service on previous occasions. but never 

successfully. In 2006, the company was forced to streamline service on dining cars by replacing 

china with paper products and replacing made-to-order entrees with pre-cooked microwaveable 

food. It was also forced to eliminate pots and pans and all grill work from the train. But due to 

passenger demand, Amtrak ended up scrapping the Congressional model and additional grilled 

entrees were put back on the train. 

Studies show that Amtrak customers attach significant value to the availability of food service on 

board. It is an essential part of the passenger rail experience and differentiates it from other 

forms of transportation. If food and beverage service quality declines under a low-cost 

contractor due to procurement of cheap food or to staff cuts, overall Amtrak ticket revenue could 

decline, eliminating the intended cost savings. 

Conclusion 

There are some who consider on-board service employees overly compensated for the skill set 

required to prepare meals and provide customer service. However, this argument ignores the 

personal sacrifices necessary for this career: mental and physical exhaustion, sleep deprivation 

and stress due to the rigorous working environment and conditions, extremely long hours and 

insufficient diet, each of which attributes to myriad of medical conditions experienced by 

workers. It also ignores the extensive training employees receive to respond to medical and 

safety emergencies. We are not paid for the expertise requircd to perform the portion of our 

5 
102 


Insert offset folio 71 here 75420.071

work related to food service, we are compensated for the degradation to our bodies, the stress to 

our health and the pressure on our personal lives caused by the necessity to work long hours 

under arduous conditions while maintaining a personable and pleasant demeanor. 

Congress, particularly leadership on this committee, is proposing to abruptly end my career by 

dictating that the important work we perform be outsourced to a contractor -- contracted-out with 

no promise of well qualified personnel, no promise of a living wage and no promise of any 

benefits. Simply put, that is not fair to Amtrak's on-board service workers that have made the 

same commitment and investment that I have made over the years. It is not fair to Amtrak's 

leadership who, in particular over the past several years, have worked feverishly to reduce costs 

while improving services, with significant work underway that will result in further cost savings 

and improvements. Most importantly, it is not fair to Amtrak passengers, who pay for, expect 

and deserve safe and reliable service on their journey. They are owed the assurance that Amtrak 

employees are well qualified to respond appropriately and protect the safety and interests of its 

customers. 

Beyond fairness and decency, the privatization proposal makes no sense and does not reflect true 

American values. This begs serious questions. Why are some members of Congress promoting 

the elimination of good middle class jobs with decent pay and benefits? Why do they want to 

turn this work over to unproven contractors that would likely pay minimum or poverty level 

wages, offer minimal or no health benefits and no retirement benefits, and be willing to 

jeopardize the safety and security of the passengers? 

I have spent my life working for Amtrak with a promise of earning a fair wage and getting a 

decent Railroad Retirement pension, which is funded solely by contributions from railroads and 

their employees. When I joined Amtrak, I had no expectation this job would make me a rich 

man. But it is honest and respectable work with long hours. It allowed me to provide for my 

family, help send my two girls to college and live a decent middle class life. I have invested 

over three decades into this career. I work hard, earn a decent living and I expect to retire with 

dignity. I urge you to consider this before eliminating these good American jobs. 

Again. I thank for the opportunity to testify bei(we this committee. 

6 
103 


Insert offset folio 72 here 75420.072

Definitions & Abbreviations Definitions & Abbreviations ..................•... 1 

Chapter 1 - Safety & Security Introduction ..........•....•.................. 1~1 

Section 1 Safety 

Introduction ...•.•.•...••.•.....•..•..•...•.•• IRS 

Safety Instructions for an Employees •..........•. 1~5 

• All Employees.. . ..... 1-5 

• Train Service Employees >. J~5 

• On~Board Service Employees> . _ .1-5 

Safety Instructions for On-Board 

Service Employees ...•......•................ . lw5 

Safety Calendar . , .. J·6 

• Safety Instruction Index .. 1-9 

• Safety Instructions .1 ~9 

Job Briefing ............................... _ .1-28 

Train Inspections •...•.......•...•............ lR28 

Boarding and Detraining ...................... lM28 

General Instructions .l~29 

• High Level Platforms . .1-29 

• Low Level Platforms . J~30 

On~Boa:rd Passenger Safety .....••............. 1-30 

Basic Passenger Safety.. . . .1-30 

Passengers With Disabilities ....... .1-31 

Announcements ... J ·32 

• Signage .. .1-32 

Emergency Equipment .1-32 

Car Doors and Vestibules ........ J ~32 

• Restrooms 

Section 2 Passenger Train Emergency 

Preparedness 

. .1-33 

lntrodu~tion ...•...•....•••......•..•.•..•.•• 1~37 

Emergency Preparedness Training .••.....•..... 1~37 

Positions Requiring Training. . .... .1-37 

• Training . .l~38 

• Employees Need Training To Work .... .1-38 

Train Emergencies •....•..•...•....•...•..... 1 ~38 

• General lrain Emergency Instructions .. 1-39 

Derailment .. .1-41 

Head End Power Failure ...... .1-42 

Trespasser Strike, Grade Crossing Accident 

Or Other Critical Incident ., J~44 

Service Standards Manual No 6" i 

• Service Disruption, CatenaryfTbird-Rail 

Power Failure, Equipment Failure, 

En Route Termination Of Train, Etc. . . .1-46 

• Fire .<., ..... 1~48 

• Emergency On-I3oard Police Activity .. 1~50 

Non-Emergency Evacuation - Non-Station 

Train-To-Train Passenger Transfer - NEe ....... 1~SO 

• General Non-Emergency Evacuation 

Instructions " .1-50 

• Passenger Transfer Between Trains Without 

A Jumper Cable Or Transfer Bridge , .. 1-51 

Passenger Transfer Between Trains With A 

Jumper Cable, Without A Transfer Bridge ... 1~52 

• Passenger Transfer Between Two Trains 

With A Jumper Cable And Transfer Bridge .... 1~54 

Passenger Transfer Between Amfleet 

Equipment (or Amfleet to Acela Equipment) 

With a Jumper Cable and G2 Transfer Bridge .. 1-56 

Acela-Folding Stairs .......... 1·62 

Emergency Evacuation ....•................•.. 1-69 

Genera! Emergency Evacuation 

Instructions .1-69 

Evacuation Through End Doors Into 

the Next Car . .1-70 

Evacuation l1uough Vestibule 

Side Doors J~71 

Evacuarion TIuough Emergency 

Windows 

Evacuation Using Acela's 

EVAC-CHAlR 

Tunnel Information and Emergencies 

. .1-73 

.1·75 

Unusual Occurrence Reporting Requirements •.•..• 1-77 

Examples of Qualifying Events to 

Be Reported ........... .1-77 

Examples of Events Not Qualifying 

For Reporting , , .. .1 ~ 78 

Qualifying Event Reporting ... .1~78 

Section 3 Terrorist Activity 

Introduction ..............•...•..••.•.....••. 1.83 

Bomb Threats and Unattended Items .......•... 1~83 

• Bomb1hreat .... 1~83 

Receipt of a Bomb Threat .1-83 

Types of Bomb Threats ........ , .... 1-84 

Unattended Items Guide ....... 1-86 

• Personal Safety Guide ....... 1-86 

Ii Table of Contents ~/ 
104 


Insert offset folio 73 here 75420.073

Chemical, Biological and Radiologicru Threats ..• 1·87 

Chemical Threats .. 1-87 

• Biological Threats ... 1-88 

• Radiological Threats .1-88 

Host Railroad and Amtrak Joint 

Security Procedures ............•.............. 1~89 

Notification .1-90 

Response 

En Route Train Inspection 

Standing Train Inspection. 

Section 4 Law Enforcement Issues 

..... 1-90 

1-91 

.. .. 1-92 

Introduction ....•..•..............•........•. 1-97 

Transporting Prisoners ........................ 1~97 

Firearms and 'Weapons On-Board Trains ......... 1·97 

• Law Enforcement Officers .... .1-97 

• Carry~On and Checked Baggage .. 1-98 

Chapter 2 - Injury, Illness and Reporting 

Injuries ...................................... 2·1 

• General Instructions ...... 2-1 

• FirstAid .2-2 

Illness .••.........•......................... 2.16 

Suspected Food-Borne Illness 

Procedures ... 2-16 

Serious Communicable Disease 

Procedures ......... 2-17 

List of Serious Communicable 

Diseases (SCD) .2-J9 

• Blood-Borne (BBP) 

.. 2-19 

Injury and lliness Reporting .........•......... 2·23 

• Types of Reports .2-24 

No.n-r..l71ployee Injur.vl!!1ness Report" 

"Employee Injury/Illness Report" 

(NRPC 260) 

"Aledicallnformation and Consent" 

(NRPC488) . 

"Accident Investigation Report" 

(NRPC405) 

"Operation Hearfsaver, Employee 

Responder Report" (NRPC 3245) 

. .2-25 

.. .2-28 

•• < •• 2·33 

... 2-35 

ServIce Standards Manual No 6 Iii 

Chapter 3 - FDA Rules & Inspections 

Introduction .........••............•.......... 3-1 

Food Service Cars ............................. 3~1 

General Instructions. . ... 3·1 

RefrigeratorslFreezers 

RefrigeratorlFreezer Failures 

• En Route RefrigeratorfFreezer Failures 

Emergency Food Provisioning For Trains . 

Dishwashing Machines 

• Toilet Facilities and Hand Washing 

Equipment Failures 

Cardboard Trash Containers . 

Trash Handling Locations 

• Car Watering 

• Rodent and Insect Infestation 

.... 3-2 

... .3-2 

· .3-2 

· .3-3 

.... 3-4 

· .3-5 

. .. 3-5 

.. .3-6 

.. .3-7 

.. .3-8 

FDA Inspections ..••••.........•.............. 3~9 

Inspection Notification .. 3-9 

Inspection Procedures .. .3-10 

Common Sanitation Principles .. .3-10 

Potentially Hazardous Foods ..... 3-12 

Temperature Monitoring Reports .. .3-13 

Additional Information .... .3-15 

Chapter 4 - Baggage Handling 

Introduction ..........................•....... 4·1 

Carry-On Baggage .. _ ........................ .4-1 

Carry-On Baggage Policy .. 4-1 

Carry~On Baggage loenllllca'lUO 

Requirements .4~2 

Carry-On Baggage "Canadian 

Customs Tags" (NRPC) Requirements .. .4-3 

Continental Airlines .4-4 

Military Passengers .. .4-4 

• Excess Baggage . . ,4-4 

Firearms or Weapons Carried On-Board . .4-4 

• Folding Bicycles . .4-5 

Full Size Bicycles & Surfboards .. .4-5 

Checked Baggage ......... _ ....... _ .•• _ .. _ .. _ .4-7 

Checked Baggage Policy Requirements ..... ,4-7 

Fireanns in Checked Baggage . .4-8 

Firearms in Checked Baggage 

Unusual Circumstances .......... A-II 

iv Table of Contents 
105 


Insert offset folio 74 here 75420.074

Amtrak Food and Beverage Workers 

Extensive Safety and Security Training 

including: 

,. Emergency Preparedness Training 

,. First Aid Training 

r On-Board Passenger Safety Training 

,. Training to Assist Passengers with 

Disabilities 

,. Emergency Evacuation Training 

,. Training on Responding to 130mb 

ThreatlUnattended Items 

,. Training on FDA Rules and Inspections 

,. Employee Security Awareness 

Computer Based Training (CBT) 

,. Dealing with Unruly Passenger 

Training 

,. Block Training - safety, security and 

customer service training 

Wide range of responsibilities including: 

,. Providing food and beverages -

including selling, preparing meals, 

cooking 

,. On-board accounting procedures 

" Announcements and signage 

" Service recovery procedures 

,. Baggage handling 

" Customer service 

,. Extensive pre-departure, en-route and 

end-of-trip responsibilities 

" Tend to any medical or safety 

emergency, service disruptions or train 

failures 

,. Shifts from 12-18 hours and sometimes 

trips are a week or more where 

employees work 46 hours in a 68 hour 

window (long-distance routes) 
106 


Insert offset folio 75 here 75420.075

Two planes taking off from National put on 

collision course with plane trying to land 

By Ashley Halsey III, Published: August 1 

Three commuter jets came within seconds of a midair collision at Reagan National Airport on 

Tuesday after confused air traffic controllers launched two outbound flights directly at another 

plane coming in to land, according to federal officials with direct knowledge of the incident. 

The three planes, all operated by US Airways, carried 192 passengers and crew members, the 

airline said. All of the flights reached their destinations without mishap, but the near-collision 

was another among several thousand recorded errors by air traffic controllers nationwide in 

recent years. 

National has been the site of some of the most notable incidents, including one revealed last year 

in which the lone controller supervisor on duty was asleep and didn't respond when regional 

controllers sought to hand off planes to National for the final approach. 

The problem Tuesday occurred about 2 p.m. as a number of inbound planes were queued up to 

tum above Mount Vernon, fly north over the Potomac River and land on National's main 

runway. But an approaching storm caused a significant wind shift, and the air traffic control 

center in Warrenton wanted to reverse the flow of planes into the airport, turning them north of 

Rosslyn and routing them south along the river to land from the opposite direction. 

The Warrenton controllers communicated the plan to the controller tower at National. 

"The tower agreed, but they didn't pass it on to all the people they needed to pass it on to," said a 

federal official familiar with the incident who was not authorized to speak publicly. 

As a result, an incoming flight that had been cleared to land was flying head-on at two planes 

that had just taken off. The inbound plane and the first of the outbound planes were closing the 

1.4 miles between them at a combined speed of 436 mph, a rate that meant they were about 12 

seconds from impact when the tower controller recognized her mistake. 

Hours after being alerted to the incident by The Washington Post, the FAA's public affairs office 

issued a statement Wednesday night saying that it is investigating the matter and wiII take 

appropriate action to address the miscommunication. 

"Are you with me?" the tower controller asked the inbound pilot, checking to see whether he was 

tuned to her radio frequency. Wben the pilot acknowledged her, she ordered him to make an 

abrupt turn to the south to avoid the other two planes. 
107 


Insert offset folio 76 here 75420.076

"We were cleared [for landing] at the river there," the pilot said after breaking off the approach 

northwest of the airport. "What happened?" 

After a pause, the controller said, "Stand by, we're trying to figure this out." 

As she directed him to make a loop around the airport for a second landing attempt the pilot 

cautioned: "We really don't have enough fuel here for this. We have to get on the ground pretty 

quick." 

The federal official who reviewed the incident said what appeared to be a basic failure to 

communicate the planned change to everyone in the National tower was compounded by sloppy 

procedures. 

"This is a pretty big screw-up for a major airport," the person said. 

The official likened proper procedure to that of two flag men using radios to direct a single lane 

of traffic around a highway construction zone. 

"They say, 'You're good to go after the yellow pickup truck gets there,' " the official said. 

"When we change the direction of operation because of a wind shift, we're supposed to give the 

specific call sign of the last plane. They didn't use call signs [at National]. They didn't do the 

coordination well." 

The world governed by air traffic controllers is split into three layers. Control centers handle 

planes at cruising altitude, terminal radar approach control, or Tracon, facilities work with pilots 

at lower altitudes, and airport control towers handle final landing approaches and takeoffs. 

Commercial flight is a sequence of han doffs between controllers working the three levels. On 

Tuesday, Potomac Tracon in Warrenton contacted the National tower to suggest that planes land 

in the opposite direction to accommodate the wind shift. 

News of the sleeping controller at National last year led to the revelation that controllers on 

overnight shifts at several other airports were napping on the job. The FAA suspended or fired 

several controllers for sleeping on the job last year, and the controversy contributed to the ouster 

of the head of the FAA's air traffic control organization. 

Another incident involving National Airport drew attention to errors made by controllers. In 

2010, an airliner carrying Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) swerved to avoid another jet 

when the planes got so close that an onboard collision avoidance system was activated. 

The FAA said that it recorded 1,234 operational errors in fiscal 2009 and that the number jumped 

to 1,887 in 2010, although there were more than a million fewer flights that year. The 

overwhelming majority of those incidents in which controllers allowed planes to get to close to 

one another did not put passengers at risk, but there were enough more-serious events that the 

National Transportation Safety Board stepped in to review them. 
108 


Insert offset folio 77 here 75420.077

One that the safety agency scrutinized was a relatively minor mistake involving a plane with first 

lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden, the wife of the vice president, onboard. 

Other cases the NTSB reviewed were more serious: A Boeing 737 nearly hit a helicopter while 

taking off from Houston; a Boeing 777 skimmed under a small plane on takeoff from San 

Francisco; a Boeing 737 nearly collided with a Cessna in Burbank, Calif.; an Airbus 319 passed 

100 feet above (he path of a Boeing 747 taking off in Anchorage; and an Embraer 13 5 taking off 

from Chicago took evasive action to avoid an in-bound twin-engine prop plane. 
109 


Insert offset folio 78 here 75420.078

J 00 

Home> Travel information> InfHght services> United Economy> Choice Menu 

Choice Menu 

Order a snack or fresh food on your next flight. Choice Menu features selections available in United 

Economy® on most flights longer than two hours Within North Amerjca, Caribbean and select latin 

America flights longer than two hours. 

Snack offerings 

Availab!e on most flights longer than two hours 

Mott's@ Applesauce! Jacob's® 

Cream Crackers, Pepperidge 

farm@ Goldfish, O'Briens® 

Pepperoni flavored Beef Stick, 

Gourmet White Cheddar Cheese 

Spread, Skittles® and Oreo® 

Cookie 2-Pack 

Savory 

$7.49 

Raspberry Vanilla Fig Bar, 

Stoned Classics Tortilla Chips, EI 

Sol Chunky Salsa (Medium), 

Emerald® Natural Almonds, 

Fresh Gourmet Dried Fruit 

Blend, Keebler@ Grahams 

Original Crackers, Nuteila® 

Spread 

Tapas 

$8.59 

Oloves Marinated Olives, 

Roasted Red Pepper Bruschetta 

Spread, Wild GardenTM 

Hummus, Ronde!e@ Peppercorn 

Parmesan Cheese Spread, 

Stacy's® Simply Naked Pita 

Chips, Jacobs® Cream 

Crackers, Partners@ Olive Oil 

and Sea Salt Crackers, 

Emerald® Natural Almonds, 

Brookside® Dark Chocolate 

A Is carte 

Pringles@ Original Potato 

Crisps, 2.6 oz. can 

$2.99 

M&M'S® Pretzel Chocolate 

Candies, 2.8 oz. 

Two-Bite® Cinnamon Ratts 

$2.99 

Three mini rolls 

Chex Mix@) 30750z bag 

$2.99 

8/2/20129:58 AM 
110 


Insert offset folio 79 here 75420.079

Wltn B!UeDerry 

Fresh selections 

Available on most flights longer than hours 

Chilled ham and cheddar 

breakfast sandwich 

(Available on select flights) 

$5.79 

Shaved ham and cheddar 

cheese on a rustic Ciabatta 

square served with Dijon 

mustard-mayo sauce 

Hot breakfast sandwich 

(available on select flights) 

$5.99 

Yogurt parfait 

$5.49 

A cool, 

vanHla 

berrles 

Two~Bite® Cinnamon Rolls 

$2.99 

mini rolls 

$7.99 

Premium Angus beef with 

melted cheese, lettuce, tomato, 

and omon, served with 

condiments 

on 

$7.99 

Smoked 

sandwich (Available 

flights) 

cheese and a 

ro!1 with stone-ground 

mustard-mayo sauce 

Asian noodle salad 

$5.49 

with stir-fried 

chHi chicken 

Chicken spinach salad 

$9.49 

A 

onions 

vinaigrette 

Thai chicken wrap 

$8.59 

A delicious combination of 
111 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 80 here 75420.080

30f3 

chicken breast, romaine lettuce, 

carrots, and red and yellow bell 

peppers wrapped in a tortilla 

with Thai aiol1 sauce 

Cheese and fruit plate 

$7.49 

A deliCiOus selection of 

Muenster, cheddar, Gouda and 

Brie cheeses, crackers, dried 

fruit and pecan halves 

~ Proud to fly THIll USA for over 30 yurs. 

Cnotrnrt 

B'!Sioess 

of 

SerVICes 

CarriaGe 

! ~! 

I ! engthy 

~ 

Tarmac 

1 !!0itedmntloeotalbpkHMS 

Delay Plan I Qllr u0lted CWjtgmer 

rom! ~ 

Cgmmttrrnmt t legal Infgrmation ! ~ I ~ I 

COPYright 

Search lIoite(Lmrn 

© 2012 United 

I ~ 

Air Unes, Inc. 

All rights reserved. 

812120129:58 AM