1.) No, pay rates are comparable between railroad employees and MBTA employees. Paying employees less for profit does not make a cheaper operation, despite what the cronies who bought your support make you think.
2.) Railroad Retirement is a federal fund, separate from whatever T employees pay into. This would not change if the Commuter Rail were brought in house. SEPTA employees are in the same boat as [Keolis] employees.
E. The railroads began to abandon passenger service at an alarming rate so the Commonwealth had to start chipping in to keep the trains running. Finally, the MBTA was formed to assume the responsibility for the commuter trains since the railroads didn't want to run them anymore. The railroads were then contracted to run the services they previously owned, and eventually the entire system was consolidated to one company (B&M had the first exclusive contract). The T has never wanted to touch railroad operations other than to oversee it. I don't know why, especially since other outfits (NY MTA, SEPTA) have brought their operations in house, but the T won't do it. Someone mentioned the scape goat reason, and I think they're spot on. When the green line has a ton of derailments, the state agency has to eat that. When the railroad makes the logical decision of pulling a train that carries 75 people to run a trip that carries 900 people, and the newspaper says they're racist because they cancel a train on a line they can't get anyone to use despite insanely low headways and undercut fares, the T can simply jump on the bandwagon and say "Yeah, bad contractor!"Arborwayfan wrote:...(e) the private company was offering the service to begin with but started to lose money (Boston Elevated Ry 20s, 30s, 40s; commuter rail after 1964).
Which of these apply to the T Commuter Rail?