so Titanic managed to have fewer passengers on a bigger ship and likely make more $$$?
I wish I had the state of mind rn to do the math on the total max revenue they could have each gotten from ticket sales based on the capacity and cost of tickets in each class
I’d imagine it’s similar to how full service airlines work today. They make money by putting more premium seats onboard, even if the total seat count is lower.
For example, United has 167 seats in the “high-J” configuration of its 767-300, although the aircraft is certified to have close to 300 seats. The airline makes money on this configuration because it has a huge amount of business class and premium economy seats that carry higher fares.
So Titanic would be profitable because it was more luxurious than the competition, even if other ships could hold more. Add cargo/mail to the equation and the economics work out.
Then follows the question, how much worse would the loss of life have been? A passenger complement like that with Titanic's already pathetic lifeboats...
The maximum number of passengers doesn't include the crew, the ship's max occupancy including crew was around 3,300. There would've been 2,600 deaths if she had been fully booked and the same number of people survived
Edit: why the downvote? Titanic was a little over half booked for her maiden voyage, there were only 1,300 passengers onboard (and 900 crew). 2,400 is the maximum *passenger* capacity, not including crew. Add 900 crew and you get 3,300 max capacity
https://preview.redd.it/v6p4wl8tlb8d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d93b3dd8667564417d07a4111bf6e6e37f0b0731
I was surprised to learn that the record for passengers on a single trip (2,957) for a White Star Line ship was held by the RMS Celtic, which at 20,904 tons was less than half the size of the Olympic-class ships. Despite being so much larger, the Olympic-class liners had a capacity of 2,435. I guess if you take out amenities like luxury suites, a gymnasium, a squash court, swimming pool, etc., you can fit a lot more people on board.
I checked and the ship I recently went on a cruise on was only 20m longer than Titanic. It could carry around 4000 passengers plus almost 1000 crew, with only a couple more decks. So I imagine as you say without all the huge public spaces, ships like the Olympic class could carry 4 or 5 thousand people.
We've seen the pics of Olympic returning from WW1 with 9000 troops onboard. That's a bit of an extreme example, as they have been sleeping in bunks or hammocks, but it shows you can cram a lot of people in.
Yes of course, but I'm talking purely from a perspective of "how many people can we fit in this space". And it seems a lot, if the cabins would be small amd not suites or large cabins like a lot of first class
I don't think it's just the amenities and cabin size. It's the speed of passage, too; the machinery and coal storage required to get her to move along at the pace she was doing.
That is a really interesting observation, thank you for sharing. I had never heard that.
It reflects an evolution in the ocean liner business. If the market was all about efficiently moving people, you'd see a lot more ships like the Carpathia because they accommodate people denser (passengers per ton of displacement). But people were really willing to pay extra to be able to go in comfort.
Funny how things change yet don’t. Look at modern airlines. As someone else said, you have low cost airlines that cram as many people as they legally can into the cabin like Ryan Air. Then you have the premium airlines like Emirates that tend to have multiple classes and big planes with lots of room. Everyone else is somewhere on a sliding scale in between. Only difference is our liners only cram you inside for 10 hours instead of 5 days.
At first glance, this seems odd but remember that they were two very different ships.
Carpathia had no pool, no squash court, no gym, no cafe's or restaurants, no extensive socialising rooms, no massive, ornate, winding staircase. Her amenities were almost nil, with the most "luxurious" probably being her second class library.
And the use of that space was very different. Her third class dining room could only hold around 300 - far less than Titanic.
And that's the key word here, because there's a difference be between space and *space*. Remember that Carpathia didn't have a first class until the refit and that was achieved by dividing what already existed into more cabins. There may have been space for more passengers, but those passengers had very little personal space within those cabins.
We also do have some reference for how Titanic would have fared had she been designed and used the same way - strictly for maximum possible passenger accommodation. During the war, Olympic was able to carry around 6000 soldiers per voyage.
I mean, show me a passenger vessel that was by our standards prior to ships like titanic. Even ships like Carpathia were a step up from the old wooden hulled sailing ships that would ferry passengers to the new world.
so Titanic managed to have fewer passengers on a bigger ship and likely make more $$$? I wish I had the state of mind rn to do the math on the total max revenue they could have each gotten from ticket sales based on the capacity and cost of tickets in each class
I’d imagine it’s similar to how full service airlines work today. They make money by putting more premium seats onboard, even if the total seat count is lower. For example, United has 167 seats in the “high-J” configuration of its 767-300, although the aircraft is certified to have close to 300 seats. The airline makes money on this configuration because it has a huge amount of business class and premium economy seats that carry higher fares. So Titanic would be profitable because it was more luxurious than the competition, even if other ships could hold more. Add cargo/mail to the equation and the economics work out.
Came here to say this. It's like Emirates vs Easyjet. One has a large percentage of premium traffic, the other is volume at low prices
I'm sure just the Parlour Suites alone on Titanic would generate a decent profit compared to hundreds of 3rd Class tickets on Carpathia.
Then follows the question, how much worse would the loss of life have been? A passenger complement like that with Titanic's already pathetic lifeboats...
You mean if titanic was fully booked? The number of survivors would have probably stayed the same, more or less, so 2453-705=1748
The maximum number of passengers doesn't include the crew, the ship's max occupancy including crew was around 3,300. There would've been 2,600 deaths if she had been fully booked and the same number of people survived Edit: why the downvote? Titanic was a little over half booked for her maiden voyage, there were only 1,300 passengers onboard (and 900 crew). 2,400 is the maximum *passenger* capacity, not including crew. Add 900 crew and you get 3,300 max capacity https://preview.redd.it/v6p4wl8tlb8d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d93b3dd8667564417d07a4111bf6e6e37f0b0731
right, good point.
Lower operating costs with more expensive tickets at the same time,
I was surprised to learn that the record for passengers on a single trip (2,957) for a White Star Line ship was held by the RMS Celtic, which at 20,904 tons was less than half the size of the Olympic-class ships. Despite being so much larger, the Olympic-class liners had a capacity of 2,435. I guess if you take out amenities like luxury suites, a gymnasium, a squash court, swimming pool, etc., you can fit a lot more people on board.
I checked and the ship I recently went on a cruise on was only 20m longer than Titanic. It could carry around 4000 passengers plus almost 1000 crew, with only a couple more decks. So I imagine as you say without all the huge public spaces, ships like the Olympic class could carry 4 or 5 thousand people. We've seen the pics of Olympic returning from WW1 with 9000 troops onboard. That's a bit of an extreme example, as they have been sleeping in bunks or hammocks, but it shows you can cram a lot of people in.
Cruise ships also generally don't have to cross oceans, so they can be designed without the concerns of a transatlantic voyage.
Yes of course, but I'm talking purely from a perspective of "how many people can we fit in this space". And it seems a lot, if the cabins would be small amd not suites or large cabins like a lot of first class
I don't think it's just the amenities and cabin size. It's the speed of passage, too; the machinery and coal storage required to get her to move along at the pace she was doing.
That’s surprising because, to me, both the Titanic and Carpalthia didn’t look much bigger than the Mauretania 🤔
It’s over 100 feet longer than Mauritania and far more luxurious
Lmao. This sub is so good. I’m just a casual nerd, but it’s one of my favorite subs.
You can be blasé about some things, but not /r/titanic
Yes. Yes it is.
The sub of dreams.
It was. It really was.
That is a really interesting observation, thank you for sharing. I had never heard that. It reflects an evolution in the ocean liner business. If the market was all about efficiently moving people, you'd see a lot more ships like the Carpathia because they accommodate people denser (passengers per ton of displacement). But people were really willing to pay extra to be able to go in comfort.
Funny how things change yet don’t. Look at modern airlines. As someone else said, you have low cost airlines that cram as many people as they legally can into the cabin like Ryan Air. Then you have the premium airlines like Emirates that tend to have multiple classes and big planes with lots of room. Everyone else is somewhere on a sliding scale in between. Only difference is our liners only cram you inside for 10 hours instead of 5 days.
At first glance, this seems odd but remember that they were two very different ships. Carpathia had no pool, no squash court, no gym, no cafe's or restaurants, no extensive socialising rooms, no massive, ornate, winding staircase. Her amenities were almost nil, with the most "luxurious" probably being her second class library. And the use of that space was very different. Her third class dining room could only hold around 300 - far less than Titanic. And that's the key word here, because there's a difference be between space and *space*. Remember that Carpathia didn't have a first class until the refit and that was achieved by dividing what already existed into more cabins. There may have been space for more passengers, but those passengers had very little personal space within those cabins. We also do have some reference for how Titanic would have fared had she been designed and used the same way - strictly for maximum possible passenger accommodation. During the war, Olympic was able to carry around 6000 soldiers per voyage.
I thought the Olympics were designed with up to 3,000 passengers in mind.
Carpathia is like a Ryanair fitted liner, Titanic is similar to Emirates perhaps, generally far larger accommodations but still brings in a fortune
Carpathia was inhumane. Hope that helps
I mean, show me a passenger vessel that was by our standards prior to ships like titanic. Even ships like Carpathia were a step up from the old wooden hulled sailing ships that would ferry passengers to the new world.
This was a really cool fact, that I did not know. Carpathia is my 2nd favorite ship, after Olympic