On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Christopher Sean Hilton <xxxxxx@vindaloo.com> wrote:
A J3 ship running J1 can't make money so
the passenger cohort includes only people who can afford to and are
willing to pay for a J-3 trip rather than 3xJ-1s going to the same
place.
You can make *some* money running a J2+ ship on J1 jumps.
But you're at an income disadvantage compared to a J1 ship on the same hop, because you have an extra 26% of your ship filled with drives and fuel, compared to the J1 ship, which is presumably using that 26% of their hull as cargo space and staterooms which are generating income.
I suspect the only way a J2+ ship can be profitable in the long run is to run routes at it's full jump capacity, and charge extra for the direct service.
What makes the pokey little J1 ships attractive is the relatively high percentage of hull that generates income (as opposed to drives and fuel tankage, which do NOT generate income.) That, and if you are licensed as crew, the ability to hitch a ride as a working passage, which I suspect the higher jump number ships are a little more stringent about.
(J1 ships may be willing to offer a discount on long haul freight and passengers, less than the standard J1 rates, because it is guaranteed income. Just a guess.)
CSH:
>If you are a high jump ship in a backwater port, E.g. the
>Millennium Falcon, Mos Eisley, you're there by accident or there's >some other economic draw.
Even in a backwater, there is an economic incentive for the direct jump, as opposed to the long/slow route. OTOH, there is likely to be less cargo going *back*, which means there is a risk of getting"stuck" while waiting for enough cargo/passengers to make the leg back profitable.
--
"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine kook." -Alan Morgan