Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Jeff Zeitlin (26 Nov 2016 23:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Rob Davenport (27 Nov 2016 03:26 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Jeff Zeitlin (27 Nov 2016 17:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Greg Nokes (27 Nov 2016 22:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Jeff Zeitlin (01 Dec 2016 01:18 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Jeff Zeitlin (01 Dec 2016 01:14 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Rob Davenport (30 Nov 2016 00:36 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Jeff Zeitlin (01 Dec 2016 00:32 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Rob Davenport (01 Dec 2016 03:20 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment shadow@xxxxxx (29 Nov 2016 18:49 UTC)
Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Jeff Zeitlin (01 Dec 2016 00:41 UTC)

Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Jeff Zeitlin 01 Dec 2016 01:18 UTC

On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:30:47 +1100, Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net>
wrote:

>Not just that, but the ship operators will also be able to turn over
>more fares and freight charges more frequently.  They may not be able
>to turn over 4 times faster, but they shoudl be able to do so at least
>2-3 times faster, collecting 2-3x as much revenue per month even if
>they don't charge any more per trip.

>Even with the much greater cost per unit cargo or stateroom, the
>increased revenues could easily make up for it.

This will actually depend on how long a ship needs to remain 'in port'
for cargo and passenger unloading/acquisition/loading. If the 'week in
port' doesn't change, you really don't do much better than a single
extra trip per month. So, instead of 25 jumps per year, you might get
into the 35-40 range - but no better than that.