3 ms·
> US$400, .... $7,811 Ah, peanuts! Chump change! Somewhere recently saw a review of the Titanic, lots of pictures (taken BEFORE leaving England!) with the m
by graycat 2y ago
> US$400, .... $7,811
Ah, peanuts! Chump change!
Somewhere recently saw a review of the Titanic, lots of pictures (taken BEFORE leaving England!) with the mention that the 1st class fare was $100,000. And that the ship cost $1.5 million to build.
- thaumasiotes 2y agoSo 15 first-class passengers on one trip would pay for the whole ship? I assume a 16th would pay all the costs of making a trip. That's a ridiculous cost structure. What was going on?
- organsnyder 2y agoAssuming those numbers are accurate, that $100k surely bought a lot of amenities (not just food and beverage, but also dedicated staff people) that weren't free.
- thaumasiotes 2y agoYou think the running cost of a trip was over $100,000? I mentioned this specifically in my first comment. A quick check suggests the passenger manifest has, OK, 8 first-class passengers. It sounds like the ship is expected to turn a profit by the time it makes its second voyage. Really?
- organsnyder 2y agoOf course not. That high ticket cost certainly had a healthy profit margin.
- trhway 2y agoThey didn't have to do multi-hundred-million dollars certification (and i think their safety record wasn't good). The lower speed also lowers the costs of making it. They are really less a plane and more like a ship, only floating in the air, and the ships are significantly cheaper.
- jcranmer 2y agoOne number is being adjusted for inflation, the other number is not. Per Wikipedia, the highest first class fare was £1000 in currency at the time, and the ship itself cost about £1.5 million in currency at the time.
- graycat 2y agoOops: Looks like the $100,000 would be okay, accurate enough, if change the ',' to a '.' and get $100.000.