Hello,

Quote:

Please cite some figures to back up this statement.

Quote:

It's a really broad generalisation. A number of first class travellers would be businessmen, who travelled back and forth throughout the year.

Quote:

I'm sure there's some truth in that, but it doesn't prove that the third class traffic generated more profit on a ship such as the Titanic.

Quote:

True, but first class paid much more. If a minimum third class fare was £7, as I've said, then a single first class passenger on a minimum fare would generate more revenue than three third class passengers. As you say, first class cost more, but when you have suites in first class costing (if I remember rightly) up to £870, then a single millionaire engaging such a suite would generate more revenue than 124 third class passengers on a minimum fare. Throughout Olympic's life, especially after the immigration restrictions of the early 1920s, she carried more first class passengers if my memory serves.

Quote:

There's a great difference between pointing out that there were many immigrants in third class, and then saying that they made a better profit. You haven't backed up your argument with any significant evidence or figures.

Best wishes,

Mark.

never mind. u should write a chapter about this in ur next book.

Quote:

Hello,

That's always a possibility, although I'm really not sure I have enough expertise on this specific topic. I'm sure other researchers would be better than me at tackling the debate.

It's just that a lot of statements are made about third class being the 'bread and butter' of the Atlantic traffic, in terms of generating profits, but few figures are ever offered to back up those statements. I can't help wondering if this is one of those opinions that keeps being repeated, and because so many people have said it, everyone thinks that someone else has the evidence to back it up. Indeed, Captian Jack dos not seem to have noticed my post where I asked for evidence to back up his statements -- while he did offer some figures, some of those contradicted the figures I have seen, and it would be nice to see some reliable figures that could be used as a counter-point.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion.

Best wishes,

Mark.

Quote:

Hey why don't you put up some figures if you are so all fired considered with them? And I'll snip and paste my responce. I don't see any reliable figures in any of your posts, just snipping. I'm not going to do all the research for you, pull out one of your books and quote some data for us.

I stand by what I said the third class immigration wave was the salvation to the shipping trade until congress years later put a damper on it. Even during the war when 1st class travel fell off to zero the immigration wave flurished. Ist class travel was never the major income for White Star Line.

Hello,

Quote:


edward9139 wrote:
i'd hav to agree with Captain_Jack. If you look at the rate of travel, the First-class passengers hav already traveled on their fancy ship.

by Mark Chirnside on 2005/5/16 11:28:04

Hello,
Please cite some figures to back up this statement.

Best wishes,

Mark.
-----------------------------------------------------

Mark in case you don't know many of those repling here are hardly teenagers and are trying to broaden their interests in Titanic. Instead of chastising everyone with your snip, copy & pasting. Why don't you provide them with some of your figures from sources which will help them understand better?

But now I'm 50 yrs+ so feel free to castigate my posts. If you'd care to explain to everyone the wartime economics that drove almost 100% of the luxuary travel off the oceans and how the British government called to service most sea worthy vessels during the out break of the World War? Luxuary travel was none existant during the war and following the Great Depression era.

Now I know you are a Olympic historian so these facts below are for our fellow titanic discussion groupies.

The Olympic remained in commercial service after the beginning of the war. However, the British Admiralty began pulling commercial ships out of service and using them for war duties
shortly after the beginning of the war. White Star decided to let Olympic make one more round trip from England before sending her to Belfast to be laid up. On the way to New York, the ship was packed with Americans and Canadians who wanted to get out of Europe and away from the war, no first class passengers there. On the way back, she was filled with Europeans who were eager to get home to their families again these were no 1st class passengers. (fact)

And after spending almost a year in Belfast, Olympic was finally commissioned as a naval
transport in September of 1915. She was painted in very dazzling colors, with very bright geometric shapes on a yellow background, to confuse enemy submarines. On September 24, 1915, the newly designated HMT (His Majesty's Transport) Olympic, transport ship No. T2810, left Liverpool on her first trooping voyage, bound for Mudros on the Greek island of Lemnos. She was put under the command of Capt. Bertram F. Hays, who replaced Capt. Haddock who was appointed to a special position in Belfast. (fact)


Under the command of the ship's next captain, William Marshall, a bunch of new problems came. The Olympic was an old ship. She had to adapt to stay in business. The classes of second and third were changed to become Tourist Cabin and Tourist Third Cabin. Accommodations in these new classes were different from what they had been originally been designed due to falling profits. (fact)

Also by that time the ships tried to return to passenger travel, the United States had passed laws restricting the amount of immigrants allowed to enter the country. This meant that there were less passengers traveling in 3rd class (because a large portion of passengers in this class were immigrants). So reclassifing the classes was a failing attempt the rebuild the Olympic's profits, but the Olympic's career was entering one of it's lowest ebbs.


In short, During World War One (1914-1918) she served as a troop transport. After the war she was returned to the White Star Line and served once again as a passenger liner until 1934, when the line merged with another company. In 1935 she was sold and scrapped. (fact)

Even after the war was over the finacial market was such that
the White Star Line was beginning to crumble due to problems caused by The Great Depression. (fact)

Now these aren't my personal opinions they are cold hard facts and if need, I can sight you references to everything above.

The great sisters ships never got to really serve the first class as planned between war time and the depression era. Not forgetting the poor Brittanic whose lavish interiors were gutted out to make room for medical operating rooms, hospital recovery rooms, doctors offices and other medical office space when the Britannic was designated "His Majesty's Hospital Ship" (HMHS), hospital ship No. G618. Again (fact).

Hello Captain Jack,

Thanks for your reply. You criticise me for sniping – as it happens, I have intended no unpleasantness in my replies. The way I see it, we’re all here because we share a common interest in the Titanic and related topics, and we’re here to discuss them – each of us providing our own opinions, learning others’ views, and so forth. From your comments, where you accuse me of ‘chastising everyone with your snip, copy and pasting,’ I get the impression that you think I’m sniping -- simply because I use the board’s quote formatting function. As it happens, in my view it’s a matter of simple courtesy to address the points that others have put forth in the debate, and reply with opposing views or comments of agreement – depending on your own viewpoint. So yes, I do use the quote formatting function to re-state your arguments, followed up by my replies. That way it’s easier to follow what everyone is saying. It is also why the function is included in the design of the forum, I would assume.

Quote:

First of all, I’m not ‘all fired’ – I’ve not heard that exact expression before but I am assuming it’s an American term for being angry and a variation on the theme of being ‘fired up.’ I’m certainly not angry with someone for having an opposing point of view. I enjoy a good-natured, rigorous debate, and have tried to participate in one, although in your accusations of ‘sniping’ I can’t help detect an element of personal animosity towards me on your part. Yes, I disagree with your original premise about the profitability of third class; but in my view if you’re advancing an argument then it’s your duty to provide some references or evidence in favour of it. That way, it does both you and your argument justice and makes people more inclined to listen. As you’ll know, it’s pretty standard in historical debates. You’ve said, for instance, that ‘over the years you see Olympic regularly ran a 5 to 1 of 3rd class ratio according to manifests.,’ but this doesn’t fit with the passenger figures recorded for the Olympic by the Atlantic conference. You’ve also cited manifests when you were saying that Olympic’s third class carryings were increasing by 25 percent over the years – which also doesn’t fit with the conference figures. When I’ve asked for figures to support your statements (indeed, there’s no reason that a well-argued viewpoint might make me change my own opinion), you have not done so. I don’t understand how you seem to see it as my duty to prove the viewpoint you are putting forward, when I disagree with it.

Quote:

As I’ve said before, I don’t see my replies as sniping. I’ve not asked you to do any research for me, let alone all of it – merely back up what you’re saying. If you don’t want to, then that’s fine by me and I can’t force you to. But I don’t see that anyone can sincerely expect others to take their arguments seriously if you don’t back them up.

Since you asked, I’ll quote one set of figures for Olympic, from 1924, and quote part of my previous posting. In my post I quoted you when you said: ‘And over the years you see Olympic regularly ran a 5 to 1 of 3rd class ratio according to manifests.’ I replied by asking: ‘Please cite some examples. Taking 1924 as a year at random (and because I have the figures to hand), Olympic carried twice as many first class passengers as she did third class passengers. And, this before a full year's immigration restrictions had kicked in.’ The figures for 1924 are that Olympic carried 12,141 first class passengers; 6,683 second class passengers; and 6,128 third class passengers. This was after the 1921 immigration restrictions had ‘kicked in,’ but as I understand it the 1924 regulations did not come into force until 1925. And you can see that Olympic’s third class carryings were lower than either second or first class; and that her first class carryings were nearly double those of third class.

Quote:

Stand by it, as you will. However, if you’re not going to provide any facts to support your argument (such as any revenue figures, or a breakdown of the White Star Line’s pre-war income) then I can’t see that you will change anyone’s opinion.

Quote:

I’ve never considered this forum’s average age, and nor would I use such a shallow criterion [sic?] to judge people’s arguments. I’m far more interested in what people are saying, and the arguments that they are advancing. I think it’s pretty derogatory to use the term ‘teenagers’ in the sense that you seem to be, especially since I have only just turned twenty myself this year. And I certainly haven’t intentionally set out to chastise. Indeed, you yourself have made many rude or patronising comments to various posters – at least, they can easily be interpreted that way. Maybe I am misreading your tone – if so, my apologies. For instance, when you told Edward9139 that ‘it would be nice if you posted facts or questioned opinions or even started a indepth discussion, but what you posted was pure childish. Sorry but I can't tolerate much childs play today.’ If anything it seems to be you judging people on their age. Since you mentioned your desire then for an ‘in depth discussion,’ I find it hard to see why you state that I am ‘sniping’ when I try to engage in one by quoting your points, and offering some of my own opinions. I also find it hard to see why, when I reply to your comments in the Olympic thread for instance, as part of engaging in a discussion, you see fit to ignore them. You’ve voiced your desire for in depth discussions, and whenever one is offered you don’t seem to be in the habit to reply.

Quote:

At present, I am away from most of my sources. Splitting my time between my home town and University town, I leave the vast amount of my notes and documents at home in termtime. Since I spend so much time at University, for most of the time I am away from my sources. However, as it happens I have written a number of research articles published online and in various journals. I hope to do more in the future, time permitting, but it’s important to do a subject justice. Still, I’ve posted some 1924 figures.

Quote:

I’m not out to ‘castigate’ you and I am not going to judge you on how old you are – rather, I judge people on what they post.

Quote:

I don’t see how ‘wartime economics’ and the decline of first class travel during the war has much to do with the previous discussion about the profitability of third class prior to the war? And as it happens, no, I wouldn’t care to explain your premise.

Quote:

I’m always willing to learn about the Olympic, even in the briefest summaries it is possible to learn ‘new information.’ Since I don’t want to spend much more time on this post, as I have a lot to do later tonight, I won’t go into the entirety of your listing individually. However, I will say that there are errors in it, and that all of your ‘facts’ are not undisputed facts. I’ll just take a few examples, and trust that you won’t assume that I am ‘sniping.’ For instance:

Quote:

Leaving aside the debate as to the brightness of Olympic’s ‘dazzle’ paint scheme, she wasn’t ‘dazzle’ painted in 1915. Indeed, photos of her in 1916 show her with a black hull and grey superstructure; it was later in the war that she was dazzle painted, not in September 1915 as you seem to imply. See The McCluskie [sic?], Marriott and Sharpe book ‘Titanic and her Sisters,’ as well as Simon Mills’ Olympic book, and my own, and the photos are available.

Quote:

Captain Marshall was not Olympic’s next captain after Bertram Hayes (not ‘Hays’). See Simon Mills’ book on the Olympic, or mine, and you’ll see that they are in agreement. For the spelling of Hayes’ name, a google search should reveal his 1925 book.

Quote:

A photo exists of the number ‘G608’ on Britannic’s bridge front. This can be seen on the back of my Olympic class ships book, where the photo was first published, and in J. Kent Layton’s new book ‘Atlantic Liners’ (which is a great new work). Captain Bartlett also referred to the ship as ‘G608’ in his report, which for ease you can find reproduced in Simon Mills’ 2002 book, ‘Hostage to Fortune.’ So, it’s not an undisputed fact that the ship’s assigned number was ‘G608.’

Best wishes,

Mark.

Quote:

I never used that word "undisputed" you are falsly misrepresenting my post! I said as reported it is a "fact" it was G618. As for your photo I can show you photos of the name Titanic printed on the side of that ship! Doesn't make it true. Plus numerous other altered photos of these ships. You know very well those are in dispute about G608 to date. The photo has not been authenticate as of this date w/ G608. The G608 is not square to hanging as noted by many which has drawn question. A photo such as this http://members.aol.com/ken63728/weird.htm is one example of that kind of controversy.

G618 is still reconized as the correct number till some scanning or photo investigating on that single photo can be concluded.
Read the last line
http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/fspanjer/brit1.htm
Britannic was named "His Majesty's Hospital Ship" (HMHS), hospital ship No.G618.

Paragraph 9
http://members.aol.com/WakkoW5/britannic.html
The Britannic was designated "His Majesty's Hospital Ship" (HMHS), hospital ship No. G618.

Paragraph 7
http://www.hospitalshipbritannic.com/hosp_ship.htm
she was commissioned as His Majesty's Hospital Ship (HMHS) G618

If you would provide a higher resolution scan of the photo of the back cover I would give you a unbias opinion as a professional photographer with all the equipment to examine the photo.

Hello Captain Jack,

Quote:

You accuse me of misrepresenting your post. I don’t believe I’ve misrepresented your post. If anything, you’re misrepresenting what I have said. You did indeed present the number ‘G618’ as a fact, and what I said in reply was that it was not an undisputed fact – backing this up by drawing your attention to the ‘G608’ photos. I did not say that you had said it was ‘undisputed.’ I didn’t say that ‘G618’ was definitely the number, nor did I say that ‘G608’ was definitely the number. There is evidence for both.

I’ve seen photos of the Titanic with the name ‘enhanced’ on the photo. Steve Hall shared a number of photos last year. And I have not commented on those photos, nor said that the ‘enhanced’ names shown were unaltered, as you seem to imply.

You say I know ‘very well those are in dispute about G608 to date’ – as if I’d said that this wasn’t the case, which I hadn’t. You might not have authenticated the photo, but you’re wrong to say that it ‘has not been authenticate [sic] as of this date.’

And yes, I am well aware that ‘G618’ is still generally recognised as the correct number – again, it does not make it correct.

Quote:

I couldn’t provide the scan at the moment in any case, as I am away from my sources and it's not on my University computer. But if you don’t mind I would rather seek another person’s opinion.

As I feel you falsely accused me of doing, in my personal opinion you really did ‘nit pick’ by quoting only a single paragraph from my last post, and in the process accusing me of misrepresenting what you were saying. When you wrote: ‘You know very well those are in dispute about G608 to date,’ you clearly implied that I had denied such a thing when I hadn’t. In fact, my post was in error in part when I said: ‘it’s not an undisputed fact that the ship’s assigned number was “G608,”’ since I meant to indicate ‘G618,’ but it might fairly be said about both numbers.

In your post you didn’t deny the personal animosity I felt you were showing towards me, nor the apparent antagonism; you didn’t explain your criticism as to my supposed ‘sniping’ even after I had put forth my own opinion; you didn’t say why you had made that rude comment to Edward9139, nor did you deny its rudeness when I asked if I was misreading your tone (and offered my apologies if I was misunderstanding you); you didn’t explain why you had voiced the desire for an ‘in depth discussion’ and then fail to participate when other posters (such as myself) have tried to engage you in one; and so forth.

It is these facts that make me suspicious of your motives: for instance, when you levelled your accusations against me about ‘sniping,’ and I replied that I was doing you the courtesy and justice of quoting the appropriate points from your arguments and replying, you didn’t dispute what I had said (as might have been expected if you still thought I was ‘sniping’), nor apologise for misreading me and explain why you thought what you had thought (as might have been expected if you no longer thought I was ‘sniping’) – you simply ignored the point, as you’ve done with so many others. Now, I don’t know what I have done to offend you, if I have done anything – although if I have ever offended you then you have my apologies and my word that any such offence was strictly unintentional. In light of your post, and the fact that you didn’t take the chance to further explain your viewpoints on a number of the issues, I can’t help thinking that you are just posting for the sake of stirring up arguments with me rather than a genuine debate. Again, maybe I am misreading you, but if that was the case it begs the question as to why you didn’t bother to explain yourself. I think I’ll take a bit of a break from this thread, at least.

Regards,

Mark.