Re: [TML] Alternate Jump Drive: Request for Comment Jeff Zeitlin 01 Dec 2016 01:14 UTC
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 14:10:08 -0800, Greg Nokes <xxxxxx@nokes.name> wrote: >There would probably start to be levels of service between certain >systems - IE we can get your data/mail/cargo/people there in 40 hours >rather then 150, so we will charge X more." > > >Id think it would be like the fed ex overnight vs fed ex ground - you >are paying for time. [...] >Id see a lot of first class, second class and normal rate traffic. >So if you have a package that needs to get there really fast, you can >pony up and buy space on the faster ship. I see a lot of businesses >doing this - for stuff and for people. If you have employees traveling >for meetings, spending 150 hours in jump is a bigger money sink then >spending 40 hours in jump, and time is money - salary and lost >opportunities. If you have a work team idling waiting on parts or >materials, getting there 120 hours quicker could be a huge win. >Honestly if you have two high pop worlds a jump or two apart, I could >see a the majority of traffic using the faster jump. Well, that would depend on the cost difference - the Concorde, for example, never really became the flight of choice for NYC-LON or NYC-PAR trips because the cost was so high relative to even first-class on a 747. And the Concorde wasn't as nice as a 747 first class. (I walked through the retired Concorde at the Intrepid Sea Air Space museum in NYC. Sucker is *tiny*! I can't imagine wanting to be cooped up in it, even if it would be for only half the time of a 747 trip.)