This appears to be an interesting discussion.
quote:
First, we should be comparing the number of people aboard Titanic against a weighted mean number of people carried by Olympic over its WSL career, seasonality included.
Agreed, but unfortunately that’s not really possible. Given the post-war pattern of passenger traffic, comparisons with Olympic’s post-war service are not very revealing. The only useful comparisons are between Olympic and her peers in the 1920s. Similarly, due to Olympic’s back luck in her early years in service there is not a single ‘full’ year prior to the war when we can assess her on a like-for-like basis. As I posted on another forum once:
In 1911, Olympic missed the height of the season due to the Hawke collision, and was only in service from June anyway; 1912 figures are distorted by her cancelled voyage, Titanic's loss, low passenger lists, and her early withdrawal for a refit; in 1913, she only sailed from April onwards and not the full year; and in 1914 she sailed until August in peacetime but then the passenger figures got distorted enormously for her few post-August commercial voyages.
In terms of maiden voyage passenger lists, I understand Lusitania was fairly full — as you would expect for a September crossing. However, aside from Olympic and Titanic, the German Vaterland was not particularly full in summer 1914, nor was Cunard’s Aquitania with 1,055 passengers. Where Olympic shone was the return, eastbound, crossing where she carried over 2,300 passengers and set a record for first class. In turn, by April 14th 1912 there were over six hundred first class bookings for Titanic’s return trip, so she was presumably well on her way to carrying an impressive number of passengers back from New York.
In 1911, Olympic was slightly more popular than Lusitania and Mauretania on an average passenger list basis. However, the phrase ‘apples and oranges’ comes to mind. The Southampton traffic was not the same as Liverpool’s. While the Cunarders were in service the entire year, Olympic missed the first half of the year and missed several crossings where high passenger lists were expected. For instance, some 2,100-2,200 passengers were booked for her fifth, cancelled crossing. Passenger traffic had enjoyed a very good year in 1907, before a sluggish recovery. In 1911, White Star’s Southampton traffic was below that of 1910 and 1909, and it did not recover in 1912. In general terms, it seems an average passenger list of 1,300-1,400 for an express liner of the period was the sort of performance expected. In spite of the difficulties, Olympic averaged marginally under 1,500 passengers in 1911. It is my belief that, if she had carried the anticipated number of passengers and completed her missed voyages, she would have averaged more like 1,700 passengers.
quote:
I would suspect there is a large difference between "full" in terms of maximum number of people and "full" in terms of the mean number of passengers.
Absolutely. Lusitania, Mauretania and Olympic were somewhat over half full in 1911-14, on average, and despite having capacity for an additional 1,000 passengers above that figure (on average). In general, I get the impression that there was always excess capacity in that business.
quote:
It would not surprise me that WSL had a similar "magic" number that was somewhat below Olympic's legal capacity. Unless there is some obscure reference to such a thing (doubtful), however, we can only impute it by statistical analysis of Olympic's runs. Only then can we say whether Titanic was running too full or too empty.
I have not seen any such figure documented. However, there is no question that she could be far from full and still be very profitable. In the mid to late 1920s, after competition had intensified and immigration restrictions brought to bear, Mauretania, Olympic and Aquitania regularly dipped below 1,000 passengers. (The number is less important than the composition of the passenger lists, because the decline was largely in third class, and it was first and second class that brought in the revenues.) Majestic, despite being the most popular liner in 1923, 1924, 1926 and 1928, regularly sailed around half full; that at a charitable estimate, for it excludes her large pre-war immigrant capacity.
So, to answer the question…in my view, Titanic’s maiden voyage passenger list was about what would be expected at the time. It was nothing unusual — similar to Olympic’s figure, and above Aquitania’s. It was a little below what express liners such as Lusitania and Mauretania were averaging (with my previous caveat about their Liverpool service). It seems Olympic’s departure the week before had been unusually good, with over 2,000 passengers, and there were only so many passengers around.
Best wishes,
Mark.
