Starship Missions: Scheduled vs Unscheduled + Cargo vs Freight

[Spinward Flow]

Y'all are being REALLY pedantic on "freight" vs "cargo".

Oh good ... someone else said it so I don't have to ...

 

[robject]

On purpose, since this is a rules-related discussion, so yeah pedantic but on purpose.

Pedantic: overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.

Right -- this is about the rules.

Standard disclaimers need not be said:
"It's just a game"
and
"This doesn't have anything to do with how we play"

Those are true in my experience as well.

I'm talking by way of taking apart rules and understanding how they go together.

 

[DaltonSpence]

IIRC the only difference between "cargo" and "freight" is who owns it in transit. A contract for a scheduled delivery is a contract in either case and shouldn't affect the mission parameters at all. I'm not sure what the fuss is.

Dalton “sounds like a lawyer is needed” Spence​

 

[whulorigan]

IIRC the only difference between "cargo" and "freight" is who owns it in transit. A contract for a scheduled delivery is a contract in either case and shouldn't affect the mission parameters at all. I'm not sure what the fuss is.

It is an issue of the primary declared mission of the ship.

Is the mission primarily dealing in buy-low sell-high trade for profit (i.e. cargo owned by the captain and/or ship-owner) as it finds opportunity, or is it primarily transporting "freight" for someone else (the seller or the buyer) at a standard shipping rate?

• Freight has a contract for scheduled delivery at a standard shipping rate.
• Cargo probably not - the Captain/Ship owns and is moving it at his own expense and gambling he can sell it for a profit.

 

[robject]

Right - and note that "Mission" would change as the ship's purpose changes.

If your Type A free trader suddenly is contracted by Oberlindes to carry freight for a year from Regina to Forboldn -- and they pay you handsomely to do so of course -- then for that year your Beowulf might be reclassified as a Type F Freighter.

(Make sure you scrutinize that contract. I guess it would be something like 6 round trips in 12 months' time in a Beowulf?)

 

[Spinward Flow]

Cargo (wikipedia link, bold added for emphasis of what should already be obvious)

In economics, freight is cargo that is transported at a freight rate for commercial gain.

{ expectant look }

 

[kilemall]

Cargo (wikipedia link, bold added for emphasis of what should already be obvious)


{ expectant look }

Game terms is what counts here.

 

[DaltonSpence]

Well that's in economics. Oddly on the Traveller Wiki both terms redirect to Goods. Where exactly was the difference in "Game terms" defined? (I know it was but I can't remember where.)

Dalton “How are we defined in "Game Terms"?” Spence​

 

[whulorigan]

Where exactly was the difference in "Game terms" defined? (I know it was but I can't remember where.)

​

T5.10 Book 2, p. 209:

THE VOCABULARY OF INTERSTELLAR TRADE
.
.
.
Freight. Freight is a lot owned by someone who either wishes to retain ownership of it or has contracted to sell the goods to someone and is shipping them to the buyer. An individual who is shipping his personal effects to a new home is shipping freight. A company that has sold an air/raft to a customer and is now shipping it to that customer is shipping freight. The standard price for shipping freight is Cr1,000 per ton. The payment covers shipment in the cargo hold from the current location to the starship’s next port of call.
.
.
.
Cargo. Cargo consists of goods purchased by a speculator or merchant and carried on the speculation that they can be sold at the destination for a profit. A merchant who buys laser rangefinders on an industrial world and ships them to another world in hopes of selling them for a profit is shipping cargo. A merchant who has empty cargo hold space and fills it with locally purchased goods rather than ship empty space is shipping cargo. A speculator may buy goods and ship them; he considers the lot cargo, while the ship carrying the goods considers it freight. A starship captain may find insufficient freight available on a world and may become a speculator and buy cargo in order to fill unused freight space. The first law of cargo trade is an ancient one: buy low and sell high. Those who follow it make money, grow rich and become successful. Those who don’t, go bankrupt.

Merchant. A merchant is an individual or company that operates a cargo-carrying starship. Merchants may also be speculators.

Speculator. A speculator is an individual or company that buys goods in the expectation that they can be sold at a profit later (and usually on another world). A speculator does not necessarily operate a cargo-carrying starship; a speculator may ship its cargo as freight and pay standard freight rates in order to transport the goods to a profitable market.

I am sure there are references in CT Book 7: Merchant Prince as well, but I cannot be bothered to look them up at the moment.

 

[robject]

I am sure there are references in CT Book 7: Merchant Prince as well, but I cannot be bothered to look them up at the moment.

Implied but not defined. Book 7 is in fact all about speculation, and has no rules for goods carried at the flat rate. The clearest mention is in the advertisement for "Merchant Prince On Computer", which clearly defines the distinction:

Trader is a disk-based text program which handles starships travelling from system to system within a sector. Displays show worlds which can be reached from the current sector and data on the trade potential of those worlds. Passenger and freight availability is automatically computed; excess hold space is available for speculative cargos. Routines handle time passage, ship payments, crew costs,
refuelling, annual maintenance, and buying and selling cargo.

But I don't think the distinction is really there in classic Traveller, although the definitions are floating around in GDW.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So ...

• Freight is shipping someone else's stuff for a transportation fee.
• Cargo is shipping your own stuff "for free" on your own dime.

Cargo (wikipedia link, bold added for emphasis of what should already be obvious)

In economics, freight is cargo that is transported at a freight rate for commercial gain.

{ expectant look }

So ... basically ... if you're operating under subsidy, you don't owe Cr500 per ton to the subsidizing government for transporting speculative cargo owned by the operator.

 

[whulorigan]

So ...

• Freight is shipping someone else's stuff for a transportation fee.
• Cargo is shipping your own stuff "for free" on your own dime.

So ... basically ... if you're operating under subsidy, you don't owe Cr500 per ton to the subsidizing government for transporting speculative cargo owned by the operator.

CORRECT. But you do owe 50% of the profits when the lots are sold.

This goes to the heart of the question raised in the initial post by the thread-starter: Does a Subsidized Merchant (per the T5 Definitions) actually make sense or have a viable mission?

Would a government or organization subsidize such a venture? What conditions would be written into such a subsidy contract, and under what conditions would a government consider a subsidy a default on the subsidy-agreement and perhaps cancel it?

 

[Spinward Flow]

CORRECT. But you do owe 50% of the profit when the lot is sold.

And that's where things get weird.
The government is subsidizing the SHIP ... not the speculation.

This is why I think the superior interpretation is that the operator "sells the cargo space" to themselves (paying Cr500 per ton to the subsidizing government) for the transportation of cargo, in effect "buying their own ticket for their own cargo hold" to balance the books that way. The subsidizing government is then NOT entitled to 50% of the revenue from the sale of the speculative cargo (and if it's sold at a loss, does the subsidizing government absorb 50% of the losses on the transaction too?).

Point being, if the starship operator is NOT paying the subsidizing government Cr500 per ton of speculative cargo being carried (so shipping the cargo for free) ... then and only then would the subsidizing government be entitled to 50% of the profits (not losses, profits only) resulting from the sale of that speculative cargo because it was shipped as cargo rather than as freight.

However ... if the operator engages in a bit of "shell game bookkeeping" and actually BUYS a transport ticket at Cr1000 per ton for the speculative cargo (just like anyone else would), of which Cr500 goes to the subsidizing government and Cr500 returns to the operator (hence the net Cr500 noted above) ... then and only then would the subsidizing government have no legitimate claim to 50% of the profits (not losses, profits only) resulting from the sale of that speculative cargo because it was shipped as freight rather than as cargo.

If that feels like a "tax dodge" kind of maneuver, well ... that's because it kind of is ... but it's also one of those trade legal kinds of things. Merchant operators can "self deal" in availability of cargo hold space (after all, they determine whose cargo gets sold tickets for being loaded aboard) so long as tickets for that hold space get sold and accounted for. All they need to do is a bit of double entry bookkeeping in order to keep the finances organized. The only tip off to a subsidizing government that an operator is engaging in speculation like that is that they're selling cargo space to themselves (and paying for it to balance the books for the 50% rake on gross revenues paid to the ship for transport services).



Or to put it another way ... if a Third Party ships speculative cargo on board a subsidized starship, is the subsidizing government entitled to 50% of the profits from the sale of that speculative cargo sold by that Third Party who is not a part of the subsidy agreement with the starship operator?

Put that way, the answer is an emphatic OBVIOUSLY NOT ... so why should a subsidized operator be treated any differently from a Third Party if they "buy a ticket" themselves for cargo capacity in their own hold? To which the correct answer is ... they shouldn't be treated any differently, so long as they "buy a ticket" (just like any Third Party would) for the cargo hold space to transport the speculative goods.



This is one of those "read between the lines and think about it before jumping to the WRONG conclusion with confidence" situations.

Details matter.
Nuance ... matters.

Clever accounting tricks ... MATTER.

 

[robject]

Merchant Prince also says the megacorps' giant transports basically ship freight -- in other words, they carry piles of goods at contracted rates. So, Freighters and Transports. Which makes sense to me. The ships at the back of The Traveller Adventure are Transports.

I *assume* (and I think it's reasonable to assume) that that contracted rate is not the Cr1,000 per ton that we tramp traders get for carrying small lots. I assume it's more, and that the cargo is more valuable. For example, jump drives.

 

[whulorigan]

And that's where things get weird.
The government is subsidizing the SHIP ... not the speculation.

This is why I think the superior interpretation is that the operator "sells the cargo space" to themselves (paying Cr500 per ton to the subsidizing government) for the transportation of cargo, in effect "buying their own ticket for their own cargo hold" to balance the books that way. The subsidizing government is then NOT entitled to 50% of the revenue from the sale of the speculative cargo (and if it's sold at a loss, does the subsidizing government absorb 50% of the losses on the transaction too?).

Point being, if the starship operator is NOT paying the subsidizing government Cr500 per ton of speculative cargo being carried (so shipping the cargo for free) ... then and only then would the subsidizing government be entitled to 50% of the profits (not losses, profits only) resulting from the sale of that speculative cargo because it was shipped as cargo rather than as freight.

However ... if the operator engages in a bit of "shell game bookkeeping" and actually BUYS a transport ticket at Cr1000 per ton for the speculative cargo (just like anyone else would), of which Cr500 goes to the subsidizing government and Cr500 returns to the operator (hence the net Cr500 noted above) ... then and only then would the subsidizing government have no legitimate claim to 50% of the profits (not losses, profits only) resulting from the sale of that speculative cargo because it was shipped as freight rather than as cargo.
.
.
.
Or to put it another way ... if a Third Party ships speculative cargo on board a subsidized starship, is the subsidizing government entitled to 50% of the profits from the sale of that speculative cargo sold by that Third Party who is not a part of the subsidy agreement with the starship operator?

Put that way, the answer is an emphatic OBVIOUSLY NOT ... so why should a subsidized operator be treated any differently from a Third Party if they "buy a ticket" themselves for cargo capacity in their own hold? To which the correct answer is ... they shouldn't be treated any differently, so long as they "buy a ticket" (just like any Third Party would) for the cargo hold space to transport the speculative goods.

I'd say this is probably a solid interpretation. I believe it also is in line with what McPerth noted up-thread. Moreover, the Subsidizing entity is not getting anything less than it otherwise would have gotten had the ship been engaging in standard freight operations, so they have no real reason to object (unless of course the Captain is a bad speculator and ends up going into the red ... ).

 

[kilemall]

Well that's in economics. Oddly on the Traveller Wiki both terms redirect to Goods. Where exactly was the difference in "Game terms" defined? (I know it was but I can't remember where.)

Dalton “How are we defined in "Game Terms"?” Spence​

Merchant Prince also says the megacorps' giant transports basically ship freight -- in other words, they carry piles of goods at contracted rates. So, Freighters and Transports. Which makes sense to me. The ships at the back of The Traveller Adventure are Transports.

I *assume* (and I think it's reasonable to assume) that that contracted rate is not the Cr1,000 per ton that we tramp traders get for carrying small lots. I assume it's more, and that the cargo is more valuable. For example, jump drives.

I don’t think that’s the case at all, much more likely steady scheduled guaranteed contracts get LOWER rates.

Or the lower rates are built into the CT per jump not per parsec model, and it’s usually the megacorps that get the faster/cheaper available capacity, paying more like a charter where the whole ship gets paid whether there is actually freight moving or not.

Combine the subsidized merchant on J-3 plus ships running a main route regularly with the megacorps charter and the per jump CT freight rate, and you get sector wide reach for IND worlds. Especially for MCr plus per ton items like jump drives.

Paints a picture where major megacorps and a few key worlds dominate many major industrial items for parsecs around and the you will trade or else policy keeps many planets from teching up because of the rain of goods falling from the skies.

And the system is rigged against major shipping line competition, particularly if subsidized ships are a major element of the big far freight picture.

 

[whulorigan]

An interesting note on the Subsidized Merchant in the T5 Ship Description:

T5.10 Book 2, p. 36:

The Type R Subsidized Merchant (colloquially: the Fat Trader) is an increased-payload mixed passenger and cargo trader with Jump-1 drives. Local governments subsidize the ship’s expenses to encourage service to specific routes.

So there is a bit of nuance on the description. All of the general vessel type descriptions (Passenger, Cargo, and Freight) state that the specified category is their primary mission (allowing for the possibility of incidental transport of other types in smaller quantities). But the fat trader seems to be defined as a bit more mixed than the others, despite its primary mission code.

 

[robject]

^ This. Labels tend to flex beyond their definitions.



This is why the "standard" really isn't an enforcement point... it's more of a guideline. I can't use it as a bludgeon.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I'd say this is probably a solid interpretation. I believe it also is in line with what McPerth noted up-thread. Moreover, the Subsidizing entity is not getting anything less than it otherwise would have gotten had the ship been engaging in standard freight operations, so they have no real reason to object (unless of course the Captain is a bad speculator and ends up going into the red ... ).

We make every pretense of competency around here.

And to your last point, a subsidized operator going bankrupt is a very different problem (related, but different) for a subsidizing government to deal with.

I don’t think that’s the case at all, much more likely steady scheduled guaranteed contracts get LOWER rates.

Or the lower rates are built into the CT per jump not per parsec model, and it’s usually the megacorps that get the faster/cheaper available capacity, paying more like a charter where the whole ship gets paid whether there is actually freight moving or not.

Combine the subsidized merchant on J-3 plus ships running a main route regularly with the megacorps charter and the per jump CT freight rate, and you get sector wide reach for IND worlds. Especially for MCr plus per ton items like jump drives.

Paints a picture where major megacorps and a few key worlds dominate many major industrial items for parsecs around and the you will trade or else policy keeps many planets from teching up because of the rain of goods falling from the skies.

And the system is rigged against major shipping line competition, particularly if subsidized ships are a major element of the big far freight picture.

And this is the "hidden key" to the pricing per destination delivered to, rather than pricing per parsec model of interstellar trade.

Speculative goods that are "revenue dense" can be transported long distances and still turn a profit. Things like drives and computers, gems and radioactives ... high priced stuff like that. The value bound up in those items per ton far exceeds the Cr1000 per ton per destination cost of shipping them. Radioactives that cost MCr1 per ton to purchase/procure (for example) that sell for MCr2 per ton elsewhere, earning a MCr1 per ton profit, can be transported a pretty fair distance economically, even if a starship is "losing money" along the way on transport and overhead costs. What's valuable is the specifics of the item(s) in the cargo hold ... not the transport revenue being earned from simply moving stuff from place to place.

The transport revenue is incidental to the overall profits.
The REAL profit to be made is from arbitrage on speculative goods.

And for megacorps that can control the production of those goods ... that means that all they need to do is the market research to determine where those goods are most likely to sell most favorably and then work out a trade route that allows them to marry up that supply with that demand. The ships doing the transporting might be marginal or break even on profits (or even operating at a loss) ... while the manufacturing hub is making record profits on the sales of the goods that they're producing. In other words, the megacorps can "afford" to lose a little money on the transportation side of the ledger, so long as they "make up for it in volume" thanks to the inherent sale value of the goods being transported in those holds.

And yes ... this system "stacks the deck" against the Tramp Speculator who doesn't have the backing of deep pockets who can make up for direct losses on ship operations through indirect profits enabled by your ship's operations. The Tramp Speculator doesn't have as much margin to work with on profit/loss ratios, nor do they necessarily have the same level of market research as the megacorps to "know" what is in demand where and when (to exploit that whole supply/demand equation maximally) ... but the Tramp Speculator CAN make a living and get by (profitably) if they have the right ship, the right crew, the right variety of destinations within range of their jump drives AND sufficient capacity in fungible cash and cargo space to make the whole thing work (and keep the plates spinning).

It CAN be done by a small operator ... but the megacorps still hold a tremendous advantage over the penny ante operators at the low end.

 

[DaltonSpence]

Wherever we want to go, we go. That’s what a ship is, you know. It’s not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails … That’s what a ship needs. But what a ship is … is freedom.

– Captain Jack Sparrow, “Pirates of the Caribbean”​

Also the intro to Chapter Eight of GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars. It goes on to say:

The fundamental feature of Traveller is travel. A typical Traveller campaign touches on many worlds, with adventurers voyaging from one world to the next through space.

Scheduled deliveries seem to run contrary to this idea but that doesn't mean the crew of scheduled carrier couldn't have some fun. And in the end, it's all about the game. Arguing designations may be interesting for a while but unless you plan to have your characters doing it over lunch sometime there is a limit to how far you can go with this.

Dalton “Lets roll the dice and play!” Spence​