Not profitable at standard rates.
And this is where you need to start your "lateral thinking to profitability" computations.
You have 5 crew, which I presume are: pilot, navigator, chief engineer, engineer and medic.
Pilot and navigator roles are routinely combined in a number of LBB2 and LBB S7 ship designs (so it's certainly nothing new) ... but look at what it does to the overhead financing:
- Pilot-1 = Cr3000 per jump (Cr6000 per month)
- Navigator-1 = Cr2500 per jump (Cr5000 per month)
- 2 staterooms = 8 tons + Cr4000 life support cost per jump
- Net total overhead cost = Cr9500 per jump for pilot + navigator (2 crew)
Compare that with:
- Pilot-2/Navigator-2 = Cr4537.5 per jump (Cr9075 per month)
- 1 stateroom = 4 tons + Cr2000 life support cost per jump
- 4 additional tons cargo capacity = 3 tons extra cargo revenue (75% average fill) = Cr3000 additional revenue
- Net total overhead cost = Cr3537.5 per jump for pilot/navigator (1 crew)
In other words, by your own setup, going with a pilot/navigator single crewman costs
only 37% as much in overhead expenses compared to the pilot plus navigator two crewmen alternative. The pilot/navigator draws more pay in salary, but consumes less stateroom tonnage and life support than the alternative.
And if you can have one person fill two positions like that for a Pilot/Navigator (assuming they have the minimum skills of Pilot-2 and Navigator-2) yielding a salary cost formula that looks like this:
[ (6000 * 1.1) + (5000 * 1.1) ] * 0.75 = 9075 per 4 weeks / 2 = 4537.5 per 2 weeks
... so long as you can find pilot/navigators with the necessary skills to fill both roles simultaneously, the economics of the ship prospers when it comes to the bottom line of the balance sheet. Note that pilot/navigator crew position combination offer is not valid for Aslan crews who maintain gender stereotyping of crew roles.
Do the same thing for having a (chief) Engineering-1 plus Engineering-1 (2 crew) option vs the alternative of having an engineer/engineer (1 crew) who only needs Engineering-2 skill to fill both crew positions with one person.
- (chief) Engineering-1 = Cr2200 per jump (Cr4400 per month)
- Engineering-1 = Cr2000 per jump (Cr4000 per month)
- 2 staterooms = 8 tons + Cr4000 life support cost per jump
- Net total overhead cost = Cr8200 per jump for (chief) engineer + engineer (2 crew)
Compare that with:
- Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = Cr3300 per jump (Cr6600 per month)
- 1 stateroom = 4 tons + Cr2000 life support cost per jump
- 4 additional tons cargo capacity = 3 tons extra cargo revenue (75% average fill) = Cr3000 additional revenue
- Net total overhead cost = Cr2300 per jump for engineer/engineer (1 crew)
In other words, by your own setup, going with an engineer/engineer single crewman costs
only 28% as much in overhead expenses compared to the chief engineer plus engineer two crewmen alternative. The (solo) engineer/engineer draws more pay in salary, but consumes less stateroom tonnage and life support than the alternative.
All else being equal, I can take your example starship design above "as is" ... shrink the crew down from 5 to 3 (pilot/navigator, engineer/engineer, medic) and shift the expenses vs revenues balance from:
- Cr10,700 per jump (salaries 5) and Cr10,000 per jump (life support 5) totalling Cr20,700 per jump for crew and life support (for 5)
- Cr8837.5 per jump (salaries 3) and Cr6000 per jump (life support 3) totalling Cr14,837.5 per jump for crew and life support (for 3) while also having 8 extra tons of cargo space which at 75% average fill would earn an additional Cr6000 in revenue per jump
So just by changing to crew arrangement/requirement, expenses drop from Cr20,700 per jump to pay for 5 salaries and life support down to Cr8837.5 per jump for 3 salaries and life support ... a savings of Cr11,862.5 per jump.
Or I could trade in that extra cargo space for a fuel purification plant (go figure...

) instead and save Cr40,000 when needing to buy unrefined fuel ... or save Cr50,000 when wilderness refueling is an option ... per jump.
Trade out some of the cargo space for high passenger staterooms and low berths (which are more "revenue dense" per ton than cargo transportation, "upgrade" the medic to being a steward/medic (I'm thinking Steward-1/Medic-3) and you're still going to be coming out ahead. The revenue potential goes up while the expenses do not increase all that much and ... you're within spitting distance of being able to turn a profit, even under a bank loan and operating at only 80% of manifest capacity (using CT rules, to be specific).
This is the kind of thing that I've been talking about how "tinkering around the edges" like this can make a very minor difference to the Naval Architect's office work, but which can make an extremely substantial difference in the economics and profitability of a starship's operations.
Note that your example above, when moving to a "lean crew" option like I've detailed could potentially be profitable on a charter basis ... and if it can carry mail, the odds of the ship being profitable just from passenger and transport services goes up even more (mail is relatively "revenue dense" compared to cargo).
Just something to think about ...
