Latest QE2 news, if you want to call it that

http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/article-12061-dp-world-chairman-says-qe2-scrapping-rumours-false/

As always, Dubai is always very vague and not very transparent about this.

As to her going back home to Scotland and the Clyde, is that really economically viable?

Well, they can't sell her for scrap yet due to the 10-year no forward sale clause in the contract but the clock is running on that. It is however entirely possible that there are conversion plans but he is under a confidentiality agreement.

"There is a new plan for QE2 but I cannot tell you what it is"

Reminds me of that often quoted (South Sea Bubble) enterprise "For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is!!"

David.

Wake me up when it has finally arrived somewhere in the UK . We've been listening to this sort of thing for the last seven years or so. :rolleyes:

If QE2 was viable to be run profitably, then Cunard (Carnival) would have continued to maintain her and still be sailing her today. If she can't make money sailing to some of the most beautiful destinations in the world, I don't believe, as much as I love Glasgow she can be financially viable sitting on the Clyde.

We all hear through comments on this forum of issues people have with the decor or the up keep of modern ships like QM2, which has a huge and highly active crew, continually maintaining her.

I personally think that QE2 preserved in that way, would in no way communicate what an incredibly beautiful ship she was. If you can't maintain a ship to modern standards charging a £1000 plus a ticket, can you really do so charging £10 a ticket. In reality it can only be sustained as a vanity project, something that Dubai was once very fond of.

It's hard enough maintaining the tiny cabin and flight deck of a Concorde in a climate controlled hangar, let alone a huge ship, floating on a river, exposed to North Atlantic weather conditions on a daily basis.

As much as I'd love to see her again, I would only want to,if she could be maintained as the spectacular ship she always was. I just financially can't see the millions to bring her back to standard and the millions to then maintain her year on year, can be afforded in any UK city. The purchase cost of course be afforded but I fear she would return a sad reflection of her former glory, resulting in the legend of this great ship being damaged.

The "quote" function is again not working for me. Gazroberts80 said: "If QE2 was viable to be run profitably, then Cunard (Carnival) would have continued to maintain her and still be sailing her today."

It was my understanding that the QE2 was being operated at a profit and Cunard intended to keep her in service until the stricter SOLAS requirements of 2010. It would not have been feasible to undertake the required rebuilding for operation after that time.

The QE2 had a lot of wood, even though most of it was not visible as it had been covered with paint or wallpaper. There was also the problem of "blind corridors". On our last crossing - just six months before the sale to Dubai - our cabin was at the top-left corner of a "T" corridor. Although I didn't stay awake worrying about it, I couldn't help but think that if there had been a fire in the adjacent cabin and the flames burst into the corridor we would have little chance of survival unless rescued quickly.

At the time of the sale to Dubai (for a reported US$100 million) Cunard was already taking bookings for voyages beyond the hand-over date. It was deemed prudent to accept the generous offer rather than have the QE2 continue in service for two more years then be sold for scrap value, which was likely.

Asbestos is the biggest problem. Its removal would cost would be about the same as the purchase price.

It is also starting to smell quite badly I'm told, and if the bacteria gets into the bulkheads then that could spell the end. The A/C has been off for months.

Just trivia, but what QE2 has a lot of on board is "marinite". It comes in boards (think sheet rock). However, it is made with asbestos. Today, marinite is made without asbestos.

The "quote" function is again not working for me. Gazroberts80 said: "If QE2 was viable to be run profitably, then Cunard (Carnival) would have continued to maintain her and still be sailing her today."

 

It was my understanding that the QE2 was being operated at a profit and Cunard intended to keep her in service until the stricter SOLAS requirements of 2010. It would not have been feasible to undertake the required rebuilding for operation after that time.

 

The QE2 had a lot of wood, even though most of it was not visible as it had been covered with paint or wallpaper. There was also the problem of "blind corridors". On our last crossing - just six months before the sale to Dubai - our cabin was at the top-left corner of a "T" corridor. Although I didn't stay awake worrying about it, I couldn't help but think that if there had been a fire in the adjacent cabin and the flames burst into the corridor we would have little chance of survival unless rescued quickly.

 

At the time of the sale to Dubai (for a reported US$100 million) Cunard was already taking bookings for voyages beyond the hand-over date. It was deemed prudent to accept the generous offer rather than have the QE2 continue in service for two more years then be sold for scrap value, which was likely.

Generally, SOLAS requirements are not retroactive, particularly for structural issues. For instance, the "Safe Return to Port" requirements, which I think you are referring to, only apply to ships built after July, 2010.

Stephen Payne has been quoted as stating that QE2's aluminum superstructure was becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. Her plumbing and air conditioning were also troublesome and Cunard was increasingly worried of a major failure.

Could she have sailed until 2010? Perhaps. But she almost certainly would be retired by now.

If QM2 needs a major refit to correct wear and tear and stay competitive with newer ships just how drastic would the QE2 need to be changed to operate profitably? Some love her dearly with all her quirks but there are just not enough of them.

Let's suppose Cunard decided to make her SOLAS 2010 compliant. The cost would approached that of a new build and we would have read scores of complaints that she was "ruined".

Stephen Payne has been quoted as stating that QE2's aluminum superstructure was becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. Her plumbing and air conditioning were also troublesome and Cunard was increasingly worried of a major failure.

 

Could she have sailed until 2010? Perhaps. But she almost certainly would be retired by now.

 

If QM2 needs a major refit to correct wear and tear and stay competitive with newer ships just how drastic would the QE2 need to be changed to operate profitably? Some love her dearly with all her quirks but there are just not enough of them.

 

Let's suppose Cunard decided to make her SOLAS 2010 compliant. The cost would approached that of a new build and we would have read scores of complaints that she was "ruined".

I don't think there is a cruise ship out there built before 2010 that could cost effectively retrofit to the "Safe Return" requirements. The rearrangement of engineering spaces and propulsion, generation, and power distribution to meet the new standards would be astronomical.

Even while most ships have two separate engine rooms, and many have two separate switchboard compartments, most have propulsion equipment in one compartment, and many have fuel treatment equipment for both engine rooms in a common space.

As much as I enjoyed all my QE2 voyages going back to 1969, and as much as it saddens me, she is a dead ship. The only future I can see is the breakers. Just no reasonable return on investment for any of the discussed scenarios.

As much as I enjoyed all my QE2 voyages going back to 1969, and as much as it saddens me, she is a dead ship. The only future I can see is the breakers. Just no reasonable return on investment for any of the discussed scenarios.

Agreed. This is why I can't bring myself to get worked up over the SS United States. She is only an empty shell now. All that made her an elegant liner was stripped out in Turkey years ago (along with the asbestos), and the machinery doesn't work. When a ship stops working, it becomes dead.

QE2 also did not fit branding and marketing goals and expectations. In the lead-up to her final sailing from Southampton, one of the execs (I think it was Shanks, who was Carnival UK at that point and not Cunard President, or maybe Dingle) said that with QE2's retirement, Cunard would become the youngest, all-luxury fleet. This is a moniker which is often used today in press releases.

At the time of QE2's retirement, the new Queen Elizabeth had already been announced, Queen Mary was already well established, and Queen Victoria was getting her sea legs. QE2 with her lack of balconies, quirky layout, etc., was seen as a problem in terms of holding Cunard back from their desire to claim having "the youngest, all luxury fleet."

I loved QE2 and miss her madly. I sailed many crossings and cruises, including a full world cruise in 2007. I got to know her really well during those three and one-half months at sea, and there were many issues which did not matter to me or the scores of adoring fans spanning four decades. Nonetheless, I understand the dilemma Carnival was facing at the time: disposing of a much beloved ship that increasingly posed mechanical, structural, safety (SOLAS) as well as marketing challenges.

Bring her back tomorrow, I'd be among the first to book again. In the meantime, we can only hope that she will be treated gently and respectfully until she is no more.

... Nonetheless, I understand the dilemma Carnival was facing at the time: disposing of a much beloved ship that increasingly posed mechanical, structural, safety (SOLAS) as well as marketing challenges...

Very well put. Carnival, as a public company answerable to their share holders, had the choice of selling her to scrappers for $10M or to Dubai for $100M. It seemed a "no brainer" at the time. Option 2 also promised that a beloved ship would be preserved in some recognizable form. Unfortunately it didn't work out as hoped.

From time to time I check a couple of sites dedicated to QE2. I can't believe some of the anger and vitriol that crops up there such as "They took our ship away from us". :confused:

I fear good old QE2 will end up in Alang or some such place for scrap in the not so distant future. She served her time and is no longer up to these times standard´s! We all have fond memories and thats that!

A floading Hotel- like QM - not likeley to happen!

Every ship has it´s time!

In this day & age there is no reason why QE2 cannot be restored & towed to pier for use as a museum / hotel.

First of all she represents the last true ocean liner of the 20th century. The FRANCE is gone along with all he other great liners other than Queen Mary in California. Who know what will become of the liner United States.

I would love to see QE2 moored here in NYC at Pier 90 next to the Intreprid Museum - which also houses the Space Shuttle, a British Airways Concorde and the Submarine GROWLER.

Yes the restoration would be costly but the engineering & design of QE2 will never be seen again..that beautiful hull & how she sailed...simply spectacular. Her funnel..so striking, modern for its time & that horn...sending chills to all onboard as those as she set sail.

There is great historical value to her design & as a symbol of her era and purpose. They tore down the old Penn Station here in NYC years ago because there were those saying it was out dated..in the meantime Grand Central Station is thriving, updated and marvelous. It's like saying lets take down Big Ben & put up something digital...crazy.

In this throw away world/ generation there needs to be more support & appreciation of worthy creations. QE2 certainly deserves that...and besides for those of us that sailed on many time & grew to love sailing in her - just one more stroll around that Promenade Deck & a drink in a bar onboard sitting in NYC would be fabulous.

The west side of NYC is being restored, repurposed & developed residentially & commercially. The new High Line is an old commercial rail track that has been turned into one of the most beautiful(also award winning) & successful parks ever developed.

As far as costs....Michael Jordan a retired Basket ball player signed a contract w/ Nike sneakers making $90-$100 million a year for life. Lebron James another B ball player just signed a deal that surpasses Jordans contract. There is plenty of money...it's just getttig it directed to the right place.

There is a man here in NYC that restores old homes here in the states. Yes it takes $$$ and he has a few - but he also created a foundation that supports the 100+ year old homes that are restored & then used as museums w/ art performances(http://classicalamericanhomes.org/) simply spectacular.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder..and I'd like to see the QE2's beauty back here in NYC.

Well I agree Rotterdam we should save parts of the history- and we / they do. All those you mentioned are made of good old stone- buildings and the like- not so with a ship- I would also love to see here restored and like floading museum- as the Queen Mary in Long Beach- but first we need one or a group who is willing to spend such an amount of money on a ship!

It´s just great that Carnival Corp. built the Queen Mary- a ship- I much much prefer to the Old QE2!

Stephen Payne has been quoted as stating that QE2's aluminum superstructure was becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. Her plumbing and air conditioning were also troublesome and Cunard was increasingly worried of a major failure.

 

Could she have sailed until 2010? Perhaps. But she almost certainly would be retired by now.

 

If QM2 needs a major refit to correct wear and tear and stay competitive with newer ships just how drastic would the QE2 need to be changed to operate profitably? Some love her dearly with all her quirks but there are just not enough of them.

 

Let's suppose Cunard decided to make her SOLAS 2010 compliant. The cost would approached that of a new build and we would have read scores of complaints that she was "ruined".

It would be a little bit like taking a car built in 1968 and trying to make it compliant with 2016 EuroNCAP safety & Euro VII Emissions regulations. You'd just buy a new car & Hopefully put your '68 classic in a museum.

It would be a little bit like taking a car built in 1968 and trying to make it compliant with 2016 EuroNCAP safety & Euro VII Emissions regulations. You'd just buy a new car & Hopefully put your '68 classic in a museum.

And the museum would very probably have one and wouldn't have room for any more anyway.

Think of all the classic liners that could have been "saved" over the years but went to the scrappers. And somewhere down the line the same will happen to the present flag ship. What was her life expectancy supposed to be, 40 years? She has passed 25% already.

David.

The QE2 is the last of a generation of OCEAN LINERS - built to handle the NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN. Her design is totally different from the QM2 & other CRUISE SHIPS that are being built currently.

Ships can be restored and some older ships are in the South Street Seaport(and other maritime museums). Even Queen Elizabeth's HMY BRITANNIA is preserved. The aircraft Intrepid is older than QE2.

Anyone that appreciates the design of the QE2 and that era knows and sailed in her know her uniqueness and how very special she is.

QM2 is a very large CRUISE SHIP that can make TA's on a regular basis. But she is more of a floating mall than a Transatlantic Liner. I've sailed on QM2 2x - it was nice. But sailing in QE2 was an OCCASION. I sailed in QE2 several times - TA"s & cruises. Certainly the QM2 is more like a SHERATON hotel & QE2 was more of a RITZ CARLTON. THe food service & officers and staff were top knotch(pre Carnival Corp). There will be more QM2s but no more QE2! If some one offered me a free cruise on QM2 or to pay for QE2 I would pick QE2 every time. I also loved the FRANCE.

When QE2 was modified to do more cruises (due to financial reasons) it extended her life - the FRANCE was bought by NCL & operated as a successful/unique cruise ship for many years thanks to thoughtful design & marketing.

The popularity of cruises changed the industry and certainly reduced the quality of the product.

So with todays technology & some $$$ it would be possible to save QE2...if there is a will there is a way!!! It would be a shame to lose this opportunity.

Enjoy your cruises for that is your choice & time....I hope to see QE2 again one day and walk her decks - even if she is permanently tied up as a museum.

...QM2 is a very large CRUISE SHIP that can make TA's on a regular basis. But she is more of a floating mall than a Transatlantic Liner. I've sailed on QM2 2x - it was nice. But sailing in QE2 was an OCCASION. I sailed in QE2 several times - TA"s & cruises. Certainly the QM2 is more like a SHERATON hotel & QE2 was more of a RITZ CARLTON...

QM2's designer would strongly disagree. QM2's block coefficient (where a number closer to 1.0 would be a rectangular brick in the water) is 0.61 where for a typical cruise ship it's about 0.73. There is also reserve power. No other active passenger ship today can make crossings in 6 days which is her design capability.

As for the Sheraton vs. Ritz Carlton comparison you are right but consider the pricing that the traveling public is willing to pay today. We would still see Ritz Carlton service and amenities if passengers were willing to pay inflation adjusted fares comparable to QE2's 1980's fares. They are certainly not when we read posts asking for booking strategies and sulking over a promotional fare that doesn't qualify for certain types of OBC.

But why does the US need to save an iconic UK ocean liner? As a matter of national pride cannot the UK summon the interest and support to save a ship that proudly flew the Red Ensign all over the world?

Never went on QE2 but I do clearly remember when her details became available and the many, many comments in the press saying she was not a worthy replacement for QE !

Never went on QE2 but I do clearly remember when her details became available and the many, many comments in the press saying she was not a worthy replacement for QE !

Indeed. "Cunard has decided to go in another direction" was how National Geographic in the early 1970s ended their documentary on the then new QE2. Everything was Discoteque Moderne. She wasn't even prefixed "RMS" as Cunard considered that to be outmoded. The John Brown builder's model is in a museum and it shows the "Mod" tile and furnishings as originally fitted. She was, what we call in the US, "trailer trash". Those who had sailed on the old Queens would have had good reason to believe that the line had headed down the crapper.

Like fine wine, she improved greatly with age.

I sometimes wonder how QM2 will be regarded over the years. Some who greatly miss QE2 don't consider her a worthy replacement and one even referred to her as "the pretender". Some probably refuse to sail on QM2 today just as those who sailed on the original Queens would refuse to book QE2.

Perhaps it was better that QE2 had a dignified send off. Her fame would not have been enough to shield her from the economic challenges of providing her customary levels of service and amenities with today's pricing pressure. Contrast QM2's retirement to how France/Norway ended her career. She was downgraded, reassigned to cheap cruises, and maintenance neglected to the point of catastrophic failure.

"The QE2 is the last of a generation of OCEAN LINERS - built to handle the NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN. Her design is totally different from the QM2 & other CRUISE SHIPS that are being built currently."

Respectfully, I think many would disagree with these statements. QE2 was built as a dual-purpose hybrid - both a North Atlantic express liner AND a cruise ship, as was QM2.

Arguably, FRANCE was the last true pure large North Atlantic liner...as designed and built.

Remember the initial plans for "Q3"; basically a new QM/QE. With time, the powers that be came to realize that times (early 1960s) had already changed, and therefore the design needed to evolve to what became "Q4".

QM2 - like my beloved QE2 - has all the elements of a "liner": deep draft, high flared bow, thick hull/shell plating, powerful engines allowing for a service speed of 28.5 knots. Those are not features found in any other ship carrying passengers today. QM2 is NOT a cruise ship, and she CAN handle the North Atlantic Ocean as well as QE2. I've been in multiple high-Beaufort Scale winds/weather aboard both vessels, and both ships manage beautifully. QM2 is like QE2 - a blend, if you will.

The difference, I would say, is the interior design. QE2 was one of the last surviving ships with a "hand-bulit" (pardon the expression) approach, with quirky layout, design, etc. Yes, all new ships are built in a modular way. It is the way of the world these days.

I first sailed in 1968. In many ways, I miss the old era - French Line, Italian Line, Union-Castle, Matson Lines, American President Line, et al. It's different, ala vintage hotels vs. new modern ones.

I was blessed to make 10 QE2 Transatlantic crossings from as early 1981, and as late as her final two October 2008 crossings. I shed a tear disembarking for the last time.

The world moves on...

I would respectfully encourage all to appreciate what QM2 is and what she offers, on a crossing for example...

The excitement of arriving at the quay, embarkation, sipping champagne on Deck Seven at sailaway, interesting lectures, a lovely afternoon tea (sadly, no clotted cream), pre-dinner drinks in The Chart Room or Commodore Club, an elegant meal in the Britannia of Beef Wellington and Grand Marnier Soufflé (with a string quartet performing), dancing after dinner in the Queens Room to an orchestra - all in a grand ship with 3-4 formal nights.

I personally think that it is marvel that Micky Arison and Carnival actually approved her being built.

I hope you appreciate my thoughts, offered with respect.

Best regards.