Will Cunard ever launch another ocean liner again?

With the QM2 basically being used as a cruise ship, will Cunard ever launch another ocean liner again? And with oil prices looking to stay at US$40 per barrel in the long run, will we see 6 day crossings again? Or will QM2 be basically a cruise ship until she is broken up?

With the QM2 basically being used as a cruise ship, will Cunard ever launch another ocean liner again? And with oil prices looking to stay at US$40 per barrel in the long run, will we see 6 day crossings again? Or will QM2 be basically a cruise ship until she is broken up?

Due to the Billion dollar cost plus . Not very likely so some. A true ocean liner costs 2 to 3 times that a normal cruise ship of the same size.

It is not just the cost of building a liner, which indeed is much higher than for a mere cruise ship, but rather the very existence (or not) of a need for a liner between Europe and America. Since the advent of commercial aviation over the Atlantic, a liner has stopped being ‘the only way to cross’, but that has not necessarily removed the market for a liner.

The real issue is the speed of the crossing, as it always was. Back then, people were not so much in a hurry, and they had no alternative to sailing, but it was necessary for shipping lines to build fast ships, in order to maintain a regular weekly service with fewer, larger ships. Naturally, those larger, faster ships also allowed the blossoming of a transatlantic culture of luxury and refinement, but that’s beside the point. Nowadays, people can cross the Atlantic flying, and most do, but a significant number still choose a ship. QM2 is doing surprisingly well on TAs. However, escalating fuel cost pushes Cunard (the only remaining operator of a liner) to slow the ship down, lengthening the crossing unbearably, thus negating the advantage of QM2 being much faster than any other passenger ship. Effectively, TAs have become cruises. Speed is consubstantial to a liner service. A slow liner is a mere cruise ship, and a rather poor one at that.

The solution to the conundrum is to make speed affordable again. But how ? The only solution is nuclear propulsion. With is, fuel cost is still not entirely independent from speed, but the correlation is much more favorable to high speed. With coal/oil/gas fuel, cost goes up exponentially with speed. With a nuclear reactor, constant high-speed is the norm. There is extensive experience with nuclear power plants on military ships (surface ships and submarines), and with the Russian icebreaker fleet. Icebreakers are slightly different though, because for them, it is not speed that matters, but raw power. Obviously, building a nuclear-powered ship is expensive, and civilian use of nuclear energy brings stringent restrictions, but the world has changed a lot since the early 60’s, when experiments were conducted with nuclear-powered ships (the Savannah in particular). Nuclear power has become relatively more eco-friendly than carbon-based propulsion.

The superlative liner S.S. United States of the 1950’s reached speeds of above 38 knots on a relatively traditional propulsion plant (high-pressure turbines), housed in a sleek and very efficient liner hull. A similar-sized ship with a modern, compact nuclear power plant could be built, and could reach a service speed above 40 knots, sufficient for 4-days crossings, i.e. an extended weekend. I have no idea of what the economics of such a venture would look like, but if ever a new liner has a chance to be built and operated across the Atlantic, it can only be a nuclear-powered ship.

Too many people - who say they love Queen Mary 2 - are content with longer and longer crossings thus there is no need for 30+ knot speed. They unintentionally contribute to her irrelevance as an ocean liner. (The typical admonishments to those of us who would like 5 or 6 day crossings are: "Take a plane if you are in a hurry!" or "If you like sailing why shorten your experience?")

I'd like to think then when she reaches the end of her service life perhaps there will be an "Aquitania 2". But 10 or 11 day crossings could be handled by the Baby Queens or their equivalent thirty years from now.

Exactly. It is not just QM2 that has been slowed down. We are just back from a cruise in the Med during which QV was going at a sluggish 12.5 knots. Granted, distances are so short in this itinerary that it is not necessary to go fast, especially if one wants to squeeze a sea day where there is no natural space for one...

Container ships of 10-15 years ago were faster than they are today too. In their case, the cost of working capital of the goods in transit has become smaller than the cost of the fuel needed to keep the designed speed.

In maritime matters, speed is of considerable value, and has been pursued until spiralling fuel cost made it unaffordable. Getting there quicker is always a benefit, even in a touristic perspective. For example, when France was deployed on cruise itineraries, her captain regularly was able to use her top speed to evade bad weather or to catch up some delay till the next port of call. Also, exceptional itineraries were made possible by the high speed afforded by the liner's machinery, that are out of reach of today's 21 knots max cruise ships.

The only way to break free from the headache of rising fuel cost and the consecutive slowing down of the entire industry is to switch to a fuel whose cost is not dependent on speed, or hardly so. Nuclear power has many operational advantages too, and the opportunity to dispense entirely with exhausts, fuel tanks, refuel devises etc. would allow ship architects to design interiors that would be totally uncluttered.

40+ knots 4-days crossings might not be achievable, or necessary, but a steady 30+ knots 5-days schedule is entirely feasible. The fact that there are passengers who do not mind slow cruise-like TAs does not exclude the possibility that there may be a market for fast crossings too, possibly with different people. After all, that is what QE2 did until being retired, and so did QM2 in the beginning.

We need to start thinking of a TA as just another cruise. The ship is the destination.

David.

NO..Payne had to convince Carnival to build her to liner standards..They wanted a Ocean Liner looking cruise ship..Now that she does 7-8 day crossings that QV-QE or any ship can do the need is gone..The sea day crossings that she ran her first 6 years of service were perfect..nice speed and still 5 full day at sea..6 and 7 days standards of today are to slow.

Now the real question is will she still be able to cross fast with this added deck plopped on the top of deck 12?

Exactly. It is not just QM2 that has been slowed down...40+ knots 4-days crossings might not be achievable, or necessary, but a steady 30+ knots 5-days schedule is entirely feasible. The fact that there are passengers who do not mind slow cruise-like TAs does not exclude the possibility that there may be a market for fast crossings too, possibly with different people. After all, that is what QE2 did until being retired, and so did QM2 in the beginning.

If Cunard did that I would be able to sail more often. I would enough vacation time remaining to squeeze in a second voyage involving TAs per year.

Unless demand for crossings drops considerably in future years, I believe Cunard will eventually (25-30 yrs.) replace QM2 with another purpose built liner.

I would not expect them to ever operate more than one semi-traditional liner at any given time though amongst whatever other fleet of cruise ships they may have.

While nuclear power offers some advantages, I think it is unlikely due to the public's distrust of it as well as terrorism concerns in a non-military application.

There may be opportunities as LNG evolves to raise speeds economically.

Hopefully at some point in QM2's service life there will be viable technology to re-engine or modify her propulsion so she can once again operate at the speeds for which she was designed.

Even the qm2 was a step down from the qe2, it was slower by 5 knots, and looked too fat compared to qe2, a real successor would have a 35 knot top speed to enable 5 day crossings even if it meant a smaller ship than the qm2 and somewhat less comfort.

My understanding is that QM2's top speed isn't primarily to make her fast.

If that was the motivation, they'd have surely attempted to better the QE2 or even try and get the Blue Riband from the SS United States.

Her top speed is a side effect of the power needed to be able to make progress when the Atlantic is having a tantrum.

It all depends on demand. If the demand for Transatlantic Ocean Travel is there when QM2's retirement comes, then the replacement has to be a Liner as a Cruise Ship couldn't hack it.

Whether she's faster or slower than QM2 in a calm sea will depend on what propulsion system she's packing. Who knows, Queen Catherine could be running a Cold Fusion Reactor with iON drives!

Interesting question. Two things I feel certain I can bet on. First, 30+ years from now will be as different from today as 30+ years ago is. Second, if there is still a Cunard, whatever they build will be marketed as an "Ocean Liner".:D

After being told qe 2 would be the last ever ocean liner all I can say is never say never. Qm2 has a good few years service yet so this will not be a real issue until the late 2030's

Demographics suggest there may be a growing marking for TA's. I never took one until I retired a few years ago, and now have done 5. All of my friends who are still working can't wait to take a TA once they retire or reduce their work hours. With the Baby Boom generation reaching retirement age, there is a growing target market for TA's.

One thought I had was that some of the problem may be the New York/London route itself. Is there really enough demand for that route (and of course the London/New York opposite) to justify a new liner that concentrates on that route for a large portion of the year.

A lot of the current TA's seem to me to be from Florida to the Mediterranean. The cruise ships seem to handle the southern route just fine, and that combination seems to have more demand. The warm weather ports seem to attract more cruise customers.

I know for me personally I will have travelled to Europe four times at the end of next year, with one trip to Barcelona for a med cruise, and the other three trips to the UK. But I suspect a typical American may be less UK centered for destinations. And I am not sure how many Europeans want to go to New York first when coming to America.

I think the market is still there, maybe with some adjustment to our ideas of what a TA should be. I'm considering my first. As I'm still in my 30s I cannot remember the last time I had two 'days off' together, so five or even four sea day crossings to me seem to be a very nice break......and 6 or 7 possibly too much of a good thing? I think a new market for a younger crowd would be a shorter 4 or 5 day crossing with either hotel stays or calls at a few more ports at 'either end'.

And for me a 'proper' TA means UK to New York :).

I think the market is still there, maybe with some adjustment to our ideas of what a TA should be. I'm considering my first. As I'm still in my 30s I cannot remember the last time I had two 'days off' together, so five or even four sea day crossings to me seem to be a very nice break......and 6 or 7 possibly too much of a good thing? I think a new market for a younger crowd would be a shorter 4 or 5 day crossing with either hotel stays or calls at a few more ports at 'either end'.

 

And for me a 'proper' TA means UK to New York :).

Good to hear from somebody in the same situation as myself - being time poor. The increasing length of a TA no only keeps me from sailing more often, but when I do put together something that includes round trips it approaches three weeks. Getting that much vacation time in one block is a problem.

That, and I like Queen Mary 2 to do what she is built to do. It distresses my greatly to see posts from those who say they love the ship not want her to do this - by their advocating cheaper fares and longer crossings. :confused:

My understanding is that QM2's top speed isn't primarily to make her fast.

 

If that was the motivation, they'd have surely attempted to better the QE2 or even try and get the Blue Riband from the SS United States.

 

Her top speed is a side effect of the power needed to be able to make progress when the Atlantic is having a tantrum.

 

It all depends on demand. If the demand for Transatlantic Ocean Travel is there when QM2's retirement comes, then the replacement has to be a Liner as a Cruise Ship couldn't hack it.

 

Whether she's faster or slower than QM2 in a calm sea will depend on what propulsion system she's packing. Who knows, Queen Catherine could be running a Cold Fusion Reactor with iON drives!

I wonder if the Captain's name will be Picard! Nuclear power sounds like a great idea,however the training & the pay of Nuke engineers would be costly.

''

 

Good to hear from somebody in the same situation as myself - being time poor. The increasing length of a TA no only keeps me from sailing more often, but when I do put together something that includes round trips it approaches three weeks. Getting that much vacation time in one block is a problem.

 

That, and I like Queen Mary 2 to do what she is built to do. It distresses my greatly to see posts from those who say they love the ship not want her to do this - by their advocating cheaper fares and longer crossings. :confused:

Personally, when we book, it is for longer trips. Unfortunately with my work(catering co.)being crazy busy in the spring to late fall,TA's are not really in my schedule. Yes,I could take one in November,but at that time the weather could make it really hard to go out on deck.

We need to start thinking of a TA as just another cruise. The ship is the destination.

 

David.

Couldn't agree more David.

And the fact that Queen Mary 2's cost was covered after just 5 years in service may answer the OP's question.

It is certainly a viable financial proposition though there are many years left in the flagship yet...

With the QM2 basically being used as a cruise ship, will Cunard ever launch another ocean liner again? And with oil prices looking to stay at US$40 per barrel in the long run, will we see 6 day crossings again? Or will QM2 be basically a cruise ship until she is broken up?

I asked a former Captain that same question, I think you can guess the answer(1) So much cheaper to built the size of Queen Victoria.

(2) Built quicker,

(3) In service sooner earning $ sooner,

So the answer would be? Carnival love the $.

It's my understanding that Cunard does not report results separately. All this financial speculation- does anyone have in hand complete statements, signed by reputable and trustworthy auditors?

It's my understanding that Cunard does not report results separately. All this financial speculation- does anyone have in hand complete statements, signed by reputable and trustworthy auditors?

No, Carnival does not release the financials for its sub-brands or for its individual ships. But if QM2 wasn't making money Stephen Payne would have been walked off a plank long ago. :D In one talk he once cited the Concorde, Chunnel Tunnel, and Queen Mary 2 as three great British-Franco projects. And of those three only Queen Mary 2 operates in the black.

No, Carnival does not release the financials for its sub-brands or for its individual ships. But if QM2 wasn't making money Stephen Payne would have been walked off a plank long ago. :D

QM2 was a pet project of Mickey Arising. He is the that ordered and had input into the design of the ship.

QM2 was a pet project of Mickey Arising. He is the that ordered and had input into the design of the ship.

And if Carnival had not bought Cunard there would be no active, true ocean liner in service today. QE2 would certainly be finished by now. Those who would sail on her anywhere are not getting any younger. And newer generations are not content with oceanviews.