Normandie_Nostalgic

Two advantages I found of having a butler:

1. Providing the freshest green smoothie straight from the Grills Galley as per our specs twice a day (for dietary reasons). I tried asking for that on a later Cruise in Britannia class, offering to picking up myself, but that was not possible.

2. Helping me with my bow tie.

Not justifying the extra cash for an upgrade per session, probably, but nice to have.

The benefits of Queens Grill class are many, but in our experience on QV, the food is the least significative of them. As others have pointed out, the menus are not very different, and quite frankly the cuisine is not that refined. Even when ordering off-menu (which I found less accessible than others said, the Maitre d' being slightly unenthusiastic), preparation is nothing special. Always good and tasty, but not amazing. Service is excellent and attentive, more so than it can be in the main dining room, obviously. The Grills on QV/QE enjoy magnificent views. The Queens Lounge is nice, but so are the other bars and lounges. But the biggest drawback of the Queens Grill dining room is that it is horribly packed. There are many tables for 2 people (which in itself is a good thing), but there is hardly any elbow room. It is just like being at a table of 6 or 8.

In my view, the compelling reasons to book QG are the large and comfortable suites, and the butler's service. I keep a vivid memory of watching us come into Venice from the terrace of our very own Q6 stateroom at the stern of the ship.

An alternative strategy might be to book a lower grade cabin (even oceanviews are nice and well appointed, or a basic balcony to enjoy the fresh air), and dine frequently at the Verandah restaurant, which in my opinion offers a considerably better culinary experience than the Queens Grill, for a modest extra charge. The only possible drawback is that the menu, while extensive, never changes.

All the "we remove the charge to fight the system" talk is just to get a clean concience for doing bad to the crew.

No we don't. That persistent feeling of guilt is all that holds that appalling system together. Opting out from the auto-tipping does not harm the crew a bit. It harms Cunard, that still has to pay the crew, but might not recoup the cost with the tipping pool.

What reputable employer (and Cunard is one, let's do them that justice) would let the wages of their staff fluctuate according to the proportion of stingy hardliners and 'Aussies' in the passenger list ? If indeed tips make up a massive part of the wages of the staff, and nobody denies it does, then Cunard has to somehow guarantee the staff that they will get paid, whether the pool is sufficient or not.

The tipping revolt is harmless to the deserving staff (and to the not-so-deserving ones too, since they will all get paid the same in the end).

As long as individuals remove their tips in the remaining system - they are not "fighting" for something better.

 

They cut the well deserved income from many hard-working people onboard and are partly subsidized by those who keep the servicecharge active.

No, they don't. Cunard is forced to make good any shortfall, since the 'tip' pool is the overwhelming funder of the crew's wages. If they don't pay their people, they will have a mutiny, or more realistically they will not find staff to crew their ships.

All it will do is it will dent Carnival's profits, and in the longer run it will force them to get rid of the pesky tip system. Hard-Working staff will get paid all the same, whether tips are left in or voted out.

As always when debating this sticky topic of tips, we are totally in the dark.

But logic suggests that if indeed the tip pool is the source of much of the crew’s pay, then Cunard and the other shipping lines cannot afford to leave that essential funding to the vagaries of individual passengers and their personal or national tipping habits. In case the tip pool would be insufficient to cover the crew salaries, the crew still needs to get paid, and Cunard would have to chip in to make good the shortfall, as it already does in Australian waters.

As long as passengers play along docilely footing the bill and being subject to an infect moral blackmail, the system will not change. The worst part is that the blackmail is based on the false premise, that poor deserving staff will not get paid at all if we withdraw from the levy. Of course they will, how could Cunard get away not paying the staff?

Therefore, all passengers have to do to force the industry to get rid of that pesky tipping policy is to starve the tip pool and force Cunard and others to chip in. If they want to restore their margins, they will have to reflect the extra cost in their pricing structure, like any sensible business would do.

I got upgraded several times in the glorious QE2 days, but since we resumed cruising with the current fleet, and reaching Platinum, no upgrade whatsoever., either with GTY or an assigned cabin, asking for it bluntly, praying secretly or not caring at all.

I think that nowadays, for all things upgrade (on ships, planes, car rentals and hotels), the safest strategy is to book solid what one actually wants, and welcome the (very slim) chance of an upgrade.

I will I still want to book one night in the Verandah (at extra cost), or is the Queen's Grill better anyway?

No, the Queen’s Grill is not better anyway. In my view, the Verandah is the way the QG should be. Not just the food, but the ambiance and the service. I have read that it can be, and maybe it often is, but in our two times in the QG (on the QV), I found the Grill experience rather underwhelming. The food is not extraordinary, and the restaurant si so crowded. We do not want table companions and conversation, so we insist on a table for 2, which we got, but once it was between two other tables for two, with barely enough elbow space and opposite a service island, and the second time if was between another table for 2, with just as little space as before, and the inside window giving to the patio (lovely, but that is no sea view).

In the Verandah, as a QG guest (and even if not), you can count on getting a sea view booth and a large table, extra-attentive and proactive service that is at least as good as in the QG. And then there is the food. My only complaint about the Verandah is that the menu is so frozen in time. IT never changes, which is an issue if you go often. But it is always a treat, that is not made any less attractive because you are ‘paying’ the Grill price anyway. The extra-charge is really nominal. So I say ‘Go, Verandah !’

The real attraction of the QG is the stateroom. A Q6 on the Vic is an awesome treat, and a Q4 too, of course, although the layout and location on the ship is less attractive.

I wonder if the menu currently on offer in the 'Verandah' restaurant on QE is still the one shown on the website: https://ask.cunard.com/help/cunard/life-on-board/example_menu ?

This being in preparation of our upcoming World Cruise segment from Hong Kong.

Nuclear power may be "safe" and "clean" (at least at point of use), but it is still the ultimate terror, the silent killer. As you cannot see, feel, hear, taste or smell radiation (unlike many other killers) this simply adds to the terror as you don't know you're being damaged as it happens.

In the public's mind it is linked to slow painful deaths from cancer-inducing radioactivity.

Considering the demographics of the Cunard following, many passengers should not really worry too much about a slow death by radiations...

We all already took more radiations just from breathing the air of Chernobyl than any crew member of any nuclear-powered ship, bar those few that had accidents.

It is all a matter of perception. And perception can change, and can be changed, not overnight, but definitely faster than most people would imagine possible. Once upon a time it was perfectly okay for people to smoke everywhere in public. Now it is not so anymore. It was cool to drive fast, not to wear a safety belt. It was quite okay to have black people sit at the back of buses, to pay women less than men for the same job, etc. Now we have same-sex marriage, assisted procreation, ... and everybody finds that jolly good.

The times they are a-changin, as they say.

Solar power, Biofuels, yep, possibly. However, that matter is far from obvious. There is the matter of carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, impact on water resources, ... It even may require convincing a few billion humans to go without food, (the "food vs fuel" debate).

That sounds like quite a lot more trouble than a nice, safe, clean, nuclear reactor the size of a car, as Stephen Payne had mentioned.

There is always the alternative to revert to sail power. That would be nice too. Clean and quiet, romantic even. And it is manpower-intensive, which would create many more jobs. These new crew members might even get a special compulsory eco-tip.

Stephen Payne was asked the very question, and his answer was:

I firmly believe that sometime in the not too distant future we'll have a nuclear powered cruise ship. We simply just cant keep burning oil on land, in the air and and at sea and nuclear is an obvious alternative choice. There is precedence with commercial and military platforms - a Russian nuclear icebreaker already offers limited cruising opportunities. The technology exists and is proven. The latest Royal Navy submarine has a nuclear reactor the size of a small car that will never need refuelling. The biggest problems will be acceptance by those who travel and the countries the ships will visit. These are huge problems but I am sure solutions will eventually be found. I initiated a forum about this subject at the Royal Academy of Engineering where I am a Fellow and the final report has just been published.

One should not underestimate the power of marketing. Disney was able to convince people to spend their holiday at a cold and wet swampland outside Paris, Apple can sell silly watches that people sleep in front of the shop to be the first to buy, ...

In Western Europe and in the US, a sizeable portion of the electricity people use comes from nuclear power plants, that are never very far from where people live. Technology advances fast, and people accept it, eventually. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is made of Composite materials, for example. Alternative fuels are being introduced. There are so many things that could 'never' happen, but that did in the end.

Planes, cars, trains even are too small for it, but ships can easily be nuclear-powered, with huge and obvious advantages. Yes, there is the safety issue, but today's cruise ships are already very high on security, environmental controls etc. As for the risk tag people take when they travel, nowadays there is a lot more risk of being blown to bits by a bomb laid by religious nut that to be vaporised in a meltdown. As for ports of call giving access, this is a two-way street: if they want the business of those ships, they'd better welcome them. The supersonic airliner Concorde suffered from such environmental ostracism, and could mostly be deployed only between Paris/London and New-York, but it flew for years anyway.

About nuclear propulsion for Ocean Liners:

I just found out that the Italian Line had made provision for converting their Leonardo da Vinci to nuclear propulsion by 1965. They obviously did not do that in the end, and the ship was withdrawn when essential state subsidies were removed, but apparently the technical feasibility was entirely there from the start.

As per Wikipedia:

Because of the provisions made for conversion to run on nuclear power, the Leonardo da Vinci had a somewhat unusual interior layout. Space for a reactor was reserved amidship, in and around the ship's steam turbine power plant. This made it necessary to locate the dining rooms and galleys one deck higher than usual, and separated from the ship's main working passage. No passenger corridors passed through the area reserved for a reactor, which meant the forward and rear passenger-accessible sections on the lowest decks were entirely separated from each other.

I wonder if QM2 could be rebuilt for nuclear propulsion. Presumably, in half a century, technology has made a lot of progress (miniaturisation in particular) to make this technically feasible. Remains to be see if it would make economic sense, but I am more than ever convinced that nuclear propulsion would be the only way to bring high speed crossings back to the North Atlantic.

We are great fans of the Verandah, with a slight preference for the one on QE. We like the menu on QE a bit better, and the décor is genuinely Verandah, while on QV it is still the old Todd English, minus the drapes.

The Verandah serves excellent and authentic French food, and believe me I know . I think it is so good that I wish the Queen’s Grill would serve similar food, which it unfortunately does not. There are always the special requests, but I have been a bit disappointed in my few attempts at special order. You have little control on how they will prepare the food that you require, and frankly, I do not want to spell out for the chef how to prepare the food I order. Therefore, in the Queen’s Grill, we usually order A La carte, or occasionally from the daily menu if there is something nice, but for real gastronomic enjoyment, we dine at the Verandah, which we find incredible value for money. If I had a criticism, it would be that the selection, while authentically French, is understandably biased to the kind of things that the Anglo-American clientele would like. Also, it would be good to see the menu change from time to time. For a short cruise, it is not a problem, but if one dines there often, as we tend to do, repetition should be avoided.

We recently had a slight problem booking a table. One afternoon I called the restaurant, and was told that they did not have a table for us at the time we asked for (8ish). I left it at that and booked for the next night. That evening, I mentioned the thing to the Senior Maitre d’ at the Queen’s Grill, who I understand oversees all the restaurants. He was surprised, called the Verandah, then escorted us downstairs personally and found us a good table. The Verandah Maitre d’ apologised and explained that they apparently try to regulate the number of bookings because they cannot be sure of when a table will become available, many diners tending to stay much longer than they would in the MDR. The lesson is probably that in case a booking cannot be had, it is still possible to walk in. If one has to wait a little for a table, there is a nice bar in the restaurant, where one can have a cocktail or a glass of Champagne. Also, formal nights tend to be more busy.

We always request a table for 2 (and always got one). This is for two reasons: first, we like to have quality time on our own, and second, we do not want to interact with other passengers.

The second reason deserves an explanation, as we both have different reasons for it. For myself, I interact with lots of people the whole year long, and I do appreciate not having to do it when cruising. Also, based on past experience dating back to the glory days of the QE2, the usual demographics of a Cunard cruise tends to make one interact with people I think I would not enjoy talking to (the ‘Keeping Up Appearance’ lady, the Medalled Veteran of the Boer War, the Nostalgic of The Raj, the Cruise Number Record Holder, …). Admittedly, there are many lovely people around too, but since the only way to find out would be to talk to anyone, I’d rather pass on this hit-and-miss way.

As for my wife, her command of English is limited, and she totally hates to be quizzed on her life, where she comes from, where we live, etc. All those things that people ask in small talk but that to her come across as rude and invasive. Interestingly enough, she enjoys interacting with the staff, but not the passengers, probably because crew members are not invasive.

We are just back from two nearly back-to-back cruises on the QV. For the first week, we had a table for 2, although in the Queen’s Grill, the tables for 2 are so close that it felt like being at a table for 6, but no issue. Knowing that we would be back for a second week, the Maitre d’ promised to give us a table for 2 by the window, which he did. However, at the first evening, we found out that at the table next to us there was the most unpleasant and boorish person I ever met. HE was complaining loudly about everything, the service, the food, the prices, etc., while boasting how well travelled he was, including many cruises. His poor wife was hugely embarrassed. I briefly considered telling him to shut up, but in the end, we cut short our dinner and left. On our way out, the Head Waiter apologised, and the next day we were given a new table at the opposite end of the dining room, still a window table but giving to the inside courtyard. The new table was in fact much better, with daylight and a bit of a view, much closer to the entrance and naturally far away from that horrible man. Our neighbours at the next table for 2 were quite okay, which for us means that they kept to themselves as much as we did.

I never bothered bringing wine with me on a cruise ship, but I can imagine one reason why one might want to: the Cunard wine list (the very same everywhere) is a bit weirdly built. There are many gaps in it, wine types or regions that are rather poorly covered, or in a patchy way. Also, value for money is sometimes seriously questionable. So if one would want to bother with lugging around a number of wine bottles on top of the already bulky luggage that one normally has to take on a cruise, it might actually make sense, be it to drink in the stateroom or in the dining room.

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.

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.

I cannot understand that systematic negativity about QE either.

We did the WC segment from Singapore to Dubai on QE 2 years ago, and that was probably the best of our (all excellent) cruises on Cunard ships. There was a silly norovirus outbreak that had them decide to close the Verandah restaurant to free extra waiters for serving passengers in the Lido, which was hard to endure, but it is hard to blame Cunard for that. Otherwise, the ship was beautiful, comfortable and immaculate. Excellent service by the crew too.

I would like to get on board QE again in the near future, but her itineraries do not quite match what we want to do. Fortunately, dear old QV always seems to be there for us...

I have a fabulous memory of being on deck of the QE2 entering the NY harbor on a luminous morning in May, with John Maxtone-Graham commenting from the bridge.

He will be missed.

As the excellent website http://www.blacktieguide.com/Classic/Warm_Weather.htm says:

The white dinner jacket's origin on cruises and at tropical resorts speaks to its specific role as a less formal alternative to traditional black tie. It is only appropriate at formal occasions in the tropics year round and in America during the summer season, typically at open-air social gatherings such as country club dances and yacht club parties.

 

 

While summer in the southern United States qualifies as being at least subtropical, the same cannot be said for the more temperate northern states and Canada. It is for this reason that numerous experts advise using discretion north of the Mason-Dixon line in order to avoid dressing for effect rather than for the occasion. Indeed, black-tie guests north of the 49th parallel would be wise to heed the example of their British cousins who do not consider the United Kingdom's temperate climate to be appropriate for white formal wear at any time of the year (with the notable exception of Last Night of the Proms).

 

 

And if a man is particularly serious about formal convention, a white jacket should never be worn in the city “unless one has a napkin over his arm or a saxophone up to his lips” as Esquire once put it.

 

Don't forget that the white jacket is an alternative, not a directive. The black jacket is perfectly acceptable in any season and any locale and actually trumps the formality of the white version.

A Med/Caribbean cruise is the only occasion I would wear my white tuxedo jacket, and I love doing so as an alternative to the slightly more formal black version.

By the public acceptance of longer and longer crossings - by voting with their wallets - TAs will be handled nicely by QE and QV. There will be no need to have QM2's reserve power if the Baby Queens can take 11 days to make it. So I see the very people who ask for lower fares and longer crossings as unintentionally contributing to QM2's irrelevance and demise.

Exactly. QM2 is only truly relevant for the role she was designed for: the New York line.If the very concept of a New York line goes away because people are not so bothered about primarily crossing from one side of the Atlantic to the other, then QM2 is not needed anymore. She is a rather inadequate cruise ship, with an awkward layout and much wasted internal space. QE and QV can do the job, and if they are too busy to do it in addition to their own very successful cruising and World Tour careers, then Cunard might be better served with a third Vista ship.

This is not a new occurence. Cunard faced a similar dilemma in the 60's as the aging Queens were increasingly made irrelevant by the constantly lower number of TA passengers, and the inadequacy for cruising of the two transatlantic behemoths was made apparent. Queen Elizabeth was extensively refitted for cruising, but that did not catch, and both ships were withdrawn. Naturally QM2 is only 10 years old. The shareholders will want to keep her paying for the mountain of capital that she consumed for her building for many more years, but this time, Cunard is not facing the competition of the plane, but of her own two excellent cruise ships, which can cannibalise QM2's business.

One of these whimsical "what would you change" threads had somebody suggest that the Grills restaurants be extended to the aft end of deck 7. QM2's complete wrap around teak promenade deck is a treasure.. Personally I thought that was a horrible idea to cut off circulation for a restaurant.

The real issue is indeed that most idiosyncrasies of the QM2 design are 'hard-coded' in the structure of the ship. There is not much that could be altered without a complete reconstruction, and even then, it would imply drastic choices and potentially having to give up other features.

The venerable QE2 proved to be an exceptionally adaptable ship. Spectacular alterations were made possible, and that adaptability allowed the ship to serve for 40 years. It is not sure at all that QM2 will do the same. She was built for a top speed that has become uneconomical, and all that power and strength is somewhat wasted for leisurely crossings at 21 knots, while the obvious trade-offs in terms of layout still have to be endured.

If indeed Cunard goes to regular TA’s with the ‘cruising’ Queens, as they are said to consider doing, the disadvantages of QM2 will become more apparent, while the smaller, better laid-out and more recent ships might prove that they do not need to be ocean liners to do the job well, and even better in some ways.

I find that the layout of QM2 is considerably less rational and pleasant, compared to its two smaller siblings. This is particularly true for the positioning of the two grills (surrounded by a high-traffic passenger deck), but also Todd English (that has passengers walk across it occasionally) and the Commodore Club (at the end of a interminable corridor of passenger cabins.

Also, the larger complement of Grill passengers on QM2 necessitates larger restaurants and lounge, that somewhat lack intimacy, compared to their equivalent spaces on QV/QE.

This being said, this is no reason not to travel in Grill Class on QM2, naturally. Just that the experience is even better on QV/QE.

Being a nostalgic of the QE2, I only recently resumed cruising with Cunard. Our first 3 cruises (2 WC segments and 1 Baltic, on all 3 Queens) were in Britannia and Britannia Club, and all 3 were great in their own way.

This time, we are splurging a bit and going to the Med in the Queen's Grill. We naturally have high expectations, and a bit of trepidation, that have been well calibrated by the wealth of information found here. I am thankful to those who shared their views and their experience.

A Grill cruise/TA is not that expensive that many people cannot afford to go Grills if they so choose (possibly instead of some other thing they might do with that extra money). Many frequent cruisers apparently do either, depending on the time, somehow trading grade for frequency. But in my case, the main limitation is more the number of vacation days that I can 'burn' for a cruise in a year, rather than the actual cost of the cruise.

A great thing about Cunard is that, no matter what you choose, Grills or Britannia, you will get value for money.

Entertainment (live music) in the evening is offered across the ship, including Garden Lounge, but this is not systematic. You may want to check a typical daily programme to get an idea of the times and venues of entertainment.

Also, one should keep in mind that, considering the relatively high average age of the passengers and the hectic days ashore when cruising, many tend to retire for the night relatively early, which means that live music eventually withdraws to only a few spots late a night (Yacht Club...). However, as the number of passengers still up gets lower, so may the vigilance about the dress code.