LittleFish1976

I think it might be called a 'crop' in this case but the answer is pretty much, 'yes'. All parties fully clothed, however. 😅

It was the thought of the saDDles on men that tickled my fancy! You may be brave enough to post a pic of that one and not get kicked off here. I found a beauty but I dare not post it here. 😂

I disembarked the Grand four weeks ago and people were starting to go down with it then - that seemed to be the start of it. Been going on a while in that case. It must be awfully hard to eradicate on a cruise ship when you have such a big cross-over of staff and passengers coming and going. The ship seemed very crowded in every area at almost any time of the day and night - that wouldn't help. Stay safe and try to eat outdoors if possible. Hope the weather clears for you.

The amount per day should be in your contract of passage, I think. It's a cretain amount per day based on cabin grade, from memory it's $14.50 per day for Britannia and $16.50 per day for Grills. I can look it up for you later when I have a chance. (just checked and those figures are correct - will put the link below). They also charge a separate amount of 'gratuities' for drinks purchased which is 15% (but the gratuities are included in a drinks package so if you have one, you pay no more). https://www.cunard.com/en-au/the-cunard-experience/service-charges

C'mon guys. I'm still waiting for the pictures of the saddles on men...

I think the key is to not actually *count* the number of pairs of shoes you're taking! I never travel with less than 5 pairs - perhaps it's a weakness but it's something that matters. Each to her own. I've tried taking the bare minumum of clothes but I end up being fed up with the clothes I'm wearing; having a choice improves my holiday experience so I'm happy to lug a full suitcase (or two) for the options.

Cunard's fares in grills for solo travellers are 200% of twin share. This also applies to the fare I've booked for QA; re comment above, I haven't seen that the solo prices on QA are different to the usual Cunard formula.

Would she have trouble then leaving Mexico through immigration as the cruise line hadn't been able to let the authorities know in advance that she was on the list of passengers disembarking? Given it's the US and Mexico I wouldn't be doing anything not pre-arranged. Maybe that's just me being overly cautious.

Given they've also had plumbing problems in the cabins (toilets not flushing properly; toilets overflowing when not in use onto carpets in wardrobe areas etc) they've got a bit of work to do. Hopefully the galleys will be getting a thorough scrub down with bleach as well. Just imagine having covid and norovirus at the same time. 🤢

None of us knows the full story of the Great Hulls Debacle. You wrote: 'Regarding biofouling; I thought that the manner reported here of the implementation of that policy was unreasonable.' ...which seemed to me to be referencing the idea that seemed to be around last summer (ours) that there was a sudden and unreasonable change to the standard required, or the sudden implementation of a previously existing standard, for the cruise ships entering certain ports or waters. I'm not sure then what you meant by the 'manner... of the implementation of that policy'. I don't have to have it explained; just clarifying why I made the response I did. If it was a known quantity prior to their reaching the relevant areas why did they not take action sooner instead of trying to do what sounded like an ad hoc doomed-to-failure attempt by divers in rough seas to try to cobble together some sort of compliance. Honestly, I'm that not interested in debating this at the level of speculation. As far as facts go, I'm thinking that even the cruise lines would each have half a dozen stories or versions of what happened and who was responsible for what. It will be farcical if we see a repeat of the issue of the hulls this year. And if we don't, it will show that compliance is possible. You also wrote: 'maybe where there is concern for eco systems they would be best to restrict access to ships that only cruise in that area and don't have the opportunity to pick up foreign organisms that could modify or destroy the local eco system' That is a problem as old as time. I can't help my mind wandering to the question of whether you'd like your rats, rabbits and foxes back. (That is a joke, by the way and not a real question.) Anyway, it may be churlish to say that if we don't wish to accept foreign organisms we can just do without having foreign ships here. Seems there are 'standards' all over the world that are complied with out of respect for those countries and the very real desire of people to visit them.

Yes, unfortunately they've clearly stated they are removing themselves from Asia as well as Australia/New Zealand and area (Oceania). It does seem odd - I agree with you. Such a shame as the Japan itineraries are as you say, interesting, and Cunard is (has been) a very good alternative to the other Western lines in the region. Let's face it; all decisions are financially based so Cunard must believe they can make more money by concentrating in certain geographical areas. I doubt the cost of fuel is a factor if they're willing to send a ship or two here in passing on a World Voyage.

I have only one port to add to the above (see above 22nd March, Adelaide). I expect the ship will possibly sail to Funchal Via South Africa (Cape Town) and Tenerife, or via Suez and the Med to Funchal. Either route might make sense, time-wise.

I don't know that there were any last minutes changes to the regs surrounding biofouling, were there? A quick look at the current New Zealand standard suggests a new standard was implemented from October this year (2023 i.e. just last month) which was an amalgamation of two previous standards, both from 2018. From their website. How to comply. You'll be able to meet the biofouling requirements by doing one of the following (and having documentation to prove it): Undertaking continual hull maintenance using best practices (recommended for short-stay vessels). Inspecting and, if necessary, cleaning the hull and niche areas within 30 days before arrival in New Zealand (recommended for long-stay vessels). Booking an appointment for the vessel to be hauled out and cleaned by an MPI-approved treatment supplier within 24 hours of arrival (recommended for vessels coming to New Zealand for refit or repair). It seems like the expectation is clear and should be clearly understood by a shipping company intending to visit. They class cruise vessels as long stay vessels per the website. Tourism is very important to New Zealand and I doubt there is any desire to be unnecessarily obstructive, or capricious when undertaking inspections. There are surely objective, quantifiable standards that a hull must reach. They don't have the facilities that I know of to haul a vessel the size of QE out of the water and give her a quick clean - I imagine most places wouldn't.

Surely any Cunard ship would only enter Drake's Passage to skirt around the tip of South America and would not be doing a full crossing to Antarctica? I'm actually crossing Drake's Passage to Antarctica on a ship carrying 240 souls next year so think of me...

May I ask which voyage you're on? I'm sailing on Q415 and Q416 next year and would be happy to start a roll call where we can share research about the ports and the excursions Cunard will be offerring once they list them. From what I have seen so far, a few weeks ago, there were a lot of tours for Japanese speakers and possibly a few less for English speakers. It might be good to book early for them unless it seems clear that it's a port which you can discover for yourself. I've travelled once in Japan; the Japanese people are very welcoming and helpful but the language barrier is sometimes an issue. Good to read up beforehand as to local customs such as behaviour on public transport. Perhaps we could even discuss this on the A/NZ board?

More horse's mouth in below link to Cruise Weekly. About page two or three from the start of the link. Lots of use of the word 'exciting'. I have yet to speak to anyone local who is 'excited' by the new developments. (yes I know there are people on this board in North America who are happy but I am referring to the people adversely affected by the changes). https://issues.cruiseweekly.com.au/2023/Nov23/cw061123.pdf?_gl=1*18czub9*_ga*MTkwNjYxMDY2My4xNjk5MzIzMzM4*_ga_WL0T2ZPBQN*MTY5OTMyMzMzOC4xLjEuMTY5OTMyMzMzOC42MC4wLjA.&_ga=2.42852261.1436909725.1699323338-1906610663.1699323338

In my opinion pearls flatter all complexions so perhaps Mr Sparky should try some? @Sparky74

Before you move on John @bluemarble can I draw to your attention some passages from the dress code you quoted. 'In keeping with some of our voyages' would indicate that this practice was already in place elsewhere and not newly instigated for the later-mentioned 'Australia voyages'. Also, please note Cunard's justification of temperature and passenger comfort for the changes. Whatever nationality one is, one is not responsible for the weather. Neither is Australia the hottest nor most humid of places to which Cunard sail. It's all very silly trying to tie Cunard's cruising in Australia/New Zealand with the changes in dress code. However, we will all look forward, with great anticipation, to reports of the blossoming of sartorial enhancements once the QE is sailing regularly from Fort Lauderdale. 😉

Were you aware of which nationalities they were Mic? There's a discussion on the Cunard board at the moment implying that Australians are partly (?) responsible for Cunard dumbing down their dress standards which is to my mind is ludicrous.

Rather unwise to base one's assessment of sartorial elegance or lack thereof on a single experience of 40 years ago on a one-class P&O cruise ship (which the Oriana was by that stage)! One would not be ridiculed at all for wearing a dinner jacket on a cruise ship in Australia. That's a fabrication, or generalisation, that is just incorrect. I have recent Cunard experience to support that. You personally may have been ridiculed for some reason in 1984 - I would not question your personal experience - but do not generalise that to being the norm. To suggest that our tiny population and single short cruise season with one Cunard ship per year (on the whole) could have influenced - driven! - the company to alter their dress code is, well let's call it, silly. You mention 'traditional' cruising or travelling by sea and also the Oriana (of 1960). That ship actually plied the waters between Southampton and Australia for years after her maiden voyage which was, in fact, that very route (with my family on board the maiden voyage from Southampton to Melbourne, ending a world tour and returning home). There is no lack of tradition here, of sailing long and elegant voyages. In general, the culture in Australia is a lot closer to that of the UK than you may realise. Cunard, as I have said before, is shaping its product for the US market where there is a huge population that is willing to go on many short trips per year. Antipodes just literally means the opposite so there are points in the northern hemisphere which are the antipodes of points in the southern hemisphere. It's often considered by those in the southern hemisphere to be a slightly derogatory term implying colonial inferiority depending on how and by whom it is used. You wrote: 'Personally, I'd be more than content if they exiled QA to the Antipodes or fly cruises from the Med, put QV back where she belongs out of Southampton and had QE out of the US.' They won't be 'exiling' QA to the 'Antipodes'. They've spent an awful lot of money creating a product aimed at the US market (decor - less English club and more international hotel-style/more like the other huge cruise ships that service the US market; size - big market, big numbers on board).

I didn't open the link Hattie added. I was quoting the price that I could see by doing a quick internet search in my local currency - AUD which has its equivalent in GBP as I quoted.

Thanks Hattie. Yes, I realise that anything labelled champagne is by law, actual champagne. It seems that my disappointment that it was not Veuve or Laurent Perrier is unreasonable by some people's standards, or perhaps misunderstood. I drink very little and so am not looking for something that's okay; I'd rather not drink it at all unless I'm really going to enjoy it.

As per my re-post of my post naming it in February (see above), it was Kirkland champagne. I wouldn't have been able to remember what it was or I would most certainly have added its name earlier. The more important feature of what we are discussing though is what it isn't!

I wasn't able to add any text below my re-posting of my post from months ago regarding the Not-Laurent-Perrier. I was incorrect. It was $24.99* or around 13 quid. And Costco, not Aldi. *currently $20