Is it all going horribly wrong ?

[DDBINK1]

I was aiming for immortality so I would always need my spot on Cunard :) unless of course they decide to add a rock climbing wall and water slide to appeal to the family cruiser, then I would be out of there like a shot.

 

Hey put that water slide on the ship, with the exit in the wake. :D

[Jim Avery]

in 1969, Cunard placed a ship in operation aimed squarely at the Younger Demographic--much to the chagrin of the Old Guard. This ship was the latest in trendy fashion and design and was a hit with the "Glitterati" of the day. As a 21 year old, I was instantly enamored with this great ship. At first, QE2 was a casual ship. Were there tuxedos at night sure, but not that many. There were lots of bell bottom trousers, turtleneck shirts and sport coats as well as one of the all time greatest inventions, the Mini Skirt!:eek: Don't believe me, check out the brochures from that era. Lots of long hair and young people. No tuxedos in evidence. Lots of this early marketing info is available online as well in several books about QE2. Subsequent refits gradually turned her into a more formal more retro looking ship with dress codes changing to match. The initiation of the Queens Grill was the start and the final nail in the "hip and trendy" QE2 was when they changed Dennis Lennon's hot Theatre Bar into the Golden Lion Pub.:eek: QM2 was launched into service as a larger version of QE2 with formal nights and retro "Liner Look" interiors but now seems to be going in the reverse direction of QE2s career. Seems the circle is returning to 1969.:eek: Now if they will just bring back the Mini Skirt (on the young ones of course:D). Remember, even in the "Golden Era", formal wear was only in First Class. The rest of us could not afford a Tuxedo and rowing gloves at the same time. As far as decor, Liners were always the latest, trendy design trying to one up the competition. The last thing anyone on say the Normandie wanted was to be reminded of the age of sail.:eek: So, as has been said, change is inevitable. Formal or casual, it is still a great thing to be on a ship at sea.:D

[LadyL1]

Hey put that water slide on the ship, with the exit in the wake. :D

 

What a good idea!!

 

Have the execs at Carnival forgotten that the older generation are said to have more disposable income to spend? If so, from reading these comments, it seems possible that other cruise lines (the ones with the smaller up market ships) are likely to be the beneficiaries, as those have enjoyed Cunard over the years, take flight.

 

Do they not realise that there are plenty of ships that already provide for the younger generation, and it seems that they are not being filled to capacity so have to reduce prices, as seems to be common practice now.

 

I still work, so do not class myself as truly old (yet), but I do feel I might be looking elsewhere in the future if Cunard decide to have huge movie screens by the pools etc. I enjoy the genteel atmosphere on board, as it is now and I am sure many others do.

[keithm]

Even if no young people travel on Cunard in great numbers, the older people of the future may not want the same type of experience or entertainment that older people enjoy now.

 

For example, when I am old I will not want to listen to the Rolling Stones.

 

Actually, I don't want to listen to them now, but that's another story.

Ahhh yes! Mick Jagger's lips & the state of Florida!

[karl_nj]

Is that what they mean when they say "younger demographic"?

 

I was being (mostly) facetious. Right before I read your post, I was watching a nice QM2 video on YouTube by Gary Bembridge (he does a travel podcast). For whatever reason, I had noticed a large number of elderly people on board in that video.

 

The article claims the average age is 55-60, which actually matches up better to the age range I noticed on my trips on the QM2.

 

But even if they mean they want to start moving the average age to 40, I still doubt that you'll get the music you want in G32. Maybe they will replace the Rolling Stones with Nirvana :-)

[BlueRiband]

At first, QE2 was a casual ship. Subsequent refits gradually turned her into a more formal more retro looking ship with dress codes changing to match...

 

Glasgow's Riverside Museum has the John Brown model of QE2 as built - complete with MOD tile around her fantail pool. So yes, there is solid evidence that she started service life as 1960s trailer trash although she matured into a Grande Dame.

 

Given the length of Cunard voyages the passenger demographic necessarily is concentrated on people in their retirement years. Getting off from work for three or more weeks at a time is a problem for most. People in their peak earning years also tend to have peak job responsibilities. The people just retiring now in the US are of the "Baby Boomer" generation - born 1946-1960. This, alas, is the "I want what I want and I want it now" generation. I'm willing to bet that every single one of the "I don't want to dress for dinner because I'm on vacation" posts was written by a Baby Boomer. (The Greatest Generation managed to raise the most selfish generation.) These are probably the whiners that inspired Shanks to "loosen up" the dress code.

 

However "gen X and Y" is another matter. These younger people have no problem in dressing up for a special occasion. High School Prom Night in the US nearly approaches a wedding in terms of money spent. The most recent trend is to involve a professional stylist and individually plan a studio photograph for the school yearbook.

 

So in pursuing the "Baby Boomer" demographic Cunard may alienate an even younger demographic: Young people who will see nothing special about sailing on a ship - a ship that is only the floating equivalent of their parent's dress down resort.

 

Cunard ships constantly connect one to the sea. No atrium around a retail strip mall nor do the staterooms face one another as in a cellblock. It appears that rather than selling Cunard as a unique experience it instead is trying to be the same as any other cruise ship experience. They have a lousy ad agency if they cannot effectively differentiate their brand from everything else out there.

[Jim Avery]

BR, your opinions certainly contain a number of obnoxious generalizations but, like all of us on these boards, you are entitled to yours.

[MadScientist_01]

Hey put that water slide on the ship, with the exit in the wake. :D

 

Do they not realise that there are plenty of ships that already provide for the younger generation, and it seems that they are not being filled to capacity so have to reduce prices, as seems to be common practice now.

 

That is precisely their problem though - the 'younger' cruisers are with other lines, and cruise brands seem to hold sway with customers far beyond what is normally seen. In the majority of cases people don't get to a certain age and switch brands, they stay loyal (that's why they all sell the loyalty 'membership' aspect so much).

 

If there are young people out there who have 30 - 50 years of cruises in them you want them on your ship asap because they may become loyal - and that's a lot of money in the long run

[BlueRiband]

BR, your opinions certainly contain a number of obnoxious generalizations but, like all of us on these boards, you are entitled to yours.

 

As I am a member of that "Baby Boomer" generation, you should not be surprised. (My generation is the reason why student loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy in the US. Too many used this as a tool to walk away from their financial responsibilities.)

[Austcruiser84]

Erm...So what you are saying is that as older people die, they wont be replaced by more older people then ?

 

Not at all. Perhaps I worded it poorly. As someone else has interpreted, what I mean is that as future older passengers won't necessarily have the same tastes as the current older crowd.

 

As pointed out in an earlier post, the demands of passengers has changed with time (and technology I might add). Cunard of the 40s is not Cunard of the 60s, the same as Cunard of the 70s isn't Cunard of today.

 

People change with time. Tastes change. The industry changes as a conseque ce. In the golden years of ocean travel, black tie was mandatory at every dinner. Men would retire to smoking lounges after dinner, while women would converse in separate public rooms. Serving yourself at a buffet restaurant would be unthinkable.

 

It's funny how some people are really worried about falling standards and Cunard becoming common. In the pre WW2 years the more casual atmosphere (for the time) is what made Queen Mary more successful than the Normandie, which, by comparison, was thought to be too over the top and stuffy.

 

I honestly saw nothing wrong with the service on board QM2 during my 19 nights. If the greatest complaint one can have is that not all men wear a tux on formal nights or that they don't serve your cream of choice at afternoon tea, then I'd suggest to that person that there are bigger problems they need to deal with.

 

As I've said, Cunard is a business. The first goal of any business is to make profit. The cruise market is awash with big ships and since the GFC the North American and European passenger growth has slowed. New passengers are being fought over fiercely - especially younger passengers who are not as brand loyal as previous generations. By younger I mean Gen X mostly.

 

Given that Cunard is spending more World Cruise time in the Southern Hemisphere and appealing to a booming Australian cruise market, the need to adapt to local tastes is necessary. Cunard is going where the money is. This is just an example of a business doing what is necessary to keep their ship afloat (pun intended)

 

They aren't drastically changing what defines the line. They haven't replaced formal nights or done away with afternoon tea. They haven't allowed wet tee shirt contests and as far as I can see there are no rock walls on any of the Cunard ships. I don't think they ever will.

 

So long as the essence of the line remains, I really don't see a problem with making minor changes or adding something to appeal to a broader demographic.

[Salacia]

Not at all. Perhaps I worded it poorly. As someone else has interpreted, what I mean is that as future older passengers won't necessarily have the same tastes as the current older crowd.

 

As pointed out in an earlier post, the demands of passengers has changed with time (and technology I might add). Cunard of the 40s is not Cunard of the 60s, the same as Cunard of the 70s isn't Cunard of today.

 

People change with time. Tastes change. The industry changes as a conseque ce. In the golden years of ocean travel, black tie was mandatory at every dinner. Men would retire to smoking lounges after dinner, while women would converse in separate public rooms. Serving yourself at a buffet restaurant would be unthinkable.

 

It's funny how some people are really worried about falling standards and Cunard becoming common. In the pre WW2 years the more casual atmosphere (for the time) is what made Queen Mary more successful than the Normandie, which, by comparison, was thought to be too over the top and stuffy.

 

I honestly saw nothing wrong with the service on board QM2 during my 19 nights. If the greatest complaint one can have is that not all men wear a tux on formal nights or that they don't serve your cream of choice at afternoon tea, then I'd suggest to that person that there are bigger problems they need to deal with.

As I've said, Cunard is a business. The first goal of any business is to make profit. The cruise market is awash with big ships and since the GFC the North American and European passenger growth has slowed. New passengers are being fought over fiercely - especially younger passengers who are not as brand loyal as previous generations. By younger I mean Gen X mostly.

 

Given that Cunard is spending more World Cruise time in the Southern Hemisphere and appealing to a booming Australian cruise market, the need to adapt to local tastes is necessary. Cunard is going where the money is. This is just an example of a business doing what is necessary to keep their ship afloat (pun intended)

 

They aren't drastically changing what defines the line. They haven't replaced formal nights or done away with afternoon tea. They haven't allowed wet tee shirt contests and as far as I can see there are no rock walls on any of the Cunard ships. I don't think they ever will.

 

So long as the essence of the line remains, I really don't see a problem with making minor changes or adding something to appeal to a broader demographic.

 

At the risk of causing you insufferable damage, I agree. -S.

[turquoise 6]

Not at all. Perhaps I worded it poorly. As someone else has interpreted, what I mean is that as future older passengers won't necessarily have the same tastes as the current older crowd.

 

As pointed out in an earlier post, the demands of passengers has changed with time (and technology I might add). Cunard of the 40s is not Cunard of the 60s, the same as Cunard of the 70s isn't Cunard of today.

 

People change with time. Tastes change. The industry changes as a conseque ce. In the golden years of ocean travel, black tie was mandatory at every dinner. Men would retire to smoking lounges after dinner, while women would converse in separate public rooms. Serving yourself at a buffet restaurant would be unthinkable.

 

It's funny how some people are really worried about falling standards and Cunard becoming common. In the pre WW2 years the more casual atmosphere (for the time) is what made Queen Mary more successful than the Normandie, which, by comparison, was thought to be too over the top and stuffy.

 

I honestly saw nothing wrong with the service on board QM2 during my 19 nights. If the greatest complaint one can have is that not all men wear a tux on formal nights or that they don't serve your cream of choice at afternoon tea, then I'd suggest to that person that there are bigger problems they need to deal with.

 

As I've said, Cunard is a business. The first goal of any business is to make profit. The cruise market is awash with big ships and since the GFC the North American and European passenger growth has slowed. New passengers are being fought over fiercely - especially younger passengers who are not as brand loyal as previous generations. By younger I mean Gen X mostly.

 

Given that Cunard is spending more World Cruise time in the Southern Hemisphere and appealing to a booming Australian cruise market, the need to adapt to local tastes is necessary. Cunard is going where the money is. This is just an example of a business doing what is necessary to keep their ship afloat (pun intended)

 

They aren't drastically changing what defines the line. They haven't replaced formal nights or done away with afternoon tea. They haven't allowed wet tee shirt contests and as far as I can see there are no rock walls on any of the Cunard ships. I don't think they ever will.

 

So long as the essence of the line remains, I really don't see a problem with making minor changes or adding something to appeal to a broader demographic.

Good for you.letting it out:) but everything you are saying is not a truth.

and you are saying alot. Australia is not the new world market for Cunard.!

too far way and not enough revenue.($$$) Asia yes..Singapore ,Honk Kong.

China Yes.

[Salacia]

Good for you.letting it out:) but everything you are saying is not a truth.

and you are saying alot. Australia is not the new world market for Cunard.!

too far way and not enough revenue.($$$) Asia yes..Singapore ,Honk Kong.

China Yes.

 

turquoise, yes, every indication is that Cunard and other cruise lines are sifting to the Asian market, especially China. It's not the age of the passengers, it all comes down to where they think the money is (or more accurately, where they expect market is expected to grow.)

 

History does seem to repeat itself :eek::D

 

Interesting times, no? :)

[Louise D]

turquoise, yes, every indication is that Cunard and other cruise lines are sifting to the Asian market, especially China. It's not the age of the passengers, it all comes down to where they think the money is (or more accurately, where they expect market is expected to grow.)

 

History does seem to repeat itself :eek::D

 

Interesting times, no? :)

 

If Cunard does become Asian-focused, then the whole ambiance of the voyage would change. In that event, I expect that they would lose most of their US, European and Australian custom.

[Austcruiser84]

Good for you.letting it out:) but everything you are saying is not a truth.

and you are saying alot. Australia is not the new world market for Cunard.!

too far way and not enough revenue.($$$) Asia yes..Singapore ,Honk Kong.

China Yes.

 

Did I say Australia is the new world market for Cunard? I believe I mentioned the Southern Hemisphere being of greater importance. I should have included the Asia Pacific as well.

 

However, next year QM2 will spend approximately 32 days in Australian waters out of a 119 night world cruise. That represents roughly 27% of the world voyage. In 2014 QE will spend 10 days in Australian waters and QV will spend 7 days in Australia, plus 9 days in NZ waters. Each year, Cunard is spending more time down under and it isn't for the heck of it.

 

It's a big enough market to warrant Cunard sending all three of their ships to Australian waters more often every year. Oh, and Cunard is filling the ships for these voyages, unlike the old world routes which are being heavily discounted to get people on board. While American and European passenger growth has slowed, Australian and Asian cruise passenger numbers are booming.

 

To give you the figures, American cruise passenger numbers rose 2% last year, compared with steady numbers in Britain and 11% growth in Australia. In the past four years the number of Australians taking cruises has doubled. Cruise lines like Royal Carribean, Carnival, Princess and Cunard are all taking advantage of the summer season down under.

 

In no way am I suggesting that Australia is saving Cunard's bottom line. But as a business, Cunard is clearly pushing into this region of the world to take advantage of booming demand for cruise holidays.

 

It makes sense to do so from a financial perspective, rather than plying the glutted Caribbean market.

[Salacia]

If Cunard does become Asian-focused, then the whole ambiance of the voyage would change. In that event, I expect that they would lose most of their US, European and Australian custom.

 

But if the berths sell in Asian markets, it won't matter ( so the theory goes) if they lose the other markets. Keep a toe hold in those old markets, yes. A few voyages to traditional ports; the change is gradual (haven't we've seen reduced r/t NY and r/t Southhampon voyages?) The Med isn't working too well, is it? Talk about how the Caribbean voyages were a bust, look at what is happening with Med voyages! Greece? Egypt? The Holy Land?

 

Dress codes will also change to suit the voyage (we've already read about one upcoming test of that).

 

A younger target group is what the cruise lines are after: get them young, and unexperienced so that they have no comparisons to make. Brand loyalty starts young.

[Salacia]

This might be of interest:

 

"Carnival, the world's largest cruise group, unveiled its Asian expansion plans on Tuesday, predicting the regional market for leisure voyages will grow dramatically within the decade...

 

 

 

 

 

SINGAPORE: Carnival, the world's largest cruise group, unveiled its Asian expansion plans on Tuesday, predicting the regional market for leisure voyages will grow dramatically within the decade.

 

Southeast Asia in particular will be a key focus, the company said as it announced that one of its brands, Princess Cruises, will operate from Singapore by next year to provide short-haul leisure trips.

 

"Carnival is really investing a lot in Asia, we are trying to stimulate the demand of the market. Today it's a bit quiet as cruising is not well known," Pier Luigi Foschi, chairman and chief executive of Carnival Asia, told AFP.

 

"Southeast Asia is a key market to develop cruising because it is a year-round experience. The seas are typically calm and the surroundings are beautiful, particularly for short-haul cruises."

 

Carnival's brands include Carnival Cruise Lines, Holland America Line, Princess Cruises, Seabourn, AIDA Cruises, Costa Cruises, Cunard, Ibero Cruises, P&O Cruises in Australia, and P&O Cruises in Britain.

 

Foschi, speaking on the sidelines of a press conference, cited industry forecasts that cruise liners will see a total of seven million passengers a year by 2020 in Asia, up from just above one million now..."Our ships move to where we believe the demand is strongest."

 

 

quoted from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/carnival-cruise-group/633086.html

[glojo]

The Med isn't working too well, is it? Talk about how the Caribbean voyages were a bust, look at what is happening with Med voyages! Greece? Egypt? The Holy Land?

Apologies for dissecting your post and only quoting this section but it is something I want to query.

 

Next year the Queen Elizabeth will be based in the Mediterranean (for the summer season) as opposed to operating from Southampton, do you believe Cunard are doing this because 'The Med isn't working too well'? Or do they believe they can make more money bt flying customers out to that location?

 

However, next year QM2 will spend approximately 32 days in Australian waters out of a 119 night world cruise.

Again apologies for only pasting a part of your post but again this is the section I want to discuss.

 

You make a very valid point and yes the Queen Mary is out to make a whirlpool as she circles your very nice country but is it a World Cruise or a cruise that visits Australia? what are your thoughts on this? I am NOT suggesting you alone are calling that voyage a world Cruise as we all accept Cunard are advertising it as such but you have highlighted how nearly 30% of this cruise is in Australian waters.

 

I go along with Louise and if Cunard want to cater for the expanding Asian market, they might want to consider basing a ship in those waters?? :o:o

[Austcruiser84]

Apologies for dissecting your post and only quoting this section but it is something I want to query.

 

Next year the Queen Elizabeth will be based in the Mediterranean (for the summer season) as opposed to operating from Southampton, do you believe Cunard are doing this because 'The Med isn't working too well'? Or do they believe they can make more money bt flying customers out to that location?

 

Again apologies for only pasting a part of your post but again this is the section I want to discuss.

 

You make a very valid point and yes the Queen Mary is out to make a whirlpool as she circles your very nice country but is it a World Cruise or a cruise that visits Australia? what are your thoughts on this? I am NOT suggesting you alone are calling that voyage a world Cruise as we all accept Cunard are advertising it as such but you have highlighted how nearly 30% of this cruise is in Australian waters.

 

I go along with Louise and if Cunard want to cater for the expanding Asian market, they might want to consider basing a ship in those waters?? :o:o

 

With regards to QE being based in the amed:

 

I'd say this is more about economics (isn't it always?). It makes sense to sail out of a Med port than to sail in and out of Southampton. It's just like the shift from NYC to Miami for Caribbean cruises. It's half a day's sailing compared to 2-3 days.

 

Plus I'd wager the port duties are less in Med ports than Southampton. Given how cheap flights are in Europe these days, Cunard probably figures the shift will have minimum impact on passengers.

 

With regards to the World Cruise not being a World Cruise:

 

Technically it is a world cruise as QM2 circumnavigated the globe. That Australia represents a sizeable chunk of it doesn't make it not a world cruise. It's a big country; in fact it's a continent too.

 

As for basing. Cunard ship in Asian waters, they would need to dramatically change the interior style, the food and employ more crew speaking languages such as Mandarin. I don't see them doing that anytime soon.

[Whitemarsh]

With regards to QE being based in the amed:

 

I'd say this is more about economics (isn't it always?). It makes sense to sail out of a Med port than to sail in and out of Southampton. It's just like the shift from NYC to Miami for Caribbean cruises. It's half a day's sailing compared to 2-3 days.

 

Plus I'd wager the port duties are less in Med ports than Southampton. Given how cheap flights are in Europe these days, Cunard probably figures the shift will have minimum impact on passengers.

 

With regards to the World Cruise not being a World Cruise:

 

Technically it is a world cruise as QM2 circumnavigated the globe. That Australia represents a sizeable chunk of it doesn't make it not a world cruise. It's a big country; in fact it's a continent too.

 

As for basing. Cunard ship in Asian waters, they would need to dramatically change the interior style, the food and employ more crew speaking languages such as Mandarin. I don't see them doing that anytime soon.

 

Actually, QM2 doesn't circumnavigate the globe.

 

But yes, for all intents and purposes it's a World Cruise. What else would it be called? A round-trip from Southampton? A Getaway Cruise? A very long taster? Highlights of Half The Planet?

[Austcruiser84]

Actually, QM2 doesn't circumnavigate the globe.

 

But yes, for all intents and purposes it's a World Cruise. What else would it be called? A round-trip from Southampton? A Getaway Cruise? A very long taster? Highlights of Half The Planet?

 

How about the 'All the way without LBJ' tour?

[Whitemarsh]

How about the 'All the way without LBJ' tour?

 

Since the ship is spending quite a bit of time in Australian waters, why not call it 'The ETA 5 STAR Circumnavigation of Australia' with your host Ripper Rita.

 

 

For those of you that didn't live in Australia during the 80's, here's Rita saving the day at an Aussie BBQ.

[pmb1]

Certainly the Asian market for cruising will grow and grow. A reason for Cunard to build another liner (RMS Queen Adelaide?) and homeport her in Oz.

[Louise D]

Actually, QM2 doesn't circumnavigate the globe.

 

But yes, for all intents and purposes it's a World Cruise. What else would it be called? A round-trip from Southampton? A Getaway Cruise? A very long taster? Highlights of Half The Planet?

 

I expect that in the loose parlance that Cunard is currently using to describe its voyages, it would be called a World Cruise.

 

However, if this cruise had been available ten or twenty years ago, Cunard would have called it something more accurate such as the "Grand Voyage to Four Continents".

[Whitemarsh]

I expect that in the loose parlance that Cunard is currently using to describe its voyages, it would be called a World Cruise.

 

However, if this cruise had been available ten or twenty years ago, Cunard would have called it something more accurate such as the "Grand Voyage to Four Continents".

 

I do like the current options to do one half of the globe on one ship and then the second half on another. Australia seems to be the changeover place for those wishing to take up this option.

 

If they widen the canal and she can get under that bridge than we may yet see QM2 doing a traditional world cruise. Having said that, why not just sail her around the Cape Horn and be done with it? They could do a traditional world cruise tomorrow if they did that.