Queen's Grill dress code.

[exlondoner]

Do we actually know this huge thing is a dog and not, say, a yak or a polar bear? It would be a whole different set of allergens. I’m still worrying about the lifeboat position.

[D&N]

If it was a Newfoundland, it and it's companions might not need a lifeboat.

[exlondoner]

20 minutes ago, D&N said:

If it was a Newfoundland, it and it's companions might not need a lifeboat.

She is not far from Nova Scotia at present, so it could just swim home.

[Millieloulou]

After a really rough week I needed something to laugh about.Thankyou! 
Really having a good chuckle.

Are you sure it’s not a wind up by the crew?.

[RJChatsworth]

The dog was outside our cabin last evening and is bigger than I thought.  The owners had to back it down the corridor so we could get out then asked which way we were going as you could hardly pass it in the narrow QM-2 corridors.  The dog has long shaggy hair so dog hairs in the room must be a problem.  I assume the owners booked a QG cabin because the dog would be difficult to house in something smaller.  The owners certainly didn’t book the cabin to take part in QG dining.  I am told they have only used their table once.  They get off in New York tomorrow.

 

More and more I am beginning to think this whole dog episode is outrageous and Cunard should note it and get a grip of it.  We first noticed the dog early on because on opening the patio door on to our balcony there was a long shaggy tail waving on our balcony from under the partition separating the cabins.

[Rothko1]

5 hours ago, exlondoner said:

Do we actually know this huge thing is a dog and not, say, a yak or a polar bear? It would be a whole different set of allergens. I’m still worrying about the lifeboat position.

 

Maybe a Dire Wolf?

[LargeNegroni]

Please can you get a picture of the dog? 🐶

[exlondoner]

13 minutes ago, RJChatsworth said:

The dog was outside our cabin last evening and is bigger than I thought.  The owners had to back it down the corridor so we could get out then asked which way we were going as you could hardly pass it in the narrow QM-2 corridors.  The dog has long shaggy hair so dog hairs in the room must be a problem.  I assume the owners booked a QG cabin because the dog would be difficult to house in something smaller.  The owners certainly didn’t book the cabin to take part in QG dining.  I am told they have only used their table once.  They get off in New York tomorrow.

 

More and more I am beginning to think this whole dog episode is outrageous and Cunard should note it and get a grip of it.  We first noticed the dog early on because on opening the patio door on to our balcony there was a long shaggy tail waving on our balcony from under the partition separating the cabins.

None of this is remotely fair on other passengers, most notably yourself. Did the owners seem as entitled as they sound?

[BigMac1953]

What is the room number that the dog is in please?

 

We will be on board in 9058 for the round trip in 3 weeks.

 

 

[RJChatsworth]

It’s not 9058.  Why are there kennels on QM-2?

 

A photo my get me a black eye?!!

[exlondoner]

19 minutes ago, RJChatsworth said:

It’s not 9058.  Why are there kennels on QM-2?

 

A photo my get me a black eye?!!

The kennels are often sold out. So the only way to get your dog on board is to claim it’s vital for your mental health or some such codswallop.

[Winifred 22]

57 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

None of this is remotely fair on other passengers, most notably yourself. Did the owners seem as entitled as they sound?

Probably to avoid putting dog in Kennel so outrageous I am struggling to

understand to be honest 

[exlondoner]

Or it may simply be the thing won’t fit the kennels, anyway.

[paulco]

I did a transatlantic on Carnival Sunshine some years ago. A woman had her “support” dog that she pushed around the ship every day in a baby carriage with the dog dressed as a baby girl.  Twas weird!  Different outfit every day!

[escrick]

Have been reading this thread with interest.  I do hope the couple are being charged for their third passenger.  Oh, and who brings the dog food?
 

Now for a chuckle regarding animal allergies, and it is true.  A niece and her husband were having a row.  The couple has three young daughters. The husband is allergic to dogs, and youngest daughter loves them.  So, the three youngsters are listening to the row, and one wonders whether they will get a divorce, at which point the youngest says, “Oh, I hope they do, and then I will get a dog.”

 
The couple are still married, and the youngest has Guinea Pigs.

[Victoria2]

13 minutes ago, escrick said:

Have been reading this thread with interest.  I do hope the couple are being charged for their third passenger.  Oh, and who brings the dog food?
 

Now for a chuckle regarding animal allergies, and it is true.  A niece and her husband were having a row.  The couple has three young daughters. The husband is allergic to dogs, and youngest daughter loves them.  So, the three youngsters are listening to the row, and one wonders whether they will get a divorce, at which point the youngest says, “Oh, I hope they do, and then I will get a dog.”

 
The couple are still married, and the youngest has Guinea Pigs.

We bought  a rabbit [gorgeous dwarf mini lop] for our son's 8th birthday, the idea being it  was going to be a house rabbit with a pad in the utility.

 

It ended up with a luxury duplex in the garage and an equally luxury out door pen. I kept the rabbit AND the husband AND the  child happy!

My bank balance took a hit tho'!

[Victoria2]

1 hour ago, exlondoner said:

Or it may simply be the thing won’t fit the kennels, anyway.

 Assistance dogs aren't allowed in the kennels.

https://www.cunard.com/en-gb/the-cunard-experience/accessibility/assistance-dogs

Support or assistance. Semantics but a huge gulf between the two. Assistance dogs are legally recognised. Support animal/creatures, [google unusual support animals...thinking peacocks and even snakes here] not so.

Ewwww, hope Cunard don't allow snakes!!!! 😄 [Joke, folks!!]

Edited July 20, 2023 by Victoria2
added link

[Rothko1]

58 minutes ago, paulco said:

I did a transatlantic on Carnival Sunshine some years ago. A woman had her “support” dog that she pushed around the ship every day in a baby carriage with the dog dressed as a baby girl.  Twas weird!  Different outfit every day!

 

Sounds like that dog has her Owner well trained.

[exlondoner]

17 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

 Assistance dogs aren't allowed in the kennels.

https://www.cunard.com/en-gb/the-cunard-experience/accessibility/assistance-dogs

Support or assistance. Semantics but a huge gulf between the two. Assistance dogs are legally recognised. Support animal/creatures, [google unusual support animals...thinking peacocks and even snakes here] not so.

Ewwww, hope Cunard don't allow snakes!!!! 😄 [Joke, folks!!]

I was thinking how lively it would be, if instead of a long shaggy tail intruding on RJChatsworth’s balcony, it had been a long tail with a tuft on the end…

[Victoria2]

1 minute ago, exlondoner said:

I was thinking how lively it would be, if instead of a long shaggy tail intruding on RJChatsworth’s balcony, it had been a long tail with a tuft on the end…

Lions?? 🙁

 

[Windsurfboy]

I love dogs , however

 

When I go to hotels I will not go in rooms that take dogs, and if every room takes dogs look for another hotel.

 

My view is Cunard should accept legally recognised assistance dogs e.g for the blind, not just because it's a legal duty but a moral duty.  Even if it's means extra time taken at changeover.

 

I don"t think a dog you wheel about in a pushchair passes the threshold 

[Rothko1]

2 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

I love dogs , however

 

When I go to hotels I will not go in rooms that take dogs, and if every room takes dogs look for another hotel.

 

My view is Cunard should accept legally recognised assistance dogs e.g for the blind, not just because it's a legal duty but a moral duty.  Even if it's means extra time taken at changeover.

 

I don"t think a dog you wheel about in a pushchair passes the threshold 

 

I don't think anyone would dispute that a blind person should be allowed their seeing-eye dog.  It's when you really can't tell whether the person is truly disabled or not that is the problem.

 

For example, a person who has epilepsy might have an assistance dog which is trained to alert the person (or others) if they are beginning to have seizures.  No one would deny that is a legally and morally recognized assistance dog.  But to the folks walking by, they might wonder why this seemingly perfectly fine person is allowed to have a dog on the boat, or in the restaurant, etc.

 

 

[Windsurfboy]

4 minutes ago, Rothko1 said:

 

I don't think anyone would dispute that a blind person should be allowed their seeing-eye dog.  It's when you really can't tell whether the person is truly disabled or not that is the problem.

 

For example, a person who has epilepsy might have an assistance dog which is trained to alert the person (or others) if they are beginning to have seizures.  No one would deny that is a legally and morally recognized assistance dog.  But to the folks walking by, they might wonder why this seemingly perfectly fine person is allowed to have a dog on the boat, or in the restaurant, etc.

 

 

 

Yes but that would be legally classified as assistance dog. The owner will have sorted this out to ensure it is allowed everywhere with them on land. So seeing any dog on board, one would know it is a legal assistance dog. 

[Rothko1]

6 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

 

Yes but that would be legally classified as assistance dog. The owner will have sorted this out to ensure it is allowed everywhere with them on land. So seeing any dog on board, one would know it is a legal assistance dog. 

 

Sure.  But the problem arises when someone sees a dog like that, and says "I want to bring my Poofie along on the QM2 and the kennels are booked up, so I'll just go online to www.fakeservicedogcertificates.net and for $200 I'll get a certificate from an unscrupulous medical doctor who will say I have a legal classification too."

 

So they show the certificate to Cunard, who says it looks legal to them, and now Poofie can enjoy all the comforts of the Queens Grill as she sails across the Atlantic.

[Joe33472]

5 hours ago, RJChatsworth said:

The dog was outside our cabin last evening and is bigger than I thought.  The owners had to back it down the corridor so we could get out then asked which way we were going as you could hardly pass it in the narrow QM-2 corridors.  The dog has long shaggy hair so dog hairs in the room must be a problem.  I assume the owners booked a QG cabin because the dog would be difficult to house in something smaller.  The owners certainly didn’t book the cabin to take part in QG dining.  I am told they have only used their table once.  They get off in New York tomorrow.

 

When the dog altered how we accessed the halls and how we moved about ship is probably when I would lose it and not be very happy.  Not that I would have been happy with the dog residing next door, but I wonder where they were taking the dog.  Seriously?  Taking the dog for a walk?  

 

Upthread someone mentioned about who brought the food on for the dog.  Just had a thought that the dog is probably eating room service from QG and eating off QG plates.  Now that's a disgusting thought.