Queen Elizabeth Aus summer season cancelled from 2026

[MelbTone]

Cunard has announced it will stop homeporting the Queen Elizabeth in Australia from 2026 onwards.

 

The ship will only visit the southern hemisphere on world cruise segments.

 

In a statement from Matt Gleaves, Commercial Vice President of North America & Australasia, he said, “We know that many guests in Australia and Japan love to sail with Cunard and Queen Elizabeth is already on her way to Australia to begin her 2023/2024 homeport season starting 27 November.  

 

“The ship will also return for her scheduled 2024/2025 season and whilst this news means that from 2026 there will be no locally based program, Australia and Asia will remain important destinations on our round-the-world voyages and we look forward to welcoming guests from these regions wherever they chose to sail with us.” 

 

The ship will instead, operate year-round from North America, spending the season sailing in and around Alaska and in the winter, in the Caribbean. ....

 

https://cruisepassenger.com.au/news/cunard-pulls-the-pin-on-queen-elizabeths-return-to-australia/

[ratflinger]

hmmm, maybe Australian environmental regulations?

[ace2542]

6 hours ago, ratflinger said:

hmmm, maybe Australian environmental regulations?

They should ban cruise ships worldwide and get it over with

[exlondoner]

18 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

They should ban cruise ships worldwide and get it over with

Which they would that be?

[ace2542]

1 hour ago, exlondoner said:

Which they would that be?

The governments of the world. It is coming. Cruise ships accounts for 5% of the CO2 and there is nothing they can do to reduce that.

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, ratflinger said:

hmmm, maybe Australian environmental regulations?

Very possibly

2 hours ago, ace2542 said:

They should ban cruise ships worldwide and get it over with

And, yet, you continue to cruise.

1 hour ago, exlondoner said:

Which they would that be?

Those regarding biofouling of the hull

8 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

The governments of the world. It is coming. Cruise ships accounts for 5% of the CO2 and there is nothing they can do to reduce that.

Once again, ace, you have your facts wrong.  World wide TOTAL shipping (tankers, bulkers, container ships, ferries, cruise ships) amounts to 3% of total greenhouse gas production (so your number is wrong), and cruise ships account for less than 5% of total world shipping (so you are about an order of magnitude out).  The rest of the global transportation system (buses, trucks, cars, trains, airplanes) account for 17% of GHG emissions, yet 80% of the world's economy moves by sea.

 

And, finally, ships, including cruise ships are working to reduce GHG emissions, as witnessed by Viking Cruises working to install hydrogen fuel cells on all their newbuild ocean ships, and Royal Caribbean already having small scale hydrogen fuel cells on some of their ships.  Not to say these projects have hurdles to overcome, and years of development for safety standards, but the change is coming.  Might want to get out and read a bit before quoting figures.

[chengkp75]

Further refining my numbers given above, cruise ships represent 2.6% of the world's shipping gross tonnage, and only 0.2% of the number of ships in the world.  

[ace2542]

34 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Very possibly

And, yet, you continue to cruise.

Those regarding biofouling of the hull

Once again, ace, you have your facts wrong.  World wide TOTAL shipping (tankers, bulkers, container ships, ferries, cruise ships) amounts to 3% of total greenhouse gas production (so your number is wrong), and cruise ships account for less than 5% of total world shipping (so you are about an order of magnitude out).  The rest of the global transportation system (buses, trucks, cars, trains, airplanes) account for 17% of GHG emissions, yet 80% of the world's economy moves by sea.

 

And, finally, ships, including cruise ships are working to reduce GHG emissions, as witnessed by Viking Cruises working to install hydrogen fuel cells on all their newbuild ocean ships, and Royal Caribbean already having small scale hydrogen fuel cells on some of their ships.  Not to say these projects have hurdles to overcome, and years of development for safety standards, but the change is coming.  Might want to get out and read a bit before quoting figures.

But can these new techs generate the several GIG per day per ship though? AKA the power usage of Southampton in a day? QM2 uses to my knowledge the same amount of power that Southampton the city uses.

[ace2542]

36 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Viking Cruises working to install hydrogen fuel cells on all their newbuild ocean ships

I saw these new ships. The solar sails which retract won't do squat for their power needs.

[57eric]

From a US perspective, this is an exciting, positive development.

[ace2542]

25 minutes ago, 57eric said:

From a US perspective, this is an exciting, positive development.

Till they shut Alaska down which they will do and then the Caribbean. And won't there soon be too many ships in the Caribbean. A more likely and sad development is Cunard axes a ship.

[exlondoner]

11 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

Till they shut Alaska down which they will do and then the Caribbean. And won't there soon be too many ships in the Caribbean. A more likely and sad development is Cunard axes a ship.

Always good to look on the bright side.

[chengkp75]

48 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

But can these new techs generate the several GIG per day per ship though? AKA the power usage of Southampton in a day? QM2 uses to my knowledge the same amount of power that Southampton the city uses.

While the QM2 can generate more than the city of Southampton uses, it rarely does, as that would require sailing at full power of the four diesel generators 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  While the fuel cell technology will not handle a full ship's power requirement, the Viking ships will have a 6Mw fuel cell, that will handle the hotel load easily.  And, they are sizing these applications up every year.

46 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

I saw these new ships. The solar sails which retract won't do squat for their power needs.

I believe you are mistaking the Hurtigruten cruise/ferries with the Viking Ocean cruise ships. And, with 1500 m2 of solar panel area, that equates to 1Mw of power, enough for the hotel load on a ship this size (500 pax).  And, the sails, if assuming the 1500 m2 of solar panel is on both sides of the sail, that means a sail area of 750 m2, which can produce 1.2Mw of propulsive power, even at a mild 5 knot wind, and since the relationship between wind speed and sail power is to the 4th power, a 10 knot breeze would produce nearly 5Mw of power.  Do you really think the company would invest in these costly technologies if they didn't provide an actual benefit?

[chengkp75]

16 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

Till they shut Alaska down which they will do and then the Caribbean. And won't there soon be too many ships in the Caribbean. A more likely and sad development is Cunard axes a ship.

Who and why would Alaska be shut down?  Alaska is far more likely to implement shore power for cruise ships than a total ban.  And, who would shut the Caribbean down, given that the term "the Caribbean" encompasses many different nations?  Would they all need to agree to ban cruise ships?

[ace2542]

6 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

Always good to look on the bright side.

It is actually honest. Is there enough room for Cunard in the caribbean in the winter time full time beyond the visits of QM2? If QE does a full winter season what about the T/As on QM2 that also visit the caribbean? Something has to give?

[ace2542]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Who and why would Alaska be shut down?  Alaska is far more likely to implement shore power for cruise ships than a total ban

You can't shore power? You can't charge up a ship that use 4 GIG a day like charging up car in the driveway? You would need a proper power plant no?

[exlondoner]

Just now, ace2542 said:

It is actually honest. Is there enough room for Cunard in the caribbean in the winter time full time beyond the visits of QM2? If QE does a full winter season what about the T/As on QM2 that also visit the caribbean? Something has to give?

I am sure there are many problems, but I would tend to pay attention to those who are accurate in the data they present, like chengkp75, above.

[ace2542]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And, who would shut the Caribbean down, given that the term "the Caribbean" encompasses many different nations?  Would they all need to agree to ban cruise ships?

You  would only 1 or 2 to ban to create a real problem?

[ace2542]

Just now, exlondoner said:

I am sure there are many problems, but I would tend to pay attention to those who are accurate in the data they present, like chengkp75, above.

I don't think there is demand for Cunard in the  Caribbean for a whole season out of New York, Miami, Boston? I would love to be wrong. Perhaps we will see.

[foodsvcmgr]

No doom and gloom for me with this, I’ve been hoping for years now that Cunard would make a substantial return to the Caribbean in winter.

QE2 did it extensively for many years.

I sailed QM2 in 2009 and 2010 when they operated a series from NY in November and December those years.

Great news!

[ace2542]

2 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

I am sure there are many problems, but I would tend to pay attention to those who are accurate in the data they present, like chengkp75, above.

But QE uses more power in a day than Skagway or Ketchikan or Juneau alone or even combined? Southampton uses several gig per day in power usage. And that is larger than all 3 of those combined?

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, ace2542 said:

You can't shore power? You can't charge up a ship that use 4 GIG a day like charging up car in the driveway? You would need a proper power plant no?

No, you don't use shore power to "charge up" a ship, no more than the city of Southampton wants to provide shore power to "charge up" commercial ships in port.  It is for in port power usage by the ship, so that the ship's generators are shut down while in port.  In port pollution is the major complaint against cruise ships, not their total GHG emissions.  However, many small ships that will use fuel cells, have battery banks to store the power generated by the fuel cell, and these could be charged during port operations.  And, in port, even the largest cruise ship only uses 9-10Mw of power, not gigawatts.  If cruise ship pollution is so important to you, surprised you haven't read up on shore power,  considering that Southampton has installed shore power at the two cruise terminals, which have been used to allow ships to shut down their generators 42 times in 2022.  And, yes, that power can charge the ship's batteries.

[exlondoner]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

No, you don't use shore power to "charge up" a ship, no more than the city of Southampton wants to provide shore power to "charge up" commercial ships in port.  It is for in port power usage by the ship, so that the ship's generators are shut down while in port.  In port pollution is the major complaint against cruise ships, not their total GHG emissions.  However, many small ships that will use fuel cells, have battery banks to store the power generated by the fuel cell, and these could be charged during port operations.  And, in port, even the largest cruise ship only uses 9-10Mw of power, not gigawatts.  If cruise ship pollution is so important to you, surprised you haven't read up on shore power,  considering that Southampton has installed shore power at the two cruise terminals, which have been used to allow ships to shut down their generators 42 times in 2022.  And, yes, that power can charge the ship's batteries.

It is so helpful to read knowledgeable and measured contributions.

[ace2542]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

No, you don't use shore power to "charge up" a ship, no more than the city of Southampton wants to provide shore power to "charge up" commercial ships in port.  It is for in port power usage by the ship, so that the ship's generators are shut down while in port.  In port pollution is the major complaint against cruise ships, not their total GHG emissions.  However, many small ships that will use fuel cells, have battery banks to store the power generated by the fuel cell, and these could be charged during port operations.  And, in port, even the largest cruise ship only uses 9-10Mw of power, not gigawatts.  If cruise ship pollution is so important to you, surprised you haven't read up on shore power,  considering that Southampton has installed shore power at the two cruise terminals, which have been used to allow ships to shut down their generators 42 times in 2022.  And, yes, that power can charge the ship's batteries.

During the backstage tour on QM2 I was told it used 4 gig a day and that was more power than the city of Southampton. I used to be an energy broker so I asked the question.

 

Something you might enjoy to look at. Google UK power generation. As of 30 minutes ago I think if I am reading it right the UK is using 34.733 GW either per minute or per second. The figure increased by 5gw in an hour or so because I checked it 10.30am and it was 29gw.

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

But QE uses more power in a day than Skagway or Ketchikan or Juneau alone or even combined? Southampton uses several gig per day in power usage. And that is larger than all 3 of those combined?

Again, facts matter.  Remember, that when in port, QE will use about 8 Mw of power (simply the hotel load), or about 64Mw-h for the entire port stay.  Do you think they continue to run all the engines while at the dock, just to burn up more fuel?  And, how do they get rid of the excess power, since the generators will only generate (burn enough fuel) to match the usage (8Mw)?  Juneau uses around 600-1000Mw-h per day.  Alaska gets about 33% of its power from renewable sources.