Move to six night QM2 TAs?

[IB2]

The unofficial QM2 schedule for 2027 that you can find on the internet suggests that the QM2 is moving to six nights as the standard SO-NYC/vv Transatlantic.  Does this seem likely, and if so I wonder what the thinking is?  Same prices, fewer days, freeing the ship for other trips?

[bluemarble]

I think those itineraries you are seeing for 2027 are actually from 2007 when QM2 was doing six-night crossings.

 

There are several sites that purport to show future itineraries for the Cunard ships when they are actually showing past itineraries incorrectly dated as future itineraries.

 

One site I'm aware of is clearly showing a rehash of QM2's 2007 itineraries but they're dated 2027. Another appears to be showing a rehash of QM2's 2012 itineraries but they're also dated 2027.

 

Try looking for 2028 and 2029 itineraries on the site you've found. If you're on the site I think you are, you'll find itineraries listed for those years as well.

Edited August 31 by bluemarble

[reeves35]

I have previously heard an interview with Stephen Payne on this and my understanding is that, whilst a 6 night crossing is possible, the massively increased fuel burn on the accelerated voyage makes it uneconomic.  

[new to cuising]

Stephen Payne was asked in a Q&A on the 400th crossing about green issues and efficiencies etc.

Briefly, it is far more likely that QM2 will move to 8day crossings dropping the speed to 20knts or thereabouts. The turbines are very expensive to run nowadays and the diesels are seen as being dirty, although they were the cleanest available at time of construction.

Last week the ship was using three out of the four diesel engines and one turbine to maintain just over 23 knots. I'm guessing one diesel engine was receiving maintenance and the other turbine is believed to be off ship at present.

New fuels are being developed including liquid gas but also ammonia. He didn't elaborate on the changes to power plants that would be required.

The ship is optimised mechanically to run at about 26 knots (I guess what is meant by that is that the stability,forward movement v drag is at its best efficiency etc) but once one factors in the other costs, revenue from passengers, etc a slower speed is more profitable🤔. 

[jollyjones]

If anything happens to slow the ship on a six day crossing, it can be a problem. I was on one in June and we had very strong headwinds for a couple of days and slowed to around twenty to twenty two knots - that meant we missed the tide for Brooklyn and were four plus hours late docking. 
Whilst that wasn’t a problem for me, it did cause a lot of problems for other pax. 
I believe we weren’t the only six day crossing that was late to dock but can’t remember the details. 

[chengkp75]

6 hours ago, new to cuising said:

New fuels are being developed including liquid gas but also ammonia. He didn't elaborate on the changes to power plants that would be required.

In my professional opinion, there is no way that either LNG or ammonia would be retrofitted to the QM2, as this requires cryogenic tanks and an inert gas systems, which would require tearing out the entire bottom of the hull to accommodate, if space is available.

 

6 hours ago, new to cuising said:

The ship is optimised mechanically to run at about 26 knots (I guess what is meant by that is that the stability,forward movement v drag is at its best efficiency etc)

This is likely her "hull speed", or the speed at which the hull form drives through the water most efficiently.  Stability has nothing to do with speed.  Trying to drive a ship faster than her hull speed requires horsepower that increases exponentially with each knot.  This is why QM2 can travel at 26 knots with just her 4 diesels running, while it takes the two gas turbines, which amount to 42% of her total power, to get the speed from 26 to 30 knots.

 

As others have noted, fuel consumption is related to speed exponentially, so the last 10% of speed requires about 60% of the fuel consumption.

 

I don't see the QM2 returning to 6 night crossings for economic reasons, and also don't see 8 night crossings happening either, as this changes the demographic of the cruise.

[NE John]

38 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I don't see the QM2 returning to 6 night crossings for economic reasons, and also don't see 8 night crossings happening either, as this changes the demographic of the cruise.

Good point about demographics. And longer Crossings lead to fewer Crossings per year, a situation that Cunard probably wants to avoid. 

[david,Mississauga]

22 minutes ago, NE John said:

Good point about demographics. And longer Crossings lead to fewer Crossings per year, a situation that Cunard probably wants to avoid. 

 

There are so few crossings now I wouldn't want fewer.  

 

My first three QM2 crossings were six nights.  Fortunately we were never delayed.

 

The earlier discussion of speed efficiency  reminded me of a chart that was posted aboard the P&O's Canberra. I don't remember all the details but it showed how much fuel was used per hour or per day.  As this ship was originally a liner that did long ocean voyages to Australia the maximum speed was an impressive 29 knots.  She was a turbine steam ship.

 

I recall the optimum speed for fuel consumption being about 20 knots. On some of our cruises the ship ran slowly at 16 knots which was just as bad for fuel consumption as the higher speeds. According to the chart, the maximum speed at that time was 26 knots.  The fuel use was considerable at that speed.  We reached 24 knots on some stretches. 

[new to cuising]

1 hour ago, NE John said:

Good point about demographics. And longer Crossings lead to fewer Crossings per year, a situation that Cunard probably wants to avoid. 

8 day crossings are already taking place, and are also scheduled to take place next year. 

I was on an eight day east bound this January when we encountered snow on the Atlantic. There is an 8 day crossing in October this year and at least three further examples next year.

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

In my professional opinion, there is no way that either LNG or ammonia would be retrofitted to the QM2, as this requires cryogenic tanks and an inert gas systems, which would require tearing out the entire bottom of the hull to accommodate, if space is available

 

8 hours ago, new to cuising said:

In my unprofessional opinion I would have thought this unlikely too, but according to Dr Payne, discussions did take place just prior to COVID regarding, splitting the ship, adding between 10-12 meters to her length and installing new tanks in the hull, adding further rooms to the superstructure.

He said he was dubious of the idea adding that all stress calculations for the whole ship were based on its present dimensions.Obviously, the cash drain of COVID and loss of earnings halted this expensive idea completely.

Recent tests and surveys on the ship have revealed that the ships structure will be more than capable of reaching it's 40 year design life, although there is deterioration in some of the internal service pipework. This is repairable but only in the absence of passengers. (I'm sure we are all aware of leaks and smells in some parts of the ship!)

More worrying apparently is reliability of some of the machinery such as the sewage and recycling plant, and other large pieces of equipment. Spares are becoming more difficult to obtain and are now having to be made specifically for QM2 adding to cost.

[TheOldBear]

The October eastbound crossing is still 7 days - but the Boston start for the crossing [6 October] is two days after embarkation  [4 October] in Brooklyn. This was one of the cruises where Cunard's Brooklyn dates were adjusted to accommodate the MSC mega ship. The Newport and Boston stops were 'borrowed' from the previous Quebec to NY sailing.

[bluemarble]

1 hour ago, new to cuising said:

8 day crossings are already taking place, and are also scheduled to take place next year. 

I was on an eight day east bound this January when we encountered snow on the Atlantic. There is an 8 day crossing in October this year and at least three further examples next year.

 

The January eastbound crossings are now routinely scheduled for 8 nights. Other than that, 8-night crossings are unusual. The remaining 8-night crossing during October 2024 includes a call at Le Havre as does one of the 8-night crossings in 2025 and one in 2026.

 

As has been mentioned, the other 8-night crossings during 2024 were because of scheduling conflicts with MSC Meraviglia at Brooklyn. That's the case with the March 29, 2025 eastbound crossing as well. MSC Meravigilia is at Brooklyn on March 30, 2025. QM2 will departing New York a day earlier, making that an 8-night crossing.

 

So, I believe the only examples where Cunard have wanted to schedule 8-night crossings in recent years (without an additional call between Southampton and New York) are the January crossings.

Edited August 31 by bluemarble

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, new to cuising said:

In my unprofessional opinion I would have thought this unlikely too, but according to Dr Payne, discussions did take place just prior to COVID regarding, splitting the ship, adding between 10-12 meters to her length and installing new tanks in the hull, adding further rooms to the superstructure.

The cost savings of LNG is narrowing in the US market, and is almost non-existent in other places around the world, so trying to do what he suggests is possible, but it  would never be financially viable.

 

2 hours ago, new to cuising said:

More worrying apparently is reliability of some of the machinery such as the sewage and recycling plant, and other large pieces of equipment.

This is not unique to QM2, very often even a relatively newer ship has to totally replace a system because the manufacturer stops making that model.  Rolls Royce stopped making a control system for a bow thruster that we had installed in a tanker just 4 years prior, and there was no recourse but to renew the entire system.  While expensive, this kind of equipment renewal is not uncommon.

[BlueRiband]

FWIW, I was once told at a Senior Officers party that 8-day crossings adversely affected maintenance.  There are some things that just cannot be done when the ship is at sea.

[IB2]

As the first reply said, I suspect my OP is a red herring, prompted by a less than reputable website claiming to have the 2027 schedule when it doesn’t.  Case closed?

[new to cuising]

Time will tell 😀

[burnsva]

We were booked on a 7 day that got bumped to 8 days, because of port docking issues….that is what drives most of the schedule for TAs…port access.

[NowVoyager2]

12 hours ago, burnsva said:

We were booked on a 7 day that got bumped to 8 days, because of port docking issues….that is what drives most of the schedule for TAs…port access.

The only driver of the schedule & everything else concerning the cruise industry is the bottom line / profit margin of the corporation that owns the ship(in this case CCL/ CARNIVORE CORP)!!!!

[Winifred 22]

2 hours ago, NowVoyager2 said:

The only driver of the schedule & everything else concerning the cruise industry is the bottom line / profit margin of the corporation that owns the ship(in this case CCL/ CARNIVORE CORP)!!!!

Not when the berth has been given to another cruise line the schedule was forced to change. 

[NowVoyager2]

The original post was referencing TA's... NY- SH...

 

When Brooklyn is full there are always the Manhattan Piers...same goes for SH!!!

 

Never once in all the years I lived in NYC(40+ years) have I've seen all the piers used up - 

 

There are always options - hopefully not the Bayonne piers - 

 

All 4 times I sailed on Cunard(2x on QM2) the ships sailed from the West side piers of NYC!

 

Even MSC used the NYC piers for the Meragviglia sailings.

[bluemarble]

20 minutes ago, NowVoyager2 said:

The original post was referencing TA's... NY- SH...

 

When Brooklyn is full there are always the Manhattan Piers...same goes for SH!!!

 

Never once in all the years I lived in NYC(40+ years) have I've seen all the piers used up - 

 

There are always options - hopefully not the Bayonne piers - 

 

All 4 times I sailed on Cunard(2x on QM2) the ships sailed from the West side piers of NYC!

 

Even MSC used the NYC piers for the Meragviglia sailings.

 

QM2 no longer docks in Manhattan. The last time she docked there was almost ten years ago on September 27, 2014. QM2 always sails out of the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal now. It would probably take another emergency such as when Superstorm Sandy shut down the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal for QM2 to be moved elsewhere these days.

 

MSC Meraviglia does indeed sail out on New York now. She also sails out of the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. It is because of MSC Meraviglia home porting out of Brooklyn that QM2 had to alter several of her sailings during 2024 and one of her sailings for 2025. Rather than move her to either Manhattan or Bayonne to resolve those conflicts, Cunard rescheduled the dates for QM2 at Brooklyn.

 

Here are the dates Cunard moved QM2 at Brooklyn one or two days earlier than originally planned because of MSC Meraviglia's schedule at Brooklyn.

 

15 June 2024

29 June 2024

27 July 2024

4 October 2024

21 December 2024

15 March 2025

 

As previously mentioned, these changes of dates for QM2 at Brooklyn caused several of the westbound crossings to be shortened to six nights and several of the eastbound crossings to be lengthened to eight nights.

[BlueRiband]

It's hard to believe that it's been 10 years!  I filmed her arrival from the Battery at first light.  If memory serves QM2 was switched to Manhattan because a Princess ship carrying about 4,000 passengers was due in and thus berthed in Brooklyn.  

 

QM2's derriere extends past the Manhattan piers and into the shipping channel - that and Carnival's agreement to use Brooklyn.  She berthed in Manhattan before the Brooklyn terminal was built.   Maybe the channel is not currently dredged deep enough for her draft?

[bluemarble]

24 minutes ago, BlueRiband said:

It's hard to believe that it's been 10 years!  I filmed her arrival from the Battery at first light.  If memory serves QM2 was switched to Manhattan because a Princess ship carrying about 4,000 passengers was due in and thus berthed in Brooklyn. ...

 

Yes, it was Royal Princess which was at Brooklyn on September 27, 2014 causing QM2 to switch to Manhattan that day.