Queen Anne Low Rating

[CABINET]

We are considering cruising to Scandanavia and/or the Baltic next year.  One of the options is the Queen Anne but she doesn't seem to be coming out very well in some of the reviews I have read.

 

I love QM2 but she isn't an option so I had thought, before looking at the reviews, of giving QA a chance.  Obviously all ships take a wee while to bed in and operate smoothly but she's been sailing a while now and I would have expected any wrinkles to have been smoothed out by now.

 

If anybody has sailed on her and would be willing to tell me what they thought I would very much appreciate it because obviously reviews can be skewed by the fact that contented passengers might not bother to write one.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Host Hattie]

We've had several live from reports from Queen Anne including mine.

 

 

 

[Host Hattie]

The current sailing 

 

 

 

[Host Hattie]

A view from Queens Grill 

 

 

 

[CABINET]

Thanks Hattie but it was really more a general overview I was after rather than somebody posting a kind of blog. 

[3rdGenCunarder]

I would pay a lot more attention to the comments here than to the reviews.

 

Not only for QA, but for any ship, it looks like some people join CC in order to write a review because they were unhappy about something on the cruise. With a new ship, there's a fair amount of hype, and then people get onboard and are underwhelmed. So they come to CC to vent and never come back. 

 

Frankly, I was underwhelmed. I don't hate her, won't swear to never sail her again. But I don't like her as much as I like the other ships. I gave her 4 dots/stars. There was a lot to like, but there were a few aspects of the ship that I disliked--promenade deck and thermal suite, both of which matter to me. If you don't like to sit on a deck chair on the prom deck and don't use the spa, my dislikes wouldn't matter to you. So pay attention to specific complaints in the bad reviews and think if they would be issues for you. 

 

I sailed on the third voyage and things were not quite ready for prime time, especially the Grills Terrace, something I had been eagerly anticipating. The service issues there have been resolved, so that's better than my review reflects. 

[3rdGenCunarder]

Just now, CABINET said:

Thanks Hattie but it was really more a general overview I was after rather than somebody posting a kind of blog. 

 

There is a lot of information in those threads, you just have to wade through. Or make a list of specific questions based on what you've read in the reviews and ask here.

[Essiesmom]

There is an (apparently) seldom used feature of CC to help you find threads about specific ships.  It appears at the top of every cruise line page.  Click on your ship and you will get pages of threads talking about it.

 

 

[exlondoner]

8 minutes ago, CABINET said:

Thanks Hattie but it was really more a general overview I was after rather than somebody posting a kind of blog. 

There is an excellent overview near the end of HH’s thread.

[renji]

9 minutes ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

I would pay a lot more attention to the comments here than to the reviews.

 

Not only for QA, but for any ship, it looks like some people join CC in order to write a review because they were unhappy about something on the cruise. With a new ship, there's a fair amount of hype, and then people get onboard and are underwhelmed. So they come to CC to vent and never come back. 

 

Frankly, I was underwhelmed. I don't hate her, won't swear to never sail her again. But I don't like her as much as I like the other ships. I gave her 4 dots/stars. There was a lot to like, but there were a few aspects of the ship that I disliked--promenade deck and thermal suite, both of which matter to me. If you don't like to sit on a deck chair on the prom deck and don't use the spa, my dislikes wouldn't matter to you. So pay attention to specific complaints in the bad reviews and think if they would be issues for you. 

 

I sailed on the third voyage and things were not quite ready for prime time, especially the Grills Terrace, something I had been eagerly anticipating. The service issues there have been resolved, so that's better than my review reflects. 

Agree with you on Promenade and did not bother with thermal suite

[devolve]

We enjoyed our cruise on QA but in my opinion there were not enough sun bathing areas, chairs were reserved with towels from early morning. We like to listen to the lectures, have lunch, then a couple of hours in the sun. This was impossible until around 4pm when the early diners would begin to go inside. I think it would be fine for cold weather/destination cruise. The shows we saw were excellent and we liked the theatre, but you do need to sit further back for a good view. The bathrooms are a great improvement, but Queens room is a big disappointment, and I didn’t like the CWC get together around the pool, it was too hot and inconvenient when they closed the area early in the day. The artisan food hall is very good in theory, but it was difficult to get everything you needed, due to location and queuing for items. However the sinks in there were a very good addition. Overall I would sail on her again, but not to hot destinations.

[Windsurfboy]

I'm sure QA will get service and  food to same standard as other Queens. 

 

However one thing that cannot be changed is size and passenger  space ratio.  So unless in grills expect less outside space per passenger than others  especially  QV or QE. For Scandinavia might  not matter , for sun cruises  expect sunbed hogging before breakfast. 

[richard_london]

I have been wondering this too and I did find my experience disappointing.  Everything felt just distinctly average, there was nothing exceptional to the cruise.  I think for a variety of reasons the Cunard experience was diluted and it just felt "meh".  So the reasons I see are this:

 

The interiors of the ship - I think others on here have described it being like a boutique hotel and I agree.  On the older Queens I think the style of the interiors does give a grander sense of occasion for cruising, especially in the evening for dinner.  On the QA, if you covered up the Cunard logo on things, with the generic styling, you could be forgiven for thinking you were on a Celebrity, Norwegian or P&O ship.  I think that was the biggest disappointment for me.

 

Dress code - this style of cruising with the QA has brought across new passengers and a more informal style, and with the chipping away at the dress code over the years, it just lacked the traditional feel of a Cunard cruise on one of the other Queens (I recall male guests were wearing polo shirts and Hawaiian-style shirts for dinner in the Britannia restaurant on a non-formal night).  Again, gives of vibes that you might as well be sailing with another cruise line.

 

Service - if like me you think the level of Cunard service has declined over the years, especially since the pandemic, and you feel the food isn't what it was, then it just adds to an overall level of disappointment.  Can't recall the ratio of new staff to Cunard regulars brought across, but perhaps that has a bearing.

 

Layout - as others have said, the Grills Terrace on the open decks plonked in the middle is difficult to navigate around and there feels much less space for non-Grills passengers.  The promenade feels very narrow and enclosed.  Thermal suites and gym are consigned to the bowels of the ship so the space on the higher decks can be used for more cabins.  A move away from distinct rooms to "spaces" that flow between one and another.  I think it all stems from having to shoehorn Cunard venues into the layout of a Holland America Line ship, and it doesn't work, such as the Queens Room.  Every venue always felt busy, felt overcrowded.

 

I do have another cruise booked with friends in 2025 so will give her another go, but I don't think I will be rushing to book another unless it is an itinerary I want to go on.

[exlondoner]

9 minutes ago, richard_london said:

I have been wondering this too and I did find my experience disappointing.  Everything felt just distinctly average, there was nothing exceptional to the cruise.  I think for a variety of reasons the Cunard experience was diluted and it just felt "meh".  So the reasons I see are this:

 

The interiors of the ship - I think others on here have described it being like a boutique hotel and I agree.  On the older Queens I think the style of the interiors does give a grander sense of occasion for cruising, especially in the evening for dinner.  On the QA, if you covered up the Cunard logo on things, with the generic styling, you could be forgiven for thinking you were on a Celebrity, Norwegian or P&O ship.  I think that was the biggest disappointment for me.

 

Dress code - this style of cruising with the QA has brought across new passengers and a more informal style, and with the chipping away at the dress code over the years, it just lacked the traditional feel of a Cunard cruise on one of the other Queens (I recall male guests were wearing polo shirts and Hawaiian-style shirts for dinner in the Britannia restaurant on a non-formal night).  Again, gives of vibes that you might as well be sailing with another cruise line.

 

Service - if like me you think the level of Cunard service has declined over the years, especially since the pandemic, and you feel the food isn't what it was, then it just adds to an overall level of disappointment.  Can't recall the ratio of new staff to Cunard regulars brought across, but perhaps that has a bearing.

 

Layout - as others have said, the Grills Terrace on the open decks plonked in the middle is difficult to navigate around and there feels much less space for non-Grills passengers.  The promenade feels very narrow and enclosed.  Thermal suites and gym are consigned to the bowels of the ship so the space on the higher decks can be used for more cabins.  A move away from distinct rooms to "spaces" that flow between one and another.  I think it all stems from having to shoehorn Cunard venues into the layout of a Holland America Line ship, and it doesn't work, such as the Queens Room.  Every venue always felt busy, felt overcrowded.

 

I do have another cruise booked with friends in 2025 so will give her another go, but I don't think I will be rushing to book another unless it is an itinerary I want to go on.

This is your experience. My own was almost completely different. In particular, I thought the interiors gorgeous, with some marked exceptions, not just the Grills Lounge but also the QR. Otherwise I thought she was more delicately beautiful than the other ships. Also my experience of food and service was different, at least by the second week of our cruise, the third of her operation, when they had sorted themselves out.

 

The only point of agreement is the vexation of having the Grills Terrace get in the way on the top decks. Infuriating.

[richard_london]

11 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

This is your experience. My own was almost completely different. In particular, I thought the interiors gorgeous, with some marked exceptions, not just the Grills Lounge but also the QR. Otherwise I thought she was more delicately beautiful than the other ships. Also my experience of food and service was different, at least by the second week of our cruise, the third of her operation, when they had sorted themselves out.

 

At the moment 63 QA reviews are giving a score of 3.0. The QV is best with 3.9 from 590 reviews, then the QM2 has 3.8 from 1,383 reviews, and QE has 3.7 from 655 reviews.  So the QA is somewhat away from the ratings of her sisters.  It will be interesting to see if things improve over time.

[Host Hattie]

4 minutes ago, richard_london said:

 

At the moment 63 QA reviews are giving a score of 3.0. The QV is best with 3.9 from 590 reviews, then the QM2 has 3.8 from 1,383 reviews, and QE has 3.7 from 655 reviews.  So the QA is somewhat away from the ratings of her sisters.  It will be interesting to see if things improve over time.

Unless anyone has a record of the scores for the other ships in their first 5 months of service, that's not a very fair comparison. 

[richard_london]

3 minutes ago, Host Hattie said:

Unless anyone has a record of the scores for the other ships in their first 5 months of service, that's not a very fair comparison. 

Isn't the point of the rating system used on Cruisecritic to allow cruise passengers to make comparisons and judgements as to which ship is best for them?  The QV has been in service for three years more than the QE, but the QE has more reviews. 

[Pear Carr]

2 hours ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

Frankly, I was underwhelmed. I don't hate her, won't swear to never sail her again. But I don't like her as much as I like the other ships.

Same for us. We enjoyed PG restaurant, service etc., but disliked certain aspects of the ship - Queens Room, Promenade Deck and intensely disliked the Pavilion area! Would not choose Queen Anne in the future unless a give away price with a not to be missed itinerary.
 

[3rdGenCunarder]

29 minutes ago, Host Hattie said:

Unless anyone has a record of the scores for the other ships in their first 5 months of service, that's not a very fair comparison. 

 

I thought the default order was by date, so you could go back to the first reviews and see what they're like. I'm not sure that really tells you anything, though. 

[Victoria2]

7 minutes ago, richard_london said:

Isn't the point of the rating system used on Cruisecritic to allow cruise passengers to make comparisons and judgements as to which ship is best for them?  The QV has been in service for three years more than the QE, but the QE has more reviews. 

I take all reviews at face value when I know the Cunard history of the reviewer.

 

Queen Anne isn't for everyone, especially Cunard traditionalists as she isn't Cunard, and yet she is. Senior staff  certainly had many things to sort out in May but I'm glad to say many of them have been sorted. The more structural issues of course, are still there.

 

I would give QA 4* from a QG perspective but QV would get 5*+ from me, again, from a QG perspective.

 

This is where it pays to know the history of the reviewer. Apart from a couple of jollies many years ago, all my travels have been in  QG so my experiences will/ might be different from others'.

 

[3rdGenCunarder]

24 minutes ago, richard_london said:

Isn't the point of the rating system used on Cruisecritic to allow cruise passengers to make comparisons and judgements as to which ship is best for them?  The QV has been in service for three years more than the QE, but the QE has more reviews. 

 

What do the points tell you that would help you judge if the ship is right for you? Why did one person give QA a 2 while I gave her a 4? Maybe we had different impressions and valued different aspects of the ship. Maybe one of us was pickier than the other. Unless you read the review to see if the person rated individual categories, like stateroom, food, whatever, just the point values at the top of the reviews, and their average, don't tell much. I recall a 1-point review early on. Wow, only ONE point? How could a cruise be that bad? Turns out the reviewer had internet problems and after that everything about the cruise became awful in his/her eyes.  

[3rdGenCunarder]

5 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

I take all reviews at face value when I know the Cunard history of the reviewer.

 

Queen Anne isn't for everyone, especially Cunard traditionalists as she isn't Cunard, and yet she is. Senior staff  certainly had many things to sort out in May but I'm glad to say many of them have been sorted. The more structural issues of course, are still there.

 

I would give QA 4* from a QG perspective but QV would get 5*+ from me, again, from a QG perspective.

 

This is where it pays to know the history of the reviewer. Apart from a couple of jollies many years ago, all my travels have been in  QG so my experiences will/ might be different from others'.

 

 

(bold is mine) YES! That's a problem with the reviews. We see a screen name, age, number of past cruises. But we don't know if the reviewer has been a member for 10 years or 10 minutes--I call the latter one-shot-wonders. So many times, I'll see a bad review and think if that person had lurked or asked questions on the appropriate board, they might have known in advance that the cruise/ship wasn't for them. Or they might have had more realistic expectations. 

 

[WantedOnVoyage]

Cruise Critic is now criticising the critics... what will they think of next?

 

“It is only about things that do not interest one, that one can give a really unbiased opinion; and this is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always valueless.”

 

Oscar Wilde

 

 

[exlondoner]

2 minutes ago, WantedOnVoyage said:

Cruise Critic is now criticising the critics... what will they think of next

 

 

I believe it is called exercising judgement. The same process is what saves one from believing everything one reads on social media.

[Planning to cruise]

Queen Anne seems to appeal to and is very much liked by many.  Others like me and my OH, lots of people I spoke with on board and some posters here dislike her very much.  It appears to be personal taste and whether it provides what you are looking for on a ship.  Another factor is the grade of cabin you book.  Reading posts on CC I get the impression that Grills, particularly QG, is a better experience and more space.