New Queen Elizabeth

[lexxity]

Just checked HAL, that's a no on childcare. No non-potty trained children (due to US health mandates apparantly, so how does this not apply to Cunard?) and charges for babysitting after 10pm. Well we do late seating and don't usually leave dinner until 9:30-10pm. So Cunard PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE put a ship upto Alaska, here are your first three paying customers.

[Wadadli1]

Erm, wrong actually. JGS emailed someone very high up that we met on the 40th Anniversary and she personally emailed back to say she was reading this this board re: New QE.

 

I am so happy to be wrong! Thanks for the small ray of hope, Lex.

[msk68]

We are headed for Alaska in 2010 for our 10th anniversary for sure. Last time we were on HAL and enjoyed it but I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE for Cunard to head back up there. My mom loved it on the Sagafjord when she went in the mid-90s and would enjoy going with us - childcare solved ;)

[calikak]

Yes please do Alaska, I really want to go there, but Celebrity's childcare rules are just plain silly and I really don't fancy Princess all that much, never liked the idea of freestyle and I don't know who else goes up there apart from the "funships" and "rock climbing" lines.

 

Disney may be up there in 2010, according to some rumors around town. But they also charge for child care for kids under 2--that's why we're sailing with Cunard next year, they had the best program for kids under 2 of any cruise line I could find. That, and DH and I want to be spoiled. :D

[calikak]

You know, a lot of this is the mirror of the McMansion horror/cookie cutter trashy house situation that has inflicted the US the past 5-8 years or so.

 

This is so true. Are there no architects with any taste left in America?

[DKNYC]

Just checked HAL, that's a no on childcare. No non-potty trained children (due to US health mandates apparantly, so how does this not apply to Cunard?) and charges for babysitting after 10pm. Well we do late seating and don't usually leave dinner until 9:30-10pm. So Cunard PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE put a ship upto Alaska, here are your first three paying customers.

 

Well some good news might be that he won't be under 2 or not potty trained for all that much longer...Probably before the new ship is ready!

[cruiserbryce]

3:It would be good to have a ship on the west coast of the US, doing cruises to Alaska etc.

 

 

whether its Mex. or Alaska...if Cunard had a ship out here on this coast it would be the next cruise we booked...

[lexxity]

Disney may be up there in 2010, according to some rumors around town. But they also charge for child care for kids under 2--that's why we're sailing with Cunard next year, they had the best program for kids under 2 of any cruise line I could find. That, and DH and I want to be spoiled. :D

 

Not, ever, never would I do a Disney cruise, don't get me wrong I love Disneyland, in fact as a pre-Alsaka thing that would be very cool, but imagine a week of it! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lexxity

Just checked HAL, that's a no on childcare. No non-potty trained children (due to US health mandates apparantly, so how does this not apply to Cunard?) and charges for babysitting after 10pm. Well we do late seating and don't usually leave dinner until 9:30-10pm. So Cunard PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE put a ship upto Alaska, here are your first three paying customers.

 

Well some good news might be that he won't be under 2 or not potty trained for all that much longer...Probably before the new ship is ready!

 

Still not going to pay for babysitting though! He's just over two (by a week and 2 days) now! Pottytraining is the next thing! We just did the moving into a big boy bed! Plus how will he ever get to be Cunards youngest Diamond Worl Club member if we switch lines? :D

[Highlander0108]

This is so true. Are there no architects with any taste left in America?

 

Yes, we have taste were I work. We do our fair share of custom homes, each taylored to the site and owners requirements. Let me go out on a limb here. I believe that the majority of McMansions are not designed by architects at all, but rather builders with plan books who have no eye for proportion, aesthetics, or practicality, or taste. "Designers" are allowed in our state for residential work, with limitations, but often a builder will get an engineer to stamp drawings over the square footage limitation. The Architecture profession in general needs to promote our services better. Without some guidance, this is usually what you get, horrid "architecture".

[calikak]

whether its Mex. or Alaska...if Cunard had a ship out here on this coast it would be the next cruise we booked...

 

Ditto! It sure would be nice not to have to fly, or at least, not to have to fly so far. I could probably even talk DH into Mexico (which he hates) if it was on a Cunard ship.

[calikak]

Yes, we have taste were I work. We do our fair share of custom homes, each taylored to the site and owners requirements. Let me go out on a limb here. I believe that the majority of McMansions are not designed by architects at all, but rather builders with plan books who have no eye for proportion, aesthetics, or practicality, or taste. "Designers" are allowed in our state for residential work, with limitations, but often a builder will get an engineer to stamp drawings over the square footage limitation. The Architecture profession in general needs to promote our services better. Without some guidance, this is usually what you get, horrid "architecture".

 

Thank goodness there are a few of you left...there are so many nasty housing developments being constructed these days, it's easy to lose hope for the future of American architecture. Keep up the good work!

[calikak]

Not, ever, never would I do a Disney cruise, don't get me wrong I love Disneyland, in fact as a pre-Alsaka thing that would be very cool, but imagine a week of it! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

 

I hear you--I worry it'd be like Disneyland without the rides to give a purpose to all the marketing.

[Wadadli1]

This is so true. Are there no architects with any taste left in America?

 

There are indeed good architects, but no one wants to hire them because they think architects are only for "rich" people, which just isn't true. So they buy a tract house from a developer which he builds on his land and voila!, another Levittown appears to blot the landscape.

[eroller]

FYI the QE will be a sister to QV. It will probably have extended aft decks like the EURODAM which would explain the extra capacity.

 

This quote from the home page of Cruise Critic, which was provided by Carol Marlow during a tour of QV.

 

Editor's note: Cunard President Carol Marlow told us that the new Queen Elizabeth (the ship, incidentally, is named after the first queen, not the present one) will be a sister ship of Victoria and so will be more similar than different. Queen Elizabeth is scheduled to launch in fall 2010.

 

 

Ernie

[calikak]

There are indeed good architects, but no one wants to hire them because they think architects are only for "rich" people, which just isn't true. So they buy a tract house from a developer which he builds on his land and voila!, another Levittown appears to blot the landscape.

 

That's exactly what it's like, little Levittowns springing up everywhere. Only at least some of the Levittown homes were affordable--all the new construction out here is really expensive.

[guernseyguy]

it is a cookie cutter

 

There have been quite a few comments (above is one) about Cunard re-using ship designs - hence the charge 'cookie cutter' - so I thought I'd do a little digging into this nefarious practice. Why would anyone in their right minds want to repeat a successful design to keep costs down and maximise the economies of scale.....

 

So I wonder who started this dreadful descent from the halcyon days of steamship travel....Mickey Arison....Kvaerner....surely not as far back as Trafalgar House?

 

Cunard was founded in 1840....so when did the rot set in? Who was the first to produce 'cookie cutter ships'?

 

Step forward, Samuel Cunard.

 

And the rot set in in 1840......

 

Britannia Class (1150t, 207' x 34')

Britannia (1840 - 1849)

Acadia (1840 - 1849)

Caledonia (1840 - 1850)

Columbia (1841 - 1843)

 

Hibernia Class (1400t, 217' x 34')

Hibernia (1843 - 1850)

Cambria (1845 - 1860)

 

Now call me suspicious - but this looks a bit like a stretched Britannia class....same beam, just 10' longer.......

 

America Class (1850t, 249' x 35')

America (1848 - 1886)

Niagara (1848 - 1866)

Europa (1848 - 1867)

Canada (1848 - 1867)

 

Asia Class (2250t, 265' x 37')

Asia (1850 - 1867)

Africa (1850 - 1868)

Andes (1852 - 1859)

Alps (1853 - 1859)

 

Arabia Class (2400t, 285' x 37')

Arabia (1853 - 1864)

 

At last - a unique ship - a one-off - not a cookie cutter! Why? 'Arabia was a failure. The hull was too small for the machinery'.

 

Source: British Passenger Liners of the Five Oceans, Commander C.R. Vernon Gibbs R.N. (rtd) (London, Putnam, 1963)

 

So, the economies of simplifying and standardising were well understood in 1840 - and Cunard is at last re-learning them.:rolleyes:

 

Peter

[guernseyguy]

FYI the QE will be a sister to QV. It will probably have extended aft decks like the EURODAM which would explain the extra capacity.

 

If I was to bet I think they'd add the extra deck forward - also like Eurodam - after all, those stern balconies are all assigned to QG suites - so they might want to leave them with some space. Of course, they could always do both!

 

Peter

[stowaway2k]

There have been quite a few comments (above is one) about Cunard re-using ship designs - hence the charge 'cookie cutter' -

 

The arguement can be made that the re-use of design within the company exclusively for the company's ships is one thing, and using a design that is becomming common for ships in other companies is another.

 

Therefore, the identity of Cunard vessels becomming lost amongst the 'sameness' of the cruise industry is the issue.

 

Cunard's "Queen" brand has stood for the ultimate in ocean travel.

An experience unique to Cunard, of the grandest ships and the best that could be offered in shipboard ammenities.

 

What's worrying people, the purists, maybe, is the appearance that the future of the Queen brand is looking to be that of being watered down to 'just another cruise ship', losing it's mark of the ultimate to one of 'standard issue'.

 

While it's certain that Cunard will still be offering a great product, what will remain so unique about it to justify paying the premium for the red funnel?

[Wadadli1]

The arguement can be made that the re-use of design within the company exclusively for the company's ships is one thing, and using a design that is becomming common for ships in other companies is another.

 

Therefore, the identity of Cunard vessels becomming lost amongst the 'sameness' of the cruise industry is the issue.

 

Cunard's "Queen" brand has stood for the ultimate in ocean travel.

An experience unique to Cunard, of the grandest ships and the best that could be offered in shipboard ammenities.

 

What's worrying people, the purists, maybe, is the appearance that the future of the Queen brand is looking to be that of being watered down to 'just another cruise ship', losing it's mark of the ultimate to one of 'standard issue'.

 

While it's certain that Cunard will still be offering a great product, what will remain so unique about it to justify paying the premium for the red funnel?

 

^^This!^^

 

This is what those who are opposed to "cookie cutter" are talking about, Peter.

 

The more I look at pictures of Queen Victoria the more I see a ship built for someone other than Cunard. I really don't see what there is to get all that excited about. IMHO, of course.

[guernseyguy]

The arguement can be made that the re-use of design within the company exclusively for the company's ships is one thing, and using a design that is becomming common for ships in other companies is another.

 

AFAIK early ship designs belonged to ship-builders - not ship owners - so early Cunard ships were not only identical to each other - they were very similar to the designs of other lines.

 

Therefore, the identity of Cunard vessels becomming lost amongst the 'sameness' of the cruise industry is the issue.

 

Singapore Airlines and Air China both fly Boeing 747s - yet I have a fairly clear idea of which I would prefer to travel! The airline industry lost differentiation in hardware decades ago - yet has still managed to maintain product distinctivity - why should the cruise business be different?

 

Cunard's "Queen" brand has stood for the ultimate in ocean travel. An experience unique to Cunard, of the grandest ships and the best that could be offered in shipboard ammenities.

 

I'm not sure the brand was ever 'Queen' - it was first and foremost 'Cunard' - and the majority of their passengers sailed on ships other than the 'Queen' ships. And we tend to romanticise (and certainly Cunard's hyperactive PR does) what 'Cunard' really stood for - not this guff about exquisite service and great food - if you wanted spectacular ships you sailed on White Star - and for food, the French Line - what Cunard stood for was boring (but on a dangerous ocean crossing, vitally important) reliability - never having lost a life in peacetime was a boast none of its competitors could make. I think Cunard's PR is trying to accrue to itself all the 'glamour' of ocean liner travel - and why not - but its not what the real Cunard was about. What was that great line about the Queen's 'sheen of institutional linoleum'........

 

What's worrying people, the purists, maybe, is the appearance that the future of the Queen brand is looking to be that of being watered down to 'just another cruise ship', losing it's mark of the ultimate to one of 'standard issue'.

 

While personally I would have preferred the 'Queen' description to be reserved for the express Atlantic service, I recognise that the dictates of modern marketing require a focussed message - and unless the Cunard fleet expands substantially (and how far a line marketed on 'exclusivity' can be expanded is a tricky question - the QE may be a ship too far, or too early, in my view - it will be decisive in Ms Marlowe's career) - then I guess we are stuck with 'Queen' on everything.

 

Given the economies of scale and the prohibitive costs of one-off designs I think, from what I have seen so far, Cunard deserve credit for trying to make the QV different - the Library, Queen's Room & Theatre, for example, all look distinctive - but we really need reports from those who sail on her. My concern is that the Cunard passengers used to the space of the QM2 will find her cramped.

 

While it's certain that Cunard will still be offering a great product, what will remain so unique about it to justify paying the premium for the red funnel?

 

The interiors, the service, but most of all - the other passengers!

 

Peter

[guernseyguy]

The more I look at pictures of Queen Victoria the more I see a ship built for someone other than Cunard. I really don't see what there is to get all that excited about. IMHO, of course.

 

Angela,

 

I'm intrigued - on which other ships where have you seen a Library like this?

 

 

Or a Ballroom like this:

 

 

Or a theatre like this:

 

 

I haven't!

 

Peter

[stowaway2k]

 

Singapore Airlines and Air China both fly Boeing 747s - yet I have a fairly clear idea of which I would prefer to travel! The airline industry lost differentiation in hardware decades ago - yet has still managed to maintain product distinctivity - why should the cruise business be different?

 

Fare enough, but are we discussing air travel?

 

 

I'm not sure the brand was ever 'Queen' - it was first and foremost 'Cunard' -

 

You know my point, Pedantic Pete...:rolleyes:

I doubt crossing on the Queen Elizabeth or Queen Mary was the same as crossing on the Sylvania.

 

 

and the majority of their passengers sailed on ships other than the 'Queen' ships. And we tend to romanticise (and certainly Cunard's hyperactive PR does) what 'Cunard' really stood for - not this guff about exquisite service and great food - if you wanted spectacular ships you sailed on White Star - and for food, the French Line -

what Cunard stood for was boring

 

We can turn the discussion to the passenger trade of the late 19th-mid 20th century if you like...

 

 

(but on a dangerous ocean crossing, vitally important) reliability - never having lost a life in peacetime was a boast none of its competitors could make.

And one that wasn't perfectly true for Cunard to make, either.

Never losing a life due to shipwreck was more accurate.

 

 

While personally I would have preferred the 'Queen' description to be reserved for the express Atlantic service, I recognise that the dictates of modern marketing require a focussed message - and unless the Cunard fleet expands substantially (and how far a line marketed on 'exclusivity' can be expanded is a tricky question - the QE may be a ship too far, or too early, in my view - it will be decisive in Ms Marlowe's career) - then I guess we are stuck with 'Queen' on everything.

 

I agree.

 

Given the economies of scale and the prohibitive costs of one-off designs I think, from what I have seen so far, Cunard deserve credit for trying to make the QV different - the Library, Queen's Room & Theatre, for example, all look distinctive - but we really need reports from those who sail on her. My concern is that the Cunard passengers used to the space of the QM2 will find her cramped.

 

Agreed. :)

 

 

The interiors,

 

Maybe just me, but a double-level library and a "Victorian" theme won't earn my dollars just for the sake of it.

 

the service,

Is it really above and beyond what is offered on other lines such as HAL and Celebrity, lines which are often put in the same category as Cunard?

I really don't know, but from what I've read in reviews, it doesn't seem so.

 

but most of all - the other passengers!

Sold! :D

[guernseyguy]

Is it really above and beyond what is offered on other lines such as HAL and Celebrity, lines which are often put in the same category as Cunard?

 

I don't know either - I think the clever thing about Cunard - a bit like BMW - is you advertise the heck out of the Grills (7 series) while sell lots of Britannia cabins (3 series) - what that gets is that the higher fares the Grill pax cough up, lifts the overall experience for everyone onboard - and thats a trick no other line can pull off quite so well or explicitly - (even though many are trying something along those lines) - the Cunard message is much simpler and focussed. Of course I don't know their economics, but I'd guess thats how it works - I have heard that Cunard's food budget is substantially higher than Princess's for example.

 

But as long as people who like the Cunard ships, continue to sail on them, they will still be Cunard ships.....

 

Peter

[Wadadli1]

Angela,

 

I'm intrigued - on which other ships where have you seen a Library like this?

 

 

Or a Ballroom like this:

 

 

Or a theatre like this:

 

 

I haven't!

 

Peter

 

Ok, ok. I don't think I've seen a library "like this"--it's impressive, sure, but does it work? I've outgrown the notion of "Oooh, pretty, shiny thing!" to automatically mean a good thing. Really, I have! :rolleyes:

 

Somewhere else on CC there was a picture that showed how the Princess and Queens Grill restaurants hung out over the sides of the ship........Oy.

[guernseyguy]

Somewhere else on CC there was a picture that showed how the Princess and Queens Grill restaurants hung out over the sides of the ship........Oy.

 

So much the better to look down on the rest of us!:rolleyes:

 

(or make sure the great unwashed do not intrude upon their view of the sea.....)

 

Peter