Length of transatlantic

[cruzadict]

I notice that the transatlantic in April and May 2010 is for 7 nights and not the usual 6. Does anyone know the reason for this?

[southwestie]

We have a 6 night going and 7 coming home next year.

 

I would think, they want extra money and save on fuel costs, but im very happy to have an extra day onboard:)

[capnpugwash]

Rob, I think you are spot on with the reasoning, for some reason I expected the seven day jobbie to be cheaper. Must get off these Martinis.

[pepperrn]

Do the 7 day crossings call at Cherbourg?

[capnpugwash]

No, straight to NYC but slower

[pepperrn]

No, straight to NYC but slower

 

:eek:

[Laconia]

No, straight to NYC but slower

 

They are all eastbound in the 2010 brochure. I wonder if it is an attempt to ease up on the effect of the time changes, as well as the fuel point? Do WB sell better, perhaps, because of this time effect?

[SeaMatesNYC]

Rob, I think you are spot on with the reasoning, for some reason I expected the seven day jobbie to be cheaper. Must get off these Martinis.

 

"Blame it on the goose, gotcha feeling loose

Blame it on the 'tron, gotcha in the zone

Blame it on the ah-ah-ah-alcohol, blame it on the ah-ah-ah-alcohol

Blame it on the vodka, blame it on the henny

Blame it on the blue tap got you feeling dizzy

Blame it on the ah-ah-ah-alcohol, blame it on the ah-ah ah-ah ah-al-co-hol":eek:

[SeaMatesNYC]

I notice that the transatlantic in April and May 2010 is for 7 nights and not the usual 6. Does anyone know the reason for this?

 

Didn't 'ya hear? Since the Iraq thingy, the UK is moving away from the United States?

[x-press]

Westbounds seem to be priced higher, so I guess they are more popular. Maybe this is an attempt to balance out the crowds a bit.

 

It's not worth complaining about, but a 7-day trip on the last passenger ship left designed to do it in 5 makes me a bit sad. I know, I know, if I was in a hurry, I'd fly. Fine, but all the same, if all I wanted was a pleasure cruise I wouldn't do a transatlantic on the only ocean liner left in the world!

 

For perspective, Cunard's Etruria made the (slightly shorter) crossing Sandy Hook-Queenstown in 6 days, 9 hours . . . in 1885. According to Wikipedia, she was one of the last two Cunard ships fitted with auxiliary sails.

[Bispham Boo]

Rob, I think you are spot on with the reasoning, for some reason I expected the seven day jobbie to be cheaper. Must get off these Martinis.

 

Now I'm jealous, an extra day (or 10) would have been bliss.

Martinis - mine's a Milky Way. I blame the Wigan contingent.

[Laconia]

It's not worth complaining about, but a 7-day trip on the last passenger ship left designed to do it in 5 makes me a bit sad.

 

RMS Queen Mary 2 was designed for a six night crossing.

 

RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 was designed for a five night crossing.

 

Which is why RMS Queen Mary 2 is slower than was RMS Queen Elizabeth 2.

 

It is only since last November that RMS Queen Mary 2 has been the fastest commercial passenger ship.

[foodsvcmgr]

QM2 was designed with a cruising speed of 28.5 knots and a max. speed

of 30 knots.

 

This is more than what is required for the traditional 5 night crossing

as the original QE and QM also had 28.5 knots cruising speed.

 

However, if I recall the reason given at the time the crossing was extended to 6 nights was that the route was changed to a more southerly one (therefore longer - check your globe) in order to have warmer weather during the crossing.

 

The 7 day thing seems like an excuse to sail slower and use less fuel

unless this route is also changing.

 

I wish Cunard would offer at least a few 5 nighters on the old route

sailing at an appropriately brisk speed for the nostalgia crowd (like me).

[Laconia]

QM2 was designed with a cruising speed of 28.5 knots and a max. speed

of 30 knots.

 

Which is less than QE2

 

This is more than what is required for the traditional 5 night crossing

as the original QE and QM also had 28.5 knots cruising speed.

 

Queen Mary took the Blue Riband with average speeds of over thirty knots.

 

However, if I recall the reason given at the time the crossing was extended to 6 nights was that the route was changed to a more southerly one (therefore longer - check your globe) in order to have warmer weather during the crossing.

 

But QM2 has never done it in five nights. She can't keep to that sort of schedule. Not and deal with any bad weather. QE2 was the last ship to do it in five nights.

 

I wish Cunard would offer at least a few 5 nighters on the old route sailing at an appropriately brisk speed for the nostalgia crowd (like me).

 

Pity, then, that they rid of the ship that could have done this. It would have been a good thing to have done on the farewell crossings. Were we not slowed by that big thing steaming next to us.

[Calliope]

To maintain a five night crossing the service speed of the four great Cunard Queens was designed to be 28.5 knots per hour. Even during the days of the five night crossings the ships did not always need to go that fast to keep their schedules. During the five night August 5, 1980 crossing the QE2 left New York at 4:45 PM, and arrived in Southampton on Sunday, August 10 at approx 5:00 PM. Only once, according to the ship's daily newspaper "QE2 Times," which religiously reported what the ship was doing each midnight, was a speed greater than 28 knots listed. (For those interested at midnight August 10, 1980 the ship's position was: LAT, 50.08 N; LONG, 10.27 W; 194 miles west of Penzance; Course 009; Speed, 28.9 knots; Wind, S'wly, Force 1; Temps: Air, 15.0 c, Sea, 14.4 c)

 

The QM2 could easily maintain a five night crossing timetable, but that would change departure times, layover, and arrival times. During a six day crossing the ship can arrive in the morning, turn over and be back at sea that evening. Arriving in port after a five night crossing during late afternoon is a logistics nightmare. It's much easier to coordinate air for arriving and departing passengers, not to mention the transportation between the airport and ship being much easier when a six day, or longer, schedule is kept.

[stephen@stoneyard.co.uk]

A five night crossing might be possible but any delay due to weather or technical problems would mean the ship would be late. With the old Queens that did not matter so much because they had an overnight in port. Today if a QM2 is late in port it will almost invariably have a knock on effect on the following cruise or crossing. All the passengers waiting in the terminal for the next cruise or crossing have to be looked after.

 

Passengers today often have immediate onward travel arrangements. It must be an expensive nightmare rescheduling everybody if a ship is late. Pursors must dread it. In the old days presumably the Savoy hotel representative and boat train would just have waited for the ship.

 

Reading books on the old Queens and the early days of QE2 they were quite often late. Even those great ships could not guarantee you a five night crossing arriving on schedule.

 

In 2002 QE2 left New York probably twelve hours late due to repairs on a leak in the hull. We still arrived in Southampton on schedule. If that had been scheduled as a five night crossing it might have been a different matter.

 

A six night crossing is a five night crossing with an extra day of contingency that we the passengers pay for but enjoy anyway. After all it is another day on QM2. It works for us and for Cunard. I do thinking a seven nights is going a bit far though. It would be fun if Cunard would schedule a five night crossing just once. I too would be tempted to book.

 

Best wishes, Stephen.

[Karanja]

Westbounds seem to be priced higher, so I guess they are more popular. Maybe this is an attempt to balance out the crowds a bit.

 

It's not worth complaining about, but a 7-day trip on the last passenger ship left designed to do it in 5 makes me a bit sad. I know, I know, if I was in a hurry, I'd fly. Fine, but all the same, if all I wanted was a pleasure cruise I wouldn't do a transatlantic on the only ocean liner left in the world!

 

For perspective, Cunard's Etruria made the (slightly shorter) crossing Sandy Hook-Queenstown in 6 days, 9 hours . . . in 1885. According to Wikipedia, she was one of the last two Cunard ships fitted with auxiliary sails.

 

X-press

A nice parallel, your last paragraph. It makes me more than a bit sad. QM2 is not on a repositioning cruise, it is a liner and should act like one. If someone wants a leisurely crossing, take a cruise ship. After all, a huge premium was paid by Carnival Corp. for both speed and strenghtening to maintain that speed. What a waste if not being used. And the price of fuel has gone way down.

Ted

[x-press]

 

Queen Mary took the Blue Riband with average speeds of over thirty knots.

 

Yes, and that crossing, Bishop Rock to Ambrose, was almost exactly FOUR days. I'll grant QM2 would struggle mightily to do that, but five days would be no problem, as the 28.5 knot cruising speed is virtually identical to the original queens and QE2.

 

In any case, I can live with the six-nighters, as many folks here have pointed out the many advantages of such. I just think the seven-nighters are getting a bit extreme. I understand some perfectly good people on this board would like it if the crossing took a month . . . but I just wouldn't see the point. If I wanted a "crossing to nowhere" I would simply rent a beach-house and sit around in a tux.

[SeaMatesNYC]

If I wanted a "crossing to nowhere" I would simply rent a beach-house and sit around in a tux.

 

Are you accepting bids for shares?;)