QM 2 --Short Review 10 da. 16-26 Mar Caribeean
"Van" Van Doorne
Jean O'Boyle
""Van" Van Doorne" <hvan...@elp.rr.com> wrote in message news:SEl9c.11084$TY1....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Hi all --Just a short review in general terms. I will post a full review later on CruiseMates web site in detail with a few photos as well.
I sailed to experience the QM2, however I would not recommend the ship to anyone.Van in Texas
Van, your last statement says it all, I'm not sure that I would book the QM2, now. Maybe if there are some changes~ we had considered sailing her next year, as we have the rest of this year filled with other cruises and two land trips. Hopefully she will improve and be worth the experience. Looking forward to your full review.Thanks.--Jean
BTC/TAK on ACK
central location. I agree the room steward was terrific, but I thought the
interactive TV was a bit tricky [ours occasionally didn't operate properly]
and I thought the e-mail charge was a bit excessive at $1.50 incoming or
outgoing. I liked the balcony a little more than you did, thinking the side
walls gave the veranda good privacy and [having a bit of height fear] I
liked the solid lower bulkhead better than the glass ones I've had on other
ships.
I thought the layout of the ship was a bit easier to figure out than some,
but there were a few times we found "you can't get there from too easily
here" was a bit of a problem. [We found ourselves checking out the wall maps
as late as our last day aboard.]
Actually I wasn't too impressed by any of the pools, and thought the decks
were only comfortable for sun-worshipers. But I, too, loved the Library /
Bookshop.
The Cunard history stuff was interesting but I agree it was a little
overdone. I did like the paintings of various Cunard ships and ports around
the ship, but found most of those paintings based on Hollywood films and
stars a bit out of place. We got a kick out of a few of them though,
especially one of Marilyn Monroe in which she looked like an Asian
drag-queen.
We found most of the entertainment pretty run-of-the-mill, though the jazz
group in the Chart Room was excellent. The group in G32 was, I thought, not
good enough to exude so much "attitude". Illuminations was working [as far
as I know] throughout our cruise, though some of the reclining seats were
already having problems. The planetarium show I saw was fascinating, but a
bit short.
Our [Britannia] dining room service was fair [the food {especially the
"Canyon Ranch" selections} was almost uniformly superior though], We were
guests in the Queens Grille one evening and weren't particularly impressed
with its service either... it just seemed to take more people to provide
fair service [and its menu disappointingly equivalent to Britannia's] there.
Our experience with the dining-room managers was about the same as with
every person in a management position we encountered. They were quick to
find fault with the actual service providers, but slow to do anything
helpful or constructive. Some were curt to the point of rudeness. The
Purser's staff, especially when faced with an [for example] obvious billing
error, were almost overtly hostile... an attitude I assume filtered down
from management. In general, almost every significant problem we
encountered, or noticed, while aboard boiled down to poor management and/or
unavailability of anyone in management to passengers whose issues were not
being appropriately addressed.
We wound up having one dinner and two lunches in Todd English... all were
excellent, though there was always at least one menu item unavailable. I was
also very impressed with an evening at Lotus... the "tasting menu" was
fantastic.
I wouldn't "insist" anyone go out of there way to try the QM2, but I wouldn'
t discourage them either. I think I might suggest QE2 "regulars" give it a
try... if only for comparison purposes. The two have more in common with
each other than with most other cruise ships of my experience.
""Van" Van Doorne" <hvan...@elp.rr.com> wrote in message
news:SEl9c.11084$TY1....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
BTC/TAK on ACK
By the way, "QE2 'regulars'" , I think I've mentioned a QE2 '85 re-do a few
times... now I'm wondering if it was actually in '95? Care to refresh my
memory?
> I'll just keep saying to myself "I HAVE to like this ship...
You may not have to go quite that far... it's not really THAT bad. In fact,
we really were more often "let down" than "irritated". Mostly I missed the
quirkiness of the QE2 [we must, no matter how fond we are of it, admit it
has tons of them!]... and there are quite a few genuine improvements [IMHO,
in the areas of dining options [& quality], some "creature comforts"... and
don't miss the fabulous Library... they've done a fine job stepping ahead of
the QE2].
An "open mind" is always a good thing. Who knows? You may love it.
Bon Voyage!
"CupCaked" <karens...@cupcaked.com> wrote in message
news:4067e4b7...@news.optonline.com...
> "BTC/TAK on ACK" <ko...@removetoreplynantucket.net> wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't "insist" anyone go out of there way to try the QM2, but I
wouldn'
> >t discourage them either. I think I might suggest QE2 "regulars" give it
a
> >try... if only for comparison purposes. The two have more in common with
> >each other than with most other cruise ships of my experience.
>
> That'd be us, QE2 "regulars." Thanks for your insights. We're going
> with an open mind. I'll just keep saying to myself "I HAVE to like
> this ship, I HAVE to like this ship, I HAVE to like this ship ... "
>
> Karen
>
>
> __ /7__/7__/7__
> \::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
> (...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)
E.k.R.
expensive passenger ship in the world you have to "keep an open mind". Just
goes to show you that bigger in not always better.
With the prices Cunard is charging for QM2 not to mention the excessive
marketing hype, they should be delivering a first class product all the way
around and passengers have every right to expect it. It's been plenty long
enough to get things running smoothly. There seems to be some inherent
problems with the design of this ship that will not be easy to fix. Mainly
a lack of sufficient crew areas and cabins. Of course Cunard would NEVER
temporarily consider taking passenger cabins out of inventory which would
partially solve the problem. Revenue is much more important even if the
ship's reputation suffers in the meantime.
There are some great posts from former QM2 crew members on another board
that really spell out the problems. While QM2 may be nice for the
passengers, it's not quite the same way for the crew. Many have walked off
and continue to do so. It seems Cunard missed the boat in the trend to
offer superior crew accommodations in order to retain crew. This is too bad
as crew members would rather work for Carnival, Princess, or Royal
Caribbean. In fact many of the crew were "borrowed" from Carnival and
Princess to get things started. These crew members especially (those that
are left) are not happy and want to return to "their" cruise line.
In any case I hope all passengers cruising on QM2 have a great time and feel
they are receiving some value for the price they paid. I will be on her
myself in the hopefully not too distant future, but only when prices drop to
reasonable levels for the product delivered. I think we can all agree the
ship is amazing, but the software needs a lot of work.
Ernie - departing on NORWEGIAN DREAM in Europe in less than two weeks.
"BTC/TAK on ACK" <ko...@removetoreplynantucket.net> wrote in message
news:c46pnp$idn$0...@208.28.237.16...
Benjamin Smith
> I find it interesting that on the longest, widest, tallest, and most
> expensive passenger ship in the world you have to "keep an open mind". Just
> goes to show you that bigger in not always better.
>
Yes. And it shouldn't be. Biggest (for now) should be just that. Biggest.
> With the prices Cunard is charging for QM2 not to mention the excessive
> marketing hype, they should be delivering a first class product all the way
> around and passengers have every right to expect it. It's been plenty long
> enough to get things running smoothly. There seems to be some inherent
> problems with the design of this ship that will not be easy to fix. Mainly
> a lack of sufficient crew areas and cabins. Of course Cunard would NEVER
> temporarily consider taking passenger cabins out of inventory which would
> partially solve the problem. Revenue is much more important even if the
> ship's reputation suffers in the meantime.
>
Very little lives up to the hype, that's the danger of hype. How the
ship is for the crew is a major design aspect, and if the crew quarters
are inadequate, that's not an easy fix. Maybe Cunard would consider
taking passenger cabins out of inventory and Carnival would veto it.
Maybe not. Maybe the whole ship has to be taken out of service at some
time in the future to fix what has proven not to work.
My feeling is wait and see in terms of getting any sense of the product.
These are initial reports of a new ship that may be a one-off. I think
it'll take much more than a few months before everything is up to the
level it should be. Personally, if I had the time/money/desire to sail
the QM2 I'd wait 18 months. I'm convinced new ships, or, more
accurately, the first of a generation of new ships, do not provide the
product delivery of ships that have been in service for a while. I don't
think the logistics of their crews getting in sync naturally with the
product can be achieved in the first few months they are in service.
Ben S.
BTC/TAK on ACK
I certainly agree with that... but I don't quite share your view vis-a-vis
some points in your post.
> With the prices Cunard is charging for QM2 not to mention the excessive
marketing hype
I got a great deal [a bit below 50% of advertised fares] as a return Cunard
passenger. There's been a lot of marketing, naturally... but I haven't found
the "hype" to have been any more excessive than any others'.
> It's been plenty long enough to get things running smoothly
I was aboard for its third sailing, and found it was running about as
smoothly as other ships I've taken that early... a bit more smoothly,
actually, than Celebrity's Galaxy [a ship I rather liked, by the way] was on
the fourth sailing I was on.
> Cunard would NEVER temporarily consider taking passenger cabins out of
inventory
In fact they've done exactly that. Our assistant waiter, for example, was
housed in a cabin meant for passengers' occupation.
> There are some great posts from former QM2 crew members on another board
They'd be interesting to read... which board?
> Many [crew] have walked off, and continue to do so
I was told by a believable crew member that a couple of hundred departed in
Sao Paolo [some estimated up to 300, but I have no idea of the real
number]... but, apparently, many didn't "walk" so much as get fired for
frequent latenesses and the like. Now don't get the wrong idea here, it
appeared to me that bad management IS the ship's major problem, and that the
rest of the crew is baring the burden. For example, it seems clear that
back-to-back work shifts at opposite ends of a ship of this size, with
insufficient time to eat, recompose oneself, or even use a rest room, in
between is not good planning. That's just bad management.
I would have canned the Hotel Manager, the Purser, and a few other middle
and senior administrative staff by now. We felt most crew were much better
at "customer relations" than their managers... and it may be only a matter
of time before the bad attitude filters down.
> "borrowed" ... crew members ... are not happy and want to return to
"their" cruise line.
Perhaps; but our cabin steward [from Carnival, if I recall properly] and a
few other crew switched to the QM2 from the Caronia are satisfied enough
with their jobs, the ship, etc., but don't feel supported by management in
getting their jobs done. How long they will remain happy is, of course,
another matter.
> ...when prices drop to reasonable levels for the product delivered.
Again, I didn't find the price, or even the product, to be the real
problem... they are much what we had expected from the announcement of the
ship's planning. The day-to-day administration, however, is a big [and, I'd
imagine, worsening] problem.
"E.k.R." <eroll...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:OwC9c.23902$fl6....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Tom & Linda
"Benjamin Smith" <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:0VD9c.3341$yN6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> E.k.R. wrote:
>
>
> My feeling is wait and see in terms of getting any sense of the product.
> These are initial reports of a new ship that may be a one-off. I think
> it'll take much more than a few months before everything is up to the
> level it should be. Personally, if I had the time/money/desire to sail
> the QM2 I'd wait 18 months. I'm convinced new ships, or, more
> accurately, the first of a generation of new ships, do not provide the
> product delivery of ships that have been in service for a while.
I think that probably depends on the "wish list" that you want of a new
ship.
Look at the Voyager class. That's not at all about service or pampering.
Or even food. It's almost exclusively about the WOW factor of the ship.
Rock climbing walls and center promenades don't get better with age.
Neither do ice skating rinks or Harry Potter style discos.
The day a ship like Voyager comes into service may actually be when it's at
it's best. When she's sailing with an experienced crew, before they depart
after a few months for the next new ship.
Perhaps some of our expectations of the new Queen is simply unrealistic
given her size.
Maybe, because of her size, she really can't be anything more than
Carnival's Cunard version of the Voyager class. Where it's all about the
ship.
Maybe they can, realistically, take part of the Queen (like Grill Class) and
make it a special experience. Like the specialty restaurants are on the
Millie class ships. But I doubt that it's very realistic to offer a Cunard
Sea Goddess type experience on a behemoth.
Maybe like having the special Olympic Dining Room, while the rest of the
ship is just Millie.... here you get Grill Class, and the rest of the ship
is just Queenie.
--Tom
Tom & Linda
>
>
> I got a great deal [a bit below 50% of advertised fares] as a return
Cunard
> passenger. There's been a lot of marketing, naturally... but I haven't
found
> the "hype" to have been any more excessive than any others'.
>
Like Emeril Live say... where have you been, on Mars? <VBG>
She's been talked about on just about every morning show and evening show on
TV.
No other ship in recent memory has gotten so much publicity.
--Tom
E.k.R.
> I got a great deal [a bit below 50% of advertised fares] as a return
Cunard
> passenger. There's been a lot of marketing, naturally... but I haven't
found
> the "hype" to have been any more excessive than any others'.
I'm glad you got a great deal. I'm also a past passenger with Cunard but I
have not seen any "great" deals on QM2, at least not when compared with
other major cruise lines. Then again, I have always felt Cunard was
overpriced. Regarding the "hype", I'm not sure where you have been. QM2
has been "hyped" more then any passenger ship in my lifetime. Not since the
heyday of transatlantic ocean travel in the 30's and 40's have I ever seen a
passenger ship so hyped.
> I was aboard for its third sailing, and found it was running about as
> smoothly as other ships I've taken that early... a bit more smoothly,
> actually, than Celebrity's Galaxy [a ship I rather liked, by the way] was
on
> the fourth sailing I was on.
Again, good to hear but your experience differs from many other reviews I
have read where service and food elements onboard were hardly "smooth". I
take those reports with a grain of salt but none the less the sheer quantity
of reports suggest there is a problem. In this day and age of new ships
appearing every month, I pretty much expect a new ship to operate almost as
smoothly as one that has been in service for years. The major cruise
companies have a lot of experience with new ships and first sailings are not
the "shakedown" cruises of years past when we only saw one or two new ships
in a year or two. Carnival especially has an excellent track record of new
ships running like clockwork from day one. I do think QM2 is an exception
due to the fact she is a prototype and so large, but even so enough time
should have passed by now.
> In fact they've done exactly that. Our assistant waiter, for example, was
> housed in a cabin meant for passengers' occupation.
I wonder what cabin? My understanding is that many sailings were sold out
months in advance and there are no passenger cabins to take out of
inventory, even if Cunard wanted to.
> They'd be interesting to read... which board?
http://www.travelserver.net/travelpage/ubb-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006104
> Again, I didn't find the price, or even the product, to be the real
> problem... they are much what we had expected from the announcement of the
> ship's planning. The day-to-day administration, however, is a big [and,
I'd
> imagine, worsening] problem.
To me, the day to day administration is a big part of the product. Without
proper administration the product suffers on all levels. This is something
Cunard will have to address and quickly. As for the price, well I can
cruise on many equivalent sailings on Silversea for the same price as QM2
and I can assure you the Silversea product is far superior. I don't expect
Cunard to be at Silversea levels, but Cunard marketing leads one to believe
this is the case. Cunard likes to tout itself as a Luxury product, with the
QM2 being the best thing since sliced bread. In reality it's a Premium
product with a few suites reaching the luxury level.
Ernie
BTC/TAK on ACK
> the QM2 I'd wait 18 months...
Exactly, Ben. We anticipated "wrinkles", were actually interested in seeing
what the "wrinkles" would be, and we got 'em! Our biggest surprises were
fairly pleasant ones... things ran more smoothly than we'd imagined they
might. We'd heard, for example, some really off-putting dining "reviews"
from the maiden crossing that were not our experience.
We were, though, very unpleasantly surprised by the "arch" attitude of
middle and senior management. "Uh oh... here comes another clip-board!!!"
became a frequent quip among our group of friends. Almost every personal
interaction any of us had with a suited or white-uniformed staff-member was
"difficult". And, compared to many, our issues were minor. Little things
became a huge problem. I was actually treated very chillily by a
"clip-board" when our safe malfunctioned. Even if it was due to our error
[which it wasn't], her attitude was very off-putting... our cabin steward,
who saw the incident, was gracious [and, though quite a bit younger than
she, mature] enough to apologize for her behavior. Another suites' charges
consistently appeared on our account, the Purser's staff was unable to fix
the problem [the Purser's system, not his staff, being at fault here, in my
opinion] until I became a bit aggressive, demanding my bill be reduced to
$0.00 until a signed receipt-by-receipt review, with me present at my
convenience, of every item. I knew the proper charges [and, oddly enough, so
did they], so why not just correct the bill? My "favorite" was their
unwillingness to accept a few pre-signed traveler's checks toward my
end-of-trip bill, though they were accepting others they watched me sign...
what??? Funny how they can, on the other hand, accept un-witnessed
signatures on the receipts that make up most of the bill. Only the fact that
I clearly would make good on my [deadly serious, though smiling] threat to
back up a few feet and continue to discuss my bill payment with them loudly
enough for all to hear... in other words create an embarrassing scene in the
midst of the Grand Lobby... got through to them.
"Benjamin Smith" <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:0VD9c.3341$yN6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
BTC/TAK on ACK
No... did I miss any good deals to Mars?
I get your point. But the newspaper and TV stuff, though certainly
potentially a marketing director's dream, seemed, to me, as much about every
TV and Sunday supplement magazine cashing in on an easy story as Cunard
"hype"... plus much was not exactly complementary.
"Tom & Linda" <tkan...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:DbF9c.133239$LX.13...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Tom & Linda
>
> To me, the day to day administration is a big part of the product.
Without
> proper administration the product suffers on all levels. This is
something
> Cunard will have to address and quickly. As for the price, well I can
> cruise on many equivalent sailings on Silversea for the same price as QM2
> and I can assure you the Silversea product is far superior. I don't
expect
> Cunard to be at Silversea levels, but Cunard marketing leads one to
believe
> this is the case. Cunard likes to tout itself as a Luxury product, with
the
> QM2 being the best thing since sliced bread. In reality it's a Premium
> product with a few suites reaching the luxury level.
>
--Tom
BTC/TAK on ACK
"smooth"...
I read a few initial reports also, but all were, as I recall, from the very
first voyage, plus reports lag behind changes. We saw quite a bit of
improvement within the 12 days [Rio> Ft L] we were aboard. Some others, who
did a Ft. L> Rio> Ft L round-trip, mentioned seeing major improvements...
and then, of course, there were those who constantly whined about
everything. They were more exasperating, to me, than [almost] all the other
problems combined.
> ... I pretty much expect a new ship to operate almost as smoothly as one
that has been in service for years...
I guess I don't, and neither my personal experience, nor that of friends,
has led me to.
> ...day to day administration is a big part of the product. Without proper
administration the product suffers on all levels...
No disagreement there... I wish Cunard / Carnival agreed
> > ...[crew] housed in a cabin meant for passengers' occupation.
> ... what cabin?
Of course I have no idea... but I recall his saying it was on four deck, and
pretty convenient to the crew's gym [wherever that is]. One of our group,
also on that deck, often saw him around A stairwell, so I guess he [and I
think he said there were 3 {or was it 3 others?} housed together] were in
one of those least desirable forward inside standards.
"E.k.R." <eroll...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FwF9c.19253$b_2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
BTC/TAK on ACK
You know, Karen, [no offence meant, but] opinions are like a******s,
everybody's got one! Who knows, I might be one of those "whiners" I dread
so... and not be aware of it.
Make of my [and others] "heads-up" what you will... but I wouldn't take it
too, too seriously... and certainly don't let it affect the enjoyment of
your trip. A lot can get cleared up in a month. And, I for one, hope that's
exactly what is happening. In fact, I'll be interested in hearing your
"review" since a few months seems like a better time-frame for ironing out
"wrinkles" than a few weeks.
"CupCaked" <karens...@cupcaked.com> wrote in message
news:40722a52...@news.optonline.com...
> Hmm. Looks like we may be in for a rocky ride come April 25th ... and
> I don't just mean the conditions of the North Atlantic. At any rate,
> thanks for the heads-up.
>
> Karen
>
BTC/TAK on ACK
That was interesting reading, Ernie... Thanks for the lead.
It makes me wonder how Cunard / Carnival will, ultimately, solve some of
their staff housing issues? Not to mention what real number, and for what
reasons, so many crew departed in a place like Sao Palo?
I have no idea how long that waiter had been housed in a passenger cabin, by
the way. For all I know it may have been a recent [possibly even post-Sao
Palo] change. He, by the way, was one of the [several that I met] crew taken
from the Caronia, and I recall his saying he'd had several [3 comes to mind,
but I'm not at all sure] contract periods on her.
Whatever the case, it sounds like no "quick-fix" is likely, long and
expensive sounds more like it.
"E.k.R." <eroll...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FwF9c.19253$b_2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Benjamin Smith
> "BTC/TAK on ACK" <ko...@removetoreplynantucket.net> wrote in message
> news:c4761g$fvq$0...@208.28.237.6...
>
>
>>I got a great deal [a bit below 50% of advertised fares] as a return
>
> Cunard
>
>>passenger. There's been a lot of marketing, naturally... but I haven't
>
> found
>
>>the "hype" to have been any more excessive than any others'.
>
>
> I'm glad you got a great deal. I'm also a past passenger with Cunard but I
> have not seen any "great" deals on QM2, at least not when compared with
> other major cruise lines. Then again, I have always felt Cunard was
> overpriced. Regarding the "hype", I'm not sure where you have been. QM2
> has been "hyped" more then any passenger ship in my lifetime. Not since the
> heyday of transatlantic ocean travel in the 30's and 40's have I ever seen a
> passenger ship so hyped.
>
>
In a way, I'm OK with the hype. Rather hear about an overhyped large
seagoing vessel than the normal nonsense about celebrities, reality
shows, overreaction to Superbowl entertainment stunts, etc. Cunard
hasn't had a new ship since the 80s. And it has the storied name. I'm
sorry but Carnival, RCI, and other lines come out with a new ship every
few months, the QM2, while not worth the hype, is arguably worth the
acknowledgment in its place in the industry. There's still something
exciting about a perceived Grand liner as opposed to another
ultramegasized cruise ship.
She'll be worth hype (not the hype) if and when she earns it, however,
on her way to reverence.
Ben
BTC/TAK on ACK
Superbowl entertainment stunts, etc.
Probably avoiding those, well as much as possible without actually having
been on Mars, is why I missed a lot of "the hype".
But you allude, Ben, to another "hype" issue that never has rung quite true
for me. It's that Cunard "liner in the grand tradition" , "not just another
cruise-ship" thing they're always spouting. It just annoys me, for reasons
I'm only partly able to put my finger on.
"Benjamin Smith" <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:zeJ9c.3971$yN6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Tom & Linda
> > ... the normal nonsense about celebrities, reality shows, overreaction
to
> Superbowl entertainment stunts, etc.
>
> Probably avoiding those, well as much as possible without actually having
> been on Mars, is why I missed a lot of "the hype".
>
> But you allude, Ben, to another "hype" issue that never has rung quite
true
> for me. It's that Cunard "liner in the grand tradition" , "not just
another
> cruise-ship" thing they're always spouting. It just annoys me, for reasons
> I'm only partly able to put my finger on.
>
It strikes me as some kind of attempt at market differentiation, saying it's
a liner instead of a cruise ship... even though it IS a cruise ship in every
sense of the word, a cruise ship that happens to do some ocean crossings.
It is not intended for overseas transportation, like when the immigrants
came to the new world decades ago. It is intended for cruise vacations, not
for basic transportation. If you take a ship overseas only to fly back
home... that's a cruise. If the voyage is your vacation... that's a cruise.
They can give it an ocean going hull design... but trans-Atlantic liners
used for basic transportation are long gone. They went out with the Edsel.
It's a cruise ship.
--Tom
JER Racer
>a liner instead of a cruise ship... even though it IS a cruise ship in every
>sense of the word, a cruise ship that happens to do some ocean crossings.
>It is not intended for overseas transportation, like when the immigrants
>came to the new world decades ago. It is intended for cruise vacations, not
>for basic transportation. If you take a ship overseas only to fly back
>home... that's a cruise. If the voyage is your vacation... that's a cruise.
>
>They can give it an ocean going hull design... but trans-Atlantic liners
>used for basic transportation are long gone. They went out with the Edsel.
>
>It's a cruise ship.
>
>--Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
not her intended passenger compliment.
The ship's superstructure and ammenities (such as penthouses that are bigger
than some townhomes and five swimming pools) make her much more like a cruise
ship that an old-style transatlantic liner, but the key elements of her design
make her a transatlantic liner. Her hull thickness, width to length ratio,
draught, position of life boats, and service speed make it posssible for QM2 to
do the transatlantic service in a way unlike any other ship, save QE2. No
other modern day cruise ship can sustain 29 knts in North Atlantic conditions.
These elements contributed a large part to the $800 million price tag to build
her. I think Cunard is playing off it for PR purposes; elements of that are
all through the various brochures for QM2. The ship was designed for a
service that no other modern day cruise ship is capable of doing. That makes
her unique in the industry. Her 2005 schedule indicates Cunard's intent. A
large portion is 6-night transatlantic runs between NY and Southampton, many of
which are back-to-back. That is a grueling service that requires a special
design. Modern cruise ships would get pounded apart in that service. QM2 is a
hybrid cruise ship / liner for sure, but it's the liner part that sets her
apart from the others.
Regards,
Jim
BTC/TAK on ACK
cruise-ship}...
That's pretty much how I see it.
"Tom & Linda" <tkan...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:J%M9c.140964$LX.15...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Cruising Chrissy
<eroll...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>With the prices Cunard is charging for QM2 not to mention the excessive
>marketing hype, they should be delivering a first class product all the way
>around and passengers have every right to expect it. It's been plenty long
>enough to get things running smoothly.
I agree. Spending your travel $$$ is always a subjective, and this is
one ship I will pass on....unless CCL gives away a great FAM.
>In any case I hope all passengers cruising on QM2 have a great time and feel
>they are receiving some value for the price they paid. I will be on her
>myself in the hopefully not too distant future, but only when prices drop to
>reasonable levels for the product delivered.
See you then.
Cruising Chrissy
<tkan...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Perhaps some of our expectations of the new Queen is simply unrealistic
>given her size.
>
>Maybe, because of her size, she really can't be anything more than
>Carnival's Cunard version of the Voyager class. Where it's all about the
>ship.
This is my bet. CCL will blow the hype about Her Majesty's Service and
all for as long as that will inflate prices and bring attention. In
the end, the QM2 will be a modified version of a mass market liner.
>Maybe like having the special Olympic Dining Room, while the rest of the
>ship is just Millie.... here you get Grill Class, and the rest of the ship
>is just Queenie.
Whoa, there. If the Goldhamer's take offense at Goldie, I get to take
offense at Queenie.
Cruising Chrissy
wrote:
>>This is my bet. CCL will blow the hype about Her Majesty's Service and
>>all for as long as that will inflate prices and bring attention. In
>>the end, the QM2 will be a modified version of a mass market liner.
>
>I agree. Regarding that last sentence, I think it will happen sooner
>rather than later.
>
>Karens
Time will tell. As you have pointed out, Cunard has been getting away
with price-quality discrepancies for a long, long time. Interesting to
see how long this round.
Btw, you might have missed, but the Girl's Club is self-imploding.
Cruising Chrissy
wrote:
>Let's see what her 2006 schedule looks like. I think that will be the
>real indicator of just what kind of ship she turns out to be in the
>long run.
I have the schedule, I have the schedule. Nonny, nonny
<sticking tongue out>