Posted on Saturday, August 7, 2010 by Peter Knego
QUEEN ELIZABETH at Monfalcone, Italy in February. Photo and copyright Peter Knego 2010.
Paul Motter, editor of top-notch cruising website CruiseMates.com, was one of a few hand-selected journalists recently invited to Fincantieri’s Monfalcone shipyard for a tour of the newbuilding QUEEN ELIZABETH nine weeks before her scheduled completion. He has provided his readers with a detailed preview of the ship’s myriad features as workers scurried through a beehive of scaffolding to meet the October 11 christening deadline.. Click here for Paul Motter’s report from Monfalcone, Italy.
David Walker
August 15, 2010 at 4:17 am
From the time of the late 1930′s, and more so toward the end of the 50′s and 60′s when the last great ocean going transatlantic liners were the pride of the country (France, Netherlands, United States, Italy, England) that owned the line and built the ship, there was a definite distinction in the design and interior decor of the ships. You stepped onboard and found a microcosm of the society, of the country, it reflected.
With the modern day mass market cruise ships being owned by large corporations, and the main focus now for these ships having shifted to ‘vacation cruises’ and not North Atlantic crossings, there is understandingly much less importance in the exterior design. The focus is now nearly completely towards the onboard and interior amenities. Hull designs for these ships that ‘cruised’ rather than ‘crossed’ also changed to reflect the less than strenuous effects of the Caribbean and other market destinations where they cruised as opposed to the North Atlantic. They incorporated more balconies which the cruising public demanded, squared off the sterns for larger number of aft facing balconies and suites, and no longer needed elongated or reinforced bows.
As we progressed into modern day cruise ship design and left the ocean liners behind, the other thing that got left behind were the die-hard ocean liner enthusiasts that reminisced of the grand era of those liners. Most fail to accept the fact that modern cruise ships do not require exquisite exterior designs to be functional, and that function OVER form trumps every single time, like it or not.
Out of more than 100 cruise ships operating today you could probably pick less than 5% that don’t look like a floating milk cartoon or floating block of apartment flats. To the modern day cruise vacationer this is completely and totally irrelevant.
Function over form in the design of a cruise ship, vice the form over function of the design of an ocean liner.
But the liner enthusiasts can’t get past these facts, which is why the ‘debate’ between design and function will always be with us.
P.C. Kohler
August 16, 2010 at 7:04 am
“Most fail to accept the fact that modern cruise ships do not require exquisite exterior designs to be functional, and that function OVER form trumps every single time, like it or not.”
True, David. But no less true then of the “great liners” of the past, no? A passenger liner is no less “function” driven than a cruise ship. And her passengers, in essence, not much different either. Maybe the difference is that people expected more in the old days when it came to creations of man be it buildings, ships, cars or even toasters. Ugly is still ugly. Then and now. If designers don’t care about what their creations look like, should we? If we do, it is our fault or theirs? NORWEGIAN EPIC is butt-ugly. So was Hapag’s PRESIDENT GRANT. But I don’t feel obliged to squint at either and extoll their ugliness regardless of their times. Or their function. Beauty is timeless. So is ugly.
Kevin
August 16, 2010 at 12:16 pm
David,
A wonderfully framed arguement, though abit long winded, but I am afraid you can’t point to me for inspiration. The comment you used to frame your position originated with another, Scott. And the fragment you used in his post isn’t one i would necessarily agree with.
In your novel like post you amazingly over looked one important thing Cunard had (for better for worse) before Carnival took over. It was their in the days of Waring and Gillow and the original Queens, when it was decided to depart with tradition with QE2, when they finished the Ambassador and Adeventurer even when Cunard bought into the Countess and Princess. Cunard had autonomy, they decided what was done, by whom and where (again for better or for worse it wasn’t a yellow brick road for sure). Are the vessels they have now better than the days of the Ambassador and Countess? Absolutely! It would even be better if they were Cunard’s own as the Princess Cruises hype claims them to be, but they are not. It would be nice if you didn’t see the Cunard theme on other cruise lines, but you do. What you have is once a cruise line, owned out of Miami and managed out of Los Angeles. When you loose autonomy, you loose your identity and you are no longer an entity. In this case you are not even a division, you are a brand, a theme based on what you competition thinks you should be.
If that wasn’t bad enough ther eother weak links within the theme. A publicity department that can’t tell the difference between the Queen Mary and the Titanic. It would be nice if the PR department got the history of the theme right, though to their credit it reads like somebody at Princess expensed a Cunard history book. It would be nice if the “ocean liner” theme carried anything authentic from the UK in its design instead of depending on Southern California for inspiration (much like Disney). It would be nice for the theme to recognize its mistakes instead of having its own clients drag them in questioning the wisdom of their actions in various worldwide forums. It would be nice to have a company president verse not only in the theme, but what it is doing. It would be right for the theme to have its president not look like he was dragged out of a pub, Stuffed in a suit and put in front of a camera to read from cue cards.It would be nice to have the product not look like their was cost cutting to reach the end. it would be nice to have the theme have any level of say in how it operates or looks, which it doesn’t and suffers the inevitable results of. And have the added task of over coming their visible short comings addressed by their clients. All these things would be nice, but that would require a special effort and perhaps abit of money and god forbid Miami cut a check to do of all things, make a situation right.
To close the theme as is is perfectly adequate, but as we all know Carnival has made a fortune from mediochrity. Visibly the weakest link within Carnival the Cunard theme could, with ease, be shut down and its “ocean liner themes” distributed elsewhere with minimal effort. I never supported a seperate design department..I have often thought what Cunard would be like if they were allowed to think outside of the Carnival box. But until mediochrity proves to be a money loss..we are stuck with the been there done that no anticipation approach Carnival has mastered so well.
David Walker
August 17, 2010 at 1:39 am
Hi (again) KEVIN: Thanks for your reply, and I apologize if I misquoted you.
In your last post you said this: “In your novel like post you amazingly over looked one important thing Cunard had (for better for worse) before Carnival took over…Cunard had autonomy, they decided what was done, by whom and where (again for better or for worse it wasn’t’ a yellow brick road for sure)”.
Is that what drove the company into near financial ruin? Is that what put Cunard into such a poorly looked upon position that no one even wanted it when put up for sale by Kvaernar? Because they had ‘say’ in what direction they wanted to ‘go’. I guess then the ‘autonomy of, an under Cunard’ failed? Cunard from 1971-1998, on it’s own and under their own autonomy, (did they actually have their own autonomy under 27 years of ownership under Trafalgar House and Kvaernar?) did this on their own, and quite so before Carnival Corp ever stepped into the picture: they lost their identity, were no longer an entity, became a theme based fleet, and even worse, literally destroyed the old Cunard ‘brand’ and dwindled from 13 to a fleet of 5 ships.
Apparently what they were doing under ‘their own autonomy’ didn’t work out very well.
——-
P C Kohler: the ocean going transatlantic liners were designed from the outside-in. Hull design took priority because of the North Atlantic route and the higher speeds at which they travelled. The interiors were designed and made more or less to fit within the hull.
Today’s modern cruise ships are ‘list’ of numerous dining and entertainment venues and numerous onboard public spaces and amenities, a shopping ‘list’ of what the cruise lines want to have on their new builds, then they figure out what kind of hull is best suited for this ‘list’. They don’t have to worry about cutting through the rough seas at 30 knots and brave the high winds frequently found of North Atlantic crossings, and focused on how open deck spaces and passenger spaces would be best used in ‘cruising’, not ‘crossing’.
That’s another reason transatlantic liners back then didn’t have 15,000 square foot spa facilities, decks and decks and decks of open balconies, more outdoor swimming pools, and 30 restaurants, bars, clubs, and lounges. Nobody wanted them and nobody would have used them, especially the balconies. The division of ocean liners, often into 3 distinct separate classes of passengers, made it impossible to have that many choices, now readily available to pretty much everyone on a single-class ship. Sure some modern cruise ships have a very small number of limited access spaces specifically for Suite guests, but they are very, very few in number when compared to the many other available options on a cruise ship. Old liners had a dining room and lounge area specifically for it’s 1st class, 2nd class, and 3rd class passengers, who also pretty much stayed in ‘their’ own area. Modern cruise ship passengers have access to the largest part of the entire ships public spaces.
Cruise ship passengers DO want tons of choices, balcony cabins among them. Advanced modular design and construction allows this, something that would have been very difficult at best if not impossible when building the old slipway-launched, built from framed steel ribs and steel plates riveted together from the keel up, ocean liners.
I agree that the grand ocean going transatlantic liners were more elegant and graceful in their design. Was this more or less a function of the aerodynamics required at 30 knots traveling in 10-15 foot seas in the North Atlantic? Cruise ships ‘cruise’ at an average of about 15 knots and in typically calmer waters, so the combination of the shopping ‘list” and function of a cruise ship more often than not dictate hull design.
Could their hull designs be more elegant and graceful? Sure! Look at the Disney ships. But apparently this logic in design doesn’t always work for the other 98% of the cruise lines and their fleets of ships. Look at MSC, Crystal, Celebrity Cruises and Royal Caribbean, NCL, and the Star Cruises new builds for NCL, all who build and design their own ships for the Caribbean, Mediterranean, Pacific, and World travel. They look like cruise ships, not ocean liners. Function over form in design took priority in their fleets. ’Lists’ of their ‘wants’ built into a purpose-built modern ‘cruising’ cruise ship hull.
David Walker
August 17, 2010 at 6:33 am
Case in point, an intersting article on the evolution and economics of form over function…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jun/23/ianjack.mainsection
…and a photo-journey of the post war reign and fall of the liners:
http://citynoise.org/article/10759/by/Franny%20Wentzel
P.C. Kohler
August 17, 2010 at 1:35 pm
We’ll agree to disagree… if anything, an ocean liner for the very reasons you cite… hull design, the provision of multiple classes etc., cargo handling… made them MORE challenging in many respects to design and build than a cruise ship. And they still looked a hell of a lot better for it. And there are modern cruise ships that aspire to something other than the boxed dreck of NORWEGIAN EPIC or the Mr. Potato Head VISTAs with their stick-on “signature elements” for every Carnival subsidiary.
“Form vs Function” is just a faddish excuse for lazy designers and insipid owners pandering to the lowest common denomitators and hoping no one notices and if they do, ensuring they are the ones who are made to feel odd for it. Surely we don’t have to extoll such dismal prospects yet alone revel in the fact that the market for cruises, DisneyWorld and Las Vegas are now co-mingled and indistinguishable from each other. Do I really care that more people go on cruises or that more of these wretched looking ships are built for them? And more to the point, should I?
Dave Lee
August 18, 2010 at 9:54 pm
A disgrace to the original 1940 RMS Queen Elizabeth. This new QE looks like any other cruise boat/ship/block of flats. I guess Marketing figures the average passenger won’t know anything about the history of Cunard, and sadly, they are right. I’ll stick with my goal to sail on board QM2 from New York to Southampton. This new tub is best to stick close to shore, and not exceed 12 knots under any circumstances…yikes!!!
David Walker
August 19, 2010 at 1:46 am
DAVID LEE: You really need a Cunard history lesson. Go back and read my posts and you’ll be surprised Cunard hasn’t been the ‘Cunard’ you think or fantasize of since the original Queens.
Everyone talks about the ‘outside’ appearance like it’s the MOST important aspect of cruising IN a ship. Last time i checked i didn’t spend a week sailing 300 yards behind or 500 feet above the ship so I could admire her profile.
The original Queen Elizabeth was in service for 29 years and carried roughly the same number of passenger as the new QE. Comparing the two the original Queen Elizabeth:
- Had no balconies
- Had no outdoor pools (until 25 years into her 29 year career)
- Had no air conditioning (until 12 years after her completion, almost half her career)
- Had no stabilizers (until 15 years after completion, half her career)
- Didn’t have bathrooms in every cabin
- Had 35 public rooms divided into three very distinct social-economic categories where you stayed, ate, and lounged and didn’t have access to the entire ship
- Was a financial failure the last 6 years of her career where it was even documented that on one transatlantic crossing the ship crew compliments of 1200 outweiged the 200 passengers the ship was carrying.
- Had to have her fuel capacity increased during one refit because he was a fuel hog.
- When transatlantic ‘crossing’ went the way of the dinosaur that she was becoming, she resorted to ‘cruising’ in the warm waters of the Caribbean where she failed and was retired in 1969.
So YES, the new Queen Elizabeth is a substantial bit of progress.
The original Queen Elizabeth was indeed a magnificent looking liner, but given that I like my ‘creature comforts’ I would take sailing in the new QE hands down over the old one.
David Walker
August 20, 2010 at 2:09 am
http://travel.usatoday.com/cruises/post/2010/08/cunard-line-queen-elizabeth-cruise-ship-fortnum-mason-mary/108918/1
P.C. Kohler
August 20, 2010 at 8:53 am
“Creature comforts”? RMS QUEEN ELIZABETH of 1940 compared to the new QE? Surely you cannot suggest First Class on QE c. 1950 would be some miserable experience say compared with even Grill class on the new QE! You might want to first compare a regular 1st class menu of 1950 with that of today. A request for “bacon” was greeted by “Which kind, sir?” (there were three). Or compare simple things like cutlery, glassware, napery.. no comparison. Or the sheer quality of the fittings and furnishings then vs. now. Like real wood. Silk. Bespoke British craftsmanship vs. mass produced, prefabricated tat. It’s like comparing a 1950 Jag with a 2010 Fiesta for heavens sake! Cunard c. 1950 when QE was at her youthful best was unrivalled, wholly British and the Standard of the World. To compare it with that of today and to suggest things are “better” strikes me as the height of absurdity. Who would trade a stupid balcony for a return to the true glories of Cunard in the mid fifties?
David Walker
August 20, 2010 at 4:14 pm
I am sure travelling on the luxurious RMS Queen Elizabeth circa 1950 was great if you were one of the elite 823 passengers in 1st Class. But what about the other 1,460 passengers in Cabin and Tourist Class? Or the ones that didn’t have a bathroom in their cabin and shared. Or being on the bottom passenger accomodation decks in the Summertime with no air conditioning? And looking at the 1st class areas on Queen Elizabeth is indeed impressive, but the Cabin and Tourist class areas were a bit more spartan and less glamorous, almost modest by comparison.
First Class Main Lounge
http://www.travelserver.net/travelpage/aspgallery/pictures/Ad_3510_1.jpg
Tourist Class Main Lounge
http://www.travelserver.net/travelpage/aspgallery/pictures/Ad_3510_2.jpg
And apparently it took more than just fine china and flatware, because less than 15 years after she entered regular passenger service things were starting to go downhill for her. She had to have been missing something for people to not want to travel on her as her passenger numbers continued to steadily decrease year after year. Maybe it was her menus? Even a topside pool and a/c came too late to save her.
If I am not mistaken the Wedgewood china and Waterford crystal used on todays Cunard fleet are the same companies that absorbed the Stuart crystal, Minton and Royal Doulton china companies used on early 20th century Cunarders like QE and QM. Gebruder Hepp used on todays Cunard fleet also made the stainless on many legacy lines of the early 20th century.
David Walker
August 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm
More compaisons
Showrooms
http://www.travelserver.net/travelpage/aspgallery/pictures/Ad_3510_3.jpg
Suites
http://www.travelserver.net/travelpage/aspgallery/pictures/Ad_3510_4.jpg
Garden Lounge (QE 1st Class only against new QE anyone can use)
http://www.travelserver.net/travelpage/aspgallery/pictures/Ad_3510_5.jpg
Kevin
August 22, 2010 at 7:07 pm
David,
Your posts advocate the here and now and the reasons of letting go of the past. I never advocated to returning to the past at all. I don’t see anything compelling orexciting about Carnival or its companies nor the Cunard theme. Everything stays within certain boundaries and while there are advantages to that it can be dangerous as well. To many synergies at CCL have resulted in a watered down effect for their entire operation. Nothing they build seems to generate any excitement (beyond what a PR department can generate). Something like the Epic generates anticipation when CCL’s assembly line of new vessels barely generates any recognition. on its own.
Carnival fails to excite, appears to think raising the bar too expensive with each new ship and milks what was done before to the point of nausea. With all those resources to constantly do the same thing over and over is a constant source of disappointment.
The silver lining is there are cruise lines who don’t think like Carnival and who get my business.
David Walker
August 23, 2010 at 6:12 am
EPIC is the first (and only) thing that has generated ANY excitment over at NCL since NORWAY was first brought into service 30 years ago. Same with Royal Caribbean and OASIS; the last 8 ships of theirs have either been Voyager-class or bloated versions of the same things. As previously mentioned that is exactly why they HAD to up their game because it was getting monotonous.
Now, whether Carnival Corporation gets any of “your” money specifically or not apparently hasn’t diminished the fact that their eleven cruise line brands and fleet of 96 ships (with another 10 on order) are still the most succesful cruise corporation on the planet carrying over ten million passengers every single year. Your contribution to their bottom line is like a grain of sand in the Sahara. Carnival Cruise Lines themselves have been quite successful with their client base in the current fleet of ships so there is not need for them to make a huge economical gamble and go into more debt (or barely make a profit) like Royal Caribbean and NCL.
————————————–
This report from the CBS Business Network:
According to its quarterly report, Royal Caribbean is up to its neck in debt by financing not one but two multibillion-dollar megaships and a small fleet of other new cruise ships. According to its SEC filing, 55% of Royal Caribbean’s long-term debt is on a “floating” interest rate, and starting in 2012, if its credit rating drops below BBB, it has to post collateral. (Currently, its rating is BB- with a negative outlook.) And despite the company saying things are picking up, the company said in its annual report that in 2009 total annual revenue was $5.9 billion, a 10% drop from $6.5 billion in 2008.
—————————————
For the most part CCL consumers are quite happy with a fleet of nice, new, clean, comfortable ships full of great bars and big pools, food that gets better reviews than RCCL, and entertainment that doesnt require a college education to understand.
And from a lot of reviews I have been reading the ‘Loyal Royals’ (as they like to call themselves) are fleeing RCCL in droves because of the cutbacks in Cutomer Service, loosing perks and amenities for the Diamond and Diamond Plus Members, and overall disatisfaction with the cruise line in general, OASIS being the exception. And ALLURE has failed to generate excitment because its just another OASIS, more of the same, just difference shows.
I have cruised Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Cunard, Princess, NCL, Holland-America, Celebrity, and Cruise West. I decide who gets my meager contribution not based on some misguided concept of corporate dislike, but who has the best deal, food, and service for the itinerary I am looking at. If its Carnival or any non-Carnival Corp subsidiary, doesnt bother me. As long as I get my monies worth, have a good time, and the ship doesnt sink.
Gavin Stewart
August 31, 2010 at 5:43 am
I fully see Cunard’s marketing ploy here with the 3 Queens thing but I would have much preferred to see Queen Mary 2 left as the only queen in the fleet with the two Vista ships being Caronia and Carinthia but then I suppose unless you’re an enthusiast the latter two names wouldnt have the same impact. I also wish that the PR machine would stop calling QE & QV ocean liners – they aren’t – they are cruise liners.
I’ve just come back from a 12 day cruise on QV and she is excellent. I personally like the Vista class design and am glad to read that QE will have some differences to QV as it would not have helped either vessel if their facilities were the same.