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.
Hank
August 7, 2010 at 6:23 am
Wow.
Glenn L.
August 7, 2010 at 7:06 am
A good looking ship but I like Holland America’s version – ocean elevators, gotta love that.
Jeff Taylor
August 7, 2010 at 9:42 am
Paul is very enthusiastic, but has his facts a bit scrambled, i.e. the Queens Mary and Elizabeth debuted in 1936, and QM2 has a Veranda (Grille/Restaurant?) for Princess and Queen category cabins only in lieu of a Todd English extra charge restaurant????? Oh well, I guess the thought is what counts.
Stephen Bonds
August 7, 2010 at 11:49 am
Ugh — another block of flats on a container ship. I know the whole idea behind building them this way, but they’re soooo damn ugly compared to the ships of the early to mid 20th Centruy. Isn’t there a compromise?
Kalle Id
August 7, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Speaking of mistakes made by Mr Motter in the text, he also repeats the incorrect claim that Carnival’s (and Costa’s) Spirit class would be based on the Vista class. Yet the first Spirit class ship (which was in fact the Costa Atlantica) was built two years before by the first Vista, by a completely different shipyard. Where the claim that these classes are related has started I do not know, but I bugs me (particularly as the Spirits were the last cruise ships built in my home town).
Regardless of the mistakes, the new QE seems to be turning into a worthy ship. Now if they’d only named her something different…
Peter Knego
August 7, 2010 at 2:51 pm
To his credit, Paul is one of the few top cruise writers who actually cares about the subject, enjoys classic ships and doesn’t recycle company-issued press releases. And he is the first to admit he is not a “nuts and bolts” technical writer. I think his preview of the ELIZABETH provides all of us a nice opportunity to see what the ship will be like.
Nigel Robinson
August 7, 2010 at 3:13 pm
yet another ugly block of flats, she does not refect the name of what was once a British company she belongs with the carnival fleet not Cunard. Lets have some real Cunard names Carmania, Caronia and aquitania just to name a few.
Mike
August 7, 2010 at 7:41 pm
@Kalle Id: The vistas are actually based on the Spirit class, not the other way around….
In regards to your ‘different shipyard’ comment, I believe ships don’t need to be built in the same yard to be ‘sisters.’ Take the famous examples of Lusitania/Mauretania and Bremen/Europa.
Just my two cents…. have a great day everyone!
Kevin
August 7, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Was the Queen Elizabeth supposed to surprise us? Or even prove to be interesting somehow? If we emerge from the “ocean liner” press releases P&O/Princess would like us to believe ( enough with the Cunardia, its almost entirely on loan anyway). We have yet another Vista (what number is this?) designed, decorated and operated by another Carnival owned company. The only thing British about these ships are the letters slapped on the Vista hull. It’s not like a UK designer came aboard to design a public room or bar. That blasphemy is the equavilent of actually fitting these “ocean liners” with real teak decking. Seriously, Mr. Arison could float Cunard a loan for the installation and with all the new charges they are implementing make that expense up at a snap. At the end of the day it seems like Therese Anderson is running the McDonald’s of ship interior design with all the brands going to the same drive through window for their pre-packaged interiors.
In the end nobody can diss Carnival’s financial success. It does appear originality and difference are simply too expensive for them. Then again why deviate from a plan when mediocrity has proven to be so profitable?
David Walker
August 7, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Big surprise. More people whining that this new Cunarder doesn’t look like the grand liners from 60, 70, and 80 years ago. Probably the same whiners that proclaimed Norwegian Epic a ‘failure’ before she even hit Miami. Wrong again! EPIC is getting great reviews! Now, has anyone cruised on the new Queen Elizabeth? Eaten in her dining venues? Walked her decks, promenades, or used the spa? Seen the shows or swam in the pools? No? When will you get it that every cruise ship built in this 21st century won’t ever look like the Normandie or Norway? The cruising public doesn’t give two cents on what the exterior looks like. It IS about was in on the INSIDE that counts 99% of the time. Period. End of sentence. The Oasis of the Seas is a bug ugly bloated tub but she is immensely popular commanding high fares and people are spending big dollars on her, and writing amazing reviews of her success! Only ship-o-philes care about exterior design, then broadcast the same pitiful laments on how ‘it looks like a block of flats’ or use every synonym for the word ‘ugly’ every time a new build hits the high seas. Lame, Lame, Lame! If you hate the design so much, become a marine architect! Whine, whine, whine. When the new Queen Elizabeth comes back from her World Cruise THEN we’ll know exactly how ACTUAL passengers are taken by this new Cunarder. Criminy, until they build an EXACT replica of the Normandie some of you won’t ever be happy!
Kalle Id
August 8, 2010 at 9:16 am
@Mike: True that sister ships can and have been built at different shipyards (even during the last decade). However, it is my understanding that the designer(s) – more often than not the cruise line and the shipyard – retain rights to the designs they have drawn up. In order for Fincantieri to build a ship to designs drawn in part by (now-)STX’s design department, they would need STX’s permission. Which they’d be extremelym unlikely to get, thanks to STX being Fincantieri’s arch rivals in the cruise ship building business.
Kevin
August 8, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Dave Walker: The problem with your arguement is both RCL and NCL thought way outside the box with their ships. Carnival has over and over recycled every aspect of cruise ship design. It might not be so disappointing if there were not so many of them around in different paint schemes. And the Cunard Vistas might not be so annoying if they actually had any say in them, they’re all done by P&O/Princess. Vista looks and gives the impression of the LTD Crown Victoria, solid and reliable..but dull and boring.
Glenn L.
August 8, 2010 at 2:49 pm
I ‘ve actually sailed HAL’s Noordam (vista) for a total of one month onboard. I’ve sailed Carnival Miracle (spirit) for 16 days tot. They are very different vessels interior wise. Noordam being loaded with beautiful artwork carrying fewer pax and Miracle being loaded with glitz and hauling more pax, I enjoyed the flow of both ships immensely.
Elizabeth will no doubt be appointed with Cunard style but her hull is a well tested and successful design, there is no shame in that. Cunard on the other hand cannot afford to build -ONE OFF- ships, it’s just not economicaly feasable. In my opinion the Vista is a well balanced design but the interior is teller of tales-We’ll see ….
Bob
August 8, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Thanks for the update. I am appreciative Cunard through a corporate takeover by Carnival has survived. Prior to merger, Cunard management was not a bright bulb operation. The new Queen’s profile differs from QV, and while it’s a shake and bake, the ships of today are in keeping with their business intent. When passenger movement by sea was a line-haul scheduled business hulls had to be different. Today’s ships are at once different and the same. Their sea-keeping is better than the old Queen Mary, that pig and she was a pig would roll in a bathtub. The girl had no manners at all. Try that in today’s competitive market. Nah, ships, after expensive men’s suits are Italys best export.
Kevin
August 8, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Glenn, Interiorwise Cunard’s product is done by its own competition, P&O/Princess. Externally Cunard’s Vistas are the same as the rest sailing. So if Cunard has no say on its look inside or out, where is Cunard then?
David Walker
August 8, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Hi Kevin: I personally think RCCL and NCL had to think way outside the box with OASIS and EPIC because their demographic markets required something besides yet another Freedom-class or Jewel-class. They needed to ‘up’ their game significantly to keep things interesting. The Cunard crowd if nothing else may appreciate more consistency in product with these two sister ships hull designs and layout, the changes in the ships interior decors being the biggest appeal in the difference in the way they ‘feel’. The dedicated Cunard crowd, those that actually sail Cunard on a regular basis, really don’t care that new QE is a modified Vista, but they do care about the public spaces inside. The overwhelming consensus of loyal Cunard fans is that they love the QV and are eagerly awaiting, and really like what they see, in the new QE. People forget that the old QE2 disappointed quite a few with her dated spaces and interior decor in the last years of her life because she was being unfairly compared to the newer QM2. Many booked the QE2 solely because of her ‘legend’ status. I had heard the standard array of negative comments about the Queen Victoria (how dare they replace the QE2 with a clone!) before she came into service, but once people sailed in QV their story changed and they loved and appreciated the ‘feel’ and amenities on the QV compared to the dated QE2 and the other Vista-class ships of Holland-America, etc. It is a shame Cunard couldn’t build two completely different hulls for these ships, but when all is said and done I am quite sure both will be completely successful and satisfying for the market they are geared to.
Allen Pellymounter
August 9, 2010 at 9:38 am
I could not have said it better than David Walker… So, I am not going to try.
Joseph Sturges
August 9, 2010 at 9:43 am
Cookie Cutter ships, while more economical to build off a standard design, do nothing but increase the number of berths at seas. You can paint them up in the storied Cunard colors, but they look like most every other newbuild…only the livery harkens back to the days of real ships like QUEEN MARY, QUEEN ELIZABETH, AMERICA, NIEUW AMSTERDAM, ILE DE FRANCE and LEONARDO DA VINCI.. It’s now all about the money…get the most bodies crammed into a questionably designed ship, provide a plethory of venues in which to spend money, and “If you build it, they will come” becomes the corporate mantra. Even the propulsion sysems take up less space to allow “steerage reborn” to exist on the lower decks.
Egad, money isn’t everything!
David Walker
August 9, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Joseph: until the advent of routine non-stop commercial transatlantic flights these grand liners were about the only way to cross. After 1960 the death knoll sounded and they went the way of the dinosaurs that they were. For a while some of them struggled badly to cross over to cruising, but their downfall was the shear lack of creature comforts, amenities, and deck space required even then of passengers cruising in the warmer Caribbean weather. So they went away.
And for every classic liner you mentioned there were probably another ten that weren’t well known, doing the actual hard work of moving people across the ocean in less than glamorous surroundings. After the transatlantic liners and steamers died off so almost did the idea of cruising until it was more or less popularized by the TV show The Love Boat. The rest is ‘new’ history. No one cared to sail on the old ships still hanging around, and the industry cranked out dozens of sparkling new white cruise ships fitted out with what was important to the NEW vacationing masses, not of and for the North Atlantic crossings. Evolution of design through another three decades was required, and also of all of the amenities that kept those vacationers happy, eventually being carbon copied onto most every modern cruise ship of today.
I am sure folks in the 1890′s fussed about the giant scary ships of the 1910′s, and their successors reminisced about the good old days when the behemoths of the 30′s and 40′s were launched, and their successors again when the new modern liners of the 60′s were born how they lacked class compared to the Queens and Normandie.
Every generation has it’s requirement of travel, and today’s generations require exactly what you see being built. And that’s the way it will be for the foreseeable future whether ship historians like it or not.
John Fostik
August 9, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Bravo Nigel:
And here I was the only one thinking that it would be nice to have a Cunarder with a name other than Queen. My dream is to live long enough to see a fourth Cunarder ( why does P&O get to have all the tonnage?). Then would it be Aquitania, Mauretania, Caronia, Franconia? What’s the chances?
CF48
Peter Newall
August 9, 2010 at 2:57 pm
How many of you would still like to drive the car you had 10 years ago? I certainly would not as I like all the customer improvements. Cars are man-made objects just like ships and have a limited life span. They are also built in a competitive environment and the companies who make them are not there as charities. They are businesses and businesses have to make money to continue. Shipping is no different. It is a business and needs to please its customers profitably. That is how it has always been and always will be and without the likes of Cunard, Kylsant, Ismay, Arison etc, we would have no ships and would not be chatting on this site…………Peter who first went on a passenger liner in 1957 and loves Norwegian Epic!
Kevin
August 9, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Hi David,
To be clear I never said Carnival should build the Cunard brand 2 one off vessels. To be honest the Vista isn’t bad looking, if it there were only a couple used. To say Carnival couldn’t build one thing externally singular for the Cunard Vistas to me is sheer lazyness of Carnival to open up the wallet.
Beyond the over use externally very little if anything internally is Cunard. P&O/Princess run the show from service to the ship’s design. Cunard comes across as a theme these days than an actual cruise line.
While a signifigant investment I can’t help but feel all these Vistas a lazy ends to a means. It seems like CCL has made mediocrity fashionable..and left innovation to the comeptition. Originality isn’t something I associate with Mr. Arison, it’s too expensive.
Sean
August 9, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Well I for one am looking forward to seeing the new Queen Elizabeth sail up Southampton Water for the first time in October.
I am born and bred from Southampton and work in the Port of Southampton on behalf of Cunard in the port and after speaking to Captain McNaught he is very happy to be in command of QV even though he was very sad to leave QE2.
Times change and it is alot easier for Carnival/Cunard to have similar vista ships as it makes the operation alot easier to run.
I miss QE2 especially her horn which can not be beaten, my grandfather worked for Cunard for 51 years and I joined Cunard on QE2 when I was 18 in 1983 so have fond memories of her but she was really outdated by the time she was decommisioned as David Walker says it quite rightly in the last years of service most passengers sailed on QE2 for her ‘legend’ status!
Although a vista class ship the new QE interior spaces will look very impressive and set her apart from QV.
David Walker
August 9, 2010 at 10:11 pm
I am curious. To those who think these new Cunarder’s don’t look like ‘Cunard’, what does Cunard ‘look’ like. Surely the Cunard of Samuel Cunard’s day (1840) looked different than the Cunard of the late 1890′s, and different than that of the 1930′s and again of the 1960′s and 70′s, and that of the 21st century? Even the Queens Mary and Elizabeth looked different on the inside, an other than traditional Cunard paint scheme looked different on the outside as well. Mary had ugly cluttered decks with funnel stay wires and massive ventilators everywhere, Elizabeth didn’t with her beautifully sweeping clean profile. Cunard in it’s last century of service even had widely different shaped bows, sterns, and smokestacks. Surely exterior design doesn’t define Cunard?
What about the ‘Green Goddess’ Caronia? She wasn’t even the right colors other than her smokestack! She was GREEN! So was the Carmania. GREEN! And what about the white hulled ‘penguin smokestack’ twins Cunard Adventurer and Ambassador, and the sisters Countess and Princess when compared side by side against the legendary QE2? Was one of the ‘more’ Cunard than the other? Or the Carpathia and Media against the Lusitania, Berengaria, and Aquitania? Or the much loved Sagafjord and Vistafjord with their gray hulls, the yacht-like Sea Goddess I and II, and the white hull of the Royal Viking Sun. All were ‘Cunard’. Surely Cunard isn’t defined by exterior paint schemes, funnel colors, or ship design. Most of all the ships above had nothing in common other than maybe black hulls and red smokestacks, except of course all of the numerous exceptions mentioned. Some didn’t have RED smokestacks! Even QE2 had a dove gray hull paint scheme at one time. Did that make her less ‘Cunard’? Or is Cunard defined by interior decor? Surely every single ship mentioned above, and then some, were different on the inside depending on the decade and era they were built and the commanding decor of the day?
What about service? Surely the service varied from ship to ship, decade to decade? I am sure the staff uniforms were different as well as time marched on.
So what really defines CUNARD? Or has it been an ‘idea’, a ‘concept’, or maybe only in ‘name’ for decades and and a hundred years already?
What to YOU defines ‘Cunard’?
Cruises Fan
August 10, 2010 at 7:24 am
I think the Cunard ships are some of the best lookings of our times. I love the red funnel which is unique to Cunard. Comared to some of the monsters we have seen recently such as Norwegian Epic the Queen Elizabeth looks magnificent.
Nigel
August 10, 2010 at 10:09 am
With regards to new cruise ships I for one love the old classic passenger ships, but do not expect new cruise ships to look the same. Just would like them look at least better looking Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are ugly but may be nice in side.I bet they will not last as long as QE2 she may have been dated in her last years but hundreds if not thousands loved her and still do.I for one would not rush to see these two Cunarders arrive if i had the chance. These large cruise ships are new Titanic waiting to happen they said in 1912 that Titanic was unsinkable (really quote was nearly unsinkable). No body should under estmate the power of the sea what ever you sail in.
David Walker
August 10, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Nigel: most modern cruise ships built today have an expected life span of approximately 30 years. QE2 was in service for 39 years. A lot of the ships built in the beginning of the new wave of cruise ships in 1985 are still around, 25 years later. QM2 suuposedly has an expected life span of +40 years. In comparison the SSUS was in service 17 years, laid up for 42 years. France/Norway in service 42 years, Queen Mary in service 31 years, Michelangelo and Rafaello only 10 years in service!
Scott
August 10, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I am really disappointed at my first look of the new Queen. She looks like a carbon copy of the Victoria, which looks like a carbon copy of the Carnival Spirit Class, which looks like a carbon copy of the HAL Vista Class. I know they are all the same owners, but Cunard has always been in my mind, been a step up than the other two. Cunard ships were always unique in design, which lead to them having their own character. While I am sure the two ships will vary on the inside, millions will never see the inside of either ship and their outward appreance says nothing of the spirit of the ship. I expect “cookie cutter” from almost every other line, not Cunard. Sorry on design I have to give this one a big “F” for failure to be creative. The name Queen Elizabeth itself invokes granduer on the seas, bearing her pedigree of those who sailed before her. They have taken that pedigree and turned it into a mutt.
David Walker
August 11, 2010 at 9:50 am
Wow. Another person ‘really disappointed’ in a ship still 2 months from completion, unpainted, and completely covered on the inside by obscuring protective materials and scaffolding. Two months from completion the Queen Mary 2 was a mess. And to everyone but ship-o-philes the name ‘Queen Elizabeth’ evokes absolutely nothing, save maybe the ruling monarch of England. Even then they’d be technically incorrect. Until you see the finished product I just can’t imagine how anyone can lay a ‘judge, jury, and executioner’ verdict based on what Cunard ‘should be’ in your mind. Cunard has had 53 ships since 1900, 19 since 1950, and 12 since QE2 was built. I bet none of you can tell me what Cunard should be based on the actual last dozen ships in the line? Or do you even remember the last 12 ships since 1970? They literally had nothing in common save the fact that some were twins(!!!) and the ‘Cunard’ name, and none of them ‘looked’ like Cunard on the outside. Or are you basing it on some ‘fantasy’ from 70 year old imagery? There for a while through the late 80′s and 90′s Cunard was a bit of a running joke compared to the heyday of the legendary Queens. None of their ships save maybe QE2 ‘looked’ like what people ‘thought’ Cunard should be. Even QE2 started off with a pencil thin white and black smokestack! QE2 went through so many facelifts, including her funnel it isnt even funny. But everybody always harkens back to the Queens Mary and Elizabeth like that was the standard that should be maintained into the 21st century. Wake up folks. This is 2010, not 1940. For a history refresher look at the last dozen ships of CUNARD and seriously tell me they ‘envoke’ the ‘Cunard’ thats in your mind?.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunard_Line#1929.E2.80.93present
Nigel Robinson
August 11, 2010 at 10:03 am
Scott,
Quite agree with you Cunard Line was the Roll Royce of shipping now they are at the same level as most cruise companies. If they had been British owned this may have never happened. Plus Queens names may never have been used. The old Queen Mary was named Queen Mary partly because White star and Cunard line emerged, so it had been decided to use a name not ending with IA or IC. Regarding cruise ships built in 1985 I would expect most cruise ships to be around for 30 years and QM2 was built to last sadly not built in British waters as she should have been.
David Walker
August 11, 2010 at 10:09 am
Here’s some more imagery from 1971-present representing the most recent dozen ships of the CUNARD fleet.
http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/CunardLine.html
Kevin
August 11, 2010 at 9:03 pm
David,
QE’s images have been out for months. The exteriors are QV images recycled and the interiors are also QV. Somebody at Princess Photoshopped the color blue on the original Vicky interiors as somebody at the Princess design department thought it was clever to adopt the original QE color theme on this Vista.
What generates annoyance with Princess/P&O (who designed QV and QE and run much of Cunard). Is that Carnival time again recycles what they have done before, repackages it slightly, and expects people to be impressed with the effort. The continued frugalness on growing levels of design and service. And the “ocean liner” theme as designed by Princess shows a parent company who isn’t willing to step up to the plate and give 100% of themselves. It would be incredibly easy to re-assign all three “ocean liners” under the Cunard theme to anywhere else in the company. With no voice or legs of their own Cunard themed vessels come off as the weakest in CCL. Hell, Norwegian Epic actually generated anticipation before her arrival. Something a Carnival ship hasn’t done in a very long time.
The QE Vista will be adequate I’m sure..but as interesting as an old pair of shoes.
Croix Picoriello
August 11, 2010 at 9:36 pm
My my.. the debate rages once again. For better or worse I have come to accept that daring new designs, like Norwegian Epic or Oasis Of the Seas, are fewer and far between. We wont see again the sweeping lines of the Norway/France, QE2, Canberra or Leonardo Da Vinci.
However, as a former and future employee on Queen Victoria, I can tell you that the guests fell in love with her. As was stated above, the Cunard repeat guest is a bit of an odd bird. Many of the guests on World Cruise 2009, had done QE2 in 2008, and were skeptical and tentative about the new kid on the block. After settling in, the common comment was, well she certainly isnt the QE2, but you know, Im getting used to her. She is easy to get around.. (easier than QM2). She is a manageable size comapred to QM2, and everyone seems to be sooo friendly on board and making our adjustments go smoothly. On passenger, who had been on several circumnavigations, caught me in the passageway and chatted me up.. and was so thrilled with her HUGE 1 Deck inside cabin. She said even though there was the infamous “drawer” issue, she felt she had sooo much room vs similar cabins on QE2, which often were no bigger the broom closets with facilities.
The hype for QE 2010, started back in early 2009 on QV. And although only people who arent paying attention cant see that its just different touches for certain rooms, there is no arguing that they are excited about the new ship. I must say IMHO the QV wll have the exterior looks hands down, with her stepped aft decks and no Bowling Green on Deck 11, I am excited to see just WHAT they come up with with this HOMAGE to the Queens Mary, Elizabeth and QE2. It’s full of potential. So I will see you all at the 3 Queens arrival in NYC?? Ill be freezing my arse off on Deck 9 forward showing my non US coworkers the NYC skyline while we sail in..
In the mean time.. everyone play nice with all your different opinions..
Cheers Croix
Scott
August 11, 2010 at 10:15 pm
David,
You seem to think I know nothing of shipbuilding or design to be qualified to make an opinion. In fact I have worked in the industry for over 10 years and I am able to envision what a ship looks like, just by looking at her lines on a blueprint. The new QE is nothing remarkable on the outside, her outward appearance looks very much like her sister, Victoria and looks similar to the other cookie cutters Carnival Corp has produced over the past 10 years + .
You mentioned the Cunard ships 1971 to present. I recall all of them and have had the privledge to see them all, either in Cunard livery or another they have worn. The key fact you forgot in your argument is that all of those ships, with the exception of QM2 were not built by Cunard and therefore Cunard had no say in their design. You are correct that QE2 went through several revisions, including a white hull, black stack and even different shaped funnel. These however were done as improvements to a Cunard design.
The QE is almost done, 9 weeks away is short time span and there is enough paint on her, enough scaffold removed and enough done that I can clearly see she is both disappointing in style and lacks individuality that we have come to expect with a Cunard design. To clarify, I am not holding on to some 70 or 80 year old expection of what a liner should be, or a Cunader at that, I am basing my opinion on the idea that it appears Cunard ( Carnival) didn’t make a solid attempt at making the QE distinctive. For months we saw bow on view paintings and sketches when the company promoted the ship, not unlike we saw with the promotion of QM2 and Victoria. In those cases it added mystery and excitment to a new design. I am beggining to wonder if that was solid marketing and the consistancy of a campaign, or an avoidance of outcries of the Cunard faithful when they saw their new ship would look exactly like the one previously built ( for a third time if you count the original QV that became the Arcadia).
While the many repeat cruisers have taken well to the Victoria in the absence of QE2. I can’t see the same reception to QE. Yes, she will have her fans, but when you see the two ships together and the only distinction between them outwardly is one bow says Elizabeth and the other says Victoria. The two will with no doubt lose the individualty Cunard has been known for and will begin to look like Dodge Island on a Sat in Miami.
Scott
David Walker
August 12, 2010 at 12:00 am
CROIX: Well said from the perspective of someone who KNOWS the Cunard clientele and who has actually been on Cunard ships.
SCOTT: Well said from the perspective of someone who KNOWS exterior design and nothing of what ‘actual’ Cunard clientele want or like.
Go back and read SEAN’s post. Someone who actually served on QE2. I know people who sailed on QE2 in her last years and all agree, despite her ‘legend’ status, she was dated and run down and well past her prime, and it was time for her to make a graceful exit.
If Cunard were still British owned there wouldn’t BE any Cunard. That’s why they took so many hand-me-down ships after QE2 because they were on the verge of virtual and financial extinction and limped along until Carnival Corp saved the company with a massive injection of money and the QM2, which if it hadn’t been for Carnival would not exist, and neither would Cunard.
Many of the Cunard loyals didn’t just ‘take to the QV in absence of the QE2′. QV earned their admiration despite QE2. Many who were very hesitant of the new QV, being QE2 loyalist, fell in love with QV and found many things in QV that subtly reminded them of the aging liner.
Despite what ‘exterior design enthusiasts’ say and lament based on a second modified Vista as a Cunard ship, the actual anticipation for the new QE is quite evident among actual Cunard guests, as evident in her sold out cruises and the chatter in dedicated Cunard ‘chat rooms’. And their are TWO massive visual differences between QV and QE. I am surprised you haven’t caught it yet. Maybe you are still looking at old artist renditions?
Speaking of artist renditions, they in now way can replace actual pictures of the completed project, just like looking at blueprints can’t give an actual feel of what it is like to walk thru a finished 3-dimensional ship, complete with artwork, ambiance, an passengers.
David Walker
August 12, 2010 at 2:04 am
Another ‘I am just curious’ question to those who think that the British institution of CUNARD isnt ‘what it used to be’ (i.e. the Rolls Royce of shipping).
There have been exactly only 8 ships built of Cunard since the 1940 debut of the original Queen Elizabeth until the time of QE2. Thats 8 ships in 3 decades, all but two built within the first half (1940-1955) of that 30 year time span. Heck, to bring up another point they werent even built in England, they were built in Scotland. Still the UK, I know, but Scotland isn’t really ‘British’ with the pip pip and cheerio, is it?
To continue. Looking at the hull designs of this stunning 8-ships-in-30-year ‘Rolls Royce’ reign of Cunard on the high seas, most of them somewhat resembled miniature QE’s with exception of different funnel design and/or a green paint job. Heck to begin with some were even a step up from the Queens, with the introduction of an outdoor swimming pool and a bathroom in every cabin, and eventually complete air conditioning (something the QM didnt have for 10 years!).
Even then the Queen Mary’s design was criticized for being too traditional especially when the Normandie’s hull was so revolutionary with a clipper shaped, beautifully streamlined bow and stunning stern. Except for QM’s cruiser stern, she really seemed only to be just an enlarged version of her Cunard predecessors from the pre World War I era! Sounds like using a repeat concept in hull design to me!
By the very early 1960s other cruise lines and shipping companies were catching up with Cunard and building their own purpose-built cruise ships, which in addition to being better equipped than the newer Caronia (which had been since better modified for cruising) the other cruise lines new builds were better suited for cruising than any of Cunards fleet had ever been. And by now (the very early 60′s), in addition to the Queens being badly outdated relics of the pre-war years, the entire Cunard fleet was operating at a financial loss and at reduced capacity in the England-Canada and England-US transatlantic routes, their ‘bread and butter’. Eventually under a combination of old age, lack of public interest, inefficiency in a new market (‘cruising’ instead of ‘crossing’), and the damaging after-effects of the national seamen’s strike, Cunard announced that both Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth would be retired from service and sold off. Cunard even mortgaged the majority of the remaining fleet they had at the time to build QE2. So here we have it. By the mid-60′s Cunard was badly outdated, outmatched, struggling financially, and mortaged their fleet to build a single new ship.
Does all of this say ‘Rolls Royce of the shipping industry’ to you? Not to me! Cunards history is anything but the glamorous fantasy some of you think it was.
Even after QE2 was built they took hand me downs from other shipyards, cruise lines, and from absorbing NAL because they were so financilly strapped they couldnt afford to design or build anything new.
And by 1994 the flagship of Cunard, now 25 year olds, was so outdated she needed a massive interior refurbishent to keep up with the times and every single interior space was re-done. She still had the same hull design, just her outdated old interiors were still there from the decades past. Only then with a revitalised interior did QE2 reflect the great ‘Ocean Liners of yester-year’ concept. And even after Carnival bought Cunard they invested another $30 million to refurbish and update the aging QE2 still yet again with newer and bigger suites as well as more interior updates and modifications. Thats got to tell you that ‘interior’ trumps ‘exterior’ every time!
Cunard indeed has a ‘legacy’ to protect for all of you ship historians. But the legacy pretty much died with the original Queens, and whatever fantasy you have that Cunard ‘should be’, is not based on the reality of the last 50 years of financial and competitive struggle, hand-me-downs, and an outdated and aging fleet.
David Walker
August 12, 2010 at 4:15 am
Before I withdraw from this tete-a-tete conversation, one point I would like to reiterate and condense is that from the time of the 1957 Sylvania (the last of the four Saxonia quartet), up to the time of the QE2 in 1969, and finally until the introduction of the (Carnival Corp’s financed) QM2, Cunard in of itself had only one single solitary new build in that 47 year time span. ONE, in almost FIVE decades of operation! Only ONE. Now they will have three of their largest passenger ships EVER built, and all of this in only the last 6 years of operation. Clones or not, that in of itself speaks volumes.
Kevin
August 12, 2010 at 7:20 am
David,
This “Sold Out” maiden voyage hype is total Carnival bunk. Here is what really happened. Princess Cruises, who handles much of Cunard’s marketing and takes all their reservations, offered to VIP customers (not guests) of the Cunard theme and VIP travel agents advance reservations. Now here is the clinch..what was LEFT OVER was sold to the public..which made this “record sold out maiden voyage” bunk. Easy to sell whats left when a good chunk of it was already sold!
Massive differences on QE? There is the game space above the bridge and the “Winter Garden”..both of which might actually have redeeming uses on these Cunard themed ships. The barge like stern makes QE look as horrible as Eurodam and Nieuw Amsterdam..just an oversized floating barge and hardly unique.
I know there are many people who are looking forward to QE and actually enjoy the Cunard theme. Like other companies Carnival acquires Cunard has lost that little something that made them special. And for me, second choice.
gerry s
August 12, 2010 at 12:17 pm
She looks like another clone of Holland America’s ‘Dam sisters, Carnival’s newer ships, and P&O’s new ships, but this one seems to be wearing a tiara !
David Walker
August 12, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Oh, and one other last note (maybe).
People always like to throw out there that Carnival ruined Cunard when their discussion has nothing else to fall back on.
After only one new build in almost 50 years, and a mismatched fleet of a dozen hand-me-down ships, Cunard was already well into it’s own downward spiral, financially and in the public eye. By time Carnival purchased (saved) Cunard in 1998, Cunard was already an embarrassment to itself and driven into the ground by the mismanagement of Trafalgar House and Kvaerner, loosing tens upon tens of millions of dollars every year, and had dwindled from 13 to a fleet of 5 mismatched ships: the 29 year old QE2, the 25 year old Vistafjord, the two Sea Goddess yachts, and the 10 year old Royal Viking Sun. Carnival transferred the two yachts and the RV Sun to their Seabourn division and operated Cunard as a two ship line: the QE2 and Vistafjord turned Caronia. They started the new QM2 project and subsequently replaced the aging 31 year old Caronia with the largest liner in history, the QM2, selling Caronia to Saga. Three years later came the QV, and the near 40 year old QE2 was rightfully retired. Now with the new QE, Cunard will have the largest number of new builds since 1957 (53 years), as well as their largest passenger ships ever.
I fail to see how that has ruined Cunard. No one wanted Cunard when it was first put up for sale before Carnival bought it. That’s how bad it was. Carnival if nothing else saved Cunard from eventual bankruptcy and probable liquidation by Kvaerner, and this 30-year old slow downward spiral of a failing company for the first time since the mid-1950s had a clear mission to become again a premium market brand that operates large vessels, a mission plan similar to what Cunard had been in 1940.
Kevin
August 12, 2010 at 4:29 pm
David,
Not sure where you are addressing your posts. for me. I view carnival as lazy and the over managed Cunard theme by Princess as an easy means to an end.
Innovation and difference is simply too expensive for Carnival, and it shows.
David Walker
August 12, 2010 at 8:36 pm
KEVIN: The point of all my posts, whether directed at you or not, is that Cunard is not the magical, mystical British establishment people think it is, that it may have had that legacy during the 30′s-60′s but that it died with the Queens, and that Cunard struggled badly with an identity crisis for several decades, and struggled even worse financially to the brink of extinction until one company set it back on track. You obviously dont like Cunard more so based on the exterior design of the ships than the interior decor. Using the expression ‘Cunard themed ships’ would very aptly describe its transition during the almost thirty years from 1969-1998 with its hand-me-down inconsistentcy in fleetmates, whether they had any say it their building or design or not. Even QE2 looked nothing like ‘Cunard’ when she first came out, either exteriorly or interior decor. She was modern space-age plastic art deco if nothing else. At least at this point Cunard has consistency and direction, and the financial backing of the largest cruise company on the planet. Cunard ships are not built and designed to appease maritime architect enthusiasts. Cunard ships are designed and built for and geared to Cunard passengers, both loyalists and a new breed of Cunard guests who dont care about rock climbing walls, ice skating rinks, giant 40 feet tv screens at the pool, aqua parks and water slides, and whatever gimmicks and ‘innovations’ are required to attract clients to the main stream mass markets ships. Cunard is far better off now than it has been in the past 50 years, whether you see it or not.
Kalle Id
August 13, 2010 at 4:34 am
David: While Cunard might not be a magical, mystical British establishment, it does seem to me that that is the image Cunard’s owners are trying to give of the company these days (and I say this not as an expert in the cruise business, just a member of the public with an interest in passenger ships and their histories). Building not one but two ships based on the Vista class (with very little modification) for a brand that’s marketed as a traditional and special institution does seem lazy to me. Especially when they followed hot on the heels of QM2 which was and is a special ship by all counts.
Did Carnival save Cunard? Probably yes, although I do think you’re being somewhat unfair on Kvaerner; they did have good intentions (and they did have plans for a newbuilding to become the QE2′s running mate and eventual replacement). But for Carnival to adopt the same strategy they’re using for most of their other brands (put a different-shaped funnel on the same hull and you have a ship of a different brand – I’m exaggerating here of course) does diminish the speciality value they have tried to build for Cunard.
Building another QE2 or Normandie is obviously not an option (and as Philip Dawson notes in one of his books, an exact copy of the Normandie wouldn’t work for today’s cliente). But it would have been fairly easy (and cheap) to build the QV and QE with, say, forward superstructures different from the generic Vista design. These could have been inspired by past Cunarders (just as the QM2 was) and it would have been a fairly easy way to set apart the Cunard Vistas from the rest.
That I guess was my two cents. I don’t feel qualified to comment on the interior design of any of these (sans perhaps that based on photographs I personally liked the QE2′s “plastic space age” interiors, but that’s really besides the point),
David Walker
August 13, 2010 at 9:25 am
Kalle Id: Don’t forget that after the two giant Queens of 1936 and 1940 Cunard purpose built 4 Saxonia-class ships specifically for transatlantic crossings with no real little difference in design other than interior decor and later a green paint job. They were built the same because this “reflected the economics and travel patterns of the post-war world”. Building ‘clones’ is not just a Carnival ‘thing’.
Thank You also for bringing up Kvaerner’s good intentions to at least try and make something of Cunard, but I believe this was more the result of having absolutely no buyers when they first put Cunard up for sale and after having no takers, were more or less stuck with them. But there was only a short two year time span between their purchase of Trafalgar House and the subsequent sale of Cunard to Carnival Corp, this in which the rapid and numerous acquisitions of Kvaerner had brought financial and economic hardship to that company. Kvaerner would not commit to maintaining the Cunard fleet which at that time was in bad need of updating and repairs, and the question of selling or scrapping the fleet was reportedly brought up several times at Kvaerner board meetings. However, this option was less appealing than a resale of Cunard.
Kvaerner then implemented plans to streamline the company’s holdings including again, the sale of the Cunard Line, eventually going to Carnival Corporation.
So I think Kvaerner’s efforts during their two years of ownership were more or less to spruce up the ‘image’ of Cunard rather than to actually add to the Cunard fleet.
P.C. Kohler
August 13, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Despite all of this hopeful extolling of “contemporary” cruising and that QE is built for 2010 not 1910, etc etc, why is it that Cunard eschews the modern and the contemporary when it comes to the interiors? It’s the same old dog’s breakfast of random ocean liner deco dreck they served up with QM2 and QV and a total misconnect with the exterior. If retro “works”, wouldn’t it work better inside and out? At least they got the name right and we were spared the nonsense of a QUEEN ELIZABETH 3. But in the end, who cares? It’s just another Vista class cruise ship afterall, at least HAL’s have teak promenades.
David Walker
August 13, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Queen Elizabeth out on Sea Trials today as from this AIS screen grab of her position:
http://www.travelserver.net/travelpage/aspgallery/pictures/Ad_3498_12.jpg
David Walker
August 13, 2010 at 2:26 pm
I know for some of you these are probably minor things but some of the exterior design and visual differences between the HAL Vista’s and the Cunard Queens as mentioned before was an amidship located, exterior ocean view elevator on HAL, but in this same amidship location on the new Cunard Queens is an approximately 110-foot long, 5-deck high extended bumped out section of between 9-12 cabins, this for the placement of some of the larger cabin classes and suites, which in turn breaks up the single row of eight lifeboats found on HAL into two groupings of four each on Cunard’s two ships. The earlier 4-HAL Vistas also don’t have the additional split-off ‘Observation Deck’ placed between the funnel and the amidship covered pool. On the earlier Vistas this area is taken up by several radar domes. This additional deck on the newer ships contains one or more dining venues and is found on the most recent (2) Signature-class HAL ships, as well as P&O’s Arcadia and the two new Cunard Queens. And as mentioned before the new QE will have her Deck 11 Sports/Games Deck protected by a larger more substantial windshield (referred to as her ‘tiara’ above) with semi-open roof that will instantly visually differentiate her from the QV. The two Cunard ships are also approximately 33 feet longer (not a whole lot, I know) than the HAL Vistas.
John Fostik
August 13, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Obviously a lot of opinions on the latest ” royal” and the democracy of being able to speak one’s mind is always a good thing. I have taken 3 voyages in the Queen Mary 2 ( two transatlantic and one Caribbean) and way way before her one cruise in the Cunard Adventurer. If you want to look at the “Adventurer” she was diminutive and on the inside the antithesis of the Caronia and the transformed Saxonia sisters. To anyone of the time who had taken a cruise in the Franconia or Carmania the Cunard Adventurer and Cunard Ambassador were like night and day. So Cunard had its ups and downs and over the time before they were acquired by Carnival.
When I sailed with QM2 in the inaugural year I felt that the marketing of the ship with Cunard White Star Service was good for nostalgia; the execution of the service left a bit to be desired especially in the dining room. Having been on her subsequently I think there has been a marked improvement. The Germans love her, and there’s a lot to be said for that. Cunard has kept the faith with the transatlantic trade, and the back to the future approach with several liner voyages to Hamburg and a Cherbourg now and then can’t be scoffed at. Likewise Holland America, and apart from all of the repositioning trips, have stuck their toe back in the water with some high summer extended transatlantic trips.
I agree that we should give the new Queen Elizabeth time to get her game face on and show the world what she’s got. Even the most dyed in the wool ship enthusiast, drunk or sober, will have to eventually agree that any cruise operation has to appeal to a broad audience who have no experience with the ” glory days”. The ” ships have been boringlong enough” sobriequet used to market QE2 when she came out was considered heretical at the time. However the world changes and like it or not we have to adapt. I give Cunard a tip o’ the hat for bringing a certain ” flavor” or nod to a different era. A trip on Cunard is most enjoyable if you don’t expect Marlene Dietrich or Cary Grant to turn up on the Boat Deck. There are plenty enough of ” homogenized” cruise products out there now so we should enjoy what we currently have with Cunard’s interpretation. And, if we don’t like that…..where are we going to go….what are the alternatives?
Kevin
August 14, 2010 at 9:34 am
David,
Your position seems to be rooted from a Carnival persepctive.
What Cunard is today is a theme…translated in its operations by Princess Cruises..its own comeptition..Cunard is no longer a “Line”. It is the vision of its own cometition!
When your parent company operates it so clearly on the cheap do you not expect people to take notice eventually? At some point Cunard “jumped the shark” under Carnival’s plan to allow Princess to take the reigns of the Cunard theme. Mr. Fostick needs to acknowledge Princess for the nod..the Love Boat company gave you the experience.
It is clear many expectations were much higher than Carnival budgeted. Cunard as brought to us by Carnival is less than desirable and highly transparent. “Ocean Liner” as brought to us by Carnival Cruise Lines leaves a great deal to be desired.
David Walker
August 14, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Hi KEVIN: when discussing the Cunard fleet after QE2 you said this – “The key fact you forgot in your argument is that all of those ships, with the exception of QM2 were not built by Cunard and therefore Cunard had no say in their design”.
Now, since Cunard had nothing to do with the exterior design of the nine ships in their fleet from the time after QE2 was introduced until just before QM2 and the subsequent two Queens have been built, it could be said, by your logic, that Cunard has been a ‘theme’ based cruise line since 1971. With no say or input into the EXTERIOR design (and by all accounts the exteriors looked absolutely nothing like ‘Cunard’ other than maybe a red funnel), the interiors HAD to be of a Cunard ‘theme’. Hence, Cunard-themed ships!
And even when Cunard DID ‘design’ it’s own QE2, the very much NON-Cunard looking QE2, they completely ‘jumped the shark’ both in her exterior design and in her interior very non-Cunard looking Space-Age futuristic theme.
Cunard didn’t just ‘jump the shark’ since Carnival Corporation bought it. It jumped the shark almost 45 years ago beginning with QE2.
People always return to the argument that Cunard should NOW be it’s own completely separate cruise line, NOW have it’s own ships designers and interior decorators, and NOW have it’s own everything else to ensure it maintains the legacy and history that once was CUNARD. I found this quote in a forum that describes it quite well:
———-
For a three ship fleet, why would there be?
Your ‘Cunard Design Department’ would be about to be laid off as work on Queen Elizabeth comes to an end. The ‘owners’ of the Cunard brand – like any brand manager – will have briefed outside design specialists on the outcome they wish. If you ever set foot on a contemporary Cunarder, do feel free to share your impressions. The original Queen Mary (and the post-war Queen Elizabeth) used Waring & Gillow for much of her interior furnishing…..so when, exactly, did Cunard EVER have such a specialist design department?
————-
Just to expand on one thought mentioned above, Waring and Gillow were prominently noted as designers of furniture for land based hotels, the private homes of some of the richest families in the UK, and public buildings throughout Europe. Why would the Cunard of 1936-1945 use an exterior source, especially hotel furniture suppliers, as ‘their’ furniture suppliers for the original Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth? Two reasons: they didn’t have their OWN design team and they wanted people to feel like they were crossing the North Atlantic in a luxurious floating ‘hotel’.
And to take it even further back, the old Cunarder’s from the early 1900′s prior to the original QM and QE looked like a ‘standard’ bolts and rivets 3-stack or 4-stack ocean liner of the day from the outside, from the inside they looked like floating palaces. Talk about a ‘disconnect’.
So again, by your logic, Cunard ‘jumped that interior design team shark’ 65 years ago with the original Queens, 100 years ago with the floating palaces that looked like hotels of 1910.
Whether you like Cunard or not is evident. But unlike your posts of a seemingly anti-Carnival Corporation and anti-Cunard sentiment, mine are based on logic and fact.
Most every actual Cunard passenger that has actually sailed in the last incarnation of QE2, or anyone who has been on the Queen Mary in Long Beach, and have actually sailed in QM2 and QV have themselves said that they love the Cunard brand and see the underlying ‘Cunard’ connections of ‘past’ to ‘present’. QV has a loyal following despite what anyone previously thought of her as past QE2 guests. They love the QV, really like what they see in the new QE, and many actually prefer QV over QM2 because of the more intimate feel and ease of getting around her.
Cunard is indeed it’s own brand and has its own identity, whether or not it is owned by Carnival Corporation with interiors designed by a Princess Design Team or not, just like Cunard was it’s own brand and had its own identity when being outfitted by outsourced design teams 65 years ago.