What would be the effect of Cunard leaving the UK Registry?

Hello. No doubt others might have read this story in the Financial Times; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4489f938-e5f6-11e0-b196-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YvzFH1Y2.

Note: I believe posting this link and asking the question are not in violation of any published rules or regulations.

Looking forward to your comments.

Regards,

Salacia

Hello. No doubt others might have read this story in the Financial Times; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4489f938-e5f6-11e0-b196-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YvzFH1Y2.

 

Note: I believe posting this link and asking the question are not in violation of any published rules or regulations.

 

Looking forward to your comments.

 

Regards,

Salacia

P.S. If that link does not work, go to The Financial Times (London)http://www.ft.com/home/us and search "Cunard". Article published 23 September, written by Andrew Bounds.

You have to register to read it. Can you copy and paste into into this thread?

If copy and paste the article, I think that would be a violation of copyright laws (resulting in prompt removal of the thread). However, if interested, go to Finacial Times website and use their search function...just type "cunard" in search box.

BTW, when I first read the article on-line yesterday, no registration was required; sorry to see that has changed. Perhaps someone else knows of other reputable UK news sources that have published reports regarding CCL contemplating de-flagging Cunard?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T5FKQFktVwgJ:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4489f938-e5f6-11e0-b196-00144feabdc0.html+cunard+andrew+bounds&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

I don't see there being any practical effect. Many (if not most) of the major cruise lines' ships are registered under flags of convenience. Cunard could retain a substantial bit of its "Britishness" by registering in Bermuda and being able to take advantage of the wedding market.

One wonders why the UK doesn't just permit the weddings to hold on to this substantial cultural icon.

I sincerely hope that "Southampton" continues to appear across the stern of Cunard's three ships. It will be a sad day and another (very visible) indication of the slow decline of the line if it were removed.

If things MUST change, maybe the two cruise ships could be re-registered (and the Admiral's Lounge used as a wedding chapel) but leave QM2, THE transatlantic liner, registered in the UK? (On a recent WB crossing, I saw a "renewal of vows" take place in the Boardroom on Deck 9 with a small reception held in the Commodore Club)

But, on balance, I would much prefer if things were left as they are now, with the whole of Cunard's fleet UK registered.

(On the other hand, a little voice asks "has registering ships in Bermuda done P&O any harm, bookings wise?")

I was unaware, until reading this piece in the F.T. that "the Queen Elizabeth II" (sic) was the "flagship" of the Cunard Fleet.

I read in another thread the Cunard were to stay under British registry no matter what the consequences so I think Britain is safe to keep its line in British registry also 170 years of the line being in service from the UK and Boston ect I don't think they would throw that away if it wasn't something they didn't really need

J

I dont know if this will happen or not, I have been a few vov renewals i both the boardroom and the Queens room, both the multi renewals and the private ones.

They almost always have someone who can conduct services on the ship so I am sure they could do something if needed.

Also at the end of the day, does it matter a whole lot is the word on the stern changed, the ship will still be the same in all other ways, bookings wont drop that much because the word "Southampton" although it would mean another tradition gone:(

P&O moved from London to Hamilton and it does not seem to have done them any harm. I hope it does not happen, but I can understand why Cunard might consider it.

Thats right, I am not a name snob, the name is what makes me go on the Cunard time and time again and im booked through 2012 as well, the ships and what they offer and the way they do it make me return, not he registry name.

A shame to lose a tradition, but if it keeps cost down and the ships sailing then fine:)

Why don't the UK government if they don't want to lose the Cunard Ships that fiy their flag and that are named after either a previous ship that has a Queen name the current Cunard Flagship Queen Mary 2 named after the first Queen Mary or the Queen Victoria named after a 19th Century Queen and the current Queen Elizabeth that has the same name of the current monarch and also the QE1 and QE2,just change the laws and allow the captains of these ships to perform weddings at sea? Regards,Jerry

While it said no decision had been taken, the company said it was exploring options including moving its three vessels offshore. Bermuda and Malta are among flag states permitting captains to perform weddings.

As if the Captain didn't already have enough to do.

Two points:

(1) By leaving UK registration, it will no longer be necessary for a specific percentage - not sure what it is - of officers to be British.

(2) Minimum SOLAS standards - as opposed to the higher levels required by the UK - would apply.

Forget weddings, these are serious issues that we should be concerned about.

In the US the requirements to become a notary are not significant, a senior admin in an office is frequently a notary (but a notary's rolein the US is more to authenticating signatures & documents and doesn't extend to performing marriage ceremonies). I trust this isn't the case in the UK, otherwise the marriage ceremony issue could easily be addressed without a flag change (as if that is in fact the reason for contemplating this action...).

It's not about weddings, it's about bottom line.

David.

It's not about weddings, it's about bottom line.

 

David.

Well, there is this:

Some believe new legislation that requires European Union nationals such as Poles and Romanians to be paid in line with British staff may play a role.

Enough self-flagellation UK. Enough denial. Avoiding issues won't solve a thing (and a drink won't either), and certainly complaining without doing anything won't.

Are they just going to throw Cunard away? :confused:

Mind you, Salome has already dropped six veils over her "Britishness" - what difference will a seventh make?

Your best observation ever! How glitteringly witty and absolutely brilliant.

IMHO, onboard weddings, like the "art" auctions and the champagne towers for wedding renewals, are supremely tacky.

When, then, can we expect to hear from the Cunard bean counters and their spokespeople about how much revenue is being missed out on from other "lucrative" venues for captive audiences such as rock climbing walls, flow-riders, movies under the stars, and the like?

Hello. No doubt others might have read this story in the Financial Times; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4489f938-e5f6-11e0-b196-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YvzFH1Y2.

 

Note: I believe posting this link and asking the question are not in violation of any published rules or regulations.

 

Looking forward to your comments.

 

Regards,

Salacia

Salacia,

Thanks for starting this thread. There was a discussion going, but it was removed. Any reason why?

Bobby

I certainly hope she remains a British ship - - that is a key element of the Cunard tradition.

I also think that having weddings on board would be tacky.

Well, people can write letters to the CEO. They'll eventually get the point, and if they think it makes sense financially, they'll listen; after which they'll say they had decided this all along.

Salacia,

 

Thanks for starting this thread. There was a discussion going, but it was removed. Any reason why?

 

Bobby

The op simply pasted the entire FT article - a breach of both copyright and board guidelines. The mods would have had no option but to remove the thread.

I certainly hope she remains a British ship - - that is a key element of the Cunard tradition.

 

Cunard certainly markets itself using British tradition and history, but be they damned if they clash against revenue. Pity though it may be.

Hmm.. I have to wonder how many people would choose to get married on a transatlantic crossing?

As it stands right now, weddings could be performed in either New York or Southampton with the couple bringing their clergy or notary with them as well as their guests. 3 hrs onboard, the guests and clergy/notary leave and the happy couple proceeds across the Atlantic on their honeymoon.

I seem to recall an urgent message from the QE2 for clergy in Boston when the QE2 was sent there following 9/11. Remember who got married?

Some people think getting married onboard works out cheaper than getting married at home. I often do an apples to apples comparison for engaged couples.... then also introduce the "you want all these people along on your honeymoon" question. And are these folks willing to give up a week's vacation time? For a Caribbean cruise in the winter....I can see people using it as vacation. But a transatlantic crossing??????????