Cunard's Rating among Cruise Lines

How does Cunard rate among cruise lines? Is it a lower-level line like NCL, a middle-level line like Holland America, an upper-level line like Crystal, or is it somehow unique and difficult to fit into these categories?

I think Cunard is somewhat unique, and I would place it between HAL and Crystal if I had to put it into a category.

Cunard - like NCL - you have cruised have you?

At Cunard the ships are at least maintained safely! Look at the NTSB report on NCL's management of the Norway to see why I wouldn't set foot on one of theirs again

I think it depends on which category you travel in - as yet we have not travelled Grill or Princess Class - we shall experience this in July

I would certainly rated Crystal as far superior to Britannia/Caronia class

Jantap

Cunard - like NCL - you have cruised have you?

 

At Cunard the ships are at least maintained safely! Look at the NTSB report on NCL's management of the Norway to see why I wouldn't set foot on one of theirs again

You misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't suggest that Cunard was in any way like NCL. I asked where people would rate Cunard between NCL on the low end of the spectrum, for example, and Crystal on the high end.

Cunard ships tend to be ocean liners - they ply the transatlantic mainly. If you look at the shape and style of a Cunard ship, you can see the difference quite easily between their ships and enormous floating hotels like say, Independence of the Seas. They also take the big seas better for that reason.

Cunard ships tend to be ocean liners - they ply the transatlantic mainly. If you look at the shape and style of a Cunard ship, you can see the difference quite easily between their ships and enormous floating hotels like say, Independence of the Seas. They also take the big seas better for that reason.

Jean,

Thats currently 2/3rd right - but from November, when the QE2 retires it will only be 1/2 right - and from 2010 when the new Queen Elizabeth enters service it will only be 1/3 right. Both the QE2 and QM2 are Express Trans Atlantic liners which also cruise - the QE2 has given up the Express service and now is used as a cruise ship.

The Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth will be used almost exclusively for cruising - and are not designed for the Express Trans Atlantic service (despite being among the 10 fastest ships in Cunard's fleet ever) - as there is only the need for one express liner (and indeed there only has been the need for one since the mid-1960s) - and that role is ably fulfilled by the QM2. The QM2 runs crossings for about 6 months of the year - the rest of the year she cruises. So 'crossings' will make up about 1/6th of Cunard's sea days from 2010.

As to where Cunard 'ranks' - I can only speak from personal experience - in 'standard' accommodation I'd rate them as a bit above RCL or Princess - the hardware is better (on the QM2 at least - for most modern cruisers the QE2 may be a bit idiosyncratic for many tastes, the QV is new, but there have been quite a few favourable reports) - the food is better, the drink much better and the entertainment more to my taste ('intellectual vs glitzy' or 'dull vs fun', depending on your taste.)

Peter

How does Cunard rate among cruise lines? Is it a lower-level line like NCL, a middle-level line like Holland America, an upper-level line like Crystal, or is it somehow unique and difficult to fit into these categories?

Conde Nast Traveler Readers' Choice Rankings are as follows for Large Cruise Ships. The list tends to be respected because the readers do not receive ad money from any of the lines, unlike the publications themselves:

1. Crystal Cruises

2. Regent Seven Seas

3. Disney

4. Oceania Cruises

5. Celebrity

6. Holland America

7. CUNARD

8. Princess

9 Royal Caribbean

10. Orient Lines

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what appears in Conde Nast.

They have a very limited distribution, and I think a rather limited reader base.

Conde Nast Traveler Readers' Choice Rankings are as follows for Large Cruise Ships. The list tends to be respected because the readers do not receive ad money from any of the lines, unlike the publications themselves:

And what are the ratings for liners, as opposed to cruise ships?

Matthew

hard one this, cunard has only one cruise ship, so bother to compare it , anyway its only a few weeks old.

If you want to compare the QE2 and QM2 then thats something different altogether????? these are far from being a cruise ship

rob

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what appears in Conde Nast.

 

They have a very limited distribution, and I think a rather limited reader base.

Ha! Neither would I. Disney rated higher than Cunard? I don't think so.

If you want to compare the QE2 and QM2

Rob,

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I meant lines operating liners. So Cunard, Saga and a very few others.

Matthew

Conde Nast Traveler Readers' Choice Rankings are as follows for Large Cruise Ships. The list tends to be respected because the readers do not receive ad money from any of the lines, unlike the publications themselves:

 

1. Crystal Cruises

2. Regent Seven Seas

3. Disney

4. Oceania Cruises

5. Celebrity

6. Holland America

7. CUNARD

8. Princess

9 Royal Caribbean

10. Orient Lines

Something is very wrong with this list. Regent, Oceania and Orient do NOT have large cruise ships by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, to answer the OP's question.

At the top of the heap: Silversea/Seabourn/Regent/Crystal

These 4 are luxury.

Cunard

Oceania

These are niche premium

Celebrity/Holland America

These are traditional mainstream

Princess/Royal Caribbean/Carnival/NCL

These are contemporary mainstream

Something is very wrong with this list. Regent, Oceania and Orient do NOT have large cruise ships by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Now, to answer the OP's question.

 

At the top of the heap: Silversea/Seabourn/Regent/Crystal

 

These 4 are luxury.

 

 

Cunard

Oceania

 

These are niche premium

 

 

Celebrity/Holland America

 

These are traditional mainstream

 

 

 

Princess/Royal Caribbean/Carnival/NCL

 

These are contemporary mainstream

I believe the definition of "large" refers to passengers, rather than gross tonnage. If I recall, greater than 500 defined the difference between large and small.

And as for your "rankings," please share with me your source and the methodology.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what appears in Conde Nast.

 

They have a very limited distribution, and I think a rather limited reader base.

It's circulation 800,000, which is about eight times as many persons as there are travel agents in the United States...for what it's worth.

One could argue, however, that the numerical rankings skew toward the high end, since its readers tend to be very affluent. But that would not affect the relative rankings, nor Cunard's place in it.

Ha! Neither would I. Disney rated higher than Cunard? I don't think so.

Disney scores exceptionally high for design, activities, shore excursions, which may reflect their higher ranking.

And what are the ratings for liners, as opposed to cruise ships?

 

Matthew

I doubt the semantical difference would warrant a separate category. And if we are going to make an issue of semantics, even QE2 and QM2 aren't an ocean liners. An ocean liner, strictly (and accurately) speaking, is a ship designed and used for the primary purpose of getting passengers from point A to point B through oceans, with speed and volume being the prime concern. QE2 and QM2 are not used primarily for transportation. Even if being used as such wasn't part of the definition, QM2 still wouldn't properly be considered an ocean liner, since it was not designed primarily as a mode of transportation.

Cunard and others confuse the matter by refering to the shape of the hull, as if that matters to the definition. To the extent that the ship must get from point A to B safely and do so quickly, the design is different, but the design follows its purpose, not the other way around. Because a ship is designed with a sleek, ocean cutting hull does not an ocean liner define.

The primary concern of the QM2 is to provide a comfortable, luxurious 6, 7, 10, 100+ day pleasure cruise. It is not concerned with getting from, say Southampton to New York as quickly as possible; it's purpose is to shake as much money out of passengers as it can who, in many cases, go right from the dock to the airport to fly back. As such, QM2 has more in common with Carnival Glory than it does RMS Titanic (which was designed not for pleasure, but for transportation first and foremost).

I doubt the semantical difference would warrant a separate category. And if we are going to make an issue of semantics, even QE2 and QM2 aren't an ocean liners. An ocean liner, strictly (and accurately) speaking, is a ship designed and used for the primary purpose of getting passengers from point A to point B through oceans, with speed and volume being the prime concern. QE2 and QM2 are not used primarily for transportation. Even if being used as such wasn't part of the definition, QM2 still wouldn't properly be considered an ocean liner, since it was not designed primarily as a mode of transportation.

 

Cunard and others confuse the matter by refering to the shape of the hull, as if that matters to the definition. To the extent that the ship must get from point A to B safely and do so quickly, the design is different, but the design follows its purpose, not the other way around. Because a ship is designed with a sleek, ocean cutting hull does not an ocean liner define.

 

The primary concern of the QM2 is to provide a comfortable, luxurious 6, 7, 10, 100+ day pleasure cruise. It is not concerned with getting from, say Southampton to New York as quickly as possible; it's purpose is to shake as much money out of passengers as it can who, in many cases, go right from the dock to the airport to fly back. As such, QM2 has more in common with Carnival Glory than it does RMS Titanic (which was designed not for pleasure, but for transportation first and foremost).

So you're saying you'll be sailing on the Carnival Glory then? Obviously Titanic is out of the question.

I doubt the semantical difference would warrant a separate category. And if we are going to make an issue of semantics, even QE2 and QM2 aren't an ocean liners. An ocean liner, strictly (and accurately) speaking, is a ship designed and used for the primary purpose of getting passengers from point A to point B through oceans, with speed and volume being the prime concern. QE2 and QM2 are not used primarily for transportation. Even if being used as such wasn't part of the definition, QM2 still wouldn't properly be considered an ocean liner, since it was not designed primarily as a mode of transportation.

 

Cunard and others confuse the matter by refering to the shape of the hull, as if that matters to the definition. To the extent that the ship must get from point A to B safely and do so quickly, the design is different, but the design follows its purpose, not the other way around. Because a ship is designed with a sleek, ocean cutting hull does not an ocean liner define.

 

The primary concern of the QM2 is to provide a comfortable, luxurious 6, 7, 10, 100+ day pleasure cruise. It is not concerned with getting from, say Southampton to New York as quickly as possible; it's purpose is to shake as much money out of passengers as it can who, in many cases, go right from the dock to the airport to fly back. As such, QM2 has more in common with Carnival Glory than it does RMS Titanic (which was designed not for pleasure, but for transportation first and foremost).

I take it that you visit this board with the sole purpose of wanting to argue.

Paul

I doubt the semantical difference would warrant a separate category. And if we are going to make an issue of semantics, even QE2 and QM2 aren't an ocean liners. An ocean liner, strictly (and accurately) speaking, is a ship designed and used for the primary purpose of getting passengers from point A to point B through oceans, with speed and volume being the prime concern. QE2 and QM2 are not used primarily for transportation. Even if being used as such wasn't part of the definition, QM2 still wouldn't properly be considered an ocean liner, since it was not designed primarily as a mode of transportation.

 

Cunard and others confuse the matter by refering to the shape of the hull, as if that matters to the definition. To the extent that the ship must get from point A to B safely and do so quickly, the design is different, but the design follows its purpose, not the other way around. Because a ship is designed with a sleek, ocean cutting hull does not an ocean liner define.

 

The primary concern of the QM2 is to provide a comfortable, luxurious 6, 7, 10, 100+ day pleasure cruise. It is not concerned with getting from, say Southampton to New York as quickly as possible; it's purpose is to shake as much money out of passengers as it can who, in many cases, go right from the dock to the airport to fly back. As such, QM2 has more in common with Carnival Glory than it does RMS Titanic (which was designed not for pleasure, but for transportation first and foremost).

Don't be so silly. Every liner has always been built as a way of making money as it's prime purpose - RMS Titanic included.

As for the rest of the tosh you've written, I'm with Paul. You're a troll.

Matthew

I doubt the semantical difference would warrant a separate category. And if we are going to make an issue of semantics, even QE2 and QM2 aren't an ocean liners. An ocean liner, strictly (and accurately) speaking, is a ship designed and used for the primary purpose of getting passengers from point A to point B through oceans, with speed and volume being the prime concern. QE2 and QM2 are not used primarily for transportation. Even if being used as such wasn't part of the definition, QM2 still wouldn't properly be considered an ocean liner, since it was not designed primarily as a mode of transportation.

 

Cunard and others confuse the matter by refering to the shape of the hull, as if that matters to the definition. To the extent that the ship must get from point A to B safely and do so quickly, the design is different, but the design follows its purpose, not the other way around. Because a ship is designed with a sleek, ocean cutting hull does not an ocean liner define.

 

The primary concern of the QM2 is to provide a comfortable, luxurious 6, 7, 10, 100+ day pleasure cruise. It is not concerned with getting from, say Southampton to New York as quickly as possible; it's purpose is to shake as much money out of passengers as it can who, in many cases, go right from the dock to the airport to fly back. As such, QM2 has more in common with Carnival Glory than it does RMS Titanic (which was designed not for pleasure, but for transportation first and foremost).

And your qualifications for determining the difference between a liner and a cruise ship are?????????? A google search might be in order for educational purposes.:rolleyes:

Because a ship is designed with a sleek, ocean cutting hull does not an ocean liner define.

Oh really???? Well, if I had to choose a ship in which to cross the North Atlantic, the sleek, ocean-cutting hull would be a characteristic of the ship I would take. You can cross the ocean on Exploiter of the Seas or the Norwegian Aloha or the Carnival whatever. I'll take a Cunard liner.

On the Conde Nast poll I saw (Feb 08), large ships were defined as carrying more than 1500 passengers (not 500).

On the ratings for individual ships, QE2 scored low on design and cabins. Not surprising, given her age. When she was built, people accepted smaller cabins than they do now. And passengers didn't expect balconies back then. The low score on design is because QE2 has no atrium, no neon lights, no jungle-theme bars, and no grapevine dining rooms. QE2 also scored low on shore excursions, probably because she doesn't offer bungee jumping and parasailing. (Given her clientele, this makes sense.)

Oddly enough, QM2 isn't on the list at all. Several Celebrity ships ranked above QE2, as did some Disney and RCCL.

I couldn't find a list comparing lines, but Bosco's data isn't surprising. Lines with more ships have more passengers, which means more people to vote for the line. With only 2 ships at the time the survey was done, Cunard's potential fan base was much smaller than that of other lines.

Plus, fans of Cunard probably didn't vote in the poll. We're too busy writing posts to explain what a liner is and what formal wear looks like.

Kathy

The low score on design is because QE2 has no atrium, no neon lights, no jungle-theme bars, and no grapevine dining rooms. QE2 also scored low on shore excursions, probably because she doesn't offer bungee jumping and parasailing. (Given her clientele, this makes sense.)

Kathy

No Jungle themed bars?

No Bungee jumping?

I don't care if I am within the penalty period. I'm cancelling my crossing on QE2

WELL, I never!

And they call themselves a cruise line! Greatest liner blah, blah, blah.

Hell, what do I cross the ocean for?

Jungle themed bars and bungee jumping in April in the North Atlantic!

Bah humbug!

I wonder if this is a legit reason to claim the insurance?

<G>

I take it that you visit this board with the sole purpose of wanting to argue.

 

Paul

Thank you for your comment. The OP inquired about Cunard’s ranking. While everyone, including everyone who has ever taken a cruise, has an opinion about what is a good cruise line and what is a bad one, it is helpful to use a reliable source, or at least a source with enough participants to eliminate individual subjectivity. For that reason, the Conde Nast’s rankings were used.

Someone intimated that the ranking is tainted because it does not have a separate "Ocean Liner" category. I presume this person, and others, were not pleased that Cunard was not ranked higher. I don’t consider them to be arguing, just because they disagree with the results. My response echoed why a distinction is not made in rankings.