Can we expect a return to 6 day crossings?

Can we expect QM2 to make a return to 6-day crossings like the QE2 due to oil prices dropping to US$40 a barrel?

Hi, wish they would go back to five day crossings as per QE2. Surely with low oil prices and much more efficient propulsion these days and a ship especially built for speed it should be possible. As I have mentioned on previous postings in fourteen days ex Southampton, QE2 would do a NY roundtrip and include either a day in Bermuda or Nassau. Even if it took 15 days I would find that a very attractive option. Id would love to see faster crossings.

Sorry, but shorter crossings would just not appeal to me. What's all the rush to get off ? The fuel price may be at an all time low but that doesn't mean it will stay that way.

I think it's in the best interest of Carnival to build in these extra days (those 8 day crossings and back to backs are quite popular with many of the guests ) And for Cunard, more onboard spend and bar revenue ;)

If you want to get across the Atlantic quicker then get on a plane.

It's cheaper to cruise slower. Better MPG, less stress on the ship and less pollution. Add in a cliantel who have likely never sailed a crossing at the faster speeds and in reality it's not going to happen.

David.

Plus Cunard wouldn't then benefit from the extra spent in the bar. :)

I would not think so. Cunard is already slipping in 8 day crossings for Queen Mary 2.

I too wish for the return of 5 day crossings....we use to board QE2 here in NYC & spend the weekend in Paris or London and fly home or if it was a longer holiday we would sail over & travel and sometimes sail back.. on the longer trips sailing back was preferred.

I would also like to see regular crossings that included Le Harve..leaving you on the continent.(I won't push & ask for stops in Italy).

Oh to be sailing on QE2... a totally different experience being on an ocean liner as compared to the cruise ships of today.

Being at sea is so much better than flying & that's how I intend to travel to Europe in the coming years.

Why doesn't Cunard build a Trans Atlantic Liner purposely built for the NY- S'Hampton / Le Harve route....for those that want to be on a cruise ship stick to the carib!

QM2 is a liner and not a cruise ship

Plus Cunard wouldn't then benefit from the extra spent in the bar. :)

How do you figure this? It does not matter if the ship had 5 or 6 or 7 day crossings. If not on a trans-atlantic, it would be sailing somewhere. Shorter crossings do not mean the ship would be sitting empty and not making money.

I'd love to see 5 and 6 day crossings. As somebody who is still working I'm love to be able to sail round trip TA. I don't expect to see oil prices stay this low for very long. OPEC has weaponized against American drillers and will raise prices once they are out of business.

I hate to see QM2 treated like a mustang with her legs tied.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Didn't do a 6-day TA on QM2 when the chance was there, never sailed QE2 when she was in service. Too late now.

The only way she would do a 6-day now is if there was some prolonged delay in her leaving port. Then the calculation of running a 6-day to catch up versus re-booking thousands of disembarkation transfers and flights would come into play.

How do you figure this? It does not matter if the ship had 5 or 6 or 7 day crossings. If not on a trans-atlantic, it would be sailing somewhere. Shorter crossings do not mean the ship would be sitting empty and not making money.

That is a very good point you make there.

But do they make as much on a turnaround day? People not spending the majority of the day.

I don't get it ?

When I'm aboard a ship like the QM2 , I'm in no hurry to get it over with?

Sure it can show off and sail faster , perhaps on one day of the voyage would satisfy some ?

If you want to get across the Atlantic quicker then get on a plane.

I agree 100%. I hope they keep 7 day crossings.

In addition to all of the points made here as to why it is unlikely Cunard would return to a shorter crossing, I believe her pods are considered somewhat fragile to subject to prolonged high speeds.

Hopefully at some point there will be technology available so she can be re-engined and operate in the 28 knot range again. QE2 operated for many years longer than anyone ever dreamed as the beneficiary of an updated powerplant, and at higher speeds than her early years.

In the interim, as I have expressed previously, I think it would be a great touch to run her up to the old Queen's service speed of 28 knots for a few hours once each crossing just for nostalgia for some and to show the rest what it was like in the good old days of the North Atlantic run.

I'm happy with the longer crossings because of less fuel consumption and less wear and tear on the ship. For those that long for the fast "ocean liner" experience, cruise often enough on QM2 and sooner or later you'll experience a medivac where the ship must reach helicopter range quickly. Lots of extra vibration and usually more roll due to the stabilizers being retracted.

It's cheaper to cruise slower. Better MPG, less stress on the ship and less pollution. Add in a cliantel who have likely never sailed a crossing at the faster speeds and in reality it's not going to happen.

 

David.

I think you have the key. Clientele who have never experienced a 5 day (or less) crossing and the sense of "getting somewhere". I am one of those and will not sail on the new 7 or worse 8 day crossings. 8 day crossings compute to around 16 knots. Just plodding along. Take it further, why not 30 day crossings. Lots of bar spend on that one I bet. I just feel something is not right when HALs Veendam sails much faster on a Mexican cruise (21 knots) than QM2 does on an 8 day Transatlantic. Just my opinion.

For those who don't mind QM2 going at slower speeds - there is then no need for a true ocean liner.

Just think - if QE2 had been slowed down this way Carnival would have killed off her successor. Slower speeds mean there was no need of reserve power. If you don't mind leaving Southampton 6 hours late there is no need for a liner hull form. Any cruise ship can do 16 knots if passengers are willing to accept 8 or 9 day crossings.

There would be no QM2 and QE2 would still be rotting in Dubai.

I miss the faster crossings..thou I know its a very small chance of coming back anytime soon..the gas turbines are the problem with their expensive fuel..and she needs them over 24 knots is what I was told..the "faster" 6days 7 night standard of today is alright for many but that 7day 8nights is way to slow for me and many others as its nothing more than what a standard cruise ship can do at Cunard fares

As much as I love the crossings and will continue to do them ( I've managed ten since 2004...) whenever I can, I also wish they'd go back to six days. I like to be able to combine the crossing with time somewhere in Europe. Also, it was easier to convince newbies to join the crossing with me when it was shorter. I think they've chosen a number of days that all three ships can accomplish. Hopefully that doesn't make the QM2 obsolete in Cunard's eyes.

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, uninterrupted days at sea are the glory of a transatlantic crossing. When, on our first full day away, the noon report reminds us that we have thousands of miles yet to go, my wife and I always smile and say "Good!" But like sfo-john, it's also true that our journey on QM2 marks the beginning of a European holiday, so eight-day sailings—we've booked two for this summer—do eat into our time abroad. And friends we've encouraged to join us often fret about how long it takes to cross the pond.

It would be nice if Cunard would schedule at least a few faster crossings, but since that's unlikely, I suppose that we'll just have to continue counting ourselves lucky to sail on QM2 whatever her speed.

QM2 is a liner and not a cruise ship

is that the QM2 was built as a dual purpose ship - capable of doing both crossings & cruises..and so the hull is structured as such.

The QE2 was built as modern Transatlantic liner that after some years was put to service to sail cruises. Her draft & design was built to handle the North Atlantic.

As much as I love the crossings and will continue to do them ( I've managed ten since 2004...) whenever I can, I also wish they'd go back to six days. I like to be able to combine the crossing with time somewhere in Europe. Also, it was easier to convince newbies to join the crossing with me when it was shorter. I think they've chosen a number of days that all three ships can accomplish. Hopefully that doesn't make the QM2 obsolete in Cunard's eyes.

 

 

 

With the drop in fuel costs recently Carnivore Corp/ Cunard could speed the ship up to do 6 day...even 5 day crossings every so often but probably won't due to their profit margin / business plan - less cost due to fewer turn around days & more time for passengers to spend onboard & the increase interest in cruises as opposed to crossings. Also the German market is apparently a big $$$ maker ..I have no interest in spending extra days going to Hamburg and the 8 day crossings are too long at this point in my life..I want to see Europe not spend extra time on a Carnivore / Disney version of a British Transatlantic Liner.

 

It's true on the shorter crossings it was pure bliss - in between dining, dancing, eating, reading in a deck chair and just sitting outside bundled up w/ a hot toddy just looking at the sea go by - it was if you boarded in NYC and after seeing the Statue Of Liberty(FABULOUS) and sailing under the Verrazano Bridge(will the funnel make it under??? - more champagne please) we blinked & we were alongside the dock in Southampton & on the boat train into London - SPECTACULAR all around.

is that the QM2 was built as a dual purpose ship - capable of doing both crossings & cruises..and so the hull is structured as such. The QE2 was built as modern Transatlantic liner that after some years was put to service to sail cruises. Her draft & design was built to handle the North Atlantic.

Well, you're half right at least ;).

Both ships were designed and built as dual-purpose liner and cruise ship.

Q3 was cancelled because she was a "pure" liner with little or no provision for cruising. So they literally went back to the drawing board and started again.

Q4 (QE2) was, from the outset, designed to cruise as well as cross. For example, she had two outside pools from the start, hardly needed on the North Atlantic, but essential for warm-water cruising. The designers looked at the mistakes made in building the France, which was ill-suited to cruising with only inside pools, and decided to do better.

The result was one of the (if not THE) best looking ships ever built.

If you read contemporary books, or indeed more modern tributes to QE2 (and I would earnestly suggest you read something ;) ) you will see that, one of the main reasons for QE2's success, long life and adaptability was that, just like QM2, from the outset, she was designed with cruising firmly in mind. A dual-purpose flagship.

For those of us around at the time of building and entry into service, the press, books, marine architecture magazines etc were full of tales of Britain's new wonder-ship, both cruise ship and liner rolled into one.

If you can track down a copy of "British Superliners of the Sixties" by Philip Dawson, that is a good place to start.

All best wishes :)