Margana

I have always seen shorts (some a little too short for me) at breakfast and lunch. I think people today are just so casual they don't give a thought as to how they look.

Agree. See Post 491.:)

Wonder if R. Burns had Dress Code in mind................

“O, wad some Power thegiftie gie us

To see oursels as others see us!

It wad frae monie a blunder free us,

An' foolish notion.”

When they will learn that We are on a vacation and most people don't have the free bag in the major airlines, no space for the penguin dress

Airline luggage weight limits when flying can be a problem. Thesuitcases themselves contribute to the weight. We purchased light weight butrobust suitcases which has allowed us to pack everything required for ourcruises, (including formal and informal dress).

Fortunately we have learned over the years that Cruise Critic members actually represent a very small percentage of passengers onboard. We seldom participate in roll calls or meet & greets especially when they take on a snarky tone.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Thanks. I hope that my comment was received in the spirit itwas meant. Sometimes UK and USA contributors get crossed wires, I hope not thistime. We’ve found that like minds tend to gravitate together on board, bit like life really.

Just because someone books a non-grills stateroom doesn’t mean they have no class. We have our first QV voyage planned for next year and reading these comments makes us wonder if we made the right choice!

We have cruised and travelled the world and while not in private jets or owner suites, we have manners and dress appropriately for the venue.

Hopefully our fellow voyagers will be more welcoming

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I think it’s a sad state of affairs that you, on your firstplanned Cunard cruise should have been given the impression that only Grills passengershave Class, dress appropriately andbehave acceptably. Grills passengers pay premium rates for their accommodationetc. and for separate dining and lounge areas. Other than that, they enjoy thesame shipboard facilities and entertainment as you will. It’s not an indicator of Class, it’s simply that they choose that specific accommodation andare prepared to pay the required farefor it. The arrant nonsense that some Grills passengers perpetrate shouldreally be ignored.

We have always found our fellow travellers welcoming, greatcompany and friends who we remain in touch with.

Hi Margana, we have to agree to disagree.

• NB.: During our stays in Queens Grill staterooms Cunard include a fully stocked in suite drinks bar; with your choice of spirits + champagne/wine - and is refilled as necessary during the voyage. Also as you say the often very generous OBC is a benefit too.
  

Glad you liked your last cheap Adults Only 4 star 'All Inclusive' package holiday in Spain but with respect I think I am not tempted but will stick, for now, with Cunard in The Grills.

Hi David

Have a quote from your post 278..............

Originally posted by insanemagnet The problem with that is that the standard (non-Grills) is not 'luxury' travel.

It is certainly not unpleasant, but it definitely doesn't deliver an equivalent service to a real luxury hotel. I disagree with your statement

- show me a 4 or 5 star luxury hotel that charges a similar average daily room/cabin rate Cunard charge

- AND includes all unlimited meals and & alcoholic drinks, complimentary room service, full entertainment, guest social gatherings, enrichment programmes, complimentary sports facilities, complimentary laundries = THEY DONT EXHIST AT ANY £

Expand Signature

Collapse Signature

David

I think you'll agree that you and I originally replied to a "non-grills comment. It's both inaccurate and disingenuous of you to therefore describe what is provided in Grills with what the original post referred to (ie non-Grills). Free alcoholic drinks are not part of non-Grills fares. I do trust that you would not take alcohol from your suite to enjoy on other areas of the ship. That would be so "non de rigueur". I'm pleased that you enjoy Queens Grill. We could so travel, but occasionally prefer, as you say rather superiourly in italics " cheap Adults Only 4 star 'All Inclusive' package holiday in Spain .

Lot of resistance to change expressed in this thread. In UK,corporate organisations (banks, insurance companies and others) give morefavourable terms to new customers to the detriment of long standing clients. Why should Cunard be any different? If revenue increases from new passengers who wish a more “relaxed” environment, whyshould they care if traditionalists wail and gnash teeth.

“To book or not to book – that is the question..........”

I disagree with your statement

- show me a 4 or 5 star luxury hotel that charges a similar average daily room/cabin rate Cunard charge

- AND includes all unlimited meals and & alcoholic drinks, complimentary room service, full entertainment, guest social gatherings, enrichment programmes, complimentary sports facilities, complimentary laundries = THEY DONT EXHIST AT ANY £

Sorry, I can’t agree with your statement. Last year wetravelled to Spain staying in an Adults Only, All Inclusive 4* luxury hotel.Cost covered flights, accommodation all meals and all drinks (alcoholic ornon-alcoholic). Room facilities were better than stateroom, sports facilitiesand quality entertainment was provided. The holiday cost was not similar, itwas half what we have paid for a similar length cruise. So it is quite wrong to say that theseholidays are not available.

I’m also interested to know which Cunard cruise you havebeen on which includes free alcoholic drinks in the fare? On board creditperhaps, but that is something different.

Many informative comments and opinions on this thread. But, essentially,would a laxer dress code be an important factor in the decision for previouspassengers to book again? Cunard (or Carnival) (from previous thread comments) apparently think not, and also believe that anew ( younger and larger number) demographic will be encouraged to travel. Somehave commented that society has moved towards less formality in dress (perhapsalso in behaviour and manners), so acceptance of this is inevitable. Others might believe that this is applicationof the lowest common denominator.

Sailing on Cunard ships for us has always been more than adress code. But important.

Perhaps, “Nostalgia is not what it used to be”.

A very sicint point of view.

Having comfortably retired early at 54, we have enjoyed 70, 80, 90 or more high spending days every year cruising on Cunard, because we luckily (worked hard) have the money, and the time, to do whatever we wish.

Therefore, agreeing with your premise, Cunard must have already calculated they can replace us, and our friends, with an increased footfall of the once a year casually dressed reduced price holidaymakers.

Feel the "word changes" are the prelude to the end of Cunard, as we now know and enjoy.

Agree with what you say. We have cruised on all three Cunard ships for several years.We have enjoyed and appreciated the service from friendly and efficient crew, stateroomcomfort, the music from accomplishedmusicians, the interesting guest speakers, itineraries, the quiet spaces andthe sea days.

While enjoying all the above, we have never found therequirement to meet a dress code difficult. What is it about wearing a suit(dinner or dark), a jacket and trousers, a fashionable, attractive and comfortable dress that is so onerous thatit becomes an issue. It’s not cost,designer casual clothes are certainly not cheap. So it has to be astatement, a railing against formality. When change comes, and it will, thestyle and the ambiance which many on this thread have also enjoyed willdiminish.

We have progressively become less enamoured with Cunard.Increasing fares and drink prices (two tier spirit cost), lower dining room foodquality and higher special restaurant charges. In future, following P&Operhaps a restriction on bringing alcohol on board to increase bar revenue. As with other cruise lines, perhaps the newdemographic is country club casual, or T-shirt and distressed jeans. Tee-totalor lager quaffing passengers. Not surewe want to be in this World Club. Land based holidays are looking moreattractive.

I've even witnessed a small group bringing on a number of wine boxes.

 

Perhaps someone can confirm this goes on regularly.

In terms of volume, a 3 litre box of wine is equivalent to four bottles. Why is that less acceptable than taking on a case of wine containing six bottles which is regarded as acceptable?

Alternatively one could board with two bottles of wine and then take on board one bottle of wine purchased on shore at each of six ports. This would be eight bottles taken on board.

I am just back from Queen Elizabeth and brought alcohol on board in both Gibraltar and Lisbon with no issues at all.

On port days on ourrecent Queen Elizabeth cruise we also brought alcohol on board with norestriction. In conversation, some passengers did say that security staff hadtaken note of alcohol bottles brought on board and their cabin number. Notanecdotal, and not our experience. Perhaps this could be information gatheringto support any future change in policy consistent with that which P&Oappear to be implementing. Perhaps others on recent cruises could comment.

We enjoy the relaxed approach which Cunard currently employ,allowing us to enjoy alcohol in our stateroom. Admittedly there is noprofit for Cunard in this, but we also spend significantly in bars, lounges andthe restaurant on the ship. Most passengers who don’t take alcohol on board areprobably unlikely to profit Cunard onalcohol sales, so why restrict those who do? We’ve noticed the increasing alcohol prices oneach cruise we’ve taken, and accept this because we prefer Cunard to otherlines. Loyalty does however apply both ways, and Cunard should consider this before policy change.

Thanks for the info re Airlynx. We have booked with ParknCruise (Millbrook) undercover parking. The receptionist I booked with has worked with Alternative Cruise Parking. We used to park with Alternative CP but since the business changed hands we decided to park elsewhere as the service was not quite as good as provided by the original owners. We are hoping ParknCruise turns out ok.

Hoped that information might be of use to forum members. We had used ACP for several years and also were disappointed with service after change. Just by chance that we booked with Airlynx and found it was operated by original ACP people. Hope ParknCruise is OK for you.

Airlynx Cruise Parking have recently moved from SouthamptonAirport to new premises at Britannia Wharf (adjacent football stadium).Transfer time 5-10 minutes. Competitiveprice. It’s operated by ex-Alternative Cruise Parking owner and drivers. Servicewas very good.

As from April 2017 a new owner has taken over Alternative Cruise Parking and taken over the booking,s from Cruise parking ltd Marchwood, together it is going to be called Penguin cruise parking, the livery on the mini buses as it sound,s PENGUIN,S, the same crew with 12 mini buses doing the same job the new web site should be up and running in a week or so i hope this will help :halo:

We have used and recommended Alternative Cruise Parking forseveral years. Penguin Parking appearsto be an amalgamation of ACP with another company “Cruise Parking Ltd.” Ourrecent experience with Penguin Parking was not good. We waited 45 minutesbefore transport was available to take us to the port. The site was extremely busy with passengers waiting patiently beside their parked cars. Eventually a large coach arrived to supplement the 8 seatermini-buses for passenger transfer to the port. We've never had this problem with ACPeven on busy port days, our usual 20 minute transfer extended to over an hour. Not what we expected.

Thanks. I looked at that option as well. It might well be a good idea, because, as you say, you are off and away on your way home.

If you opt for parking at Heathrow, have a look at Reeds Service Park, offsite but we've found them friendly and efficient.

I've had a look on the Cunard website help pages but I can't find an answer, so hopefully someone here will know the answer to this:

 

In about 3 months we are on the QV. We sail from Southampton (so we'll park at the port) but we fly back to Heathrow. So how do we get back to Southampton to collect our car ? Do Cunard do a coach transfer, because I assume there must be quite a few people in the same boat ?

 

Also, I did wonder if something might not appear in the online cruise personaliser, but nothing at all is showing yet from excursions and so on.

We've flown from Heathrow and returned to Southampton a couple of times, and Cunard provided a coach transfer to Heathrow for car collection and for those with onward flights. Hopefully if enough passengers are in your position, on a Cunard charter flight for example, a similar service may be provided from Heathrow back to Southampton.

The service may only be for bookings made through Cunard,rather than through an agent, but certainly worth enquiring.

There certainly were smokers on Deck 7 aft in December.

 

Not a good sight for those of us enjoying breakfast and lunch in the Queens Grill: a constant parade of psssengers in a haze of cigarette smoke.

Is “haze” the new collective noun for cigarette smokers? Is there a minimum number of persons required and defined wind conditions before observer vision is obscured? Otherwise it would probably just be a few passsengers occupying a designated smoking area, probably having a pleasant conversation with each other, before returning to the ca 99.9% of the non-smoking areas of the ship.

There certainly were smokers on Deck 7 aft in December.

 

Not a good sight for those of us enjoying breakfast and lunch in the Queens Grill: a constant parade of psssengers in a haze of cigarette smoke.

Could have been some Queens Grill psssengers enjoying a post prandial cigarette. Or is capnophobia a prerequisite for the Grills?

What we really need is a smokers-only elevator. One that they are forced to use, and banned from any others. Few smokers realise how vile the smell is when you are crammed in a lift beside someone who enjoys excercising their demoratic right to slowly kill themselves.

 

 

.

Going down.

For some reason, quoting doesn't seem to work for me here, but Margana says "If 15% of all passengers are smokers and 50% of them removed gratuities (unlikely), then that’s 7.5% of passengers removing gratuities.

But if only 10% of the 85% non-smoking passengers remove gratuities then that’s 8.5% of passengers.

So it’s likely that smokers actually contribute more than non-smokers. So the economics look better."

 

Suppose there are 1,000 passengers all potentially paying $100. There would be 150 smokers and in Margana's example, 75 would pay $100, giving $7,500. There would be 850 non-smokers, and 90%, or 765, would give $76,500.

 

The average smoker contribution is $7,500 / 150, or $50 and the average non-smoker contribution is $76,500 / 850, or $90.

 

So the assertion that "smokers contribute more" in the given example is false. Of course, there are fewer smokers removing the gratuity than non-smokers, but that's simply because they only represent 15% of the population.

 

In any case, I wasn't suggesting smokers were more or less likely to remove gratuities.

Don't disagree with your numbers. However, I used a highly unlikely 50% for smokers and 10% for non-smokers as comparison. I think if you compare like for like, ie 10% for each category, you might find that your case is less compelling.

For interest, do you consider that the fitness centre which is presently free should be supported financially by those of a less aerobic nature?

Perhaps some of the smokers who are pressing for special accommodation could tell us about some of the practicalities.

 

Is this room to have additional filtering? If so, how is that paid for, both the capital (installation) cost and as a running cost (cleaning filters, etc)? Are smokers prepared to pay an additional fee for this somehow, or must all passengers contribute to the cost? (I note that the other "vices" mentioned here, alcohol and gambling, generate funds, not consume them, so are the opposite of a tax on all passengers).

 

Which staff member is supposed to enter this room and keep it tidy? (because even if it's only between cruises, somebody will have to). Will smokers give them an extra tip? (statistically, a proportion of the smokers will be those who remove the automatic gratuity and feel no need to tip anybody because "it's Cunard's job to pay staff"). Or are they just supposed to endure any lingering smoke without any additional reward?

 

No doubt there are more questions, but an answer to just these would be interesting.

Further thought.............

If 15% of all passengers are smokers and 50% of them removed gratuities (unlikely), then that’s 7.5% of passengers removing gratuities.

But if only 10% of the 85% non-smoking passengers remove gratuities then that’s 8.5% of passengers.

So it’s likely that smokers actually contribute more than non-smokers. So the economics look better.

Perhaps some of the smokers who are pressing for special accommodation could tell us about some of the practicalities.

 

Is this room to have additional filtering? If so, how is that paid for, both the capital (installation) cost and as a running cost (cleaning filters, etc)? Are smokers prepared to pay an additional fee for this somehow, or must all passengers contribute to the cost? (I note that the other "vices" mentioned here, alcohol and gambling, generate funds, not consume them, so are the opposite of a tax on all passengers).

 

Which staff member is supposed to enter this room and keep it tidy? (because even if it's only between cruises, somebody will have to). Will smokers give them an extra tip? (statistically, a proportion of the smokers will be those who remove the automatic gratuity and feel no need to tip anybody because "it's Cunard's job to pay staff"). Or are they just supposed to endure any lingering smoke without any additional reward?

 

No doubt there are more questions, but an answer to just these would be interesting.

Perhaps Cunard could provide information on operating costs and any related passenger tax for Churchill’s Cigar Lounge to assist with an answer to your question.

Surely this must tell you something about other's attitude to smoking? I for one am glad there is only one area and that while on a cruise I will not be subjected to smelling cigarette smoke.

Impressions from recent Cunard cruises are that more ladies than men brave the elements to smoke, that many of these ladies are of a more mature age, and that some are accompanied by non-smoking partners or husbands. It seems quite acceptable to anti-smokers and to Cunard, that these ladies in their formal evening attire, should be required to elegantly walk to the open aft deck smoking area on QM2, particularly on a transatlantic voyage, to indulge in their perceived anti-social pleasure. These ladies may be uncomfortable, but should be pleased, (particularly Grill passengers who smoke), that the comfort of fellow passengers is not being made intolerable.

True. However, the poster you were quoting is from Connecticut, and I (perhaps mistakenly) understood that he was referring to HAL, since there had been previous posts comparing the gratuity policy of the two lines.

I'm puzzled. I responded to a comment made by yourself, which supported previous comments relating to HAL policy, which does not seem relevant to this thread. I'm also puzzled what relevance any poster's location has to content.