buchanan101

As I expected… still wondering about bidding for potential Q5/Q6 upgrade… still you have 2 TVs, and a much better sofa than balconies. And better deck chairs… and, bottled water.. and a coffee machine…

Though £8k for P2 for 14 days is good value (PG seems to be roughly £5.5k a week when cruises are put on sale.. in my very limited experience…) what are PG cabins like as in one in 7 weeks?

Wear your day clothes - you have an obvious excuse.

Thought I saw some royal portraits in Chris Frame's tour?

Is that a half decent "app" now? (Last experience, 18months ago)

You do share a table effectively with the next table in QM2 QG - or maybe it's just the bot where they put the first timers. Luckily neighbouring tables were good company, and you didn't have to make conversation, so almost perfect set up...

The plugs would be in a strange place if beds at the side... If you book an inside you know what you are getting - and aren't expecting to be spending much time in there. There's a reason why they are cheap and you get everything else the same as 80% of the rest of the passengers. The other cabins are no different in size to Vista cabins AFAIK

Only one ship is QM2, and you are being disingenuous again: I was referring to the passenger/volume ratio. AGAIN. And picking an inside cabin and a section of the QG restaurant as your criticisms when those do not affect 95%+ of passengers... .

Yes Gross Tonnage is a volume measurement - but the high ceilings (only 2 decks that are 4.5m compared with 3.5m I think) can't make the difference between mid30s and mid 40s

My recollection was correct, as was my statement comparing with other cruise ships QE - 36 QA- 34 Anthem - 35 Britannia - 33 Last two at random. Feel free to check - I expect most 100,000 ton to 200,000 ton cruise ships will be mid 30s

I said "not dissimilar" - maybe something like 34 compared with 36 (with QM2 at 45). The numbers are on cruisemapper and elsewhere. And it can't be a 100% accurate science - a slightly larger ship may be able to get away with a slightly lower density; there could be efficiency of scale in some non passenger areas - so that's why I say 34 and 36 are similar And the comparison with other cruise ships was in the passenger/volume ratio - re-read my message Not all ships can be QM2, much as you would like otherwise!

I usually have to face the wall dining with my partner...doesn't bother me in restaurants as my view is just lovely (!), it may do at sea when there is a different sort of view. I'm not expecting a great table in PG as it'll be only our second Cunard. Last time in QM2 QG we were in the area away from windows, though the views in QM2 QG aren't as good. Any tips for getting a good table? Turn up at embarkation day lunch and be nice to the maitre'd? I mean we aren't first-timers... Anyway, apologies, I was just trying to point out the trade off that I assume they made; more window seats- and the facing the wall tables are not the best I agree, but either a space saving measure (get more tables in that way) or misguided design

I'm just imagining these two fat people being wedged. Are they still there now?

Looks better than I expected actually. The loungers on the balcony are a grade or two up from the ones in the BC videos, though it's the same size balcony, but at least they are reasonably deep. The bathroom sink is typical hotel fare now and is supposed to be a the next step up from the inbuilt ones in the Britannias. I quite like it - lookwise anyway. I'd prefer a rainfall shower but I doubt any cruise lines use them due to ater consumption and headroom. I guess the closets are very similar to Britannias given similar dimensions; as long as I can put stuff away I am not too bothered, though a lot of the VLOGS seem to focus on storage -key for longer voyages I guess Prefer the QG look, but on the fjords voyage I'm saving £2k and going PG

A Chris Frame walk through

Excellent comments. Suspect the QR will look better in the flesh (though renderings always looked a bit underwhelming). And the promenade deck is no big deal for me as most days we will be on shore. Can still walk round it. Can still sit out on (other) decks. I think QA had to be a bit different - they’ve added 45% more bed capacity to their fleet; they have to expand the target market.

The QG restaurant is long and thin so it runs the full length of the windows. Seems that some on here would rather have a restaurant where fewer people have window seats? They could have done this by putting Grills Lounge alongside QG restaurant both by window. Would people have preferred that? Probably not.. Twice as many people in PG so the restaurant is same length but twice as wide. I’d still rather be in the QG restaurant as more chance of window seat… but we will be in PG in… checks…51 days!

Agree with the look comments but why should how a ship looks give a maritime experience? Genuinely interested; why is an interior that could have been on ships decades or even a century ago (as the other Queens) be synonymous with a maritime experience? Pretty sure there were elements of decades old ships that I’d rather not experience…

Passenger/volume ratio almost identical to QV and QE and probably not that dissimilar to most other cruise ships. Cabins no smaller to Vista cabins. Not sure what Payne has to do with it: QA nor any other ship is the QM2. Don’t know why you are comparing anything to the QM2

Fit more in if you think about footprint of table and two chairs

Got to differentiate somehow...

Layout same, trim may be a bit different, and bathroom may be slightly lower spec (but I assume no shower curtain)

I think all the vloggers were put in BC, not standard balconies

No, you get a coffee machine... and I suspect the trim may be a bit different... though probably a lot closer than BC>PG>QG

Britannia Club is the lowest they've got. So they've covered maybe 25% to 30% tops of all cabins...