QE2, QM2 and QV: A Trio ???

What is the latest speculation: is the plan for QV to replace QE2 immediately upon QV's delivery (now sometime around Dec. 2007 according to these boards), OR is there a chance that QE2, QM2 and QV will sail for some time as a 3-ship Cunard fleet....maybe until the SOLAS regs force the issue ???

Keeping my fingers crossed.

Tom

I suspect the three will sail together for only a short time, the QE2 would make a useful back up if the Victoria does not perform as expected. I think QE2 will be gone sooner rather than later. Nobody book the Victoria, please, keep the old girl in service.

I wish they would remove Queen from the Victoria's title, no matter how nice a cruise she will be, she isn't a Cunard Queen. (Nothing a tin of black paint wont fix).

There is a fairly new book out called "Cunard's Queens" that covers the QE, QM, QE2, QM2 and talks about the QV. I am not sure how much inside information they have - or if they are speculating but they do seem to ahve a fairly good angle on how Cunard thinks financially and you get the clear impression from that the QE2 will not be around much after the QV.

Although in the book they talk about Victoria not having Southampton as its home port but having another European port as the home. Saying that would especially be the case if the QE2 is still about as Cunard did not want 3 ships out of Southampton in the cruising season.... altho QM2 mostly does crossings in summer I guess.

Jon:

Yes, I agree about the name "Queen Victoria".

It's one thing to have "Queen Mary 2" have a Queen name (and keep in mind I'm one of the QE2 fanatics) - QM2 was built in a classic shipyard (not a British yard -I'm sad to say), she does have the hull, the powerful engines, etc. etc. etc..... so that the arguement can be made that she is at least in the "spirit" of previous Queen ships....but QV, it seems to me, can make no claims to be in the tradition. Why not use a vintage Cunard name ??

If Cunard was still an independent British company I doubt that they would have used that name for that ship being built in Italy. Of course, if Cunard was still an independent British company QM2 very well might be a different ship too!

I posted my question -as you no doubt guess- because I'm trying to guess how many more QE2 transatlantic crossings we can hope for.....

Obviously, there will be the crossing next January, 2006. Assuming there is a World Cruise 2007, I am hopeful that there will also be a December 2006 or January 2007 crossing as well (assuming they don't get cute and have QE2 sail from Southampton straight to Ft. Lauderdale, skipping NY altogether). Beyond that, I wonder if it's too wildly optimistic to think that QE2 then might have one more World Cruise in 2008 -and one more crossing- just as QV is starting up.

One more for sure, hoping for two more, and praying for three more.

Wow, that sounds like a great marketing slogon for all of us QE2 die-hards.

Now if it were me.. so as not to use the "Queen" title I would name QV "Princess Diana."

Of course, this is just me. Even the name Princess Diana might be overdoing it...

What is the latest speculation: is the plan for QV to replace QE2 immediately upon QV's delivery (now sometime around Dec. 2007 according to these boards), OR is there a chance that QE2, QM2 and QV will sail for some time as a 3-ship Cunard fleet....maybe until the SOLAS regs force the issue ???

 

Keeping my fingers crossed.

 

Tom

Hi Tom,

A couple of things factor into this. According to Captain McNaught QE2 can be made SOLAS compliant and is 80% there already. The dark clouds on the horizon are the mandatory 2007 and 2010 refits (as ships age the mandatory refit schedules become more frequent). Given the cost of the refits and my sense that Princess has no interest in, or understanding of, the unique character, romance, and historical importance of the QE2, I fear they will avoid the costs of the 2007 refit by scrapping her. I fervently hope events prove otherwise, for when she is gone an era will have ended, an age will have passed away, and some part of many of us will die. I am sorry to be so pessimistic. My experience with American corporations is that the "bottom line" is their only concern. If Princess owned England, they'd raze Windsor Castle to build condos and Trafalgar Square would be renamed Six Flags-London. We'd be a hell of a lot better off if Cunard was still an English concern. Whoever approved the sale of this venerable English institution to Princess ought to be dragged out of their mansion and hung.

Richard

Richard

Richard:

On the one hand, you are the bearer of good news, i.e. Capt. McNaught's statement that QE2 can be made to comply with SOLAS and is 80% of the way there. I hadn't heard that yet. I can't think of a more authoritative source than him !!

But, as you say, the down side of this is indeed the old bottom line.

I think it's a reasonable arguement that given the fame, stature, history and continuing popularity of QE2 that the refits and an extended life would be a financial plus for Cunard/Carnival (ouch, I hate to have to say that!). Presumably, she is still making money, right ???

Tom

When I was on for the next LAST transatlantic in December, the cruise sales chicks were talking about QV either late 2007 or early 2008. Yes, pushed back again.

HOPEFULLY they are thinking hard about CUNARD - the liner line and coming up with a more substantial design.

I say bring back the IA names for the newbuild. Victoria works just fine.

Although good ol' Cunard marketing will probably name every new ship a Queen.

Have you noticed how many times they mention 'Royal Fleet' in all their promotional literature?

In my opinion, if it wasn't for the "evil" Carnival Corp. Cunard would most likely be out of business. Wasn't Cunard owned by a Swedish company for a while? Didn't Trafalgar House sell the line off because it was extremely unprofitable?

IMHO Cunard is out of business. RIP.

In my opinion, if it wasn't for the "evil" Carnival Corp. Cunard would most likely be out of business. Wasn't Cunard owned by a Swedish company for a while? Didn't Trafalgar House sell the line off because it was extremely unprofitable?

Yes, I think we understand that Carnival Corp has deep pockets, etc. Yes, we all are thrilled that Cunard is alive and well. No doubt about it. Thank heavens that there is a new "Queen" ship to continue the grand tradition of transatlantic crossings(although I question certain things about the design of QM2). In addition, I notice that many aspects of life aboard QE2 today are -IMHO- better than the all-British (ownership and crew) version I first experienced in 1981, which was fabulous in 1981.

Having said that, what people like Richard and I are getting at is that it just sticks in the throat to say "Cunard" and "Carnival" in the same breath. I wish that they would have kept Cunard as a wholly-owned separate entity....isn't anyone afraid of it all being some monolithic, cookie-cutter monster of an operation ??? Just look at all these new ships - P&O, Holland-America, Princess...I won't even mention Carnival...does any other ship look like QE2 ???

..but of course, I also wish that the "United States" and the "France" were still making crossings too...it was never the same after "Ile de France" and "Queen Mary" went away, but then we got QE2....do we have another QE2??

...so much of this stuff is connected to the romance, and the history and we're sad to see it fading away

The Bottom Line

People are talking about Carnival's slavish adherence to the bottom line. All the greatest ships : Queen Mary, Mauretania, even QE2 were all built to make profits. When they stopped doing so, they were taken out of service. It has always been a sad reality.

As a big QE2 fan I don't want to see the old girl go but I can also see why Carnival Corp will not wish to do the major refits she needs before 2010. Long may she sail on.

QE2 is almost longer in active service now than any former great Cunard Liner, including the War years : QM : 31, QE : 29, Mauretania : 28, Berengaria : 26, Olympic : 23. Only Aquitania was as old as QE2 is NOW, when Aquitania was retired, and by then Aquitania was much more oldfashioned and worn out, than QE2 is now.

In that QE2 is an extraordinary Cunard liner...

Long may she sail on, but I am afraid it is on borrowed time, and each year extra is one gained, I think.

J

QE2 is almost longer in active service now than any former great Cunard Liner, including the War years : QM : 31, QE : 29, Mauretania : 28, Berengaria : 26, Olympic : 23. Only Aquitania was as old as QE2 is NOW, when Aquitania was retired, and by then Aquitania was much more oldfashioned and worn out, than QE2 is now.

 

In that QE2 is an extraordinary Cunard liner...

 

Long may she sail on, but I am afraid it is on borrowed time, and each year extra is one gained, I think.

 

J

Yes you are quite correct, Belgian Cruiser, every day and every year that we continue to have QE2 is really a treat.

It's worth remembering that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were both gone before QE2 even sailed on her first official voyage in 1969. The fact that we're getting a few bonus years -with both QE2 and QM2 sailing - is something to be truly grateful for.The reality is that it is not 1978 or 1985, and time is relentless. QE2 is an old ship (as much as it pains me to admit that).

I guess that given how sentimental people can be about ships it is no surprise that we will always want more time. QE2 is indeed an extraordinary liner, and when she goes it will be the end of an era.

The delay with Queen Victoria gives us additional time.