New Dress Code Designations?

Oh what a storm in a teacup! This is a site for diehard Cunard fans, who will want to resist any change that Cunard tries to make. However what you are unlikely to see is any comment from those people who do not cruise with Cunard because of the dress code. We live in a more casual, unstructured society where people no longer have Sunday best clothing and the cruise lines know this and will have done their research carefully. Okay they lose a few diehard cruisers, but they stand to gain these numbers over and over again from that sector of the marketplace which will not presently cruise with Cunard because of the restrictive dress code. Some you win, some you lose, but you can bet that Cunard are stacking the odds in favour of their balance sheet, where losing some loyal passengers is merely collateral damage.

You are 100% correct. I realize that my desires are but a tiny piece of their business and they really do not care. What I find most interesting as an observer of society particularly in the US how closely it matches up to the former Roman Empire. The only question is where exactly do we stand on the scale of eventual demise.

An option.

Based on the "stealth changes" history of other lines, next year will see the word "Suggested" or "Optional" inserted into the dress code on Cunard.

This wording change is just the beginning.

Sadly, I think you're right. It seems like a waste of time to change the names of the categories when the descriptions are not changing. I believe there's more to come. "Stealth change" is a good term.

So they have expanded the range of places where passengers can go without following the dress code. I have little expectation that the remaining formal locations will be respected. There is an arrogance in many (NOT ALL) of the people who won't dress up on formal nights--the "I don't wanna, you can't make me" people. I used to see it on HAL before they caved. And I've seen it a few times on QM2.

I saw a couple in cargo shorts and t-shirts in the hallway outside the Chart Room on QM2 around 7:30 on a formal night. I was waiting for friends, and I watched as this couple looking uncertainly into the Chart Room. They would have to have been incredibly stupid not to see that nobody was dressed the way they were. I said "If you're looking for somewhere casual to go, the Winter Garden is available for people who don't want to dress for formal night, and you can have dinner at the buffet." The man said that they'd already eaten in the dining room and then changed to be more comfortable. I pointed out that Cunard passengers remain dressed up all evening, and repeated that the Winter Garden was the designated bar for people who didn't dress up. He asked me about going to the show and I said they weren't supposed to go dressed like that. We went to the show and sat in the balcony. When I looked around the room, admiring all the finery, I noticed that couple downstairs, sitting right in the front row.

If Cunard wants to give the don't-dress-up passengers more places to go to in the evening, then they need to show some regard for those of us who do appreciate the ambiance of formal nights, and enforce the dress code in the designated formal locations.

But I'm not betting on it.

Oh what a storm in a teacup! This is a site for diehard Cunard fans, who will want to resist any change that Cunard tries to make. However what you are unlikely to see is any comment from those people who do not cruise with Cunard because of the dress code. We live in a more casual, unstructured society where people no longer have Sunday best clothing and the cruise lines know this and will have done their research carefully. Okay they lose a few diehard cruisers, but they stand to gain these numbers over and over again from that sector of the marketplace which will not presently cruise with Cunard because of the restrictive dress code. Some you win, some you lose, but you can bet that Cunard are stacking the odds in favour of their balance sheet, where losing some loyal passengers is merely collateral damage.

You may be right, but I'm not so sure. The dress code, and the elegant/traditional decor of the ships are what set Cunard apart from the rest of the mass market. They tend to be more expensive than some other lines and, given that they only have 3 ships, their itineraries are more limited. I don't see the commercial advantage in getting rid of their USP and simply joining the crowded arena of other brands offering the same, non-formal experience. Cunard had something that made them stand out from the rest; soon they won't. Why would one bother booking Cunard if it's no different from any other line, except that it's more expensive? Doesn't make sense to me.It will be interesting to see whether they change their marketing strategy to reflect the new, dumbed-down experience.

Oh what a storm in a teacup! This is a site for diehard Cunard fans, who will want to resist any change that Cunard tries to make. However what you are unlikely to see is any comment from those people who do not cruise with Cunard because of the dress code. We live in a more casual, unstructured society where people no longer have Sunday best clothing and the cruise lines know this and will have done their research carefully. Okay they lose a few diehard cruisers, but they stand to gain these numbers over and over again from that sector of the marketplace which will not presently cruise with Cunard because of the restrictive dress code. Some you win, some you lose, but you can bet that Cunard are stacking the odds in favour of their balance sheet, where losing some loyal passengers is merely collateral damage.

The loyal customers they are loosing are the older generation who have the time and the money to spend £15,000 on a world cruise.The ones they will gain will be the 3 and 4 day cruisers who spend £4/500 and who want a change from their all inclusive Mediterranean holiday

Oh what a storm in a teacup! This is a site for diehard Cunard fans, who will want to resist any change that Cunard tries to make. However what you are unlikely to see is any comment from those people who do not cruise with Cunard because of the dress code. We live in a more casual, unstructured society where people no longer have Sunday best clothing and the cruise lines know this and will have done their research carefully. Okay they lose a few diehard cruisers, but they stand to gain these numbers over and over again from that sector of the marketplace which will not presently cruise with Cunard because of the restrictive dress code. Some you win, some you lose, but you can bet that Cunard are stacking the odds in favour of their balance sheet, where losing some loyal passengers is merely collateral damage.

Two points: First, we await our first Cunard cruise, chosen partly because they've kept the formal nights which Celebrity, with whom we've cruised annually in recent years, have ditched.

Second, and this applies to other lines, too: it may seem clever to attract a younger customer base, but who, in the UK, has the money: the 45 year olds or the 65 year olds? Moreover, who has the time to take the long cruises which are a major element in the Cunard "offer"; 45s or 65s - or even 75s or 85s?

Dumbing down the dress code will lose the major USP of Cunard, and make it largely indistinguishable, and therefore in more direct competition with, a host of mid-market lines.

Oh what a storm in a teacup! This is a site for diehard Cunard fans, who will want to resist any change that Cunard tries to make. However what you are unlikely to see is any comment from those people who do not cruise with Cunard because of the dress code. We live in a more casual, unstructured society where people no longer have Sunday best clothing and the cruise lines know this and will have done their research carefully. Okay they lose a few diehard cruisers, but they stand to gain these numbers over and over again from that sector of the marketplace which will not presently cruise with Cunard because of the restrictive dress code. Some you win, some you lose, but you can bet that Cunard are stacking the odds in favour of their balance sheet, where losing some loyal passengers is merely collateral damage.

Cunard does not exist. It ceased to exist as a company when Carnival Corporation bought it in 1999. It is merely a brand within Carnival. Just like Klondike, Ben & Jerrys, Popsicle, Breyers and Marmite are Unilever brands.

What Carnival Corp. should care about is the overall profitability of the entire corporation.

Personally, I think they may have made a market segmentation mistake because they have other brands (eg Holland America) that target cruisers who like casual.

Carnival is a mess. It bought too many similar lines in the markets they appealed to... on both sides of the Atlantic. The one thing that distinguishes Cunard, Holland America and P&O is that they are "legacy" lines, with rich heritages, traditions and all appealed to traditional "middle of the road" passengers in terms of cost and on-board product. They bought these because they were completely different from Carnival itself and didn't compete. Problem was these lines (plus Princess) wind up competing against each other. And none are "hip" or "trendy" the way RCCL and Celebrity see themselves. So Carnival is stuck with three Old Codger Lines and for the last 10 years they have tinkering, tearing down and transforming P&O and HAL into... well something... I don't think they even know yet. I haven't been on P&O since 2001 or HAL since 2011 as they go through their midlife crisis. And don't want too, either. It's the classic MAMIL: Middle Aged Men in Lycra syndrome and it's not a pretty sight. BRITANNIA and the new HAL "K'DAM" ships are like a 65-year-old in skinny H&M jeans. For years Holland America's marketing has been, in terms of their established clientele "Go away, you're not hip enough and you're ruining our image". And we have.

And for awhile, Cunard was immune from this and was the "lifeboat" for P&O and HAL "survivors". Now, it appears the lifeboat is being transformed itself into a squishy, ill-defined rubber raft with the air leaking out of it.

In the end, I think my wife and I will probably just phase out our cruising holidays... ships are too confining to be stuck aboard them with policies, people and atmosphere at odds with your preferences. And be told it's for your own good.

Fair enough. More reason so many of us miss the old STEFAN BATORY. Jacket and tie was sufficient, she was charming and delightful. Cheap, too.

 

And yes, if there is a practical reason to "dumb down" the dress code on Cunard it would be the QM2. Frankly, I wish they just brought back two completely separate classes.. it was ever so much easier. In Tourist, you dressed pretty minimally at night and everyone else did, too. In First, you dressed. Proof that the old ways are often the best ones.

I also miss the Stefan Batory. The best thing about that charming little ship was the fact that we could do Atlantic crossings from our own country. After Canadian Pacific bowed out in 1971 there weren't many other opportunities to cross to or from Montreal. There were Russian ships for a while and the occasional long cruise that could be considered an Atlantic crossing.

Until 1975, I believe, the Stefan Batory maintained a First Class section on the top deck - only 15 cabins. There was a one-sitting restaurant and, although there was not a dress code that I saw published, passengers mainly dressed for dinner in the traditional style with many gents in dinner jackets. Even as a one-class ship most people dressed fairly well in the former Tourist Class restaurant. Alas, that was a generation ago.

After the Stefan Batory crossings were discontinued in 1987, crossings to or from a Canadian port became rare. We have occasionally been able to do so on Cunard when a crossing calls in Halifax (we did that in 2014) and once a year - twice next year - it is possible to travel between Southampton and Quebec City or v.v. (which we did last year).

I well remember our earlier crossings on the QE2 when the ship was divided into First and Tourist - later called Transatlantic Class. Cunard is actually more formal now because it was not traditional for passengers in Tourist to dress formally, although a jacket and tie was required every night. I don't recall any men in tuxedos when we travelled in Tourist Class. The First Class restaurant (Columbia, later Caronia) was quite formal as, of course, were the Grills. When the QE2 was "de-classed" formal wear was much in evidence in the former Tourist Class restaurant.

You may be right, but I'm not so sure. The dress code, and the elegant/traditional decor of the ships are what set Cunard apart from the rest of the mass market. They tend to be more expensive than some other lines and, given that they only have 3 ships, their itineraries are more limited. I don't see the commercial advantage in getting rid of their USP and simply joining the crowded arena of other brands offering the same, non-formal experience. Cunard had something that made them stand out from the rest; soon they won't. Why would one bother booking Cunard if it's no different from any other line, except that it's more expensive? Doesn't make sense to me.It will be interesting to see whether they change their marketing strategy to reflect the new, dumbed-down experience.

We have booked a cruise Vancouver to Alaska round-trip on the QE for June of next year. Our mid-range Britannia balcony stateroom costs (Canadian)$360 per day pp. The equivalent on Princess would be $200 per day and on Holland America about $300 per day. On HAL, that fare is for this year and it seems rather high but they usually have huge discounts.

It is not just the dress code that makes a Cunard cruise to Alaska irresistible and worth the higher fare. The décor is, to our tastes, vastly superior to the others - and there are other aspects that appeal to us. If the dress code is dumbed down, we would have to ask ourselves if a significant fare difference is worth it.

Given that it seems that Carnival PLC probably has at least one or two too many brands. Princess, Holland America, and now Cunard seem to be targeting the same markets.

 

The only real difference may be the itineraries they offer.

If the primary differentiator between Cunard and HAL/Princess becomes the fare, I know where I'll spend my cruise money in the future.

It's the classic GM or Roots Group "choice": we don't care if you buy a Chevy or a Buick, a Humber or a Sunbeam. Why because in the end, we still get your money. Indeed, Carnival are probably deliberately blurring the differences between their brands for this very purpose. And adopting a common dress code helps, too. Since most people buy their cruises "on the web" when the main denominator is price, it's pretty apparent what's going on here. 80% of "cruisers" (god I hate that term) don't really notice or care as long as they think they got "a deal".

Two points: First, we await our first Cunard cruise, chosen partly because they've kept the formal nights which Celebrity, with whom we've cruised annually in recent years, have ditched.

 

Second, and this applies to other lines, too: it may seem clever to attract a younger customer base, but who, in the UK, has the money: the 45 year olds or the 65 year olds? Moreover, who has the time to take the long cruises which are a major element in the Cunard "offer"; 45s or 65s - or even 75s or 85s?

 

Dumbing down the dress code will lose the major USP of Cunard, and make it largely indistinguishable, and therefore in more direct competition with, a host of mid-market lines.

Those 75 to 80 year olds who "have the money" as you suggest will be dead soon. Cunard needs to think about passengers who will be alive in the next ten years or more and that is what they are doing.

As a general statement one should not underestimate the stupidity of large corporations in a market that is changing.

 

 

Dis Carnival all you wish (and I am not a fan), but they are enormously profitable. This does not happen by ignoring current/future trends, much as they may conflict with current passengers wishes.

Whilst Carnival Corp do not publish stats specific to all their lines - apparently not ALL of their lines make a profit/required profit and some are 'cash cows' the profits subsidises the weak performers. Hence the often Senior Back Office report line changes. They may be the biggest but they do have many challenges.

With so many cruise lines moving away from dress codes why would anyone that does not want to adhere to what Cunard is about want to sail Cunard. I'd never step on a Princess ship as I know that what they deliver is no where near what I am looking for on a vacation. With so many lines, go on the ones that fit your personal needs, why does every line need to be the same? ...and not all young people want to dress like crap on a ship...

Two points: First, we await our first Cunard cruise, chosen partly because they've kept the formal nights which Celebrity, with whom we've cruised annually in recent years, have ditched.

 

Second, and this applies to other lines, too: it may seem clever to attract a younger customer base, but who, in the UK, has the money: the 45 year olds or the 65 year olds? Moreover, who has the time to take the long cruises which are a major element in the Cunard "offer"; 45s or 65s - or even 75s or 85s?

 

Dumbing down the dress code will lose the major USP of Cunard, and make it largely indistinguishable, and therefore in more direct competition with, a host of mid-market lines.

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.

I am sure that eventually the casual dress code will win due to a change in demographics of the customers.However,in the short term they will loose a lot of money,especially on the world cruises.I was on the Southampton/Sydney section of the world cruise this year and the ignoring of the dress code was obvious in the Australian sectors.I spoke to 4 couples who had decided they would no be doing anymore world cruises with Cunard.I worked out that loosing those four couples would cost Cunard around £125,000 next year.No doubt they will again put up the price of drinks to cover the loss !!!!!

Whilst it is fairly obvious to us and anyone with a reasonable business sense what Cunard/HAL/Carnival Corp is up to in the long term regarding the bit by bit weakening of the current dress code we will be holding off on making a judgement and will watch to see what damage, if any, the new policy has to the current smart ambiance on their ships.

The reason I had a 'hissy-fit' when I saw the original 'Thread' on CC was the fact Cunard did not advise passengers with firm bookings or their agents BEFORE they rolled out the change. Cunard claim there is nothing to worry about, its "just a change in wording", surely they would have been totally TRANSPARANT and notified everyone had that been true?

I still feel insulted that my loyalty means nothing to Cunard. Cunard says they will be responding to my written complaint - within 28 days!!

We love Cunard, sailed with them 19 times, exclusively. We are already booked with them twice in 2018 and twice in 2019. In 2019 we sail on QV for her full World Cruise (a long awaited special trip), plus Alaska in June.

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.

Those 75 to 80 year olds who "have the money" as you suggest will be dead soon. Cunard needs to think about passengers who will be alive in the next ten years or more and that is what they are doing.

Insulting to those in their 70/80s.

Not sure what age you are, but if your lucky you too will be that age - if your lucky!

I am 60 and retired - the average age demographic on Cunard - it certainly seemed to be on the 190 days I have cruised with them!

BUT NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE BUYING POWER OF THE RANKS OF THE 'SILVER CRUISES' - many of us are 'SKI'ing = 'S'pending the 'K'ids 'I'nheritance, after all..... we earned it!!

I find it very very sad that so many people simply refuse to honour a dress code and actually enjoy wearing nice clothes on a cruise ...sadly i put the blame basically on USA cruisers whose entire dress code and attitude is appalling ...many people of all ages actually enjoy the chance to dress up and i know my daughter and grandaughter when they went on Cunard last year in the med were utterly appalled at the refusal of USA passengers to dress nicely on Formal Nights ...Fully understand the problems of luggage restrictions and hauling Tuxedos and ball gowns but there is plenty of other options available to at least dress really smartly

I find it very very sad that so many people simply refuse to honour a dress code and actually enjoy wearing nice clothes on a cruise ...sadly i put the blame basically on USA cruisers whose entire dress code and attitude is appalling ...many people of all ages actually enjoy the chance to dress up and i know my daughter and grandaughter when they went on Cunard last year in the med were utterly appalled at the refusal of USA passengers to dress nicely on Formal Nights ...Fully understand the problems of luggage restrictions and hauling Tuxedos and ball gowns but there is plenty of other options available to at least dress really smartly

I think it’s a fairly big generalization to blame this on the Americans. I’m from New York and I spend a lot of time in London and it is significantly more casual than it was when I started traveling there 40 years ago. Both cities have followed a similar trajectory of relaxing dress codes when it comes to fine dining, the workplace, and even in private clubs.

Just cancelled my 2019 winter crossing - despite having snagged one of those elusive solo staterooms. The Cunard rep was very professional and asked why and I told him why - and please refund my deposit to the card.

Not even five minutes later my phone rings and it's the Cunard rep. The rep gave me the same corporate line that "nothing has changed" and allegedly jackets are no longer required in just the casino and Golden Lion. OK, it's an employee doing their job as instructed. I mentioned the points in this thread and stated that the atmosphere on the ship will be substantially diminished for me as I sailed Cunard because of its dress code.

(I should be a demographic that Cunard would want - close to retirement and having the health, time, and money to travel. That, and I spend money on board with Cunard sponsored excursions, spa treatments, and in the shops. The last time I even bought an art work!)

I understand that Cunard made a business decision. But as a customer I can also make a business decision. Some long time QE2 passengers chose not to sail on QM2 as they didn't feel that the new ship matched the elegance of the old. It's a sad day for me as my beloved QM2, which has given me so many happy memories, is in a sense being taken out of service as I knew her.

Why would one bother booking Cunard if it's no different from any other line, except that it's more expensive?

As far as I am concerned, QV & QE are no different than any other line, but QM2 *is* different than any other line, for two reasons - it's is an ocean liner - every other ship out there is a "cruise ship", and as far as I know, in addition to being the only ocean liner, it's also the only ship why regularly does the TA Crossing NY > Southampton; yes, there are other ships which do "repositioning" cruises, but they aren't built specifically to handle an ocean crossing on the north Atlantic.

Disclaimer - I've never sailed on any ship, and have had no desire to take a cruise on any ship; there has only ever been one ship which has interested me - the QM2 (and prior to that, the QE2), which are ocean liners, doing a NY > Southampton crossing.

Having said all that - I am disappointed in the changes in the dress code - I've been looking forward to dressing up for dinner and evenings; I don't ever get the chance to dress formally; I've never owned an evening gown :)

Onehappystudio,

Enjoy your gown. (I'll have to remember to notice it when I see you onboard) You will be in good company, crossings have always been dressier than cruises.

- Mark

I've spent some time thinking long and hard about what has prompted this "terminology change" from Cunard and I think I have an answer.

Below is a link to Carnival's 2017 Strategic Report and IFRS Financial Statements. The Strategic report makes for interesting reading.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9Njg5NDgyfENoaWxkSUQ9Mzk5OTEyfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

I quote from Section 1:B:II:b: Positive Demand Trends:

From a demographic perspective, two age groups, the Baby Boomers and the Millennial generations, have in recent years experienced trends that positively affect demand for cruising. The Baby Boomer generation likes to pursue an active lifestyle and has the desire and the means to travel and enjoys multi-generational cruising. The Millennial generation has now surpassed the size of the Baby Boomer generation and represents the fastest growing demographic segment of the vacation industry. This group expresses a strong desire to travel and share new experiences, a mindset that should continue to foster growth for the industry. A recent study by the American Society of Travel Agents (“ASTA”) indicates that the Millennial generation has as positive a view of cruising as the Baby Boomer generation.

So let's think about what Baby Boomers and Millennials would respond to in terms of terminology. I have no doubt Carnival has spent a LOT of money to do just that in order to make Cunard an aspirational brand for the higher-income earning bracket within those key groups.

Would "Formal" and "Informal" work? I don't think so, and I suggest Carnival's research has found the same.

"Smart Attire" and "Gala" is probably more likely to be terminology that the newer cruisers might respond to positively. I'm sure focus groups have identified just that.

So...will we see baseball caps or dress denim in the Britannia dining rooms? Highly unlikely. It's in Carnival's interests to keep the Cunard brand exactly where it is: luxury travel, but not "ultra luxury". That moniker has been adopted by the Seabourn brand if I read this document correctly.

In my humble opinion, I don't think Carnival would be well served to turn Cunard into a more diluted version of their current offering to appeal to a wider base. I think what they are trying to do is make the brand a touch more accessible to the affluent Baby Boomer & Millennial by using terminology they will respond to rather than terminology that might have been found relatable by generations prior to these groups.

ps.

In all this should I, as a Gen X-er, be a little miffed that we don't even rate a mention? To quote a clever twitter contributor "Whenever I see Millennials and Baby Boomers arguing it seems they forget there's a generation between that despises them both!"

We have still to take our first cruise on Cunard which is at the end of August. Having previously taken well over 20 cruises on other lines we were looking forward to a new experience. However we have always dressed up on formal nights and smartly on other evenings although my husband did not wear a jacket as almost no one did. He always wore his kilt on formal nights but, due to airline weight restrictions, he will only be taking his dinner suit this time. I love dressing up in the evening. Life at home nowadays is so casual even when going out for a meal it is nice to feel special. I hope things don’t change on Cunard but only time will tell.