Queen Anne

[buchanan101]

3 hours ago, deck chair said:

I have long had the opinion that the QA is going be an overcrowded mess.  Too many passengers and not enough space.  Just look at the smaller cabins, small Royal Court Theatre and no real promenade deck and mediocre seating in the premium Grills dining rooms as examples. Stephen Payne must be horrified. The bean counters at Cunard have really screwed this one up.  I will stick with QM2, a beautiful ship on which I have experienced 40+ sailings since 2006.  

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 

[buchanan101]

4 hours ago, NE John said:

As a fellow armchair critic, there are some really nice things I’ve seen so far along with a couple clunkers. However, the main thing I see missing is a sense of being at sea and being at see on a Cunard ship. QA has a nice boutique hotel look (maybe Azamara-like) and that’s great but I’m looking for a maritime experience. 
I eagerly await the reports on the nearby “Live” thread regarding tomorrow’s maiden voyage. Based on what I see, I’m sure one can have a good experience on QA - but will it be a Cunard experience?

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…

[Germancruiser]

It is with great interest that I read all the comments about the new " Cunarder". I sailed on board about 25 different ship with different lines. Cunard beeing my favorite at the moment.

Every new ship has some parts that one likes- some less so. That´s quite usual - each has ones own taste.

A real ship buff ( which I am) might stick to QM2. It is good that new ship has modern feel- and still remains elegant- acording to the pictures and the video I saw so far. I am not overly impressed with the QR either but all the other lounges look really nice and elegant. My favorite is the Commodore Club. I also like that most lounges are outside with big windows- which makes a real Cunarder- connected with the seas at evey twist and turn.

Nobody would dare to call that walkway around the ship a Promenade Deck. I expected it to be that way. I sailed on board Nieuw Statendam,  which is also Pinacle Class and did not like it one bit. Glad they customized QA to be a Cunarder- different maybe- but still a Cunarder.

[Victoria2]

7 hours ago, NE John said:

As a fellow armchair critic, there are some really nice things I’ve seen so far along with a couple clunkers. However, the main thing I see missing is a sense of being at sea and being at see on a Cunard ship. QA has a nice boutique hotel look (maybe Azamara-like) and that’s great but I’m looking for a maritime experience. 
I eagerly await the reports on the nearby “Live” thread regarding tomorrow’s maiden voyage. Based on what I see, I’m sure one can have a good experience on QA - but will it be a Cunard experience?

I think the only real clunker I can immediately see and which can't be changed, is the design of the QG restaurant but then to be fair, that has no effect for the majority of passengers. Hopefully, we won't be on any of the naughty steps.

 

I might have to carry a cushion around with me if the chairs around the ship are as uncomfortable as they look but apart from that, not too bad at all.

[buchanan101]

15 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

I think the only real clunker I can immediately see and which can't be changed, is the design of the QG restaurant but then to be fair, that has no effect for the majority of passengers. Hopefully, we won't be on any of the naughty steps.

 

I might have to carry a cushion around with me if the chairs around the ship are as uncomfortable as they look but apart from that, not too bad at all.

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! 

[buchanan101]

1 hour ago, Germancruiser said:

It is with great interest that I read all the comments about the new " Cunarder". I sailed on board about 25 different ship with different lines. Cunard beeing my favorite at the moment.

Every new ship has some parts that one likes- some less so. That´s quite usual - each has ones own taste.

A real ship buff ( which I am) might stick to QM2. It is good that new ship has modern feel- and still remains elegant- acording to the pictures and the video I saw so far. I am not overly impressed with the QR either but all the other lounges look really nice and elegant. My favorite is the Commodore Club. I also like that most lounges are outside with big windows- which makes a real Cunarder- connected with the seas at evey twist and turn.

Nobody would dare to call that walkway around the ship a Promenade Deck. I expected it to be that way. I sailed on board Nieuw Statendam,  which is also Pinacle Class and did not like it one bit. Glad they customized QA to be a Cunarder- different maybe- but still a Cunarder.

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. 

[exlondoner]

7 hours ago, NE John said:

As a fellow armchair critic, there are some really nice things I’ve seen so far along with a couple clunkers. However, the main thing I see missing is a sense of being at sea and being at see on a Cunard ship. QA has a nice boutique hotel look (maybe Azamara-like) and that’s great but I’m looking for a maritime experience. 
I eagerly await the reports on the nearby “Live” thread regarding tomorrow’s maiden voyage. Based on what I see, I’m sure one can have a good experience on QA - but will it be a Cunard experience?

Interesting that. One of the things I liked was the lengths they had gone to to connect with the sea. There are so many places indoors where you can look at the sea, unlike so many modern ships, and also many traditional liners. But that prom deck…

[buchanan101]

A Chris Frame walk through

 

 

[Victoria2]

1 hour ago, buchanan101 said:

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! 

As one of your 'some people', the Vistas QG restaurants are light and airy and even most of those not sat directly at the window, had a view out.

Now I'm pretty sure we will have a window table and the window tables will be fine for those who are lucky enough to be seated there but at the expense possibly of a few Q. Griller's having to face a wall?

 

Would you be happy to be sat facing a wall?

 

I wouldn't.

[buchanan101]

Just now, Victoria2 said:

As one of your 'some people', the Vistas QG restaurants are light and airy and even most of those not sat directly at the window, had a view out.

Now I'm pretty sure we will have a window table and the window tables will be fine for those who are lucky enough to be seated there but at the expense possibly of a few Q. Griller's having to face a wall?

 

Would you be happy to be sat facing a wall?

 

I wouldn't.

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

[exlondoner]

No bookshop. There must be a reason other than corporate insanity.

[King Amo]

I don't like wall facing seats, as being a hotel and catering geek and generally nosey I want to be able to watch what's going on in the restaurant and how service is being delivered. I remember back on the QE2 when we had one of the best waiters I have had the pleasure of being served by. He was a master, yet I bet the majority of his guests had no concept of this. His eyes were everywhere anticipating every need before the guests even realised it, but he never took the limelight. He left the chat and the more 'cuddly' service be taken care of by his assistant, who was a young girl on a placement from Blackpool and the Fylde, which back then had a decent reputation for H&C courses. She was made to look amazing (and don't get me wrong, she was lovely), but it was he who was orchestrating everything. 

 

I found it mesmerising, particularly as it was what I always tried to do when I was back managing restaurants and accommodation. You can't underestimate the importance of the stuff going on in the background in making the foreground stuff look exceptional, and it's a joy to behold when you see an operation running completely 'ship shape'. 

 

Sorry, I ramble, but this restaurant is clearly a compromise, and a very surprising one given that QG should be the flagship. 

[Victoria2]

16 minutes ago, buchanan101 said:

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

No apologies necessary. 🙂

I just happen to 'feel' for those who will be facing a wall when dining in Cunard's top dining 'facility'.

No good table tips I'm afraid although apparently, we soon became known as undemanding and very pleasant to wait staff, and all staff, hence the 'you're family' comment I have heard a few times over the years.

I'm sure that didn't hurt in the early days. Now it's cabin, CWC status and the fact we book within a minute of the itineraries going on sale. Triple whammy really. 🙂

 

 

[exlondoner]

4 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

No apologies necessary. 🙂

I just happen to 'feel' for those who will be facing a wall when dining in Cunard's top dining 'facility'.

No good table tips I'm afraid although apparently, we soon became known as undemanding and very pleasant to wait staff, and all staff, hence the 'you're family' comment I have heard a few times over the years.

I'm sure that didn't hurt in the early days. Now it's cabin, CWC status and the fact we book within a minute of the itineraries going on sale. Triple whammy really. 🙂

 

 

I think it must be mainly cabin. In all our years, we’ve never had a window seat in QG on the Vistas.

[Victoria2]

3 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

I think it must be mainly cabin. In all our years, we’ve never had a window seat in QG on the Vistas.

Not necessarily.

We were in 'the bubble' on our second cruise onward and that was Q5 -Q2. Glorious views.

[exlondoner]

9 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

Not necessarily.

We were in 'the bubble' on our second cruise onward and that was Q5 -Q2. Glorious views.

Well, I don’t know what it is, then. Obviously in your case you don’t arrive waving wads of notes at the M d’H. 😀😀

[WantedOnVoyage]

6 hours ago, buchanan101 said:

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 

Repeating it doesn't make it true.  There are several posts here which define--. in real measurement ie sq. ft. of sample grade cabins and passenger to tonnage and passenger to crew ratios which are the traditional metrics to judge the density of passenger ships--- that QA is, based on these criteria, a more "densely populated" vessel. She just is.  And the videos shows the effect visually... from the Queens Grill restaurant to the min inside cabin. 

 

As for QA for being "not that dissimilar to most other cruise ships," that is the more damning comment I've seen of her... most Cunard regulars had hoped she would be a Cunarder not "most other cruise ships." And those trying her out who have never sailed with Cunard which we keep being told is what makes her so wonderful, might come away and not know what all the fuss is about if she is "not dissimilar to other cruise ships."

Edited May 3 by WantedOnVoyage

[buchanan101]

9 minutes ago, WantedOnVoyage said:

Repeating it doesn't make it true.  There are several posts here which define--. in real measurement ie sq. ft. of sample grade cabins and passenger to tonnage and passenger to crew ratios which are the traditional metrics to judge the density of passenger ships--- that QA is, based on these criteria, a more "densely populated" vessel. She just is.  And the videos shows the effect visually... from the Queens Grill restaurant to the min inside cabin. 

 

As for QA for being "not that dissimilar to most other cruise ships," that is the more damning comment I've seen of her... most Cunard regulars had hoped she would be a Cunarder not "most other cruise ships." And those trying her out who have never sailed with Cunard which we keep being told is what makes her so wonderful, might come away and not know what all the fuss is about if she is "not dissimilar to other cruise ships."

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!

[buchanan101]

1 minute ago, buchanan101 said:

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!

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

[TowandaUK]

1 hour ago, exlondoner said:

No bookshop. There must be a reason other than corporate insanity.

Gutted. ☹️

[WantedOnVoyage]

Not all ships can be QM2, much as you would like otherwise!

 

But of course they can.... if a business builds what its customers want. The best result here is that I forsee QA spurring bookings for QM2, QV and QE among regular Cunard passengers. And that is a good thing indeed. Customers buy what they value not what a business tells them they should because it makes them more money.  Just ask the Queens Grill diners staring at the blank wall or the person trying to saddle around the bed in the min inside cabin.  

Edited May 3 by WantedOnVoyage

[exlondoner]

3 minutes ago, buchanan101 said:

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!

As tonnage is a measurement of volume, don’t QM2’s very high ceilings on Decks 2 and 3 give an extra possibly illusory amount of spaciousness. After all, you can’t hover up there. However I must say she always does seem very spacious, except the lifts.

[buchanan101]

Just now, exlondoner said:

As tonnage is a measurement of volume, don’t QM2’s very high ceilings on Decks 2 and 3 give an extra possibly illusory amount of spaciousness. After all, you can’t hover up there. However I must say she always does seem very spacious, except the lifts.

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

[exlondoner]

2 minutes ago, WantedOnVoyage said:

Not all ships can be QM2, much as you would like otherwise!

 

But of course they can.... if a business builds what its customers want. The best result here is that I forsee QA spurring bookings for QM2, QV and QE among regular Cunard passengers. And that is a good thing indeed. Customers buy what they value not what a business tells them they should because it makes them more money.  Just as the Queens Grill diners staring at the blank wall or the person trying to saddle around the bed in the min inside cabin.  

That inside cabin had two single beds together in the middle. Were they made up as a double, there would be slightly more from down the sides. Were they actually being used as two singles, they would probably be against the walls, leaving a larger space in the middle.

[buchanan101]

3 minutes ago, WantedOnVoyage said:

Not all ships can be QM2, much as you would like otherwise!

 

But of course they can.... if a business builds what its customers want. The best result here is that I forsee QA spurring bookings for QM2, QV and QE among regular Cunard passengers. And that is a good thing indeed. Customers buy what they value not what a business tells them they should because it makes them more money.  Just as the Queens Grill diners staring at the blank wall or the person trying to saddle around the bed in the min inside cabin.  

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...

 

 

.