QE canceling future calls to New Zealand

[bluemarble]

I'm seeing a flurry of reports on social media indicating Cunard is canceling all of QE's scheduled calls to New Zealand through the end of her final Australia season in early 2025. Those on QE cruises arriving or departing from Auckland are reporting their cruises have been canceled. Others on cruises that were to call at ports in New Zealand are reporting their itineraries are being changed. The only explanation from Cunard I've seen posted so far is that this decision was taken "following an extensive review of our operation in the region".

 

Some of the port substitutions being reported are to other South Pacific island ports including Lifou, Port Vila, Luganville, Lautoka and Suva. That includes QE's Christmas cruise. One report indicates QE's 14-night New Zealand cruise in November is being canceled in favor of two 7-night cruises to Tasmania instead. More details to follow I'm sure.

Edited February 15 by bluemarble

[sfred]

All of the QE itineraries to New Zealand are gone in the Australia EN-AU Cunard website.  Even after applying the sold out filter.  There's no announcement (yet) in the banner or in the media section.

[Host Hattie]

That's a shame, I'm sure lots of people will be very disappointed. 

I know there were problems last season but have there been any issues this year so far ?

[Cruisey And Boozy]

It’s true. We had the email today. If we stay on the cruise, we get $150USD on-board credit as a thank-you

[longton]

We had notification from Cunard yesterday that our 2 week cruise Sydney to New Zealand has been cancelled. Departure date was 17 November 2024. They are offering a full refund and $250 per person of onboard credit for future cruises. 

 

This was part of a back to back cruise so we are cancelling the other cruise and hoping for a refund of our deposit.

 

 

[jollyjones]

 

Maybe because it's too difficult / expensive to comply with NZ's very strict biosecurity rules?

 

[ace2542]

1 hour ago, jollyjones said:

 

Maybe because it's too difficult / expensive to comply with NZ's very strict biosecurity rules?

 

Wouldn't the Queen Anne be better suited to covering that? Being newer and all that?

[NE John]

Will Cunard be the first of other lines cancelling NZ? Can we confirm this is because of hull cleaning only? That issue could be remedied. 

[Cruisey And Boozy]

3 hours ago, NE John said:

Will Cunard be the first of other lines cancelling NZ? Can we confirm this is because of hull cleaning only? That issue could be remedied. 

My understanding is that they only inspect thirty days before arrival. Given that the ships are sailing fairly constantly, I think that would make compliance difficult if the ship failed inspection. I’m not an expert, of course, but a friend was on a cruise in December that had to anchor off-shore to clean the hull. Weather made it too difficult, so the ship abandoned NZ and went to Tasmania instead

[Mareblu]

1 hour ago, Cruisey And Boozy said:

My understanding is that they only inspect thirty days before arrival. Given that the ships are sailing fairly constantly, I think that would make compliance difficult if the ship failed inspection. I’m not an expert, of course, but a friend was on a cruise in December that had to anchor off-shore to clean the hull. Weather made it too difficult, so the ship abandoned NZ and went to Tasmania instead

This is Cunard's regular pattern of operation now.  It happened before our QE cruise of January. 2023, and during our cruise.  We also drifted off NZ waters while unsuccessful "attempts" were made to clean the hull.  We were then advised that the waters of iconic bio-sensitive spots would be missed (cruising through the Sounds, Bay of Islands, etc.).  We also completely missed cruising around the tip of the South Island in order to visit Dunedin, and instead sailed direct to the North Island. 

 

There was a minor mutiny, just about, on board.  We didn't see it, but apparently a petition was raised, with many signatures, and presented to the Captain.  Mainly international tourists, who'd flown long distances to board in Sydney with hopes of visiting the above iconic NZ beauty spots, were furious and disappointed.  We have visited NZ many times, and have enjoyed many hours in these same spots, so although also disappointed, were not as devastated as our fellow passengers from the Northern Hemisphere.  The end result, after I'm assuming some hurried crisis talks with Head Office, was the Captain delivering a letter to our suites and staterooms with Cunard's apology, and an offer of half the cost of the cruise to be used as future cruise credits.  We are using ours on Queen Anne in May.

 

 

My point in providing all this background (forgive the lengthy explanation) is to register my dismay that Cunard has obviously continued with the facade through subsequent cruises, and has only now realised that the cat's out of the bag and it needs to eliminate NZ altogether, in preference to spending copious funds on hull cleansing in order to comply with NZ regulations, and enter these pristine waters.

[NE John]

NZ seems like such a great itinerary for a cruise vs a land tour so this is a major bummer! From a Northern Hemisphere perspective. 

[Over from NZ]

17 minutes ago, NE John said:

NZ seems like such a great itinerary for a cruise vs a land tour so this is a major bummer! From a Northern Hemisphere perspective. 

No, you've got it back to front. NZ is an ideal place to do by land and not cruise. 

[Cruisey And Boozy]

33 minutes ago, NE John said:

NZ seems like such a great itinerary for a cruise vs a land tour so this is a major bummer! From a Northern Hemisphere perspective. 

Completely agree, because Queenstown 😊

[Over from NZ]

5 hours ago, Cruisey And Boozy said:

Completely agree, because Queenstown 😊

But Queenstown is one of the reasons why you would do a land tour??

[Cruisey And Boozy]

21 minutes ago, Over from NZ said:

But Queenstown is one of the reasons why you would do a land tour??

I love Queenstown, and it would be a long tour from a cruise ship, so yep. There’s so much amazing countryside and so many great things to do that any land tour of NZ is worthwhile. Of course, I’m a Kiwi, so I may be a tad biased 😊

[Colin_Cameron]

6 hours ago, Over from NZ said:

No, you've got it back to front. NZ is an ideal place to do by land and not cruise. 

The two are not mutually exclusive. We are currently here on a month long land tour BECAUSE we previously came here on a cruise.

[MMDown Under]

2 minutes ago, Colin_Cameron said:

The two are not mutually exclusive. We are currently here on a month long land tour BECAUSE we previously came here on a cruise.

Agree a NZ cruise can give you a taste for a longer land tour later.

[Mareblu]

1 hour ago, Colin_Cameron said:

The two are not mutually exclusive. We are currently here on a month long land tour BECAUSE we previously came here on a cruise.

Enjoy your NZ adventure.  Like Scotland, it is beautiful.

[david63]

3 hours ago, Colin_Cameron said:

We are currently here on a month long land tour BECAUSE we previously came here on a cruise.

For me it would be the opposite as having spent, over the years, well over three months touring around NZ the only attraction NZ would have from a cruise perspective would be seeing the grandkids.

[D&N]

12 hours ago, Mareblu said:

My point in providing all this background (forgive the lengthy explanation) is to register my dismay that Cunard has obviously continued with the facade through subsequent cruises, and has only now realised that the cat's out of the bag and it needs to eliminate NZ altogether, in preference to spending copious funds on hull cleansing in order to comply with NZ regulations, and enter these pristine waters.

It's not something I follow closely. If I want to see New Zealand, I go to the dentist! They often have a National Geographic video of South Island playing on a big screen in the waiting room 🙂.

 

I was under the impression there were cruise lines other than Cunard that had fallen foul of this.

I'd be surprised if the companies providing the cleaning service operate on a "no clean, no fee basis", so I don't understand how Cunard's decision is in preference to spending copious funds. They appear to be spending those sums on a service that often can't deliver and they then end up disappointing and compensating passengers.

 

If the authorities actually want cruise ships with clean hulls to visit these regions, I'd have thought it would be helpful for a facility to be provided, which cruise lines would pay for, in a sheltered harbour where there was a high chance that the cleaning could be successfully completed. It's possible that they would prefer them not to visit in the first place as that would result in less environmental risk.

It might be better that visits to the region are restricted to ships that never leave the region and can't pick up contamination elsewhere.

 

To me it makes good business sense to scrap the itineraries since despite planning for cleaning, they seem to repeatedly be disappointing passengers. In the absence of a reliable facility I don't understand how they are supposed to comply with the regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16 by D&N

[NE John]

5 hours ago, MMDown Under said:

Agree a NZ cruise can give you a taste for a longer land tour later.

Yes, cruises are a good way to go on “recon” missions for future longer touring. But for us, NZ would be a heck of a recon mission!

[ace2542]

4 hours ago, D&N said:

If the authorities actually want cruise ships

They obiviously don't want cruise ships do they?

[foodsvcmgr]

It would appear that they do not.

Like many places worldwide, they may be turning against cruise traffic.

Rather than fight onerous regulations and bad attitudes, I think the cruise lines are correct to withdraw.

As a passenger, I’m not eager to sail where I’m not wanted.

No interest in disembarking with protesters on the pier as encountered in Key West, Venice, etc.

[D&N]

It's much the same on the Cote d'Azur. The local press (Nice Matin, Var Matin & Monaco Matin) have reported repeatedly over the last few years on a desire to limit mass tourism from cruise ships.

Monaco are quite clear that they don't want mega cruise ships. They have stated that they only want ships carrying high net worth individuals that will spend a fortune in their boutiques.

In Marseilles there have been incidents where flottillas of canoes have blocked cruise ships from moving. In Toulon there are complaints about pollution from cruise ships. Residents around the Port of Nice would even prefer that the Corsica Ferries are banned due to the soot they claim lands on their balconies.

A phrase that has cropped up several times is that they want quality rather than mass tourism.

 

[roscoe39]

sorry but if the reason is that the Cruise ships (and there are several involved in being turned away over the years) are not coming to NZ because of them having to come with clean hulls, without the damaging organisms from other parts of the world, them I'm with the environment and our government for protecting them.. They can stay away and help keep our pristine fjords and Bays clear.