QM2 Vs. RCCL

I agree with you a 3000 passenger ship holds no interest for me.prefer
the smaller ships with no rock climbing or roller skating,and any other
nonsensical things.

E.k.R. wrote:
3090 passengers is a lot of people, regardless of whether they have money or
the ship is considered luxury or not. I'm sorry, but a true luxury ship
cannot be 150,000 gt and carry 3090 passengers. The only passengers that
will experience true luxury of the same level as Silversea or Seabourn are
those booked in the top priced suites, and dining in the Grills. A very
small percent I might add. Even they will have to pay for tips and
cocktails onboard. Also, they still have to share the ship with 2500 of
their closest friends. I consider QM2 to be Premium, not luxury. Cunard
can charge whatever it wants, including luxury line prices, but that still
doesn't place the ship in the luxury category.

Ernie - who feels it takes more than price to qualify as a luxury product,
and knows a 3000 passenger ship can't offer the same personalized service,
space, and food made to order as a 250 passenger mega-yacht.



Ernie, I agree that it takes more than price to qualify a luxury
product. I don't, however, agree about numbers (size of ship or number
of pax). If Cunard provides a high caliber of service, food delivery
(and Daniel Boulud, advisor for food on the ship has currently the
highest-rated restaurant in NYC--Daniels), presentation, and other
aspects associated with luxury, they are *luxury*. I think you are
talking about boutique, which implies a more intimate, specialized
product catering to a small amount of people. Premium is now a
downgraded term that includes, and often arguably, the likes of HAL and
Celebrity. A Cunard ship is a definite rung above that and this term
would be confusing applied to this new ship. Anyway, let's see what the
QM2 provides and a year or 2 from now we'll have a better idea of what
this ship really is about.

Ben



"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
...


More current classes of ships have higher PSR than their older
fleetmates, across the board line by line, regardless of size. I don't
think it is necessarily the case that because QM2 carries 3090 pax she's
a megaship (whatever that is) catering to the masses. If the prices stay
anywhere close to where they are now she certainly is a luxury product
in the form of a very large ship catering to a large amount of people
wanting a luxury cruise.

Ben S.

Surfer E2468 wrote:
I agree with you a 3000 passenger ship holds no interest for me.prefer
the smaller ships with no rock climbing or roller skating,and any other
nonsensical things.


The QM2 doesn't have any rock climbing wall or roller skating. What does
the number of pax have to do with having these features? These are RCI
features on a paticular class of ship, not something that all 3000 pax
ships have.

Ben S.

Ben,
If you are basing a luxury product on food and service alone, then I place
Cunard at the very bottom of the rung, well below Carnival. The food and
service I received on QE2 was dismal at best, and in fact was the worst food
and service in the dining room I can recall in over 50+ cruises. I place
Celebrity WAY above Cunard in this area. Just because a famous name is
associated with the cuisine, doesn't guarantee good food or service. Almost
all the lines these days have some well-known executive chef or a specialty
chef that oversees certain signature dishes. It really doesn't mean a whole
lot and is more marketing PR then anything.

Besides, it takes far more then excellent food and service to qualify as a
luxury product. Cunard is not all-inclusive, does not have all suites,
still has two dinner sittings, does not offer course by course dining in
every stateroom, does not have tips included, does not have unlimited
stocked mini-bars in every stateroom, etc., etc., etc. At the end of the
day Cunard is no different then Celebrity, and if fact worse in several
regards. Of course things are different if you are booked in a suite, but
that is the same case on every cruise line.

The bottom line is Cunard is NOT a luxury product. In fact the standard
staterooms on QM2 are the same size as Carnival's. That does not equal a
luxury product in my book. If QM2 offered 300+ sq foot suites, a no tipping
policy, open bar, single sitting dining, personalized stationary, in-suite
course by course dining..... for ALL passengers I would consider her to be a
luxury ship. Of course this is just not possible with 3000+ passengers in
today's world.

You are correct in that "Premium" is a term used much too freely and a new
cruise line category is needed. I have decided to call it "Ultra-Premium",
which is not quite luxury, but a notch above premium. Here is how I
personally rate the lines marketed in N. America:

Luxury: Silversea, Seabourn, Residensea, SeaDream Yacht, RSSC
Ultra-Premium: Oceania, Crystal, Windstar, (maybe Cunard in some categories
only)
Premium: Cunard (most categories), Celebrity, Holland America
Standard: Carnival, NCL, Royal Caribbean, Princess, Costa, Disney
Budget: Imperial Majesty
Niche: Star Clippers, Windjammer, Orient Lines, Clipper


Ernie








"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
...


Ernie, I agree that it takes more than price to qualify a luxury
product. I don't, however, agree about numbers (size of ship or number
of pax). If Cunard provides a high caliber of service, food delivery
(and Daniel Boulud, advisor for food on the ship has currently the
highest-rated restaurant in NYC--Daniels), presentation, and other
aspects associated with luxury, they are *luxury*. I think you are
talking about boutique, which implies a more intimate, specialized
product catering to a small amount of people. Premium is now a
downgraded term that includes, and often arguably, the likes of HAL and
Celebrity. A Cunard ship is a definite rung above that and this term
would be confusing applied to this new ship. Anyway, let's see what the
QM2 provides and a year or 2 from now we'll have a better idea of what
this ship really is about.

Ben

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that statement Ben. Certainly the
Queen and Princess Grills on the QE2, and whatever their counterpart on
QM2, surpass the offerings of Celebrity/HAL, but I've heard many, not a
few but many, reports that the "lower classes" on Cunard are no better
or worse than Celebrity/HAL.

Jeff


Benjamin Smith wrote:
Premium is now a
downgraded term that includes, and often arguably, the likes of HAL and
Celebrity. A Cunard ship is a definite rung above that and this term
would be confusing applied to this new ship.

Jeff Coudriet wrote:
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that statement Ben. Certainly the
Queen and Princess Grills on the QE2, and whatever their counterpart on
QM2, surpass the offerings of Celebrity/HAL, but I've heard many, not a
few but many, reports that the "lower classes" on Cunard are no better
or worse than Celebrity/HAL.


I guess it is all in what people put weight on. I'll listen to arguments
of Cunard compared to Celebrity/HAL, but something about it makes me
uncomfortable as I find a different approach to the respective products.

Ben S.


Jeff


Benjamin Smith wrote:

Premium is now a downgraded term that includes, and often arguably,
the likes of HAL and Celebrity. A Cunard ship is a definite rung above
that and this term would be confusing applied to this new ship.

E.k.R. wrote:
Ben,
If you are basing a luxury product on food and service alone, then I place
Cunard at the very bottom of the rung, well below Carnival. The food and
service I received on QE2 was dismal at best, and in fact was the worst food
and service in the dining room I can recall in over 50+ cruises. I place
Celebrity WAY above Cunard in this area. Just because a famous name is
associated with the cuisine, doesn't guarantee good food or service. Almost
all the lines these days have some well-known executive chef or a specialty
chef that oversees certain signature dishes. It really doesn't mean a whole
lot and is more marketing PR then anything.


I wasn't basing it as food and service *alone*. That was just some of
what goes into this type of hospitality vacation product.

Regarding the famous name associated with cuisine, perhaps and perhaps
not. Celebrity's was a standout and highly regarded for awhile, and no
longer are, under the advise of Michel Roux. It wasn't marketing PR, it
was true product delivery, then. It isn't necessarily marketing PR
(which is about image and other things not necessarily related to
reality), or product delivery (what the end user truly experiences), it
could be either. If you say your Cunard food and service was worse than
Carnival, I'll say, as I usually do, was your experience representative
of Cunard or was it a bad product delivery at the time of your sailing?
From what I know of Cunard, from those that have done the product
numerous times, they've had their ups and downs.

The baby, the bath water, the ship hasn't defined itself yet. There's no
feedback. None of us know what this ship is yet.


Besides, it takes far more then excellent food and service to qualify as a
luxury product. Cunard is not all-inclusive, does not have all suites,
still has two dinner sittings, does not offer course by course dining in
every stateroom, does not have tips included, does not have unlimited
stocked mini-bars in every stateroom, etc., etc., etc. At the end of the
day Cunard is no different then Celebrity, and if fact worse in several
regards. Of course things are different if you are booked in a suite, but
that is the same case on every cruise line.


You can make an argument for Celebrity, I'll make an argument that
Cunard defines their own luxury content. Crystal does not have all
suites, either, they have inside cabins, they aren't all-inclusive, yet
they are considered more refined than Celebrity. This is generally
accepted. A QE2 can't compete with certain Celebrity amenities due to
Celebrity's newer ships. Yet, nothing Celebrity has matches the
hard-to-define cachet of cruising on a QE2.


The bottom line is Cunard is NOT a luxury product. In fact the standard
staterooms on QM2 are the same size as Carnival's.

Different amenities and service. I'm not a huge size person, most hotel
rooms are larger than ship rooms, most SUVs are larger than luxury
sedans, etc. Some size is necessary, but I think you'd agree it is not
*the* defining aspect.

That does not equal a
luxury product in my book. If QM2 offered 300+ sq foot suites, a no tipping
policy, open bar, single sitting dining, personalized stationary, in-suite
course by course dining..... for ALL passengers I would consider her to be a
luxury ship. Of course this is just not possible with 3000+ passengers in
today's world.


If this is current criteria for luxury then Cunard is not this. I said
luxury product, perhaps I should say luxurious product, that would be
more accurate. I see degrees of luxury in the mainstream products.
There's luxury even in some areas of Carnival's product. However, if you
want to look at complete luxury and degrees of it in a product, and
define it in a complete way, I'll agree with you. I don't feel
comfortable with equating Cunard with a Celebrity or HAL and think
Cunard has a different product approach than the mainstream lines. Is
Cunard mainstream in your opinion? Or, did Cunard struggle to maintain a
certain quality on their ships when other lines were adding more
amenities and services to their fleet that affected their product
delivery? Cunard used to own the Sea Dream yachts, they had the Royal
Viking ship, they've gone through many ups and downs and defining and
redefining periods. Is Mickey trying to make Cunard more mainstream?
Yes, he wants more sailing Cunard but what is Cunard, what drives their
management, and what will their products be in 7 or so years?


You are correct in that "Premium" is a term used much too freely and a new
cruise line category is needed. I have decided to call it "Ultra-Premium",
which is not quite luxury, but a notch above premium. Here is how I
personally rate the lines marketed in N. America:

Luxury: Silversea, Seabourn, Residensea, SeaDream Yacht, RSSC
Ultra-Premium: Oceania, Crystal, Windstar, (maybe Cunard in some categories
only)
Premium: Cunard (most categories), Celebrity, Holland America
Standard: Carnival, NCL, Royal Caribbean, Princess, Costa, Disney
Budget: Imperial Majesty
Niche: Star Clippers, Windjammer, Orient Lines, Clipper



I'll agree with most of this but "ultra-premium" is self defined, not an
industry standard. I think more of Cunard is whatever category with
Crystal than fitting with Celebrity/HAL, and Crystal is a higher-rung
product than Celebrity/HAL. That's what I'm getting at. If not luxury as
you define above, then something else, but I don't really like
ultra-premium. Premium is just one of those overused words, like diva,
artist, and others that really don't mean much anymore, and ultra is a
prefix that isn't clear either. I think it *is* clear what you mean by it.

I still don't agree with the placing of amount of pax on defining
luxury. Nothing in the term luxury defines numbers served, unless the
term is evolving in a way that I'm not aware of. I think you can have a
boutique luxury product serving a relatively small amount of people vs.
a grand luxury product serving a fairly well off and large amount of
people. You've made an excellent argument that the QM2 may not be a
grand luxury product. She may, however, be a grand luxurious product.

Ben



Ernie








"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
...


Ernie, I agree that it takes more than price to qualify a luxury

product. I don't, however, agree about numbers (size of ship or number
of pax). If Cunard provides a high caliber of service, food delivery
(and Daniel Boulud, advisor for food on the ship has currently the
highest-rated restaurant in NYC--Daniels), presentation, and other
aspects associated with luxury, they are *luxury*. I think you are
talking about boutique, which implies a more intimate, specialized
product catering to a small amount of people. Premium is now a
downgraded term that includes, and often arguably, the likes of HAL and
Celebrity. A Cunard ship is a definite rung above that and this term
would be confusing applied to this new ship. Anyway, let's see what the
QM2 provides and a year or 2 from now we'll have a better idea of what
this ship really is about.

Ben

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:13:51 GMT, Benjamin Smith
wrote:

The QM2 doesn't have any rock climbing wall or roller skating. What does
the number of pax have to do with having these features? These are RCI
features on a paticular class of ship, not something that all 3000 pax
ships have.

Hi Ben,

The rock climbing wall was such a hit that Royal Caribbean announced
that they were putting them on all of their ships.

Best regards,
Ray
LIGHTHOUSE TRAVEL
800-719-9917 or 805-566-3905
http://www.lighthousetravel.com

Very well put Karen and I agree completely. Cunard is all over the place
and has been for as long as I can remember. They have a very uneven product
across the board, much like NCL was for years. Much of their reputation is
on name alone, and that is the extent of it. Some aspects are pure luxury
(for the privileged few), others are downright budget (like the cold cuts
and hot dogs for an embarkation lunch in the Lido). QM2 and QV are the
start of a new era for Cunard. I only envision QE2 around for a few years
at best as the Cunard fleet becomes more and more modernized.

Ben mentioned that maybe "luxurious" as opposed to "luxury product" would be
a better term for QM2. Probably so, but I can define many "Premium"
products (including Celebrity) as "luxurious". I would like to know exactly
what sets QM2 apart (real, tangible items) from say the MILLENNIUM. Is it
larger cabins? No. Better service? Remains to be seen and certainly not
so on QE2. More luxurious furnishings? Doubtful, as very high quality
furnishings were used on MILLENNIUM. Single sitting? Nope, neither ship
offers it. Higher quality food? Again, remains to be seen and certainly
not the case on QE2. Maybe it's the afternoon tea? Yes, Cunard excels in
this area but does "tea" make a product "luxurious"? How about
entertainment? Well, both offer a variety of nice lounges, shows, lectures,
etc. I don't see much difference there. Maybe it's the personalized
stationary, no tipping, and all drinks included? Oops.... wrong cruise
line, neither offer it. So what does it really come down to? The prices?
Oh yes, they are certainly higher on Cunard, and I might add unrealistically
so.

Really it is the name Cunard. I think Cunard's PR department has done an
incredible job convincing Ben and many others that a Cunard ship is the
finest, most luxurious, and well run object on the high seas. The prices
are certainly in line with this assessment, but the product, well, it's not.
Basically you can call QE2 and QM2 "ocean liners", and QM2 can be the
longest, fastest, widest, tallest, etc., etc., etc...... but that still does
not place her in the "luxury" category of cruises. I think QM2 is
magnificent and can guarantee that I will sail on her, and I already know
her decor is fabulous, but I will not go onboard expecting the tangibles
that make Silversea a luxury product. They are simply not offered. Glass
elevators, plantariums, and three level dining rooms do not a luxury product
make!

Ben, I know you don't like my term "ultra-premium" but I think you are going
to see it in the future. The cruise industry requires another category,
something between "premium" and "luxury" and if the term "ultra-premium" is
not used, it will be something else. As the term "premium" has become
overused and it's definition diminished, a new rung of cruise lines have
emerged that are certainly superior to what we now know as "premium", but
not quite up to "luxury" standards. I think this new category will become
an industry standard as cruise lines continue their attempts to
differentiate themselves from the pack.

Ernie







"CupCaked" wrote in message
...

Every Cunard ship out there has a different reputation. Not one can
be defined as a typical "Cunard" ship right now. When the Queen Vic
gets here, she'll be just another Vista class ship with the Cunard
name, but that may not be a bad thing, considering how the QM2 may be
regarded by that time.

Cunard is all over the place, in terms of the kind of service it
provides. It's been that way for years and years, even before
Carnival Corp took over. One must really know the product, ie the QE2
and it's class accommodations and restaurants, to get in on what's
good about it. One thing that has been mentioned, and is absolutely
true, is that Cunard will do themselves in by their pricing some day
soon.

Karen




__ /7__/7__/7__
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)

Karen,
I don't think it sounds pretentious at all, because it's the truth! Having
traveled in "steerage" on QE2, I can attest that it is not an all together
pleasant experience, especially considering the prices Cunard charges. You
can travel in a large balcony cabin for 7-days on almost any new Caribbean
ship for the same price of the lowest inside closet-sized M-Grade on QE2 for
a six day crossing. Of course people will always say you are paying for the
experience, and some ways you are, but that is no excuse to offer sub-par
food and service. It should be at least as good as what you receive on
Royal Caribbean or Carnival and it was not.

I do want to travel on QE2 again, but like Karen I will only sail in one of
the Grills based on past experience. QE2 is a wonderful ship steeped in
history, but don't expect much if you are booked in the lower categories.
Now once you start pricing the Grills, well they are astronomically high.
Equivalent to what you would pay for a standard suite on Silversea. Of
course on Silversea your standard suite is most likely going to be larger
than your deluxe stateroom on QE2, and of course you are also going to have
personalized stationary, a balcony, no tipping, complimentary unlimited
drinks and wine, etc. etc. The value is just not there with QE2 when you
compare her with other products. It's the experience you are paying for....
a transatlantic crossing on a true "ocean liner". As long as you know that
is what you are getting, then there shouldn't be a problem. It's those that
think when sailing on QE2 in any category (I was included in this) that you
are going to be in the most luxurious surroundings on the most opulent ship
on the high seas that are disappointed. It's just not true, but Cunard's
marketing has done a great job convincing us that it is.

I do think the new QM2 just may be the most opulent ship on the high seas at
the moment, but certainly not the most luxurious.

Ernie



"CupCaked" wrote in message
...

Jeff, I don't mean this to sound pretentious, but if we couldn't sail
in Queens Grill category on the QE2, we wouldn't go at all. We'd
chose another ship. It's just that different between classes of
bookings. We booked Britannia class the very first time on the ship
years ago, and that was the last time.

Karen



__ /7__/7__/7__
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)