NavyPanda

I understand that some people will have reservations over such parking arrangements, however if you're price conscious (like the original poster apparently is) then it's worth noting that there are cheaper options available, which can have apparent downsides. For what it is worth, I have used both the council car park and the Ibis/Novotel parking for a 7 and 12 night cruise respectively. No issues were encountered. That might be because I own a car 'not worth stealing', but I note that many people avail themselves of similar 'airport hotel and parking' offerings, where you leave your car in open hotel car parks for weeks, and I further note that others on this thread have commented they use the Holiday Inn with parking which again has a similar car park, open to the public, without issues.

A far cheaper alternative than CPS would be to park in one of Southampton City Council's multi storey car parks. They have rates specifically designed for long-stay cruise passengers. Parking for cruises and long stay visitors (southampton.gov.uk) Eastgate Street Multi storey car park is £5 for the first day and £4/day thereafter, making parking for a 24 day cruise £97. You take a ticket on entry and pay on exit. It is about 15 minutes walk from Ocean terminal. You could drop your luggage off first at the port, then walk back over once you've parked. There is a slightly cheaper option car parking option which is a bit closer walk to the Mayflower terminal. You can park in the Ibis/Novotel car park which will cost £3.90/day + £0.99 booking fee. You don't book through Ibis/Novotel themselves, but through a 3rd party. I'm not sure if I can mention the website by name, but it's a website which mostly deals with 'park on my drive' type trade, but clearly they sell spaces for larger commercial operators too. Parking at the Holiday Inn is also available on the same website, but is more expensive than Ibis/Novotel or a council car park.

Cunard (and P&O) provide around 8% commission to travel agents, it is from this they can provide their discounts. 3-6% is my historic range for discounts through booking with travel agents (online/phone) with 5% discounts being where the most competitive (on price) agents currently offer. I always book with an agent due to the discounts, it seems foolish that Cunard/P&O don't post discount codes online of a similar value (5%) like other marketing teams in other companies do to divert price conscious consumers away from agents. Any savvy consumer will know where to look to find these and it's better than coughing up 8% commission (or rather not being paid as much for the cruise because Cunard is paid net of commission, I believe). Agents, for fly cruises (both P&O and Cunard), are available to offer special rates if they create their own packages. In the past, some of these have been extremely well priced, to the point where it is cheaper to book the package with flights and extra nights hotel accommodation in departure/arrival ports included than just pay the cruise only price directly with Cunard. However, from my experience, OBC has never been offered with these cut price deals vs. what you'd get with paying for the Cunard fare. Finally, it is possible, if you've booked with an agent before, to book on board availing yourself of the extra OBC for doing so and transfer your booking to that agent. You then get the discount and the extra OBC. The only exception was a recent P&O booking of very low value (<£500) where I booked direct because the discount would have been very small and may not have been honoured due to tiny commission being made.

Hear. Hear. I agree with every word you wrote. I was also on this cruise and was secretly delighted that vaccination status was not even asked about let alone proof requested (although I am vaccinated). It is a strong indication that things are finally returning to normality. I was further pleased to see that Cunard have announced they intend to stand down their vaccination requirements for QM2 and QV after their world cruises and for QE shortly afterwards in addition to removing the need for a booster vaccination effective from the New Year. You are right to mention profit. Cunard and its sister companies needs to make it. They couldn't do so with all the restrictions, reduced capacity and suppressed demand due to restrictions and rules. Hopefully we'll see Carnival plc return to profitability soon and with it the knowledge that the future of the Cunard will be secure. I have mentioned before that there might be a gap in the market for people who would value cruising in a more 'Covid safe' environment. However I would expect the cruises to cost significantly more than an average Cunard cruise due to the higher costs and lower revenue per tonnage. I don't expect to see such a cruise line to emerge as I can't think of any comparable setup in any other service or travel industry. We just need to see the cocktail parties return (it was suggested they might be back for the World Cruise)!

As a mainstream line I believe this will effectively be the Cunard ethos from 2023 onwards. We have already seen large moves towards this with the removal of general mask mandates for both passengers and more recently crew. I expect the vaccination mandate will disappear shortly to match most of Cunard's competitor cruise lines. Most Covid precautions have the effect of increasing costs and/or reducing revenue for cruise lines. For example, having to set aside isolation cabins will reduce the number of passengers on board, therefore reducing revenue. When a line ensures everyone is tested and vaccinated this will have an increased administrative burden, which is an extra cost. Cruise lines are businesses, not charities and their objectives are to maximise their revenue whilst minimising costs in order to make profit. Judging by the low voluntary wearing of masks both on cruise ships and in society more widely, then it follows that the majority of customers do wish to cruise with fewer or no covid protocols, than increased protocols and restrictions. So, in order to maximise the number of potential customers and therefore the price Cunard can charge then policy will naturally gravitate in favour of the majority. However, there does seem to be a market niche for people who wish to cruise in a more 'covid-secure' environment, with mask mandates, vaccine requirements and a strong isolation policy. Although I can't think of an equivalent land-based business, which markets itself on higher protocols (compared to their competition) I guess an existing, or new line may choose to appeal to this niche and be successful for doing so. However, 'covid-secure' protocols, do come at a significant cost, and as the market will be smaller, it is logical that only a small-ship line would move to fill this niche such as Saga Cruises and this would come with a price tag to match. With Queen Anne coming in 2024 and Cunard having nearly 10000 berths to fill, I strongly suspect that Cunard won't move down this route, and instead, continue down the route that other cruise lines and other businesses in the travel industry more widely, namely in the direction of relaxing protocols further still.

Yes, I am aware that the third dose refers to an earlier booster than the one currently being delivered. I used this figure to match as closely as possible to Cunard's current requirements. Cunard requires all adults (18+) to have received a complete vaccination course (two doses of most, or one dose of a specific type) followed by a booster if the primary vaccination course was delivered more than 270 days previously. I imagine there will be a few people who received their primary vaccination course and then have only had an autumn booster delivered this year (missing out on a previous booster, so presumably not counted in the 69.9% figure), but these numbers are likely very small. I'm not sure what the relevance of the more recent bivalent vaccinations is to Cunard's vaccination policy, unless you believe that Cunard is set to become restrictive in their vaccination policy, perhaps by requiring that people need to have a booster since the new bivalent vaccinations were rolled out? If Cunard goes down this route, using the figures you've provided only around 50% of over 50s have had the bivalent autumn booster and very few under 50s (in part due to people like me being ineligible for one), this will massively reduce their potential market and would be the complete opposite of what is happening in the rest of the cruise industry. This is why I feel any tightening of the vaccination policy is highly unlikely. Finally, with regards to your last point about the wrecking of people's holidays if they get isolated. Isolation is a cruise line policy (it is no longer legally required in many countries, including the UK); it will probably be the last thing to go, but with the isolation policy effectively relying on self-testing and reporting results, isolation is effectively optional already.

I thought I explained my speculations quite well? Essentially, you only have to look at the wider cruise industry, Cunard's sister companies as well as non-Carnival competitors and see what they are doing. MSC, NCL, Princess, Fred Olsen, Royal Carribean, Celebrity, Oceania and Regent Seven Seas make up the vast majority of the non P&O/Cunard cruises from Southampton. Of these, only Fred Olsen is still mandating vaccination. I am, of course, making the assumption here, that Cunard's policy will mirror that of P&O, which it has done since the restart of operations, I think that's a sensible assumption to make given the shared management of the two lines and past policy history since restart of operations. Take up of the autumn booster may be reasonable amongst the more elderly, but the autumn booster is not currently a requirement to sail on Cunard (or P&O) only three doses (or two if taken more recently). Looking at the figures on the Coronavirus Dashboard (GOV UK) 69.9% of 12+ have had a booster (third dose). Cunard's policy for a booster is 18+, but it's not going to make that much difference to the %. Effectively, Cunard/P&O are going to have to make a decision as to your point. If they change requirements, will they lose more customers than they gain? If they get rid of the requirements the two lines could potentially access an extra 25%-30% of adults who are currently forbidden to cruise with them. Against this will be people who would no longer feel comfortable in cruising with unvaccinated passengers. I feel that Cunard and P&O won't want to miss out on that 25% or so of adults, who can't cruise with them, but CAN cruise with their competitors, whereas the numbers of people who feel they will be unable to cruise will be very low. Yes, it is speculation and only my best guess at what will happen. I could well be wrong, and the vaccination policy is continued into 2023. All is for sure is that Cunard needs to update their guidance as for cruises on QV/QM2 for cruises after 23rd Dec 2022.

I don't believe they have an exemption policy. However, I would wait and see what happens regarding the vaccination policy. At the moment the Cunard vaccination information on their website states the following "Please note, we have only categorised voyages departing up to and including 23 December 2022 on Queen Mary 2 and Queen Victoria, and voyages departing up to and including 1 March 2023 on Queen Elizabeth. The vaccination and testing policy for voyages departing after these dates will be published shortly and we will be communicating these requirements to any booked guests to confirm the requirements." Vaccination and testing requirements for your voyage (cunard.com) My guess is that in line with the sister companies owned by Carnival plc/inc such as Holland America and Princess Cruises, that Cunard (and P&O) will no longer require vaccinations for the vast majority of their cruises (the exceptions being for cruises with destinations which require vaccination for entry). I expect that Cunard/P&O will make a joint announcement in the next couple of weeks or so. Competitors to Cunard/P&O such as Royal Carribean and MSC have also dropped their requirements which shows that Carnival is moving along with the rest of the market and isn't just an outlier on this. Lines which cater to the US market, decided to stop their requirements before lines which predominantly cater to the UK market (Cunard/P&O), presumably due to the lower vaccination rates in the US and the potential custom they have missed out. It is likely Carnival Plc will have looked at their bottom line for their UK based lines and decided that with roughly 30% of people not taking up the offer of a booster vaccine (first offered over a year ago), that this is too large a cohort to exclude from future sales. I would be very surprised if Cunard retain the vaccination requirements into 2023 except what has already been announced for QE and maybe QM2 transatlantics.

Turn up when you are ready to. 12:30 I'm sure will be fine. People with Diamond and Platinum Cunard World Club status are eligible for priority embarkation. In practice, this seems to mean that you can skip the main queue for check in. You can then embark once QG and PG have been called.

Was "priority" on the boarding pass when you printed it, or was it a stamp placed on it by the check in staff? I recall the latter is what happened on my last Cunard cruise (one of the first after the shutdowns). From what I've noticed, it seems that Brittania guests who are Platinum or Diamond don't get a special boarding time on the boarding pass but get the Priority stamp as recognition of their status, so can skip the embarkation queue. The couple behind you with a 2pm time, may have been Platinum/Diamond. Did you notice whether The Golden Lion was open for embarkation lunch? Looking forward to reading your report 🙂

Brilliant news, I bet most of the staff are delighted. They all work long hours and mask wearing would have made things that little bit more unpleasant for them than was really necessary. Hopefully the removal of this most prominent remaining restriction on the staff and crew will also mean the return of the beloved cocktail parties!

I note that they 'ask' for people to wear masks as opposed to saying you 'must' wear a mask. I suspect many people will read this as meaning they are not mandatory. I will not wear a mask unless I am absolutely compelled to do so. Given the lack of mask wearing on aeroplanes where masks on many airlines are still 'highly recommended' I would suggest that I'm not alone in thinking this way. It will be interesting to find out what proportion of people will now wear a mask on the last couple of days of your cruise now this letter has gone out and given the wording contained within it.

The logical thing for Cunard to do would be to follow the same procedures as on land. This means no masks, no testing, no quarantine and no seeking attention from the medical centre when you're not seriously unwell. Carnival plc, parent company of Cunard, is still struggling to return to profitability and Covid protocols have been identified as key factor behind this. The last few months have seen significant movements away from 'strict precautions' on Cunard, other Carnival plc cruise lines, and other non-Carnival cruise lines. The last thing that Cunard should do, or likely will do, is to return to a more precautious regime which sees their revenues fall and their costs increase. Covid, is a mild illness for most, the proportion of people becoming acutely unwell due to a covid infection continues to decrease. Cunard should ditch all their policies related to isolation, which as you point out now rely on a ridiculous system where people who still mess around with testing can ruin their holiday for an illness which is only causing them very mild cold-like symptoms, purely based on honesty alone as there is no more mandatory testing. I understand that this may concern a small minority of cruise passengers, however the solution to this would be for Cunard to make it clear to people that where there are gatherings of large numbers of people, whether on sea or land, that covid infections are possible. If people do not wish to take the risk, they should not travel.

Well put. Ultimately Cunard (Carnival) is a for-profit company, they will do whatever they think will generate them the most profit. The market for people who would prefer (and pay significantly extra for, to offset the higher costs) to sail in a more Covid-rule based environment is likely very small. A small specialist line may go down that route, but not Cunard and other Carnival brands who target the mainstream market.

Think of it the other way around. Carnival/Cunard is a commercial company whose aim is to maximise shareholders wealth (make profit). By dedicating space for quarantine cabins they are reducing their opportunity to make profit. With regulations from the CDC and UK regulators either going or gone it is now a business decision for Carnival to make as to the future of quarantine cabins and other Covid related policies. How does Carnival make more money from not selling cabins and using them for isolation purposes than it will from selling them to paying passengers? Carnival will ultimately choose the path which makes them the most money. Yes, I would expect Cunard to ask those in inside cabins to stay there. This is what they, and other lines owned by Carnival, have done with regards to norovirus outbreaks. Isolation will probably stop being mandatory at some point in the near future. There will be many potential customers of Carnival brands who will be deterred from booking if they believe there is a potential to be confined for over a week to their cabins. I suspect the allure of potential customers will be to great for Carnival to resist and they would bet that they would gain more customers from forgetting isolation than they would lose by dropping the policy. Practically, isolation is effectively voluntary anyway at the moment as it relies on passengers reporting symptoms and test results to the ship's medical team. Finally, regarding vaccination polices, Carnival have updated their policy for US brands, allowing vaccination passengers without limit (although with a test). I would imagine the UK brands won't be too far behind given Carnival's desire to not limit their market.

The argument of altruism with regards to mask wearing has been done to death over the past couple of years. I don't think we need to go over that again. What is clear though is that the large majority of people who out in public spaces choose not to wear a mask despite undoubtedly being aware of the altruistic argument. Looking at the travel industry; airports, planes, trains and public transport there is little difference in the numbers choosing to wear a mask, I would suggest the numbers are even less. People have made their choice so it seems. With regards to Cunard policy in particular it is notable that the mask mandate still applies to staff and crew. My guess is that will change soon and it will become a personal choice for them as well. I will fully support this change to, it is simply unfair to the hardworking staff and crew for them to have a mandate enforced against them but not for passengers.

It is clear where the polices are going. Yesterday, Carnival Corp & PLC announced a relaxation of testing requirements for Cunard, Carnival, Princess + P&O effective from 6th September. With Carnival and Princess, the vaccination requirement will be removed also. I expect Cunard & P&O will follow suit shortly. With regards to self isolation, my guess is that quarantine cabins will be got rid off shortly, I think you have discovered a change in policy by noting the absence of information which used to be on the website. Over the past year, making provision for quarantine cabins has reduced the capacity which Cunard have been able to sell and are consequently reducing their revenues, this is a situation which is undesirable for Carnival Plc and will be behind the apparent decision to get rid of quarantine cabins. In the short term, I imagine that the request to self isolate will remain on Cunard. The isolation will take place in the passengers booked cabin, and will remove the need for Cunard to keep extra 'spare' cabins. Looking ahead, I can see that the requirement to self isolate, as well as vaccination will cease at some not too distant point in the future.

It may be easy to do, but many people find wearing masks unpleasant and not something they wish to do if they have a choice, especially on their holiday! In supermarkets, shops, pubs and restaurants only a very small proportion of customers now wear masks. This is certainly the case in the UK where mask wearing is a personal choice rather than legally mandated. It does seem that most people have made their personal choice in favour of not wearing a mask. I assume there are some people who enjoy wearing a mask, or wear one for another reason and presumably these people still wear a mask, as is there personal choice. Looking at the travel industry more widely where mask wearing has gone from being mandated, either legally or as a condition of booking/carriage the proportion of people wearing them has plummeted. I see no reason why cruise lines, including Cunard would go against this trend. Indeed we have seen a significant loosening of policy in the past six months, Taking into account the evidence all around us that most people are choosing not to wear a mask (for whatever reason) a continuation or reinstatement of mask mandates may put people off from booking a cruise holiday as compared to other types of holiday where masks are not required. Cunard (Carnival) will be looking at their bottom line and will have reached a conclusion that mask mandates probably put off more people from booking than are attracted due to said mandate. I suppose there is a potential for a niche specialist cruise line to have a unique selling point in their marketing that they still mandate masks and they still adhere to higher levels of 'Covid safety' and are able to therefore charge a premium for this unique offering, but I highly doubt it considering there is no similar notable provision in the travel industry or hospitality currently.

No certificate required. You will be asked at the terminal whether you have taken a test and to confirm it was negative, no proof required or expected.

Cunard caters primarily to British tastes. This tends to mean that little to no seasoning is used for many dishes, which is very different to the approach on the other side of the pond. For example, most British people will be happy, and indeed often prefer, simply steamed or boiled vegetables and potatoes to accompany their meal with no seasoning added in the cooking process.

By asking for a test (and subsequently reporting a positive result) in a situation where taking one was presumably not necessary to go ashore or similar you have inflicted this situation upon yourself. At the moment major cruise lines, including Cunard are still insisting on isolation with regards to Covid, but the direction of travel is clear regarding mask mandates, testing and vaccination requirements etc, they are all being relaxed and then got rid of. CDC regulations do strongly influence cruise line instructions, even if legally the cruise ships don't have to follow the regulations if they aren't sailing into US ports (like the Queen Victoria). CDC rules affecting the travel industry more widely such as masks on planes, or tests to fly to the United States have disappeared either due to court action or decisions otherwise made. Almost as soon as CDC rules regarding isolation go the cruise lines rules will go too. Isolation rules are costing the cruise lines, including Cunard, vast amounts of money through reduced capacity and the related lost sales. This time next year I suspect that telling the ships medical officer that you have tested positive for Covid will be greeted with a shrug and a suggestion that you contact them in the unlikely event you become seriously unwell.

The end destination will be no more tests and no more isolation. Cruise lines will not want to be running at under 100% capacity by having isolation cabins for much longer. Isolation cabins do not make the cruise line money. Mainstream lines, including Cunard, will not wish to cater for the needs of the 'vulnerable' as the costs involved in catering for them will be higher than catering for the non-vulnerable with little if anything in the way as compensation (higher fares/spending) for the increased costs.