Transatlantic Rate Comparison, then and now

[GeezLouise1]

Today I found a very old travel file with records from our first transatlantic voyage on the QE2. Our rate for an inside L cabin for a September crossing in 1983 was $3400USD p/p, including the port taxes of $50. I have deducted the $500. return air allowance (London,Toronto). Thirty years later, the rate for inside accommodation on the QM2 is $1399CAD p/p. for a September crossing. In 1983, we took 5 days to go from NYC to Southampton. I thought this might be of interest to some of you. Oh, I will admit that the bar bill was considerably smaller on the 1983 voyage, than on our QM2 crossing in 2009. Only because the bar prices were much less, of course;). Just for fun.:D

[Dianacm]

Today I found a very old travel file with records from our first transatlantic voyage on the QE2. Our rate for an inside L cabin for a September crossing in 1983 was $3400USD p/p, including the port taxes of $50. I have deducted the $500. return air allowance (London,Toronto). Thirty years later, the rate for inside accommodation on the QM2 is $1399CAD p/p. for a September crossing. In 1983, we took 5 days to go from NYC to Southampton. I thought this might be of interest to some of you. Oh, I will admit that the bar bill was considerably smaller on the 1983 voyage, than on our QM2 crossing in 2009. Only because the bar prices were much less, of course;). Just for fun.:D

 

An interesting reminder to those who complain about declining service: cruise and air travel was out of reach until relatively recently for many who now take both for granted.

 

Factoring for inflation, a 1983 inside cabin priced at $3400 per person would cost over $7500 in 2012 dollars. I recently read a book on the original Queen Elizabeth that noted prices on one of her crossings in 1966 ranged from $210 ($1466 today) for a bunk in a tourist class cabin shared with 2 other passengers-no private bath- to ~$1500 ($10,470 today) per person in a first class suite. On that particular voyage of the QE, the ratio of staff/passengers was greater than 1/1.

[GeezLouise1]

An interesting reminder to those who complain about declining service: cruise and air travel was out of reach until relatively recently for many who now take both for granted.

 

Factoring for inflation, a 1983 inside cabin priced at $3400 per person would cost over $7500 in 2012 dollars. I recently read a book on the original Queen Elizabeth that noted prices on one of her crossings in 1966 ranged from $210 ($1466 today) for a bunk in a tourist class cabin shared with 2 other passengers-no private bath- to ~$1500 ($10,470 today) per person in a first class suite. On that particular voyage of the QE, the ratio of staff/passengers was greater than 1/1.

 

 

Thanks for adding that, most interesting! Certainly keeps it all in perspective, doesn't it? Especially the crew/passenger ratio. Also bear in mind the QE2 in 1983, while very pleasant, wasn't quite as elegant as in later years. The "Tables of the World" dining room especially!

[wripro]

This is very interesting because I crossed on the QE2 in 1984 in Queens Grill and don't think I paid much more than $3400 pp.

[Jim Avery]

I agree, Wripro. I sailed QE2 all during the '80s in outside cabins (but not Grills) and I never paid anywhere near that price. Methinks an extra zero is in there.

[david,Mississauga]

Exact comparisons are not possible and I have quoted US dollars. The crossings I have referred to were done in five days as opposed to the current seven – or occasionally eight. Passengers on the QE2 did not have a balcony except the top Queen’s Grill accommodations. Queen’s Grill guests in the basic QG staterooms did not have a butler or complimentary bar. Also, in many years Cunard advertised one-way free air travel, so I have removed the value of that “free” flight based on information in the brochures.

 

In October 1973, our first Cunard crossing, we paid $380 pp. This was for a mid-range Tourist class outside two bedded stateroom. The value of that today, using an inflation calculator, would be $2052. A similar stateroom - without balcony, of course - for this year in autumn would cost about $1300.

 

In 1979 we travelled First Class for the first time on the QE2. That provided one-sitting dining in the Columbia (later Caronia) Restaurant. After the air allowance was deducted the fare was about $1250 pp. The current value of that amount is $4239. (Because the value of our Canadian dollar was often well below the US dollar, that cost us about 17% more that year.) This year, you can get Princess Grill for less than that adjusted fare.

 

In 2011 we paid $3400 for Queen’s Grill on a seven-day crossing aboard QM2. The brochure for 1991 shows that the closest equivalent fare in QG would have cost $3385 after air allowance is taken off, which was worth $5545 in 2011. Princess Grill in 2011 would have cost us about $2900 and 20 years before the fare was $2915 or $4775 in 2011 dollars. Canadians would have to have paid about 15% more in exchange rates in 1991, whereas current Cunard rates are quoted in Canadian dollars for us and are essentially at par with US dollars.

 

So in most cases, current fares in real terms are cheaper than they were many years ago and we get a longer crossing. I know not eveyone likes two extra days at sea, but I do.

[GeezLouise1]

Oh dear, you are absolutely correct. The cost per adult was $1535.US and my young son was $690. I beg your pardon, our total cruise cost including the port taxes of $50. US per person was $3900.USD. (before air allowance was deducted). I think my eye dropped down a line when typing. Still a formidable amount for a 5 day voyage in an inside room though, hope you'll forgive me:o

[Dianacm]

The least expensive booking on the QE in 1966 and the QM2 today-brochure rate- are similar when inflation is factored. And the top available accomodation-the penthouse or master suites on QM2 are more expensive than the top suite available on the '60s QE.

 

But it's almost impossible to compare apples with apples. The experience is unique to the ship and the time. To generalize-and I have no personal experience, only what I've read- I'd say one gets more bang for the buck with cabins today, and less with service.

 

In air travel today, anyone can travel anywhere, relative to pre-deregulation, but the top-top tier pay far more and get far more.

[Kiltboys]

Hi

I'm not sure if this contributes much as it's not from so long ago, but it is the QE2 and I found it quite interesting:

 

2005 QE2 Q2 USD 18,650 for a 16 nighter ($1165/day). Whilst the Q1/Q2 suites on the QE2 were not as grand as today, the pricing even with the 2013 equivalency seems on the cheap side (around 50% of today's rates).

[keithm]

Exact comparisons are not possible and I have quoted US dollars. The crossings I have referred to were done in five days as opposed to the current seven – or occasionally eight. Passengers on the QE2 did not have a balcony except the top Queen’s Grill accommodations. Queen’s Grill guests in the basic QG staterooms did not have a butler or complimentary bar. Also, in many years Cunard advertised one-way free air travel, so I have removed the value of that “free” flight based on information in the brochures.

 

In October 1973, our first Cunard crossing, we paid $380 pp. This was for a mid-range Tourist class outside two bedded stateroom. The value of that today, using an inflation calculator, would be $2052. A similar stateroom - without balcony, of course - for this year in autumn would cost about $1300.

 

In 1979 we travelled First Class for the first time on the QE2. That provided one-sitting dining in the Columbia (later Caronia) Restaurant. After the air allowance was deducted the fare was about $1250 pp. The current value of that amount is $4239. (Because the value of our Canadian dollar was often well below the US dollar, that cost us about 17% more that year.) This year, you can get Princess Grill for less than that adjusted fare.

 

In 2011 we paid $3400 for Queen’s Grill on a seven-day crossing aboard QM2. The brochure for 1991 shows that the closest equivalent fare in QG would have cost $3385 after air allowance is taken off, which was worth $5545 in 2011. Princess Grill in 2011 would have cost us about $2900 and 20 years before the fare was $2915 or $4775 in 2011 dollars. Canadians would have to have paid about 15% more in exchange rates in 1991, whereas current Cunard rates are quoted in Canadian dollars for us and are essentially at par with US dollars.

 

So in most cases, current fares in real terms are cheaper than they were many years ago and we get a longer crossing. I know not eveyone likes two extra days at sea, but I do.

That's what competition does!

[retafcruiser]

Hi

I'm not sure if this contributes much as it's not from so long ago, but it is the QE2 and I found it quite interesting:

 

2005 QE2 Q2 USD 18,650 for a 16 nighter ($1165/day). Whilst the Q1/Q2 suites on the QE2 were not as grand as today, the pricing even with the 2013 equivalency seems on the cheap side (around 50% of today's rates).

 

At one point, Cunard was pricing the higher suites by the cabin rather than the number of passengers. You paid one price for the suite no matter the number of travellers.

[wripro]

When I first crossed in 1984, and as recently as 2004, crossings were all five days. On QE2 in QG I had a cabin which measured over 400 sq. ft, had two enormous walk in closets, instead of a butler we had our own porters as was normal on ocean liners and it was a much nicer experience than QM2. And back in those days we received a free return flight on the Concorde.

[Jim Avery]

When I first crossed in 1984, and as recently as 2004, crossings were all five days. On QE2 in QG I had a cabin which measured over 400 sq. ft, had two enormous walk in closets, instead of a butler we had our own porters as was normal on ocean liners and it was a much nicer experience than QM2. And back in those days we received a free return flight on the Concorde.

 

The five day crossing began in the late 1920s and continued, as you said, up into this century when we (Cunard) took a great leap forward to the 8 day crossing.:eek: For those used to 30 knot speeds, a current crossing seems like plodding. I remember the partnership with Concorde. I greatly regret not taking that option. At the time, I think a $900 upcharge on the Cunard air package bought a Concorde return. As you said, it was included in QG. Quite the perk.:D

[pepperrn]

And back in those days we received a free return flight on the Concorde.

Ah, Concorde...

 

1969 was quite a year...

First flight of Concorde... (and the 747's first flight)

QE2 entered service.

 

Concorde and supersonic air transport was to be the future.

Transatlantic travel by Ocean Liner was dead, a thing of the past, QE2 would be a museum exhibit within a few short years... the last transatlantic ocean liner ever to be built... why had Cunard bothered to build her?... no-one would travel by sea...

 

A few years ago I passed Concorde, the museum exhibit... in New York Harbor, while I stood on the deck of the newest and largest Ocean Liner the world has yet seen, Cunard's QM2... :) .

 

QE2 had out-lived Concorde... entering service before Concorde took her first passenger, and still sailing long after Concorde had been retired from service. Cunard were right.

 

Who had the last laugh?... ;)

[Jim Avery]

Ah, Concorde...

 

1969 was quite a year...

First flight of Concorde... (and the 747's first flight)

QE2 entered service.

 

Concorde and supersonic air transport was to be the future.

Transatlantic travel by Ocean Liner was dead, a thing of the past, QE2 would be a museum exhibit within a few short years... the last transatlantic ocean liner ever to be built... why had Cunard bothered to build her?... no-one would travel by sea...

 

A few years ago I passed Concorde, the museum exhibit... in New York Harbor, while I stood on the deck of the newest and largest Ocean Liner the world has yet seen, Cunard's QM2... :) .

 

QE2 had out-lived Concorde... entering service before Concorde took her first passenger, and still sailing long after Concorde had been retired from service. Cunard were right.

 

Who had the last laugh?... ;)

 

1969 was a very good year. Also, first man on the moon. And, I turned 21.:eek: I think maybe we are having the last laugh.:eek::D

[Jim Avery]

Pepperrn's post stirred a lot of memories. It was truly exciting to sail QE2 in 1969 as a 21 year old. "King of the World" comes to mind.:D A Concorde adventure also happened. Actually in 1971 but still of the era of this thread. I was waiting in LHR and walked past the window where Concorde was secured. There was a very nice BA crew member at the gate and I asked if I could see on board. She took me out to the plane and let me look inside. Way impressed with the big leather seats but a bit surprised at the narrow confines and low overhead. When you are seated and drinking all that Champagne, who cares? Can you only imagine if I asked to go onboard and look around a Dreamliner today??:eek::D

[Whitemarsh]

Pepperrn's post stirred a lot of memories. It was truly exciting to sail QE2 in 1969 as a 21 year old. "King of the World" comes to mind.:D A Concorde adventure also happened. Actually in 1971 but still of the era of this thread. I was waiting in LHR and walked past the window where Concorde was secured. There was a very nice BA crew member at the gate and I asked if I could see on board. She took me out to the plane and let me look inside. Way impressed with the big leather seats but a bit surprised at the narrow confines and low overhead. When you are seated and drinking all that Champagne, who cares? Can you only imagine if I asked to go onboard and look around a Dreamliner today??:eek::D

 

That would have been really cool, I'm rather jealous :)

[Jim Avery]

That would have been really cool, I'm rather jealous :)

 

If you look like your current picture, I wish you had been there.:D:D

[Whitemarsh]

If you look like your current picture, I wish you had been there.:D:D

 

No, nothing at all. Wrong gender.

 

But you certainly have an eye for the ladies, the woman in the avatar is Paulina Porizkova, former supermodel and face of Estee Lauder.

[Jim Avery]

No, nothing at all. Wrong gender.

 

But you certainly have an eye for the ladies, the woman in the avatar is Paulina Porizkova, former supermodel and face of Estee Lauder.

 

I still think you would be fun to sail with.:D

[Whitemarsh]

I still think you would be fun to sail with.:D

 

I do try to make it my mission to have a good time on board. As the countess and others will attest to. :D

[pepperrn]

1969 was a very good year. Also, first man on the moon. And, I turned 21.:eek: I think maybe we are having the last laugh.:eek::D

I stayed up all night to watch Neil Armstrong set foot on the surface (it was shown in the middle of the night over here on the BBC; timed for US prime-time TV, and why not).

 

People were going to be living on the moon by now...

And supersonic flights all over the globe...

 

And Cunard's "2001" inspired interior design was celebrated in a brochure advertising her her sailing schedules for 1969... "From the 1860s to the 1960s ocean liners have been boring their way across the seas. Cunard has launched the ultimate weapon against boredom at sea. The new Cuanrd Queen Elizabeth 2. Whatever your preconceptions about QE2, she is bound to take you by surprise. It's like climbing into the most exciting thing to be launched since Apollo 1".

 

I just can't get over the fact that long-distance passenger shipping was written off by the late 60s/early 70s, and OK, as a mode of transport it has been (almost! :) ).

But could anyone have forseen, in 1969, the number and size of the ships we have today, or the masses of people who choose to go to sea, because they can, not because they must.

If you'd told anyone that in 1969; when the 747 first took to the skies, when Concorde flew for the first time, and when man landed on the moon, they would have thought you were crazy/mad.

 

(As an aside... a lady I knew in my youth told me that her father, born 1890, told his school friends when they learned of the Wright brothers first flight in Dec 1903, that he would live to see man walk on the moon. He was, of course, ridiculed. Sadly he died in the January of 1969. Man set foot on the moon in July :( ).

 

All best wishes :) .

[Whitemarsh]

I just can't get over the fact that long-distance passenger shipping was written off by the late 60s/early 70s, and OK, as a mode of transport it has been (almost! :) ).

But could anyone have forseen, in 1969, the number and size of the ships we have today, or the masses of people who choose to go to sea, because they can, not because they must.

 

If you'd told anyone that in 1969; when the 747 first took to the skies, when Concorde flew for the first time, and when man landed on the moon, they would have thought you were crazy/mad

 

All best wishes :) .

 

Even in the 80's I was reading books about ocean liners that were very sure of themselves that no passenger ships would ever eclipse the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth for size, and, as for another transatlantic liner being built, well QE2 always finished off the liner books being described as "the last".

 

Just another reason why QM2 is so special - who'd put money down on the likelihood that she'd be built?