Cunard in 2115

[Austcruiser84]

As Cunard celebrates 175 years next year, it got me thinking about how different yet similar the line is after all these years.

 

For example:

 

Cunard maintains a hierarchy, yet most of the ship's public spaces are open to all. Cunard maintains a Transatlantic schedule, but now largely operates a cruise itinerary base to warmer weather locations. Cunard also maintains a sense of tradition and elegance, but is more relaxed in its daytime offerings and entertainment.

 

I think they've ultimately done a good job of holding onto the traditional image yet modernising as is always necessary. Naturally, this is subject to much debate by older cruisers and those relatively new to the scene (like me).

 

My question for this new thread is:

 

Do people think Cunard will survive another 100 years or even another 175 years? If so, what do people think Cunard will be like and if not, why do people think it won't survive?

 

For my money, I'd say Cunard will have bigger ships powered by nuclear generators. I'd also wager that its Anglo passenger base will be far more skewed to an Asian/Middle Eastern clientele.

 

In addition to maintaining a Transatlantic presence, future Cunarders will also likely ply the Arctic, which will no longer be blocked by ice. It will also allow cruise ships easier repositioning between West and East. It's likely more exotic destinations like Antarctica will be offered to mainstream cruisers.

 

Rather than regularly docking in Southampton, passengers will be flown or ferried direct to Cunard ships as they traverse the world's oceans.

 

Cruising will likely continue being a popular holiday option, especially as traditional land based sites are overwhelmed or damaged by environmental degradation (both of which are already beginning to happen).

[BlueRiband]

I'll disagree on all of the points. First, the passenger base is trending toward people who don't have any money to spend on board. Witness the demise of the Hermes shop and the constant "$10 treasures" and "gold (colored brass) by the inch" table sales. People who buy fine art and jewelry, leather goods, and expensive spa treatments are rarely interested in low end trinkets. In October I was the only person in the perfume shop on the three visits there and only person in the Chopard shop. Given that, it may be unsustainable to operate Cunard with the expected level of service at the fares people are willing to pay. (Perhaps, due to declining patronage, the Veuve Clicquot lounge becomes a sports bar.)

 

In the US we were at the verge of accepting nuclear land based power then Fukishima happened. There is continuous political pressure to close a nuclear plant near NYC. The US Navy has a 60 year safety record of nuclear propulsion on warships but the public won't accept a cruise ship so powered. If one was put in service environmental groups would likely petition their governments to ban it from even entering their territorial waters. (As happened with the long retired cargo/passenger ship NS Savannah.) In the name of "avoiding an environmental disaster" of course.

 

I'm not a disciple in the Church of Global Warming and disagree with the claim that Arctic ice is receding since the opposite is happening.

 

And finally, environmental zealots by then may have successfully forced cruise ships out of existence by increments. Witness the requirement to burn expensive, ultra-low sulfur fuel along the coast of California and elsewhere. Limits on the number of ships in Alaska and Venice. These people claim that a cruise ship is the most fuel inefficient form of transportation. And since cruising is purely leisurely pleasure - and not real transportation - passenger ships have no right to exist outside geographic anomalies like Norway.

Edited December 12, 2014 by BlueRiband

[Chunky2219]

Don't think there'll be any chance of nuclear power. Eventually Cunard will be on the lunar run but the cruise "ships" will be ion powered, like the Titanic replica on the Doctor Who Christmas edition. Sadly, Kylie Monogue won't be on board this time and there will be no balcony cabins.

 

I agree with the idea of direct transfer, with Southampton out of the equation. Using the transporter beam will be much easier than donning a space suit and taking a shuttle.

 

Methinks Cunard will stay well away from the Antarctic. They don't have a good record with icebergs.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the comment about hierarchy. Unless you're talking about proper "liners" and "cruise ships", in which case I guess people will still be babbling on about the topic.

 

.

[BobBranst]

Methinks Cunard will stay well away from the Antarctic. They don't have a good record with icebergs.

.

 

 

Perhaps you are thinking about the sinking of the White Star Line's Titanic in 1912. The Cunard Line and the White Star Line were still separate competing companies up until their forced merger some 20 years after the sinking of the Titanic. I may be wrong, but I can't recall any serious iceberg disasters directly associated with a Cunard ship.

 

Bob

[Skipper Tim]

It is hard to imagine that nuclear weapons will not have been used within the next 100 years with all the ensuing consequences. Most of the human race will have been wiped out and global warming and Cunard will be a distant memory among a few very old survivors.

[Chunky2219]

Perhaps you are thinking about the sinking of the White Star Line's Titanic in 1912. The Cunard Line and the White Star Line were still separate competing companies up until their forced merger some 20 years after the sinking of the Titanic. I may be wrong, but I can't recall any serious iceberg disasters directly associated with a Cunard ship.

 

Bob

Hmmmm. A bit of tongue in cheek comment can always be improved by a morsel of pedantry. Yep, I know the story.

 

Presumably, you posit that a merger only involves the absorption of the happy parts of history, all the unpleasant bits disappear with the old name.

 

.

 

.

[BobBranst]

Hmmmm. A bit of tongue in cheek comment can always be improved by a morsel of pedantry. Yep, I know the story.

 

Presumably, you posit that a merger only involves the absorption of the happy parts of history, all the unpleasant bits disappear with the old name.

 

.

 

.

 

Forgive me for being a stickler. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective. People from the US sometimes interpret history differently from those in other countries. I personally tend to associate the White Star Line with it's American owner (John Pierpont Morgan) at the time of the Titanic sinking rather than the line that it was forced to merge with by the British government some 20 years later because both lines were facing financial ruin.

 

Bob

[Salacia]

As Cunard celebrates 175 years next year, it got me thinking about how different yet similar the line is after all these years.

 

For example:

 

Cunard maintains a hierarchy, yet most of the ship's public spaces are open to all. Cunard maintains a Transatlantic schedule, but now largely operates a cruise itinerary base to warmer weather locations. Cunard also maintains a sense of tradition and elegance, but is more relaxed in its daytime offerings and entertainment.

 

I think they've ultimately done a good job of holding onto the traditional image yet modernising as is always necessary. Naturally, this is subject to much debate by older cruisers and those relatively new to the scene (like me).

 

My question for this new thread is:

 

Do people think Cunard will survive another 100 years or even another 175 years? If so, what do people think Cunard will be like and if not, why do people think it won't survive?

For my money, I'd say Cunard will have bigger ships powered by nuclear generators. I'd also wager that its Anglo passenger base will be far more skewed to an Asian/Middle Eastern clientele.

 

In addition to maintaining a Transatlantic presence, future Cunarders will also likely ply the Arctic, which will no longer be blocked by ice. It will also allow cruise ships easier repositioning between West and East. It's likely more exotic destinations like Antarctica will be offered to mainstream cruisers.

 

Rather than regularly docking in Southampton, passengers will be flown or ferried direct to Cunard ships as they traverse the world's oceans.

 

Cruising will likely continue being a popular holiday option, especially as traditional land based sites are overwhelmed or damaged by environmental degradation (both of which are already beginning to happen).

 

Looking into my crystal ball... one hundred years from now, space travel with be what cruising is today.

 

Those who love ships will to continue to book passage for ships on the ocean, powered by wind power (sails) and solar energy.

 

Human knowledge and empathy will increase as the world realizes that we are really one world, but not as quickly as the computers we design. Computers will be intelligent enough to deny launch of nuclear weapons: mass destruction is not an option.

 

Peace will break out. There will be no racial differences because eventually the realization that we are all of one race - the Human Race - will become apparent.

 

We will swim, row and sail. Space travel - ah, I wish I could be around to see travel 175 years from now! Just think about what travel was like 175 years ago :eek:

 

Happy Holidays, and happy first day of Chanukah :)

Salacia

Edited December 16, 2014 by Salacia