How long until Cunard cancels the order for the 4th ship?

[navybankerteacher]

5 hours ago, SilverHengroen said:

I can't really think of a suitable active Earldom, but if we're dropping down the nobility scale, while keeping with the Royal Family ties, perhaps MS Duchess of Cambridge? 🤔 Quite a mouthful, though! 

Well, if we’re “dropping down the nobility scale” how about MS Oliver Cromwell? While not really royalty  he did have a title (Lord Protector) — and he sort of started Europe’s tradition of military dictators.

[LittleFish1976]

14 hours ago, Austcruiser84 said:

 

Cunard has registered the following names: Queen Anne, King James, Aquitania and Mauritania. There's another but I cannot recall right now.

 

Id wager we are looking at Maretania (3) or Aquitania (2). If so, it's highly likely we will see a fifth ship announced soon after the naming so there would be a pairing.

 

If only one ship planned, then it makes sense to go for Queen Anne.  

 

But right now, all that is low priority is imagine.

 

Queen Isabella was there and maybe Queen Charlotte (or I might have made that up). I'm not going to check - it doesn't seem as important as it did a few weeks ago.

 

I think it will be a Queen name - more than ever, it will be important from a marketing perspective to carry through on the good reputation the other Queens have (don't @ me, please).

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by LittleFish1976

[rog747]

We can pontificate all day about a name but the OP was actually about if we ever now will get a new ship LOL

[majortom10]

IMO depending on contract signed by Cunard(Carnival) if they can cancel the build of new ship I think they will. After what is happening currently think Cunard will struggle to fill 4 ships on a regular basis. Too many future new cruisers will have been put off by recent events regarding cruising and also think that there will be many, myself included, who will not book any future cruises with Cunard because of their dreadful actions recently to those that have cruises booked

[Guest SilverHengroen]

5 hours ago, majortom10 said:

IMO depending on contract signed by Cunard(Carnival) if they can cancel the build of new ship I think they will. After what is happening currently think Cunard will struggle to fill 4 ships on a regular basis. Too many future new cruisers will have been put off by recent events regarding cruising and also think that there will be many, myself included, who will not book any future cruises with Cunard because of their dreadful actions recently to those that have cruises booked

There's likely to be some sort of penalty clause for completely cancelling it, which could well be enough to tip the financial balance towards just letting the ship be built, even if they don't forecast the demand for it after launch. There's also quite a strong possibility if this were the case Fincantieri 6274 would be put into service and either or both of Queen Victoria or Queen Elizabeth sold, scrapped, re-based or transferred instead - apart from just being newer (Queen Victoria for example is already over halfway through her structural 'fatigue life' which for most cruise ships is 20-25 years) the new ship has more modern/ cleaner/ fuel efficient technology, more passengers (better economy of scale in operation) and meets the Safe Return to Port (SOLAS 2010) without additional expensive modifications (useful if these regulations start to be enforced more stringently down the line). 

[Fastnet]

Oh, what was I thinking. There wasn't a single Cunarder named after a historical figure before the Queen Mary except for the Berengaria.* I will make use of this pandemic and learn the names of all roman provinces by heart during my time at home.

 

In accordance with Cunard tradition RMS Unicorn will be the appropriate name of the vessel, as we will not see a fourth Cunarder in the near future.

 

*Except for the "Royal George", but this name is of such an unprecedented ghastliness that it shall be omitted from all official histories.

[oskidunker]

Maybe building smaller ships would be something to consider given the huge problem on The Diamond Princess where there are too many people for a Port to handle in a pandemic. 
 

They are going to have a problem convincing new cruisers that it is safe. I predict the smaller cruise lines will do better. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by oskidunker

[ew101]

I got the survey from Cunard yesterday.  It was a little sad.  I do not envy the Marketing Department there.  

 

If Samuel Cunard (no stranger to cholera quarantines massively impacting vessel operations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Cunard)  was still alive I think he would take some bold measures.   These are heretical in the extreme, but so was a steam passenger ship crossing the ocean on a regular schedule in 1840.  

 

Big societal trends* (many believe these to be left wing plots and or hoaxes- you have been warned) 

- Reduced environment footprint 

- Need for social distancing (might be temporary- this might all blow over after a vaccine etc.) 

- Need for advanced air filtering by individual cabins and or for hydrogen sulfide from ocean dead zones (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceanic-dead-zones-spread/)

 

If I had a partly finished hull already on my bill I would now consider:

 

50% reduction in energy use 

Larger fewer cabins more like apartments including cooking and laundry 

Passengers on the outside crew very spread out on the inside (the crew galley was not safe is a recent Princess case)

Public areas very spread out (remember promenade decks?)

Voice operated elevators 

New style positive pressure ventilation 

Larger, decentralized medical centers 

Decentralized galleys 

Etc.  

 

Square footage in the newer designs with all the extra decks is cheap.  You can say but yes you will never make money.  But parked ships are not making money now.  

 

 

[Guest SilverHengroen]

3 hours ago, ew101 said:

I got the survey from Cunard yesterday.  It was a little sad.  I do not envy the Marketing Department there.  

 

If Samuel Cunard (no stranger to cholera quarantines massively impacting vessel operations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Cunard)  was still alive I think he would take some bold measures.   These are heretical in the extreme, but so was a steam passenger ship crossing the ocean on a regular schedule in 1840.  

 

Big societal trends* (many believe these to be left wing plots and or hoaxes- you have been warned) 

- Reduced environment footprint 

- Need for social distancing (might be temporary- this might all blow over after a vaccine etc.) 

- Need for advanced air filtering by individual cabins and or for hydrogen sulfide from ocean dead zones (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceanic-dead-zones-spread/)

 

If I had a partly finished hull already on my bill I would now consider:

 

50% reduction in energy use 

Larger fewer cabins more like apartments including cooking and laundry 

Passengers on the outside crew very spread out on the inside (the crew galley was not safe is a recent Princess case)

Public areas very spread out (remember promenade decks?)

Voice operated elevators 

New style positive pressure ventilation 

Larger, decentralized medical centers 

Decentralized galleys 

Etc.  

 

Square footage in the newer designs with all the extra decks is cheap.  You can say but yes you will never make money.  But parked ships are not making money now.  

 

 

Some of the practical changes you suggest I could see, probably more so in future vessels. Particularly the HVAC system being made more disease proof. I think greening vessels' propulsion and power needs is ongoing, there's changes coming in like shoreside power when docked, exhaust scrubbing (just added to the Cunard fleet) to remove big particulate matter, LNG seems to be quite a popular fuel for new builds. I think Hydrogen fuel cells are the next big thing in this area, it's just developing the infrastructure to produce, store, and refuel ships with this tech globally! 

 

I think more/ better equipped on board medical facilities might become a thing anyway, just as part of natural progression of shipboard facilities. Galleys are largely decentralised already. There's one for the grills, one for the Britannia/ club, one for the buffet restaurant, one for the Verandah restaurants, deck pantries on each cabin deck, at least one for the crew mess(es). 

 

Other things you suggest I'm more dubious about. Fewer passengers in larger rooms means higher fares, there's simply no way around that. For significantly larger rooms, you're talking about halving the number of passengers = doubling the fare per person. Cooking in room absolutely not happening - fire hazard makes it a nonstarter. 

 

 

[Colin_Cameron]

2 hours ago, SilverHengroen said:

... you're talking about halving the number of passengers = doubling the fare per person. 

It’s worse then that. If you half the passengers, you half the onboard spend.

 

You can argue about the profitability of base fares versus onboard spend, and it will be different for each line, but regardless, it would mean more than a 100% rise.

[majortom10]

Personally think that if they can cancel the build of the ship they should because of the terrible way they are treating customers who currently have cruises booked that they will struggle to fill 4 ships and their reputation will be shot.

[ew101]

3 hours ago, SilverHengroen said:

S. Galleys are largely decentralised already. There's one for the grills, one for the Britannia/ club, one for the buffet restaurant, one for the Verandah restaurants, deck pantries on each cabin deck, at least one for the crew mess(es). 

 

 

Good catch.  But how much actual cooking is done at these remote grills?  

[chengkp75]

On 3/20/2020 at 3:11 PM, SilverHengroen said:

 and meets the Safe Return to Port (SOLAS 2010) without additional expensive modifications (useful if these regulations start to be enforced more stringently down the line). 

No maritime regulation as far as construction requirements is ever made retroactive, so ships built before the Safe Return to Port effective date can never be made to conform.  It is not a matter of more stringent enforcement, it is a matter of what the law says.

[chengkp75]

21 hours ago, ew101 said:

I got the survey from Cunard yesterday.  It was a little sad.  I do not envy the Marketing Department there.  

 

If Samuel Cunard (no stranger to cholera quarantines massively impacting vessel operations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Cunard)  was still alive I think he would take some bold measures.   These are heretical in the extreme, but so was a steam passenger ship crossing the ocean on a regular schedule in 1840.  

 

Big societal trends* (many believe these to be left wing plots and or hoaxes- you have been warned) 

- Reduced environment footprint 

- Need for social distancing (might be temporary- this might all blow over after a vaccine etc.) 

- Need for advanced air filtering by individual cabins and or for hydrogen sulfide from ocean dead zones (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceanic-dead-zones-spread/)  You could install HEPA filters in each cabin, but you do realize that cabins do not share ventilation?  There is a fresh air supply, that takes fresh air from outside the ship and delivers it to many cabins in a group, but this is only a one way supply.  There is a bathroom exhaust that takes air from groups of cabins and sends it outside the ship, again one way, no return of comingled air to cabins.  Each cabin has it's own recirculation AC system that is controlled by the cabin thermostat, and that merely takes air from that cabin, circulates it to that cabin's individual cooler, and returns it to the same cabin, again, no comingling of air with other cabins. 

Not sure how air filtration will help with hydrogen sulfide, as this comes only from burning high sulfur fuel, and that has been addressed by the IMO already, with the 86% reduction in mandatory sulfur levels in marine fuels that took effect in January.

 

21 hours ago, ew101 said:

 

If I had a partly finished hull already on my bill I would now consider:

Many of these changes you propose would require complete redesign of a half completed ship, and would push the timeline and budget way out of shape.

 

50% reduction in energy use Suggestions?  It takes a fixed amount of power to push a ship of a given size through the water.

Larger fewer cabins more like apartments including cooking and laundry As noted, this likely isn't going to happen, unless you go to a "condo" arrangement like the ship "World", where the passenger assumes risk for cooking fires, etc.

Passengers on the outside crew very spread out on the inside (the crew galley was not safe is a recent Princess case)  A crew galley and mess hall is no different from the ship's main galley and buffet.  Not sure how having more potential areas of food prep would be safer.

Public areas very spread out (remember promenade decks?)

Voice operated elevators 

New style positive pressure ventilation Current ventilation systems on ships already provide positive pressure in cabins, this is done to keep smoke from infiltrating from passageways to cabins.

Larger, decentralized medical centers 

Decentralized galleys Again, not sure why you feel that more food prep areas are safer.

Etc.  

 

Square footage in the newer designs with all the extra decks is cheap.  You can say but yes you will never make money.  But parked ships are not making money now.  

 

 

You can say that the expense of building these things is less expensive than having idle ships, but putting new features into a new ship does not address those ships that are already built and idle.  And, you have to look at the return on investment.  Would it be better to build a less expensive ship and make a profit, or build a more expensive ship and not make a profit, but still "make money" (bring in revenue).

[chengkp75]

18 hours ago, SilverHengroen said:

Galleys are largely decentralised already. There's one for the grills, one for the Britannia/ club, one for the buffet restaurant, one for the Verandah restaurants, deck pantries on each cabin deck, at least one for the crew mess(es). 

 

13 hours ago, ew101 said:

Good catch.  But how much actual cooking is done at these remote grills?  

Each specialty restaurant, or perhaps a group of specialty venues (if close together) will have a galley that does all the cooking for that venue, with the possible exceptions of some soups and sauces, and desserts.  The buffet galleys will do a lot of individual item cooking, and the rest comes from the main galley.

[BlueRiband]

Cabins "more like apartments with cooking and laundry"?  On a cruise I don't want to do my own cooking.  Just imagine the logistics of provisioning, cleaning, garbage disposal and dishwashing needed for every single cabin.  Now in-cabin laundry is something that a lot of people would appreciate.  But because it would be so handy the use would far exceed that of a conventional ship launderette thus using more energy and generating far more waste water.

 

A ship that would be designed to facilitate social distancing would also have to eliminate large tables in the dining room (no more Captain's table) and its theatre seating would have such a limited capacity that it would be limited to those in the highest cabin classes.    Eliminate pools and children's clubs too because those are areas where people congregate.  I don't think that I will be booking the good ship MS CleanRoom. 

 

If I was so worried that a ship atmosphere was hazardous to my health and its footprint was curse on the planet I'd choose another way to vacation.  But that's just me.

[Trevor33]

On 3/12/2020 at 3:25 PM, seacruise9 said:

Hi, 

 

I've been thinking the same thing. We may never know the name that was planned for the fourth ship. I have a feeling this ship will be cancelled or transferred to Holland America.

Interesting, why do you think Holland America as it is all part of the Carnival Corporation ?

[Guest SilverHengroen]

23 hours ago, Trevor33 said:

Interesting, why do you think Holland America as it is all part of the Carnival Corporation ?

The only reason it might make sense is, capacity management wise, Holland America has many more older ships than Cunard, which could be disposed of so when this one enters service it doesn't necessarily mean more cabins to fill. I am hopeful it won't come to that, I think Cunard has the option of permanently basing Queen Elizabeth in Australia, keeping QM2 largely on Atlantic runs, and dispatching one or the other of this new ship/ Queen Victoria to the Mediterranean and keeping the other on Southampton roundtrips if the UK market isn't filling all the berths (HAL effectively occupies Cunard's market position in North America so I think they would likely transfer if they were going to base it there). 

[Trevor33]

I would think that there are some clauses in the contract signed to build the Queen Anne that does not allow Cunard to say they have changed their mind. May be some of the older ships across the carnival Corporation will be sold on or mothballed

[tntornadox]

I'd hope since the steel has already been cut they'll just let it move forward. Cunard obviously had some expansion plans in mind when they were greenlit for the newbuild and I doubt those plans have changed all that much even with the collapse in bookings. The truth is, the brand needs to grow. It's simply too small now to make any moves in market share in markets around the world where I feel the Cunard brand is not represented and would likely do well.

Personally, I think Cunard would do well with a ship based in North America. I believe it has carved itself out a niche that appeals to alot of cruisers and aside from the random Caribbean runs you don't see them here. I believe the Alaska experiment was to see if a vessel could work here, alternating between the Caribbean in the Fall/Winter/Spring then Alaska in the Summer. I believe it would do well. But they can't make the broad moves that they need to make to grow the business without more ships and I believe Carnival Corporation is aware of this fact. It's time to grow Cunard.

Edited April 10, 2020 by tntornadox

[Guest SilverHengroen]

2 hours ago, tntornadox said:

I'd hope since the steel has already been cut they'll just let it move forward. Cunard obviously had some expansion plans in mind when they were greenlit for the newbuild and I doubt those plans have changed all that much even with the collapse in bookings. The truth is, the brand needs to grow. It's simply too small now to make any moves in market share in markets around the world where I feel the Cunard brand is not represented and would likely do well.

Personally, I think Cunard would do well with a ship based in North America. I believe it has carved itself out a niche that appeals to alot of cruisers and aside from the random Caribbean runs you don't see them here. I believe the Alaska experiment was to see if a vessel could work here, alternating between the Caribbean in the Fall/Winter/Spring then Alaska in the Summer. I believe it would do well. But they can't make the broad moves that they need to make to grow the business without more ships and I believe Carnival Corporation is aware of this fact. It's time to grow Cunard.

I think it's quite likely there's some sort of penalty for cancelling the order now it's under construction and Fincantieri will have ordered all the raw materials and components for her. 

 

Cunard in North America is basically Holland America - leave aside Queen Mary 2 with transatlantics (which is almost a separate brand in itself) and the experience from Queen Victoria and Elizabeth is basically what HAL offers in the US adjusted slightly for British tastes (which accounts for the few differences in experience). I think the new ship is basically to replace Queen Elizabeth in Britain/ Europe now she's more Australia based (it seems that's the new market Cunard are going after). They've largely missed the boat in North America, they don't have the mindshare to compete in a crowded Caribbean market, and it seems like Alaska is something to occupy QE in the Australian low/ winter season. 

[Luv2Crus40]

Is the new ship coming out in 2022?  If so, is it going to be called QE something?  I read somewhere the ship may be named the Queen Anne.  But have read nothing further in months.

[Ray66]

2 hours ago, Luv2Crus40 said:

Is the new ship coming out in 2022?  If so, is it going to be called QE something?  I read somewhere the ship may be named the Queen Anne.  But have read nothing further in months.

 

It was supposed to be due summer 2022 but who knows now?  Someone mentioned the name is going to be something in the region of a countess rather than a queen.

[majortom10]

55 minutes ago, Ray66 said:

 

It was supposed to be due summer 2022 but who knows now?  Someone mentioned the name is going to be something in the region of a countess rather than a queen.

There has been many rumours about names and nobody knows what the name is going to be. It should have been announced by now but has had repeatedly been delayed. For what its worth if Cunard can cancel the order I think they will if not it will be pushed back for a period of time possibly 2023/4

[Guest SilverHengroen]

20 minutes ago, majortom10 said:

There has been many rumours about names and nobody knows what the name is going to be. It should have been announced by now but has had repeatedly been delayed. For what its worth if Cunard can cancel the order I think they will if not it will be pushed back for a period of time possibly 2023/4

Regarding being pushed back, unlikely but does anyone have any concrete information about whether the build is currently completely stopped, or proceeding at a reduced pace? Meyer Werft are continuing with the fitting out of Iona for P&O currently - but obviously she is far further along being structurally complete.