short cruises - why they get bad reviews

[paul1959]

After reading these boards extensively before our March 10 cruise, I spent a lot of time looking at the reason for some of the complaints. One of the things that had me puzzled was why the short 4 day cruises seem to get such bad reviews. I found out...

 

The staff on the QM2 are fantastic and friendly. I was able to engage many of them in converstaion while I was on board. They seemed genuinely interested in sharing their lives and the way of living on the ship. When I mentioned the short cruises every single one of them shuddered.

 

The long and short of it is, on our cruise, every stateroom was booked. There were 1800 passengers. That is far from the 2500 which are routinely booked on the short cruises. Our steward had 29 passengers to take care of on our cruise. On the short cruise, he had 48! Every single pull down berth was to be used, every sofa bed, everything. It is too crowded and too many people for one person to take care of. There will be 400 kids on these trips for a staff of 8-10 to take care of.

 

The staff called these "The booze cruise." Generally, the people on these cruises want to party as hard as they can to get their money's worth. They are very demanding to the staff. They are often impatient and feel most entitled to full services. Simple things like filling out a card to disembark at their one and only port trigger some people to behave badly.

 

These people are not typical cruisers. Their goal is to have one short wild trip. They do not like to dress up or generally are not interested in the QM2 as a ship. They simply want to go on a trip.

 

Why does Cunard do it? They make a ton of money. When you figure that 2500 people pay well over an average of $1,000.00 per person for this trip, they probably haul in over 3 million for a four day trip. Our ten day trip probably did not make much more than that.

 

now, of course not everyone on these cruises are like these generalizations, but it is clear that the staff suffers on these crowded trips and hence, the service and the experience suffers as well. If you want to see what the QM2 is like, I would strong advise taking a long cruise, or best of all, from what I hear, the trans-Atlantic is where she really shines.

Paul

[David21]

I disagree - I have been on 77 cruises and find the short cruises are perfect cruises to fit one in on limited vacation time. Since I use my 5 weeks of vacations a year on cruises sometimes these getways I only have to use one day. So what you are saying is incorrect. I have always met nice people who cruise alot. Actually I am on the Queen Mary 2 right now on the 4 day and it is not a booze cruise at all.

Dave

[keelhauled]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for that very insightful post. I think you are right and would readily agree. It's a shame really, but such is life. I would also agree that QM2 is at her best (as well as the crew) on trannies.

[PianoManNYC]

QM2 is at her best (as well as the crew) on trannies.

 

Maybe it is just me, but using QM2 and trannies in the same sentence seems just not right. I assume you mean transatlantic of T/As? Trannies has a specific meaning and should better be left for that, if you don't mind.

[Sirius Cruiser]

I think you are so correct. We had almost the same experience in 2006 when QM2 was out here on the West Coast. We booked the 11 day Hawaiian trip, patently not to go to Hawaii in Feburary - their lousiest weather season - or even to cruise there in February - during coudy, rainy weather conditions which bring California a lot of its rain and is fondly called "Pineapple Express." We booked to be on Queen Mary 2. And we booked with our dear, dear friends from Dallas.

 

Then, seeing the little 3 day prior to the Hawaiian trip, we thought we could be on the ship a total of 14 days so, we booked that too several weeks later! Two other couples booked with us. All this was in Princess Grill.

 

Well, the service was so different between the two trips I was amazed. I was actually embarrassed the first evening, for example, our main courses were warm not hot. One of my friends, who cruised on Princess leaned over and said: "The food and service is better on Princess."

 

I had thought some of the staff were given time off or something because there seemed to be fewer around on the 3 day. We were told that the ship was full for both cruises.

 

What a shame Cunard does not fix this problem: They have lost this couple, who loved our itinerary NY - LA through the Canal on Queen Victoria (It was wonderful!) but simply do not think Cunard is worth the money. And I'm sorry because we have great times when we're all together. Everything was perfect on the 11 Day but our friends were not there to partake.

[TJL]

Maybe it is just me, but using QM2 and trannies in the same sentence seems just not right. I assume you mean transatlantic of T/As? Trannies has a specific meaning and should better be left for that, if you don't mind.

 

 

Don't worry!

"Trannie" is (affectionate) slang that I first heard used by one of the crew on the QE2.

 

PS I know some very nice trannies (the other sort!). But then again I do hang around Soho a lot....

 

PPS I'm totally with the OP on the subject of short cruises. I tried it. Once.

Of course you'll meet some lovely people - but my gosh you'll also meet some horrors!

[Mister Banks]

After reading these boards extensively before our March 10 cruise, I spent a lot of time looking at the reason for some of the complaints. One of the things that had me puzzled was why the short 4 day cruises seem to get such bad reviews. I found out...

 

The staff on the QM2 are fantastic and friendly. I was able to engage many of them in converstaion while I was on board. They seemed genuinely interested in sharing their lives and the way of living on the ship. When I mentioned the short cruises every single one of them shuddered.

 

The long and short of it is, on our cruise, every stateroom was booked. There were 1800 passengers. That is far from the 2500 which are routinely booked on the short cruises. Our steward had 29 passengers to take care of on our cruise. On the short cruise, he had 48! Every single pull down berth was to be used, every sofa bed, everything. It is too crowded and too many people for one person to take care of. There will be 400 kids on these trips for a staff of 8-10 to take care of.

 

The staff called these "The booze cruise." Generally, the people on these cruises want to party as hard as they can to get their money's worth. They are very demanding to the staff. They are often impatient and feel most entitled to full services. Simple things like filling out a card to disembark at their one and only port trigger some people to behave badly.

 

These people are not typical cruisers. Their goal is to have one short wild trip. They do not like to dress up or generally are not interested in the QM2 as a ship. They simply want to go on a trip.

 

Why does Cunard do it? They make a ton of money. When you figure that 2500 people pay well over an average of $1,000.00 per person for this trip, they probably haul in over 3 million for a four day trip. Our ten day trip probably did not make much more than that.

 

now, of course not everyone on these cruises are like these generalizations, but it is clear that the staff suffers on these crowded trips and hence, the service and the experience suffers as well. If you want to see what the QM2 is like, I would strong advise taking a long cruise, or best of all, from what I hear, the trans-Atlantic is where she really shines.

Paul

 

Hear hear! Good advice, sir. And I have heard the same as the staff say about the short cruises. Think about it though. How many people who want to boast they've sailed on a Cunard ship get to do so and only pay for a short trip? I can think of a few people I know who would do that. They don't care about Cunard history, a transatlantic, etc.

[PianoManNYC]

Don't worry!

"Trannie" is (affectionate) slang that I first heard used by one of the crew on the QE2.

 

PS I know some very nice trannies (the other sort!). But then again I do hang around Soho a lot....

 

No worries from me, just wonder if it is not a bit too much inside baseball? Just seems to me to be a bit too much a mash-up of terms...many folks are already hesitant about the notion of a transatlantic and start throwing in trannies and, gosh, they might never see their way to doing one! a T/A, I mean, of course!

[soblue]

Who mentioned the word riff-raff :o

[keelhauled]

I'm sorry if I offend Pianoman, but TJL is correct - "trannie" is an industry term (as is TA for travel agent), one which I've used for many years, and never actually thought of its alternative use. If others are upset at the word, then I will happily cease and desist its usage, however, for now I hope to continue using it without offense.

[Brit and proud]

Paul

 

Thanks for taking the time out to post what you where told by members of the QM2 staff, i actually heard and asked similar questions of some staff, and they stated they tried to get leave for these trips.....

 

From booze induced arguments......kids demanding more than the adults :rolleyes: and people wanting to change the dress codes and introduce ones not even advertised by cunard....:eek: now that says a lot...

 

Once again thanks

 

 

Steve

[yorky]

Having just taken a look at the latest two reviews, both short cruises it backs up what many have already said.

[keelhauled]

Crew are contracted for a certain period of time...if anything, the ship requires more crew rather than less on these short cruises. Crew cannot simply hop off and on whenever they please. Further, all non-American/Canadian crew (most of the crew) carry I95 visas, which require the company to ensure they are directly sent to an airport with a ticket for leaving the US.

[stephen@stoneyard.co.uk]

I have done 3 day, 5 day, transatlantics and 10 day cruises on QE2. I suppose all these could all be considered short cruises. I find the shorter the cruise, the younger the age group, the more children ( perhaps 12 children rather than 6 ) and the more passengers new to QE2. I quite like the different crowd, the children are usually well behaved and the new passengers are just excited to be aboard QE2. SOME ( a few ) of the older regular QE2 passengers can be a bit grumpy, rude, seen it all before and not as good as it use to be types. There can be good or bad passengers on any cruise. Perhaps I have always had good luck on QE2.

 

There is definitely a buzz ( topical Royal Opera remark ) on the short cruises. People do party on QE2 they just do it with consideration for other passengers.

 

Best wishes, Stephen.

[tntornadox]

I have said for a long time now that the QM2 should not be running these short 'cruises'...

 

Cunard needs at least one dedicated caribbean ship that does nothing else- put the ocean liners and cruise ships to their true uses..

[yorky]

Given another two very poor reviews have just been posted you really do wonder if Cunard are shooting themselves in the foot with these short cruises, I don't see these reviewers returning in a hurry. It does also beg the question of how much damage Cunard are doing with the constant changing of staff as a new ship comes on board. There should not still be major issues in the Britannia dinning room four years on, short cruise or not.

[keelhauled]

Given another two very poor reviews have just been posted you really do wonder if Cunard are shooting themselves in the foot with these short cruises, I don't see these reviewers returning in a hurry. It does also beg the question of how much damage Cunard are doing with the constant changing of staff as a new ship comes on board. There should not still be major issues in the Britannia dinning room four years on, short cruise or not.

Queen Victoria only came out in December, so it's been 3 months, not 4 years since loads of QM2 crew left for QV. This is less than the span of 1 contract. It's not too surprising, but they need to get their act together in short order!

[PDAZ]

Paul, I so agree with you! You think it's bad on Cunard -- you should take a short cruise on RCCL or Carnival (am I allowed to say "Carnival" on this forum??) :eek:

[SeaMatesNYC]

(am I allowed to say "Carnival" on this forum??) :eek:

 

Only when referring to the parent company, or making disparaging remarks about the cruise line named such (Kidding, well sort of, ok not at all!:D ).

 

I have never been on a short cruise other than QM2, and I shudder to think what it would be like on C******l, although I am giving the "Cruise to Nowhere" inaugural a go on the HAL Eurodam, Labor Day weekend. I think it will either be fantastic (with the special events, etc.) or disastrous (cooped up with no where to go and being ignored while all the VIPs hog the service).

[cruisefeen2304]

Really? My cruise was a 4 day cruise and i found things to be slow in terms of excitement and hustle and bustle.. There wasn't ever a time when the staff looked over worked nor did i encounter anyone giving them a difficult or hard time.Everyone was really relaxed. I don't know who goes on the QM2 to "Party Hard" cause IMO, you can't "Party Hard" on the QM2, the atmosphere does not fit. The majority of my fellow cruise passengers were either young family's and those around 50-80+

[smoothdancer]

Actually, I have done short cruises on other lines, and they are pulled off quite well. The big difference is that these other lines are doing these short cruises back to back, the staff is use to the 3 or 4 day turn around and I have found the experience and service no different than what I experienced on a longer cruise.

 

Cunard on the other hand is not doing back to back short cruises and I am going to guess that these short cruises every three months or so just throws a wrench into the normal routine.