[ 03-06-2004: Message edited by: Keitaro ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keitaro:
Is this Carnival/Cunard's answer of lessening competition within their own brands in Southampton?

---

Keitaro, you have just hit the nail right on the head! However, I'm sure Southampton will find plenty other other ships to fill any slots vacated by Cunard.

As for Southampton being the 'hub' of UK cruising, I always think that Dover and Harwich, both within easy reach of London, are very underated ports.

[ 03-06-2004: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

(i) QE2's 2005 world cruise terminates in Southampton on April 16 rather than New York (from where it starts).

(ii) Although QM2's itinerary has been published up to January 6, 2006 nothing has yet been published for QE2 after April 16, 2005.

(iii) Cunard's annual Christmas/New Year's cruise from New York will be handled by QM2 in 2005/2006 rather than QE2.

Notwithstanding Cunard's public pronouncements to the contrary, it seems that QE2's future after April 16, 2005 has yet to be decided. Unless her 2004 cruise season out of Southampton is financially successful, April 16, 2005 could be the end of the line for QE2 after 36 years in service.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Cunard:
Well if anything it proves that QV is not a replacement for QE2 for some time

Chris

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Cunard:
Sure QE2's is in her latter years but I don't see her going out before the decade ends.

---

I’m sure Carnival would only be too happy for the QE2 to sail for another decade and generate good profits for them. After all, she’s long paid for, so if she covers her operating costs and the costs of occasional refits, she is a cash cow.

Carnival obviously has faith in the QE2 to have her refitted. On the other hand they realise that she stands no chance of competing against contemporary ships if she is allowed to deteriorate.

Carnival will obviously be monitoring her performance in terms of bookings. If she is not financially successful, cruises can be quickly cancelled, ships retired and/or redeployed and brochures reprinted.

Carnival will also want to evaluate how successful the QM2 and QV are before making any dramatic decisions about the QE2. Although the QM2 has received rave reviews so far, these have mainly been from liner nuts. I think by 2005 the QM2 will need to fill most of those cabins with the general cruising public, who may no be so easily awe struck.

Although the QV has not even been completed yet, she has already received a very high amount of criticism from web sites like this one. But in her case, the general cruising public are likely to be less critical than us maritime aficionados.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sslewis:
Like Harwich, Dover offers much better connections.
Part of the journey to London can be done by the 186 mph Eurostar saving lot of time.
There have even been rumors of Newcastle or even Edinburgh to host cruiseships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sslewis:

Part of the journey to London can be done by the 186 mph Eurostar saving lot of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CGT:

Well not really, no. Eurostar travels at conventional speeds in the U.K. - unless the U.K. has finally rebuilt the tracks so Eurostar can travel at the same high speeds that it does through the tunnel and in France.

---

this is purely the view from an outsider/ no englishman of american, but is seems to me very logic that Carnival/Cunard would like to position their new (but not biggest) cruiseship somewhere on the continent.

After all, New York, after the demise of the atlantic "ferry" lost many ships, and now is Miami/Florida the more important passengership area in the US : it is closer to the destinations people want to go : the Caribbean. Southampton has lost its reason to be as the end of the Atlantic run, apart from only one ship (as Cunard refuses seemingly to run the transatlantic in a tandem QE2/QM2)

Starting a mediterranean cruise in Southamptom means, to me at least, a minimum duration of two weeks, as sailing from Southampton to /from Gibraltar/Malaga takes some time. With two to three days already to arrive at and depart from your destination, a week is quickly spent.

If you want to attract more passengers and perhaps younger passengers, who have a professional life (who can't spare much time, and certainly not for half a week sailing in rough seas before arriving in the Mediterranean), this is important.

Apart from that, the weather and cruising conditions are (at least are thought to be by the passengers) better in de Med than in England/the Channel.

I also think that Carnival/Cunard wants to attract new customers, perhaps also from the (north)european continent. QM2 has got much publicity, and if only with a little prompting, "Cunard" will be the first brand people think of when one thinks of cruising and liners etc. A Mediterranean homeport makes much more sense than Southampton in that case.
(In America, Carnival has experimented after 9/11 with ships departing from many more ports, and it seems a succes)

Southampton is NOT easily reached from Europe. I remember here some time age reading about a gentleman wanting to change from a Southampton arriving cruise ship to a departing one from Dover, or it was by train via London (which seems to me a big way round) or several hours (6-8?) by coach via a coastal road (no motorway) from S. to D. You won't attract that way many selfdriving people from the Paris/Dusseldorf/Amsterdam region (which is one of the richest and most populated areas of Europe and thus full of potential customers, and on driving distance from the North Sea (and more or less the mediterranean).

It makes much more sense to send them to the mediterranean sea at once.

Venice for example, is a beautiful destination in itself, (unless Southampton) ideal for selling post/precruising packages, in for example a Venetian Palazzo hotel - it seems to me that the experience of leaving or entering in Venice by sea is quite unique. (I did it once, and the sight of hte Campanile rising from the horizon in the mist, is quite a memory) Venice is quite easy to reach by car from Southern Germany, and a long day driving from denselypopulated places elsewhere in Europe. There is an airport. It is very close to the sights, The weather is better, and for american passenger packages, like before QE2-Concorde, could be devised als QV-Oeient-Express, "the traditional transport to the orient". (I can already see the brochures)
Also, Barcelona or Nice are easily reached, Nice and Marseille even by TGV, a few hours from Paris.

It would take an american coming from, let 's say, New York, almost the same time getting from his plane in London to Southampton, as from his plane in Paris to Marseille, which is already in the Mediterranean.

Sorry, for making this so long, but I was thinking a lot about it, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you about it. Curious what you think.

(This doesn't mean I don't want to see "Southampton" on the stern of the QV. Besides, Cunard has an old tradition of ties to the MEd (wasn't Carpathia on her way to Italy when rescueing the Titanic passengers?, and I remember pictures of the first Queen Elizabeth in Beirut).

Bye,

I offer the following as a North American analogue to your concept. For cruise-marketing to the east center of more than 50% of the population in the USA and Canada:

For cruises to the Northeast and Canada - Boston
For Transatlantic and Bermuda - New York
For longer cruises to the Carib. - Baltimore
For shorter cruises to the Carib - Charleston

Florida ports require too much land travel for this segment of the North American Market. To minimize cold-weather sailings they will, however, be the most popular for Carib cruises.

For Cruises to the Northeast and Canada, Boston is a better port.

Two old American sayings come to mind in this regard:.

One is that of the Vermont farmer telling a bewildered tourist that, "you can't get there from here."

The other, not as well known, is the definition of a successful fisherman. "He stops using the bait he likes and starts using bait the fish like!"

You are correct, but traditionally the British have take two weeks holiday in the summer. Thus two week cruises from British ports are very popular with us Brits – possibly more so that shorter ones?

If you want to attract more passengers and perhaps younger passengers, who have a professional life (who can't spare much time, and certainly not for half a week sailing in rough seas before arriving in the Mediterranean), this is important.

British professional’s get at least four weeks annual leave – five or six weeks is not nusual. Once again taking two weeks in the summer is common place.

Apart from that, the weather and cruising conditions are (at least are thought to be by the passengers) better in de Med than in England/the Channel.

Of course, but cruising in the UK still appeals largely to the older age group. Many elderly cruisers prefer to cruise to the sun NOT fly.

Southampton is NOT easily reached from Europe.

It does actually have it’s own airport. I assume any shortage of direct flights from Europe is due to supply and demand. Many American QE2 fans seem perfectly able to regularly fly into London and make the journey by road or by train.

I also think that Carnival/Cunard wants to attract new customers, perhaps also from the (north)european continent.

You are probably right, here.

[ 03-08-2004: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johan:
..but what I meant is, that if you want to attract a non-british, perhaps younger public, Southampton is not the ideal starting port.

---