1) Cunard and the staff are now blaming the kitchen layout of the Britannia Restaurant for the poor service we have been seeing and reporting. The plan is to rip the kitchen out and go again.

2) Bigger news concerns the Kings Court. I am told the plan to rip out to bare walls the entire deck. Then starting with either reducing the size or removing of the Winter Garden, they plan a more staff and passenger friendly facility. The current design was called a failure. They need to pass the designs by the accountants first, but sounds like many think this is the way they will go. 1 comment was the bar for the whole area is on one side so there is a long walk for service to be performed. Sure would be nice to have them open up the view to the outside windows and remove the walls that restrict table finding and view.

These two major changes are being planned for the November 2005 dry-docks.

Now, on QM 2 a bunch of Princess Cruises staffers are on board re-making the ship in their own image. Many of the Section Heads in the dining room are Princess staff on loan for about four months as an example. I understand they have mixed feelings about being there. The Hotel Manager and Cruise Director are also Princess staff.

A telling statement from a new staff member is that QM 2 will be a much nicer ship once all the Cunard staff has been removed. I was told the Cunard staff do not have the professionalism to serve today’s sophisticated passenger.

As part of that, one of the problems at the moment is that the Hotel Manager from Princess thinks he is running the ship... contrary to the Cunard concept that the Captain is in charge. And there have been quite a few problems with the Bridge staff doing what they had traditionally done, and the princess Hotel Manager overriding the Bridge staff.

Case in point is the regular safety drills for crew that Cunard and all ships are mandated to hold. At least 3 times, so far, the Bridge staff have begun a drill and the Hotel Manager has called in and had the drill stopped. I was told that one time he did so while the regulators were on board. I did not hear who won that one, but 3 times the drill was stopped in progress.

I understand that Princess staff are involved in the internal design of the Queen Victoria? I also heard that there were issues about her kitchen size, which may have been part of the reason for the postponement and re-design?

I assume different lines have different culinary requirements?

[ 02-01-2005: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

In the latest issue of Cruise Industry News, the question of Cunard's future is raised in the Publisher's Editorial.

It's very interesting as well as speculation that Seabourn is being positioned for sale, something I predicted the minute I knew they were not moving to Princess with Cunard.

Ernie

==================
QUOTE:

The question marks for 2005 are expected to be Cunard Line, Seabourn Cruise Line, and Norwegian Cruise Line. Since Cunard moved to Princess Cruises, it has assumed a much less visible presence than during the QM2 build-up and introduction. Clearly, had Cunard been hugely successful, it would continue to sail as an independent brand with it's own organization. In its new shape, however, there seems to be only two executives uniquely dedicated to Cunard. The rest of the staff is shared with Princess. The development begs the question of whether Cunard will be able to maintain its unique character or eventually be totally integrated. We leave the question on the table.

While Cunard moved, Seabourn did not, and continues to sail with its own organization in Florida, although with considerably less capacity and less revenue than Cunard. The only conclusion is that Seabourn is being positioned for sale.

The story regarding the kitchen layout, in particular the distance required to walk to get the food on the tables, has been quoted often over the past year. as to Kings Court, I never did see what the problem was and why people don't like it. People say they get confused.. it's colour coded, so why/how? Not that much bigger and virtually the same layout as on Westerdam, which has no colour coding and you don't hear the same complaints about her & identical sisters.

Pam

[ 02-01-2005: Message edited by: PamM ]

The HM has absolutely no say in what the Bridge Dept. says or does. That rumour is absolute nonsense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sympatico:
[QB

The HM has absolutely no say in what the Bridge Dept. says or does. That rumour is absolute nonsense.
[/QB]

---

I agree. The claim about the HM overuling the Captain, or even attempting to do so, is ludicrous. The Captain is the absolute authority. The claim completely destoys the credibility of the author and casts severe doubt on the reliability of ALL the statements he/she has made, even if some of them sound like they could be true.

Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
Cunard is a much smaller division than say HAL and cannot be a largely independent division until they build more ships.

---

I seriously doubt Cunard will ever be independent again. The combination with Princess seems a permanent solution, even if Cunard does grow it's fleet. The fact that Cunard is not expanding nearly as fast as the other large brands in the Carnival portfolio indicates the line is not as successful as one might think. Carnival Corp. is very smart and they obviously realize they will get a better return on their investments by building ships for their other, more profitable brands.

Even when QV is introduced (2007), Cunard may remain a two ship fleet since it's likely QE2 will be sold off at that point. I don't ever see Cunard being a powerhouse like Princess, Carnival, or HAL.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

Even when QV is introduced (2007), Cunard may remain a two ship fleet since it's likely QE2 will be sold off at that point.

---

You're in BIG BIG trouble now, Ernie. Chris will get you for that remark....even if it is true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian_O:

You're in BIG BIG trouble now, Ernie. Chris will get you for that remark....even if it is true.

Brian

---

I know! I thought about that after I wrote it. I do think it's a very real possibility though. There is no love lost in the ranks of Carnival Corp. when it comes to older, expensive ships to operate.

If the right offer comes along, I would say QE2 is history as a Cunard ship once QV makes her debut.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

I know! I thought about that after I wrote it. I do think it's a very real possibility though. There is no love lost in the ranks of Carnival Corp. when it comes to older, expensive ships to operate.

If the right offer comes along, I would say QE2 is history as a Cunard ship once QV makes her debut.

Ernie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sympatico:
[The HM has absolutely no say in what the Bridge Dept. says or does. That rumour is absolute nonsense.

Don't believe everything you read on other boards. [/QB]

---

Sympatico,

The Hotel Manager, Chief Purser, General Manager, or whoever is in charge of the Hotel Department etc; *can* and does have the power from HQ to question or overrule a Captain in certain circumstances.

If a drill or something else marine/technical related is going to negatively impact or interfere with the smooth operation of the 'hotel', this is true.

Of course, they don't have 'carte blanche' to do so.

--Tim

[ 02-01-2005: Message edited by: Tim in 'Lauderdale ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim in 'Lauderdale:

The Hotel Manager, Chief Purser, General Manager, or whoever is in charge of the Hotel Department etc; *can* and does have the power from HQ to question or overrule a Captain in certain circumstances.

---

I hope everything turns out well.

I guess Princess is considered "American", and Cunard "British, in mentality.

I think the way Cunard is being "branded" is a way to disaster : essentially it is about "britishness" for non-brits, with lots of traditions etc.

This seems to me rather sterile. Once the fashion for tradition/heritage wears of, or the "heritage" is discovered to be fabricated, or the sources for something new about the heritage dry up, you are left with nothing.

P&O at least seems to me to have the opportunity to develop and renew itself (in a slow and conservative way, but still...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by CGT:

How completely pathetic. As are the executives that would let something like that be and those that think that would be a good idea, or proper.

---

CGT, think what you may, it's a necessary form of checks and balances. I've only heard of this happening in a few instances and in most cases, such as this one, it was most likely a battle of egos. And the end result is that both parties get a good smack or dressing down from the head office.

At the end of the day, the Master has ultimate responsibility for the safe operation of the vessel. This is why ships hold operational meetings on a daily or weekly basis. It takes mutual cooperation of all involved to make a ship run.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CGT:

How completely pathetic. As are the executives that would let something like that be and those that think that would be a good idea, or proper.

---

I have to agree. The Captain should have final authority regardless, and the company that hires him/her should have full confidence in their abilities to run a safe, efficient ship. It's one thing for a Captain and HM to discuss alternative solutions to a problem, but quite another for a HM to be able to "overrule" a Captain's decision. I would think if this were to happen the relationship between the Captain and HM, not to mention the company itself that allows it, would be jeopardized forever.

HQ always likes to *think* they know what's best. Having worked on both ends (in HQ and onboard) I've discovered that those in charge and working onboard each and every day tend to see the reality of a situation. I can think of many occasions while working onboard that a directive from HQ would be issued and we would think they were all insane. Usually they mean well, but often times they are just out of touch or have no idea what really goes on onboard ship. Luckily this didn't happen too often and in the case of Princess Cruises the ships were fairly empowered and not too micro-managed by the 'all-knowings' at HQ.

The same is true with the airline industry. Many that sit in our GO (General Office) have lost touch with what it's like flying around the skies these days .... yet they are making important decisions that impact our customers and our lives. All we ask is they consult us once in a while before making these decisions. Sometimes they do, but then they do what they want anyway.

this is a by-product of companies that divide out the responsibility for running the ships. In too many instances, you'll have a VP of Hotel and a VP of Marine. Each thinks that they and their sea-going employees are in charge. This makes no sense and there is no reason to have more than one person overseeing both departments. Celebrity is a great example of this, one VP that has responsibilty for Hotel and Marine functions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim in 'Lauderdale:

This makes no sense and there is no reason to have more than one person overseeing both departments. Celebrity is a great example of this, one VP that has responsibilty for Hotel and Marine functions.

Tim

---

I'm all for streamlining operations especially when it creates dialog between departments and promotes alternative solutions to whatever issues may arise. I also believe in a system of checks and balances as anyone can make a mistake.

Even so, it would still surprise me to have a Captain's authority overridden by a HM, and I can see this creating friction onboard. I'm still a believer in the Captain having final authority on decisions regarding the safety and operation of his ship. I like to think he is the best trained and best qualified for this role, or he/she shouldn't have been hired to begin with.

In the early 1990's business's would streamline by eliminating middle management which was a huge mistake.

Middle managers are the only ones in an organization that are in tune with the operations on the front line and simultaneously in the loop with the big picture and long range plans of top management.

Mickey Arison should be a cabin steward or waiter for a week.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

HQ always likes to *think* they know what's best. Having worked on both ends (in HQ and onboard) I've discovered that those in charge and working onboard each and every day tend to see the reality of a situation. I can think of many occasions while working onboard that a directive from HQ would be issued and we would think they were all insane. Usually they mean well, but often times they are just out of touch or have no idea what really goes on onboard ship. Luckily this didn't happen too often and in the case of Princess Cruises the ships were fairly empowered and not too micro-managed by the 'all-knowings' at HQ.

The same is true with the airline industry. Many that sit in our GO (General Office) have lost touch with what it's like flying around the skies these days .... yet they are making important decisions that impact our customers and our lives. All we ask is they consult us once in a while before making these decisions. Sometimes they do, but then they do what they want anyway.

Ernie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
Mickey Arison should be a cabin steward or waiter for a week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nycruiser:
Very interesting. I had always thought (from looking at the deck plan) that the Kings Court was in such a strange place! It should have been placed at the aft of the ship. I personally feel on a higher deck (but then the ship will resemble even more of a cruise ship design). I did get to see that area on the travel agent tour and it did seem out of place. It was strange to walk from a loung into a buffet dining room.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:

He has been.. well not a full week as a cabin steward, 2 days IIRC, 2 days as a waiter & 2 days as a bar tender.. overall a week. There is a TV programme called ???? argh on the tip of my tongue, sure it has been mentioned in CT before. The one where he then changed the pink shirts worn by the pool bar tenders.

Pam

---

I have seen that show as well Pam, wasn’t it called back to the work floor (or something) I got the impression that Mickey Arison did not do it to really understand the bottom jobs of his imperia but more as a fun story to tell at business lunches and parties. Basicly as he came back to the office to report what he had seen every change that could be made to improve the lower jobs was overruled because of that ever returning phrase “it costs too much”

Onno

[ 02-02-2005: Message edited by: Onno ]