I agree with Rod. My Mum & Stepfather were devoted QE2 sailors. They tried QV and didn't really like the modern incarnation of classic. They have now switched to P&O which they much prefer and are off again soon, arriving back in Southampton on the day the whole fleet are in. Carnival are still getting their money though!
Carnival Corp will follow market forces. The company owns over 100 cruise ships is continuing to build more. Cruising is still, it seems, a growth market despite the world's economic gloom. Carnival's brands cater for all levels of service, price point and pax expectations. They can play chess with new builds and can place new ships (as with QV) into whichever of their lines needs new ships.
As for their Cunard brand, I never thought they would make three Queens profitable when they announced they would come into service (especially when the proposed QV Vista was reassigned to P & O).
But they seem to be putting bums on seat, as the Yanks say, on all three.
QM2 is still the only liner and her Trannys are still viable (albeit at 8 days not the 4.5 she is capable of) and she has decades of operational life to go yet.
If the demand for such crossings declines, so will the crossings.
In the unlikely event a new market were to emerge and pax wanted a fast crossing at any cost, ( the seabourne business market equivalent of Concorde) QM2 would fulfill that role, and if the demand was sufficient, another Cunard 30 knot liner might be built.
As for service, it is highly relevant to a shipping line's success and profitablity.
The hotel manager hopes for 100%. Passengers expect it.
But it is so very personal. One cabin may be neglected while another gets all it requested one day and vise versa at the next request. The cabin steward may have been besieged by orders or was simply feeling poorly, or frankly may not be as efficient as the steward up the corridor. One only just goes through her/his paces, another cannot do enough for you. Same with waiters and bar staff. The purser, (perpetually harassed by pax demands / complaints) may fail to smile or omit to address a pax by name. It may be nothing to the crew member, but all important to the passenger.
Is one line better than another? The demand to employ crew is very high. Whether a perspective crew member gets placed onto Carnival line itself or Cunard is presumably largely luck of the draw, and depends on which ship needs what crew. Those signed up to be serving crew will have to come face to face with pax which ever ship they are on. Most new recruits are very young, and come from many countries with varied cultures. They have to be trained and many do not last beyond their first 4 month contract. So it's high turnover.
Some on that first contract are home sick, some sea sick; some hate it , some love it. Yes, even they are human and no training prepares them for having to cope with passenger tantrums and whiles of the minority (I emphasis NOT ALL pax), but it only takes a few 'nasties' to sour a day's work or even a cruise.
There was always a big manifest of long term crew on QE2 to whom the job was their profession. QE2 was their only ship and they literally loved working on her. They were in the majority and their long term experience saw the new crew through their first weeks and months.
The demise of QE2 split up many long term crew friendships. Some left the sea, others went onto Cunard's other ships, or to other lines. All that accumulated knowledge, brand loyalty, continuity and experience was dispersed or lost. Besides Carnival/Cunard operate differently from QE2's previous owners, and some of the 'old ways', little things which made Cunard unique, were discontinued.
The grass is always greener as we look back in time, but it is a fact that any remaining long term Cunard hotel crew are in the minority and split across the three ships.
It means there is a greater proportion of 'new crew' who have little or no brand loyalty. It is little wonder that service levels anywhere in the cruise industry are what not they used to be.
