Talk:Cunard Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleCunard Line has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
March 22, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Untitled[edit]

Should this page be moved to a singular title, eg Cunard Steamship Line?

Nationality debate[edit]

OK, I'll admit national chauvinism, but, how does a coy formed by Canadians, in Halifax, qualify as a British line? Also, does the contract demand for a 14 day round trip merit mention? Trekphiler 15:58 & 16:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In 1838 Canada was technically British, right? Then later its HQ was in Liverpool and London. "Cunard is a Canadian cruise line" sure sounds odd... Stan 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Technically British, maybe, but I don't see Australian achievements prior to 1901 being called British... As far as "sounding odd", get over it. Trekphiler 07:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You cant really call it Caniadian either it is right now based out of the California-based Cunard Line Limited according to cunards own homepage. If you want to write anything about the nationality then write that is orignaly based out the british colony in Canada, its more correct. Calling it Canadian today is just plain wrong after the sale to Carnival Cruise lines, it should probaly even state that the company dosent really exists anymore, as all assets are sold of and Cunard now is a part of Carnival. Martin Hedegaard 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I most certainly can call it Canadian. Founded in Halifax, it's Canadian. If it's founded in "the British colony in Australia", is it British? I daresay residents of Oz'd say not. Ditto New Zealand, India, Jamaica, Bermuda...& the U.S, for all that. And is George Washington an American patriot, or a British traitor? It's all in the POV. As for Carnival, it didn't exist when the Cunard Line was founded, so the fact it was sold to Carnival is irrelevant. Is Paramount a Japanese company, because it was sold to a Japanese company? I'd say not. Is Jaguar American now? No. Is Rolls-Royce German? No. Is Chrysler German? No. If you want to add something about current ownership, feel free. Cunard's still a Canadian company. Trekphiler 09:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the whole thing should be extended into something along the lines of "founded in Canada, considered to be British [by the British Admirality & co... and I believe the company HQ was in Liverpool] and today based in the USA" [shares officed with Princess Cruises to my understanding]. Cunard is such a long-living company with a variable history that distinctions should be made between what it has been and what it is now. - Kjet 14:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Kjet, I've got no objection at all to including all that (cf above), but the intro piece should remain "Canadian company", for the reasons I mention. I haven't checked, but I don't recall Jag or Chrysler's nation of origin being changed because they were taken over, & I have a hunch if it was a U.S. company, not a Canadian one, people'd be screaming bloody murder. (Canadians aren't known for strong protests over stuff like this, so I'm odd.) Trekphiler 11:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong - we have a Canadian Cruise Line, owned by a larger UK/US cruise operating cooperation, with British ships flying blue ensigns. None of this really makes sense, but I always thought the Cunard Line was British.
I'm not going to change the opening sentence, but would like it if the Canadian claim could be cited with a link. I've found a few sites that saying it's British, but am not going to put them to use before I know Cunard defiantly isn't Canadian. If I'm wrong, then sorry. 81.111.214.99 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It was founded in Britain using glasgow capital and have therefore been british originally according to http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=38502, the only canadian thing here is the cofounder S. Cunard and his original contract with the british to transport mail. S. Cunard had ships before in his own company but that was not the Cunard line as we know today. Martin Hedegaard 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The company is British. S. Cunard was part owner and chairman of a Canadian company. But it was later that Cunard was formed, with business partners in/on Britain. He actually got his mail contract prior to even having a company. It came into existence on May 4, 1839 as the British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. It did not become Cunard until 1878.Gary Joseph 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected (& look pretty stupid...). I checked my sources again; I was getting Sam'l's Halifax banking biz, which predates, confused with the line. From the same source, I find Britannic reached Halifax in 12 days, Boston 2d 8h later. Trekphiler 01:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I also found the same information, that the Britannia reached Halifax, then went on to Boston. I was too lazy to do the math. I also found some good information on the Britannia, specs, and her maiden voyage. I just need the time to put together, add onto that articel, and cite.Gary Joseph 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just like to add during when Canada was under rule by the British even if you lived in Canada you would be known as a Britian.You could say your from the Colonie of Canada but the Nationality back then was your were British.Sparrowman980

Technically, I believe it now fits the definition of a multinational company ... so listing any nation in the opening paragraph really isn't accurate with the current form of the company. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reorganize the ship list?[edit]

I'd like to propose reorganizing the listing of Cunard ships the way it is done in the White Star Line entry, where it is listed by date, and includes all the ships. I'm launching (pun intended) a project to write entries for all the White Star ships, and would like to follow up with all the Cunard ships. Would anyone object to me reorganizing the list? Akradecki 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think such a reorganisation would be preferrable to the current way the list works. Kjet 14:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Princess" and "Countess"[edit]

Is there are a reason why these are listed with just the second part of the name and in quotation marks, instead of the full names (i.e. Cunard Princess and Cunard Countess)? Kjet 14:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a steel[edit]

Among the list of firsts should be "first steel ocean liner". I'd add it, but I can't find a name... Trekphiler 07:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In 1879, the Allen Line commissioned the steel-hulled Buenos Ayrean on their route to South America. In 1881, the Allen Line's Parisian was the first steel-hulled liner on the North Atlantic. Later the same year, Cunard's Servia became the first steel-hulled liner on the New York route.(GRUBBXDN (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Revisions[edit]

For much of the late 20th century and the first few years of the 21st the line's only vessel making transatlantic crossings was the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. From 2004 the "QE2's" service was limited to the annual world cruise and Mediterranean sailings, while the transatlantic route was taken over by the new RMS Queen Mary 2, the first ocean liner to be built in 30 years and the largest passenger liner ever built. In 2006 she was challenged by the cruise ship Freedom of the Seas, but she remains the largest passenger ship capable of transatlantic travel.

The above paragraph was edited. It is misleading as QM2 is not the largest passenger ship ever built. She is also not the largest passenger ship capable of making transatlantic trips as the largest cruise ships do when going from North America to Europe for regular overhauls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gary Joseph (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

SS Abyssinia, or RMS Abyssinia perhaps?[edit]

My bad if as things turn out that should have been RMS Abyssinia or MS Abyssinia, in which case a re-titling is in order (I wrote the article...); my source states that the Abyssinia was leased from Cunard by Canadian Pacific, which leaves me to wonder what that means re: ownership; pls see List of ships in British Columbia; if something being chartered/leased passes effective ownership, I'll put CPR; but if the ship was still registered as a Cunarder while operating for CP - ?? - then it would be a Cunard, no? The Abyssinia broke trans-Pacific speed records in its inaugural run for CP, don't know what it had done before that for Cunard. And re the above discussion my two bits is that the era of the liners is a whole different thing than modern corporate entries; and the older names suit, rightly so, any history of the great shipping/cruise lines; it's what they were named at the time, and more than likely also represent a completely different body of holdings, as is certainly the case with CP and its many offshoots. Anyway, just curious about the Abyssinia; it's not listed in the article but it was, at some point, a Cunard vessel; how and why it came to be leased to the CPR my source isn't involved enough with those kinds of details to get into.Skookum1 04:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First passenger ship with electric lighting[edit]

According to Barlitz Complete Guide to Cruising & Cruise Ships, this distinction belongs to the Inman liner City of Berlin from 1879, two years before the Servia. Normally I'd just delete the Servia entry straight away, but as it already mentions "though this is disputed" I'm a bit hesitant of doing anything rash. Could someone possibly look into the Servia´s claim for fame to see which one is correct? -- Kjet (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Inman Line City of Berlin received six electric lamps in November 1879. Servia was the first liner with electic lights throughout.

(GRUBBXDN (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Addition of Titanic to ship list[edit]

The Titanic was a ship of this line (and probebly the most well known)

just want to know why it hasnt been added to the ship list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma77mc (talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RMS Titanic was a a ship belonging to the White Star Line. She never sailed for Cunard (nor Cunard White Star).-- Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

HMHRS Britilympic[edit]

I'm assuming this is some kind of gag. MRacer (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Milestones[edit]

This section appears to be something put together by a marketing department and unfortunately many of its points are inaccurate and probably should be deleted. Frankly, the remaining milestones are not sufficient to warrent this section. Specifically:

  • Item: First scheduled transatlantic passenger service (RMS Britannia, 1840) - Actually, there were three scheduled transatlantic passenger services that started two years before Britannia including British & American Steam Navagation, the Great Western Steam Ship Company, and the Transatlantic Steam Ship Company.
  • Item: First passenger ship with electric lighting (SS Servia, 1881) - though this is disputed - Acually, that honor goes to the Inman Line City of Berlin in November 1879, which had six electric lamps two years before Servia. However, Servia was the first liner with electric lighting throughout.
  • Item: First liner with two propellers (RMS Campania, 1893)[11] - The honor actually goes to the French Line Washington in 1866. The first twin screw Blue Riband holder was the Inman Line City of New York of 1888.
  • Item: Largest passenger ship (until 1911) (RMS Mauretania, 1907) - Only for four years. Mauretania and her near sister were the smallest of the nine super-liners built during that period.
  • Item: Fastest ocean liner in service (1969 - 2008) (RMS Queen Elizabeth 2, 1967) - The France was faster until she was taken out of service in 1974. In the history of the Atlantic Ferry, QE2 was fast, but numerous ships were faster.

(GRUBBXDN (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

SSC Napoli[edit]

Napoli Founder worked for Cunard, but some sources say his name was James Poths, other say it was William Poths... somebody has the chance to discover his true name?93.32.209.66 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts missing[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these:

- The very name of the ship which made Cunard's first crossing from Liverpool to Boston is not named. ("Two months later the first of the four ocean-going steamers of the Britannia Class, departed Liverpool..."). *Name* the ship.

- (By the way, if this is being written by UK authors, is it permissible to insert a non-functional comma between the subject and verb in a sentence--"Class, departed"? In U.S. English, this is ungrammatical.)

- Then we have, "Two months later the ..." *Name* the date of the first crossing. Name the date it left Liverpool, the date it arrived in Halifax, and the date it arrived in Boston. This is the world-reference article about the Cunard Line, yet it doesn't have the date of Cunard's first crossing. This is a history article. Am I missing something here?

- I count only five instances of the word 'Boston' in this article. The last time I wandered down the waterfront in that city where Cunard's terminal used to be, it ain't there. When did Cunard stop serving Boston? Where did it go when it did? New York? Where do you provide that information?

- This article ought to mention something about Cunard's terminals and land facilities, at least in its U.K., Canada, and U.S. ports. In what neighborhood of each city were, and today are, its terminals in those countries? If you wander down lower Manhattan today to try to board the Queen Mary 2, are you greeted with a steward with Bombay gin martini in hand, or do you find yourself drenched in the Hudson?

So you have some more work to do.

--Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Some Perspective Needed[edit]

The fact that the Cunard Line even exists to this day is owed to three British Government bailouts (in the form of low interest loans) they received to build Lusitania & Mauretania, the Queen Mary & Elizabeth, and the QE2. Without these bailouts, it is doubtful Cunard would have survived. Cunards reputation for luxury likewise came about because competition from Hamburg-America and the White Star Line compelled them to make their ships more luxurious. Likewise, had Cunard not been purchased by Carnival Cruises, QM2 would likely not have been built. Therefore they owe both their continued existence and their reputation to those external factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.57.150.68 (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Cunard who?[edit]

The following might need a rewrite, as it's a bit unclear who or what "Cunard" and "White Star" refer to in the last two sentences:

Cunard merged with the then ailing White Star line to form Cunard-White Star Ltd. Cunard owned two-thirds of the new company. Cunard purchased White Star's share in 1947; the name reverted to the Cunard Line in 1950.[2]

As far as I know, when two companies merge, they cease to exist as separate entities, so one can't possibly buy the other's shares later. Differently put, if Cunard and White Star merged in the 1930s, in 1947 there didn't exist a Cunard that could buy shares, or a White Star that could sell them. Cunard and White Star could of course refer to something other than the merged companies in this case. Perhaps there were holding companies that continued to exist after the merger, or maybe "Cunard" refers to the family with that name rather than the company - but if that's the case, a clarification is probably necessary.81.191.184.223 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It may actually turn out that some of my questions are answered elsewhere in the article:

The government offered Cunard a loan of £3 million to complete hull 534 and an additional £5 million to build a second ship, if Cunard merged with White Star.[3] The merger was accomplished by forming a new company, Cunard White Star, Ltd with Cunard owning about two-thirds of the capital.[2]

I suppose this means that the original companies did continue to exist as holding companies or similar. But if that was the case, I question the use of the words "merge" (about the companies) and "merger". I don't know enough about corporate law to claim that it is downright wrong, but most of what I read about mergers seem to imply that the term is normally used when a new company completely replaces previous companies. This includes [1], which says

From a legal point of view, a merger is a legal consolidation of two companies into one entity

I'd say that forming a new jointly owned operating company is not a "consolidation of two companies into one entity". Perhaps the above text could be rewritten as something like
The government offered Cunard a loan of £3 million to complete hull 534 and an additional £5 million to build a second ship, on the condition that Cunard and White Star joined their operations.[3] This was accomplished by forming a new company, Cunard White Star, Ltd with Cunard owning about two-thirds of the shares.[2]
and the one I originally quoted,
Cunard and the then ailing White Star formed Cunard-White Star Ltd., and transferred their vessels and operating business to it. Cunard owned two-thirds of the new company. Cunard purchased White Star's share in 1947; the name was changed to the Cunard Line in 1950.[2]
Some questions still remain, like
  1. What happened to the Cunard companies after the above mentioned takeover and name change? Did they continue to exist as one "operating" company (Cunard Line) and a parent company (Cunard Steamship Company, Ltd.), or were they consolidated into a single entity?
  2. What about White Star? Surely it would still exist as a separate company even after the share in Cunard White Star was sold?

81.191.184.223 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cunard Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Largest Liner?[edit]

A recent edit changed the description of the Quuen Mary II from largest ocean line to largest transatlantic liner. Surely she is both as there are very few ships dedicated to liner services, even infrequently, left in the world. The exceptions being ferries on longer routes, none of which are as big as the QM2. Yes there are a lot of cruise ships that are bigger but they don't operate liner services.

Just curious to see what others think. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cunard_Line&oldid=882673260"