Future Cruise Deposit scheme to end, and changed to on-board booking

All I know Dai is that the Senior officer when asked the question why the balconies are so small on Britannia gave the answer - quote- Because balconies don't generate income.

This makes sense to me.

RC did this with deck 6 on old Splendour when they crammed more balcony cabins in when that deck had additional cabins added.

Short cruises are better for us because of having to look after mother in law who has dementia.

We prefer the traditional ships like Aurora,Oriana etc and in particular the Anderson's bar.

Dai, you are leaping in to defend P&O (Carnival) at all costs as usual. Think about it, if there were no benefit to the cruise line in having 3 ft deep balconies as opposed to 6ft deep ones, then surely any cruise line or shipbuilder would build the latter.

 

I can only assume that the extra 6 ft of interior space allows the Royal class ships to have more inside cabins than they otherwise would, giving increased revenues.

 

If you are happy with this then fine, but for me this is one of the reasons I prefer to book the Grand class ships; and I am not alone and hope that this information is trickling back to the Carnival board and taken into account in the new build.

Sorry John but what a load of rubbish. I am not defending them just pointing out that the number of balcony cabins would be the same as they are determined by the width of the cabin not the depth of the balcony. You assume far to much, you assume I am happy about it. Have I said so, no. John make comment on what I say and not what you think I say. You assume that there are more cabins inside. Do you have proof. No.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Sorry John but what a load of rubbish. I am not defending them just pointing out that the number of balcony cabins would be the same as they are determined by the width of the cabin not the depth of the balcony. You assume far to much, you assume I am happy about it. Have I said so, no. John make comment on what I say and not what you think I say. You assume that there are more cabins inside. Do you have proof. No.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Can anyone give the facts one way or the other?.

To me it makes sense just like on airplanes where they add additional seats to drive profits.

And senior officers spout theories to passengers when they do not know the answer either.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Well he spent 18 months in Italy at the Fincantieri ship yard liaising with the builders, so think he was more than spouting a theory

Dai, you are leaping in to defend P&O (Carnival) at all costs as usual. Think about it, if there were no benefit to the cruise line in having 3 ft deep balconies as opposed to 6ft deep ones, then surely any cruise line or shipbuilder would build the latter.

I can only assume that the extra 6 ft of interior space allows the Royal class ships to have more inside cabins than they otherwise would, giving increased revenues.

If you are happy with this then fine, but for me this is one of the reasons I prefer to book the Grand class ships; and I am not alone and hope that this information is trickling back to the Carnival board and taken into account in the new build.

Sorry John but what a load of rubbish. I am not defending them just pointing out that the number of balcony cabins would be the same as they are determined by the width of the cabin not the depth of the balcony. You assume far to much, you assume I am happy about it. Have I said so, no. John make comment on what I say and not what you think I say. You assume that there are more cabins inside. Do you have proof. No.

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Dai, Can I suggest you also read and understand my posts before you fire off your usual put down posts.

I only said I assumed the extra 6ft of space achieved by reducing the Royal's balcony size allowed for more inside cabins since I agree with you that it cannot increase the number of balcony cabins. Of course I have no proof, but assuming all other requirements had been met, what else would it be used for?

Equally I only commented that "if you were happy" about the small balconies, I did not assume anything, but if you are unhappy with the small balconies I do hope you make this clear to P&O in your post cruise questionnaire.

Dai, Can I suggest you also read and understand my posts before you fire off your usual put down posts.

I only said I assumed the extra 6ft of space achieved by reducing the Royal's balcony size allowed for more inside cabins since I agree with you that it cannot increase the number of balcony cabins. Of course I have no proof, but assuming all other requirements had been met, what else would it be used for?

Equally I only commented that "if you were happy" about the small balconies, I did not assume anything, but if you are unhappy with the small balconies I do hope you make this clear to P&O in your post cruise questionnaire.

And yours is not a put down post? You were clearly not reading my posts and assuming I was defending P&O. I was stating facts relating to a post. That's all but again you miss understand it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Forums mobile app

I'd be staggered if the new ship doesn't do a lot of 14 night cruises. I would suspect that around 75% of the passengers will be new to P&O and many of those will be new to cruising altogether. To persuade people to try a new type of holiday, P&O will need to make sure that other aspects remain familiar and a fortnights family holiday (usually starting and finishing on weekends, in order to make holiday bookings easier for those that are working), are fairly standard 'holiday' pre-requisites for a large proportion of the population. To limit the choice just wouldn't make commercial sense. I'd put money on the fact that it will do party cruises, short breaks, 7 nighters (Fjords - although just the major ones probably), 14 night Med cruises, longer cruises and, yes, some 11 nighters (Canaries?) but not exclusively those.

Odd comment about balconies not making money as they clearly do. If not, why are all outside cabins on modern ships designed to have them? Because they are far more appealing to those who are used to land based holidays where you would not choose to stay in a hotel room with no windows and, if in a holiday resort, would probably be used to a balcony or terrace for private use. I've no idea whether the shallower balconies result in bigger interior space for those cabins, the ability to squeeze more inside cabins in, or because modern large ships need more interior space for staff working areas or machinery, but one thing is for certain - it's not to make the corridors wider. Try to push a wheelchair down the corridors on Britannia when the stewards servicing trolleys are out and you will see what I mean!

There are a lot of sideways inside cabins on Britannia that couldn't be there if the balconies were 6ft deep, there are 7 on Azura.

Just an observation.

I'd be staggered if the new ship doesn't do a lot of 14 night cruises. I would suspect that around 75% of the passengers will be new to P&O and many of those will be new to cruising altogether. To persuade people to try a new type of holiday, P&O will need to make sure that other aspects remain familiar and a fortnights family holiday (usually starting and finishing on weekends, in order to make holiday bookings easier for those that are working), are fairly standard 'holiday' pre-requisites for a large proportion of the population. To limit the choice just wouldn't make commercial sense. I'd put money on the fact that it will do party cruises, short breaks, 7 nighters (Fjords - although just the major ones probably), 14 night Med cruises, longer cruises and, yes, some 11 nighters (Canaries?) but not exclusively those.

 

Odd comment about balconies not making money as they clearly do. If not, why are all outside cabins on modern ships designed to have them? Because they are far more appealing to those who are used to land based holidays where you would not choose to stay in a hotel room with no windows and, if in a holiday resort, would probably be used to a balcony or terrace for private use. I've no idea whether the shallower balconies result in bigger interior space for those cabins, the ability to squeeze more inside cabins in, or because modern large ships need more interior space for staff working areas or machinery, but one thing is for certain - it's not to make the corridors wider. Try to push a wheelchair down the corridors on Britannia when the stewards servicing trolleys are out and you will see what I mean!

Great points especially the corridor widths as we can vouch for when we took mother in law and her wheelchair with us.

There are a lot of sideways inside cabins on Britannia that couldn't be there if the balconies were 6ft deep, there are 7 on Azura.

 

Just an observation.

Very interesting point.

There are a lot of sideways inside cabins on Britannia that couldn't be there if the balconies were 6ft deep, there are 7 on Azura.

 

Just an observation.

That may well be as a result of Britannia being 8 meters wider than Azura. 44m as opposed to 36m.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

That may well be as a result of Britannia being 8 meters wider than Azura. 44m as opposed to 36m.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

The accommodation width is a lot less as the lifeboats are not underneath the cabins they are to the side of them.

The accommodation width is a lot less as the lifeboats are not underneath the cabins they are to the side of them.

No it is not sorry look at the photos of both ships. There is only D deck on Azura where the cabins are above the lifeboats. The decks above that are narrower. Britannia is a much wider ship that is why there are mor inside cabins.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

That may well be as a result of Britannia being 8 meters wider than Azura. 44m as opposed to 36m.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I won't do a you Dai and say you're wrong. But unless Britannia is a Royal class on steroids then I imagine its beam (the measurement at its widest point) is actually 38m (126ft) the same as the other 3 Royal class ships. Unfortunately Wikipedia's failing to provide accurate data strikes again.

On checking the deck plans the layouts of balcony and inside cabins is very similar, which surprised me because it is fact that the non sofa cabins are shorter on Royal than on the Grand class, and of course the balconies themselves are narrower as well. All of which makes me wonder if in fact the beam of the accommodation decks is the same on both ships, which might make sense if Carnival where looking at the lowest cost option for a new ship's class.

No it is not sorry look at the photos of both ships. There is only D deck on Azura where the cabins are above the lifeboats. The decks above that are narrower. Britannia is a much wider ship that is why there are mor inside cabins.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

There are obstructed balcony cabins on Britannia, the obstruction being the lifeboats.

C deck on Azura is the double length balcony, half of it is over the lifeboats, D deck has a normal balcony but a bigger cabin.