Captain_Morgan

3 hours ago, uktog said:

P and O have announced this morning that for their round UK cruises for UK guests only proof of vaccination (both doses) is required.  Surely Viking has to say likewise 

Seems Viking are a little more cash strapped perhaps, hence the reluctance in singling out a group of people over another?  Add to the fact they (Viking) will no doubt tout their onboard testing plan as reason enough to not require vaccinated only pax...just a thought

Sounds like one of P&O's infamous IT glitches 

1 minute ago, wowzz said:

Well, I think that is unlikely, but if it was the case, then surely the fare would have to  be reduced to reflect the lack of flights, which was not the case with the OP.

Which part is unlikely?  The fact that the Caribbean season will or will not go as currently scheduled?

OP mentioned flights being full, which would make sense IF they intend on trying to salvage some semblance of a fly-cruise season with limited numbers.  I don't think it's appropriate to say there is a scam afoot as some have said, especially if dealing direct with the company as compared to an otherwise unknown travel agency.

Just a thought....its likely that the 2021 Xmas fly-cruise season to the Caribbean might not actually happen as currently advertised, hence the lack of included flights? 🤔

When we consider we're looking at coastal UK cruises this summer with probably one or two ships only, what are the chances that an actual fly cruise season in the Caribbean is likely to go as currently scheduled (on the website)???

I stand corrected with respect to the completion of the form and receiving the refund.  

12 minutes ago, shopaholic6 said:

"Also, it's not a game of chicken. The cruise in April cannot go ahead, so I am simply wanting P&O to announce the obvious, which is that the cruise has to be cancelled.  As you stated above, you want P&O to cancel so you can get a FCC in order to cover the cost of another cruise in future and by doing so you're waiting for them to make the first move, when you could just as easily cancel and receive a full refund for monies paid."

 

Surely that is incorrect - if Sidekick cancels, he will lose his deposit.  That's the whole point.  P&O are hanging on to money they KNOW they need to refund.  Why should anyone lose their deposit just because P&O are not doing to decent thing by cancelling cruises they know will not go ahead?

From the P&O website, "Those guests who would prefer a 100% cash refund should fill out this web form and refrain from calling the Customer Contact Centre. We are working to process all new and outstanding refund requests as quickly as possible"

9 minutes ago, sidekick180 said:

 

My April 2020 cruise was cancelled so I booked this years cruise at that point, hoping that the virus would be dealt with by then. - As did many others I'm sure

Since about September 2020 it was obvious that the cruise would probably not go ahead, but I remained hopeful, which is why I didn't transfer the cruise. - So you knew it wasn't going to ahead, 7 months prior but still waited just in case?

I have also been holding back for the possible FCC because, my cruise is already paid for in full. - So this is the actual answer to the previous point, which is fine but why not just say it in the first place? 

The cruise I would now like to book for 2022 is about £500 more expensive for fewer nights. I cannot afford that extra cost, so the FCC would enable me to book the cruise next year.  Higher prices are to be expected and have been discussed numerous times so this should come as no surprise.

Also, it's not a game of chicken. The cruise in April cannot go ahead, so I am simply wanting P&O to announce the obvious, which is that the cruise has to be cancelled.  As you stated above, you want P&O to cancel so you can get a FCC in order to cover the cost of another cruise in future and by doing so you're waiting for them to make the first move, when you could just as easily cancel and receive a full refund for monies paid.

The main purpose of the FCC, as far as I am aware, is an incentive by P&O to get guests not to request full refunds and opt for the FCC instead. This enables them to keep hold of monies paid, which I assume they would then invest and gain interest from.

So your point about them throwing money at my feet is nonsense.   So your previous point about them giving you a credit for not initiating the refund is not akin to them throwing money at your feet?

They would simply be giving me back what they have had, which they will gladly do if you ask for a refund

but more importantly, they would keep me as a loyal customer.  As I said in my original post, they as a global conglomerate aren't nearly as worried about loyalty to them as many would hope and for every person who makes the claim that they'll go elsewhere, the vast majority return.  Mostly because they most often find that the alternative options aren't as cost effective, or require them to travel further afield to get the same thing they could otherwise get closer to home.

Obviously, I am bothered about the money I have tied up with them. I'm not one of their rich customers and my income has been seriously affected by the pandemic,  I completely understand and you're definitely not alone when it comes to being affected negatively, hence the reason you've got the opportunity to reclaim 100% of the funds you've paid and to be made whole.

so if they announce that the cruise is cancelled I can then make the decision to accept the FCC if it is offered, or I can opt for a refund, but at least I would have that choice.  Which brings us back to the original point....you have every opportunity to get all of your money back based on what you anticipate to happen with respect to your scheduled cruise being cancelled but are waiting for P&O to blink and thus make the first move so you can hopefully get a 'bonus' in the form of a FCC.

My points are not meant to be inflammatory, just looking at things from a pragmatic perspective...you have every right to cancel and get 100% of your money back, but would rather wait for P&O to do the work and reward you for not doing it first

The Flags of Convenience  angle is only applicable with respect to corporate taxation and perhaps even labour issues; the latter of which can be argued under the variety of regulations in place through the likes of the IMO, etc.

I think the reality is that P&O will only resume cruising when they've been given the nod from the gov't and not before as it would be wholly damning to their brand and the larger corporation if they were to have a Diamond Princess type incident as a result of going it alone and trying to skirt the regulations.

Playing Devil's Advocate here and trying to see things from all sides, its important to remember that when it comes to FCC, no company or cruise line is obligated to give people anything shy of a refund for monies paid.  The notion of a FCC is in reality a goodwill gesture for allowing the consumer to essentially provide (in this case) P&O an interest free loan whereby the FCC could be considered a return on said loan/investment.

I understand that some are holding out on cancelling because they want the return in the form of the FCC for the trouble, but complaining that they've not yet had their trip cancelled thus triggering a 'bonus' of sorts is a bit like playing chicken and hoping that P&O blink first.

I suppose the point is that if you've got money tied up that you're not bothered about than carry on and wait for whatever happens one way or  the other,  but if you're expecting a cash-strapped enterprise to throw money at your feet because you're getting impatient I think its going to end up in more stress for the individual than the company.

At the end of the day, P&O likely doesn't know or care (sorry to be so blunt) who we are as consumers and as such couldn't care less if we choose to move our choice of holiday to a competitor in future as this is the beauty of a competitive market.

Read an article recently that basically said NCL were looking at a 90 day window to begin their restart...of course they didn't specify when that 90 days would start, but if we used that as a rough guide for the industry it would make sense that P&O are maybe adopting the same approach?

By not taking any future bookings prior to June, not only does this give them time to process cancellations without adding to the burden, but it also falls into that 90 day lead time concept, keeping in mind that they and every other line are working on a  sliding scale dependent on local gov't regulations.

4 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Reading between the lines, I guess you aren't P&O's greatest fan

Quite the opposite, if given the choice between roller coasters, zip lines, climbing walls, etc and the lack of a midships staircase, i'll sooner wait for the lift 😆

Interesting verbiage in the 'policy' under the guise of being some benefit to the consumer 🙄

Viking’s refund policy states: "For additional flexibility, if you are unable to use your voucher, we will automatically send you a refund equal to the original amount paid to Viking after the voucher expires."

How convenient for Viking that their policy allows them to hold on to funds, essentially equating to a loan that they're not paying interest on to the lender, and the terms of this loan are such that they don't have to repay the loan until an extended time in the future?  All the while the lender is left to wait while their funds are tied up with no tangible benefit to them.

Not surprising however, that once a national news agency got hold of the story and started asking questions that the funds were miraculously returned despite the attempts made by the passengers.

Of course this is an individual situation and many will be quick to chime in and say they've never had an issue getting a refund, but it just goes to show that not everyone's experience is going to be the same for better or worse.

Comparing RCCL to CUK is like comparing chalk and cheese.  RCCL has thrown bags of money at all of their 'new' ships over the years with a variety of technologies and gimmicks, all of which are geared toward their target demographic which is typically young to middle age couples and families.

They've been churning out new ships at a frantic pace, all of which have had more bells and whistles than the last, whereas CUK (and CCL in general) have kept things pretty basic as the biggest technological marvels on the likes of Britannia as compared to Azura is the lack of a wrap around exterior promenade deck and a missing midships staircase beyond deck 7 😆.

Even Princess' introduction of their 'Medallion' concept was borrowed technology from theme parks (see Disney) and even that took a massive amount of infrastructure improvement to achieve the desired effect as a result of requiring a more robust onboard Wi-Fi system, which we all know is the weakest point on virtually all ships.

I don't see there being any earth shattering changes apart from limiting touch points where possible, as well as the already widely discussed protocols such as capacity limits, distancing, and limited excursion options. 

The reality of Carn Corp is that over the last several years their business model appears to be driven towards a 'bigger is better' mentality where each new ship launched for every brand has either been as big or bigger than the last.  

We cruised with Princess in the beginning and enjoyed their diverse options of size of ship but after the 'divorce' from P&O we noticed a steady decline in their product with a shift towards the American 'cheap and cheerful' crowd.  We also sailed a few times with Seabourn and noticed a similar trend with their new ships being built 'bigger' but fares not necessarily cheaper although it should go without saying that sending a ship with 5000+ passengers on 7 day trips will always be more profitable than sending a ship with 400 passengers on a 30+ day trip, especially if the smaller ship has an 'all inclusive' environment.

can't help but think there is a tie-in to the size being similar to that of a floating RV (recreational vehicle) and as such RV-ahh makes more sense.....and Winnebago doesn't role off the tongue well either 😆

sign of things to come??

https://www.cruisehive.com/cruise-line-cancels-all-voyages-until-end-of-june-2021/46777?fbclid=IwAR08f-GQuQpwhUjgNUKPrm79kygra-pvqzo6j88wZ28JPpLlXSJyUAipKdY

Just now, joeecco said:

Yeah I agree. I just thought if they were going to lay her up long term that they would use Dover again. Unless they think Portsmouth is easier for ship visits etc for trails

I believe one of the big issues with Dover is the fact it has very large tidal ranges with not a particularly deep port and the prevailing wind is always North/Northeast which means its onto the side of the berth so if the wind gets nasty there's no protection other than to leave port, which defeats the purpose of a lay up unless its to offload waste water.

2 minutes ago, joeecco said:

What reasons are they resting berthing facilities there for do you think? Seems too close to Southampton to be a British isle stop and would be odd to originate cruises there

Likely either a short/long term layup option if the price is right, or it could be an alternate embarkation port if Southampton becomes too crowded on resumption of service.  These of course are pure speculation, but when you consider how long 3 ships were sitting in Dover last year it should come as no surprise that an alternate port on the South coast would be explored as an option.

Especially compared to 4-5 hours to/from Torquay/Heathrow which can't be cheap!

10 hours ago, DM6045 said:

 In regards to Aurora being too small for social distancing she has by far the highest space per passenger ratio in the whole fleet  also she has more square footage of public areas in total compared to Ventura/ Azura so the way I see it she is surely the safest... however In my opinion she will be the one affected by the latest Carnival Cull if P&O are targeted by it, for the very reasons listed above mean she’s the most unprofitable and carnival don’t like high space - low profit 

 

I find it quite interesting that in a post covid world most people think that the bigger newer ships are safer even though they carry disproportionately larger passenger numbers (and fewer public areas to accommodate them in) compared to their smaller fleet mates.

Very good points, but at the end of the day the restart of any brand will be driven by maximizing the generation of £/$/€ which I think is something we can all agree.  Based on that rationale, having Ventura/Britannia/Azura operating even at 50% capacity equates to a larger income generation than the likes of Aurora/Arcadia operating at 50% capacity based on a simple 1 person = £1 ratio (monetary figure used strictly for example and clearly doesn't represent the actual fare being charged 😆).  I agree as well with points made that despite her size Iona is likely to be kept tucked away until a more grand restart can be had for her as she is very much the new flagship of the brand thus my inclusion of Britannia as one of those I think being first to resume service.

I don't want to contribute too much to the thread drift, but I don't think this is a case of legality given in this case P&O is a private company which could write into their terms of carriage that proof of vaccination be presented prior to embarkation, etc.

Would it be a good PR move?  I'm sure the jury is out on that one as there will be opponents and proponents of both sides which is normal.

Back to the topic at hand of Azura moving to Newcastle, I don't think its going to result in the same fate as Oceana simply because it would make less than zero sense to offload that much tonnage (i.e. usable inside space) when the requirements for social distancing and cabins with balconies is going to be at the forefront of any restart, not to mention the relative 'youth' of the vessel as compared to the older tonnage on the books would mean it was likely never in consideration to be 'retired' in favor of the likes of Gala2.

Although this may come across as an inflammatory comment, it is not intentionally meant to be, but I am of the mind that there should be a requirement for proof of vaccination prior to being allowed to board a ship (at least in the UK).  

As I say, this will no doubt upset some of the 'younger' cruisers who may have to wait a little longer to get their jab but when you consider its been nearly a year since any of us cruised, is waiting a few more months for your turn to get the jab (and hopefully some peace of mind) before stepping foot on a ship that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things?

Sure some might say this is unfair to mandate a vaccination as a pre-requisite to spend money in a capitalist system, but I believe strongly in the strength of the majority (herd) especially when it comes to the means and ability to fend off illness and although the vaccine is not going to be the 'silver bullet' I would rather know those around me in a close-knit environment have taken every precaution possible to keep themselves and others safe.

Is it just me or does the term 'pie in the sky' come to mind?!?

CLIA is just a lobbying body for the industry so of course they're going to be banging the drum for the powers that be to loosen the current restrictions and/or guidance about cruising as its in their best interest.

Sadly, until a proven vaccine is well and truly rolled out to the masses and the local governments begin loosening restrictions on basic day to day activities I don't see how getting onto a cruise ship with hundreds of people is a good idea.  Just as I don't think that governments should be bailing out cruise companies which is another hot topic for some.  To put things into perspective, the pubs in the UK are closed but the lobbyists want ships to get moving because of their so-called 'wave season'....rings a bit self serving IMHO.

10 hours ago, johneb2 said:

Captain Morgan, I believe this maybe an old picture, pre-pandemic.   JohnEB2

What is the basis of your belief when its been proven more than once that this was taken on 16 December 2020?

As was very eloquently stated by @photopro2, this may not be a hanging offence (never suggested it was) but it was most definitely a missed opportunity and not particularly flattering when considering the Captain is pictured along with his senior management team.  Imagine if there were a group of lesser ranked crew who happened to be photographed in a similar way, I'm sure there wouldn't be the same laissez-fare approach.