cruising.mark.uk

They do things differently depending on where they are cruising, but given that many ships change location over the course of a year with changes in their passenger base to match, it is somewhat impractical to expect them to build ships that can seat the majority of the passenger load in one very early dinner seating just to cater for the dining preferences of the US market when the ship may spend 6 months of a year or more away from that market. It seems logical to me to build dining capacity to ensure that everyone can be fed across all venues over the course of the evening. Doing anything else will just build in wasteful (and expensive) spare capacity.

That might be the case for US cruisers, but I'm almost certain that it won't be for UK and European cruisers who make up a good proportion of Princess' passenger base and generally eat their main meal quite a bit later in the day than 5.30 in the UK and much later than that in many other European countries. So, I sense that on UK / European sailings and North American sailings that attract a good proportion of non-US passengers, there should be be a fairly good split between passengers seeking very early dining and those that are happy to dine after 7pm. Perhaps the sailings on which this is more likely to become a problem are the shorter North American ones that attract predominantly US passengers?

I have to call you out on the completely unevidenced generalisations in this post. The implication of what you post is that people who are not 'affluent' can't run a bank account and either can't read or are less intelligent than people who are affluent because they can't understand how pre-authorisation of charges on cards work and they don't know that cruise lines do that (despite it being in their passenger contracts). Unless you class everyone who posts on here as 'affluent', I hope no-one feels insulted or condescended to by those generalisations. I guess, with hindsight, you might have given more thought to what you were writing than you did.

Is this the vegetarian equivalent of a white elephant? 🤣

It will be interesting to see whether the security concerns some have about the Stockperks App (which, in my view, are misplaced) outweigh their desire to receive the OBC when, as I'm sure will happen sooner rather than later, the option to use a workaround is removed and the App becomes the only method to apply for / receive OBC. I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK many things in day-to-day life can now only be done by App. Opting out of using the App means opting out of receiving the service / benefit.

I agree. I'd hazard a guess that e-cigarette types of device are being widely used in cabins, without cabin staff or passengers in adjoining cabins being any wiser. Personally, I don't see any harm in that, if they are undetectable rather than the ones that produce dense clouds of pungent vapour. And it's permitted on at least one line. Here's Seabourn's policy: 'Our smoking policy has been updated to reflect our continuing commitment to the comfort of all of our guests. On our Expedition ships, we have implemented a no smoking policy, which includes ecigarettes. On all other Seabourn ships, most public areas on board as well as guest suites, verandas and balconies are smoke-free. Outside smoking of cigarettes is permitted in the designated smoking area of the starboard half of the Sky Bar open deck. Cigarette, cigar & pipe smoking is allowed on the starboard half of the Seabourn Square outside deck. Smoking of electronic cigarettes is permitted in guest suites.'

Or maybe some candy and a tee-shirt? Apparently, those are widely welcomed as a reward for professional services performed well?

I'm amazed anyone would think this is a good idea. I sense that doing something like this would just come across as completely patronising and inappropriate. This is the 21st century and these are adult individuals working for a salary. They are not confined to the ship and do not need anyone else to buy them clothes or candy as if they are a 5-year old child. They may be surprised if someone does this, but I'm pretty certain they won't be grateful. More likely, they will feel de-humanised and demeaned. It's not the 19th century and they are not domestic servants.

If you believe that giving passengers an allocated check-in time and then ensuring on most occasions that, if they turn up on or around that time, they are processed and onboard within about 15 or 20 minutes of arriving at the Terminal is inferior service, and if being able to turn up as early as you like is the most important aspect of your cruise, perhaps you should stick with those other cruise lines whose boarding arrangements seem to make you happier than P&Os? All I can say out of personal experience having cruised out of Southampton over a 20+ yr period with P&O, Cunard, Princess, RCI and Celebrity is that my last 3 boarding experiences at Southampton (2 x Iona and 1 x Arvia) have probably been the quickest and smoothest boarding processes I've encountered in all my cruising history. So, for me allocating times and ensuring that people who arrive on time are boarded swiftly and efficiently is a far superior service than that which I've experienced on other cruise lines.

Whether it is a discount or a free gift will be irrelevant to anyone who receives it and spends more than £150 onboard on a 14 night or longer cruise. I suspect very few of them will spend less than that.

Irrespective of the semantics, I'll gladly continue to accept my £300 / $500 on every 14 day cruise I take on a CCL brand.

I think you forgot to preface this post with 'In my opinion' because my post above and that of @bobstheboy suggest that, in our experience, it is an inaccurate generalisation. And, the last sentence is only true hypothetically. Often you can't get a Select fare without OBC. The way to do that is to get a Saver fare, but then you have to take an assigned cabin. But no-one is forced to take one or the other. If you think that you get the cheapest price / best value with a Saver fare and no OBC, then book that. Others will have a different perspective, based on their calculation of the values and the associated pros and cons. In short, my sense is that it is not possible to generalise about OBC. Whether it offers good value for an individual will differ from cruise to cruise, the various prices offered at the time the cruise is booked, whether they are shareholders or qualify for military OBC etc etc There is no one size fits all and it is inaccurate to state that all OBC is built into the fare price. In my experience, sometimes CCL brands do actually give 'free' money (and military OBC is a very good example of that. Shareholder OBC somewhat less so because it relies on an initial purchase of the shares, but it is not built into an individual's fare for a specific cruise). Yes, standard OBC is a marketing tool to boost sales and - potentially - to increase on board spending over what that passenger would normally spend, but every now and again marketing works in favour of the passenger as well as the cruise line.

I take it that will be green beans on toast, as you'll probably have to wean yourself off them gently after 65 days.

I agree with this completely. My wife and I were on the Iona cruise 27 Jan. We booked shortly after the announcement was made that this was going to be one of the 'Health and Wellbeing' cruises (there was a thread on here), at which point they reduced prices and offered double onboard credit. With Shareholder and military as well, we ended up with £1350 OBC, more than enough to make the cruise all inclusive for us. The OBC paid for internet, speciality dining every night of the cruise, the Limelight and all of our alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. And, we still had to spend £300+ on cosmetics and electrical bits and pieces in the shops on the last sea day to use it all. I monitored prices and the price + OBC calculation was never as good as the one we received from the day we booked it until the day we sailed. To the OP: We always try to book savvy, albeit the above was the best we've achieved so far. And, we are lucky enough to get Shareholder and military OBC as well. So, I have to disagree with others who say that the customer has 'paid' for OBC. In our case, I'd estimate that - on average - about 50% of the OBC we get is, in effect, 'free money'. And, I'm sure many others who monitor pricing and receive shareholder / military OBC are in a similar position. That being the case, it would be churlish to expect to get another 10% discount for loyalty as well. Nice to have, but I don't feel wronged when I don't get it and neither do I feel that P&O is not appreciating my loyalty.

Hence the problem, because this year - notably different from very preceding year - there is absolutely no mention of shareholders OBC in the Annual Report. So, there is no certainty over if and how the perk might be renewed this year. Some say that the mechanism for doing that is the AGM. But, there are conflicting reports as to whether this issue is being put to the vote at the AGM - posters on other threads have said variously that it is specified as something on which a vote will be taken or that it isn't. I haven't seen anything on any of the related threads that suggests definitively that it is to be voted on at the AGM or that it isn't. Neither have I seen a definitive explanation of how this perk is renewed each year if it is not via the AGM. So, pretty much all that is certain is that, compared with previous years in which there has been prominent mention of the perk in the Annual Report (e.g. a whole page right up-front in the report (p3) last year), there is no mention of it at all in the recently released Annual Report. Hence the speculation over whether it will be renewed beyond 31 Jul 24.