Teddy123

We're due to be in SP in 6 weeks and are booked on a tour that includes the metro. My concern is that this will now be cancelled/amended to miss the metro. Statistically, the real risk is driving to the airport/port. I never let Irish Republican terrorists in the UK dictate to me how I lived my life (subject to sensible precautions) and I don't want these terrorists to do it either.

The main difference is that one has a sofa! To achieve this, it is slightly bigger. Whether the presence of a sofa matters depends on one's habits. We spend quite a lot of time in our cabin, one way or another, and consider having a sofa to sit on, rather than one on the chair and one on the bed, is essential - others will have different priorities.

While hoodies and check shirts might well be within the daytime dress code, the issue is the contrast between this and the white glove service of neatly-cut sandwiches. Hoodies, etc are fine for the buffet but are not consistent with the ambience Cunard are trying to offer for afternoon tea. However, the battle for recognising such distinctions and expecting some kind of effort to match that made by Cunard (eg a relatively formal shirt) is clearly lost. Obviously, most people see going to the Queen's Room for afternoon tea as no different to going to the buffet.

Here's another thought. I don't know about other countries, but as I understand it, to allow smoking in a room like Churchill's would be illegal in a hotel or club in the UK.

QM2 can very easily be seen as floating hotel, so it can be argued that smokers actually do pretty well on QM2. All cigarette smokers need to do is persuade Cunard to let them use Churchill's.

What do you mean by "some public areas of the ship?" At present the only place available for smokers is the aft of deck 7 from where most of the fume is gone with the wind very quickly anyway.

 

Where do you know from that it's a majority of passengers that are against smoking? Do you have figures? It might be a majority on this forum, but that's it.

 

It is sarcastic to say that smokers can use all public areas as long as they don't smoke!

 

Finally, your only good point is that Cunard might allow smokers to use Churchill's since it means additional profit for them by selling cigarettes. You are free to go ahead and persuade the Cunard/Carnival management accordingly.

Smokers also make Churchill's a no-go area. Cunard has based its position on customer feedback. Of course smokers can go anywhere, unless they are so addicted they have to smoke every waking minute. Since it's smokers who want a change, it's up to them to lobby for it.

No. You're right. I don't have evidence that they aren't lobbying wetherspoons you are right. But you don't have evidence that they are so that's a bit moot.

 

The evidence that we do have is that animal welfare is being used as the reason to oppose halal food - if animal welfare was the real reason you'd expect those same people to be lobbying for higher welfare meat (including the life of the animal) on p&o. But that is suspiciously missing. It's just the halal part people are objecting to.

 

Curious isn't it [emoji848]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

I hope you are not suggesting that people who oppose halal or any other kind of slaughter on the grounds of animal welfare are all racist. About 10% of halal meat comes from animals that have not been stunned prior to slaughter - in other words have been slaughtered in away that would otherwise be illegal in the UK because of the suffering caused. Opposing this is not a matter of racism but of simple humanity.

I don't think anybody has yet mentioned the details about where to meet when for ship's excursions - pretty important if you do them.

 

 

Of course p&o can tell you about its life. They know whether the animals are free range, grass fed etc versus factory farmed. Any retailer knows as much about the life of the animal as it does the death.

 

If people really are upset about the fact it's halal because they truly care about animal welfare they'd be asking which country their meat is from, whether it's outdoor bred, is it grain fed, caged etc etc. If the only thing there's upset about is the method of slaughter then I'd argue they aren't really concerned about animal welfare at all, that's just an excuse to cover the real reason i.e. that it's halal and all the baggage that word entails these days.

So your view is that "of course" a P&O waiter could tell a diner all these things - not just the slaughter method - if asked?

It's also pure hypocrisy to not care how an animal dies when you eat at Wetherspoons, Nando's, your local pub, the restaurant you went to for your works Xmas do but to suddenly care how an animal dies when on a P&O ship as soon as you hear the meat is vaguely Muslim in some way.

 

The people on here complaining about it aren't lobbying for better food labelling everywhere, only if it's halal and only if it's on the good old British p&o.

Do you have any evidence at all for suggesting those asking on P&O don't also ask at Wetherspoon's etc? Or that they aren't lobbying for better labelling everywhere? (it wouldn't make much sense to use a P&O forum to lobby for better labelling in Tesco, so perhaps they just don't mention it here).

It's pure hypocrisy to not care about how an animal lives, but to care how it dies.

/quote]

I agree not caring about life but caring about death is inconsistent - but it would be pointless asking P&O staff about an animal's life, while they CAN tell one about its death. So asking about its death is not hypocritical at all - its just recognising the realities.

I absolutely love that last reply by wynne

As I've said, I'm vegetarian and don't eat any meat because I believe animals suffer in the food process and don't want that on my conscience - although I am very clearly in a minority worrying about it. However, to argue that because an animal might, or might not, have suffered in some way before it is slaughtered means it doesn't matter how it's slaughtered is clearly not sensible. It is indeed impossible, in practice, to know everything about an animal's life but that doesn't mean knowing about its death is irrelevant. And to suggest those who do care about the slaughtering are prejudiced is even more nonsensical. So I think wynne's reply is far from lovely.

The people being discriminated against are non-smokers who are, in effect, permanently prevented from using some public areas of the ship unless they are prepared to endure the ill-effects of other people's smoke. In contrast, smokers can use all public areas just as long as they aren't smoking at the time.

As has been pointed out, Cunard will do what makes it most money. It is unlikely it will start going against the clear wishes of the majority of its customers and the smoke-free tide of society in general, so it seems the best bet for those who don't like the current arrangements is to try to persaude Cunard to allow cigarette smoking in Churchill's, or use a different line (and I note some posters here already seem hardly ever to use Cunard anyway).

It makes perfect sense, until our last trip we have always had a table for 2 in the Grills and for 6 in Britannia.

This time we mostly ended up as a table of 4 as 2 of companions liked to eat early so they were usually having coffee when we arrived.

We had the occasional breakfast and lunch as a six.

It was all fine.

I'm confused - should I infer that this time you had a table for 6 in PG?

Hi everyone,

 

We (couple) have booked Princess Grill for the first time (we have always gone Britannia before). We usually book a table for 8 as we enjoy meeting new people. However, what do you recommend in Princess Grill? With it being open sitting, is it likely that people on the table will arrive at different stages in the meal? Is it better to request a table for two?

We always ask for (and get) a table for 2, and this size seems to predominate in PG. There are larger tables (I can only recall a maximum of 6, but there could be larger), and indeed people turn up at different stages, but this doesn't seem to bother anybody. Whether you would prefer a table for 2 is up to you, I guess.

That's impressive considering the smoking area is aft deck 7 where you would expect any smoke to be dissipated posteriorly rather than flow forward against the prevailing wind. Although I believe the laws of physics don't apply to hyperbole.

Smokers quite naturally congregate right up against the Grills restaurants windows/walls for shelter, rather than on the open deck, so the smoke tends to linger - as the laws of physics require.

 

3. And, worst of all, leaving 5 minutes before the end!

 

All of this must drive the artists crazy.

 

I agree - very discourteous. I have said so to a number of performers, but they all seem pretty sanguine about it and say they realise it's not personal.

Yes, although it's done by a steward who is likely to be male, and it happens several times a day, eg to turn down the bed in the evening. Yes there is a card.

Personally never had a problem turning up a few minutes before the show starts.

 

But then if there are two empty seats but separated as people have left single seats between them, I will ask if people mind moving. I have never come across a gap saver who had the cheek to say no.

Varies by ship and by show, I guess, but on the Ventura last month staff were trying to find seats for people at least 20 minutes before the show started and asking people to move up (although I too am prepared to ask this myself). There were still people sitting on stairs (not sure about the safety aspects there!) or giving up and going away.

Is this a recent change because they have been every time I have sailed on Cunard ? Our recent trip was in QG but they were certainly available in January last year and I'm sure there would have been an outcry if they had disappeared.

I know there is no hot food available on P&O at breakfast time - perhaps you were thinking of their room service card ?

Yes - I think you are right. We were on QM2 in October, but P&O in December and that obviously wiped my memory! (Sorry for any confusion). As an aside, one thing I like in Grills is that in the restaurant, I can order fried bread which isn't on the menu (although it is on P&O's menu, albeit not so good). Is it available to order in all the restaurants, I wonder.

Yes you can in Britannia: Eggs scrambled and/or fried, bacon, sausage, baked beans, hash brown potatoes, grilled tomato.

Then it might be helpful to the OP (and others) to say how, because these aren't on the card to be hung outside the door to order breakfast.

Thanks for that. Standard menu will be fine or we might go to Lido.

 

One thing is for sure, we won't go hungry!! Is it safe to assume then that you can order a cooked breakfast in our room? Hopefully this is not just for Grills also?

I'm afraid it probably is! At least the standard menu includes omelettes, which aren't available on all cruise lines.

Thanks, yes I saw this but wondered how you'd eat of it. I'm sure we will manage! I've also read that you can order of the main restaurant menu in the evening, is this still the case? I'm pretty sure we'll choose not to "dress up" one night so might stay in.

Certainly true for Grills, although I've never tried it. Not sure about Britannia, but I think not.

Heaven forbid that Cunard should provide a pleasant indoor smoker's lounge, even at a fee. The non-smokers would find it, complain that they're "barred" from it, and why is such a nice place being given to the lepers?

 

From time to time I read of complaints when the outdoor smoking area is in the shade - and what it the complaint? Some non-smoker says that they want to sit in the shade but all the shaded area was given to the smokers! (As if a ship should constantly change the smoking area according its heading and time of day? :confused:)

This post encapsulates the basic issue: smokers can easily use all areas of the ship (as long as they are not smoking at the time) while non-smokers are prevented from using the areas dedicated to smokers unless they are prepared to suffer the unpleasant effects of smokers' smoke, which is there almost 24/7. Rather than extending the asymmetry further, Churchill's should be the place where all smoking takes place. Problem solved.

This thread is a year old Claire but if I remember rightly the objection was not what would happen to the person who ate it but how the animal might have been treated at the point of dispatch

Yes, some people care deeply about how much an animal has suffered before it lands up on somebody's plate - although clearly some couldn't care less. It is undeniable that some slaughter methods involve more suffering than others, and some caring people wish to know how the animal was slaughtered so as to avoid meat produced inhumanely. Personally, I think animals suffer unnecessarily whatever the slaughter method and am vegetarian, but avoiding animals slaughtered in the worst ways does help some people.

Well the gym is provided for those passengers who choose to indulge in treadmill time.

 

The seats on the promenade are provided for people that sit there

 

The pools are provided for people that enjoy a swim.

 

Theatres and company are provided fue those that like watchIng singing and dancing.

 

All of these cost a varying amount to install and maintain, regardless.

 

The simple economics are is that given a place to enjoy their dirty habit, if it pleasant enough they'll stick around. And like any bar on the ship, the longer they linger the more likely they are to get out their cruise card and buy drinks...

 

Plus if you care to wonder down to the ship, Cunard are very happy to provide cartons of duty free cigarettes with a wonderful profit margin....

 

So unless you would like a ship with a basic bed and an upgrade charge for everything else, you might want to accept that providing faculties for passengers either draws them into booking in the first place, or creates revenue while they are there. Or both. And whether you choose to enjoy it or not, you're aren't subsiding the provision.

 

Enjoy what you enjoy. And let others do the same (hopefully in a manner where you can't see or smell it).

Actually, on reflection, I do buy the argument that special accommodation MIGHT pay for itself - and had, believe it or not, come to that conclusion before this post, but thanks for it anyway.