9265359

13 hours ago, LittleTinker said:

But you wont catch Novo by going to the toilet in the cubicle next door to an.....explosion.

Still talking nonsense - Sources of Airborne Norovirus in Hospital Outbreaks - PMC (nih.gov)

In conclusion, this study provides additional evidence that airborne NoV can be present in concentrations that are high enough to cause infections, and in particle size fractions that remain airborne for long periods and are easily inhaled.

4 hours ago, Tomcruise92 said:

it may be more orderly if they just have a full booking system to stop people having to wait.

It wouldn't be.

The ships are designed so they can turn the tables at least twice, and if you allowed booking at any time the issue would be the number booked for the peak 7.30pm to 8pm slot, so making it difficult to turn the tables and so worse for those who couldn't book, and also worse for those arriving at that busy time as the waiters will be very stretched.

The simple solution to waiting is to swap to 'Spanish time' when onboard and just dine at 9pm (although even that is far to early for Madrileños).

13 minutes ago, alserrod said:

If you go to a foreing ATM and you ask for money it is not a withdraw but a shopping where you have to pay the fee.

That isn't the case with UK banks - all cash withdrawals are treated as cash withdrawals irrespective of where they are made.

The difference is that the T&Cs of the accounts might allow for a fee to be charged by the bank and will specify the basis of the exchange rate used, and those fees and exchange rates might be different whether it is a cash withdrawal or a purchase, and also differs between credit cards and debit cards.

Thus you can have both a fee charged by the bank for making a cash withdrawal from foreign ATM plus a fee charged by the ATM itself and if you are not careful and exchange rate 'fee' as well.

As for the fee charged by the foreign ATM, the bank makes clear that is nothing at all to do with them - I have an account with First Direct and they are explicit that they make no charges for foreign ATM withdrawals but they are very clear (and it is my experience) that most foreign ATMs still impose their own fees and those fees vary wildly.

On 6/19/2024 at 6:17 AM, David_S29 said:

excursions to both Teide and La Laguna (among others) in Tenerife in late November '25.

As others have mentioned, with a trip to Teide you will undoubtably be far above cloud line so blue skies and the sun beating down.

However the trip will realistically just be a scenic coach drive up a windy mountain road to park in a car park and then take in the views of the barren scenery - photo below taken in January.

La Laguna on the other hand can be an interesting small and historic town to stroll around, but... it is 550m above sea level and has a far cooler and damper climate than the coast, so it could be far less pleasant in November than in Santa Cruz.

On 5/16/2024 at 4:15 PM, Harters said:

Santander always seems to be the most expensive at around €6 per withdrawal.

Not if you have a Santander account, even a non-Spanish Santander account, when withdrawals are fee free and with no exchange rate loading.

9 hours ago, Tomcruise92 said:

Am I able to pre-book a table online beforehand?

Only if you want to dine early - 5.30 to 6pm.

Otherwise it is join the queue and wait, with the wait being dependant on whether you want to dine at a popular time 7.30 to 8.30, or if you dine at an unpopular time such as between 9pm and 9.30pm when they close the doors, when it is unlikely there is any queue at all.

18 hours ago, LittleTinker said:

You feel some people need a crew member to tell them to go wash their hands before entering the buffet/dining room?

No, because I would hope that they had been sufficiently well trained so that they did without needing to be told.

8 hours ago, Harryjacobs said:

I have been in a 40 minute queue for CPS dropoff.  You get put in a funny holding pattern that loops around the road.

As before, never seen a queue at all, so a 40 minute queue must mean something exceptional had gone wrong.

19 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I don't have any stats, but I suspect...

Says it all.

8 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

the queue to join the drop off queue can be very long.

Never seen a queue to drop off whenever I have used CPS, and never seen a queue to pick up the keys either.

I suppose they might happen, but they never have been at the times I have been there.

8 hours ago, LittleTinker said:

It its an airborne disease, its impossible to protect against with hygiene.

Spread through touch, then the only hygiene that really matters is your own.

People can be less than hygienic but it wont affect anyone unless you put your own fingers in your own mouth.
So go ahead and use the salt and pepper shakers, but dont then put your hands in your mouth.
You cant catch it unless you do.

Norovirus is transmitted both airborne and touch, for example touching that table or chair that hasn't been cleaned properly after use by the previous occupant and then picking up a bread roll to eat.

9 hours ago, LittleTinker said:

Of course that doesn't protect you from someone touching a bread roll, then putting it back but it would take a very weakened immune system for that to floor you.

Utter utter nonsense that only those with a weakened immune system are susceptible to norovirus. Utter utter nonsense.

9 hours ago, LittleTinker said:

The single best way to protect yourselves from Norovirus is not to be over zealous with sanitiser and hand washing in general,

And yet more nonsense.

The best way to protect yourself is to be zealous with handwashing and the best way for the cruise line to protect its customers is to properly clean and making sure people are washing their hands.

A YouTuber who gets paid if people watch their videos posting another controversial video that will get people watching and earn them money - I am shocked, utterly shocked.

15 hours ago, kalos said:

Yes we established that and we buy a foam from Boots that does work against noro

Does it work against norovirus?

I noticed that their advertising (Boots Anti Viral Hand Foam - 50ml - Boots) now makes no mention of it and only makes the claim that it "kills 99.99% of enveloped viruses and harmful bacteria" which as norovirus is not an enveloped virus isn't exactly helpful.

What will kill norovirus is Hypochlorous Acid (HOCL) but this product doesn't contain any of that.

15 hours ago, kalos said:

We continue to wash our hands and gel when possible and just hope others do as well

Likewise, but I would actually like the ire that people have those not using the gel instead directed at ship's management for not ensuring that effective cleaning with bleach is taking place as that would have an impact on reducing the transmission of norovirus.

3 hours ago, kalos said:

Going back to the pandemic ,as you entered our hospital folk could not get 

enough of the hand gels . 

Now days folk just walk past them just like they do on the cruise ships, once 

they think it's all ok . They are put there for more than Noro but apart from 

those with an allergy reaction , I see no reason not to use them .

As folk have posted above ,some are happy to walk out the loo's without 

washing their hands .

Even hospitals can have Noro but does that mean we should ignore the hand

gels. They are there for a reason.

Alcohol hand gels are effective against some viruses such as during the pandemic, but they are completely ineffective against norovirus.

Norovirus (vomiting bug) - NHS (www.nhs.uk)

"Washing your hands frequently with soap and water is the best way to stop it spreading. Alcohol hand gels do not kill norovirus."

That someone isn't using the alcohol hand gel is irrelevant to the spread of norovirus.

What is relevant is whether they have washed their hands properly immediately beforehand, not an hour ago, and even then that doesn't kill the virus unless you have the water at a temperature which would scald you, all it does is temporarily remove the virus from your hands.

The most important issue is whether the staff have cleaned all the touchable surfaces with bleach after the last occupants have left, as bleach will kill norovirus.

45 minutes ago, DamianG said:

likely not helped by the fact that we were in a large group of seven

When I was recently on Arvia I noticed that there seemed to be very few tables larger than six, and that even the tables of six seemed to be far fewer than on the older ships, with far more tables for two and four.

I guess that they have finally realised that most people don't want to eat at shared tables, but that does have a knock on for large groups who need those tables.

On 6/3/2024 at 7:03 PM, ScotchBoy said:

We're considering a Britannia cruise, and would be interested to know other people's thoughts in respect of their various dining experiences on Britannia. 

When I was on Britannia last summer the food in the Glass House was very good.

And then last winter on Azura the food in the Glass House was very bad, despite being (theoretically) the same menu. Because of shortages of some things they had taken to changing what was being served from the menu description without actually bothering to tell the customers.

And the service in the Glass House was poor, with the staff not knowing (or caring) when the two menus swapped, constantly having to ask for cutlery, and management not having the sense to tell a waiter that bathing in aftershave/perfume might be rather off-putting to those dining.

As for the other restaurants, Epicurean used to be very good about eight or nine years ago, but the last time couple of times I tried it in 2021 and 2022 it wasn't, with service being unbearably slow (and on speaking to them it was intended to be so) and the food being 'so so'.

Similarly Sinhu used to be very good when Atul Kochhar still had something to do with it. Then over the last few years it has been heading downhill and when I tried it last winter on Azura it had reached very very poor, with the dishes either being tasteless or the chef being heavy handed with the chilli, and the dishes certainly didn't have the balanced flavours of the past. And the service was nothing to write home about.

As for the MDR, the menus are pretty uninspiring (and the celebration night menus are nothing to celebrate these days) and the food brought out can be rather hit and miss.

1 hour ago, Whittleblue said:

Seemed a strange decision to allocate it such a large space and it won’t have been based on customer preference/common sense, but more trying to fit that vegan ideology that was supposedly gathering traction several years back.

Undoubtably a bunch of Zoomer consultants telling P&O management that they will be beating people away with sticks such will be the popularity of a vegan restaurant onboard, and not actually considering the demographics of the P&O customer base doesn't match up with their trendy London experience.

1 hour ago, Whittleblue said:

It’ll be a complete change when in for its refit in a few years. 

It doesn't need wait for a refit, as the space itself looks really good and would work perfectly if they just replaced the pure vegan menu with something more inclusive.

46 minutes ago, BertieRulesOK said:

I think it's a shame that it appears to be suffering from that knee jerk reaction certain generations have to the idea that you can't have great food without any meat in it.  It hadn't occurred to many ppl I spoke to that they should eat there because "I'm not vegan!"  Sigh.

The issue seems to be the vegan reaction that you cannot have a 'real' vegan restaurant that serves both dishes with meat in them and dishes without.

I like vegan food, but generally as part of a meal and not a whole meal.

Now if they served the Green&Co vegan dishes AND some other equally good and imaginative meat dishes then perhaps the restaurant wouldn't be 95% empty most of the time.

10 minutes ago, david63 said:

Of course that is a possibility but there is no way that P&O, or any other cruise line, can cater for every eventuality.

It isn't catering for every eventuality, it is assessing and minimising risk.

The situations when an evacuation are needed in reality are not likely to be of the 'have a wander down to the theatre at your leisure to have your cruise card scanned' embarkation check.

If P&O is seriously having to evacuate the many thousands of passengers and crew off into lifeboats then something really really bad has happened, and that really really bad thing will undoubtably have resulted in some who though they could provide assistance not being able to do so.

6 hours ago, Martinwpc63 said:

This is how we feel as my wife can walk short distances and in an emergency I am fit enough to help her but we can only book P&O cruises that have an evac chair available.

What would happen if you are incapacitated during the incident that requires the ship to be evacuated and an evac chair had not been booked and thus there was no way to evacuate your wife?

6 hours ago, Selbourne said:

My concern is that if these chairs (and associated crew) are allocated to those who, in reality, don’t need them (but have been allocated them under this new ‘belt and braces’ approach) then those who genuinely need assistance (such as our better halves) may not be able to make bookings.

Does the cruise line take the risk that someone could manage the stairs when the ship is sinking and take more bookings, but if they are wrong and they can't they leave them to drown?

Now in the past that might have been the basis that P&O were operating under, but now they seem to have decided to take a new low risk option.

It is hard to criticise that decision, the deserved criticism is of the poor handling of existing bookings made before they made that decision and the poor handling of new bookings. 

Personally I think that even with the new policy P&O are still massively underestimating the number of people who would need assistance if there was an emergency that required evacuation. 

1 hour ago, Snow Hill said:

As US based AELF Flight Services own a majority stake in Maleth Aero, what, if any, responsibility do they have to ensure passengers with legitimate claims are fully compensated under the law? 

They have no legal liability for the debts of the company they are shareholders in.

1 hour ago, tring said:

Why were these cruises ever put on sale though?  Perhaps it is time for the release dates for those cruises to be revised.

If that had been done you would have had people complaining that the cruises were not on sale until summer 2023 when the flights were arranged - and if your suggestion is to contract with the airlines a couple of years in advance, well good luck with that.

23 minutes ago, GINGERWILDCAT said:

I would have thought airlines would have insurance to cover such eventualities but obviously not.

Most likely they don't because of the cost and because it would be too complex to evidence that the insurable loss was not the company's fault.

Decisions on delays are quite often a subjective decision of the aircrew, so would an insurance company pay out if the pilot thought it was too foggy to fly but the insurance company didn't?

Then there are the issues of what happens if the delay is due to knock on delays throughout the day, as again there would be questions on whether if things had been done differently with those earlier flights then the insurable delay could have been avoided.

And that's before you get to deliberate delays where an aircraft with a lot of passengers on a long flight has gone wrong, but you have another aircraft that is working and is due to take a few passengers on a short run - lots of airlines will choose to 'swap' the aircraft and use the working one to result in the lowest compensation pay out.

36 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Very technical but any lawyer worth their salt should have been aware of the need to ensure the P&O brand was protected from bad publicity by association. 

Brand protection is a management issue not a legal issue.

37 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

The furore that erupted on announcement of one class no entertainment aircraft did a lot of damage to the brand

Did it? I doubt it had any significant impact even over the short term, let alone the medium to long term.

Even with the flight compensation (or the lack of), I doubt that it will make the slightest dent in the numbers booking with P&O.

1 minute ago, Megabear2 said:

do you think it was the right decision?

It was the least bad decision for the company - if it had worked then everything was fine, and if it didn't then not their problem legally.

And had they proactively cancelled the Caribbean season on a 'well the aircraft might break down' then the bad publicity from the 'you have ruined my Christmas / life / etc.' stories would have been even worse than this minor hiccup, and that's before you get to all the lost revenue.

1 minute ago, Megabear2 said:

why on earth could P&O's legal team not see the risk

Because it isn't P&O's legal risk!

If P&O legal were asked for an opinion then their answer would most likely have been that any flight delay compensation is down to the airline and it is not a legal matter for P&O.

It was a management decision not a legal decision.

It is obvious that P&O were between a rock and a hard place - ships due to sail a Caribbean season with thousands of passengers who have booked and paid, but no airline to fly them there.

P&O operations needed flights and Maleth Aero were the only ones available to do it.

P&O had two options - 

1. Cancel all the planned sailings and try to do something else with the ships; or

2. Hire Maleth Aero and cross their fingers and if it didn't go well say "not our problem".

They decided on option 2.

12 hours ago, molecrochip said:

I’ve always said that the delay compensation is due direct from the airline and the CAA agree.

Assuming the airline

1. actually has the money to pay; and

2. even if it does have the money is willing to pay.

Good luck to anyone trying to get money from an airline with no physical presence in the UK who can't / doesn't want to pay.

12 hours ago, molecrochip said:

The worldwide shortage of charter planes and crew led P&O to Maleth but it’s now clear that Maleth were not capable of fulfilling the contract that they entered into.

Perhaps P&O should have thought a little bit harder about that before they hired a tiny two-bit airline to fulfil this contract, and the implications for their customers getting flight compensation from a non-UK airline with damn all in assets.

Legally, P&O may be the clear, but morally and reputation-wise...

3 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Although £500,000 for those five badly affected flights sounds a large amount, at the end of the day an airline should be solvent enough to meet a legal obligation.

A 51% stake in Maleth Aero Limited was sold in December 2020 for £800k.

I doubt a company that is worth around £1.6m has £500k in cash sitting around with no other call on it other than to hand over as compensation.