Denarius

16 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

Looks healthy if investors have patience. 

 

They will escape the trap and costs of the fixed price 3 year insurance deals by end of this financial year. Debt on ships is being paid off.

 

Unless the unexpected happens,  which is always possible,  will be a very profitable company by 2026. 

 

So not desperate for a partnership at any terms. But one that is win win

I agree. The insurance business is still the fly in the ointment but the travel arm appears to be booming, especially cruises. 88% is a good average occupation rate for ocean cruises especially when you consider that Saga does not benefit from extra berths in cabins during school holidays. And the river cruise business probably still has plenty of scope for growth.

In my early days of sailing with P&O I would have regarded Cunard, Princess, Royal Caribbean and Celebrity as P&Os main rivals, offering a similar product at a similar price point. Since then P&O have imo moved down market and operate at a lower price point than those named; people comment on these boards how expensive these companies now are, whereas the reality is that P&O are now cheap. Currently I would regard Marella, Ambasador and possibly MSC as P&Os main rivals for the market they are now chasing, with the next tier up reprented by those previously named and the one above by the likes of Viking, Saga and Oceania.

17 hours ago, Angel57 said:

My gut feeling is that there is an element of truth in this. Social media is full of it and some are threatening never to book with P&O again! What an over-reaction over a litre of spirits.

Over reaction indeed. And who are they going to book with instead, as to my knowledge virtually all other lines have similar restrictions except those which are all inclusive? Or are they going to book with the latter for the sake of drinking their own favourite brand instead of the one for which they have already paid in their all inclusive fare? Joined up thinking, please!

11 minutes ago, Lee Jones Jnr said:

P&O is a business and this was always going to happen once the race to the bottom started.

It’s always seemed mad to me that people are so desperate to save £3-4 that they bother taking on a bottle anyway rather than just getting a bottle delivered to the cabin and I dislike the constant Facebook threads about how to smuggle more on.

It seems a little tragic that some are thinking of smuggling on something because P&O don’t sell it too, just drink something that they do sell or if it’s that important cruise with a line that sells what you want.

I agree. I've always thought it odd that people will spend thousands of pounds to go on a cruise then go to inordinate lengths to save a few pounds onboard.

4 hours ago, nosapphire said:

I wondered whether it was because some of the guest entertainers are on cheap/free deals and not all-inclusive. Asking for cabin number would bring up guest details and enable billing.

 

I am quite happy to book and pay online (via home desktop computer) but find it much, much easier to read a printed brochure - especially when two of us are trying to decide which, if any, excursions to book. And if I had to try and read details on a 'phone or even a tablet, I probably would not even bother.

Keep meaning to ask Saga which deluded soul thought that putting a map on the TV screen and suggesting people take a photo on their phone for shore use was a good idea.

Apart from the fact that even on the TV one has to scroll down to get the whole map, the ship location is rarely, if ever, shown - and our last map was entirely in Spanish.

RE maps. I too would like to know who took this incredibly stupid decision. Apart from the issues you raise, keep getting your phone out to look at a map is not a particularly good idea in many locations unless you want to be mugged for it, and one which I would prefer to avoid. And where does this leave those who do not have one? A few months ago I took a Saga river cruise on SotR and excellent paper maps were provided at every berth. So why cannot they be provided for sea cruises?

On 4/26/2024 at 12:23 AM, Lee Jones Jnr said:

So is the general feeling here that Ocean Village were just a little ahead of their time?

I think that they were. In context, you have to remember that at the time Ocean Village were launched the cruise business was radically different than it is today. Fixed time (ie, club) dining was usually the only option at dinner; the buffet was only open for lunch and breakfast. A three tier dress code applied in the evening throughout the ship; casual (ie smart casual) informal (jackets and ties for men) and formal (black tie). Against this background, a cruise line which offered flexible dining with no formal dress code was a radical departure. Nowadays of course, it does not appear as radical as most cruise lines have adopted parts of the Ocean Village modus operandum.

13 hours ago, GerryL13 said:

I get most of my communications digitally -- including bills. No brochures at all from Saga as they don't routinely mail those internationally. (I am flooded with brochures from Viking and Oceania, though.)

With digital communication, I print out the pages I want to keep and highlight. So, yes, paper is consumed, but fewer pages, and it doesn't need to be carted around in airplanes or trucks.

That is your personal choice. Not everyone however, has an internet connection, home computer and printer. Indeed, a survey by AgeUK earlier this month ( https://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/articles/2024/more-than-1-in-3-over-65s-4.7-million-lack-the-basic-skills-to-use-the-internet-successfully/  ) indicated that more than one in three of the over 65s - Saga's main clientelle - lack the basic skills to use the internet succesfully and that one in six do not use it at all.

24 minutes ago, Fionboard said:

Smart casual.

Agree. As I recall it the dress code was indicated on the invitation as Smart Casual, which I interpreted as being anything which would be accepable in the main dining room on other than a Black Tie night. I usually wore chinos and an open necked shirt, although I recall that I once wore a plain (ie, non logo) tee shirt without comment.

9 minutes ago, david05 said:

Some passengers do receive an email but not all. We are registered for email but received no information about excursions available to book for our most recent 2 cruises. It all seems to be rather a lottery now.

I agree that the present situation is far from satisfactory.

Although I have fibre internet access with a home computer, printer and iphone I opt to receive my communications in paper form as I find it more convenient to refer to; also, I like to highlight and annotate important information. Despite this I find increasingly that I receive communications by email only, excursions for my next cruise being a case in point. I do not normally go on excursions preferring to explore independently, so when I received the email 2 days ago I took no immediate action. After reading this thread I decided out of curiosity to have a look and found that several are already sold out even though the cruise is not until July. If I did not have internet access and an email address I would not have even known that they were on sale!

10 minutes ago, zap99 said:

In a few years the old hands will be singing the praises of the old ships Britannia, Iona and Azura......I'll stick to the small ships like Britannia.  I'm not going on the magamonsters. 15,000 passengers....no thanks.

Very true. When I started cruising in the 1990s the QE2 was thought of as being a very large ship. Nowadays at 70000 GRT and carrying 1800 passengers she would be regarded as mid size at the most. In a few years time she will no doubt be regarded as small.

13 hours ago, IAASA345 said:

I was on azura early March, the last one before it repo'd to Malta. As a solo traveller and only on for a week I was worried about catching it and what support if any I'd get as I didn't have any one with me to help. That and I'd miss most of my holiday being poorly. 

 

Anyway thankfully I was OK, but it did dull the shine to my holiday and I've got another cruise booked for later on in the year, but I won't book another until I see how that goes. 

 

It frustrated me as despite the captain telling people to wash hands etc, I still saw people touch stuff at the pool grill, salad bowls, and then put them back. Urgh.

 

Yes I know you could catch it anywhere, but on a cruise it is more likely as you're all bunched together. 

I believe that there is a strong case for getting rid of self service buffets on cruise ships in favour of served ones, even if there is no obvious infection onboard. Much more hygenic.

1 hour ago, Denarius said:

Earlier this year I was on a cruise with another line. There were a small number of cases of norovirus identified on board and preventative measure were introduced including the enforced washing of hands before entering any restaurant; all had washbasins at the entrance. Some people asked why they could not just use hand sanitisers such as had been used during the covid emidemic and were told that this was because hand sanitisers were generally only effective against bacteria. Covid was an exception as the alcohol in the sanitiser destroyed the bacteria's oily coating.

Sorry, slip of the finger. Bacteria in final sentence should have read virus.

On 3/30/2024 at 12:22 PM, Fionboard said:

Nothing kills norovirus except strong bleach (for sanitizing surfaces - not recommended for your skin!) Only hand washing (properly) with soap and warm water will remove the virus from your hands. Wish the ships would explain this to pax (although some will not take any notice anyway!) Just best to look after yourself. 

Earlier this year I was on a cruise with another line. There were a small number of cases of norovirus identified on board and preventative measure were introduced including the enforced washing of hands before entering any restaurant; all had washbasins at the entrance. Some people asked why they could not just use hand sanitisers such as had been used during the covid emidemic and were told that this was because hand sanitisers were generally only effective against bacteria. Covid was an exception as the alcohol in the sanitiser destroyed the bacteria's oily coating.

1 hour ago, nosapphire said:

It may depend on the browser. In my case (Firefox) only shows 2024 and winter 2025.

Cleared cache and history, tried going via the website - nope.

Tried searching for 2025 cruises - Nope (although it did suggest I pre-register...).

I did get the full 2025 brochure in today's post, and looks as if the cruise I DIDN'T book is still the same price I turned down.

UPDATED:

After posting this, an email arrived with a special link for Britannia Club members to book the main 2025 cruises the day before they go on general sale. So apparently not quite on general sale.Or maybe they are for some. Who knows.

I also use Firefox but tried Edge as well and got the same result, but I think that the key lies in your final paragraph. The Spring and Summer cruises do not go on sale to non Britannia Club members until tomorrow so are not yet visible to the general public on the website, only by clicking the link sent to Britannia Club members. I am a Britannia Club member so got the email but I deleted it as I had already booked my 2025 cruises.

My summer 2025 cruise to the Baltic is now £1300 more than I paid from advance registration but my second cruise - "coastal delights of France and green Spain" on 19 September 2025 - does not appear on the website. Curious!

4 hours ago, Mollag said:

On our recent Aurora cruise one of the officers was telling people that P&O were buying SAGA, he was most taken aback when I said god forbid that happens and SAGA gets dragged down to P&Os level. 

I doubt whether NCL are likely to be in the frame as their operations and market positioning are far removed from Saga's. There could however be an element of informed speculation present as NCL's parent company Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings also own Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises as well as NCL. Both Oceania and Regent occupy a similar market position to Saga and operate smaller ships. So the acquisition of Saga as an additional sub brand alongside Oceania and Regent (or even merger with Oceania as the closest fit) may make some commercial sense.

Similarly as regards P&O. P&O would not be a good fit. But P&O's parent company Carnival Corporation also own Cunard and (perhaps more significantly) Seabourn.

Watch this space!

16 minutes ago, Wivvy said:

Entirely feasible - as would be an Easter embargo. Anyone who's broken that embargo would be putting quite a lot at risk in terms of legal consequences.  Would anyone be that crazy?

One would hope not, for their sake. Disclosure of confidential price sensitive informaion which could materially affect share values is a very serious matter. Where the source to be identified the very least they could expect would be to lose their job.

1 hour ago, Spence55 said:

W

Who knows? It wouid be an interesting development if true. The latest report attributed EBITDA of £40 million per ship. Unfortunately for shareholders the ‘I’ stands for interest payable on debt. But if the board wants to realise value, the cruise business would be a logical acquisition for one of the bigger players seeking to increase market share. 

I will be interested to see what form the deal takes if and when it is agreed. Will the new partner own and operate the ships like Scylla provide ships to Riviera travel (see my earlier post #3) or will it just own the ships with Saga renting them on long term lease and operating them itself?

41 minutes ago, Cruise-Cat said:

Agree on the whole but just noticed that Scandinavia on July 3rd has very limited availability now

It has. I am on that cruise as a solo traveller. A few weeks ago Saga sent me a flyer including that cruise and I noticed that all single grades were sold out!

On 3/27/2024 at 11:46 AM, david63 said:

And that is the whole point that P&O rely on. having said that the same applies to all cruise lines and always has.

My first P&O cruise was in 1996 on Oriana shortly after she entered the fleet and apart from the "She's not like Canberra" comments I have no idea what things were like on P&O before then but accepted is as the norm.

I remember that well! Not the Canberra, she had just been retired when I first sailed with P&O, but the comments. My first P&O ship was the Oriana and I thought that she was marvelous but she was, as I was told, "not like the Canberra". The problem as I understood it was not her size - the "great white whale" was herself a big ship and carried nearly as many passengers - but the absence of particular features which P&O stalwarts had come to expect. In particular, the absence of a ballroom.

I have read this thread with interest.

I first sailed with P&O in 1997 having previously sailed with Cunard and Costa. They were not cheap but represented fair value for money. Whilst I continued to sail with other lines P&O became my first port of call. Over the next 20+ years I sailed with them around 40 times and at times attained the Baltic tier of the Peninsular Club. Over the years however, I have noticed a steady deterioration in the cruise experience; mainly little things which taken in isolation are of no great consequence but which taken together and cumulatively represent a gradual slide from up market luxury to cheap and cheerful. P&O undoubtedly now provide excellent value for money, but the overall cruise experience is no longer what it was. But to get the latter, you need to be able and prepared to pay significantly more. In real terms, similar to what P&O charged 30 years ago and what Saga, Viking etc charge now!

Never sailed on her but sailed on her sister ship Saga Ruby when she was the Vistafjord. A fine traditional ship which took the weather well.

I have never seen the logic of why cabins on a higher deck cost more than identical cabins on a lower one. I suspect that it goes back to the days when cabins were in the hull and public rooms in the superstructure, so canins on a higher deck were closer to the latter; also cabins on the lower decks were close to the waterline where bad weather was more apparent. Old habits die hard. Personally I prefer a cabin closer to the public rooms - but not so close that unwanted noise could be a problem - and on Saga D deck is my deck of choice. I cannot see the point of paying considerably more for a an identical cabin on a higher deck, although others may differ. Perhaps this is why cabins on the lower decks sell faster, and those on higher decks have larger discounts for longer. If so, Saga's pricing policy is surely wrong.

5 hours ago, nosapphire said:

Just for information.

https://news.sky.com/story/saga-sets-post-easter-deadline-for-cruise-operation-suitors-13099348

Bear in mind that Saga have never owned any of their river cruise ships - they are all chartered, and nobody worries about that.

IF the ocean ships transfer ownership, it will probably work in a very similar manner - book with Saga, pay Saga, deal with Saga, travel with Saga, under Saga terms and conditions.

Actual ownership of the vessels will not have much affect.

(unless, of course, the two companies have a dispute about terms....)

(drat, wish I hadn't thought of that).

 

I have taken several river cruises with Riviera travel. They are of a similar standard to Saga's river cruises. Riviera do not own any of their ships. All are leased from other owners, principally the Swiss family owned company Scylla which builds some ships specifically for long term lease to Riviera. Scylla operate the ships and employ all the staff apart from the cruise director and his/her assistant, who are the only Riviera employees onboard. Other cruise companies may have similar but less transparent arrangements.

20 hours ago, seahorse001 said:

I have been reading these posts with interest. Guessing some of the responses are from cruisers living in USA? in UK you will rarely find any good deals although they do exist sometimes if booking ahead 

I am from the UK, and Riviera are a UK company. https://www.rivieratravel.co.uk/ I have taken river cruises with them, Saga and Emerald and all are of a similar standard. Although Emerald are not particularly solo friendly - they have a couple of single cabins on the lower deck, otherwise a 100% supplement applies - Saga have dedicated single cabins on all decks of their ships.