Alan Flett

I think the problem is financial (of sorts) and out of P&O's control..

 

Southampton Cruise Terminal was developed by the owners ABP using their own money, actually money they borrowed and were having to pay interest on.

 

Liverpool Docks are owned by the city and, as they said they couldn't afford to develop it themselves, the city obtained a European development grant to develop the port for cruising, BUT, the terms of there grant only allowed them to compete for and develop new business (the key word was development) and not to use the subsidy to fund competition to take existing business from ports which had funded their own expansion.

 

After the terminal was finished Liverpool appealed against the restriction and there a opposition from both the City of Southampton and ABP who both said they had no objection provided Liverpool either repaid the grant if ABP were compensated for having to compete on unequal financial basis. (Remember Liverpool had no obligation to pay or repay capital on their grant whilst ABP were servicing both interest ad capital repayments on their debt).

 

Which I think explains why new cruise lines entering the British market use Liverpool, but existing cruise lines are not currently using Liverpool.

 

I believe, though I am not certain that Liverpool were told, by the EU - who gave the grant, if they used the profits from their current operations to repay the grant then, once it was repaid, they would be free to compete for win existing business.

 

However, to date, I do not think they had shown any inclination to go down that path.

 

I will leave you all to make up your own mind about whether or not Liverpool should be allowed to use a development grant, intended to attract new business, as a basis for competing to take business from other UK ports which are having to service the debt associated with their port infrastructure costs.

 

making con their grantwas a big with other self funding ports.

Liverpool, I believe went try to try they were only allowed to compete with other using

 

Liverpool have repaid the monies and are in the process of turning the Cunard Building into a passenger terminal which will be ready next year I think. Then they can be a complete turnaround port.

[quote name='SeagoingMom'][COLOR=DarkRed]Ultimately, what difference does it make whether a population of CC posters agrees or does not agree that this rate is riddiculous (sic)? It is your decision to sail or not.

According to Delta Airlines, if you fly internationally with an infant on your lap, you still pay for an airline ticket. Perhaps this is the policy of the airline you would be flying on to get to your cruise. In which case it sounds like you are getting your baby's cruise practically free.

Does the price you were quoted include taxes and port fees? These are undoubtedly calculated per "soul" (not per adult) on board.

Babies create messes -- they poop and pee (creating a lot of solid waste), they spit up (sometimes creating cleaning issues), they are washed and bathed (incurring water treatment costs), etc., etc. And as was said before, the ship is not going to discount a fare because the pax carry their own food and bedding for the infant.

I am not unsympathetic to the disappointment you feel regarding the cost you were quoted; lots of things cost more than I wish they did, too...

[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Yes it's my decision to sail or not and I do as I like the product they offer although it's more expensive than I would like.

P and O will calculate the port fees and taxes based upon expected occupancy and the anticipated age range of that occupancy based upon trends and past sailings so it won't be as simple as a 'soul'.

Yes my children poop and pee but this will be less than an adult and if my children 'spit up', I clean up the mess as I would not expect anyone to do this for me.

I gather you don't have children, hence the unsympathetic view.

I have booked 2 cabins for next year for roughly the same as I would have been paying for 1 (as is my sister for that matter who is coming with us), therefore P and O are potentially losing out on 2 cabins spending heavily in the bars and shops as we will spend the same regardless of if we were in 1 cabin or 2.

Again I am not complaining, I think it is unfair. If I didn't want to pay it then I wouldn't.

[quote name='richleeds']The trouble is where does it end? You want P&O to have more complex child fares when most people are crying out for fare simplicity. P&O are dammed if they do and damned if they don't. They have to take an overall look at the net cost of a child on board and the fact that your particular child did or did not use a certain facility or only ate fish fingers is immaterial in the bigger picture.

We never use the free room service, never snack between meals with afternoon tea etc, always buy sparkling water when others get it free from the jug, only have simple salad lunches and muesli at breakfast, pay a decent bar bill at the end of the cruise, can we get a discount compared to the people who stuff their faces 24-7?![/QUOTE]

I'm not saying they need to complicate the pricing structure, far from it. The net cost of a child on board will vary significantly for a 2 year old to a 16 year old and therefore eating fish fingers certainly does come into it. P and O are a global organisation and will have complex pricing structures showing estimated costs per passenger. I am merely saying that maybe the structure should be based upon the children's club they are in so for instance 0-2 40% of the adult fare, 2-5 50% of the adult fare and so on. Paying 80% of the adult fare for a 2 year old and a 16 year old is totally disproportionate.

As for then saying that you only have light breakfast and lunches, well that is your choice and as an adult you can weigh up whether you are getting value for money. All that I am saying is that it is expensive for a 2 year old but that is a choice I take by booking the holiday. I am paying nearly £5,500 for the 4 of us next year, if we didn't have children then it would be half and good value for money. Is it justified to be paying £2,750 for a 2 and 7 year old? I don't think so but I like the product and will pay it but that doesn't make it fair. If I had 16 year old twins, well it would be a different story.

For the record I don't attend any talks, do any activities on board or such like so I don't get full value for money but that is my choice which I am more than happy with.

My main gripe is the pricing structure for children and I think it could be more fair.

As I mentioned earlier I can't book last minute due to holidays at work for my wife and child places availability as P and O will only let a certain amount of children on per cruise and if the capacity is taken then we wouldn't get on.

I can understand why P and O do it as it's basically supply and demand and the cruise we are booked on I would imagine it being the most popular of the school holidays. However if you look at all of the cruises throughout the school holidays the child price varies greatly. I'm pretty sure if it was a 2 week cruise to the fjords going the same date then the price of a child would not be 80% of the adult fare.

I actually think the prices charged for children are unfair. We have booked to go on Britannia in August 2015 with our children who will then be aged 7 and 2. It was cheaper for me to buy 2 inside cabins than to pay for a 4 berth inside cabin due to the full on board credit we will be receiving and the 80% of the full adult fare we would have been charged for our children.

 

Therefore those who argue that the space could be sold to somebody with an older child, yes it could but I now have 2 cabins and the second cabin could have been sold to 2 adults who spend heavily on board. As it is now we will spend the same as we would if we had only 1 cabin.

 

My problem with children's fares is that they are the same whether you are 2 or 16. My 2 year old will not eat anywhere near what a 16 year old will eat next year. Before anybody says that she will use the children's clubs, when my 7 year old was 2 she wouldn't entertain the children's club as she wasn't used to staying with anybody but family as our parents had her whilst we were at work. So she may only be using the night nursery (which is excellent by the way). She will be eating food but it will be the children's tea which will be chicken nuggets and such like. Whereas a 16 year old will be eating far more.

 

In my view the fares should be staggered like the kids clubs (2-4, 4-8 etc). I don't think paying 80% of the adult fare is acceptable for the age range. Also P & O must make quite a bit of money from ice cream sales, soft drinks and in the on board shops from children. My daughters will want ice cream and not free tea, coffee, orange, water etc from the restaurants.

 

I have cruised several times with family and my Auntie and Uncle regularly spend around £200/£300 per cruise in total after their on board credit whereas we spend £1,500+.

 

When our daughters were under 2 we brought all their food and milk and had very little provided from P and O. That was our choice as looking back we were very over protective but we still had to pay a flat fee of around £299. We would however use the night nursery.

 

Don't get me wrong I am by no means slagging P and O off as they provide an excellent product that suites our family and their children's facilities are second to none. I just think the fares could be better for younger children.

 

One final point is that we generally have to pay more as we have to book as soon as the brochure comes out as children's places get filled up quickly and we are at a disadvantage as we can't risk leaving it late to book to get any better prices. This is due to my wife having to put her holidays in a year in advance too.