Port Arrival and Departure Times

[Selbourne]

The slow running is not quite true either. It was about 4 years ago when oil was high and Carnival told all their companies to slow down. That only lasted a short tome. On Arcadia October last year the usual speed was 19 to 21 for most of the cruise.when they go direct to Funchal they generally cruise at about 15/16 but that is only to arrive at the correct time none of the ships have the speed to get there a full day earlier.

 

After the slowing down happened and then the return to normal I have bee taking note of the speed of the ships I travel on.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

 

I shall take note on our future cruises. As you know, the newer big ships have slower top speeds than the likes of Oriana and Arcadia, so even flat out are slower than cruising speeds of yesteryear. On our recent 4 day short cruise on Ventura we were going at less than 10 knots for quite prolonged periods. I overheard one passenger exclaiming "this isn't a cruise, it's a 'float'" :')

[tring]

I think the slower cruising speeds is partly to do with pollution for the Fred ships, which run on heavy oil - they have had to slow down to comply with new output controls. Not sure if that is a factor with any of the P&O ships which are newer than Fred's.

[daiB]

I shall take note on our future cruises. As you know, the newer big ships have slower top speeds than the likes of Oriana and Arcadia, so even flat out are slower than cruising speeds of yesteryear. On our recent 4 day short cruise on Ventura we were going at less than 10 knots for quite prolonged periods. I overheard one passenger exclaiming "this isn't a cruise, it's a 'float'" :')

 

 

I don't do 4 day cruises, too far to travel to Southampton. Some cruise by their nature i.e. With ports close together will result in slower speeds but that was always the case.

 

On Ventura last year we were past Madeira and had a medical emergency. The captain made the decision to put his foot down for Barbados. We arrived mid afternoon 14/5 hours early. So clearly we could not have made the port by the morning before. So the speed of the ship is often determined by the reasonable arrival time at the next port which may mean 17 knots rather than 21.

 

Anyway we are on a cruise not a race.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[Selbourne]

I think they do care but there is always a very good explanation. Which of course people do not believe. So they are between a rock and a hard place.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

 

Sometimes people are right not to believe the explanation. I have concrete evidence that they lie. In the example I gave, they gave some spurious reason about too many ships being in port. I contacted the port manager who (much to my surprise) provided me with precise dates of when each ship was booked and when and for what reason they were cancelled. Britannia was 'bumped' at the express request of the parent company in order to get Queen Elizabeth in. He was pretty hacked off about it as he also told me that P&O had cancelled 6 port calls by Britannia in one year only. I cannot divulge much more about how P&O resolved the issue as I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, but any belief that there is always a good explanation and that it's just being cynical to doubt them is, I'm afraid, severely misplaced.

[daiB]

Well there must have been a reason and I have a good idea of the ports involved but I have a problem in seeing the advantage to the company of doing it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[Selbourne]

Well there must have been a reason and I have a good idea of the ports involved but I have a problem in seeing the advantage to the company of doing it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

 

Not that I'm saying this was the reason for the change necessarily, but there was a clear advantage for them as a result of this change. The cruise ended up being over 300 miles shorter than advertised. With a ship the size of Britannia, I should imagine that the fuel saving as a result of this shortened itinerary was significant. And it happened 6 times in one year for this ship alone. Were passengers given a part refund to compensate for the shorter route and significantly less desireable ports? Of course not! P&O wins every time.

[daiB]

Not that I'm saying this was the reason for the change necessarily, but there was a clear advantage for them as a result of this change. The cruise ended up being over 300 miles shorter than advertised. With a ship the size of Britannia, I should imagine that the fuel saving as a result of this shortened itinerary was significant. And it happened 6 times in one year for this ship alone. Were passengers given a part refund to compensate for the shorter route and significantly less desireable ports? Of course not! P&O wins every time.

300 mile over a year hardly a major saving thinking of the millions of miles travelled each year by the fleet. Not a plausible reason.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Forums mobile app

[Selbourne]

300 mile over a year hardly a major saving thinking of the millions of miles travelled each year by the fleet. Not a plausible reason.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Forums mobile app

 

300 miles x 6 times in one year = 1,800 miles. That's just one ship and one port. I have no idea what the total tally for all ships is over a year for all alterations in all ports, but I'd suggest it equates to a sum of money that is not insignificant. You said you could see no advantage for them. I can.

[daiB]

300 miles x 6 times in one year = 1,800 miles. That's just one ship and one port. I have no idea what the total tally for all ships is over a year for all alterations in all ports, but I'd suggest it equates to a sum of money that is not insignificant. You said you could see no advantage for them. I can.

 

 

Sorry I do not buy that at all for a small saving in fuel they are going to miss the same port 6 times in a year. There must be some other factor which we do not know about.

 

You seem to indicate that this is a regular feature of P&O cruising. Well in nearly 500 nights of cruising we have missed 4 ports. Vigo, because of very bad weather. La Corunna for the same reason. This gave us a overnight in Tenerife. Cadiz, fog port authorities would not let us in and Guernsey

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[jeanlyon]

Actually if you look at the timings of the excursions, they give a very good idea of what time you will arrive and leave. I tend to look at the ship schedule at each port of call. Ships have to book their calls very early.

[jenny wren]

We use cruisecal dot com , print off the itinerary and take it with us...We also leave copies with the children so they know where we are....It also tells you what other ships are in port which can be useful!

[Ehg]

I was about to answer the OP by saying that our TA website gives arrival and departure times on the cruise itinerary details on their website. However, having just checked the cruisecal information the timings are in some cases vastly different - an example is for our forthcoming cruise on Aurora our departure from Oslo is given as 1500hrs on our TA website - on Cruisecal it's 2200hrs! Hope it is 2200hrs....[emoji51]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[jeanlyon]

Is it for 26th May, because the Port of Oslo gives the timings as 0900-1800?

 

http://crew-center.com/oslo-norway-cruise-ship-arrival-schedule-2017

[Ehg]

Yes it jolly well is, so there is yet another departure time thrown in to the mix!! [emoji848]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[tring]

I think the port authorities are by far the most accurate, but takes a lot of searching for diff authorities and many are not available - especially in less developed countries, as their websites do not seem as good, and we travel to a lot of those.

[Mrs Tinkywinky]

I think the port authorities are by far the most accurate, but takes a lot of searching for diff authorities and many are not available - especially in less developed countries, as their websites do not seem as good, and we travel to a lot of those.

I quite agree . I have now been into all the recommended websites and they all differ , not by a huge amount admittidly. I have also been into the port authorities own websites and What's in Port and those timings are similar so I would tend to believe their timings are more accurate.

[bee-ess]

Personally in the last couple of cruises I've not found Cruisecal that good. Last time I emailed P&O and asked for the times and they sent them to me and they were 100% accurate. But, it is pot luck with P&O who answers the email.

I think that a lot of the websites just show the times that the berth is booked for and not the times that the ships plan to arrive and leave which is a different thing.

[jeanlyon]

Yes it jolly well is, so there is yet another departure time thrown in to the mix!! [emoji848]

 

I would definitely trust the Port of Oslo website to be accurate. Do let us know if it is.

[LondonTowner]

Like one of the other posters I have rung both Fred and P and O and requested the timings. They were given to me straight away.