Should P&O stop going to St Peter Port?

[AndyMichelle]

20 minutes ago, ozzysdad said:

Just to set the record straight I am no conspiracy theorist I am merely posting my opinion and all the relevant info I have to hand, others can make of it that they will.

 

On the whole the whole cruise was a bit of a disaster, unsupervised unruly kids in cabins either side of us, half hour to one hour waits for evening meal in the mdr, missed port in Guernsey, docking in the industrial port of Ljmuiden as opposed to the centre of Amsterdam which was the USP for us and a general disappointment with the day time activities on the many sea days we had on a seven day cruise.

 

My motto is always that a bad days cruising is better than a good day at work but I must say that this cruise didn't really live up to my not so high expectations and with a deposit paid on a future cruise we are reluctant to commit at the minute, our week with P & O was topped off by an argument that got physical that wouldn't of looked out of place on the set of Jeremy Kyle - shameful  behaviour from adults who should of known better in front of mainly children.

Sorry to hear that, it doesn't sound much fun.

Be thankful for Ijmuiden as I believe Amsterdam had as bad a success rate as Guernsey.

Andy

[Bazrat]

By the amount of posters who are never going to sail with p&o again should make for a quiet time on here.

on the other hand it should also make booking easier less people on board no fighting of the buffet etc.

[ozzysdad]

Just now, Bazrat said:

By the amount of posters who are never going to sail with p&o again should make for a quiet time on here.

on the other hand it should also make booking easier less people on board no fighting of the buffet etc.

I didn't say I was never going to cruise again with P & O, despite the disappointment there are still plenty of positives and we will learn some lessons ourselves, I must say the food, service and shows produced  in the theatre were first class, as was the embarking and disembarkation process.

[Bazrat]

8 minutes ago, ozzysdad said:

I didn't say I was never going to cruise again with P & O, despite the disappointment there are still plenty of positives and we will learn some lessons ourselves, I must say the food, service and shows produced  in the theatre were first class, as was the embarking and disembarkation process.

No names mentioned my friend just a general comment 

[P&O SUE]

I would just like to add (and I have missed St Peter's Port 3 times out of 3!) that it's the swell there that is the problem. Notorious apparently.

I'm sure they don't want to miss a port because of the hassle they'd get from passengers as well as the refunding of the tours etc. Also they have to re-arrange extra activites for an unexpected sea day. On Brittania in 2017 we had an extra lecture from the onboard speaker and extra films etc.

[sogne]

13 hours ago, docco said:

And the specific reference to a 'Force 8' - which seems to fly completely in the face of all the facts?

I dont know I was not here, were you?  log says upto F8  as I said  easterly winds blowing for some days  right down channel would probably built up an inshore swell not obvious form the anchorage point.  This with the numerous offlying rocks  not to mention Herm  lying just offshore from St PP might well have created a confused sea state in shallower water. The CI lying across the main tidal streams create very difficult currents which the ship tenders together with  swell possibly breaking over the approach might well have been too much for the tenders and not least the passengers. Having tendered many times in calm conditions I an amazed how  some com[plain later that it was dangerous and should not have happened. I can honestly say that I have never disagreed with decisions  to cancel tendering and so miss a port  You seem to be suggesting that the captain and the pilot  are making things up or worse that the pilot's opinion has been falsified. Assuming you are not a airline pilot have you ever questioned the pilot of any plane  you have been passenger on any decisions he has made?

Edited April 20, 2019 by sogne

[grapau27]

1 hour ago, sogne said:

I dont know I was not here, were you?  log says upto F8  as I said  easterly winds blowing for some days  right down channel would probably built up an inshore swell not obvious form the anchorage point.  This with the numerous offlying rocks  not to mention Herm  lying just offshore from St PP might well have created a confused sea state in shallower water. The CI lying across the main tidal streams create very difficult currents which the ship tenders together with  swell possibly breaking over the approach might well have been too much for the tenders and not least the passengers. Having tendered many times in calm conditions I an amazed how  some com[plain later that it was dangerous and should not have happened. I can honestly say that I have never disagreed with decisions  to cancel tendering and so miss a port  You seem to be suggesting that the captain and the pilot  are making things up or worse that the pilot's opinion has been falsified. Assuming you are not a airline pilot have you ever questioned the pilot of any plane  you have been passenger on any decisions he has made?

Excellent post.

We like St Peter port and missed it on our first visit but have been lucky the next 7 times 

Usually the ships go there on a Sunday when some of the shops are closed.

On RC you just queue for the tenders when you want which is great and much more convenient and quicker.

On P&O as most of you probably know you have to queue first just to get a tender ticket then have to wait again until your tender number is called out.

Even though the waves look small from the ship getting on and off the tenders here can be quite scary with the swell 

[john watson]

15 hours ago, Bazrat said:

Sogne if I was you I would give up the minority believe p&o are just doing a cost saving exercise by not stopping,you will never persuade them otherwise.

 

I am wondering if this line of thinking stand up to scrutiny.  Does a cruise line have to pay any fees for a no show whether a berth was booked or an anchorage arranged?    In the event of not stopping at a port, I am thinking that the passengers booked in on shore excursions will be refunded.  This will not be financially good for the cruise line. The only way I think the cruise line could benefit is if it could arrange a late alternative port with a financial incentive from the new port, but they would presumably be out of pocket from the one they missed.

 

Regards John

Edited April 20, 2019 by john watson

[Harry Peterson]

1 hour ago, sogne said:

I dont know I was not here, were you?  log says upto F8  as I said  easterly winds blowing for some days  right down channel would probably built up an inshore swell not obvious form the anchorage point.  This with the numerous offlying rocks  not to mention Herm  lying just offshore from St PP might well have created a confused sea state in shallower water. The CI lying across the main tidal streams create very difficult currents which the ship tenders together with  swell possibly breaking over the approach might well have been too much for the tenders and not least the passengers. Having tendered many times in calm conditions I an amazed how  some com[plain later that it was dangerous and should not have happened. I can honestly say that I have never disagreed with decisions  to cancel tendering and so miss a port  You seem to be suggesting that the captain and the pilot  are making things up or worse that the pilot's opinion has been falsified. Assuming you are not a airline pilot have you ever questioned the pilot of any plane  you have been passenger on any decisions he has made?

I do see where you're coming from, and in previous years I'd never have questioned any decision made by any captain - or indeed any cruise line.  There was never any need to.

 

However, since Carnival took control of P&O things have changed, and this is the sort of thing that now goes on in the name of increasing profits:

 

http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/carnival-cruise-ships-continue-to-dump-waste-despite-sanctions/

 

P&O used to act as an honourable company, and you could rely on its statements.  That's all changed now, and they seem to be adopting Trump's policy of saying whatever you like in the hope that nobody challenges it.  

 

There never was anything like a Force 8 gale in that area at that time - that's very clear from the meteorological reports.  There may well have been other reasons for cancelling (possibly the age/disability profile of the passengers) but the Force 8 reference is just plain wrong.  If there was a good reason, that wasn't it, and I don't like misinformation.

 

P&O simply can't be relied on to tell the truth any more.  When all the TV channels were out of action on Azura recently for several days, the information they gave out throughout was completely false.  Likewise the pricing fiasco a few months back.  And they still refuse to admit the real reason for the switch from Amsterdam to Ijmuiden - presumably because they know it will lay them open to compensation claims.

 

Trust is a precious thing, and P&O have shown time after time that they play fast and loose with it.  And it's turned this family in the space of a fairly short time from keen P&O customers to people who have little faith in the company any more.

[majortom10]

3 minutes ago, docco said:

I do see where you're coming from, and in previous years I'd never have questioned any decision made by any captain - or indeed any cruise line.  There was never any need to.

 

However, since Carnival took control of P&O things have changed, and this is the sort of thing that now goes on in the name of increasing profits:

 

http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/carnival-cruise-ships-continue-to-dump-waste-despite-sanctions/

 

P&O used to act as an honourable company, and you could rely on its statements.  That's all changed now, and they seem to be adopting Trump's policy of saying whatever you like in the hope that nobody challenges it.  

 

There never was anything like a Force 8 gale in that area at that time - that's very clear from the meteorological reports.  There may well have been other reasons for cancelling (possibly the age/disability profile of the passengers) but the Force 8 reference is just plain wrong.  If there was a good reason, that wasn't it, and I don't like misinformation.

 

P&O simply can't be relied on to tell the truth any more.  When all the TV channels were out of action on Azura recently for several days, the information they gave out throughout was completely false.  Likewise the pricing fiasco a few months back.  And they still refuse to admit the real reason for the switch from Amsterdam to Ijmuiden - presumably because they know it will lay them open to compensation claims.

 

Trust is a precious thing, and P&O have shown time after time that they play fast and loose with it.  And it's turned this family in the space of a fairly short time from keen P&O customers to people who have little faith in the company any more.

P&O merged with Carnival in 2003 that was over 16yrs ago what in the world hasnt changed in that time. I first started cruising with P&O in 2000 and had many excellent cruises with them before and after 2003 so did not see any significant change since the merger. It is only this last 5yrs or so that I have been disillusioned with P&O and their product and moved to other cruise lines.

[majortom10]

16 minutes ago, john watson said:

 

I am wondering if this line of thinking stand up to scrutiny.  Does a cruise line have to pay any fees for a no show whether a berth was booked or an anchorage arranged?    In the event of not stopping at a port, I am thinking that the passengers booked in on shore excursions will be refunded.  This will not be financially good for the cruise line. The only way I think the cruise line could benefit is if it could arrange a late alternative port with a financial incentive from the new port, but they would presumably be out of pocket from the one they missed.

 

Regards John

I believe that if a cruise ship doesnt dock or anchor it has to pay any fees. On our last Princess cruise we landed at Guernsey with no problems but on our way to Dublin the ship broke down and we missed the port the very next day we received a letter top our cabin saying that as we hadnt docked at Dublin we would be reimbursed port fees/taxes to our onboard account and amount in compensation as a recompense for the ship breaking down. Later on in the cruise we missed our call to Kirkwall and once again port fees/taxes were automatically given back to our onboard account the next day. So I do not believe that port fees/taxes are paid if the ship doesnt dock but of course P&O include port fees/taxes in the cruise fare unlike in America where it is separate and missed many ports with P&O over the years but have never had port fees/taxes reimbursed even when asked for them to be returned and the money automatically goes into P&Os pockets as 100% pure profit.

[Harry Peterson]

9 minutes ago, majortom10 said:

P&O merged with Carnival in 2003 that was over 16yrs ago what in the world hasnt changed in that time. I first started cruising with P&O in 2000 and had many excellent cruises with them before and after 2003 so did not see any significant change since the merger. It is only this last 5yrs or so that I have been disillusioned with P&O and their product and moved to other cruise lines.

You and me both then, though even as recently as six months ago we were quite happy to book two more cruises with P&O.  We'd had the odd bad experience, but overall they represented good value for money.

 

The recent Azura cruise, and the problems we had (along with the couldn't care less attitude from the customer service people), changed all that.  And it was compounded by the switch from Amsterdam to Ijmuiden without accepting that it represented a 'major change to the package'.

 

So in the space of three months I've been converted from a supporter to a detractor.  I used to recommend P&O to friends and relatives - I now actively dissuade them.  And all down to P&O's refusal to take perfectly genuine customer issues seriously. 

[john watson]

In recent times P&O cruises which used to be an autonomous independent cruise line, is now managed with an over all control by Carnival Corporation.  Major decisions like new ships seem to be centrally ordered and allocated by the central management of the corporation.  An example  of this is Queen Victoria/Arcadia and new huge ships suddenly arriving and others departing the fleet.  I wonder how much influence comes down to the day to day running of cruises.  Certainly Amsterdam ifs corporation wide, but how much else is decided by them also?   If there is a policy on anything, it might not emanate from P&O.  Do not forget that Carnival Corporation have had to face some major problems in the last decade or so; fatal tendering accidents, Costa Concordia and pollution fines.  Most problems are unrelated to P&O.

 

Regards John

[CarlaMarie]

In regards to the Ventura cruise and not being able to anchor in Guernsey, the weather in this area was not calm at all. We had high winds in the channel when she should have anchored which caused a slight swell. This caused issues for the pilot boat (my dad has photos of the pilot boat).  Although the wind decreased about midday, it picked up again late afternoon which would again have affected the tender operations. 

 

This area is notorious, and although it may not seem to you to be visually rough the reality is very different. The channel is rocky and with the winds/swell the Captain made the right decision to keep everyone safe. 

 

[CarlaMarie]

1 hour ago, CarlaMarie said:

In regards to the Ventura cruise and not being able to anchor in Guernsey, the weather in this area was not calm at all. We had high winds in the channel when she should have anchored which caused a slight swell. This caused issues for the pilot boat (my dad has photos of the pilot boat).  Although the wind decreased about midday, it picked up again late afternoon which would again have affected the tender operations. 

 

This area is notorious, and although it may not seem to you to be visually rough the reality is very different. The channel is rocky and with the winds/swell the Captain made the right decision to keep everyone safe. 

 

I should have said the Captain and Pilot made the right decision, and the pilots know their seas and weather better then anyone else. 

[Bazrat]

4 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

I think it would be good if because of the unstable conditions around Guernsey that P&O had a back up port to visit when they usually know in advance that tendering won't be possible at St Peter Port.

I thought that as well but thinking about the logistics would the standby port be keen on having to keep a dock clear on the off chance of a visit.

[grapau27]

2 minutes ago, Bazrat said:

I thought that as well but thinking about the logistics would the standby port be keen on having to keep a dock clear on the off chance of a visit.

We have visited Rotterdam twice when Le Havre was cancelled.

[Bazrat]

6 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

We have visited Rotterdam twice when Le Havre was cancelled.

I am on the 3day taster cruise so I would guess there would not be time to change the port if they cannot use the tenders 

[grapau27]

2 minutes ago, Bazrat said:

I am on the 3day taster cruise so I would guess there would not be time to change the port if they cannot use the tenders 

Le Havre cancellation was on a 3 day cruise on RCCL and they took us to Rotterdam instead.

Ports are happy if 2000+ passengers are going to get off and spend money.

[mercury7289]

Nothing on the telly?

 

 

[grapau27]

6 minutes ago, mercury7289 said:

Nothing on the telly?

 

 

No.

Busy reading cruise brochures.

[mercury7289]

Only look at one,

 

Like the pictures!

[grapau27]

9 minutes ago, mercury7289 said:

Only look at one,

 

Like the pictures!

We are high loyalty on RCCL,Princess and P&O so I look at all 3 brochures.

[mercury7289]

Most of my loyalty, has been on the Serpentine with 2 oars

 

Happy days

 

But no prizes!

[daiB]

6 hours ago, CarlaMarie said:

In regards to the Ventura cruise and not being able to anchor in Guernsey, the weather in this area was not calm at all. We had high winds in the channel when she should have anchored which caused a slight swell. This caused issues for the pilot boat (my dad has photos of the pilot boat).  Although the wind decreased about midday, it picked up again late afternoon which would again have affected the tender operations. 

 

This area is notorious, and although it may not seem to you to be visually rough the reality is very different. The channel is rocky and with the winds/swell the Captain made the right decision to keep everyone safe. 

 

 

Noticeable that your facts have been ignored. Possibly because it did not conform to some people’s conspiracy theories.

 

The difficulties with this port have been known for years. Not a surprise that it was missed with the conditions you describe.

 

What people have failed to say is that the reason for going here is to do with being able to offer duty free as Guernsay is not classed as being in the EU.