Will P&O now delay announcements for future cruise pauses?

[MX-Drew]

Well I'm just about to book a land based Bangkok/Phuket holiday as we want to have a good wander around on our own and I don't know how long the "forced" bubble excursions will go one for. 

My point here is that the cruise industry has lost out due to lack of information. Whilst I understand they can't say when any restrictions will end they can say what will control those decisions much like Boris' roadmap. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by MX-Drew

[wowzz]

1 hour ago, MX-Drew said:

Well I'm just about to book a land based Bangkok/Phuket holiday as we want to have a good wander around on our own and I don't know how long the "forced" bubble excursions will go one for. 

My point here is that the cruise industry has lost out due to lack of information. Whilst I understand they can't say when any restrictions will end they can say what will control those decisions much like Boris' roadmap. 

I can understand your frustration, but I guess part of the issue is that the cruise lines are dependent on the decisions of other governments, not just the UK. Until guidance is given from countries like Spain and Italy, it is difficult for the likes of P&O to say anything meaningful.

Edited February 28, 2021 by wowzz

[mercury7289]

22 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

I believe April 12th has been mentioned as the date for a  travel update including cruising from the Govt. If that's the case then I think P&O might wait till then for any major announcement, apart from the odd tweak to the balance period so that no one needs to pay before then.

I have read through the road map, as published again,cannot find any reference to cruising either positive or negative, so where has the including cruising come from please? 

Like Selbourne have I missed something?

[Splice the mainbrace]

14 minutes ago, mercury7289 said:

I have read through the road map, as published again,cannot find any reference to cruising either positive or negative, so where has the including cruising come from please? 

Like Selbourne have I missed something?

 

This is the only direct reference that I can find in the Gov document:

 

It is also the case that global restrictions have hit airlines, airports, cruise and travel operators particularly hard. The resumption of safe travel will be particularly important for these businesses.

[zap99]

29 minutes ago, mercury7289 said:

I have read through the road map, as published again,cannot find any reference to cruising either positive or negative, so where has the including cruising come from please? 

Like Selbourne have I missed something?

From memory, paragraph 140, or 141.

[arlowood]

18 minutes ago, Splice the mainbrace said:

 

This is the only direct reference that I can find in the Gov document:

 

It is also the case that global restrictions have hit airlines, airports, cruise and travel operators particularly hard. The resumption of safe travel will be particularly important for these businesses.

All I have been able to find is a comment that, after Boris's roadmap disclosure, there will be a "Global Travel Taskforce" set up to review international travel and report back by 12th April. The cruise industry is "hopeful" that they will have a voice on this Taskforce but nothing explicit has been published as far as I can see.

Edited February 28, 2021 by arlowood

[zap99]

43 minutes ago, mercury7289 said:

I have read through the road map, as published again,cannot find any reference to cruising either positive or negative, so where has the including cruising come from please? 

Like Selbourne have I missed something?

Apologies, paragraphs 139&140. That's page 68.

Edited February 28, 2021 by zap99

[arlowood]

6 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Apologies, paragraphs 139&140. That's page 68.

Thanks Zap - yes the cruise industry is mentioned in the penultimate sentence of para 139 - so hopefully they will be represented on the Taskforce that reports on 12th April.

[Captain_Morgan]

Playing Devil's Advocate here and trying to see things from all sides, its important to remember that when it comes to FCC, no company or cruise line is obligated to give people anything shy of a refund for monies paid.  The notion of a FCC is in reality a goodwill gesture for allowing the consumer to essentially provide (in this case) P&O an interest free loan whereby the FCC could be considered a return on said loan/investment.

I understand that some are holding out on cancelling because they want the return in the form of the FCC for the trouble, but complaining that they've not yet had their trip cancelled thus triggering a 'bonus' of sorts is a bit like playing chicken and hoping that P&O blink first.

I suppose the point is that if you've got money tied up that you're not bothered about than carry on and wait for whatever happens one way or  the other,  but if you're expecting a cash-strapped enterprise to throw money at your feet because you're getting impatient I think its going to end up in more stress for the individual than the company.

At the end of the day, P&O likely doesn't know or care (sorry to be so blunt) who we are as consumers and as such couldn't care less if we choose to move our choice of holiday to a competitor in future as this is the beauty of a competitive market.

[zap99]

6 minutes ago, arlowood said:

Thanks Zap - yes the cruise industry is mentioned in the penultimate sentence of para 139 - so hopefully they will be represented on the Taskforce that reports on 12th April.

I seem to recall from about a week ago  that being the general conclusion. It seemed to be the feeling that it was a good thing that cruising was lumped in with overseas travel and holidays in general, rather than being singled out. Obviously wait and see time. We may get a cruise in on our trip to Cornwall in May, or at least a trip round the bay.🤣

 

 

[mercury7289]

22 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Apologies, paragraphs 139&140. That's page 68.

Got It thanks!

[Selbourne]

17 minutes ago, arlowood said:

Thanks Zap - yes the cruise industry is mentioned in the penultimate sentence of para 139 - so hopefully they will be represented on the Taskforce that reports on 12th April.

That was the sole reference to cruising that I could find. Although the travel task force will undoubtedly include cruising, I still maintain that the resumption of cruising will be treated very differently to the resumption of overseas travel by air, for two reasons.
 

Firstly the fact that, whether we agree with it or not, air travel has been deemed safer in a Covid world than cruising (the former continuing whilst the latter has been banned) so it follows (to me, anyway) that air tourism could open up some time before cruise tourism. Secondly, the document refers to the economic impact of the reduction in air travel on UK industry, given that we have a big aero industry, encompassing aircraft & engine manufacture, aero systems etc. Cruising, in comparison, has negligible UK based infrastructure and no manufacturing base, so the economic impact has been far less.

 

For these reasons and others, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they adopt the same approach to cruising as they are doing to other aspects of the road map e.g. open up air tourism and assess for 5 weeks before allowing cruises. 

 

[Son of Anarchy]

I wonder whether the apparent lack of uptake of vaccination in some European countries will have an impact on the Govt's decisions on international travel to those countries?  ie Covid test prior to return, self isolation etc.

[nosapphire]

17 hours ago, arlowood said:

Anyone fancy a class action suit to force P&O to cancel all cruises up to the 17th May. As described in Boris's roadmap there can be no international travel before 17th May at the earliest. Also the FCO ban on cruising is still in place so effectively P&O are sailing very close to the wind in legal terms by suggesting that the affected cruises are not cancelled.

I am being a bit tongue in cheek but it does make my blood boil to witness the Machiavellian machinations of the P&O management to try to postpone the inevitable.

No different from any other cruise line; not Machiavellian, not uncaring - just trying to survive.

Saga are still selling the cruise to the Baltic which departs 4th May - apart from the sailing date, I really cannot see an overnight in St.Petersburg being possible, let alone any of the other ports.

There is a thread on the Saga forum where Saga have started investigating whether people will be prepared to sail against FCO advice if indemnified by Saga insurance, so maybe P&O are waiting to find out what the results are before cancelling.

But ALL cruise lines are simply trying to survive - and yes, this does involve trying to get customers to leave money with them as long as possible.

[terrierjohn]

2 hours ago, arlowood said:

Thanks Zap - yes the cruise industry is mentioned in the penultimate sentence of para 139 - so hopefully they will be represented on the Taskforce that reports on 12th April.

The statement was commented on quite frequently on the TV news on the days after Boris's announcement, so I was rather surprised that only Zap and I picked it up.

[zap99]

2 hours ago, Selbourne said:

That was the sole reference to cruising that I could find. Although the travel task force will undoubtedly include cruising, I still maintain that the resumption of cruising will be treated very differently to the resumption of overseas travel by air, for two reasons.
 

Firstly the fact that, whether we agree with it or not, air travel has been deemed safer in a Covid world than cruising (the former continuing whilst the latter has been banned) so it follows (to me, anyway) that air tourism could open up some time before cruise tourism. Secondly, the document refers to the economic impact of the reduction in air travel on UK industry, given that we have a big aero industry, encompassing aircraft & engine manufacture, aero systems etc. Cruising, in comparison, has negligible UK based infrastructure and no manufacturing base, so the economic impact has been far less.

 

For these reasons and others, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they adopt the same approach to cruising as they are doing to other aspects of the road map e.g. open up air tourism and assess for 5 weeks before allowing cruises. 

 

Perhaps it will be the case that cruises will be singled out in the UK and air travel not. If that discrimination occurs in the UK, but not in other countries an NCL, Celebrity, RCI etc fly cruise to the med will be an option. The UK based cruise companies Fred,Saga may then feel a bit aggrieved. Alternatively all could be well. My vote is on that.

[No pager thank you]

I can see the principle that, at some point, cruise companies may wish to offer passengers the opportunity to travel against FCO advice, if they are indemnified by the relevant company.  I'm not sure that I would, but that is a matter of personal choice and for each passenger to make, when in possession of the relevant information.

 

However, in any event, that point is not by mid May.  Until that point, international travel is illegal for leisure and holiday purposes via all modes.  No company can provide an indemnity from applicable national law.

 

Just this morning, the Government (via the Chancellor) again reiterated that the roadmap are the earliest possible dates.  Of all the Ministers in the Cabinet, he is widely assumed to be one in favour of a quicker economic restart.  I do wonder if they are trying something clever under their flags of convenience, but I don't see how if they depart from a UK port.

 

On the point about FCC, it is fair point to say that entitlement to a bonus, it is indeed a privilege of sorts and should not be seen an expectation (whether at 10, 25% or some other amount). 

 

This is even though FCC's often have negative real value, depending on how and when they are used.

 

However, access to a cash refund us not a privilege, when the tour provider must cancel the package.  That's also the law, and it is being enforced by the CMA.  It doesn't matter how big or small that sum is, whether the passenger does or does not need the money, or how they will choose to spend, save, or invest it.

 

That brings me back to the point that this is simply prevarication from the cruise companies, including P&O.  If there is a negotiation being attempted to seek some sort of opt out from the roadmap, howsoever unlikely, then an update to this effect could be given.  The contents of any negotiation are commercially sensitive, the fact that it may be occurring is not.  These matters did not start when the roadmap was published, it's been going on for months.

 

What's really going on, in my estimation, is an internal/tactical Carnival discussion around how far to postpone by, possibly arising out of a miscalculation of how conservative (small C!) the Government roadmap was.  Also linked to redesign of the FCC package and brochure launch dates.

 

This should be possible to conclude - by Tuesday at 10am....

[shopaholic6]

22 hours ago, Captain_Morgan said:

Playing Devil's Advocate here and trying to see things from all sides, its important to remember that when it comes to FCC, no company or cruise line is obligated to give people anything shy of a refund for monies paid.  The notion of a FCC is in reality a goodwill gesture for allowing the consumer to essentially provide (in this case) P&O an interest free loan whereby the FCC could be considered a return on said loan/investment.

I understand that some are holding out on cancelling because they want the return in the form of the FCC for the trouble, but complaining that they've not yet had their trip cancelled thus triggering a 'bonus' of sorts is a bit like playing chicken and hoping that P&O blink first.

I suppose the point is that if you've got money tied up that you're not bothered about than carry on and wait for whatever happens one way or  the other,  but if you're expecting a cash-strapped enterprise to throw money at your feet because you're getting impatient I think its going to end up in more stress for the individual than the company.

At the end of the day, P&O likely doesn't know or care (sorry to be so blunt) who we are as consumers and as such couldn't care less if we choose to move our choice of holiday to a competitor in future as this is the beauty of a competitive market.

I just want my deposit back for the cruise P&O know full well I can't go on!!!

[MX-Drew]

13 hours ago, No pager thank you said:

I do wonder if they are trying something clever under their flags of convenience, but I don't see how if they depart from a UK port.

Interesting points made but whatever they try under their flags of convenience the passenger (if British) is still breaking the law and as you rightly say the cruise company cannot indemnify you against that.

So bottom line as far as I see it, the cruise company is snookered.  

[Captain_Morgan]

The Flags of Convenience  angle is only applicable with respect to corporate taxation and perhaps even labour issues; the latter of which can be argued under the variety of regulations in place through the likes of the IMO, etc.

I think the reality is that P&O will only resume cruising when they've been given the nod from the gov't and not before as it would be wholly damning to their brand and the larger corporation if they were to have a Diamond Princess type incident as a result of going it alone and trying to skirt the regulations.

[sidekick180]

23 hours ago, Captain_Morgan said:

Playing Devil's Advocate here and trying to see things from all sides, its important to remember that when it comes to FCC, no company or cruise line is obligated to give people anything shy of a refund for monies paid.  The notion of a FCC is in reality a goodwill gesture for allowing the consumer to essentially provide (in this case) P&O an interest free loan whereby the FCC could be considered a return on said loan/investment.

I understand that some are holding out on cancelling because they want the return in the form of the FCC for the trouble, but complaining that they've not yet had their trip cancelled thus triggering a 'bonus' of sorts is a bit like playing chicken and hoping that P&O blink first.

I suppose the point is that if you've got money tied up that you're not bothered about than carry on and wait for whatever happens one way or  the other,  but if you're expecting a cash-strapped enterprise to throw money at your feet because you're getting impatient I think its going to end up in more stress for the individual than the company.

At the end of the day, P&O likely doesn't know or care (sorry to be so blunt) who we are as consumers and as such couldn't care less if we choose to move our choice of holiday to a competitor in future as this is the beauty of a competitive market.

Just to pick up on a couple of points you made.

I am not being impatient, I have been waiting a long time for P&O to announce that the cruise I have booked for April 2021 will be cancelled.

My April 2020 cruise was cancelled so I booked this years cruise at that point, hoping that the virus would be dealt with by then. Since about September 2020 it was obvious that the cruise would probably not go ahead, but I remained hopeful, which is why I didn't transfer the cruise.

I have also been holding back for the possible FCC because, my cruise is already paid for in full. The cruise I would now like to book for 2022 is about £500 more expensive for fewer nights. I cannot afford that extra cost, so the FCC would enable me to book the cruise next year.

Also, it's not a game of chicken. The cruise in April cannot go ahead, so I am simply wanting P&O to announce the obvious, which is that the cruise has to be cancelled.

The main purpose of the FCC, as far as I am aware, is an incentive by P&O to get guests not to request full refunds and opt for the FCC instead. This enables them to keep hold of monies paid, which I assume they would then invest and gain interest from.

So your point about them throwing money at my feet is nonesense. They would simply be giving me back what they have had, but more importantly, they would keep me as a loyal customer.

Obviously, I am bothered about the money I have tied up with them. I'm not one of their rich customers and my income has been seriously affected by the pandemic, so if they annonce that the cruise is cancelled I can then make the decision to accept the FCC if it is offered, or I can opt for a refund, but at least I would have that choice.   

[tring]

25 minutes ago, sidekick180 said:

 

The main purpose of the FCC, as far as I am aware, is an incentive by P&O to get guests not to request full refunds and opt for the FCC instead. This enables them to keep hold of monies paid, which I assume they would then invest and gain interest from.

 

 

Carnival Corporation are actually borrowing money at rates like 10%.  Not going to get good borrowing rates with the condition the cruise industry is in at present.  

[Captain_Morgan]

9 minutes ago, sidekick180 said:

 

 

My April 2020 cruise was cancelled so I booked this years cruise at that point, hoping that the virus would be dealt with by then. - As did many others I'm sure

Since about September 2020 it was obvious that the cruise would probably not go ahead, but I remained hopeful, which is why I didn't transfer the cruise. - So you knew it wasn't going to ahead, 7 months prior but still waited just in case?

I have also been holding back for the possible FCC because, my cruise is already paid for in full. - So this is the actual answer to the previous point, which is fine but why not just say it in the first place? 

The cruise I would now like to book for 2022 is about £500 more expensive for fewer nights. I cannot afford that extra cost, so the FCC would enable me to book the cruise next year.  Higher prices are to be expected and have been discussed numerous times so this should come as no surprise.

Also, it's not a game of chicken. The cruise in April cannot go ahead, so I am simply wanting P&O to announce the obvious, which is that the cruise has to be cancelled.  As you stated above, you want P&O to cancel so you can get a FCC in order to cover the cost of another cruise in future and by doing so you're waiting for them to make the first move, when you could just as easily cancel and receive a full refund for monies paid.

The main purpose of the FCC, as far as I am aware, is an incentive by P&O to get guests not to request full refunds and opt for the FCC instead. This enables them to keep hold of monies paid, which I assume they would then invest and gain interest from.

So your point about them throwing money at my feet is nonsense.   So your previous point about them giving you a credit for not initiating the refund is not akin to them throwing money at your feet?

They would simply be giving me back what they have had, which they will gladly do if you ask for a refund

but more importantly, they would keep me as a loyal customer.  As I said in my original post, they as a global conglomerate aren't nearly as worried about loyalty to them as many would hope and for every person who makes the claim that they'll go elsewhere, the vast majority return.  Mostly because they most often find that the alternative options aren't as cost effective, or require them to travel further afield to get the same thing they could otherwise get closer to home.

Obviously, I am bothered about the money I have tied up with them. I'm not one of their rich customers and my income has been seriously affected by the pandemic,  I completely understand and you're definitely not alone when it comes to being affected negatively, hence the reason you've got the opportunity to reclaim 100% of the funds you've paid and to be made whole.

so if they announce that the cruise is cancelled I can then make the decision to accept the FCC if it is offered, or I can opt for a refund, but at least I would have that choice.  Which brings us back to the original point....you have every opportunity to get all of your money back based on what you anticipate to happen with respect to your scheduled cruise being cancelled but are waiting for P&O to blink and thus make the first move so you can hopefully get a 'bonus' in the form of a FCC.

 

My points are not meant to be inflammatory, just looking at things from a pragmatic perspective...you have every right to cancel and get 100% of your money back, but would rather wait for P&O to do the work and reward you for not doing it first

[Ataraxia]

It should read 'you have every right to cancel and get 0% of your money back'

[shopaholic6]

5 minutes ago, Captain_Morgan said:

 

My April 2020 cruise was cancelled so I booked this years cruise at that point, hoping that the virus would be dealt with by then. - As did many others I'm sure

Since about September 2020 it was obvious that the cruise would probably not go ahead, but I remained hopeful, which is why I didn't transfer the cruise. - So you knew it wasn't going to ahead, 7 months prior but still waited just in case?

I have also been holding back for the possible FCC because, my cruise is already paid for in full. - So this is the actual answer to the previous point, which is fine but why not just say it in the first place? 

The cruise I would now like to book for 2022 is about £500 more expensive for fewer nights. I cannot afford that extra cost, so the FCC would enable me to book the cruise next year.  Higher prices are to be expected and have been discussed numerous times so this should come as no surprise.

Also, it's not a game of chicken. The cruise in April cannot go ahead, so I am simply wanting P&O to announce the obvious, which is that the cruise has to be cancelled.  As you stated above, you want P&O to cancel so you can get a FCC in order to cover the cost of another cruise in future and by doing so you're waiting for them to make the first move, when you could just as easily cancel and receive a full refund for monies paid.

The main purpose of the FCC, as far as I am aware, is an incentive by P&O to get guests not to request full refunds and opt for the FCC instead. This enables them to keep hold of monies paid, which I assume they would then invest and gain interest from.

So your point about them throwing money at my feet is nonsense.   So your previous point about them giving you a credit for not initiating the refund is not akin to them throwing money at your feet?

They would simply be giving me back what they have had, which they will gladly do if you ask for a refund

but more importantly, they would keep me as a loyal customer.  As I said in my original post, they as a global conglomerate aren't nearly as worried about loyalty to them as many would hope and for every person who makes the claim that they'll go elsewhere, the vast majority return.  Mostly because they most often find that the alternative options aren't as cost effective, or require them to travel further afield to get the same thing they could otherwise get closer to home.

Obviously, I am bothered about the money I have tied up with them. I'm not one of their rich customers and my income has been seriously affected by the pandemic,  I completely understand and you're definitely not alone when it comes to being affected negatively, hence the reason you've got the opportunity to reclaim 100% of the funds you've paid and to be made whole.

so if they announce that the cruise is cancelled I can then make the decision to accept the FCC if it is offered, or I can opt for a refund, but at least I would have that choice.  Which brings us back to the original point....you have every opportunity to get all of your money back based on what you anticipate to happen with respect to your scheduled cruise being cancelled but are waiting for P&O to blink and thus make the first move so you can hopefully get a 'bonus' in the form of a FCC.

 

My points are not meant to be inflammatory, just looking at things from a pragmatic perspective...you have every right to cancel and get 100% of your money back, but would rather wait for P&O to do the work and reward you for not doing it first

"Also, it's not a game of chicken. The cruise in April cannot go ahead, so I am simply wanting P&O to announce the obvious, which is that the cruise has to be cancelled.  As you stated above, you want P&O to cancel so you can get a FCC in order to cover the cost of another cruise in future and by doing so you're waiting for them to make the first move, when you could just as easily cancel and receive a full refund for monies paid."

 

Surely that is incorrect - if Sidekick cancels, he will lose his deposit.  That's the whole point.  P&O are hanging on to money they KNOW they need to refund.  Why should anyone lose their deposit just because P&O are not doing to decent thing by cancelling cruises they know will not go ahead?