Are P&O Allowing Transfers Post Full Balance

[molecrochip]

1 hour ago, wowzz said:

I think a simple unfortunate slip of the finger, when filling in the health questionnaire, as Kalos mentioned, is the easiest way out of the situation

🙂

 

You can call and ask. The new call centre staff (at both standard and supervisor level) are good but don't seem to be able to deal with anything out of the ordinary. If you get a more experienced bod you may find your issue resolved quicker. Its more about them knowing who to talk to.

 

P&O have been letting customers move cruises sailing out of Southampton but only within 2-3 of them due to sail. No point letting people 3 months out move cruises as we may be in between waves of Covid and it be perfectly fine to sail.

 

So timing is everything.

[Dermotsgirl]

Isn’t there a risk that P&O will get wise and ask for proof, if they notice a very steep rise in declarations saying that people have been in contact with an infected person a few days before the cruise sails.

 

That could put people in an embarrassing situation if they make a false declaration.

 

[wowzz]

6 minutes ago, Dermotsgirl said:

Isn’t there a risk that P&O will get wise and ask for proof, if they notice a very steep rise in declarations saying that people have been in contact with an infected person a few days before the cruise sails.

 

That could put people in an embarrassing situation if they make a false declaration.

 

I don't see how P&O can ask to see the health records of an individual who is not travelling with them.

If I have coffee with my next door neighbour 4 days befire my cruise, who then tests positive for Covid the next day, how can P&O demand to see  my neighbour's test result ?

[Selbourne]

4 minutes ago, wowzz said:

I don't see how P&O can ask to see the health records of an individual who is not travelling with them.

If I have coffee with my next door neighbour 4 days befire my cruise, who then tests positive for Covid the next day, how can P&O demand to see  my neighbour's test result ?

Exactly. They couldn’t do it even if they wanted to. There’s a danger of over thinking this. It really is dead simple. 

[molecrochip]

46 minutes ago, Dermotsgirl said:

if they notice a very steep rise in declarations saying that people have been in contact with an infected person

But this is the exact situation that has happened. Sharp increase in cases, sharp increase of close contacts.

 

Lets put this in a business context. Ships are sailing, so to short-term cancel cruises means the same cost and zero revenue. So some revenue, even if loads cancel, is better than no revenue.

 

Its a necessary evil for P&O of the current situation that they need to allow people to cancel if they are a close contact. 200 people cancelling as close contacts is better than 1 covid-induced death on board.

 

 

[molecrochip]

To follow up, this is not a profit making industry, its a surviving industry. If you're Carnival, your sole financial aim is to keep as much of that $7bn you've got, in the bank rather than spent as that is what is keeping you going.

 

But that ranks a far second, to keeping your customers, crew and destinations safe.

[Son of Anarchy]

2 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

But this is the exact situation that has happened. Sharp increase in cases, sharp increase of close contacts.

 

Lets put this in a business context. Ships are sailing, so to short-term cancel cruises means the same cost and zero revenue. So some revenue, even if loads cancel, is better than no revenue.

 

Its a necessary evil for P&O of the current situation that they need to allow people to cancel if they are a close contact. 200 people cancelling as close contacts is better than 1 covid-induced death on board.

 

 

It would be interesting to know what the cut-off point is prior to departure.

 

Eg, when we were on Ventura last month there were circa 1,400 pax. 

 

How many would have had to cancel due to having been in contact with an infected person at the point they completed the on-line health questionnaire for the whole cruise to have been cancelled?  I appreciate that you may not be in a position to provide a specific figure.  However, a vague one would also be appreciated.

[Dermotsgirl]

So P&O are laying themselves open to fraud

 

Even so, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to purposely not tell the truth on a declaration.

 

 

 

 

[Selbourne]

20 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

To follow up, this is not a profit making industry, its a surviving industry. If you're Carnival, your sole financial aim is to keep as much of that $7bn you've got, in the bank rather than spent as that is what is keeping you going.

 

But that ranks a far second, to keeping your customers, crew and destinations safe.

 Very good points as always. I was once told that the break even point was as high as 80% occupancy on some ships, yet some are saying that it’s now 30%. I really struggle to believe that it’s as low as that, because if it is then normal operating capacities would result in absolutely enormous profits!

 

I’m sure that the next couple of months will remain challenging, but the news on Omicron seems to be very encouraging and I would hope that things can return to some normality quite soon. It’s not the fear of catching Covid that’s stopping us from cruising at present, it’s the potential to be quarantined in our cabin or, worse, offloaded overseas. I know that we are far from alone in that regard, so I’m sure that as soon as both these prospects disappear then bookings will start to recover..

[wowzz]

47 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

I was once told that the break even point was as high as 80% occupancy on some ships, yet some are saying that it’s now 30%. I really struggle to believe that it’s as low as that, because if it is then normal operating capacities would result in absolutely enormous profits!

Probably only the Carnival accountants know for sure, but I recall a detailed post some time ago that inducated that 30% occupancy would cover the operating costs of a cruise. Thereafter, it's a matter of where and how you attribute fixed costs,  depreciation,  interest payments etc. 

[Ardennais]

1 hour ago, Selbourne said:

 Very good points as always. I was once told that the break even point was as high as 80% occupancy on some ships, yet some are saying that it’s now 30%. I really struggle to believe that it’s as low as that, because if it is then normal operating capacities would result in absolutely enormous profits! So Covid can still be 

 

I’m sure that the next couple of months will remain challenging, but the news on Omicron seems to be very encouraging and I would hope that things can return to some normality quite soon. It’s not the fear of catching Covid that’s stopping us from cruising at present, it’s the potential to be quarantined in our cabin or, worse, offloaded overseas. I know that we are far from alone in that regard, so I’m sure that as soon as both these prospects disappear then bookings will start to recover..

I would have agreed 100% with your last paragraph just a week or so ago. But I’m not quite so sure now! My husband still has a horrible cough a fortnight after contracting Covid, unable to sleep properly and just miserable. My niece, 26, has also caught it. She got her booster well before Christmas and has a terrible headache, and she’s never ever suffered from headaches before. So still a pretty miserable condition, even if not as bad as it was initially. 

[Selbourne]

1 minute ago, Ardennais said:

I would have agreed 100% with your last paragraph just a week or so ago. But I’m not quite so sure now! My husband still has a horrible cough a fortnight after contracting Covid, unable to sleep properly and just miserable. My niece, 26, has also caught it. She got her booster well before Christmas and has a terrible headache, and she’s never ever suffered from headaches before. So still a pretty miserable condition, even if not as bad as it was initially. 

I’m sorry to hear that. It does seem to affect everyone differently. I have a couple of relatives with it at present and they say it’s like the mildest cold they have ever had. Conversely, a 79 year old uncle of mine very sadly died from it last week. 

[Ardennais]

1 minute ago, Selbourne said:

I’m sorry to hear that. It does seem to affect everyone differently. I have a couple of relatives with it at present and they say it’s like the mildest cold they have ever had. Conversely, a 79 year old uncle of mine very sadly died from it last week. 

Oh dear, I’m also sorry to hear that. It’s a strange thing, no doubt about it. Some people as you say don’t really suffer at all. 

[Dermotsgirl]

59 minutes ago, Ardennais said:

I would have agreed 100% with your last paragraph just a week or so ago. But I’m not quite so sure now! My husband still has a horrible cough a fortnight after contracting Covid, unable to sleep properly and just miserable. My niece, 26, has also caught it. She got her booster well before Christmas and has a terrible headache, and she’s never ever suffered from headaches before. So still a pretty miserable condition, even if not as bad as it was initially. 

I wondered how your husband was getting on. Sorry to hear that he’s still suffering and that your niece isn’t well either.

 

As I understand it, ‘mild Covid’ is anything that doesn’t require hospitalisation, so it’s perfectly possible to be unpleasantly ill with ‘mild Covid’. 

[Ardennais]

3 hours ago, Dermotsgirl said:

I wondered how your husband was getting on. Sorry to hear that he’s still suffering and that your niece isn’t well either.

 

As I understand it, ‘mild Covid’ is anything that doesn’t require hospitalisation, so it’s perfectly possible to be unpleasantly ill with ‘mild Covid’. 

Thank you. One thing that actually makes him feel better, physically and mentally, is fresh air! And that’s something that you wouldn’t get in a quarantine hotel! Not a problem here as there’s nobody close enough to hear the coughing! 

[grapau27]

4 hours ago, Selbourne said:

I’m sorry to hear that. It does seem to affect everyone differently. I have a couple of relatives with it at present and they say it’s like the mildest cold they have ever had. Conversely, a 79 year old uncle of mine very sadly died from it last week. 

I'm sorry to hear that Selbourne.

Condolences to all his family and friends.

[molecrochip]

15 hours ago, wowzz said:

RC have announced a major suspension of cruises, far more than you have mentioned.  

Probably best for RC. I would say that Carnival has been more rigorous in its precautions that RC. Although I do withold my judgement on the QM2 Christmas cruise given what's been posted.

23 hours ago, Selbourne said:

Conversely, a 79 year old uncle of mine very sadly died from it last week. 

Sorry to hear this. Thoughts with you & your family.

23 hours ago, wowzz said:

Probably only the Carnival accountants know for sure, but I recall a detailed post some time ago that inducated that 30% occupancy would cover the operating costs of a cruise. Thereafter, it's a matter of where and how you attribute fixed costs,  depreciation,  interest payments etc. 

A ship like Adonia needed to sail at 80% to breakeven when considering operating costs and contribution to capital overheads. A ship like Iona, is closer to 35%.

 

Made up numbers but tells the right story:

Small ship £1.5m overheads per 14 night cruise for 1,000 passengers = £1,500 per head cost and then any extra is profit. Put another way, at 80% occupancy, you need average per night income of £135 per passenger to break even.

 

Large ship £3m overheads per 14 night cruise for 4,500 passengers = £667 per head cost and then rest is profit. Put another way, at 35% occupancy, you need average per night income of £135 per passenger to break even.

 

So larger ship, a lot less passengers, each bringing the same income, to break even.

 

You can extend this further. Smaller ships tend to have a higher percentage of inside and outside cabins compared to the larger ships. They also have a limited number of balconies and suites to balance this. This tends to mean that those lower grade cabins can't be heavily discounted otherwise they drag the average income per night down. On a large ship, your most common cabin type, balcony, broadly sits at the average income level. Therefore you can drop the inside/outside prices to encourage new passengers who will spend once on board. This is offset by your suite prices.

 

So that is why Aurora and Arcadia cruises always seem more expensive, and the headline price on Iona cruises seems too cheap.

 

On 1/8/2022 at 2:30 PM, Son of Anarchy said:

It would be interesting to know what the cut-off point is prior to departure.

Not an easy answer. You're now into the realm of back to back cruises etc so the implications are not straight forward. If its a Caribbean cruise, Tui won't their money for the flights whatever.

 

As @Megabear2 found out at Christmas, you lose the least amount of money by carry on even at 25%. Those on board are generally, still spending.

[wowzz]

13 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

Probably best for RC. I would say that Carnival has been more rigorous in its precautions that RC. Although I do withold my judgement on the QM2 Christmas cruise given what's been posted.

Sorry to hear this. Thoughts with you & your family.

A ship like Adonia needed to sail at 80% to breakeven when considering operating costs and contribution to capital overheads. A ship like Iona, is closer to 35%.

 

Made up numbers but tells the right story:

Small ship £1.5m overheads per 14 night cruise for 1,000 passengers = £1,500 per head cost and then any extra is profit. Put another way, at 80% occupancy, you need average per night income of £135 per passenger to break even.

 

Large ship £3m overheads per 14 night cruise for 4,500 passengers = £667 per head cost and then rest is profit. Put another way, at 35% occupancy, you need average per night income of £135 per passenger to break even.

 

So larger ship, a lot less passengers, each bringing the same income, to break even.

 

You can extend this further. Smaller ships tend to have a higher percentage of inside and outside cabins compared to the larger ships. They also have a limited number of balconies and suites to balance this. This tends to mean that those lower grade cabins can't be heavily discounted otherwise they drag the average income per night down. On a large ship, your most common cabin type, balcony, broadly sits at the average income level. Therefore you can drop the inside/outside prices to encourage new passengers who will spend once on board. This is offset by your suite prices.

 

So that is why Aurora and Arcadia cruises always seem more expensive, and the headline price on Iona cruises seems too cheap.

 

Not an easy answer. You're now into the realm of back to back cruises etc so the implications are not straight forward. If its a Caribbean cruise, Tui won't their money for the flights whatever.

 

As @Megabear2 found out at Christmas, you lose the least amount of money by carry on even at 25%. Those on board are generally, still spending.

Thank you for an informative answer.

[Selbourne]

25 minutes ago, molecrochip said:

Probably best for RC. I would say that Carnival has been more rigorous in its precautions that RC. Although I do withold my judgement on the QM2 Christmas cruise given what's been posted.

Sorry to hear this. Thoughts with you & your family.

A ship like Adonia needed to sail at 80% to breakeven when considering operating costs and contribution to capital overheads. A ship like Iona, is closer to 35%.

 

Made up numbers but tells the right story:

Small ship £1.5m overheads per 14 night cruise for 1,000 passengers = £1,500 per head cost and then any extra is profit. Put another way, at 80% occupancy, you need average per night income of £135 per passenger to break even.

 

Large ship £3m overheads per 14 night cruise for 4,500 passengers = £667 per head cost and then rest is profit. Put another way, at 35% occupancy, you need average per night income of £135 per passenger to break even.

 

So larger ship, a lot less passengers, each bringing the same income, to break even.

 

You can extend this further. Smaller ships tend to have a higher percentage of inside and outside cabins compared to the larger ships. They also have a limited number of balconies and suites to balance this. This tends to mean that those lower grade cabins can't be heavily discounted otherwise they drag the average income per night down. On a large ship, your most common cabin type, balcony, broadly sits at the average income level. Therefore you can drop the inside/outside prices to encourage new passengers who will spend once on board. This is offset by your suite prices.

 

So that is why Aurora and Arcadia cruises always seem more expensive, and the headline price on Iona cruises seems too cheap.

 

Not an easy answer. You're now into the realm of back to back cruises etc so the implications are not straight forward. If its a Caribbean cruise, Tui won't their money for the flights whatever.

 

As @Megabear2 found out at Christmas, you lose the least amount of money by carry on even at 25%. Those on board are generally, still spending.

Thank you for your kind words and also for the explanation re profit levels which makes complete sense. Basically, what I was told years ago was true back then, but naturally the economies of scale that the newer ships can capitalise on change that significantly, for the reasons you describe. 
 

The best and most interesting cruises that we have done have been on Aurora, but the prices on her now are becoming excessive, for the reasons you describe. That’s probably why we have found that the next two cruises we have booked are on Iona and Ventura!

[jeanlyon]

Goodness, we always book Aurora and have found her prices to be very reasonable.  Having said that , ours are always 18-19 nighters and we always have an inside cabin.  I think £75-90 pp pn is fantastic value.  We also always book on launch.

[NoFlyGuy]

Looked at the Aurora 19 night Med cruise in May that we are on. Mid standard balcony select price showing as £12538. That's £330 pppn!

Luckily we didn't pat that much.

[Son of Anarchy]

16 minutes ago, NoFlyGuy said:

Looked at the Aurora 19 night Med cruise in May that we are on. Mid standard balcony select price showing as £12538. That's £330 pppn!

Luckily we didn't pat that much.

Jeez, that's the cost of suite on our 35 night TA!

[jeanlyon]

Yep, booking on launch always best.  Your cruise for an inside would still only be £126 pp pn but we don't go in a peak season.  Usually april and October.

[Selbourne]

1 hour ago, jeanlyon said:

Goodness, we always book Aurora and have found her prices to be very reasonable.  Having said that , ours are always 18-19 nighters and we always have an inside cabin.  I think £75-90 pp pn is fantastic value.  We also always book on launch.

We would never book an inside though Jean. We’ve done a number of longer cruises on Aurora and before the switch to adult only prices for balcony cabins were reasonable. Our first few cruises on her post the switch to adult only were still OK but we had booked them prior to the announcement. They have shot up since. 

[yorkshirephil]

46 minutes ago, NoFlyGuy said:

Looked at the Aurora 19 night Med cruise in May that we are on. Mid standard balcony select price showing as £12538. That's £330 pppn!

Luckily we didn't pat that much.

I thought that sounded odd, just looked on P&O and that is the price for a deluxe cabin for 2 people.