Azura Change of Itinerary

[TPers]

Update: my TA call back to advise that because the cancellations are due to operational reasons they are NOT offering free transfers or 100% money back.

 

However, due to the high number of complaints they have received they might review the situation Wednesday/ Thursday this week…….

[Harry Peterson]

55 minutes ago, TPers said:

Update: my TA call back to advise that because the cancellations are due to operational reasons they are NOT offering free transfers or 100% money back.

 

However, due to the high number of complaints they have received they might review the situation Wednesday/ Thursday this week…….

Sorry to hear that. I thought P&O had perhaps changed their attitude.

 

Looks as if you’ll be relying on the wording towards the end of this, then, and arguing that it’s a ‘significant change’ - though what that actually means is incapable of definition and might have to be argued out. You can be pretty sure though that P&O will view it as restrictively as they can. They can sometimes be ‘persuaded’ though but it takes persistence and a preparedness to use the court process:

 

40.                          Whilst P&O Cruises will do its best not to cancel or to make any alteration to a Package after a booking has been made, such changes are sometimes necessary. Most alterations made by P&O Cruises will not be significant and P&O Cruises has the right to make such alterations without paying the Guest compensation. Any alterations made by P&O Cruises to their pre and post departure requirements and procedures for reasons of health and safety (such as any alterations required in response to Coronavirus (COVID-19)) are  unlikely to constitute significant alterations and such alterations do not give the Guest the right to compensation or the right to cancel the Package without charge. P&O Cruises shall nevertheless be entitled at any time prior to departure to cancel the Contract or to change and/or curtail the Package where this reasonably becomes necessary on operational, commercial or other grounds. P&O Cruises will inform the Guest or the Guest’s travel agent of any such cancellation or change of Package as quickly as possible (with, where appropriate, written confirmation as soon as reasonably possible thereafter). If P&O Cruises makes a significant alteration to the Package the Guest will have the choice of either accepting the alteration, accepting an offer of an alternative Package of comparable standard if available (P&O Cruises will refund any price difference if the alternative is of a lower value) or cancelling the Package and receiving a full refund of all monies paid. The Guest recognises and agrees that it will not normally be possible for P&O Cruises to offer an appropriate substitute Package which is available at about the same time as and/or with a similar itinerary to that originally booked, but P&O Cruises will do its best to provide a suitable alternative Package of similar duration and value. The Guest must notify P&O Cruises of his/her decision as soon as reasonably possible and in any event not later than 14 days of being informed of the significant alteration.

[jeanlyon]

I would call that a pretty significant change.  A lot of people would have chosen those ports particularly.

[gsmt47471015]

The issue here is where does it end ?  It would appear thet cruise companies in general and P and O in this instance seem to think ,or assume, that because of people not been able to cruise for such a long time that they can do as suits them and the fare paying passengers will just accept it, we all know that in the terms and condition's it states that nothing is set in stone and changes may have to be made, however this now appears to be a re occurring theme and in a lot of cases at short or very short notice, Really feel for the people on this cruise ,and the many others (see other boards) who's plans have been spoilt, eventually people will look to other forms of holidays if what they pay for and expect is downgraded 

[AuroraCruiser08]

24 minutes ago, jeanlyon said:

I would call that a pretty significant change.  A lot of people would have chosen those ports particularly.

I'd go one step further and call it a complete change. 3/4 ports to me is a total change and represents nothing of the original, especially if you were wanting to visit Venice and now the port for that has been dropped, probably after already having Venice itself dropped. 

[jeanlyon]

Yes, Trieste and Dubrovnik are particularly lovely ports.  Rovinj would have been interesting too.  Zadar didn't enthral me.

[SeaJane]

2 hours ago, jeanlyon said:

Yes, Trieste and Dubrovnik are particularly lovely ports.  Rovinj would have been interesting too.  Zadar didn't enthral me.

Zadar didn’t enthral us either, but we liked Koper. 

[Selbourne]

P&O do themselves absolutely no favours at all in how poorly they handle these situations. Many people book a cruise specifically for one or more of the ports. Places like Dubrovnik, Venice, Barcelona, Amsterdam are often the catalyst for a booking. A change of just one key port can render the cruise pointless for some people and IMHO should immediately trigger a full refund option, regardless of the cause of the itinerary change (which, after all, is irrelevant to the customer). 
 

P&O take an appalling attitude of hiding behind tenuous T’s & C’s rather than doing the right thing. The thing that I have never understood is that they will eventually back down, but only after the customer has engaged in a battle with them, during which time all good will has been lost. For an industry that has been damaged far more than most as a result of Covid (and remains the only sector of the travel industry to be subject to so many restrictions) you would think that they would be bending over backwards to engender good will amongst customers. Sadly, they seem to lack the bigger picture thinking that is required to get them back on track quickly. Arrogance and inflexibility are not sensible traits when it comes to rebuilding a business.

[Britboys]

20 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

P&O do themselves absolutely no favours at all in how poorly they handle these situations. Many people book a cruise specifically for one or more of the ports. Places like Dubrovnik, Venice, Barcelona, Amsterdam are often the catalyst for a booking. A change of just one key port can render the cruise pointless for some people and IMHO should immediately trigger a full refund option, regardless of the cause of the itinerary change (which, after all, is irrelevant to the customer). 
 

P&O take an appalling attitude of hiding behind tenuous T’s & C’s rather than doing the right thing. The thing that I have never understood is that they will eventually back down, but only after the customer has engaged in a battle with them, during which time all good will has been lost. For an industry that has been damaged far more than most as a result of Covid (and remains the only sector of the travel industry to be subject to so many restrictions) you would think that they would be bending over backwards to engender good will amongst customers. Sadly, they seem to lack the bigger picture thinking that is required to get them back on track quickly. Arrogance and inflexibility are not sensible traits when it comes to rebuilding a business.

It is the same with the 'Venice Issue'. P&O have just told pax that their cruise isn't calling at Venice any more ("operational reasons") and instead will call at Xxxxxx Port. Marella - who are not known for their great customer service - have given pax £50 obc and are providing complimentary transfers to Venice. P&O are offering expensive excursions....

[devonuk]

I’ve got a Princess cruise booked which I booked for the ship in question which was then swapped out for another ship! This too was not considered to be a ‘significant change’… Well it was for me 😡 

I complained and got nowhere 🙄

[Harry Peterson]

Everything hinges on these words in Clause 40 of the terms and conditions (see above for the full Clause):

 

"If P&O Cruises makes a significant alteration to the Package the Guest will have the choice of either accepting the alteration, accepting an offer of an alternative Package of comparable standard if available (P&O Cruises will refund any price difference if the alternative is of a lower value) or cancelling the Package and receiving a full refund of all monies paid."

 

If you can establish that the port changes amount to a 'significant alteration' you're entitled to cancel with a full refund.  Problem is, though, that what's significant will depend entirely on the facts, and will vary from case to case.  P&O always take a hard line on this, for obvious reasons, but you can persuade them if the facts support your claim.  One or two minor changes probably won't work, but big changes such as say Venice, Amsterdam, St Petersburg etc might. The number of changes is relevant, whether they were 'important' destinations, how long the cruise is, how many other ports - these are all relevant factors.  This is quite helpful guidance, but it only scratches the surface:

 

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/a-change-was-made-to-my-cruise-itinerary-can-i-get-a-refund

[snaefell]

We had a large part of a P&O cruise itinerary change after we booked a few years ago,that was after a hurricane hit the area so that was quite understandable,Royal Caribbean have altered the itinerary of all three cruises we have booked with them,with nonsensical reasons,so it isn't unknown in the industry.

I can't help but feel that in the case of Venice & Amsterdam there was a desire on the part of people in those locations to see the cruise ships berth elsewhere so it wasn't that clear cut.

Also can we not expect changes to itineraries right now as the world in general recovers from the pandemic at different rates,we have seen Covid situations change at very short notice a number of times in recent past,I don't think it unreasonable to expect things to be that way for some time yet!

[MX-Drew]

On 5/12/2022 at 4:50 PM, TPers said:

We are due to sail on Azura 14th July (originally due to sail 2020) and I have received an e-mail from P&O to say that three of the four ports of call Trieste, Rovinj and Dubrovnik have been cancelled due to ‘Operational Reasons’. They have been  replaced with Korcula, Zadar and Koper.

Does anyone have any idea what ‘Operational Reasons’ means?
 

Trieste and Rovinj were new ports for us so I am disappointed not to see them ☹️.

 

If anyone has any experience of visiting Koper or Korcula I would be grateful for any hints or tips 😊

 

Sorry to hear this but don't forget you can claim from your travel insurance if you had cruise cover. This happened to me on a sailing on Iona, the itinerary was changed before we boarded then me had a missed port. All ports on the old itinerary where treated as missed ports, almost paid for the cruise.  

Edited May 16, 2022 by MX-Drew

[Britboys]

5 hours ago, snaefell said:

We had a large part of a P&O cruise itinerary change after we booked a few years ago,that was after a hurricane hit the area so that was quite understandable,Royal Caribbean have altered the itinerary of all three cruises we have booked with them,with nonsensical reasons,so it isn't unknown in the industry.

I can't help but feel that in the case of Venice & Amsterdam there was a desire on the part of people in those locations to see the cruise ships berth elsewhere so it wasn't that clear cut.

Also can we not expect changes to itineraries right now as the world in general recovers from the pandemic at different rates,we have seen Covid situations change at very short notice a number of times in recent past,I don't think it unreasonable to expect things to be that way for some time yet!

With Amsterdam, it was because the City adopted a small tax on visitors not staying overnight in the City. A number of cruise lines decided to boycott Amsterdam over this...

[Britboys]

4 hours ago, MX-Drew said:

Sorry to hear this but don't forget you can claim from your travel insurance if you had cruise cover. This happened to me on a sailing on Iona, the itinerary was changed before we boarded then me had a missed port. All ports on the old itinerary where treated as missed ports, almost paid for the cruise.  

Not just cruise cover but cruise cover with missed ports included. I always make sure I have cruise cover but rarely bother to pay the extra for missed ports.

[MX-Drew]

1 hour ago, Britboys said:

Not just cruise cover but cruise cover with missed ports included. I always make sure I have cruise cover but rarely bother to pay the extra for missed ports.

The travel insurance company I use include missed ports into the cruise cover, but a very good point.

[snaefell]

5 hours ago, Britboys said:

With Amsterdam, it was because the City adopted a small tax on visitors not staying overnight in the City. A number of cruise lines decided to boycott Amsterdam over this...

In those pre pandemic days Amsterdam was one destination that was getting serious problems with overcrowding,cruise passengers were seen as filling the streets but not the tills (not many spend in cafes & bars when it is free on board),seems somebody thought it may keep the numbers down,sadly it also added a load of extra buses into the crowded mix.

[bbtablet]

10 hours ago, MX-Drew said:

Sorry to hear this but don't forget you can claim from your travel insurance if you had cruise cover. This happened to me on a sailing on Iona, the itinerary was changed before we boarded then me had a missed port. All ports on the old itinerary where treated as missed ports, almost paid for the cruise.  

That is interesting.

So in respect of Baltic cruises which when booked, and the insurance cover was taken out to include missed ports, had included 2 days at St Petersburg in their itinerary, do you think a claim for missed ports might succeed, even though a substitute new port (Helsinki in our case) was added?

I would be interested in opinions on this.

[jeanlyon]

I would doubt it.  You are only losing one port and because of war, so hardly a huge change, although St P is probably the main reason some people go.

[P&O SUE]

1 hour ago, snaefell said:

In those pre pandemic days Amsterdam was one destination that was getting serious problems with overcrowding,cruise passengers were seen as filling the streets but not the tills (not many spend in cafes & bars when it is free on board),seems somebody thought it may keep the numbers down,sadly it also added a load of extra buses into the crowded mix.

 
Very quietly, with no publicity at all P&O are now docking in the centre of Amsterdam again!

[MX-Drew]

2 hours ago, bbtablet said:

That is interesting.

So in respect of Baltic cruises which when booked, and the insurance cover was taken out to include missed ports, had included 2 days at St Petersburg in their itinerary, do you think a claim for missed ports might succeed, even though a substitute new port (Helsinki in our case) was added?

I would be interested in opinions on this.

Why not claim, what is there to lose?

[Snow Hill]

1 hour ago, P&O SUE said:

 
Very quietly, with no publicity at all P&O are now docking in the centre of Amsterdam again!

And no doubt paying the €8 tax per passenger per day. 

[Fionboard]

Docked in Amsterdam centre two weeks ago. No announcements or music on deck due to amount of residential blocks around the terminal. Sail in through the sea lock is worth being on your balcony for. Very tight!

[Britboys]

16 hours ago, P&O SUE said:

 
Very quietly, with no publicity at all P&O are now docking in the centre of Amsterdam again!

Yes, they - and other cruise lines - stamped their feet, had a paddy and a sulk - and eventually decided not to inconvenience all their pax by docking out in Ijmuiden...

[terrierjohn]

28 minutes ago, Britboys said:

Yes, they - and other cruise lines - stamped their feet, had a paddy and a sulk - and eventually decided not to inconvenience all their pax by docking out in Ijmuiden...

Do you know for certain that they have caved in, or have they agreed a price reduction for the passenger tax with Amsterdam?