Iona no show for Geiranger

[Adawn47]

On 5/28/2022 at 12:02 AM, Yorkypete said:

And on RCI it was free when we last went on it...and it happened in three ports!

 

P&O have free shuttle service too if the port authorities don't allow passengers to walk to the port entrance.

Avril

[terrierjohn]

29 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

P&O have free shuttle service too if the port authorities don't allow passengers to walk to the port entrance.

Avril

Yes but those are generally run and paid for by the port authority,

[Selbourne]

1 hour ago, Amyracecar said:

 

Isn't that the exact business model of Wish.com? 😆

 

Seriously though, I don't suppose there are many other holiday types that have the logistical problems that cruising does either, so while it might not be handled the way we'd all like, I do somewhat sympathise with their side of things too. 

 

In P&O's case I find the communication probably the most frustrating thing. They clearly knew about some of these issues for longer, if not for our cruise on the 21st then certainly for the next one(s), but they weren't advised of the change at the same time as us. Leaving it as late as possible just gives people less time to make their own plans. 

As for whether they should provide transport to Geiranger for free, I'm not sure that's really ever going to happen. It's a change of port, and we're just lucky the port is close enough to still go if we choose to. It could easily have been Alesund or even a sea day. I don't know if there would even be sufficient space to ferry the whole ship in an ideal world. 

 

When I first started cruising it used to be pretty much stated that you pay for the cruise aspect, not the ports, as those can change due to circumstance. I don't think that's ever really stated as much now, though is in the T&C's.

Another similar model is comic cons, where if you buy a ticket because a certain actor is there & they then cancel the appearance, you aren't entitled to a refund of the entry ticket because you pay entry for the whole convention, not individual guests. (They would refund any extras you bought for that particular guest like photo ops etc, but not your entry tickets. People complain about this similarly) 

Im afraid that I take a different view on a number of aspects.
 

We all understand that there will be reasons why cruise ships cannot make it into certain ports on certain days, most notably weather conditions (although, as others have pointed out, it’s strange that P&O seem to have more failures to dock than some other operators with similar sized ships). My issue with this is that whilst we understand the reasons, why are the consequence always on the passengers and not P&O? Whether it’s due to the age profile of cruise passengers (the average age being older than other holiday types) or our British reserve and tolerance of things that others wouldn’t put up with (or probably both, I suspect), many just accept the brush off. I think that might change with the shift to younger passengers.
 

Some people (including many on here) book a cruise just to be on a ship and the ports are a minor consideration. Others (including ourselves) book for the specific ports as advertised with the ship being somewhat secondary. Often one specific port might be the catalyst for booking a specific cruise (as Geiranger is for our next cruise) so not getting there renders the holiday somewhat pointless (it’s the only fjord cruise location that we haven’t been to). We don’t pay the extra premium for specific cruise cover that includes missed ports but, even if we did, the minor compensation would still not make the holiday worthwhile for us.

 

If it is known in advance that a specific destination can no longer be reached, it is my view that this should be notified to passengers before the balance due date and the option of a full refund should be made. The retailer (P&O) is no longer able to provide the consumer (passenger) the product that they were sold. The reason for the missed port is completely irrelevant IMO. If they refuse to offer this refund option then they should provide an acceptable alternative which, in this case, would not be expecting passengers who wish to get to Geiranger to pay extra for an excursion. For as long as we keep making excuses for them not honouring what we have been sold then we will continue to have these issues. As you say, P&O’s lack of transparency (and sometimes downright lies) about these issues further compounds the problem. 
 

Given the price of a cruise versus a ticket for a show on land, I’m not sure that I fully agree with that comparison, but I get your point. Let’s hope that this is resolved soon, as @molecrochip has stated. 

[Gettingwarmer]

On 5/28/2022 at 12:02 AM, Yorkypete said:

And on RCI it was free when we last went on it...and it happened in three ports!

 

 

On 5/28/2022 at 8:43 AM, Gettingwarmer said:

Which ports?

 

1 hour ago, Adawn47 said:

P&O have free shuttle service too if the port authorities don't allow passengers to walk to the port entrance.

Avril

 

1 hour ago, terrierjohn said:

Yes but those are generally run and paid for by the port authority,

That is why we are trying to determine which ports are being talked about re RCI

[majortom10]

IMO one of the main benefits of P&O cancelling ports at the last minute and not replacing them with other ports of call is the profit being made on port fees and taxes which is paid for by every passenger in their cruise fare. This is automatically kept by P&O as pure profit as there are no costs to them. The P&Oers will stick up for P&O by saying they lose revenue from excursions not sold and the extra cost of food consumed onboard but think these are outweighed by the extra income from purchases onboard drinks etc that would have not been taken if majority of  passengers are off the ship and in ports. All I know is that P&O either cancel ports of call during the cruise, possibly due to weather which can understand, but there seems to be many ports of call either cancelled or changed prior to cruise but surprisingly after final balance is paid. P&Os answer is always "operational reasons" which means nothing and think they should treat their customers with more respect and give a more definite reason as if they dont and keep on doing it people will have enough and start to look elsewhere for their cruises. The recent change to Iona cruises sold with Geiranger as a port of call is unforgiveable and P&O should come clean and tell the real reason why they have ben cancelled and at the very least a free shuttle boat should be given so that people can visit Geiranger as advertised as many book Norway with this port as one of the main reasons for booking it.

[Adawn47]

1 hour ago, terrierjohn said:

Yes but those are generally run and paid for by the port authority,

I know they are John, but which ports were free with RCI?  they could also have been those run by the port authority.  I only question this as we paid for every shuttle in every port on our 19 night RCI cruise, admittedly it was a fews years ago, so they could now be offering a free shuttle service🤔

Avril

[Amyracecar]

28 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

 

Given the price of a cruise versus a ticket for a show on land, I’m not sure that I fully agree with that comparison, but I get your point. 

 

Comic & sci-fi conventions now sell premium tickets that can run to hundreds, and in some cases thousands of pounds, so in many ways it's even worse! I've paid less for a week's cruise than a minority will pay for a 3-day con. The world has gone a bit insane in the last decade. 

 

I don't think it's necessarily a British reserve/P&O thing, as other lines make similar changes and I don't see quite as many complaints from American cruisers than I get on my P&O social media groups. Unfortunately it may be due to our worse terms, as American companies have better terms with things like price matching etc, so maybe have better brand loyalty. They also seem a bit happier to offer OBC or credit for changes, which perhaps helps. 

 

It's perhaps just experience maybe, i've had so many changes over the years it just becomes expected as part of the experience. Will be interesting to see if P&O or others change as newer cruisers expect better customer service resolution and/or compensation, as is standard now in many other industries. 

[Amyracecar]

2 minutes ago, majortom10 said:

IMO one of the main benefits of P&O cancelling ports at the last minute and not replacing them with other ports of call is the profit being made on port fees and taxes which is paid for by every passenger in their cruise fare. This is automatically kept by P&O as pure profit as there are no costs to them. The P&Oers will stick up for P&O by saying they lose revenue from excursions not sold and the extra cost of food consumed onboard but think these are outweighed by the extra income from purchases onboard drinks etc that would have not been taken if majority of  passengers are off the ship and in ports. All I know is that P&O either cancel ports of call during the cruise, possibly due to weather which can understand, but there seems to be many ports of call either cancelled or changed prior to cruise but surprisingly after final balance is paid. P&Os answer is always "operational reasons" which means nothing and think they should treat their customers with more respect and give a more definite reason as if they dont and keep on doing it people will have enough and start to look elsewhere for their cruises. The recent change to Iona cruises sold with Geiranger as a port of call is unforgiveable and P&O should come clean and tell the real reason why they have ben cancelled and at the very least a free shuttle boat should be given so that people can visit Geiranger as advertised as many book Norway with this port as one of the main reasons for booking it.

 

The Geiranger port said it was due to Iona's gangways not being compatible with the SeaWalk, so will be interesting to see if they make any structural changes given that she's due to stop there for the next few years. 

[Snow Hill]

1 hour ago, Amyracecar said:

 

The Geiranger port said it was due to Iona's gangways not being compatible with the SeaWalk, so will be interesting to see if they make any structural changes given that she's due to stop there for the next few years. 

But will they make any changes as by 2026 ships entering World Heritage Status fjords such as Geiranger will need to be emission free, which usually means no fossil fuel powered vessels. 
 

https://maritimecleantech.no/2022/01/21/getting-ready-for-zero-emission-cruise-by-2024/

[Mysticalmother]

I am on Iona as I write. Have just looked at the Hellsylt excursions, and for the “ shuttle” boat to Gerainger, they want £59 each. I think this is an insult bearing in mind we were supposed to be going there anyway. I fully understand weather related changes, but this is quite honestly down to P&O’s incompetence, which we are now being asked to pay for. So we have decided to stay put in Hellsylt, unless we can find a local operator prepared to take us somewhere for a lot less. Whilst the rib ride is attractive sadly I wont be able to risk that due to a back injury, which could be exacerbated should the ride be bumpy. I will let you know how we get on on Wednesday! 

[Amyracecar]

40 minutes ago, Snow Hill said:

But will they make any changes as by 2026 ships entering World Heritage Status fjords such as Geiranger will need to be emission free, which usually means no fossil fuel powered vessels. 
 

https://maritimecleantech.no/2022/01/21/getting-ready-for-zero-emission-cruise-by-2024/

 

Iona would probably fare better than most due to being LNG powered, so a bit greener despite technically still being a fossil fuel. 

I imagine it will likely depend on the reaction to Hellesylt. If everyone is complaining about it they might feel compelled to sort the gangways. If people like it, they probably won't bother. We thought it was really nice but we're only one of thousands so time will tell. 

 

[SarahHben]

1 minute ago, Amyracecar said:

 

Iona would probably fare better than most due to being LNG powered, so a bit greener despite technically still being a fossil fuel. 

I imagine it will likely depend on the reaction to Hellesylt. If everyone is complaining about it they might feel compelled to sort the gangways. If people like it, they probably won't bother. We thought it was really nice but we're only one of thousands so time will tell. 

 

We liked it too and so did the rest of my family and they spent the whole day there. 

[Selbourne]

2 minutes ago, Amyracecar said:

 

Iona would probably fare better than most due to being LNG powered, so a bit greener despite technically still being a fossil fuel. 

I imagine it will likely depend on the reaction to Hellesylt. If everyone is complaining about it they might feel compelled to sort the gangways. If people like it, they probably won't bother. We thought it was really nice but we're only one of thousands so time will tell. 

 

I’m sure that Hellesylt is lovely, but Geiranger and it’s Fjord (which isn’t transited if you stop short at Hellesylt) is a World Heritage site, as P&O state in the description of the cruises that are meant to go there. If P&O passengers just roll over and accept this then it is no wonder that they take us for fools and continue to behave in such a cavalier manner. 

[Amyracecar]

23 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

I’m sure that Hellesylt is lovely, but Geiranger and it’s Fjord (which isn’t transited if you stop short at Hellesylt) is a World Heritage site, as P&O state in the description of the cruises that are meant to go there. If P&O passengers just roll over and accept this then it is no wonder that they take us for fools and continue to behave in such a cavalier manner. 

 

Iona sails down Geirangerfjord after Hellesylt for a cruise-by, before it turns around and leaves. We went just past Seven Sisters. 

 

[Selbourne]

25 minutes ago, Amyracecar said:

 

Iona sails down Geirangerfjord after Hellesylt for a cruise-by, before it turns around and leaves. We went just past Seven Sisters. 

 

Yes I read that she did that last week and that’s a good compromise, even though she doesn’t go all the way to Geiranger. My worry is that this would be at the discretion of the Captain and, as we know, some of them can be a law unto themselves!
 

My hope is that P&O can resolve this issue and go to Geiranger as advertised. If not, then I would like to think that they will instruct all Captains to do as happened last week. Whilst this would still fall short of what was advertised, it would be of some consolation to those of us who cannot entertain an excursion from Hellesylt to Geiranger 

[Amyracecar]

5 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Yes I read that she did that last week and that’s a good compromise, even though she doesn’t go all the way to Geiranger. My worry is that this would be at the discretion of the Captain and, as we know, some of them can be a law unto themselves!
 

My hope is that P&O can resolve this issue and go to Geiranger as advertised. If not, then I would like to think that they will instruct all Captains to do as happened last week. Whilst this would still fall short of what was advertised, it would be of some consolation to those of us who cannot entertain an excursion from Hellesylt to Geiranger 

 

The cruise-by is mentioned on the email you get from P&O advising of the port change, so hopefully captains will already have been instructed that this is the specific route to follow. (It specifically mentions passing Seven Sisters for example) 

 

Fingers crossed this definitely continues, or they sort the port issues (even better). 

[Fionboard]

Seven Sisters no better than some other waterfalls. Especially in Summer when less impressive. No big deal!

[Yorkypete]

On 5/28/2022 at 8:43 AM, Gettingwarmer said:

Which ports?

Stockholm, Copenhagen and Helsinki.

 

[Snow Hill]

14 hours ago, Amyracecar said:

 

The cruise-by is mentioned on the email you get from P&O advising of the port change, so hopefully captains will already have been instructed that this is the specific route to follow. (It specifically mentions passing Seven Sisters for example) 

 

Fingers crossed this definitely continues, or they sort the port issues (even better). 

Given that Iona has been deleted from the Geiranger port schedules up to September, then cruise by or tendering would seem the only option, but the later given Iona passenger numbers would seem unlikely.

 

To make any changes to the sea walk would probably mean taking it out of service thus denying access to other ships. The issue appears to be a P&O one in respect of design of gangways and incompatibility with the sea walk, I doubt that this was thought about by anyone until first attempt to use it was undertaken. 

 

https://www.stranda-hamnevesen.no/cruise-calls

 

 

[gsmt47471015]

If it is the case that the gangways were incompatible than I find it hard to understand how a ship that was always going to spend every summer in the Fjords was not designed to accommodate them, bit of an amateur mistake if that  is the issue, that said will we ever find out what is causing so much  consternation about docking in Geiranger?

[Snow Hill]

37 minutes ago, gsmt47471015 said:

If it is the case that the gangways were incompatible than I find it hard to understand how a ship that was always going to spend every summer in the Fjords was not designed to accommodate them, bit of an amateur mistake if that  is the issue, that said will we ever find out what is causing so much  consternation about docking in Geiranger?

It would seem that no one bothered to check the requirements for the sea walk in Geiranger, assuming that it would fit their requirements, seem to be no issues with the standard berths elsewhere in Norway. 

[davecttr]

28 minutes ago, Snow Hill said:

It would seem that no one bothered to check the requirements for the sea walk in Geiranger, assuming that it would fit their requirements, seem to be no issues with the standard berths elsewhere in Norway. 

Except apparently Iona cannot visit Bergen because she will not fit under the Askeybrua bridge.

 

I have another Iona cruise booked for September but having second thoughts with the final payment due in 6 days. Looking into a Canaries fly cruise instead.

[Britboys]

23 hours ago, Selbourne said:

Im afraid that I take a different view on a number of aspects.
 

We all understand that there will be reasons why cruise ships cannot make it into certain ports on certain days, most notably weather conditions (although, as others have pointed out, it’s strange that P&O seem to have more failures to dock than some other operators with similar sized ships). My issue with this is that whilst we understand the reasons, why are the consequence always on the passengers and not P&O? Whether it’s due to the age profile of cruise passengers (the average age being older than other holiday types) or our British reserve and tolerance of things that others wouldn’t put up with (or probably both, I suspect), many just accept the brush off. I think that might change with the shift to younger passengers.
 

Some people (including many on here) book a cruise just to be on a ship and the ports are a minor consideration. Others (including ourselves) book for the specific ports as advertised with the ship being somewhat secondary. Often one specific port might be the catalyst for booking a specific cruise (as Geiranger is for our next cruise) so not getting there renders the holiday somewhat pointless (it’s the only fjord cruise location that we haven’t been to). We don’t pay the extra premium for specific cruise cover that includes missed ports but, even if we did, the minor compensation would still not make the holiday worthwhile for us.

 

If it is known in advance that a specific destination can no longer be reached, it is my view that this should be notified to passengers before the balance due date and the option of a full refund should be made. The retailer (P&O) is no longer able to provide the consumer (passenger) the product that they were sold. The reason for the missed port is completely irrelevant IMO. If they refuse to offer this refund option then they should provide an acceptable alternative which, in this case, would not be expecting passengers who wish to get to Geiranger to pay extra for an excursion. For as long as we keep making excuses for them not honouring what we have been sold then we will continue to have these issues. As you say, P&O’s lack of transparency (and sometimes downright lies) about these issues further compounds the problem. 
 

Given the price of a cruise versus a ticket for a show on land, I’m not sure that I fully agree with that comparison, but I get your point. Let’s hope that this is resolved soon, as @molecrochip has stated. 

I certainly agree with almost everything in your post although I must say that in the case of the Venice ban, they did notify me in advance of final balance being paid. Of course, they didn't give an option of cancelling (which as I have had previous visits to Venice wasn't an issue for me). They did however trot out the usual "operational reasons", when they could easily have said why they can no longer berth there.

My big gripe is that the cheapest "Venice on your own" transfer to the city is being flogged at £79. The only other option appears to be a "Venice Highlights" tour at £165. As I've said elsewhere, at least Marella has been fair to its pax, giving them a small amount of obc and free transfers into Venice...

[Snow Hill]

1 hour ago, davecttr said:

Except apparently Iona cannot visit Bergen because she will not fit under the Askeybrua bridge.

 

I have another Iona cruise booked for September but having second thoughts with the final payment due in 6 days. Looking into a Canaries fly cruise instead.

Probable that Iona is not the only ship to be able to go under the bridge, the bigger the ships get, comes the restrictions on where they can go due to local infrastructure and rules. 

[Amyracecar]

4 hours ago, Snow Hill said:

To make any changes to the sea walk would probably mean taking it out of service thus denying access to other ships. The issue appears to be a P&O one in respect of design of gangways and incompatibility with the sea walk, I doubt that this was thought about by anyone until first attempt to use it was undertaken. 

 

https://www.stranda-hamnevesen.no/cruise-calls

 

 

 

I was referring to changes to the gangway, rather than the seawalk. Obviously they couldn't do that. 

 

Iona has never attempted to use it, as it was cancelled before her first visit to Geiranger, so someone definitely realised there was something wrong at some point. (If this genuinely is the reason). Shame they couldn't have realised when scheduling the ports originally rather than 2 days before. And if they aren't planning to make any physical adjustments to the gangway then they really need to get themselves into gear with changing/amending all future itineraries, rather than just continuing to sell them. They keep suggesting to people on the phone that this is a temporary issue for a couple of weeks, but the port schedule clearly suggests otherwise, as you say.