Iona and Geiranger

[Britboys]

15 hours ago, molecrochip said:

Yes to both however, the bigger ships have to tender in to Monaco and there have been issues. Azura/Ventura can just fit depending upon what else is in port.

 

One ship actually had to abandon its tender operation at Monaco due to bad weather. Passengers were taken to a sports hall and then bused to Villefranche the next day where the ship had managed to dock.

 

Because of the way the weather suddenly appears from over the hills, the weather and sea state can change rapidly,

 

Yes, the weather is very unpredictable in that neck of the woods. Quite a few years back I was on Oriana which anchored in the bay off the lovely Villefranche. The wind blew up very early afternoon and the tender I was on was turned back to shore. Shortly after, the Harbour Master ordered Oriana to leave as she was dragging anchor. Tendering resumed about 8.30/9.00pm and we got back on board about 10.00pm. 

[Fionboard]

I wish they would not call the destination Monte Carlo. It is Monaco, which has no capital. Monte Carlo is merely the hill on which the casino is situated! Sorry to be pedantic! 😊

[Red Ray]

20 hours ago, Fionboard said:

I wish they would not call the destination Monte Carlo. It is Monaco, which has no capital. Monte Carlo is merely the hill on which the casino is situated! Sorry to be pedantic! 😊

That's not quite correct. You are right about the hill but Monte Carlo is an administrative ward of Monaco and is 1 of it's 4 'quarters.'

[Vampiress88]

So did iona go to geiranger then or not?

[Essex Racer]

Was onboard last week.

 

Before we sailed Gerainger was cancelled, with a day in Hellysett. Monday evening Hellysett replaced with Flam - was a good exchange. Thursday in Flam waiting to sail announcement staying in Flam until 4am, and no call at Haugsand now - 2 days at sea heading back to Southampton.

[Vampiress88]

20 minutes ago, Essex Racer said:

Was onboard last week.

 

Before we sailed Gerainger was cancelled, with a day in Hellysett. Monday evening Hellysett replaced with Flam - was a good exchange. Thursday in Flam waiting to sail announcement staying in Flam until 4am, and no call at Haugsand now - 2 days at sea heading back to Southampton.

 So one port was exchanged then another missed altogether 

[Yorkypete]

1 hour ago, Vampiress88 said:

 So one port was exchanged then another missed altogether 

Due to the problems P&O are having in Norway I would now only book on the Iona if I just wanted a 7 day cruise. That seems to be what they are running now.

[kruzseeka]

49 minutes ago, Yorkypete said:

Due to the problems P&O are having in Norway I would now only book on the Iona if I just wanted a 7 day cruise. That seems to be what they are running now.

Not only problems with Iona ports.  Aurora has had Stavanger dropped next week, no explanation or substitution.  Makes you wonder what's going on!  Like you say if you want a cruise - fine but if you want the ports on the advertised itinerary, keep your fingers crossed!

[Vampiress88]

We have iona fjords in April and msc fjords this august and I’m now worrying about the ports

[Britboys]

Aurora was in Helsinki yesterday and needed tugs to pull her out against a lively wind...

[Fionboard]

21 hours ago, Red Ray said:

That's not quite correct. You are right about the hill but Monte Carlo is an administrative ward of Monaco and is 1 of it's 4 'quarters.'

Exactly, not the capital as some think.

[LondonLad60]

Anyone seen this?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/norway-anticruise-poster-campaign-b2125605.html

 

The full article is behind a paywall, but the preamble provides the gist.

[SarahHben]

I see Iona is in Alesund this morning not Hellesylt.

[Chrisdriving]

To be fair the campaigners have a valid point.

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Chrisdriving

[scifimonkey]

Anyone know why Iona diverted to Alesund. Is it because of weather or protests about it going into the Fiord or what!!

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, Chrisdriving said:

To be fair the campaigners have a valid point.

 

I do think it's rather ironic that Norway is adopting this stance, when their economic success has been totally based on oil revenues for the last 40 years.

[Britboys]

17 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I do think it's rather ironic that Norway is adopting this stance, when their economic success has been totally based on oil revenues for the last 40 years.

But it isn't 'Norway' driving this campaign, it is a campaign/pressure group.

[Yorkypete]

42 minutes ago, Britboys said:

But it isn't 'Norway' driving this campaign, it is a campaign/pressure group.

And we should all be aware of what minority pressure groups can do!

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, Britboys said:

But it isn't 'Norway' driving this campaign, it is a campaign/pressure group.

Presumably they are Norwegians and their lifestyle is being funded by the Norwegian investment fund from state oil revenues, dont you think that's ironic?

[Chrisdriving]

4 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

I do think it's rather ironic that Norway is adopting this stance, when their economic success has been totally based on oil revenues for the last 40 years.

That is also a very valid point.

[davecttr]

1 hour ago, Chrisdriving said:

That is also a very valid point.

I don't think they are too concerned at the moment as a guide jokingly said their sovereign wealth fund is so enormous when the oil runs out they can have a referendum on buying a small warm country and living there, just visiting Norway for holidays.

[Yorkypete]

1 hour ago, Chrisdriving said:

That is also a very valid point.

Cynically I am wondering if the fact Iona etc are cancelling ports, could it be because payment is overdue to the ports? This could be why P&O will never give a reason.

[Britboys]

4 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

Presumably they are Norwegians and their lifestyle is being funded by the Norwegian investment fund from state oil revenues, dont you think that's ironic?

I guess at some point, everyone is entitled to change their mind about key issues... Most of us don't agree with some government policy whether we individually benefit from it or not.