navy boy

Any suggestion of a dangerous mechanical situation must result in the ship being kept in port for as long as it takes o make it 100% safe. One hour is a long time for a fire to burn a lot of damage can be done in a very short time to machinery such as generators. If a main generator is damaged it is not acceptable to put to sea before it is fixed irrespective of potential missed cruises.

There has been a rather ridiculous move from calling those who work at sea by their correct title to trying to pretend ships are land locked objects. A captain will always be a captain not a sea platform manager a purser is not a receptionist and suites are actually cabins. This is because a ship is not a hotel, if Carnival need help with this a hotel is still in the same place in the morning when you wake up, a ship has moved so the view will be different out of your CABIN window!

I think there is loads of provision for the young with the family ships and the adult age range does not run from 18 to 98 with all those people enjoying the same things such as ballroom dancing and music from the 1960's. I am bored with having quizzes asking who is the 5th Beatle or which Brit first won the euro song contest, or the Theatre company doing songs from the 60's, we have all heard this over and over again. Also Ballroom dancing is very niche now

There are millions of middle aged who grew up listening to music from the 80's and 90's. With 7 ships surely 1 could be actually TARGETED at this group, why not? They work for their holiday so why not provide just 1 ship for them? This is not ageism or against age discrimination laws, it is alongside adult only ships, if that's not the above why is this idea?

Should P&O examine the potential of aiming one ship at an age group of 40's,50's and 60's.

Dai, Yes we have all heard this message before but we all have heard the ongoing arguments that the company is dumbing down and down and down, keep telling Carnival or they have not only won their approach but done so without comment. I am in my early 50's, I have cruised for 20 years and spent over 1 year at sea and followed the feeds throughout, hopefully I will be able to tell Carnival my genuine feedback for the next 30 or 40 years.

It would not cost much more than we already pay to raise the spend on food and entertainment and stop most of the complaints on this and other sites but Carnival won't do so, if they raise the cost I fear they would consider it extra profit. It does not have to go expensive like the 6 starlines to make a difference

I believe that the ethos of P&O has been swallowed up by Carnival. P&O's past history and quality has effectively been asset stripped in order to support the American side of Carnival's assets.

I do feel that the British market is large enough to easily support a company of 4 or 5 medium sized ships which could be run at an operating profit if supported by a loyal client base, and P&O of old have just that, but it is disappearing fast under the current barrage of complaints. I am sure the current management do hear those complaints, but refuse to act as customers keep coming to the brand we consider as British as cruising gets. I have a sad feeling that the management laugh at the British market and keep banking the money.

I feel the name would be better in a small company ownership who listen to the customers and act appropriately to retain loyalty , that means balancing standards to cost, if the cost needs to rise a bit then fine, but give us a product we are happy with as we are the real future of P&O, without us the company is nothing, so listen to us and keep the standards reasonable.

The older existing P&O fleet is ideal for a new company but Carnival know this so there is no way they will sell, they will just keep right on taking the money and cutting cost to reap the maximum profit.

The whole situation is so sad, the only way it will change is for the customers to get together in huge numbers and boycott the company for a period (effectively go on strike) until they either sell up or change their approach.

Would a small company ownership along the lines of Fred Olsen protect the image and quality of the P&O product

I am very pleased to see rsquare differentiate between QM2 crossings and cruising. The days of needing ships for emigration and mass transportation are gone. The vast bulk of passengers are now holiday makers and this requires the lines to offer a transparent holiday product which is not financially manipulated in such a manner that the customer (passenger) is left feeling their hard worked for holiday has been used as an opportunity to fleece them. If this continues I feel it likely that a wall could be hit and the cruising bubble could burst.

On these forums I have previously mentioned that cruise lines seem to desire the ships to be run along the lines of shopping centers where passengers are seen as trapped wallets to be squeezed at every opportunity. Each small change in the quality of product delivery re-enforces this feeling for me. I don't want to feel this, as it effects my enjoyment of some of the most enjoyable periods of my year, but the approach is now so obvious and it needs to change from been purely profit driven to one where genuine customer happiness is the target.

Better feedback forms towards the end of cruises would help if the providers actually, genuinely listened to what passengers want and acted on it. Currently the company feedback product we are asked to complete is a tick box affair which appears to give the passenger a say but actually has been designed to pat themselves on the back.

Passengers can choose to go or not, we do not have to go, we could spend our money elsewhere. Cruising has a genuine alternative appeal, that of sea travel, but if the lines continue to slice the product the bubble could burst, if the worldwide banking sector can go bang Carnival had better believe they can too and as they get bigger they get more susceptible to it.

If we need to pay a little more then so be it, but, Carnival, perhaps you better deliver what we genuinely want!

I fear that Cunard is following the experiment that Carnival have carried out on P&O over the last few years by cutting and cutting our cruise experience.

There is a long way to go yet, on Britannia the headline act can only be seen if a passenger pays extra in a restaurant where the act then performs, so the line can advertise a headline act prior to the cruise then gain extra revenue.

The plethora of pay extra restaurants, extra shops, pay extra events, franchising out such as the Spa is all examples of the Carnival approach which is been adopted and aggressively pushed.

A small chocolate is just the start

Hello,

I assume that the pricing has been advertised by Cunard/Carnival and not a travel agent? If so this seems to be a typical example of the Carnival approach to revenue building. This system has been designed to grab our interest with cheap advertised fares which upon examination have numerous clauses which are totally unsuitable to normal minded customers.

We cruised with P&O last winter and paid the last minute cheap fare which we accepted would come with some conditions attached. We went with another couple and on arrival on the ship we found that they had sat us together but on the late sitting when we had asked for first sitting. We accepted this and we were also given the very front cheapest cabin which we accepted without complaint.

Having said we have to accept some conditions I do agree with you that it is seemingly a mean act to not let your party sit together, it seems that they are just drawing in our interest then throwing such unreasonable conditions into the mix that we are likely to spend more to avoid these conditions.

I salute your strength of character in not booking under such a mean condition it is unreasonable and should not be expected of a customer by Cunard.

An excellent thread, exactly the type Carnival's top brass should be soaking up.

My input would be a warning from history with a slight comparison between Cunard and the happenings at P&O over the last few years.

The direction towards the P&O ships seems to have been one where at each refit pay extra venues, especially restaurants, have flourished. This has apparently been advertised as giving the customer more choice which sounds positive, but I fear has actually been done, alongside the downturn in food and service quality in the main restaurants, in order to encourage passengers to pay extra in these various new venues for decent food and service standards thereby generating more revenue.

I do not think that such an approach would be in line with the historical standards of the Cunard line as advertised, or at least intimated in the advertisement of Cunard by Carnival. If Carnival/Cunard is to advertise the history it really must provide a quality of holiday which feels relative to that history to the passenger, where they fail to do so it stands out a mile. This is the problem at P&O where the actual holiday standard no longer meets the expectation as intimated in the brochure or history of that line.

Cunard may have to charge a little more up front and put that money into the enhancement of the customer experience, keep levels of service and food quality at a good acceptable level meeting the expectation which they raise in their advertising, this service level is surely the backbone of Cunard's history and to steer away from that direction could be the death of the line

Dai

The Critic currently stands at 35% "love this ship", that does not suggest to me that the initial reviews are anywhere near good.

Esprit,

I shall not be attending any share holder meetings as I am not a share holder, just a paying passenger. Carnival can either listen to me or not as they decide.

Thanks for your comments everyone, it appears we disagree with the future direction P&O should take, we will get what we are given and like it or not but very large ships are not for me I can get such experiences in large hotels.

I know what I expect from a sea based holiday and shall spend my money accordingly.

I ask that you may consider the initial reviews of Britannia by the passengers who have sailed on her, they prove that Carnival have gone in the wrong direction. I suspect they do not understand the British market and I would suggest the passengers keep reminding them of this fact otherwise they will believe in their own mistakes even when the reviews are bad. Bad ship design and use is exactly what I mean by "Ship or shopping center" these reviews are a poor indictment of Carnival's approach, they had a fantastic opportunity to build a world class product and it appears it is not what the passengers want so I class that as a failure on their part and they should learn from an expensive mistake.

Esprit - I will dream on, I don't need you to advise me of that, I shall keep telling Carnival when they are wrong, after all I am their customer/passenger, it's my money that keeps them afloat (at sea and on the stock market)

If P&O does sell this wonderful ship they need to replace her with one of similar size and layout. It would be wrong to replace her with another massive vessel which does not have a "ship" feel. This would confirm a wrong direction by Carnival, should they need any advise I suggest they look at the poor reviews of Britannia thus far and genuinely believe that this approach is not what a sizable number of their customer base wants.

Oriana has probably been the most successful cruise ship on the planet since she was launched, that's all Carnival need to consider and ignore the modernists within their ranks

OK,

So it seems we are all to accept paying less and getting much less, as I asked in my initial post "where will it all end". I am not a share holder and am not interested in having my holiday used as a revenue grabber for large companies, all I ask is a great holiday experience for my payment.

But perhaps there is another force at work in my desires. I feel a desire to experience an "old fashioned" experience, one which the P&O name still evokes , one of reasonable standards, I do not expect Lords and Ladies at my table for Dinner but I also should not be expected to accept this once great line being dragged through in the direction of "dumb down as far as possible to make as much cash as possible".

I thank you for your comments but I return to my stance that I would pay more for decent standards and if you want to pay less then you do so somewhere else, and get less. There are many comments quoting "Butlins at sea", The inference of these comments are so sad for this once great line (my family have long history involving P&O). I simply am using this forum to state that I for one am not happy with the direction that Carnival have taken P&O and excuses for their actions are not the point, they are busy destroying this line for their short term gain, I could make many suggestions as to how Carnival could regain the great name of P&O but sadly I know that the American management either believe their approach is correct or they simply don't care about the P&O name, standards or their customers thoughts or desires, after all why should they care if their share price is up.

I would love to see the P&O name bought as a private entity and run along the lines of Fred Olsen with a genuine British view and an eye to the history of the line

Since the takeover of P&O by Carnival there appears to have been a constant re-adjustment of the shipboard facilities towards providing more and more space for "pay extra" venues. No doubt this has raised the revenue take by the company but I feel that space has been stolen from the passenger who has paid for the public venues on board, just to find they have to pay extra to access these areas. ( Note the use of the word passenger, not customer who is another creature who exists in a shore based world).Sindu, 17 and the like are "stealing" our paid for space which should be utilized for our entertainment.

The first time I noticed this was the Gary Rhodes restaurant which was forced into the Curzon room on Oriana. This had the effect of forcing the classical recitals to use the Crows nest (which was unsuitable due to the air con noise). As the Classical recitals had to be moved the cocktail pianist had to be moved to the top of the Atrium and so it goes on that the demographic of the whole design of the ship was ruined just so P&O could get a bit more revenue from a pay extra restaurant. If the food quality were kept up in the main restaurants this would not be necessary.

Recently on Azura this approach was very obvious in the number of pay extra restaurants as well as the number of photo setups around the ship on formal nights. At one stage there were 3 separate photo shoots going on just within the Atrium which ruined the flow of passengers in the area. I initially felt awful walking through them but soon realized if I didn't I would be stuck on a stairwell all night.

Are we just there to be milked? Do the Carnival management think we do not notice this approach? Where will it end? Perhaps payment to enter the Casino or shops or the Boat deck or the Theaters or perhaps the liftboats if the ship is sinking! (£100 for an inside seat, £50 for an outside seat and free if you want to swim except for the £5 hire for the life jacket).

Would we rather not pay a bit more and re-establish the genuine feel of being welcomed on board and that the ship is "OUR" home from home.