twotravellersLondon

4 hours ago, LandC said:

When did you pre-register?

Only at the beginning of February.

5 hours ago, Coravel said:

I'm somewhat alarmed to hear that and wonder if it is anything to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine?  If so there may be an avalanche of cruises about to suffer the same fate.  

 Coravel...

The Corinth Canal was closed between 13 & 19 November 2020 after the cargo ship "Nemesis" was grounded after part of the canal wall collapsed.

The Corinth Canal was again closed by a landslide in January 2021. Work was started to reopen the canal but more landslides in July 2021 stopped work all together and the canal has now been closed for well over a year.

Work was again due to start in January 2022. That was also postponed and another announcement was made on 10 February 2022 that work would begin "next week." but that's didn't happened but a plan to reopen the canal was laid before the Greek Parliament... with and estimated bill that had soared from € 9 million to € 30 million.

There seems to be no great doubt that the canal can be cleared but there is no certainty that further landslides won't close it again or that geotechnical studies will determine the canal sides are too unstable for the route to be reopened. (What makes matters so uncertain is that Greece has a couple of serious earthquakes every year.)

The latest that I know is that work to clear the canal did begin in late February. Estimated cost is now € 31 million Euros.

The "Greek Times" is a good source of news on this.

Best Wishes.

We area still waiting for the call as well!

7 hours ago, richard_london said:

I fear Fred. are facing an uphill battle on this.  More capacity but at higher prices means even more cabins unfilled, if his past passengers such as ourselves decide they can no longer cruise with them.

I've seen all manner of predictions about the future shape of the cruise industry and prices... but I think that the cruise lines' own strategic business plans, Cruise Line International Association core documents and CBI reports probably give the best idea of what we might expect.

Firstly, the cruise lines are looking at offering a broad range of experiences to suit cruisers of different generations, backgrounds, incomes and interests... casual-style contemporary cruises of a week or less... premium cruises that are more traditional and are for one to two weeks... and luxury cruise experiences in smaller ships offering very high standards of accommodation, food, service and exotic itineraries inaccessible to larger ships. So, the industry increasingly sees cruise tourism divided into specialist niches and target groups. For instance; expedition cruises for curious, nature-focused, adventurous individuals... world cruises suitable for more mature travellers without commitments... solo traveller cruises offering single-friendly prices for the confident independent travellers with a sense of adventure.

Secondly, the cruise lines are looking towards making a profit going forward and paying off the billions of debt that has accumulated during the covid-pause. Traditionally many lines have carried some cruisers at less than cost price... to pick up business on the price comparison sites.  Cruise lines hoped that the sale of extras including drinks, excursions, speciality dining, WIFI, photos and gratuities would tip the balance and make an overall profit. The problem for any cruise company is that if it sells a cruise at less than cost price and the cruiser is resistant to upselling.... the cruise company will make a loss. In 2019 the Carnival Corporation that runs 45% of all cruises worldwide spent $17,549 million on its operations but it only sold $14,104 million worth of cruise tickets. It was only $6,721 million onboard spend etc that allowed the corporation to make a $3,276 million profit. So the cruise industry increasingly sees the way forward as a move towards all-inclusive fares... as an example; Celebrity Cruises, Holland America and SAGA. 

Finally, there's not a problem with small ships... there is problem refitting older ships to make them economic and satisfy the new environmental regulations. The cruise industry is still building small expedition ships and specialist ships. In 2017-2019 Fred Olsen Jun. spoke to the press several times about the idea of two... and "why not four" 600 passenger exploration ships to take cruisers to smaller ports, less visited areas and more interesting places. According to the trade press discussions were already underway with the ship-building yards. If, like on real expedition ships, the entertainment, food offering and such like was more aimed at the target market... e.g. good, honest heathy and satisfying three course meals rather than an attempt at five course "fine dining"... specialist presentations on the area in the evenings by wildlife  and local specialists rather than the same old tired show or comedian... along with lower mooring charges and lower fuel costs... lower food waste... it would all become a very affordable offer for curious, nature-focused, adventurous. independently-minded individuals who want to enjoy interesting itineraries inaccessible to larger ships. also... so many single travellers would be interested if they were given a fair deal... at least one of the big comparison sites has deals for single travellers.

In an industry where the old idea "one ship fits all ages, tastes and pockets" is very rapidly being set to one side, I rather think that Fred Olsen Jun. recognised a very significant "niche" opportunity... just a shame that the events of 2020- got in the way.

1 hour ago, twotravellersLondon said:

operating revenues of over £200,000,00

 Should, of course be £200 million!

16 hours ago, richard_london said:

Thanks for the Bonheur link.  Looking at the Q3 2021 report it says:

 

The remaining cruise ships are planned to be gradually phased into operations through to 2Q 2022.

Due to the new and negative development of Covid-19 in the UK, early autumn 2021, the UK cruise industry is now experiencing discounting ticket prices for the coming winter season. From Spring/Summer 2022, and going forward, FOCL is experiencing substantial demand at normal prices for it’s cruises.

 

But then in the Q4 report it says:

 

Balmoral is planned to commence cruising during 2Q 2022 and Braemar is planned to commence cruising in 2Q 2023.

 

So Braemar returning to service a year later than announced just three months earlier doesn't tally with a "substantial demand" for cruises. 

 

I am keen to try the Braemar, just 2023 seems a long way off and there still seems so much uncertainty in cruising.

 

I did see one thing, it says:

 

FOCL has a seller credit of GBP 22.3 million of 5 years tenor with 3 years of zero amortization and subsequent annual instalments of GBP 7.43 million at a 2.5% fixed interest cost.

 

I don't really understand what that means, but you said FOCL made a small profit in 2019.  £7.43 million is a lot to pay back each year when profits are small.  Have they already had to start making repayments?

13 hours ago, Britboys said:

The other thing I have found irritating of late with Fred, is the drip, drip release of itineraries. I - and I'm sure many others - like to see what is available across a whole season before deciding what to book. I guess this could be in part due to current circumstances but as far as I am concerned, it's not helpful.

Traditionally over the years "Fred" has made a loss on the cruise business. 

"Fred" acquired what's now the "Borealis" and the "Bolette" in mid 2020 and there's no payment due to Holland America until mid 2023. "Fred" will then have two more years to pay off the ships in annual instalments of £7.43 million at a 2.5% fixed interest.

That seems to be a lot of money but pre-covid "Fred" had operating revenues of over £200,000,00 and, by comparison with the amount of money that "Fred" has borrowed over the last couple of years from Bonheur ASA, £7.43 million is a relatively small amount.

The real question is: now that "Fred" has so much more capacity can he retain his loyalty customers and can he attract more customers than he did pre-covid to make his four ships pay? 

The problem is that in the ten years up to 2019 "Fred's" occupancy rates were falling and the industry analysis is that the demographic (Boomers) that make up most of "Fred's" customer base are now less likely to cruise. Others, like ourselves, have been put off by "Fred's" pricing strategy. 

These price hikes are nothing to do with covid. Way back in 2018 Fred Jun. was quoted in the trade press as saying he had raised his prices, was achieving the "highest operating profit ever" and that as far as his loyalty members were concerned: “A lot of them are sailing three or four times with us a year, so it might just mean they cut down on the number of cruises or they go from a balcony cabin to an outside.”

We're Ocean Loyalty Members. We've cruised with Fred since the 1990s... about 30 cruises. We've carefully compared "Fred" cost per day with other lines doing almost identical itineraries at the same time of the year and for the type of cabin that we want. "Fred" has been the most expensive and on top of that "Fred" has all manner of additional extra charges that other cruise lines include in the basic price. So, for us "Fred's" pricing has resulted in us going from "Fred" to other cruise lines.

We also find that "Fred's" prices are up and down and up and down... and are confused with "offers." "Fred" calls that "Dynamic pricing"... we call it off-putting.

15 hours ago, richard_london said:

Just looking back through my emails, Fred. are pushing out at least two emails a week plus their "latest from the Bridge" mailings.  There are an awful lot of deals at the moment.  Does anyone know if they are doing okay?  I get marketing emails from other cruise companies but none seem to be as heavily into the email offers as Fred. at the moment.  Are they struggling with filling the newer ships given their newer ships carry close to 1400 passengers and the Black Watch and Boudicca carried 900.  That's 55% more people on board, and given they seem in no rush to put the Braemar back into service a bit worried the signs aren't the best.  Hopefully just reading too much into things, but with the loss of so many ships during the pandemic the choices are already depleted enough.

We've asked ourselves the same question.

"Fred's" annual accounts for 2021 won't be available for a little time yet. However, "Fred's" ultimate Norwegian parent company, Bonheur ASA, has filed results for the fourth quarter of 2021 (October, November, December) showing  "Bolette and Borealis operated with an occupancy of 66% capacity". The details are all available free of charge in English on the Bonheur ASA website. However, it's not clear if this is 66% of the total capacity of 2,800 or 66% of the reduced capacity due to covid protocols.

In 2019, "Fred" was running four ships at about 72% capacity and the company was making a very small profit. The Bolette and Borealis are more costly to run than the Boudicca and the Black Watch but if "Fred" attracts larger numbers of passengers than he was carrying on the Boudicca and the Black Watch pre-covid that would be more economical, the cost per passenger to the Company would go down and it would make a difference to the profit/loss account.

If "Fred"  is currently carrying more passengers on the Bolette and Borealis than he was on the Boudicca and the Black Watch... that sounds good.If "Fred" was currently carrying only 66% of a reduced capacity on the Bolette and Borealis it still would suggest that "Fred"  is currently carrying more passengers on the Bolette and Borealis than "Fred"  was on the Boudicca and the Black Watch.

The really big question is whether or not "Fred" can scale up those numbers when the Balmoral and the Braemar come back into service. Before covid, "Fred" was achieving a little over 1,000,000 passenger nights per year over his four ships and he was achieving over £200 million in revenues. However competition was fierce, the number of heads on beds per night had fallen significantly over the previous ten years and after having turned an annual loss into a profit in 2015/2016, falling passenger numbers coincided with falling profits in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

What the directors of "Fred" say in their annual reports is that they aim to retain existing customers and attract others. That was already difficult in 2019... "Fred" has one of the greatest range of prices on the same cruise and was already vulnerable to competition from less expensive cruise lines which were attracting his lower fare customers and he was also vulnerable form lines that could offer his higher fare customers a better offering at more economical prices.

I'm sure that "Fred" fully understands that and the effort that he put into the cultivation his Loyalty Club and offering suite upgrades in addition to 10% off the fare is very probably part of a wider strategic plan which also involved a major digital marketing initiative aimed at a younger audience. But there are real challenges... these are well set out in the core reports used by all of the cruise lines...

The "Cruise Line International Association,  2022 State of the Cruise Industry" is predicting that the global cruise industry will recover by 2023/2024... but one third of cruise passengers are classified as "traditionalists" who tend to be over 60 years old... the demographic that tend to dominate "Fred's" ships and the bad news is that only 73% of those plan to cruise again. The real growth area will be in Generations X, Y and Z... born 1965 onwards.

A 2021 CBI study concluded that significant negative implicants on potential cruisers disposable income had affected their ability to cruise. People were tending to favour all-inclusive packages and wanted security when it comes to cancellation fees and refund policies. From the cruise operators’ perspective, ticket prices are anticipated to drop, while on-board revenue is expected to continue growing by cruise-lines providing additional services.

So? "Fred" has challenges but so does every cruise line. "Fred" is backed by a multi-billion international parent company. But... it all really depends if "Fred" can come out of covid with some indication that he can turn a profit again or at least break-even and persuade his ultimate parent company that he's worth the investment. Accounts in the next few weeks will give a much better idea.

We very much like the Braemar. We would be really interested in cruising on the Braemar again if the price was competitive with other lines on a like for like basis with a comparable cabin and package offering. 

3 hours ago, paulatsea said:

Tring - wrong ! many Fred’s have been specifically “adults only”  - we have been on about Fred about 8 times exclusively adults only.
There used to be several  every year that were specifically adults only but not on the same ship each time - it varied - we have been on all 4 of the old ships - each time adults only (that’s the only cruise we will do).

I did write and ask about this a few years ago when it stopped but the only answer I got was that if we do any more adults only ones in future it will specify this on the brochure !

 

you have almost certainly been on some without realising - hence zero children,

 

He started doing them 2016 - here is a link from the time : https://media.fredolsencruises.com/pressreleases/take-an-adult-only-holiday-with-fred-olsen-cruise-lines-1386964

 

In recent years, we've also been on several Fred Olsen Adult Only cruises as well. 

These used to be advertised big-time. Fred's Adult only cruises in 2016/2017...

https://www.worldofcruising.co.uk/cruise-news/fred-olsen-reveals-plans-for-20-adults-only-cruises-in-20162017

We've also noticed that Fred has a number of adult-only cruises planned for 2023/2024. It's necessary to search for them the net rather than just browse the brochure.

Again... there's at least one on each of his four ships.

Anyone know when we'll have prices?

1 hour ago, Harry Peterson said:

May I correct your reference to the figure of £5000? It’s £10,000 in England, which is probably sufficient to cover most of these claims.

 

You’re right to say that there’s a small risk that the case might be dealt with outside the small claims procedure if there’s an involved legal point which would take more than a day to deal with, but these claims are in legal terms pretty straightforward, unless perhaps you’re planning to argue that the terms of the contract are unfair, and that’s unlikely. There’s also a small risk of costs being awarded against you, but that’s also unlikely in most circumstances.

 

Court action is never a good idea, and always a last resort. The trick is, though, to correspond in such a way that the other party believes that you will follow through with court action, knows that you understand the law and its relationship to the facts, and chooses to settle with you rather than run the risk of having to pay up to far more people.

Many thanks for being so helpful Harry. As you say, the Small Claims limit is now £10,000 in England. It's £5,000 in Scotland and £3,000 in Northern Ireland.

Having very successfully used the Small Claims Procedure in the past, when there has been no other alternative, it's not something that I would embark on lightly unless it was a last resort, I had a uncontentious case and the value of the claim was considerable. 

I think I made it clear that, in this case, my feeling would be to just wait and see what the cruise lines come up with, to come to some amiable arrangement and to spend my time enjoying life rather that becoming involved in any legal quagmire.

Life's too short and I'd rather be cruising.

2 hours ago, Harry Peterson said:

This is probably going to have a lot more to do with the terms and conditions used by individual cruise companies than the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018.  And also to do with those companies' perception of the risks attached to losing a case in the County Court.

 

Whilst cases heard at that level don't create any precedent, they can receive a lot of publicity, and the sort of person prepared to take a case is also likely to be the sort of person prepared to create that publicity.

 

The costs and risks of taking a case are relatively small, but I don't underestimate the knowledge and work required.  In practice, cruise companies will often settle well before a case goes anywhere near court. In P&O's case they frequently use non-disclosure agreements to keep it quite, and for all I know other companies do the same.  The loss of one port can give rise to a full refund, but it depends on a number of factors.  How long the cruise is, for example, how many nights are spent in the port, how the cruise was advertised.  No simple answer - depends entirely on the facts and the wording of the terms and conditions (and whether those terms are reasonable, though that's a little more complex).

 

In the case of P&O it's this that matters:

 

“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.”

 

And in particular the words ‘significant alteration’.  Losing SPB from a shortish cruise may not be too difficult to establish -  because it’s usually the most important part of the cruise, as reflected by the time spent there and the advertising surrounding the cruise.

1 hour ago, Son of Anarchy said:

Whatever happens, the lawyers will be winners by reason of they will get paid.  Unless pro bono or no win no fee of course.

I think that you're absolutely right that it is more about the T&Cs.

The vast majority of complaints are resolved amicably with no recourse to any court and that's usually the best way.

The real problem is what may seem "significant" to the cruiser may not be considered "significant" in law... or there is a cavate. In the same T&Cs that you quoted there's also the phrase... "Please note that compensation will not be payable if an alteration is not significant or if P&O Cruises is not able to provide a significant proportion of the Package due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances." And, very sadly, we do live in extraordinary times.

A cruiser can apply to have a case heard in the small claims court but it's the court that will look at the case, the papers from both parties, the amount claimed, the value of any counter claim the complexity of the case and how long it may take... then decide if the case will be heard as small claims track, fast track or multi-track.

There's a big difference between a builder looking to have a long overdue bill paid in small claims track and a cruiser arguing about the legal definition of "significant," "unavoidable and extraordinary."

Any claim over £5,000 can't be heard in the small claims track and would be allocated to the fast track or multitrack.

A cruiser indicating that they wish to argue that the loss of Saint Peterburg from a cruise is significant because it’s usually the most important part of the cruise, as reflected by the time spent there and the advertising surrounding the cruise...may also result in the case being allocated to the fast track or multitrack. 

So, while I fully agree with you that cases heard in the small claims court don't create a precedent and that the sort of person prepared to take a case to court is also likely to be the sort of person prepared to create publicity... legal actions have a habit pf snowballing and we all know that people have lost considerable amounts by being dragged into a legal quagmire.

My feeling would be... to just wait and see what P&O and the other lines come up with, to try to come to an aimable agreement and to look forward to whatever relaxation and joy I can find in life. 

3 hours ago, tring said:

 

 

Again, a contract cannot overrule legal rights e.g. Package Travel Regs. 2018.

 

If you were entitled to a refund, Force Majeure (which has also been mentioned this afternoon) means you are not entitled to compensation, but it would not reduce your entitlement.  Package Travel Regs. 2018, regulation 13. 

 

Again, absolutely no need to go beyond The Small Claims Track and that fact is well known by most posters on this forum.  However, the whole process which would need to be followed would not be completed within two or three months, in fact with the backlog in the courts it may well not be completed within the year.  Hence, if someone felt they may be able to get a refund by that process, they would need to forego their holiday and hope to be able to reclaim their full payment in the future.  That is what I meant earlier today, by suggesting the risk of loosing the whole cost of the holiday is a very real risk, as there could be no assurance a claim such as that would win.

 

Since this is the P&O forum, I can add that their Baltic Cruises are called just that, with no mention of St Petersburg or indeed any other port by name.

 

How do the Package Travel Regs. 2018 apply to the loss of one port?

I am the director of a company and I have spent a considerable amount of time representing the company in court as a plaintive (100% success rate). I am also as someone who has spent over 10 years as a legal advisor to a major organisation, has frequently attended court proceedings, instructed solicitors, attended the County court  in the role of advisor, sat behind barristers with files of advice on hand, instructed firms of solicitors and briefed barristers, worked with one of England's most distinguished Head of Chambers and discussed details matters with judges in chambers  as my "day job."

However, I can't understand why you suggest that Travel Regs. 2018, regulation 13. relating to the "Termination of the package travel contract by the organiser" applies to a omission of a single port. But, I am always more than willing to learn.

The reason is that; missing one port, because of UK government advice, is not a case of the cruise-company cancelling the contract as it is within the cruise company's conditions and has been agreed to by the cruise passenger on booking as part of the T&Cs. Anyone taking that argument to any court is likely to have a very difficult time from cruise-industry Legal Counsel. 

Have you experience of taking a case through the small claims court and, if so, did you win the action?Alternatively, can you provide a link to one case that has been successful in the small claims court where a single individual has successful claimed compensation from a cruise company under the terms of Travel Regs. 2018, regulation 13 for the omission of a single port?

It would seem that you are assuming that the loss of one port is the same as the termination of the package travel contract and should provide the traveller with a full refund of any payments made for the package.

I think that you're correct in suggesting the chance of loosing the whole cost of the holiday is a very real risk. However I also think that there is a risk that the client could also lose a much greater amount in legal costs.

I really do think that it would be such a shame for someone to begin on an ill-advised course of legal action which would potentially result in a far greater loss than the entire cost of the original cruise.

Life is for the enjoying. We've all missed out on that recently. It's time to have fun now while we can.

My apologies... It would be in

12 minutes ago, twotravellersLondon said:

But would anyone want to employ a solicitor at £200 and hour to prepare the case, an even more expensive barrister to present it In the Crown court... and become involved in months and years of legal dispute when, in fact, the matter would be decided on the basis of the technical T&Cs written by the cruise-line's legal experts and which were then agreed by the client when the cruise was purchased?

My apologies... it would be heard in the County Court.

9 minutes ago, Denarius said:

Whilst I am not a solicitor, my layman's knowledge of law suggests that it may well depend on how the cruise was marketed. If for example, it was marketed as something like "The magnificent Baltic" and St Petersburg was just one of a number of ports on the itinerary then P&O could reasonably argue that the substitution of one port for another did not constitute a significant change even if that port was the reason why some people chose that cruise. On the other hand, if the cruise was marketed as something like "St Petersburg and the Baltic" it could be argued that the former was the prime destination and its ommision does constitute a significant change.

Certainly it could be argued...

But would anyone want to employ a solicitor at £200 and hour to prepare the case, an even more expensive barrister to present it In the Crown court... and become involved in months and years of legal dispute when, in fact, the matter would be decided on the basis of the technical T&Cs written by the cruise-line's legal experts and which were then agreed by the client when the cruise was purchased?

The case would not be settled on one person's opinion over another but on the basis of immensely complex legal technicalities and case law.

Have a look and see if you can find any record of any individual sucessfully suing a cruise-line for missing a port that it's own Government has advised against.

It's an area that I would "fear to tread." I would much prefer to spend my time money and energy cruising.

20 minutes ago, Cruiseabc12345 said:

Thanks so much. Although judging by the many responses I may be on a fools errand. Perhaps if I know the terminology I may have some little chance!

Sadly, the terminology is...

The industry standard is that altering the Package pre-departure to miss one port is not a significant change especially as this has become reasonably necessary on operational, commercial or other grounds.

Wish it was otherwise.

2 hours ago, Cruiseabc12345 said:

Do you happen to know what that 2018 legislation is called please? Many thanks. It does seem a pity so many people here have had to fight to get their money back but having said that every cruise company is in business to make money to be fair to them also

I think that this was a reference to "The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018." Copy available on the Gov. Website.

12 hours ago, NorbertsNiece said:

Thanks everyone. Thinking Horta, take on fuel, then home. Although a stop in Vigo en route would go down well here! Can't see what alternate itinerary would meet guest approval. Currently guests seem to be on side. Captain Darin needs to continue his regular updates, he's been making his physical presence known out and about.

According to Cruise-mapper you are expected back at Horta at 8.00 am on March 5. I think that your spirit is wonderful. Hope that SAGA pull out all of the stops to give you all the very best possible time!

11 hours ago, Kajojato said:

 

 

 

 

.In response to my post, of yesterday, re revised itinerates, from Ambassador, and confusing t*cs. over refunds,  it would appear from the above postings, that other cruise lines are offering refunds....whereas I have been given a definite NO I... received a call from the T/A.  today who contacted Ambassador, with revised  Itinerary, as I thought just put in 1 extra port, and overnight at Stockholm, (counts as 2) , they said definitely no refund offered only a transfer to another cruise. and 4 days to make up my mind., As the change from SP is only counted as 1 port. its not counted as a major change. according to the T&Cs..and .I`ve paid in full. This Cruise line has just 1 ship, and this is its maiden year,  so single cabins are fully booked, looks like no alternative but to accept....not very happy. 

You have already have some good advice. However, as someone whose career involved more experience of legalities than I would like...

The fact is that; when you bought the cruise you entered into a contract. As part of that contract you agreed that a significant change of itinerary would be missing out more than one major port for cruises of 16 nights and under. 

The T&Cs of all UK cruise lines are essentially the same.

Having agreed and signed a legally binding contract with conditions which are similar across the UK cruise industry, any solicitor is likely, in a free initial interview, to advise that you have no grounds for court action. 

If you go ahead on your own to the small claims court, depending on how much you're claiming, it could well cost you £115 just to enter your claim. If it comes to a hearing, you may well be asked to pay more. The judge would look at the T&Cs that you agreed to as part of the contract and... very likely... you would lose. No jury, no Kavanagh QC, no heroic pleas... just a plain simple decision made by a judge in his/her room or in an empty court. And... no refund.

Alternatively, you would need to take on a much bigger case and argue that the T&Cs use by the UK cruise industry are wrong. For that you need a solicitor, a barrister and buckets and buckets full of cash. The cruise line industry would be professionally represented....probably by a whole expert legal team... as this would be a "test case." If you lost... you would pay their fees and expenses as well as your own. It's not unknown for disputes about a few hundred pounds to carry on for years and end up costing hundreds of thousands in legal fees... while the plaintive, you, would get older, poorer but wiser.

But what would happen if you won? Well you would still lose money. If there was a judgement in your favour and if you were awarded costs... these would have to be negotiated using separate firms of cost solicitors and the opposition would end up paying 60% to 80% of what you had shelled on for your own solicitors and barrister. So if you spent about £2,500 on your cruise, went to court spent the very modest sum of £10,000 and "won" after two or three years and then wanted to claim your legal costs from the cruise company... you would, after further expense, receive between £2,000 and £4,000 less that you had spent. A pyrrhic victory.

If I was in your situation... I would be to come to an amicable agreement or accept the offer or simply walk away and move on. Life is just too short to waste it on aggro.

11 hours ago, Kajojato said:

Thanks, received a call from the T/A.  today who contacted Ambassador, with revised  Itinerary, as I thought just put in 1 extra port, and overnight at Stockholm, (counts as 2) , they said definitely no refund offered only a transfer to another cruise. and 4 days to make up my mind., As the change from SP is only counted as 1 port. its not counted as a major change. according to the T&Cs...I`ve paid in full. This Cruise line has just 1 ship, and this is its maiden year,  so single cabins are fully booked, looks like no alternative but to accept....not very happy.   

You have already have some good advice. However, as someone whose career involved more experience of legalities than I would like...

The fact is that; when you bought the cruise you entered into a contract. As part of that contract you agreed that a significant change of itinerary would be missing out more than one major port for cruises of 16 nights and under. 

The T&Cs of all UK cruise lines are essentially the same.

Having agreed and signed a legally binding contract with conditions which are similar across the UK cruise industry, any solicitor is likely, in a free initial interview, to advise that you have no grounds for court action. 

If you go ahead on your own to the small claims court, depending on how much you're claiming, it could well cost you £115 just to enter your claim. If it comes to a hearing, you may well be asked to pay more. The judge would look at the T&Cs that you agreed to as part of the contract and... very likely... you would lose. No jury, no Kavanagh QC, no heroic pleas... just a plain simple decision made by a judge in his/her room or in an empty court. And... no refund.

Alternatively, you would need to take on a much bigger case and argue that the T&Cs use by the UK cruise industry are wrong. For that you need a solicitor, a barrister and buckets and buckets full of cash. The cruise line industry would be professionally represented....probably by a whole expert legal team... as this would be a "test case." If you lost... you would pay their fees and expenses as well as your own. It's not unknown for disputes about a few hundred pounds to carry on for years and end up costing hundreds of thousands in legal fees... while the plaintive, you, would get older, poorer but wiser.

But what would happen if you won? Well you would still lose money. If there was a judgement in your favour and if you were awarded costs... these would have to be negotiated using separate firms of cost solicitors and the opposition would end up paying 60% to 80% of what you had shelled on for your own solicitors and barrister. So if you spent about £2,500 on your cruise, went to court spent the very modest sum of £10,000 and "won" after two or three years and then wanted to claim your legal costs from the cruise company... you would, after further expense, receive between £2,000 and £4,000 less that you had spent. A pyrrhic victory.

If I was in your situation... I would be to come to an amicable agreement or accept the offer or simply walk away and move on. Life is just too short to waste it on aggro.

1 hour ago, tring said:

 

That is another reason, (along with discussing a map of the Baltic with DH earlier today), that I can see why Molecrochip mentioned Helsinki as possibly not a likely replacement port a couple of days back, since Finland have had threats from Russia.  Indeed only a relatively narrow strip of Southern Finland would give, not only land access but more territorial waters.  I had assumed that a potential problem with Helsinki as a port would mean our three Swedish ports could also be potentially lost, since Sweden have had the same threats but I can now see now, any risk to those as ports of call, is likely far less than that for Helsinki.

 

At least the current talks have not broken down as yet, so there may be some hope for the relatively near future.

   

I do know that Finns are painfully aware of the loss of the eastern province of Karelia at the end of WW II but a more pertinent reason is the limited cruise ship capacity in Helsinki.

In 2019 just before covid Helsinki was coping with over 300 cruise ships a season. The problem is that the old quays including Pakkahuone and Katajanokka can only take ships up to 215 m. That rules out most modern large cruise ships.

There's a new cruise quay at Hernesaari. It can take ships up to 360 m but only one at a time.

But St Petersburg has a capacity to deal with five to seven cruise ships a day. In 2019 it accommodated over 260 cruise liners.

It would be a very big ask for Helsinki to cope with even a small part of that extra traffic. 

37 minutes ago, tring said:

Seems UK are eventually advising against travel to Russia, though lack of flights being the reason given.

24 minutes ago, Son of Anarchy said:

Just had and update from FCO re Russia.  They are now advising all travel to Russia.

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) advising against all travel to the whole of Russia is quite an important change. 

It means that cruise line now has no option except to pull St. Petersburg and any other Russian port from their itineraries. If they don’t, they won't be insured, they probably won't be able to obtain FO assistance if need be and there will be little or not recourse to diplomatic services on behalf of ships, crews or passengers.

It also means that cruise lines will need to give Russian territorial waters in the Baltic a wide berth.

In the Gulf of Gdansk the territorial waters/exclusive economic zone of the Kaliningrad Oblast (between Poland and Lithuania) stretch into the middle of the Baltic Sea... half way to southern Sweden. As Kaliningrad is an important base for the Russian Baltic Fleet and all manner of naval and military technology, I'm sure that the Russians won't welcome cruise ships anywhere near.

All cruise ships, indeed all ships, will have to set courses well to the north of that area but that shouldn't be a problem... lots and lots of sea.

2 hours ago, tring said:

 

I agree there will be many considerations, but for Carnival I do believe in there will be a different decision for the US based lines.  As I in have mentioned previously a fair number of US passengers have already cancelled upcoming Baltic cruises for this year because they mainly wanted to go to SPB and they are hoping a cruise including that can be repeated another year, (sadly, they do not understand the appeal of many other ports there).  That has also been the case for some UK passengers, but no where near as many.  Of course as time goes on though, the chance of SPB being included in future years is diminishing rapidly.  Hence, I think more US lines will remove the whole Baltic than will UK lines, as what has happened in the past for other countries, like Egypt, for instance.

 

I can see there being a certain rationalisation of Baltic cruises, with some re-routed, with that including more US brand sailings, though of course many sail from within The Baltic, (Copenhagen, Stockholm), so will also take Europeans, who will be less likely to cancel entirely.  Must admit, if I was needing to arrange a non refundable flight to meet up with a Baltic cruise for this year, I would not be doing that at present!

 

I am still hopeful our (modified) May cruise goes ahead though, as it does appear people feeling SPB was essential have already taken advantage of P&O's free transfers before final payment date, due to expectation have been around for a while.  Yet more posters have said they have paid their balances. 

 

In reality that decision obviously has more to do with how things continue to develop and is why I am no longer expecting a very speedy decision from Carnival regards itineraries, though SPB may be replaced this week, in fact I suspect a plan B had been on place for some time.  I would not like to take a gamble on anything though.

 

I feel that your comments are absolutely spot on. 

The US Government advice is "Do not travel to Russia" (although there are caveats) and it's the case that lots of cruisers from the US will have been focused on the magnificence of some of the Saint Petersburg sites.

We've both cruised to Russia and travelled independently there in the past... we think that, whatever the outcome, it may be some time before we or any other tourists can comfortable do that again.

We were planning to cruise to St Petersburg next summer season... we have priority booking and were waiting for the itineraries to be published. The whole point was to visit Saint Petersburg again. However these days we find it best to be pragmatic. So, if there's an interesting alternative... then we would be happy to consider it.

For instance; FOCLs has changed the 18 May 2022 "Exploring the Baltic and St Petersburg" from Newcastle to simply "Exploring the Baltic." St Petersburg has been removed but Stockholm and Visby have been added instead. That would have appealed to us for next year.

Before covid the UK based cruise industry contributed £10 billion a year to our economy and supported 88,000 jobs in our country. It's lost billions in the last couple of years... it now so needs our understanding and our support.

Like you, we're now more than prepared to be patient, understanding and flexible enough give cruise lines time and space to sort out problems that are none of their making. 

17 hours ago, Coravel said:

We invariably choose some of the excursions because when there is limited time in port there is less chance of missing something important.  On the other hand we have joined up with others to go on taxi rides with very informative drivers.  

Many thanks.

Can you give me a guide price for any of the organised excursions. We plan our cruise spending very carefully and, for us, the excursions are usually an important element?

1 hour ago, jeanlyon said:

I'm sure they would, but can't see any cruise ships going there.

5 hours ago, jeanlyon said:

I can't see them calling at Estonia either.  Far too close for comfort.  And there is an extra little piece of Russia between Estonia and Poland. 

That may very well turn out to be true but... 

Individual captains of "Cruise ships" very seldom take chances or make decisions without the express permission of their owners/operators HQ except in an immediate emergency. Decisions on itinerary are almost always made at CEO and Board level.

Decisions are only be made by individual cruise line Boards in light of detailed discussions with those who ensure their ships, the Cruise Line International Association, relevant Government Departments, International Marine organisations... and with those who insure their businesses interests, their own legal advisors and others.

Cruise lines have to balance the safety of their; passengers, crew, ships and their reputations with the economic and reputational cost of making a material change that may disappoint some passengers, result uninsured loss of revenue and good-will, claims for compensation and legal action.

We need to look at things in a sensible perspective. For instance; Estonia is a member of the EU and a member of NATO. It shares it's military base at Tapa with NATO personnel. There is absolutely no reason, as things stand, to avoid it.

The Turkish Black Sea ports are hundreds of nautical miles away from the Ukraine. 

And that; "little bit of Russia", mentioned in a previous post (Kaliningrad)...( between Poland and Lithuania)  is very nearly the size of Devon, it has a population of about  1,000,000 people, a considerable military and strategic role and very a significant naval base... think Devonport! So should we abandon all thoughts of visiting Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Check Republic, Austria, Finland, Germany Sweden as well? Personally, I don't think so... but if things change significantly, I would take informed advice.

Anyone who has concerns has the choice not to cruise. Anyone else... "takes their choice and pays their money."

15 minutes ago, jeanlyon said:

Just heard that Turkey has agreed to block the Bhospherus and the Dardenelles, so nobody will be going to the Black Sea either.

My understanding is that the only ships that Turkey are blocking are Russian warships.

Perhaps we need to wait ad see the details.