9265359

Only if you want to dine early - 5.30 to 6pm. Otherwise it is join the queue and wait, with the wait being dependant on whether you want to dine at a popular time 7.30 to 8.30, or if you dine at an unpopular time such as between 9pm and 9.30pm when they close the doors, when it is unlikely there is any queue at all.

No, because I would hope that they had been sufficiently well trained so that they did without needing to be told.

As before, never seen a queue at all, so a 40 minute queue must mean something exceptional had gone wrong.

Says it all.

Never seen a queue to drop off whenever I have used CPS, and never seen a queue to pick up the keys either. I suppose they might happen, but they never have been at the times I have been there.

Norovirus is transmitted both airborne and touch, for example touching that table or chair that hasn't been cleaned properly after use by the previous occupant and then picking up a bread roll to eat. Utter utter nonsense that only those with a weakened immune system are susceptible to norovirus. Utter utter nonsense. And yet more nonsense. The best way to protect yourself is to be zealous with handwashing and the best way for the cruise line to protect its customers is to properly clean and making sure people are washing their hands.

A YouTuber who gets paid if people watch their videos posting another controversial video that will get people watching and earn them money - I am shocked, utterly shocked.

Does it work against norovirus? I noticed that their advertising (Boots Anti Viral Hand Foam - 50ml - Boots) now makes no mention of it and only makes the claim that it "kills 99.99% of enveloped viruses and harmful bacteria" which as norovirus is not an enveloped virus isn't exactly helpful. What will kill norovirus is Hypochlorous Acid (HOCL) but this product doesn't contain any of that. Likewise, but I would actually like the ire that people have those not using the gel instead directed at ship's management for not ensuring that effective cleaning with bleach is taking place as that would have an impact on reducing the transmission of norovirus.

Alcohol hand gels are effective against some viruses such as during the pandemic, but they are completely ineffective against norovirus. Norovirus (vomiting bug) - NHS (www.nhs.uk) "Washing your hands frequently with soap and water is the best way to stop it spreading. Alcohol hand gels do not kill norovirus." That someone isn't using the alcohol hand gel is irrelevant to the spread of norovirus. What is relevant is whether they have washed their hands properly immediately beforehand, not an hour ago, and even then that doesn't kill the virus unless you have the water at a temperature which would scald you, all it does is temporarily remove the virus from your hands. The most important issue is whether the staff have cleaned all the touchable surfaces with bleach after the last occupants have left, as bleach will kill norovirus.

When I was recently on Arvia I noticed that there seemed to be very few tables larger than six, and that even the tables of six seemed to be far fewer than on the older ships, with far more tables for two and four. I guess that they have finally realised that most people don't want to eat at shared tables, but that does have a knock on for large groups who need those tables.

When I was on Britannia last summer the food in the Glass House was very good. And then last winter on Azura the food in the Glass House was very bad, despite being (theoretically) the same menu. Because of shortages of some things they had taken to changing what was being served from the menu description without actually bothering to tell the customers. And the service in the Glass House was poor, with the staff not knowing (or caring) when the two menus swapped, constantly having to ask for cutlery, and management not having the sense to tell a waiter that bathing in aftershave/perfume might be rather off-putting to those dining. As for the other restaurants, Epicurean used to be very good about eight or nine years ago, but the last time couple of times I tried it in 2021 and 2022 it wasn't, with service being unbearably slow (and on speaking to them it was intended to be so) and the food being 'so so'. Similarly Sinhu used to be very good when Atul Kochhar still had something to do with it. Then over the last few years it has been heading downhill and when I tried it last winter on Azura it had reached very very poor, with the dishes either being tasteless or the chef being heavy handed with the chilli, and the dishes certainly didn't have the balanced flavours of the past. And the service was nothing to write home about. As for the MDR, the menus are pretty uninspiring (and the celebration night menus are nothing to celebrate these days) and the food brought out can be rather hit and miss.

Undoubtably a bunch of Zoomer consultants telling P&O management that they will be beating people away with sticks such will be the popularity of a vegan restaurant onboard, and not actually considering the demographics of the P&O customer base doesn't match up with their trendy London experience. It doesn't need wait for a refit, as the space itself looks really good and would work perfectly if they just replaced the pure vegan menu with something more inclusive.

The issue seems to be the vegan reaction that you cannot have a 'real' vegan restaurant that serves both dishes with meat in them and dishes without. I like vegan food, but generally as part of a meal and not a whole meal. Now if they served the Green&Co vegan dishes AND some other equally good and imaginative meat dishes then perhaps the restaurant wouldn't be 95% empty most of the time.

It isn't catering for every eventuality, it is assessing and minimising risk. The situations when an evacuation are needed in reality are not likely to be of the 'have a wander down to the theatre at your leisure to have your cruise card scanned' embarkation check. If P&O is seriously having to evacuate the many thousands of passengers and crew off into lifeboats then something really really bad has happened, and that really really bad thing will undoubtably have resulted in some who though they could provide assistance not being able to do so.

What would happen if you are incapacitated during the incident that requires the ship to be evacuated and an evac chair had not been booked and thus there was no way to evacuate your wife? Does the cruise line take the risk that someone could manage the stairs when the ship is sinking and take more bookings, but if they are wrong and they can't they leave them to drown? Now in the past that might have been the basis that P&O were operating under, but now they seem to have decided to take a new low risk option. It is hard to criticise that decision, the deserved criticism is of the poor handling of existing bookings made before they made that decision and the poor handling of new bookings. Personally I think that even with the new policy P&O are still massively underestimating the number of people who would need assistance if there was an emergency that required evacuation.

They have no legal liability for the debts of the company they are shareholders in.

If that had been done you would have had people complaining that the cruises were not on sale until summer 2023 when the flights were arranged - and if your suggestion is to contract with the airlines a couple of years in advance, well good luck with that. Most likely they don't because of the cost and because it would be too complex to evidence that the insurable loss was not the company's fault. Decisions on delays are quite often a subjective decision of the aircrew, so would an insurance company pay out if the pilot thought it was too foggy to fly but the insurance company didn't? Then there are the issues of what happens if the delay is due to knock on delays throughout the day, as again there would be questions on whether if things had been done differently with those earlier flights then the insurable delay could have been avoided. And that's before you get to deliberate delays where an aircraft with a lot of passengers on a long flight has gone wrong, but you have another aircraft that is working and is due to take a few passengers on a short run - lots of airlines will choose to 'swap' the aircraft and use the working one to result in the lowest compensation pay out.

Brand protection is a management issue not a legal issue. Did it? I doubt it had any significant impact even over the short term, let alone the medium to long term. Even with the flight compensation (or the lack of), I doubt that it will make the slightest dent in the numbers booking with P&O. It was the least bad decision for the company - if it had worked then everything was fine, and if it didn't then not their problem legally. And had they proactively cancelled the Caribbean season on a 'well the aircraft might break down' then the bad publicity from the 'you have ruined my Christmas / life / etc.' stories would have been even worse than this minor hiccup, and that's before you get to all the lost revenue.

Because it isn't P&O's legal risk! If P&O legal were asked for an opinion then their answer would most likely have been that any flight delay compensation is down to the airline and it is not a legal matter for P&O. It was a management decision not a legal decision. It is obvious that P&O were between a rock and a hard place - ships due to sail a Caribbean season with thousands of passengers who have booked and paid, but no airline to fly them there. P&O operations needed flights and Maleth Aero were the only ones available to do it. P&O had two options - 1. Cancel all the planned sailings and try to do something else with the ships; or 2. Hire Maleth Aero and cross their fingers and if it didn't go well say "not our problem". They decided on option 2.

Assuming the airline 1. actually has the money to pay; and 2. even if it does have the money is willing to pay. Good luck to anyone trying to get money from an airline with no physical presence in the UK who can't / doesn't want to pay. Perhaps P&O should have thought a little bit harder about that before they hired a tiny two-bit airline to fulfil this contract, and the implications for their customers getting flight compensation from a non-UK airline with damn all in assets. Legally, P&O may be the clear, but morally and reputation-wise... A 51% stake in Maleth Aero Limited was sold in December 2020 for £800k. I doubt a company that is worth around £1.6m has £500k in cash sitting around with no other call on it other than to hand over as compensation.

I have done a few fly-cruises and almost all have involved arriving a day or two beforehand - not only to avoid the risk of missing the ship, but also to give time to look around the area where the ship is starting and ending the cruise, otherwise that is just an 'in and out'. The only ones that haven't involved a stay before are where the flight is actually a charter run by the cruise line and if the flight is late then the ship will wait, the same as it will wait for a late excursion bus.

Just to note, the issue isn't specifically the number of chairs - it isn't hard to add more chairs - but the number of staff trained to use the chairs, which can be up to four if the person is over a certain weight. Then there is the issue of whether you expect the staff to go back up or down the stairs with the chair to recover additional people - most evac procedures in buildings would prohibit that as you wouldn't want to send people back into a burning building, but perhaps the procedures for evacuating a sinking ship or a ship on fire are different.

Back in the days that P&O had dedicated wine waiters then I found a discrete tip when ordering on the first night ensured prompt service for the rest of the cruise. But these days, if my ordered drinks don't turn up before my starter arrives, then if it is a cold starter I will sit waiting until the drinks arrive and if it is a warm starter I will send it back and ask that a fresh one be brought after the drinks have arrived. Both actions normally attract questions from MDR managers and usually prevent a re-occurrence.

On my Arvia cruise last week a couple I was chatting with had just experienced this issue. Their story (which I took to be true) was that they had booked two cruises onboard on a prior cruise at the same time through the onboard sales P&O sales agents, with both cruises requiring an accessible cabin due to one of them permanently needing to use a wheelchair. The Arvia cruise was the first of the two booked with the second one due to take place in August, but that day they had been told they wouldn't be travelling in August as there was no evacuation chair available on that cruise and the blame was being put on them for not completing a second mobility form. The thought that struck me was twofold. Firstly it would have been blindingly obvious to the P&O sales agent that the person sat before them in a large powered wheelchair would need an evacuation chair for any cruises booked - they were not someone with a broken leg or other temporary impairment that would disappear in a short period of time, so why on earth wasn't an evacuation chair booked then and there rather than relying on the passenger submitting a follow up mobility form - or rather two forms, one for each cruise as that seemed to be the issue. Secondly what kind of rubbish IT system does P&O have? Is it rocket science to note against a passenger's details that they need an evacuation chair and then that information is automatically carried forward into future bookings. Is it rocket science to work out that if someone needs an evacuation chair in May they will almost certainly need it in August. Frankly for anyone being denied travel on a cruise because of the lack of an evacuation chair and they are convinced they told P&O or they had travelled on a previous cruise, then I would seriously suggest submitting a Subject Access Request (How to make a subject access request | ICO) as it might make interesting reading, and perhaps things a little more difficult for P&O to justify if they have ignored information they hold.

I certainly do. As it is a ship sailing from a non-EU country (the UK) with a first stop in the EU then the EU border guard rules come into play - Practical handbook for border guards_en.pdf (europa.eu) As section 2.5. says - The crews and passengers lists must be transmitted to the respective border guards by the cruise ship's captain or, failing that, the ship owner's agent at the latest twenty-four hours before arriving in the port, or at the latest at the time the ship leaves the previous port, if the voyage time is less than twenty-four hours, As the voyage will be less than 24 hours from the UK to the first EU port then then agent will want to submit the crew and passenger list as soon as the ship sails, so they will want to have a finalised list ready to go as soon as embarkation is closed. I would not expect the ship's agent to wait until the actual departure before submitting, but they would do so as soon as embarkation is closed even if the ship is not due to sail for another hour. So the issue would be when the call was made by the late passengers to say they were running late was made. If the agent has already submitted the crew and passenger list because embarkation has closed and then I would not expect the captain to mess the agent around asking for them to make amendments and would simply tell the late running passengers 'tough luck'. If the call was before embarkation closed and the list finalised then if the captain was certain the late passengers would arrive on time and still allow the agent time to submit the list then I suppose the captain might agree, but I rather doubt they would.