9265359

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.

I have been on a cruise where someone running late was successful doing that - they were half an hour late back from Rome to Civitavecchia and the next stop for the ship was Valetta in Malta for disembarkation. However it was a port call during a cruise, the ship had two days to sail between Civitavecchia and Valetta, and the flights home from Malta were arranged by the cruise company, and undoubtably there would have been some interesting discussions about the passenger's luggage on the ship if the late passengers had just decided to fly back home from Rome rather than try to get to Malta. Plus the passengers had been able to give the ship specific details when they called about when they would arrive as they had missed the train from Rome and were in a taxi so could give an accurate ETA from the cars navigation system, and so the captain knew it was a certain 30 minutes late and not a vague claim. But phoning the cruise ship telling them you are going to be late on embarkation at the start of a cruise - zero chance the ship will specifically wait. If the ship is delayed for some other reason (weather, cleaning, port traffic, etc.) then they might let you embark late, but even then that is a might rather than it being a certainty, since if the passenger manifest has already been done and submitted there is no likelihood that someone is going to spend the time, effort, and cost amending that.

I thought this was interesting from the NHS given the opprobrium directed to the hand gel dodgers - 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. Also note the 'frequently' in the washing with soap and water as washing doesn't kill norovirus unless the temperature of the water is above 60c, which is hot enough to scald your hands. Effective washing for at least 20 seconds will remove the virus, but a splash under the tap won't. If you want to kill norovirus then you need to use bleach, and that's where the crew comes in with lots and lots of cleaning of surfaces, which as it can live on those surfaces for up to four weeks, then it can certainly last between two customers pulling up a chair to sit down unless it has been wiped down.

On the cruise over the last fortnight the Sixth Street venue didn't open for breakfast, but opened for 'brunch' between 10am and 2pm, before closing until 5pm. The food was good and on port days the service was good and speedy. The issue was on sea days on a half-term cruise when every table was full with families and the kitchen simply couldn't keep up leading to significant waits for food to be delivered. I am sure the food would have been good, particularly as it has a dedicated kitchen, as the food in the Olive Grove on Iona was good for being freshly cooked to order. The issue is that there are simply not enough pure vegetarians in P&O's demographic to make it work. It is better in that it is an alternative menu that is available to a far larger number of people than the venue on Iona that was constantly full. The issue is that the food now comes from the main kitchen rather than the dedicated attached kitchen on Iona so they have adjusted the menu accordingly, and as with many dishes that come out of the MDR kitchen you look at the menu and think 'that's interesting' and then what turns up only bears some similarity to the menu description - for example my wife had the lamb shank tagine one evening, and described it as lamb shank in gravy with a spoonful of couscous, whilst my beef koftas gyros were simply beef meatballs on a pita bread, with weirdly a sweet chilli sauce. The venue certainly wasn't open for breakfast or lunch when I was on Iona, but then it wasn't open at all as when I last sailed it was closed up as the ship was not sailing full being as the two cruises were not too long after they started sailing again. Now they have people on the door actively trying to drag people in to breakfast or lunch as people head down the corridor to the more popular Meridian.

Nope, £20 each for adults if my memory is correct.

To be pedantic, it isn't a 'catch 22' situation as that is an impossible situation where you cannot do one thing until you do another thing, but you cannot do the second thing until you do the first thing. For it to be a 'catch 22' situation P&O would be prevented from putting out the hand gel dispensers until thy had put in place additional protective measures to counter the risk caused by those that don't use the hand gel dispensers, and in addition P&O would be prevented from putting in place those additional protective measures until they had put out hand gel dispensers. Obviously putting out the hand gel dispensers is entirely independent of the additional protective measures, and the additional protective measures are entirely independent of the hand gel dispensers, so it is nothing like a 'catch 22' situation. A good risk prevention strategy relies on many layers of prevention, and if P&O stopped relying on the single layer of prevention of hand gel dispensers and introduced good and effective secondary measures then the risk created by those who avoid the gel dispensers would be minimised.

As before, the cure to recognise that some people will not follow the hygiene rules so you don't only rely on those hygiene rules to be the protection. You put in place procedures on top of those hygiene rules, such as removing self-service, moving to single use condiments, lots and lots of cleaning of tables, etc. Focusing on those few individuals who are not using the hand gel rather than the $20 billion company who is not putting in place the mitigations necessary, is pointing the figure in the wrong direction.

Seriously?

To quote from the P&O FAQ the prohibited items in that category are - Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB) ham radios, communication scanners, wide-band receivers, satellite phones, transformers, lasers and laser pointers So all types of walkie-talkies are permitted, although interestingly Apple iPhone 14s and 15s are prohibited as they have the ability to communicate with satellites.

Yes there are precautions that would cure that. The cure is to stop self-service and have staff serve the passengers at the buffet, and plenty of cruise ships including other Carnival Corp brands do that (complete with plexi shields to prevent passengers touching or sneezing on the food). It is not rocket science.

Given that norovirus is rampaging around onboard and not onshore, then surely the issue is people not using the gel stations as they disembark at ports to help prevent it being transferred off the ship!

Obviously P&O are aware that people are doing this and that whatever they do some people will not wash their hands / use the gel (or even if they do wash their hands / use the gel then immediately negate that by licking their fingers). In the light of this knowledge then I would expect P&O to set their norovirus protocols to deal with it - as before, removing self-service, removing the condiments, and lots and lots of cleaning, rather than shrugging their shoulders and going "ah well, we tried, not our fault if you fall sick".

They are allowed as they are not listed as a prohibited item - https://www.pocruises.com/frequently-asked-questions?categoryId=life-on-board&questionId=What-am-I-not-allowed-to-take-on-board.summary However it is probably pointless as they won't work very well on the ship and taking them onshore in certain countries is likely to get you spending time with some very cross police/military.