The_Big_M

There are a number of big differences. One is that P&O UK operates in a more upmarket sector, and attracts a much older cruiser base. For a younger crowd, the environment and entertainment are more important than the facilities - you can see this in a number of areas e.g. restaurants, hotels. That doesn't mean they are less successful. Another major difference is that P&O ships operate world cruises, which require different facilities, and a somewhat different build. P&O Aust is more akin to the old Ocean Village, with more local operations, and repeated itineraries. The itinerary and capabilities and facilities of the ship are less important to this market. There's certainly nothing wrong with not wanting to be a customer of any brand if they don't appeal to you. However, the fact they don't appeal to you doesn't automatically mean they will collapse and go out of business either.

While that's true, how does that mean that P&O will collapse? They currently hold the majority of the Australian passenger market, have done so for some time, and look to do so for the foreseeable future. One could say the exact same thing as you about Royal Caribbean in the US market. They were the first mega line to operate there, yet they "let their guard down so much that the competition has been allowed to sail in, set up base and operate out of not just New York but also Miami, Los Angeles, Port Everglades and soon to be other ports." Do you also predict that RCL will collapse because there's now a lot of competition? Simply put, there is no logic to this argument. A market can grow, not least as the population does, and it doesn't mean the first operator will collapse just because there are competitors. Especially ones that operate in different market segments.

Most overseas, but not most visitors, who are from Australia where it's not required.

Last time discussed, none, and he didn't want to do any.

You've contradicted yourself there. That's the whole point of P&O - that you can't be everything to everyone. P&O has developed a different brand identity to Carnival and they don't do the same thing.

You seem to think it impressive that you have been to places where the locals do not speak any English? It isn't really that hard... But I guess if you think you must have a translator anywhere that happens you must have a very conservative, risk averse approach to life.

Sorry to hear that. In Japan, I got around with considerable ease without speaking the language. Well done on being able to speak the language of course, but it's quite possible to visit most parts of Japan without needing an interpreter.

Not right. You don't have to like them, but it's common for brands to cater for a variety of markets. Qantas has Jetstar for budget travellers, Intercontinental hotel has Holiday Inn Express and the old Myer group had Kmart, as just a few examples. And P&O Aust serves that purpose for Carnival group. Say P&O was abolished. All those travellers who do frequent them would then switch to other lines. I suspect you wouldn't be so happy about that, from previous posts of yours about their clientele. So you should actually be grateful they exist, from your perspective... Incidentally, your facts were also wrong about passengers. The passenger line carrying the most Australian passengers is actually P&O Aust!

Actually, that was the point I responded to - that it was stated it should be accepted as part and parcel ref: "If you choose to cruise you sometimes have to put up with … ships having blackouts occasionally. " So yes, someone is asking you to "accept that." Which means you're arguing with your own position...

If you say so.

Wow. Condoning that blackouts are now fine to be accepted, and meanwhile ignoring evidence to the contrary, that even the cruiselines don't expect passengers to accept that. That's the absurdity.

Not something you check. You only do when you know it's safe.

I'm yet to see any cruise material warning passengers that ships may have blackouts - and yet to hear any cruise line statement when there have been failure that passengers should accept that. Passengers are fully compensated for the disruption as it is not a normal occurrence. There's a big difference between the conditions given to employees, and those actually paying for that services, i.e. to cruise as passengers in this case. Occasional blackouts is not something a cruiser is expected to accept - even less so one that puts them in danger such that they need to be evacuated off by helicopter.

There are other Australian vessels supporting rigs that could do other support work off west and north coasts e.g. MMA Plover.

That video reminds me of Pacific Sun.