Holyhead tour missed- tour operator not happy

[restasured]

Ships do sell and markup excursions but it is a small markup. The drinks and other pay activities they sell onboard would far exceed the small amount of revenue from selling an excursion at a single stop. So I disagree they would make more money on the excursions. The tender fees would cost 1/2 of what they would make on the excursion revenue.

 

I also find the email from the tour operator to be in bad taste. I would hesitate to use any tour operator that conveys that attitude.

 

Bottom line is that the cruise line loses more money when a port is missed then it makes in on board revenue. A large number of guests purchase excursions from the cruise line. The amount of money spent and the corresponding profits would far exceed any revenue made on board from alcohol, shops, casino, etc.

 

In addition the cruise line loses a bit of goodwill of its passengers when a scheduled stop is missed. Such a change is not made lightly. Counter to what the letter indicates.

 

I have removed this tour operator from my list of those that I would use in the future.

Edited May 9, 2016 by restasured

[whatcruiseisnext]

I agree! I thought the letter was very unprofessional, and even more so in light of the fact they collected a considerable amount of money for not providing a service.

 

I totally agree. We used this company in two ports on our British Isles cruise in 2015. We will again cruise the British Isles and have many friends who will do so. We will NEVER recommend this company nor use them again. Any company who writes such as letter as the OP posted, is not worthy of our business.

 

Thanks to the OP for passing this letter on. I believe that Busy BUS will lose far more than just 50% of the income expected from that days tours. In this day of internet and social media.....what were they thinking?

[RDC1]

Ships do sell and markup excursions but it is a small markup. The drinks and other pay activities they sell onboard would far exceed the small amount of revenue from selling an excursion at a single stop. So I disagree they would make more money on the excursions. The tender fees would cost 1/2 of what they would make on the excursion revenue.

 

The cruise ships make 40-50% margin on ship board excursions. Depending upon the excursions. One of the reasons why you can go to a port, book a private excursion to the same areas on a small group and still pay considerably less then a shipboard excursion. The cruise line also benefits in their excursion cost structure in volume (costs less to have 45 people on a large bus, per person then on a smaller van, cost of a guide spread out over more people, etc.). Then they have the ability to negotiate the price down during the contract process itself. Also a percentage of cruise line expenses related to excursions are fixed costs, not variable costs, which means those costs are incurred in the port is made or not.

 

Docking fees for a port such as Holyhead is relatively low. The fee structure for the port is available online.

 

For cruise ships the port charges are

 

£0.08 per GRT (Charge capped at 100,000 GRT)

 

which equals 8,000 British Pounds or around $11,600 at current exchange rates. Not much at all. In addition there is a 1655 pilotage fee. If the tenders take up multiple sports at the Quay you might take another 600 in fees for the tenders. So total cost according to the published harbor rates would be around $15,000 dollars.

 

The extra amount the cruise line paid when they extended their stay in Hamburg would have been much much greater

 

Compare that to the number of ship excursions sold, X the price at a margin of 40% - 50%.

 

Then you have to take into account the loss of goodwill experienced by the cruise line from the on board passengers.

 

The cruise lines do not make a decision to skip a port without a need to do so

Edited May 9, 2016 by RDC1

[RDC1]

Per the OP, the weather was forecast to get better throughout the day, not worse.

 

While it was forecast to improve, the weather forecast clearly was for 30+ mile an hours winds with gusts 40+ with poor visibility at the time the ship was supposed to be anchoring. The winds were not forecast to be below 30 until 10am. Considering that the thrusters can only produce enough thrust to counteract a maximum 25 mile an hour wind, the ship would have been trying to anchor in a port area with winds in excess of it ability to do so safely.

 

Such winds are not a problem at sea when the ship has forward thrust, but are certainly a problem when it is not using its main engines in anchoring.

 

So at best the ship would have had to delay its approach until the winds dropped, while still having to stick to its departure schedule. With that forecast the ship would not have been able to enter port until atleast 10 and by the time it anchors, lowers tenders, etc, it would probably have been 11 before the first passengers got ashore, at best.

 

That would have pretty much eliminated a lots of the excursions anyway. Considering the time to get ashore and then back offshore.

 

At worst it still would have resulted in no landing if the winds had stayed high.

[suzyed]

From someone who was actually onboard the ship....we would not have felt safe taking a tender into port considering the condition of the seas! Everyone can speculate as to the safety of tendering, but if you were the ones to have to step onto those boats, I'm sure your opinion would be different.

 

We regretted missing the port and losing half our money through no fault of our own, but the alternative could have been far worse.

 

As far as the cruise line goes....they FULLY refunded the money paid by the passengers who purchased the ships tour, so they did indeed, suffer a great loss.

For anyone to infer that the cruise line made this decision to increase revenue from the passengers is just false.

[mamkmm2]

The company took several buses, several employees, and drove two hours one way to get to the port. Do I think the manager used PC wording to make his point? Nope. But Busybus has a very high national and international rating because of some of their tours and have won lots of awards. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

Best all around answer for everyone is that it is obvious that certain ports, due to percentage of missed tenders, should be avoided by private excursion companies. This addresses everyone's limitations.

[TravelingEA]

The excursion company, should have potential losses, in their pricing plans, just like a retailer does with credit card fees and shrinkage.

[lstone19]

The excursion company, should have potential losses, in their pricing plans, just like a retailer does with credit card fees and shrinkage.

 

 

Yep, weather is a risk they should factored in to their business plan. It happens. Most travel businesses accept that it happens. Apparently this one doesn't.

[RDC1]

Yep, weather is a risk they should factored in to their business plan. It happens. Most travel businesses accept that it happens. Apparently this one doesn't.

 

Considering that they keep 50% of the deposits, that should be sufficient to pay any incurred expenses. They might not make a profit, their staff might not get as many hours as they expected, but they should not suffer an out of pocket loss, only as one may put it loss of opportunity.

Edited May 10, 2016 by RDC1

[RDC1]

They might not have to worry about it in the future. I cannot find a single cruise on either Princess or Celebrity that lists Holyhead in the future. Is there another name they use to identify the stop there?

[tailspintom]

The decision to abort a port is based on a number of factors, including weather, tides, and conditions for the entire day, not just at disembarkation. Passengers have to be able to get back to the ship in relative comfort.

 

Several years ago, I was on a Hawaiian cruise and when we anchored off Lahaina, it was a gorgeous, sunny, calm day. Mid-afternoon was a different story. A violent storm blew up at about 3pm as hundreds were getting back to the pier to tender to the ship. I got on a tender at about 3:15pm when it hit. We shoved off as people ran for cover and spent the next hour and a half in an enclosed tender that was motoring up a wave, teetering and then slamming down the other side. Most passengers and some of the crew were seasick. We had to persevere as the ship up-anchored, turned around and re-anchored, and the three tenders before us disembarked. For many, it was a very frightening if not terrifying experience. At the very least, extremely uncomfortable. Should the Captain have canceled to port? Those in the tenders would have said, "Yes!" but imagine the outcry if he had. After all, it was perfect weather when we arrived at the port.

Yep, and that is why we don't have the right to question the Captain. They are the final arbiter on the safety and well being of both the passengers and crew.

[fishin' musician]

They might not have to worry about it in the future. I cannot find a single cruise on either Princess or Celebrity that lists Holyhead in the future. Is there another name they use to identify the stop there?

 

That may explain the cantankerous demeanor.

[HI-C-Dubs]

They might not have to worry about it in the future. I cannot find a single cruise on either Princess or Celebrity that lists Holyhead in the future. Is there another name they use to identify the stop there?

 

 

I read a news article online about how Holyhead's harbor isn't really ready for large cruise ships, and that the Welsh government was aware of the complaints. Apparently the harbor is very hard to dock in during bad weather and as such gets passed by often. I guess the cruise lines won't be back until things are improved? That would make sense- most cruise ships today are much bigger than even the Titanic

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[settle2000]

They charged the customers 50% of the tour price even though no services were provided. They require payment at the time of booking so you are stuck. It is apparently not uncommon to miss this port due to weather and inadequate port facilities. We will never use them again or book any tour that requires advance payment. BEWARE. BEWARE BEWARE

[Shoalwater]

Yep, weather is a risk they should factored in to their business plan. It happens. Most travel businesses accept that it happens. Apparently this one doesn't.

 

It's called the non-refundable portion of your pre-paid excursion.

[deise17311]

I find their email to be in very poor taste.

 

They choose to be in a business with a short season and where there are risks. One of the risks is that their customers may have to cancel due to many reasons, with weather and mechanical issues being two of the most common. I think their choices are to suck it up and deal with it or to change their business plan. To drag their customers into a beef they have with Princess is petty and unprofessional.

 

I agree- with a carnival ship just slamming into a dock, I'm sure the passengers safety is above selling more drinks -

[lstone19]

It's called the non-refundable portion of your pre-paid excursion.

 

I agree that having a non-refundable portion of the charge is one way to factor in risk by pushing some of that risk on to the customer. And that's fine if the customer is in agreement. But if so, you then don't go and complain about how unfair the cancellation was in addition to keeping your non-refundable portion. And if you really want to complain, there are a lot more professional ways to do it.

[Coral]

STATEMENT FROM BUSYBUS

 

Dear valued clients and friends

 

18 BusyBus staff were approaching the quayside of Holyhead this morning after a 2-hour drive (leaving Liverpool at 4:30am) with a fleet of 9 vehicles and guides when, at 6:07am, we received the catastrophic news of the decision to cancel the arrival of your ship, the Caribbean Princess.

 

 

While I can see this is disappointing, this is not catastrophic. Catastrophic would be if tourists were in a car accident while in port.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Coral

[pklein9747]

We were on this cruise also and knew the risks when we booked BusyBus in Wales. On that morning, we would NEVER have gotten off the ship and into a tender. Granted, we were far from shore, but the weather has horrendous. Busy bus has already issued a credit for 50% to our credit card and I am going to attempt to recoup the rest through out trip insurance.

 

However, I was very taken back by the email that this company owner sent. it was truly unprofessional and actually made us feel like the we were being duped by Princess and not by him. I hope many people read this thread and do not use this company in the future (they also operate out of Liverpool).

[Astro Flyer]

I find their email to be in very poor taste.

 

They choose to be in a business with a short season and where there are risks. One of the risks is that their customers may have to cancel due to many reasons, with weather and mechanical issues being two of the most common. I think their choices are to suck it up and deal with it or to change their business plan. To drag their customers into a beef they have with Princess is petty and unprofessional.

 

We were on this cruise also and knew the risks when we booked BusyBus in Wales. On that morning, we would NEVER have gotten off the ship and into a tender. Granted, we were far from shore, but the weather has horrendous. Busy bus has already issued a credit for 50% to our credit card and I am going to attempt to recoup the rest through out trip insurance.

 

However, I was very taken back by the email that this company owner sent. it was truly unprofessional and actually made us feel like the we were being duped by Princess and not by him. I hope many people read this thread and do not use this company in the future (they also operate out of Liverpool).

An interesting & informative thread which shows me that BusBus will never be a company that I would ever use. :rolleyes:

 

I didn't read their Trip Advisor replies because their letter basically absolving BusyBus of any responsibility is not the type of company I would use. Their accusations are baseless assumptions on their part & it's beyond ridiculous to question the captain's decision & then BusyBus whines about it.

 

I understand their disappointment but they still got to keep 50% of the fee while passengers paid 50% for nothing except a letter absolving BusyBus of any responsibility. I would never use a tour company that apparently required full payment in advance & then charges 50% when the ship is unable to safely get passengers into port. Their calloused disregard for passenger safety is terrible & is another reason I will never use BusyBus.

 

This company's attitude that it's someone else's fault is the lousy attitude too prevalent today. They compound their problem by leading passengers to believe it was any cruise ship's fault & the cruise line owes them compensation. :eek:

 

I'll remember to never use BusyBus for any future visits to the UK. They may offer good tours but would not patronize any company operating like BusyBus.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Astro Flyer

[Shogun]

Hi All

 

OK, tour operator had a bad day, and not for the first time, however what was said by him was out of order, however he could easily be insured for such loss,

 

most insurance policies of this type of business loss will only cover actual costs,

 

drivers wages fuel etc, the cost is very small in if spread over all tickets sold per year, around a penny or two

 

yours Shogun

[LoveThisCruisingThing]

Well, since it's in the fine print in the contract, the company is entitled to keep the money and would tell you so. This is another example of why I like to book only the ship's tours. The letter was a bad idea, though, I agree.

 

Only ship's tours for me also.

[SwissDave]

I find their email to be in very poor taste.

 

They choose to be in a business with a short season and where there are risks. One of the risks is that their customers may have to cancel due to many reasons, with weather and mechanical issues being two of the most common. I think their choices are to suck it up and deal with it or to change their business plan. To drag their customers into a beef they have with Princess is petty and unprofessional.

 

Where do you get the idea they choose to be in a business with a short season? From what I see they are a business that runs every day of the year doing lots of different excursions for non cruise ship passengers. There is no need to change their business plan as excursions for cruise ships are a tiny fraction of their overall business.

 

Cruising in Europe is not like some places ships departing from America go where individual islands appear to have very little economy apart from a few months of ships calling there.

[PescadoAmarillo]

Where do you get the idea they choose to be in a business with a short season? From what I see they are a business that runs every day of the year doing lots of different excursions for non cruise ship passengers. There is no need to change their business plan as excursions for cruise ships are a tiny fraction of their overall business.

 

Cruising in Europe is not like some places ships departing from America go where individual islands appear to have very little economy apart from a few months of ships calling there.

Let me rephrase, then, with no change in message: their choice to sell to cruise passengers leaves them at risk for last minute cancellations. All they have to do is advise prospective clients that cruise ship arrivals are threatened often enough by weather that they don't wish to commit buses and personnel to tours for cruise passengers, because they seem to be unable to refrain from giving themselves a public black eye when they do.