Should P&O stop going to St Peter Port?

[Tommart]

13 minutes ago, FrankyPlum said:

Hi there.

 

I was on Ventura N907 last week and was disappointed that we couldn't get into Guernsey. On the face of it, the sea looked a little choppy but there were no whitecaps. The photos that I took from the ship show a relatively calm sea. However, when I went down to Prom deck and looked properly I noted that there was quite a swell with a relatively long wave period - it's the swell which would have made the tender journeys a vomit comet and probably dangerous to get on and off the tender. So, although disappointed I agree that it would have been dangerous for the majority of passengers to have gone into Guernsey last Thursday. Last Thursday was also near the top of a big spring tide, so there would have been fast moving tides all day to deal with.

 

There were two things that surprised me though:

1. I looked at the wind/waves forecasts on the Tuesday and they indicated waves/swell. I messaged my husband at the time and said that I didn't think we would get into Guernsey on the Thursday. It came as no surprise on the Thursday morning to me, but I was surprised that an alternative destination hadn't been arranged. 

2. The log. Force 8 on the Beaufort scale states "Moderately high waves of greater length; edges of crests break into spindrift; foam is blown in well-marked streaks along the direction of the wind". I've spent quite a lot of time at sea on smaller fishing boats and I know what a force 6 looks like!

 

I note that Britannia is due into Guernsey this Friday. The weather reports on xcweather are currently predicting Force 7, gusting Force 8, so I wonder if they will get an alternative port?

Interesting comments - thanks. 

 

What you say confirms what others have said - that the problem was swell, but that there was nothing like a Force 8 gale blowing.

 

Whoever took the decision to refer to the Force 8 in the log was doubtless trying to protect the company against claims from passengers that the decision to skip Guernsey was taken for the 'wrong' reasons. That's the problem once a company has lost the trust of so many of its customers. If they'd been honest about it and referred to the swell, instead of a fictitious wind speed, there'd have been no problem.  As it is, though, the lie has been found out, and it's made matters worse.

[FrankyPlum]

Just been having a look. Last Thursday

Today (when Ventura made it in!). 

[Bazrat]

1 hour ago, Tom Marton said:

Interesting comments - thanks. 

 

What you say confirms what others have said - that the problem was swell, but that there was nothing like a Force 8 gale blowing.

 

Whoever took the decision to refer to the Force 8 in the log was doubtless trying to protect the company against claims from passengers that the decision to skip Guernsey was taken for the 'wrong' reasons. That's the problem once a company has lost the trust of so many of its customers. If they'd been honest about it and referred to the swell, instead of a fictitious wind speed, there'd have been no problem.  As it is, though, the lie has been found out, and it's made matters worse.

So in your opinion if the swell is high you can sue them for not putting the tenders out,but a force 8 Gale there ok you cannot get compensation.

[sogne]

The sea description  in the Beaufort Scale applies to open waters not confined areas such as the approach to St PP where strong tides, shallow water and wind gaps between areas of land such as bays, islands and headlands can and do differ from a forecast. The Dover Strait often has stronger winds  through the wind gap between Dover and Cap Griz Nez than areas close by.  Also in onshore winds especially those from high pressure are often stronger close to ashore than offshore in the same way offshore winds are lighter close to land than out a t sea. Today all seems to be well but Friday for Britannia seems to a possible problem.

[Tommart]

48 minutes ago, Bazrat said:

So in your opinion if the swell is high you can sue them for not putting the tenders out,but a force 8 Gale there ok you cannot get compensation.

I doubt you'd be able to get any compensation whichever way it was (unless you could prove that there was no good reason for missing the port - unlikely).

 

My point was, though, simply that this statement (and I'm certainly not suggesting the captain was responsible for it) is wholly inaccurate and aimed at discouraging litigious people from trying to claim. A force 8 gale sounds more impressive than heavy swell, perhaps.

 

[sogne]

17 minutes ago, Tom Marton said:

I doubt you'd be able to get any compensation whichever way it was (unless you could prove that there was no good reason for missing the port - unlikely).

 

My point was, though, simply that this statement (and I'm certainly not suggesting the captain was responsible for it) is wholly inaccurate and aimed at discouraging litigious people from trying to claim. A force 8 gale sounds more impressive than heavy swell, perhaps.

 

unless things have changed since my sea going days the captain is responsible for the accuracy of the log

ships today have a multitude of tech equipment that records data of all sorts  and what about the pilot is his opinion being falsified?

[Tommart]

9 minutes ago, sogne said:

unless things have changed since my sea going days the captain is responsible for the accuracy of the log

ships today have a multitude of tech equipment that records data of all sorts  and what about the pilot is his opinion being falsified?

There's a difference between the official log (which passengers don't see) and this 'log' which is published for the consumption of returning passengers.

 

This is inaccurate (putting it kindly). The 'real' log will reflect, I'm sure, the accurate position.

[Bazrat]

8 minutes ago, Tom Marton said:

There's a difference between the official log (which passengers don't see) and this 'log' which is published for the consumption of returning passengers.

 

This is inaccurate (putting it kindly). The 'real' log will reflect, I'm sure, the accurate position.

So your opinion is the captain who is in charge put out false information interesting take on the matter,so those on board through litigation can get the official log to prove the captain lied.

[Tommart]

8 minutes ago, Bazrat said:

So your opinion is the captain who is in charge put out false information interesting take on the matter,so those on board through litigation can get the official log to prove the captain lied.

I have no idea how the misinformation was published, or who sanctioned it. And I doubt we'll ever find out. It's of little interest, really, except that it's a further example of misleading information being put about by P&O.

 

Kind regards -  Tom

[majortom10]

4 hours ago, FrankyPlum said:

Hi there.

 

I was on Ventura N907 last week and was disappointed that we couldn't get into Guernsey. On the face of it, the sea looked a little choppy but there were no whitecaps. The photos that I took from the ship show a relatively calm sea. However, when I went down to Prom deck and looked properly I noted that there was quite a swell with a relatively long wave period - it's the swell which would have made the tender journeys a vomit comet and probably dangerous to get on and off the tender. So, although disappointed I agree that it would have been dangerous for the majority of passengers to have gone into Guernsey last Thursday. Last Thursday was also near the top of a big spring tide, so there would have been fast moving tides all day to deal with.

 

There were two things that surprised me though:

1. I looked at the wind/waves forecasts on the Tuesday and they indicated waves/swell. I messaged my husband at the time and said that I didn't think we would get into Guernsey on the Thursday. It came as no surprise on the Thursday morning to me, but I was surprised that an alternative destination hadn't been arranged. 

2. The log. Force 8 on the Beaufort scale states "Moderately high waves of greater length; edges of crests break into spindrift; foam is blown in well-marked streaks along the direction of the wind". I've spent quite a lot of time at sea on smaller fishing boats and I know what a force 6 looks like!

 

I note that Britannia is due into Guernsey this Friday. The weather reports on xcweather are currently predicting Force 7, gusting Force 8, so I wonder if they will get an alternative port?

Going to an alternative port isnt always feasible depending on distance and availability of a berth for the ship. If there is no berth available which I am sure would be checked in advance if they knew they were going to cancel Guernsey and have appropriate time to get to new port. Also if it was a late decision to cancel Guernsey then they wouldnt have the time to go to another port without affecting the rest of the ports for the cruise so the only option is a sea day which is what happened to us on Princess.

[ozzysdad]

Given that our cruise was a duty free cruise with Guernsey on the itinerary does the fact nobody set foot on the island change that? 

[davemorton]

2 hours ago, ozzysdad said:

Given that our cruise was a duty free cruise with Guernsey on the itinerary does the fact nobody set foot on the island change that? 

I also was on the cruise last week, and was just reading to the end of this thread to post the same.  How could they sell duty free if they never dropped anchor? (Not that I minded, and all in all, I had a good cruise.  That said, I went with lowish expectations to start with, so that made it better overall.)

[NoFlyGuy]

I always take the 'log' of the cruise with a pinch of salt - more of a momento than some official document that could be used in a court of law! Often thought when discussing with wifey back home 'I don't remember that!'.

As posted earlier I don't believe P&O or any other cruise line deliberately miss ports with some ulterior motive. It surely must cost them to refund shore excursions and still pay harbour and pilot costs together with perhaps having to pay shoreside excursions that were booked but now cancelled.

On a no fly P&O Caribbean cruise in January 2018 the Captain made three  attempts to get into Grenada before aborting. There was also a Fed ship there that had arrived earlier. When we arrived they had their tenders out (obviously with no passengers aboard) trying to see if they could get in by tender. Heard later they too aborted.

Whilst onboard and circulating around for our docking attempts it didn't appear especially windy or rough but local conditions obviously made any attempt dangerous for all. That's the point 'local conditions' dictate what is or is not risky.

Of course we were all disappointed but I don't harbour any theories that P&O (or Fred) were trying to make a buck.

[terrierjohn]

30 minutes ago, davemorton said:

I also was on the cruise last week, and was just reading to the end of this thread to post the same.  How could they sell duty free if they never dropped anchor? (Not that I minded, and all in all, I had a good cruise.  That said, I went with lowish expectations to start with, so that made it better overall.)

I thought that Guernsey had the same impact on a cruise as a call at Gibraltar or the Canaries, that is it allowed on board purchases to be VAT free because these countries are not fully part of the EU, rather than the ship being able to offer duty free goods.  Does anyone know the correct reason? 

 

As regards my social grouping, I worry that I don't seem to fit in any of the categories, I'm definitely not upper class, have no university degree, very few skills manual or otherwise, and don't rely solely on the state pension.  Maybe there is a group f for those who enjoy cruising on any ship and meeting lots of different people simply to enjoy a good holiday.

Edited April 22, 2019 by terrierjohn

[davemorton]

3 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I thought that Guernsey had the same impact on a cruise as a call at Gibraltar or the Canaries, that is it allowed on board purchases to be VAT free because these countries are not fully part of the EU, rather than the ship being able to offer duty free goods.  Does anyone know the correct reason? 

That could be the correct reason, sorry.  But question still stands, how can they still do it VAT free if they don't drop anchor? 

[terrierjohn]

8 minutes ago, davemorton said:

That could be the correct reason, sorry.  But question still stands, how can they still do it VAT free if they don't drop anchor? 

I suppose as long as no one tells J-C Juncker then it's OK.

[NoFlyGuy]

Perhaps just being in the territorial waters of the Channel Islands, whether she dropped anchor or not, is enough?

[Bazrat]

As far as I know as soon as you enter the territorial waters you abide by there rules.

[Eglesbrech]

I don’t know what the rules are but I do know that the day before we went to Guernsey (with a bad weather forecast for the next day) the duty free was all given out, which is earlier than normal. We did go into the area of St Peter Port but no one got off.

 

We have been on other cruises where the duty free shop has been closed completely if the non EU port has been changed or cancelled. So there must be some specific criteria about when they can and can’t sell it.

[CarlaMarie]

Duty free can still be sold if you have actually been to the anchorage point I believe, even if you don't anchor.

[jon01]

It looks like Britannia had to sail past and miss Guernsey again today (26th April) as it's arriving into Southampton 12 hours early. I would imagine the decision was made because they wanted to get back into port before Storm Hannah hits the Channel

[daiB]

On 4/23/2019 at 8:07 AM, CarlaMarie said:

Duty free can still be sold if you have actually been to the anchorage point I believe, even if you don't anchor.

I think this has to be done before you fail to anchor after that there can be no DF sales. I seem to remember this happening last time we failed to get in. 

[majortom10]

1 hour ago, jon01 said:

It looks like Britannia had to sail past and miss Guernsey again today (26th April) as it's arriving into Southampton 12 hours early. I would imagine the decision was made because they wanted to get back into port before Storm Hannah hits the Channel

Britannia didnt stop at Guernsey because they wanted to get back to Southampton early because of Storm Hannah it didnt anchor at Guernsey because of conditions werent good enough to tender into St Peter Port.