Has your attitude to P&O changed?

[bee-ess]

1 hour ago, grapau27 said:

Top picture.

RCL Explorer of the seas balcony cabin.

Middle Picture.

RCL Independence of the seas balcony cabin.

Bottom Picture.

P&O Ventura balcony cabin.

IMO the furniture and layout looks better on P&O Ventura.

We have been on every RCL class ship except Quantum.

 

 

Is the Ventura picture a superior Balcony with the separate room ?

[grapau27]

1 hour ago, bee-ess said:

 

 

Is the Ventura picture a superior Balcony with the separate room ?

Superior deluxe balcony cabin which we usually get on Ventura.

The RCL balconies are a similar grade as the next grade is Mini Suite for P&O and Junior Suite for Royal Caribbean.

Edited May 17, 2020 by grapau27

[terrierjohn]

2 hours ago, grapau27 said:

Thanks Andy.

I think my pictures of Explorer(Voyager class) Independence( Freedom class)and Ventura on last post highlight the better layout and room decor.

RC cabins look a little tired.

But the Ventura cabin is a de luxe cabin whilst the RCL ones are standard balconies, hence the better quality fixtures. And you did initially talk about the balconies which IMO are much bigger on the RCI ships, and I noticed little difference in the quality of the balcony furniture.

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, grapau27 said:

Superior deluxe balcony cabin which we usually get on Ventura.

The RCL balconies are a similar grade as the next grade is Mini Suite for P&O and Junior Suite for Royal Caribbean.

No, they do have a superior balcony grade above the standard ones, although the decor is not much different, but the cabin is larger.

[zap99]

11 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

No, they do have a superior balcony grade above the standard ones, although the decor is not much different, but the cabin is larger.

We once had a junior suite on Indi. They phoned and said " would you like an upgrade from your balcony to a junior suite for £200. " That was a 2 week med cruise from Southampton. Yes please. The cabin was twice the size,as was the balcony and with sunbeds. A bath as well. £200 well spent.

[NoFlyGuy]

On Ventura we usually book the superior balconies cabins and are happy to pay the extra.

Nothing to do with balcony size, it's more to do with the bathroom.

As ever it's personal choice but 14 days is about my limit to not having a bath.

How I miss Oriana where we could book a bog standard sea view cabin with shower over bath. Don't know if I would have coped on our 50 night cruise in 2017 otherwise.

Of course I know It's different for those that need specific cabins because of disabilities.

[grapau27]

34 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

No, they do have a superior balcony grade above the standard ones, although the decor is not much different, but the cabin is larger.

Yes we usually get the best standard RC balcony cabins which are usually midships or on the hump of the ship and are only slightly larger than a regular balcony.

We like the JS for the bath,larger cabin and double loyalty points.

As D+ loyalty Royal are our go to because of our loyalty benefits and the facilities on board Oasis, Freedom and Voyager class ships.

The cabins were not refurbished in the last amplification and look tired.

Our last Ventura cruise we had a lovely standard aft balcony but prefer the SD balconies for the bath,2 TVs,chocs, bottle of Champagne and big balcony.

IMO P&O balcony cabin furniture,carpets and general layout is better than Royal.

Edited May 17, 2020 by grapau27

[Selbourne]

3 hours ago, Adawn47 said:

Not having a mathematical mind just answer this for me please. It's a genuine question. I would have thought that smaller ships having  less passengers would therefore require less crew. A saving?? I would also have thought that a smaller ship would use less fuel?? I know I'm probably wrong so can you explain. 

Avril 

Right and wrong Avril! The smaller ships have less crew but the ratio of crew to passengers is greater than on the larger ships. It’s all about economies of scale. The number of crew doesn’t rise in the same ratio as passengers, nor do the running costs, so the total cost to operate the ship is cheaper, per passenger, the bigger the ship. There are lots of other factors too. For example, the newer (bigger) ships have more fuel efficient propulsion systems, and have a far greater proportion of more expensive cabin types (balcony cabins etc). Aurora, for example, only has 3 decks with balconies. All these factors (and more) make the smaller ships more expensive to operate per passenger than the newer / larger ships. 

[terrierjohn]

39 minutes ago, NoFlyGuy said:

On Ventura we usually book the superior balconies cabins and are happy to pay the extra.

Nothing to do with balcony size, it's more to do with the bathroom.

As ever it's personal choice but 14 days is about my limit to not having a bath.

How I miss Oriana where we could book a bog standard sea view cabin with shower over bath. Don't know if I would have coped on our 50 night cruise in 2017 otherwise.

Of course I know It's different for those that need specific cabins because of disabilities.

We have a bath at home plus separate shower cubicle, the bath though never gets used, I much prefer a shower.

[No pager thank you]

3 hours ago, Adawn47 said:

Not having a mathematical mind just answer this for me please. It's a genuine question. I would have thought that smaller ships having  less passengers would therefore require less crew. A saving?? I would also have thought that a smaller ship would use less fuel?? I know I'm probably wrong so can you explain. 

Avril 

Hello Avril, hope this explanation helps. You aren't wrong, but arguably are in terms of how the business is seen by the shareholders.

 

**

 

Compare Aurora with Britannia for instance; around 1800 passengers with a 4.5:1 ratio of crew and Britannia, double the passengers but 2.7:1 ratio.  On the face of it, you would think that, if passenger numbers have to reduce to accommodate social distancing then run Aurora, rather than Britannia would be the best bet, because she is a smaller vessel, with lower running and staffing costs.  Thinking this way, you would be right.

 

However, the trick is how much will each passenger bring linked to the overall cost of the operation, including paying for instance, for the shore side staff and all the fixed operational costs, complex supply chains etc.

 

With lower initial fares, more of the cruise revenue now comes from areas such as gambling, food and drinks, paid for excursions, retail, rented out space and spa - many of these have big mark-ups / profit margins and is where money is made and they can be scaled up pretty easily. This is how the operation is set up. 

 

How much gets spent on these areas varies depending on the type of customer; arguably (and big generalisation) newer customer groups may more open, for instance, to buying the overpriced drinks packages.

 

Britannia meanwhile has double the opportunity to bring in these monies, and has bigger opportunity for "link sales" because of her larger tonnage.  This would be even more important if the cruises had to run at 75pc occupancy for instance.  Her newest cabins are larger, tempting people in to purchasing the deluxes, suites and in the case of Iona (mini conservatory) cabins too.

 

The other point to consider is the value of the asset, in the same way of buying a car.  Britannia cost somewhere in the region of £400million some five years ago.  This needs to be recouped over the life span of the vessel.  On the other hand, Aurora, despite being a lovely ship, well maintained - has 20 years of depreciation at an initial lower cost, including 17 or 18 years of good operating years since she first set sail.  Aurora has given her return (and more) to Carnival in a way that Britannia has not yet.  All vessels have a life span, like a car, which comes in to the equation.

 

If you were thinking that you would never be able to fill large cruise ships again after the virus then you might think differently, as you don't want empty cruise ships, but clearly with Iona 1 (delayed) on her way and Iona 2 still in the pipeline, this is not the current thinking.

 

The only way of reversing the equation, if margins are squeezed, would be to charge a significant premium on the likes of Aurora, so that her profitability was greater than the larger vessels.  The point is though, as much as some passengers have her as their favourite, if they were to do this then passengers would be likely to go to more premium parts of the Carnival group (like Cunard or Seabourn for instance) as you would get better value for an arguably higher quality product, on just as favoured smaller ships.  This space is competitive i.e. Saga too.

 

The other posters that have said that to protect the "loyal" pound, P&O have to split the brand, upscale some of their smaller ships and charge fares to match, based on traditional values of good service have a point.  The issue is that the company does not seem to see it this way at the moment, hence why the likes of Arcadia, Aurora and Oceana will be seen as less commercial than Azura, Ventura and Britannia (and of course Iona).

 

Like you, I think that they are not reading customer sentiment too well at the moment (in general) and don't realise how many people go for the brand not because of the price, but because of the feel and size of the ship.  They assume that the loyalty will cause either an acceptance to move on to larger ships, or move on to other Carnival lines.

 

They will have this all much better worked out than I but are possibly misreading the emotional connection with particular ships and the willingness to pay (a little, if not thousands more) for some of the customers concerned.  

 

What I would say is that whilst this will be a gradual process, I see less of a place being allowed for smaller vessels in the long term based on how the brand is being positioned and how customers monies are being targeted.  There is a risk of this needing to be accelerated of Carnival choose to focus on only the most commercial vessels and routes, using their current strategy.

[wowzz]

Andy - as a professional, perhaps you can help.  Why are the carpets in the cabins always so hideous ? Just look at the photos that Graham posted. 

I know the carpets have to hide various stains, but the patterns are just hideous. They remind me of a Berni Inn in 1990! 

[AndyMichelle]

8 hours ago, wowzz said:

Andy - as a professional, perhaps you can help.  Why are the carpets in the cabins always so hideous ? Just look at the photos that Graham posted. 

I know the carpets have to hide various stains, but the patterns are just hideous. They remind me of a Berni Inn in 1990! 

Yep, they were left over from the Berni Inns....😊

The problem with a lot of them is trying to be 'on trend'... 

Fashion changes very quickly, but the carpets don't, so 2 years in, they look 20 years old, but as the quality is good, they don't get changed. 

On the other hand, traditional designs look old the minute they are laid.. I'm thinking the pindot greens and burgundy that are often on the staircases. 

Just remember, some designer was paid a fortune to come up with these 'exclusive' designs... 

Andy 

[Selbourne]

14 hours ago, Adawn47 said:

Not having a mathematical mind just answer this for me please. It's a genuine question. I would have thought that smaller ships having  less passengers would therefore require less crew. A saving?? I would also have thought that a smaller ship would use less fuel?? I know I'm probably wrong so can you explain. 

Avril 

Further to my original answer to your question, I have now found the official passenger to crew ratios, which are expressed as number of passengers (lower beds only) to crew;

 

Aurora 2.2

Oceana 2.2

Arcadia 2.3

Azura 2.4

Ventura 2.4

Britannia 2.6

 

As you can see, there are more passengers per crew member (or less crew per passenger) in the newer / larger ships. The differences don’t sound huge, but then consider that you have to multiply that by the number of passengers (which is a lot and considerably more on the larger ships) plus the larger ships are family ships so will have a lot of upper berths occupied (kids etc) in the holiday seasons, which are not in those figures. So it’s considerably cheaper, per passenger, to staff the bigger ships. Add in all the other factors I mentioned and the cost difference per head to operate the smaller ships is considerably more than the larger ships. This helps to understand why our cruises on Aurora cost so much more than our cruises on Britannia!

 

[Adawn47]

2 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

This helps to understand why our cruises on Aurora cost so much more than our cruises on Britannia

We don't mind paying more if we get the cruise experience that we enjoy. We have one 14 to19 night cruise a year and are quite happy to pay extra for what we want. We wouldn't even consider a larger ship no matter what the cost. I now understand why the smaller ships cost more and thank you  for your research and explanation Selbourne,  but I'm quire sure I'm not the only one who would willingly pay more for the pleasure of a real cruise. I do hope that this won't be the end of the smaller ships or it will be the end of our cruising holidays.

Avril 

[Selbourne]

20 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

We don't mind paying more if we get the cruise experience that we enjoy. We have one 14 to19 night cruise a year and are quite happy to pay extra for what we want. We wouldn't even consider a larger ship no matter what the cost. I now understand why the smaller ships cost more and thank you  for your research and explanation Selbourne,  but I'm quire sure I'm not the only one who would willingly pay more for the pleasure of a real cruise. I do hope that this won't be the end of the smaller ships or it will be the end of our cruising holidays.

Avril 

Our best cruises have been on Aurora (the ship we have cruises on the most times), Oceana and Oriana. We prefer the passenger profile on the smaller ships and the fact that the itineraries are far more interesting, especially the ‘Discovery Cruises’ that go to less frequently visited ports. We didn’t like Arcadia though. All that being said, the larger ships have some definite advantages over the smaller ships. We aren’t great fans of Azura and Ventura, but Britannia has superb cabins (much more modern, better facilities and better quality than the other ships), additional things to do (Limelight Club etc) and fantastic restaurants (the best being Epicurean). As we speak, we were due to be on Iona’s maiden cruise 😔. We miss all these things when we are on Aurora. 

[terrierjohn]

34 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

We don't mind paying more if we get the cruise experience that we enjoy. We have one 14 to19 night cruise a year and are quite happy to pay extra for what we want. We wouldn't even consider a larger ship no matter what the cost. I now understand why the smaller ships cost more and thank you  for your research and explanation Selbourne,  but I'm quire sure I'm not the only one who would willingly pay more for the pleasure of a real cruise. I do hope that this won't be the end of the smaller ships or it will be the end of our cruising holidays.

Avril 

Bigger newer ships for us every time Avril, but ours is a special case since we need an accessible cabin, and the newer ships do have far better accessible cabins and features than the older ones.

e also like ships with a higher proportion of balcony cabins, as these do always have lower prices for the balconies, than ships with a lower proportion of balcony cabins which are quite often sold at premium prices but without premium standards.

Arcadia would be an exception, but unfortunately the accessible balcony cabins on her are not much bigger than the standard cabins, making it difficult to manoeuvre a wheelchair in the cabin.

Different strokes for different folks. 

[bee-ess]

10 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

Bigger newer ships for us every time Avril, but ours is a special case since we need an accessible cabin, and the newer ships do have far better accessible cabins and features than the older ones.

e also like ships with a higher proportion of balcony cabins, as these do always have lower prices for the balconies, than ships with a lower proportion of balcony cabins which are quite often sold at premium prices but without premium standards.

Arcadia would be an exception, but unfortunately the accessible balcony cabins on her are not much bigger than the standard cabins, making it difficult to manoeuvre a wheelchair in the cabin.

Different strokes for different folks. 

 

Yes, we would choose the larger ships first - Britannia 1st choice - more choice of dining etc, better cabins. Then Azura over Ventura, don't really know why. We like the friendly atmosphere on Oceana. We would not be put off any of the others if the itinerary was right. Our fav is Britannia in the Caribbean, hoping to get there in Feb as all our 2020 cruises are now cancelled either by P&O or us.

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by bee-ess

[grapau27]

10 minutes ago, bee-ess said:

 

Yes, we would choose the larger ships first - Britannia 1st choice - more choice of dining etc, better cabins. Then Azura over Ventura, don't really know why. We like the friendly atmosphere on Oceana. We would not be put off any of the others if the itinerary was right. Our fav is Britannia in the Caribbean, hoping to get there in Feb as all our 2020 cruises are now cancelled either by P&O or us.

 

We were on Azura in her maiden season and was looking forward to getting on her for her TA March 20th.

All the ships except Aurora and Oceana we sailed on them on their maiden season.

We  booked a nice aft balcony on Iona for next year in January this year.

Edited May 18, 2020 by grapau27

[Adawn47]

We tried one large ship, RCI's Indy and we didn't like it at all. Yes, she is stunning inside and the balcony cabins were lovely, apart from no coffee supplied in the cabin only tea,  but not a ship we were comfortable on. We didn’t like all the noise and crowds of people. Now we thought that was more like a Butlins 😉.

P&O's smaller ships suit us better. More relaxed, quieter and laid back. 

Avril 

[grapau27]

37 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

We tried one large ship, RCI's Indy and we didn't like it at all. Yes, she is stunning inside and the balcony cabins were lovely, apart from no coffee supplied in the cabin only tea,  but not a ship we were comfortable on. We didn’t like all the noise and crowds of people. Now we thought that was more like a Butlins 😉.

P&O's smaller ships suit us better. More relaxed, quieter and laid back. 

Avril 

RCL Vision or Radiance class ships are more traditional than the larger 

Voyager, Freedom,Quantum and Oasis class ships which are like theme parks at sea.

[P&O SUE]

37 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

We tried one large ship, RCI's Indy and we didn't like it at all. Yes, she is stunning inside and the balcony cabins were lovely, apart from no coffee supplied in the cabin only tea,  but not a ship we were comfortable on. We didn’t like all the noise and crowds of people. Now we thought that was more like a Butlins 😉.

P&O's smaller ships suit us better. More relaxed, quieter and laid back. 

Avril 

I don’t think you can really compare Indy with say Azura and Ventura as, although they are bigger than other P&O ships they don’t have the RCI features like the shopping malls and flow riders etc.

 

As for Iona getting the refunds first I wonder if a lot of passengers were first time cruisers and therefore looked after to keep them sweet? Just a thought!

[P&O SUE]

Also on the subject of big companies, my Dad has been trying to get hold of Amazon by phone and there’s just an answer phone saying the offices aren’t open at the moment!!

[Adawn47]

17 minutes ago, P&O SUE said:

I don’t think you can really compare Indy with say Azura and Ventura as, although they are bigger than other P&O ships they don’t have the RCI features like the shopping malls and flow riders etc.

 

As for Iona getting the refunds first I wonder if a lot of passengers were first time cruisers and therefore looked after to keep them sweet? Just a thought!

It's just the size of the ships. We much prefer the quieter,  adult only,  easy to navigate smaller ships. 

Avril 

[P&O SUE]

7 minutes ago, Adawn47 said:

It's just the size of the ships. We much prefer the quieter,  adult only,  easy to navigate smaller ships. 

Avril 

Fair enough. We find quiet spaces though. Never sit by the pool, like to spend our time chilling with a drink or a book. I’ve had one cruise on both Oriana and Oceana and loved them both. Would love to try Aurora but she tends to do much

longer cruises now which don’t suit our plans or budget!

[Cruising Nomads]

When looking at passenger crew ratios do you not also have to take into account departments where the crew numbers don't change no matter the size of the ship.  Just thinking about the Bridge Dept, The Headliners show team. The Engine room might be less on the more modern ships. The guys who secure the ship when entering port and many other areas.