New P&O marketing campaign

[davecttr]

Of course people think it is the same company, given that some don't even know the name of the ship they are on. The 'story' goes

 

Have you been on holiday?

Yes, on a cruise

Where to?

Some Islands

What was the name of the ship?

Dunno, it was big and white

[zap99]

On 3/25/2022 at 10:53 PM, Dermotsgirl said:

To be honest, I’m not so sure. Judging by the state of social media  the very name P&O is toxic. People can’t tell the difference between the cruise company and the other lot, and when somebody does point out that the cruises are a different company, under different ownership, people are finding some other stick to beat P&O with.  
 

It’s really grim. It’s like a Ratner moment, but the Cruises didn’t do anything to deserve it 

P&O ferries isn't as toxic a name as  Townsend Thoresen. That got dropped fairly quickly.

[AndyMichelle]

[zap99]

2 hours ago, Fionboard said:

Talking about DP World acquiring P&O Ferries, nothing to do with the cruise company.

DP World purchased the P&O group. Ferries is a subsidiary.

[amajaa]

37 minutes ago, davecttr said:

Of course people think it is the same company, given that some don't even know the name of the ship they are on. The 'story' goes

 

Have you been on holiday?

Yes, on a cruise

Where to?

Some Islands

What was the name of the ship?

Dunno, it was big and white

 

Haha I’ll give you that. The number of people round here that say oh yes we have been on a cruise or worse we’ve just got back from a cruise and you say what ship, and yes you’ve guessed it they don’t have a clue.

[Fionboard]

2 minutes ago, zap99 said:

DP World purchased the P&O group. Ferries is a subsidiary.

Exactly. Different company, same name obviously leads to some confusion.

[cublet]

Hello,

 

The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company owns the trademark P&O Cruises both by name and images - and practically all the P&O 'subsidiaries'. P&OSNC is ultimately owned by the Govt of Dubai.

 

Whilst Carnival uses P&O Cruises as a trading 'style' it is not a subsidiary company in Carnival's accounts and I presume it pays the Govt of Dubai to use the name.

 

Whether as part of the payment someone from P&O Ferries Division Holdings Ltd sat on the board of Carnival PLC.

 

Regards,

 

Cublet

[Host Sharon]

Such was the diversity of the P&O Group that by the 1990s analysts were having a hard time determining the true market value of P&O. The company embarked on a series of disposals on ‘non-core’ businesses refocusing the P&O group on ports, logistics, ferries and cruises. A strategic merger of P&O Containers with Royal Nedlloyd created P&O Nedlloyd. P&O Ferries and Stena Line joined forces on the short sea crossings in a  merger that lasted for six years before P&O acquired Stena’s remaining stake in 2004. In 2005 P&O Nedlloyd was sold to Maersk and in 2006, P&O itself was acquired by DP World under whose ownership the P&O Group of ports, logistics and ferries continue to thrive.

In 2000 the cruise division, known as P&O Princess Cruises was sold by P&O and became P&O Princess Cruises plc, a newly formed, listed company which was independent of the P&O group. In 2002, Carnival Corporation began the process for a merger with P&O Princess Cruises, which was completed in 2003. The resulting company was called Carnival Corporation & plc.

[molecrochip]

Carnival has confirmed in 2012 that it entered into licenses, including a license to use the P&O name, the P&O flag and other relevant trademarks and domain names in relation to cruising and related activities.

 

Those licenses are with the The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company which is  UK registered company created by Royal Charter, which is now part of the DP World group.

[terrierjohn]

12 hours ago, twotravellersLondon said:

 

 

No permission was needed. In 2000 P&O divested its cruise business to form P&O Princess Cruises which became an independent company. A couple of years later, P&O Princess Cruises agreed to join forces and merge with its US rival Carnival Corporation. By that time, P&O had no say in the matter

You're quite right I was rather lumping the demerger with the  Carnival acquisition, presumably the decision to allow both companies  to continue using the P&O name was taken at the time of the demerger.

However although the takeover by Carnival was classed as a merger, in reality it was a takeove. I assume that  since the original deal was for P&O Princess cruises to merge with RCI, they decided to continue the charade that it was a merger, but in reality all it did was enable the UK  shareholders to maintain Sterling based shares by a dual listing in New York and London. Which I admit is much better than having to handle dollar based investments.

[Dermotsgirl]

11 hours ago, molecrochip said:

Carnival has confirmed in 2012 that it entered into licenses, including a license to use the P&O name, the P&O flag and other relevant trademarks and domain names in relation to cruising and related activities.

 

Those licenses are with the The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company which is  UK registered company created by Royal Charter, which is now part of the DP World group.

I hope that doesn’t become general knowledge, as it will be seen as a ‘link’  to DP World. people are seizing on any reason to have a go at at P&O Cruises. It’s really grim at the moment in the wilds of social media

 

 

[brian1]

22 hours ago, AndyMichelle said:

That's ok as long as the Captain gives up his water skiing.

[AuroraCruiser08]

Very interesting! 

 

As an idea, how about to stop rumours coming up and people digging too deep into.our beloved P&O we stop discussing very minor links that may show an unwanted connection to DP World. After all we are trying to help protect our line not assist certain people (not on here) to bring it down. 

[Snow Hill]

It would appear that in the last hour the Government are moving against  P&O Ferries with a package of measures as yet unknown, but minimum wage was mentioned more than once in Shapps statement. Guess we will have to wait and see if this goes beyond just the ferry company and thus has wider implications 

[P&O SUE]

On 3/27/2022 at 12:02 PM, zap99 said:

P&O ferries isn't as toxic a name as  Townsend Thoresen. That got dropped fairly quickly.

Still makes me shudder to hear that name! My uncle was working on them as an engineer and luckily wasn’t on shift that day.

[Harry Peterson]

16 minutes ago, Snow Hill said:

It would appear that in the last hour the Government are moving against  P&O Ferries with a package of measures as yet unknown, but minimum wage was mentioned more than once in Shapps statement. Guess we will have to wait and see if this goes beyond just the ferry company and thus has wider implications 

Logically, and equitably, it should apply to all UK companies operating ships from UK ports, and not just ferry companies. That would include cruise companies.

 

But because there’s no union involved, the cruise operators will doubtless be exempted.

[cruising.mark.uk]

1 hour ago, Harry Peterson said:

Logically, and equitably, it should apply to all UK companies operating ships from UK ports, and not just ferry companies. That would include cruise companies.

 

But because there’s no union involved, the cruise operators will doubtless be exempted.

Personally, I don't think what you propose would be logical or equitable.  Not because cruise ship crews are not unionised but because it would be impractical to implement and ineffective.  Trying to apply UK employment legislation to cruise ships operating out of the UK would be hugely complicated, given that the crews of even those ships home ported in the UK probably spend 90%+ of their time outside UK waters.  And they don't pay UK tax.  In any case, what you propose wouldn't apply to any ships under the Carnival umbrella, because it's not a UK company.    Are there any UK cruise companies, I wonder?  The only ones that spring to mind as perhaps being UK companies are Saga and Ambience.   It would seem inequitable to impose additional costs on them and not on any of the other cruise lines operating from UK ports.

[amajaa]

2 hours ago, Harry Peterson said:

Logically, and equitably, it should apply to all UK companies operating ships from UK ports, and not just ferry companies. That would include cruise companies.

 

But because there’s no union involved, the cruise operators will doubtless be exempted.

Using that logic would you also apply it to all airlines using UK airports. Countries from all over the world fly into the UK and UK passengers use airlines from all over the world. We have no idea what most of their employment rules are. 

[terrierjohn]

2 hours ago, Harry Peterson said:

Logically, and equitably, it should apply to all UK companies operating ships from UK ports, and not just ferry companies. That would include cruise companies.

 

But because there’s no union involved, the cruise operators will doubtless be exempted.

Harry, you keep trying to tar P&O Cruises name in the same way as P&O ferries, just because they follow the worldwide practise of employing hotel staff at less than western wage rates.  But DP World were intending to replace the entire ferry crew including the Captain, which I doubt Carnival would ever attempt.

[Harry Peterson]

10 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Personally, I don't think what you propose would be logical or equitable.  Not because cruise ship crews are not unionised but because it would be impractical to implement and ineffective.  Trying to apply UK employment legislation to cruise ships operating out of the UK would be hugely complicated, given that the crews of even those ships home ported in the UK probably spend 90%+ of their time outside UK waters.  And they don't pay UK tax.  In any case, what you propose wouldn't apply to any ships under the Carnival umbrella, because it's not a UK company.    Are there any UK cruise companies, I wonder?  The only ones that spring to mind as perhaps being UK companies are Saga and Ambience.   It would seem inequitable to impose additional costs on them and not on any of the other cruise lines operating from UK ports.

Carnival PLC, trading as P&O Cruises is a UK registered company. It’s American owned, of course, though I believe the ultimate parent may be registered in Panama. The ships are registered in various convenient locations.

 

I’d be amazed if cruise companies were included in the proposed legislation, but if there were a will to do it, it would be perfectly feasible via HMRC.  Just a matter of how widely the legislation is framed.

 

I appreciate that I’m very much in the minority on this, but I really don’t feel at all comfortable with the idea of two entirely separate pay rates on cruise ships - one a small fraction of the other just because you can exploit people in poor countries and get them to work for far less than, say, the entertainers. I know it’s free choice etc, but that used to be said here before minimum wage legislation improved things. We used to send small children up chimneys once, and at the time hardly anyone objected to that.

 

Just seems wrong to exploit people just to provide cheap holidays for the comparatively wealthy, and profits for companies that structure their affairs to avoid the payment of taxes used for the common good, such as health and pensions.

[terrierjohn]

8 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Carnival PLC, trading as P&O Cruises is a UK registered company. It’s American owned, of course, though I believe the ultimate parent may be registered in Panama. The ships are registered in various convenient locations.

 

I’d be amazed if cruise companies were included in the proposed legislation, but if there were a will to do it, it would be perfectly feasible via HMRC.  Just a matter of how widely the legislation is framed.

 

I appreciate that I’m very much in the minority on this, but I really don’t feel at all comfortable with the idea of two entirely separate pay rates on cruise ships - one a small fraction of the other just because you can exploit people in poor countries and get them to work for far less than, say, the entertainers. I know it’s free choice etc, but that used to be said here before minimum wage legislation improved things. We used to send small children up chimneys once, and at the time hardly anyone objected to that.

 

Just seems wrong to exploit people just to provide cheap holidays for the comparatively wealthy, and profits for companies that structure their affairs to avoid the payment of taxes used for the common good, such as health and pensions.

Harry, If you really don't want to exploit these poor downtrodden hotel workers, then the simple answer is Don't cruise. However if we all did that then the hotel staff would have no jobs, and be limited to what they could earn at home, which I doubt they would appreciate.

[Harry Peterson]

6 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

Harry, If you really don't want to exploit these poor downtrodden hotel workers, then the simple answer is Don't cruise. However if we all did that then the hotel staff would have no jobs, and be limited to what they could earn at home, which I doubt they would appreciate.

Certainly an option, John. Another option, though is to pay them better and accept a commensurate increase in cruise prices. It wasn’t always like this, you may recall. Companies in the UK argued against the minimum wage and said they’d all go under……didn’t happen though. Just a matter of treating people fairly, but we’ll never agree on this one.

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, Harry Peterson said:

Certainly an option, John. Another option, though is to pay them better and accept a commensurate increase in cruise prices. It wasn’t always like this, you may recall. Companies in the UK argued against the minimum wage and said they’d all go under……didn’t happen though. Just a matter of treating people fairly, but we’ll never agree on this one.

You could certainly do that  but then the cruise industry would be much smaller, with a reduced hotel staff.

But you're totally missing the point, our minimum wage is based on what is needed for employees to live in the UK. I would guess that the cruise line hotel rates are way above the minimum wage level in the countries which provide the hotel staff, that's if they even have minimum wage levels. So why do you want to deprive the hotel staff of what is to them is a premium wage rate.

That might salve your socilaist conscience, but it will not make sense to the unemployed hotel staff.

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by terrierjohn

[majortom10]

20 hours ago, molecrochip said:

Carnival has confirmed in 2012 that it entered into licenses, including a license to use the P&O name, the P&O flag and other relevant trademarks and domain names in relation to cruising and related activities.

 

Those licenses are with the The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company which is  UK registered company created by Royal Charter, which is now part of the DP World group.

I bet with hindsight P&O Cruises may now be regretting entering into licenses with no doubt at great cost to use the name the flag and other trademarks and instead made a complete break from P&O Ferries and DP World. We all know the are in no way connected but those that are not cruisers P&O Cruises are now being tarred with the same brush especially when you see the same company name and flag being used by both companies.