Port changes

[Ardennais]

2 hours ago, molecrochip said:

One off port changes can be for a variety of reasons:

- Dock maintenance

- Ship maintenance that can't be undertaken in previously scheduled port

- Degraded ship performance

- Local health restrictions

- Weather

- Tide times

- Lack of port/tour staff

- Lack of bus drivers / busses for mandatory shuttle service

 

The last two are current favourites.

 

A cancellation of the same port for the same ship repeatedly indicates a problem - but its not necessarily with the ship.

 

I know of one incidence where a ship was due to regularly call at a port. The ship met all the conditions required by the port and the port had accepted the booking. Less than 48 hours before its arrival, when it was reconfirming its plans with the pilot, the pilot declined entry. Whilst the ship did technically fit, the pilot was not happy that there was enough margin to deal with any problems or variance in weather conditions. The ship owner and port owner had done all the right things but pilots are given final say on safety grounds for a reason.

 

It costs a cruise line money to cancel a port at late notice.

And in the Gerianger fiasco, it also costs the passenger money! 

[Britboys]

2 hours ago, molecrochip said:

One off port changes can be for a variety of reasons:

- Dock maintenance

- Ship maintenance that can't be undertaken in previously scheduled port

- Degraded ship performance

- Local health restrictions

- Weather

- Tide times

- Lack of port/tour staff

- Lack of bus drivers / busses for mandatory shuttle service

 

The last two are current favourites.

 

A cancellation of the same port for the same ship repeatedly indicates a problem - but its not necessarily with the ship.

 

I know of one incidence where a ship was due to regularly call at a port. The ship met all the conditions required by the port and the port had accepted the booking. Less than 48 hours before its arrival, when it was reconfirming its plans with the pilot, the pilot declined entry. Whilst the ship did technically fit, the pilot was not happy that there was enough margin to deal with any problems or variance in weather conditions. The ship owner and port owner had done all the right things but pilots are given final say on safety grounds for a reason.

 

It costs a cruise line money to cancel a port at late notice.

Thank you for the added information, which is useful as always. One of the big problems with P&O however is that they virtually never give a reason and merely state "operational reasons". I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to explain the reasons without opening a can of worms but if they were more open in some circumstances, it would help their reputation.

The cancellations to Venice are a case in point. Many pax would have booked a specific cruise in order to visit Venice. P&O could have said something along the lines of "Since confirming this itinerary, the Venice Authorities have banned all cruise ships larger than 10,000 tons and so sadly we are no longer able to berth there". By not saying anything, some people who booked but don't know the reason are left fuming that Venice has been cancelled and then further angered that P&O want to charge them £65 per person for a simple coach transfer.

[Snow Hill]

It would appear from reading these posts that P&O are not transparent with their reasons for missing a port or cutting short time in port by using the cover all words “operational reason”. It does appear to clear why they do this, I suspect if the reason was explained to passengers, many would accept it, instead they antagonise people by not making the reasons public, why?

 

Is this a particular P&O issue or do other cruise companies also deliberately keep passengers in the dark about reasons for a port being missing or time there cut short? 

[newbie cruissy]

11 minutes ago, Snow Hill said:

It would appear from reading these posts that P&O are not transparent with their reasons for missing a port or cutting short time in port by using the cover all words “operational reason”. It does appear to clear why they do this, I suspect if the reason was explained to passengers, many would accept it, instead they antagonise people by not making the reasons public, why?

 

Is this a particular P&O issue or do other cruise companies also deliberately keep passengers in the dark about reasons for a port being missing or time there cut short? 

There have been a lot of flights cancelled recently, as all will be aware. Most airlines I've seen comment have blamed "operational reasons". 

[Snow Hill]

7 minutes ago, newbie cruissy said:

There have been a lot of flights cancelled recently, as all will be aware. Most airlines I've seen comment have blamed "operational reasons". 

In the case of airlines, it at least reasonably clear what those reasons are, 2 words that can’t be mentioned in this forum and action taken by the airlines & airports during the last 2 years, the same can’t be said for P&O. 

[Eglesbrech]

4 hours ago, Snow Hill said:

It would appear from reading these posts that P&O are not transparent with their reasons for missing a port or cutting short time in port by using the cover all words “operational reason”. It does appear to clear why they do this, I suspect if the reason was explained to passengers, many would accept it, instead they antagonise people by not making the reasons public, why?

 

Is this a particular P&O issue or do other cruise companies also deliberately keep passengers in the dark about reasons for a port being missing or time there cut short? 

No, it’s not just P&O and it feels like it is becoming a lot more common given the number of comments about it recently on these boards. The world is still a bit tipsy Turkey at present.

 

As an example the “Moroccan Passage” cruise on Princess did not go into Morocco. It never could have as the country was still not allowing vessels in at that time but passengers were (apparently) not told that and expected to get there. Some passengers felt they had been duped, given the name of the cruise.

 

I feel for people who booked a cruise which included bucket list destinations like Venice or Dubrovnik etc and get to one horse towns instead or in some cases nothing but another sea day. That kind of change would just not be acceptable in any other situation without allowing cancellation.

[AuroraCruiser08]

Venice is an odd one. Having looked here https://www.cruisetimetables.com/venice-italy-cruise-ship-schedule.html lots of ships probably larger than Aurora and Arcadia are still going to Venice but using the much closer Port Marghera which is just a bridge away from Venice. So why do P&O use Trieste for ' operational reasons' when there is a port closer for it's passengers? It's almost like P&O don't want their passengers to see anything! 

[davecttr]

26 minutes ago, AuroraCruiser08 said:

Venice is an odd one. Having looked here https://www.cruisetimetables.com/venice-italy-cruise-ship-schedule.html lots of ships probably larger than Aurora and Arcadia are still going to Venice but using the much closer Port Marghera which is just a bridge away from Venice. So why do P&O use Trieste for ' operational reasons' when there is a port closer for it's passengers? It's almost like P&O don't want their passengers to see anything! 

High demand for Marghera and Trieste is cheaper maybe?

[Trevor Fountain]

49 minutes ago, AuroraCruiser08 said:

Venice is an odd one. Having looked here https://www.cruisetimetables.com/venice-italy-cruise-ship-schedule.html lots of ships probably larger than Aurora and Arcadia are still going to Venice but using the much closer Port Marghera which is just a bridge away from Venice. So why do P&O use Trieste for ' operational reasons' when there is a port closer for it's passengers? It's almost like P&O don't want their passengers to see anything! 

Why don't you ask Silversea, Costa, Holland America, MSC, etc.etc. They are all using Trieste/

https://www.cruisetimetables.com/cruises-to-trieste-italy.html

[Snow Hill]

51 minutes ago, AuroraCruiser08 said:

Venice is an odd one. Having looked here https://www.cruisetimetables.com/venice-italy-cruise-ship-schedule.html lots of ships probably larger than Aurora and Arcadia are still going to Venice but using the much closer Port Marghera which is just a bridge away from Venice. So why do P&O use Trieste for ' operational reasons' when there is a port closer for it's passengers? It's almost like P&O don't want their passengers to see anything! 

Perhaps priority is being given to those cruise companies which start and end their cruises in Venice and this need nearby access to Venice Airport, that would possibly limit the availability of berths for other cruises & those available were quickly snapped up by other companies leaving P& out in the cold so to speak. 

[Britboys]

1 hour ago, AuroraCruiser08 said:

Venice is an odd one. Having looked here https://www.cruisetimetables.com/venice-italy-cruise-ship-schedule.html lots of ships probably larger than Aurora and Arcadia are still going to Venice but using the much closer Port Marghera which is just a bridge away from Venice. So why do P&O use Trieste for ' operational reasons' when there is a port closer for it's passengers? It's almost like P&O don't want their passengers to see anything! 

As I understand it, berthing facilities at Marghera are limited. It isn't just Trieste being used either. Marella, for one, is using Ravenna.

[Snow Hill]

48 minutes ago, Britboys said:

As I understand it, berthing facilities at Marghera are limited. It isn't just Trieste being used either. Marella, for one, is using Ravenna.

Thought I saw some using Koper in Slovenia as well, which is virtually next door to Trieste 

[davecttr]

3 hours ago, Britboys said:

As I understand it, berthing facilities at Marghera are limited. It isn't just Trieste being used either. Marella, for one, is using Ravenna.

Next year Marella is using Trieste on some itineraries and Koper as well. 

[Harry Peterson]

23 hours ago, molecrochip said:

One off port changes can be for a variety of reasons:

- Dock maintenance

- Ship maintenance that can't be undertaken in previously scheduled port

- Degraded ship performance

- Local health restrictions

- Weather

- Tide times

- Lack of port/tour staff

- Lack of bus drivers / busses for mandatory shuttle service

 

The last two are current favourites.

 

A cancellation of the same port for the same ship repeatedly indicates a problem - but its not necessarily with the ship.

 

I know of one incidence where a ship was due to regularly call at a port. The ship met all the conditions required by the port and the port had accepted the booking. Less than 48 hours before its arrival, when it was reconfirming its plans with the pilot, the pilot declined entry. Whilst the ship did technically fit, the pilot was not happy that there was enough margin to deal with any problems or variance in weather conditions. The ship owner and port owner had done all the right things but pilots are given final say on safety grounds for a reason.

 

It costs a cruise line money to cancel a port at late notice.

I think that’s entirely understandable and plausible.

 

And if P&O simply gave the actual reason, rather than simply coming up with the absolutely unbelievable ‘operational reasons’ cliché every time the suspicion about motives would perhaps disappear.

 

I know of no other sector that assumes it can hide behind vague phrases like this time after time - why cruising, and why P&O?

[Snow Hill]

1 hour ago, Harry Peterson said:

I think that’s entirely understandable and plausible.

 

And if P&O simply gave the actual reason, rather than simply coming up with the absolutely unbelievable ‘operational reasons’ cliché every time the suspicion about motives would perhaps disappear.

 

I know of no other sector that assumes it can hide behind vague phrases like this time after time - why cruising, and why P&O?

The problem with vague phrases such a “operational reasons” it gives rise to all sorts of speculation and theories, if they were open and transparent with the reasons then it’s likely many would accept the reason and thus see of fall in complaints. 
 

This seems a recent trend I recall when we were on the Aurora over Christmas/New Year 2013/14 we missed out 2 ports, the first was Lisbon due to what was expected inclement whether on the horizon captain said we might get in, but getting out maybe difficult, he managed to get a berth in Santa Cruz de La Palma, which we throughly enjoyed. The 2nd  port was San Sebastián de La Gomera, this time the reason was that a Saga ship was occupying our our proposed berth, unable to disembark due to high winds. The Aurora hung around for a while, but the decision was made to move on to Funchal for an earlier arrival.

 

In both cases the passengers were told what the reasons were, no hiding behind bland 2 word phrases. 

[Selbourne]

I agree with the last few comments that P&O should be more honest, but can’t see them ever doing it in all cases. As mentioned on another thread, we once had a port call to Flaam cancelled on Britannia. Consequently, the advertised ‘fjords’ cruise didn’t do any of the proper fjords. It became a Norwegian coastal ports cruise. P&O implied that there was a problem with the port that was out of their control. After some investigative work, I found out that there was no problem with the port and Carnival had voluntarily cancelled Britannia’s port call in order to prioritise Queen Victoria. They were desperate to silence me, so offered compensation in return for an (incorrectly worded and therefore not legally valid) non-disclosure agreement. I can’t see them being up front about instances such as this!

[J110]

Hi all 

just wanted to say that it still can go according to schedule .

Aurora made our 19 night May cruise to all ports on itinerary and arrived and left on time.

not all bad

[Selbourne]

17 minutes ago, J110 said:

Hi all 

just wanted to say that it still can go according to schedule .

Aurora made our 19 night May cruise to all ports on itinerary and arrived and left on time.

not all bad

Good to hear. The problem seems to be more with the bigger ships, as they are far more susceptible to poor weather conditions and are also more restricted as to where they can berth, although we have had a number of changed ports on Aurora in our time! With the ever increasing move towards larger and larger ships this will be a far more common occurrence in the future.

[sogne]

On 6/11/2022 at 8:43 AM, Saab4444 said:

Possible, in this case her current Norway cruise would have been canceled.

Aurora is in dry dock in Hamburg saw her there 22nd 

[sogne]

On 6/10/2022 at 7:23 PM, Triggertravel said:

Does anybody know why p&o are changing/cancelling so many ports ? We are due to sail on Arcadia July 5th ( not over confident that will happen) and we’ve had skyolden changed for Stavanger very annoying , my mother-in-law has received 2 emails in the last 2 days for 2 different cruises she’s booked on informing her of 2 port changes with no explanation.she sails on britannia this Sunday and has just had Marseille changed for Toulon. This is becoming far too regular now.and surely us as paying customers should receive some sort of compensation or on board credit. I just feel that when we book our cruises a massive part of us is the itinerary and destinations but at the min you just don’t know where you’re going to. End up. I’ve been a loyal p&o customer for over 20 years,and must admit we have started looking at other cruise company’s now , it’s a shame really but the company has changed …………and not for the better

Skjolden possibly due to emissions  missed Flam last week on QM2  not allowed in for environmental  reasons

 

[Saab4444]

In the near future many of the older ships will not be allowed to stop in Norwegian Fjord ports anymore for environmental reasons. Installation of scrubbers is no longer sufficient. Also size is an issue and Iona and similar big ships might be too large and bring too many passengers that is no longer welcomed by some ports in the Fjords.

[davecttr]

2 hours ago, Saab4444 said:

In the near future many of the older ships will not be allowed to stop in Norwegian Fjord ports anymore for environmental reasons. Installation of scrubbers is no longer sufficient. Also size is an issue and Iona and similar big ships might be too large and bring too many passengers that is no longer welcomed by some ports in the Fjords.

Might we expect that some fjords will only allow ships with zero emissions, Effectively battery powered or fuel cells. Apparently Iona at full capacity might be to much for Flam's stated maximum capacity of 5000 passengers per day

[Snow Hill]

11 hours ago, Saab4444 said:

In the near future many of the older ships will not be allowed to stop in Norwegian Fjord ports anymore for environmental reasons. Installation of scrubbers is no longer sufficient. Also size is an issue and Iona and similar big ships might be too large and bring too many passengers that is no longer welcomed by some ports in the Fjords.

Not just the fjords, other countries are bringing in environmental restrictions, this could lead to the demise of many of the older ships in the P&O Fleet and those of other cruise lines.

 

 

[emam]

On 6/10/2022 at 7:23 PM, Triggertravel said:

 my mother-in-law has received 2 emails in the last 2 days for 2 different cruises she’s booked on informing her of 2 port changes with no explanation.she sails on britannia this Sunday and has just had Marseille changed for Toulon.

 

Did she have a good holiday?