Late Boarding Time

[cruising.mark.uk]

7 minutes ago, david63 said:

Maybe but it also boils down to the fact that the facilities at Southampton cruise port are not fit for for purpose for modern day cruising/cruise ships.

 

Southampton never had (or at least never flagged up that there was a problem) 10 years ago when the largest ship was Ventura/Azura - so what has changed? The only change is that the ships have got bigger with more passengers but the terminals have stayed the same.

 

When Azura came into service there was a new terminal built (Ocean) to accommodate her as it was apparent that the existing terminals could not handle ships of that size but nothing has been done since to cater for the even bigger ships. As far as I can see there is no forward planning at Southampton where cruise terminals are concerned - other than make everyone stand outside for hours in the cold and wet.

What is your definition of 'fit for purpose'?  It seems to be 'able to process / accommodate all of a day's passengers at the same time'.  By that definition, no transport hubs in the UK are fit for purpose.  The definition I prefer is 'able to process all of a day's passengers in order to allow an on-time departure'.  The current terminals achieve that consistently, other than when exceptional circumstances intervene.  So, I sense they are fit for purpose.

[david63]

14 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

What is your definition of 'fit for purpose'? 

My definition of "fit for purpose" is that there is sufficient space to accommodate the flow of passengers irrespective of the time that they arrive. I accept that no terminal could handle four to five five thousand passengers if they all arrived at 11:30 but in reality that is not going to happen. The port authorities/Carnival have been operating these terminals for long enough to know what the passenger flow is based on time of year/ship/cruise itinerary to be able to manage the flow better.

 

20 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

accommodate all of a day's passengers at the same time'

Airports manage to do that in that they can accommodate all of the passengers for multiple flights at the same time - no I don't expect flight passengers to turn up at 09:00 for a 17:00 flight but I do expect that they will start arriving from 13:00 onwards and be accommodated.

[cruising.mark.uk]

4 minutes ago, david63 said:

 The port authorities/Carnival have been operating these terminals for long enough to know what the passenger flow is based on time of year/ship/cruise itinerary to be able to manage the flow better.

 

Carnival / P&O manage the flow by allocating check-in times to passengers in order to spread the flow equally over the time available.  A proportion of passengers ignore their allocated check-in time and turn up when they want.  They then complain when they have to queue.  It seems somewhat counter-intuitive to me to blame the port authorities / Carnival for passengers' inability or unwillingness to comply with simple instructions designed to 'manage the flow better'.

[BouncingWheel]

Why are we consistently comparing cruise ports to airports? People use airplanes to get to their destinations/holidays not their holiday. Getting on the cruise ship is a major part of the holiday. I’m sure if airplanes took thousands of passengers, had loads of free good food, swimming, spas, bars and entertainment and sat on tarmac for hours before leaving then loads would try and got on early to enjoy the facilities, until then I don’t see people rushing to get there very early. If we want to do comparisons that aren’t the same how about cruise ports and train stations. How you seen the queues at train stations after a sporting match or concert? They often close the station. I still think they are fit for purpose as they handle numbers well the vast majority of times and only fail in extreme cases.

[terrierjohn]

2 minutes ago, BouncingWheel said:

Why are we consistently comparing cruise ports to airports? People use airplanes to get to their destinations/holidays not their holiday. Getting on the cruise ship is a major part of the holiday. I’m sure if airplanes took thousands of passengers, had loads of free good food, swimming, spas, bars and entertainment and sat on tarmac for hours before leaving then loads would try and got on early to enjoy the facilities, until then I don’t see people rushing to get there very early. If we want to do comparisons that aren’t the same how about cruise ports and train stations. How you seen the queues at train stations after a sporting match or concert? They often close the station. I still think they are fit for purpose as they handle numbers well the vast majority of times and only fail in extreme cases.

But some cruise lines handle them better than others, and Princess use  both Ocean and Mayflower for their Royal class ships with little queuing because they start embarkation much earlier than P&O. So why don't P&O follow Princesses example.

[majortom10]

9 hours ago, Ardennais said:

You’re missing the point. I HAVE been in that situation, in fact earlier this month. Still doesn’t give us the right to arrive earlier than the stated time. 

I have never said it gives anyone the right to arrive earlier than there stated time. Just think it is poor practice to send old, disabled or people in wheelchairs away or make them stand in a queue in all weathers when there is a purpose built terminal with hundreds of empty chairs.. Surely common sense would allow people with stated difficulties to sit inside until their nominated times on their boarding passes.

.

[carlanthony24]

1 hour ago, david63 said:

My definition of "fit for purpose" is that there is sufficient space to accommodate the flow of passengers irrespective of the time that they arrive. I accept that no terminal could handle four to five five thousand passengers if they all arrived at 11:30 but in reality that is not going to happen. The port authorities/Carnival have been operating these terminals for long enough to know what the passenger flow is based on time of year/ship/cruise itinerary to be able to manage the flow better.

 

Airports manage to do that in that they can accommodate all of the passengers for multiple flights at the same time - no I don't expect flight passengers to turn up at 09:00 for a 17:00 flight but I do expect that they will start arriving from 13:00 onwards and be accommodated.

They can’t be accommodated in some airports. You can spend at least a good hour waiting to get though security at least a good half hour of bags need to be searched.

[Bin man]

Would it not be a good idea to say you can enter the terminal say at the most 1 hour before your boarding time surely that would allow people to wait inside and the seats would not get full only by the hourly flowing passengers 

[July morning]

They could change back to how it used to be when you arrive you enter and get a card a,d,c etc and you wait seated inside could even buy a coffee etc then you get called by the card. They still at the same time had separate check in desks for priority and disabled. It only got changed when they restarted after the big C

[david63]

1 hour ago, July morning said:

They could change back to how it used to be when you arrive you enter and get a card a,d,c etc and you wait seated inside could even buy a coffee etc then you get called by the card. They still at the same time had separate check in desks for priority and disabled.

It would but the problem there is that none of the terminals that P&O use can cater for 5,000+ passengers as they were only designed for 3,000 passengers.

[majortom10]

1 minute ago, david63 said:

It would but the problem there is that none of the terminals that P&O use can cater for 5,000+ passengers as they were only designed for 3,000 passengers.

So as already been said the terminals are not fit for purpose for the ships they serve. That says a lot about P&O incompetent senior managers who have the large ships.

[Bin man]

Yes but you wouldn't have 5000 passengers at one time 

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, carlanthony24 said:

They can’t be accommodated in some airports. You can spend at least a good hour waiting to get though security at least a good half hour of bags need to be searched.

But generally you are undercover while you wait to check in and go through security, not waiting outside in uncertain UK weather.

[david63]

Just now, Bin man said:

Yes but you wouldn't have 5000 passengers at one time 

And neither would you have 3,000 passengers at one time, but the terminals were designed to handle that number without any major problems. It is all a question of scale.

 

Why have other countries managed to plan ahead and create bigger terminals yet the UK hasn't? This is all down to Southampton clinging on to the past. Barcelona, for example, has new large terminal some financed in part by Carnival so why not do the same at Southampton.

[Bin man]

So if we all stick to our allotted times thst seems to be the best we can hope for 

 

[cruising.mark.uk]

As my final contribution to this circular thread, I'll summarise the three options that seem to be on the table:

 

A.  To reduce the minor inconvenience encountered by a minority of passengers who feel unable to adhere to their allocated check-in time, Carnival / ABP should build new terminals at Southampton, doubtless causing 2 or 3 years of inconvenience and disruption for all passengers trying to board a cruise there and also increasing the price of cruises from Southampton to allow Carnival / ABP to recoup the massive costs involved.

 

B.  Impose additional pressures on ship's crew, port staff and others on turnaround day by starting embarkation earlier, although there is clearly no need to do that as the current time window allows all passengers to be processed and boarded for on-time departures.  Note that it is more likely than not that this will not reduce the terminal congestion caused by the minority who insist on turning up in advance of their check-in time; many of those who think the rules don't apply to them will probably just turn up even earlier than they do now. So, the same congestion as occurs now will continue, but will happen a little earlier in the day and that minority of passengers will end up spending additional time being inconvenienced while they wait for their designated check-in time.

 

C.  Educate passengers to arrive at the terminal at or close to their allocated check-in time and thereafter proceed smoothly through the boarding process which, barring exceptional circumstances, proves fit for purpose week after week in processing all passengers on to the ship for an on-time departure.  In this option, those who choose to arrive well in advance of their allocated time may suffer mild inconvenience.

 

In all of these options, provisions would be made (as they are now) for those who register a need for boarding assistance.

 

Personally, I prefer the 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it' option, but I offer the advocates of the alternatives the best of luck in campaigning for their proposals.

Edited January 25 by cruising.mark.uk
I couldn't count to 3!

[Windsurfboy]

4 hours ago, majortom10 said:

I have never said it gives anyone the right to arrive earlier than there stated time. Just think it is poor practice to send old, disabled or people in wheelchairs away or make them stand in a queue in all weathers when there is a purpose built terminal with hundreds of empty chairs.. Surely common sense would allow people with stated difficulties to sit inside until their nominated times on their boarding passes.

.

 

The infirm , disabled , wheelchairs aren't made to stand in queue, everyone else says those that  qualified for assistance are let in. Just a red herring to justify turning up at wrong time.

 

 

 

[terrierjohn]

1 hour ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

As my final contribution to this circular thread, I'll summarise the three options that seem to be on the table:

 

A.  To reduce the minor inconvenience encountered by a minority of passengers who feel unable to adhere to their allocated check-in time, Carnival / ABP should build new terminals at Southampton, doubtless causing 2 or 3 years of inconvenience and disruption for all passengers trying to board a cruise there and also increasing the price of cruises from Southampton to allow Carnival / ABP to recoup the massive costs involved.

 

B.  Impose additional pressures on ship's crew, port staff and others on turnaround day by starting embarkation earlier, although there is clearly no need to do that as the current time window allows all passengers to be processed and boarded for on-time departures.  Note that it is more likely than not that this will not reduce the terminal congestion caused by the minority who insist on turning up in advance of their check-in time; many of those who think the rules don't apply to them will probably just turn up even earlier than they do now. So, the same congestion as occurs now will continue, but will happen a little earlier in the day and that minority of passengers will end up spending additional time being inconvenienced while they wait for their designated check-in time.

 

C.  Educate passengers to arrive at the terminal at or close to their allocated check-in time and thereafter proceed smoothly through the boarding process which, barring exceptional circumstances, proves fit for purpose week after week in processing all passengers on to the ship for an on-time departure.  In this option, those who choose to arrive well in advance of their allocated time may suffer mild inconvenience.

 

In all of these options, provisions would be made (as they are now) for those who register a need for boarding assistance.

 

Personally, I prefer the 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it' option, but I offer the advocates of the alternatives the best of luck in campaigning for their proposals.

You have studiously avoided any references to all of the other cruise lines using Southampton whose crews manage to start embarkation much earlier, without any noticeable problems, and who do not require any passenger to wait outside in all weathers, and seem able to check most passengers in and get them on board in 15-20 minutes max.

Edited January 25 by terrierjohn

[laslomas]

1 hour ago, Windsurfboy said:

 

The infirm , disabled , wheelchairs aren't made to stand in queue, everyone else says those that  qualified for assistance are let in. Just a red herring to justify turning up at wrong time.

 

 

 

 

There are many people who are not actually infirm, disabled, or in a wheelchair, that struggle to stand around for long periods. I didn't realise this until it finally hit me as I got older. I do not use a stick, or any mobility aid, but as the years go by I find many things a problem that never were a few years ago. I would not turn up early and expect to jump the queue, but I know that if I arrived on time and there was a hold up for any reason I would really struggle to be standing around more than 20 minutes, or so.  Hopefully it all goes smoothly for my next check-in.

 

But this situation is not always understood until it hits you. I never thought I would become 'old'. The suggestion of walking around to waste a few hours would be my worst nightmare. 

 

I would not qualify, nor would I ask for, or expect 'assistance' because I don't need it in most situations. So I would be in the queue outside.  

Edited January 25 by laslomas

[9265359]

5 hours ago, BouncingWheel said:

Why are we consistently comparing cruise ports to airports? People use airplanes to get to their destinations/holidays not their holiday. Getting on the cruise ship is a major part of the holiday. I’m sure if airplanes took thousands of passengers, had loads of free good food, swimming, spas, bars and entertainment and sat on tarmac for hours before leaving then loads would try and got on early to enjoy the facilities, until then I don’t see people rushing to get there very early.

Your comparison is false.

 

Even if the airplanes took thousands of passengers, had loads of free good food, swimming, spas, bars and entertainment and sat on tarmac for hours before leaving, you are still not getting on the aircraft until your boarding group is called to allow an on-time departure.

 

And that means thousands of people sitting waiting in the airport terminal for hours, as that allows the airport to sell them overpriced goods, food, drink, the option to pay for more comfortable seats in lounges, etc.

 

*That* is the failing of the terminals in Southampton to spot that business opportunity - keep to an absolute boarding schedule so if your boarding time is 4pm but you arrive at 10am then you are *not* going to be called to the check in desk until 4pm let alone getting on before 4pm - no matter if the check in staff and security staff are sat there twiddling their thumbs, it’s a hard hard rule.
 

However if you want to arrive at 10am to sit on an uncomfortable plastic chair for six hours whilst we sell you food and drink at double or treble the High St price then feel free. Or would you like to pay to sit in our lounge for £25 each.

 

Or this is the real business opportunity - would you like to board early (obviously after the priority guests) - no problem, it’s £100 per person to do so.

[Windsurfboy]

1 minute ago, laslomas said:

 

There are many people who are not actually infirm, disabled, or in a wheelchair, that struggle to stand around for long periods. I didn't realise this until it finally hit me as I got older. I do not use a stick, or any mobility aid, but as the years go by I find many things a problem that never were a few years ago. I would not turn up early and expect to jump the queue, but I know that if I arrived on time and there was a hold up for any reason I would really struggle to be standing around more than 20 minutes, or so.  Hopefully it all goes smoothly for my next check-in.

 

But this situation is not always understood until it hits you. I never thought I would become 'old'. The suggestion of walking around to waste a few hours would be my worst nightmare. 

 

 No one has said those that turn up on time should be made to wait, anyone who turns up no more than half an hour before their allocated time should be let in and given somewhere to sit down.

 

It's the chancers who turn up at 12pm for a 3pm slot that should be turned away

[9265359]

38 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

It's the chancers who turn up at 12pm for a 3pm slot that should be turned away

They shouldn’t.

 

They should be let in but kept waiting for the three hours until their check in time.

 

The chancers will reduce because they will discover they won’t get on any quicker, whilst those who had to arrive early because of the whole host of reasons some people here seem blind to, will simply be grateful they are not stood outside in the weather.

[Windsurfboy]

54 minutes ago, 9265359 said:

They shouldn’t.

 

They should be let in but kept waiting for the three hours until their check in time.

 

The chancers will reduce because they will discover they won’t get on any quicker, whilst those who had to arrive early because of the whole host of reasons some people here seem blind to, will simply be grateful they are not stood outside in the weather.

 

The problem is as Molechip explained, overcrowding.  The terminals have safe capacity for 2000 people. Big ship can hold 6000, so you must control entry to terminal. So can't let those too early in.

[9265359]

25 minutes ago, Windsurfboy said:

 

The problem is as Molechip explained, overcrowding.  The terminals have safe capacity for 2000 people. Big ship can hold 6000, so you must control entry to terminal. So can't let those too early in.

 

If boarding times were actually enforced - you have a 4pm boarding time, no matter what you are *not* getting on before 4pm, how many people do you really think would turn up hours early? Certainly not 4,000.

 

And even with 6,000 passengers that means processing around 1,000 passengers an hour with people going directly to the check-in queue then the security queue and then the ship and not actually going anywhere near the seating.

 

So a 2,000 capacity should have no issue with dealing with those who are not arriving early to try to blag their way onto the ship - and actually it would be trivially easy to achieve that if anyone wanted to do so.

[david63]

1 hour ago, Windsurfboy said:

The terminals have safe capacity for 2000 people.

Comes back round to the terminals not being fit for purpose. Before any jumps on me the terminals were made to handle 2,000 when that was the capacity not 500 so the current terminal should have their capacity increased. If I am not mistaken there was talk of expanding Ocean Terminal to handle the bigger ships.

 

It is the same as airports - they had to extend their runways/facilities to accommodate jumbo jets when they entered service.