New rules for wheelchair users

[david63]

3 hours ago, terrierjohn said:

So it must be designed to reduce the number of disabled passenger

Almost certainly and in a way that is within all equality laws.

 

P&O (or their masters) have made a decision that the having wheelchair/disabled passengers does not fit their passenger demographic going forward.

[AchileLauro]

14 hours ago, david63 said:

Almost certainly and in a way that is within all equality laws.

 

P&O (or their masters) have made a decision that the having wheelchair/disabled passengers does not fit their passenger demographic going forward.

It seems that this is the case, but not out of malice or discrimination. They are simply limiting numbers to those that can be  managed safely in an emergency.

[nosapphire]

If it is any consolation, Saga (who must surely be a line that expects to have passengers with mobility issues) stipulate that if you need to use a wheelchair or mobility scooter on board (not just in the cabin) then you have to book an adapted cabin (which will automatically assign an evacuation chair).

No adapted cabin = no on board wheelchair/scooter (they do not differentiate between powered and non-powered wheelchairs).

If you only need it ashore, you still have to pre-book it, it gets taken from you pre-embarkation,stored below deck and brought out at ports.But no need for an adapted cabin.

Heavy warnings that if you turn up with a wheelchair/scooter that has not been pre-accepted then you will probably be refused boarding (and it gets treated as self-cancellation).

At least Saga have a freephone telephone number, and helpful telephone staff to answer questions about changes of circumstances, cabin suitability and whether or not an evacuation chair needs to be allocated/is available.

Must be a nightmare for any passenger line trying to balance safety requirements and passenger requirements - and it is probably going to get harder.

[cruising.mark.uk]

51 minutes ago, AchileLauro said:

It seems that this is the case, but not out of malice or discrimination. They are simply limiting numbers to those that can be  managed safely in an emergency.

Exactly.

 

I feel really sorry for those who may not be able to cruise in future because of these changes, but sense that the cruise lines are in a no-win situation.  I'm no expert in maritime law, but my understanding is that a cruise line has a requirement in law (as well as a moral imperative) to be able to get everyone safely off the ship if the worst happens.  Whether that law has recently been tightened and / or whether P&O (and Cunard?) have now realised that staff levels preclude them from assisting the same number of passengers with impaired / limited mobility that they may have done in the past, it is clear that they now wish to ensure they can evacuate all passengers safely in an emergency by imposing a specific ceiling on the number of passengers who require assistance with mobility that they will carry on any specific cruise.  They are doing that via a combination of the requirement forms,m limiting the number of evacuation chairs and stipulating that users of associated equipment can only be accommodated in specific cabins.  

 

I do not think it is reasonable to expect the cruise line to risk breaching international or UK maritime law by knowingly embarking more passengers requiring assistance than they can evacuate safely.  They may suffer a little bit of negative publicity because of the way they are implementing this, but I suspect that is a drop in the ocean compared with the media headlines 'Go on a cruise holiday with P&O but be aware that they can't help disabled people get off in an emergency' and grief they would get on social media if they continued operating as they have in the past, knowing that would mean they could not meet their obligations.  And, more important than the negative publicity, that would expose the passengers involved to unacceptable danger and the cruise line to huge legal and financial risk.

[9265359]

30 minutes ago, nosapphire said:

If it is any consolation, Saga (who must surely be a line that expects to have passengers with mobility issues) stipulate that if you need to use a wheelchair or mobility scooter on board (not just in the cabin) then you have to book an adapted cabin (which will automatically assign an evacuation chair).

No adapted cabin = no on board wheelchair/scooter (they do not differentiate between powered and non-powered wheelchairs).

If you only need it ashore, you still have to pre-book it, it gets taken from you pre-embarkation, stored below deck and brought out at ports. But no need for an adapted cabin.

 

But do they allocate an evac chair to those individuals with stored wheelchairs and mobility scooters?

 

If not, then that seems a pretty risky gamble.

[pete14]

1 hour ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Exactly.

 

I feel really sorry for those who may not be able to cruise in future because of these changes, but sense that the cruise lines are in a no-win situation.  I'm no expert in maritime law, but my understanding is that a cruise line has a requirement in law (as well as a moral imperative) to be able to get everyone safely off the ship if the worst happens.  Whether that law has recently been tightened and / or whether P&O (and Cunard?) have now realised that staff levels preclude them from assisting the same number of passengers with impaired / limited mobility that they may have done in the past, it is clear that they now wish to ensure they can evacuate all passengers safely in an emergency by imposing a specific ceiling on the number of passengers who require assistance with mobility that they will carry on any specific cruise.  They are doing that via a combination of the requirement forms,m limiting the number of evacuation chairs and stipulating that users of associated equipment can only be accommodated in specific cabins.  

 

I do not think it is reasonable to expect the cruise line to risk breaching international or UK maritime law by knowingly embarking more passengers requiring assistance than they can evacuate safely.  They may suffer a little bit of negative publicity because of the way they are implementing this, but I suspect that is a drop in the ocean compared with the media headlines 'Go on a cruise holiday with P&O but be aware that they can't help disabled people get off in an emergency' and grief they would get on social media if they continued operating as they have in the past, knowing that would mean they could not meet their obligations.  And, more important than the negative publicity, that would expose the passengers involved to unacceptable danger and the cruise line to huge legal and financial risk.

I completely agree with what you have put. I can only imagine and fear what would happen if the need arose to summon passengers to muster stations because of an emergency under the old arrangements. Through no fault of their own, those with poor mobility could cause blockages in corridors and on the stairs and in all the confusion and panic, possibly with only emergency lighting, are likely to end up being trampled underfoot in the chaos that would ensue. 
 

I realise that this is new arrangement is likely to limit the number of people with poor or no mobility from cruising but not cruising must be preferable to being in an emergency situation and not being able to evacuate safely if the situation ever arose. P&O may not have handled this new regulation very well but once it beds in, we should get to a new and safer normal. It is just a pity that through no fault of their own, some may either have to book earlier so that arrangements can be made to guarantee their safety or get used to cruising less or not at all. 
 

Edited 7 hours ago by pete14

[nosapphire]

28 minutes ago, 9265359 said:

 

But do they allocate an evac chair to those individuals with stored wheelchairs and mobility scooters?

 

If not, then that seems a pretty risky gamble.

Why?

It is - reasonably - assumed that anyone who needs to use a wheelchair/scooter on board will also be in need of an evacuation chair in an emergency, hence the automatic allocation.

People who do NOT need to use a wheelchair/scooter whilst on board are in exactly the same position as everybody else - they have to declare whether or not they think they will need assistance in the event of an emergency.

(Fortunately, the requirement is to be able to make your own way - nobody says "can you run?")

The stored wheelchairs/scooters are not available to be used at any time on board, and are not available to be used at embarkation or disembarkation.

In the main, it is scooters that get stored so that people who are mobile but cannot walk long distances ashore can enjoy independent strolls (wheels?) around the ports visited.

 

 

 

[terrierjohn]

2 hours ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Exactly.

 

I feel really sorry for those who may not be able to cruise in future because of these changes, but sense that the cruise lines are in a no-win situation.  I'm no expert in maritime law, but my understanding is that a cruise line has a requirement in law (as well as a moral imperative) to be able to get everyone safely off the ship if the worst happens.  Whether that law has recently been tightened and / or whether P&O (and Cunard?) have now realised that staff levels preclude them from assisting the same number of passengers with impaired / limited mobility that they may have done in the past, it is clear that they now wish to ensure they can evacuate all passengers safely in an emergency by imposing a specific ceiling on the number of passengers who require assistance with mobility that they will carry on any specific cruise.  They are doing that via a combination of the requirement forms,m limiting the number of evacuation chairs and stipulating that users of associated equipment can only be accommodated in specific cabins.  

 

I do not think it is reasonable to expect the cruise line to risk breaching international or UK maritime law by knowingly embarking more passengers requiring assistance than they can evacuate safely.  They may suffer a little bit of negative publicity because of the way they are implementing this, but I suspect that is a drop in the ocean compared with the media headlines 'Go on a cruise holiday with P&O but be aware that they can't help disabled people get off in an emergency' and grief they would get on social media if they continued operating as they have in the past, knowing that would mean they could not meet their obligations.  And, more important than the negative publicity, that would expose the passengers involved to unacceptable danger and the cruise line to huge legal and financial risk.

It is difficult to argue against any of the points you make, although there have been very few major incidents involving cruise ships, leading to abandonment over recent years, from which we could garner useful statistics.

Whilst fully realising that regulations need to be put in place, in case of an extreme emergency, I do wonder whether the ones that Carnival UK are implementing have been rigorously researched, and are intended to be rolled out world-wide, or have Carnival somewhat jumped the gun.

[S1971]

14 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

I do wonder whether the ones that Carnival UK are implementing have been rigorously researched, and are intended to be rolled out world-wide, or have Carnival somewhat jumped the gun

 

Jumped the gun, indeed they have in my opinion.

 

No other cruiselines to my knowledge with the exception of Carnival UK have implemented such strict rules.

 

I am of the opinion that they are simply reducing the numbers of those reliant on mobility aids onboard.

 

I guess only Carnival UK can explain why!!

[cruising.mark.uk]

It's not clear to me what 'gun' some posters think Carnival UK might have jumped.  

 

If an arm of a multinational corporation that takes millions of people on holiday per year determines that it is putting the lives of a proportion of their customer base at risk by not having adequate resources on board to evacuate them safely in the event of an emergency, it seems to me that any ethical business would act to correct that situation as quickly as possible on its own initiative.

 

Are those who think Carnival has jumped the gun suggesting that CCL UK should have waited until there had been an incident, potentially involving mass casualties and loss of life, before taking corrective action or otherwise held off until required to do so by UK or international legislators?  

 

I for one, would prefer to use companies and organisations that demonstrate a proactive and forward-leaning approach to safety rather than ones that adopt a more cavalier 'everything will be alright' approach until they are forced to act by legislation or other means after an unfortunate incident.

 

It's all very well to say 'not many cruise liners need to be evacuated', 'not many aeroplanes crash', 'not many tower blocks catch fire' etc, but that is somewhat irrelevant if the one that you and your loved ones are on / in is one of the 'not many'.

 

[S1971]

26 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

It's not clear to me what 'gun' some posters think Carnival UK might have jumped.  

 

If an arm of a multinational corporation that takes millions of people on holiday per year determines that it is putting the lives of a proportion of their customer base at risk by not having adequate resources on board to evacuate them safely in the event of an emergency, it seems to me that any ethical business would act to correct that situation as quickly as possible on its own initiative.

 

Are those who think Carnival has jumped the gun suggesting that CCL UK should have waited until there had been an incident, potentially involving mass casualties and loss of life, before taking corrective action or otherwise held off until required to do so by UK or international legislators?  

 

I for one, would prefer to use companies and organisations that demonstrate a proactive and forward-leaning approach to safety rather than ones that adopt a more cavalier 'everything will be alright' approach until they are forced to act by legislation or other means after an unfortunate incident.

 

It's all very well to say 'not many cruise liners need to be evacuated', 'not many aeroplanes crash', 'not many tower blocks catch fire' etc, but that is somewhat irrelevant if the one that you and your loved ones are on / in is one of the 'not many'.

 

 

If the safety of their customers is so important, why haven't they implemented it corporation wide, rather than just the UK branch if the business?

 

There has been no specific changes to the law as far as I am aware, both Cunard & P&O until very recently have carried those with mobility scooters etc without issue, what has changed so dramatically they've had to deny many of those loyal customers a cruise?

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by S1971

[cruising.mark.uk]

7 minutes ago, S1971 said:

what has changed so dramatically they've had to deny many of those loyal customers a cruise?

 

 

Crew numbers, perhaps?  From what I read across these boards, crew numbers have been driven down post Covid by a combination of cost-cutting and difficulties re-attracting some of the pre-Covid workforce / recruiting new workers, exacerbated by bringing major new ships into service over the last two or three years (Arvia and QA).  

 

My understanding is that every member of crew has a role to play in an emergency.  If a minimum of 2 crew are required to safely evacuate someone in an evac chair, it is more than likely that there are now less crew available for this than there were previously.  Hence the drive to know in advance exactly how any passengers might require this assistance.

 

As to why just UK-based CCL lines at the moment, only CCL will know the answer to that.  Perhaps P&O and Cunard have traditionally carried more passengers requiring mobility assistance than other CCL brands, perhaps they have been worse affected by crew cuts / shortages than other brands or perhaps other CCL brands are just about to introduce similar measures or have already done so?

[S1971]

14 minutes ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Crew numbers, perhaps?  From what I read across these boards, crew numbers have been driven down post Covid by a combination of cost-cutting and difficulties re-attracting some of the pre-Covid workforce / recruiting new workers, exacerbated by bringing major new ships into service over the last two or three years (Arvia and QA).  

 

My understanding is that every member of crew has a role to play in an emergency.  If a minimum of 2 crew are required to safely evacuate someone in an evac chair, it is more than likely that there are now less crew available for this than there were previously.  Hence the drive to know in advance exactly how any passengers might require this assistance.

 

As to why just UK-based CCL lines at the moment, only CCL will know the answer to that.  Perhaps P&O and Cunard have traditionally carried more passengers requiring mobility assistance than other CCL brands, perhaps they have been worse affected by crew cuts / shortages than other brands or perhaps other CCL brands are just about to introduce similar measures or have already done so?

 

All credible possibilities, however the same issues have arisen across the whole cruise industry, with the exception of these two, none to my knowledge have implemented such a change.

 

As you say only CCLwill know the answer, in the meantime there'll unfortunately be a lot of disappointed loyal customers. 

[Megabear2]

2 hours ago, S1971 said:

 

All credible possibilities, however the same issues have arisen across the whole cruise industry, with the exception of these two, none to my knowledge have implemented such a change.

 

As you say only CCLwill know the answer, in the meantime there'll unfortunately be a lot of disappointed loyal customers. 

The crew numbers point is very valid regarding two man evacuation chairs, however apart from this "embargo" on electric wheelchair/mobility scooters other recent changes in mobility requirements would appear to mean diversion of crew to other guests who previously were not considered in need of assistance in an emergency.

 

As an example my husband who is a very infrequent walking stick user due to fibromyalgia is now required to have one to one assistance for every voyage.  The mobility form states quite clearly this is the suggested minimum requirement for anyone bringing a walking stick onboard.  Both P&O and Cunard have insisted on this when we have explained the situation, yet my husband is extremely active and has very few mobility issues save for odd days when he suffers a flare up.  

 

Again this declaration of walking sticks appears to only be a requirement of P&O and Cunard but I would imagine providing one to one assistance to every person with a walking stick would use up a large amount of crew resource?

 

We are now able to see quite clearly on the deck plans the cabins available for use by those who have powered devices.  There are however other cabins with the disability wheelchair symbol which do not have the power symbol and assumedly those using manual wheelchairs are still able to book these or are they not able to do this if they use their wheelchair fulltime?  It seems very odd that TigerB was told he could keep his now cancelled cruise if his good lady could use another form of non motorised wheelchair if it is simply a way to reduce the number of passengers with disability requirements - the needs of the person would be identical in an emergency.

 

Looking at it in light of this the new policy still seems more aimed at reducing the number of electronic mobility aids rather than mobility challenged passengers in light of the above.