New rules for wheelchair users

[Megabear2]

3 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

Megabear2 as you say, these two lines seem to be the only ones at the moment with this ruling which leads me to think, there must/might be a reason, maybe peculiar to Cunard and P&O and we, the passengers involved have not been given privy to that reason.

 

Until more information is given, the speculation will not enhance the reputation of either line  with those who have and will be impacted.

The cynic in me says that the two companies are not under any circumstances going to publicly explain their reasoning, if they could explain genuinely and honestly the P&O representative given the opportunity on The One Show would not have ignored the question three times. They will hide behind company confidentiality.

 

Interestingly both of these cruise lines had ships involved in line breaks in 2023, Britannia (interestingly in August 2023 so almost a year to the day of the new policy starting)  coming off worse by hitting another ship and QM2 narrowly avoiding the same fate.  Iona also suffered a mobility scooter catching fire which an internet search shows drew a large number of dramatic headlines in the press.  

 

The Britannia accident apparently led to people going to muster stations at one point (again based on passenger reports on here and a comment some time back from our "friendly" P&O mole) and I would speculate (just my own thoughts) that it was a bit alarming to see how slow and cumbersome this process was for a fairly large number of guests.  Shortly after this incident P&O out of the blue changed the rules on walking sticks etc to now be declared, in fact they changed the rules twice in fairly short order as I found myself having to re-do forms twice as one to one assistance became the minimum recommended requirement for walking stick users.  My booked Cunard cruises also added this requirement.

 

So my guess, only a personal one, is that these three close calls have in some way affected P&O/Cunard's insurance and certificate to sail and they have absolutely no desire to admit this publicly as it would be business suicide to say safety is an issue on their ships.  

[cruising.mark.uk]

The issue is the legal and moral responsibility of a cruise line to be able to preserve life in the event of an emergency.  Clearly that applies across all lines and all ships, but how each line chooses to ensure that they are best placed to do that for all their customers will vary between lines and will be subject to scrutiny and testing by relevant national and international agencies.

 

The nature of cruising means that every cruise line will have to limit the number of passengers with mobility or other issues necessitating additional assistance in the event of an emergency.  As will every airline, rail and bus company, hotel, sports stadium, entertainment venue etc etc etc.  I acknowledge fully the disappointment of some affected passengers who may find that limits on the number of those requiring additional assistance that can be accommodated mean that cruising is no longer a viable option for them.  However, I find it reassuring that P&O and Cunard are focused on minimising potential casualties and loss of life in the event of a significant incident.

We all have a choice.  If as individuals we are content to cruise with lines who are either confident that they can safely handle larger numbers of passengers who require additional assistance or are prepared to take more risk (with the lives of passengers and crews) than it appears P&O and Cunard are now, then that is our decision to make as informed consumers.  

While P&O and Cunard may well deserve criticism for poor communications, it seems to me incongruous to criticise them for focusing on safety and ill-judged to assert, without any evidence, that they are attempting to limit - for anything other than safety reasons - the number of passengers that need additional assistance that can sail on each cruise.

[terrierjohn]

2 hours ago, AchileLauro said:

It's nothing to do with inequality or discrimination, its a simple matter of legal responsibility. 

 

The fact that cruise lines have barely or only partially complied with their duties in the past has led to the present situation, and as per the norm when legislation is fully applied for the first time it leads to upset.  

 

More so because of the cack handed way that P&O have in their usual poor public relations way gone about introducing change with immediate effect and no warning or consideration given to their customers, many of whom would have booked up some considerable time 

Applying these new rules may well help to ensure that the disabled passengers can be more safely handled in an emergency, however what perplexes me is why P&0 and Cunard are the only cruise lines currently making these changes.

[cruising.mark.uk]

28 minutes ago, AchileLauro said:

How many cruise lines have actually fully tested their emergency evacuation procedures in a realistic way? How many disabled persons especially those with any sort of mobility issue have been fully truthful or realistic as to their abilities or rather inabilities in a real life emergency?

 

Exactly.  As someone who has spent their working life heavily involved in contingency and emergency planning, I really question what will happen in the event of a major emergency on a cruise ship far out to sea.  

 

I agree that it's hard, if not impossible, to do a realistic test of the full evacuation procedure, up to the launch of lifeboats.  It's relatively easy to understand why airlines might limit the number of passengers requiring mobility assistance on each flight because they have to be able to evacuate everybody within ?90 seconds.  Logic dictates that there will similarly be limits (whether it be because of equipment, staff or other issues) on the numbers that can be accommodated on cruise ships, albeit many of those issues will be variables and therefore the numbers and criteria will vary between cruise lines. 

 

I'm not sure whether there is a maritime equivalent to the ?90 second rule for airlines and whether there are national (coastguard?) or international authorities with responsibility for assessing / testing the ability to evacuate cruise ships, but I sense that if a realistic exercise was ever conducted with an actual passenger load, the results would be extremely sobering and lead to changes in policies and procedures across all cruise lines / ships.  And passengers requiring assistance would likely only be one of many issues on which there would be lessons to learn.  Other issues such as dealing with a general level of panic (including among the crew), children separated from parents, drunk passengers, those who insist on returning to their cabins etc etc would likely pose equal or greater challenges.

[Megabear2]

1 minute ago, terrierjohn said:

Applying these new rules may well help to ensure that the disabled passengers can be more safely handled in an emergency, however what perplexes me is why P&0 and Cunard are the only cruise lines currently making these changes.

Could be the volume of passengers they carry who have mobility difficulties.  Looking at the demographics on some ex UK sailings for both lines, particularly in the off season periods and the longer cruises, there can be a markedly older group of people with all the health issues connected to that.  

 

The issue may well not be limited to only those with full disability requirements, it could be the number of "fringe" semi disabled who are affecting the sailings and it is having a knock on effect of large proportions for those who have always needed to declare their assistance needs.

 

Certainly on Aurora, which I had never sailed before, I could not help but notice the large number of people with walking difficulties and also the number of rollators, frames etc.and whilst the onboard wheelchair and mobility scooter numbers were similar to other ships the other guests were not.

 

 

[Victoria2]

13 hours ago, SoosieSoo said:

Telling disabled people what they need instead of asking them is never a good idea. I don’t believe it’s about safety at all. It would be far safer for me (for example) to walk down some stairs than to try to get onto an evacuation chair. Their whole policy is badly written and creates a distinction between wheelchairs and scooters that does not exist in law.
Don’t get me started on ‘full time disabled’ I find it really offensive to be told by them that I am not properly disabled, in their opinion.

 

I have to disagree. I think some sort of safety issue is involved but what, we haven't been told about.

Unfortunately, if fifty people were asked what they needed as far as assistance is concerned, the likelihood is at least a dozen issues would be mentioned.

Cruise lines would find it very difficult to cover all the various issues passengers might have if wanting to implement any changes so a blanket 'edict' is their only answer...which is most certainly what they have done.

 

The distinction 'in law' does not necessarily apply to safety at sea. I'm no legal beagle but I'm pretty sure P&O and Cunard will have had theirs pouring over the new rulings and will have covered their backsides pretty thoroughly.

Maybe all the ill will engendered  might nudge some suits into giving more of an explanation. Maybe.

 

 

[SoosieSoo]

*The issue may well not be limited to only those with full disability requirements, it could be the number of "fringe" semi disabled who are affecting the sailings and it is having a knock on effect of large proportions for those who have always needed to declare their assistance needs.

 

Certainly on Aurora, which I had never sailed before, I could not help but notice the large number of people with walking difficulties and also the number of rollators, frames etc.and whilst the onboard wheelchair and mobility scooter numbers were similar to other ships the other guests were not*

 

Yes, it is this. The number of elderly people with walking sticks and the (mis)interpretation by Carnival that includes walking sticks in the 'mobility equipment' category (when it should mean more substantial equipment such as a scooter, wheelchair or rollators)

Anyhoo, I have booked with a different company and will sell my carnival shares. I don't suppose P&O care about my loss as a loyal customer.

[Megabear2]

14 minutes ago, SoosieSoo said:

*The issue may well not be limited to only those with full disability requirements, it could be the number of "fringe" semi disabled who are affecting the sailings and it is having a knock on effect of large proportions for those who have always needed to declare their assistance needs.

 

Certainly on Aurora, which I had never sailed before, I could not help but notice the large number of people with walking difficulties and also the number of rollators, frames etc.and whilst the onboard wheelchair and mobility scooter numbers were similar to other ships the other guests were not*

 

Yes, it is this. The number of elderly people with walking sticks and the (mis)interpretation by Carnival that includes walking sticks in the 'mobility equipment' category (when it should mean more substantial equipment such as a scooter, wheelchair or rollators)

Anyhoo, I have booked with a different company and will sell my carnival shares. I don't suppose P&O care about my loss as a loyal customer.

I'm glad you have found another suitable cruise.  May I ask which line you have booked on and if there were any specific differences in the booking process.

 

I hope you have wonderful cruises on your new line.

[SoosieSoo]

I have booked with Ambassador, I cruised with them in October 2023 to North Africa and now I am booked for Norway in October next year. They are inexpensive and have a good drinks package, which is important to me as I drink like a fish 🙂

[solentsam]

 

Exactly.  As someone who has spent their working life heavily involved in contingency and emergency planning, I really question what will happen in the event of a major emergency on a cruise ship far out to sea.  

 

I agree that it's hard, if not impossible, to do a realistic test of the full evacuation procedure, up to the launch of lifeboats.  It's relatively easy to understand why airlines might limit the number of passengers requiring mobility assistance on each flight because they have to be able to evacuate everybody within ?90 seconds.  Logic dictates that there will similarly be limits (whether it be because of equipment, staff or other issues) on the numbers that can be accommodated on cruise ships, albeit many of those issues will be variables and therefore the numbers and criteria will vary between cruise lines. 

 

I'm not sure whether there is a maritime equivalent to the ?90 second rule for airlines and whether there are national (coastguard?) or international authorities with responsibility for assessing / testing the ability to evacuate cruise ships, but I sense that if a realistic exercise was ever conducted with an actual passenger load, the results would be extremely sobering and lead to changes in policies and procedures across all cruise lines / ships.  And passengers requiring assistance would likely only be one of many issues on which there would be lessons to learn.  Other issues such as dealing with a general level of panic (including among the crew), children separated from parents, drunk passengers, those who insist on returning to their cabins etc etc would likely pose equal or greater challenges.

There is a maritime requirement to evacuate a ship within 30 minutes

 

just google "evacuate a ship within 30 minutes" you will see lots of subject matter on this

[S1971]

22 minutes ago, SoosieSoo said:

I have booked with a different company and will sell my carnival shares. I don't suppose P&O care about my loss as a loyal customer.

 

I applaud you for taking a stand and moving your booking to another line.

 

As this continues, both P&O and Cunard may well feel the pinch if loyal customers start moving on, perhaps not on summer sailings but autumn and winter sailings, where normally in my experience have an older clientele onboard and although not exclusively, a lot of those come with mobility issues. 

 

 

[Tommart]

Sadly, having read through all these posts, it looks very much as if P&O have reached the conclusion that guests with disabilities are less profitable than those without - particularly if it 'spoils' the environment for the 'yoof' market they're now clearly aiming at.  They'll have made very sure that they comply with the Equality Act, I'm sure, but it's still worth bearing in mind:

 

https://www.abta.com/tips-and-advice/accessible-travel/cruise-and-ferry-passenger-rights

 

Only P&O will know the actual economics, but I'm guessing that the changes in the perception of cruising over recent years, and the greater affordability, make the new target market much more profitable than the old one - particularly the disabled section of the old market. Young people are probably also going to spend more onboard, where the real profits lie.

 

In terms of pure profit, a young fit person is likely to spend more and cost less than an older person on a mobility scooter. I suspect it really is that simple - though P&O are bound to deny it.

 

 

[Gettingwarmer]

28 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

I'm glad you have found another suitable cruise.  May I ask which line you have booked on and if there were any specific differences in the booking process.

 

I hope you have wonderful cruises on your new line.

 

19 minutes ago, SoosieSoo said:

I have booked with Ambassador, I cruised with them in October 2023 to North Africa and now I am booked for Norway in October next year. They are inexpensive and have a good drinks package, which is important to me as I drink like a fish 🙂

Ambassodor Mobility Policy

https://www.ambassadorcruiseline.com/information/mobility-policy/

 

[Megabear2]

Following on from Soosieso's booking with Ambassdor, here is their disability policy:

 

"The number of guests either reliant upon the use of a wheelchair/scooter, or with reduced mobility, that we can accept is governed by the number of crew we can assign to assist disabled/mobility-impaired guests in the unlikely event of an emergency. This is in accordance with the International Maritime Organisation’s convention on 'Safety of Life at Sea' (SOLAS), governing the safe evacuation of a vessel within 30 minutes of the emergency alarm being sounded. This regulation is not superseded by the EU Passenger Bill of Rights Regulation 1177/2010, effective 18 December 2012, concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea or inland waterways."

 

Seems very clear and unlike P&O's gives an explanation of the rules

[S1971]

32 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Seems very clear and unlike P&O's gives an explanation of the rules

 

Agreed.

 

Doesn't answer the reasoning behind P&O and Cunards decision to only allow scooters and chairs fewer cabins than before.

 

Unless of course!!

 

Less assistance = less crew = more profit.

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:31 PM by S1971

[Megabear2]

3 minutes ago, S1971 said:

 

Agreed.

 

Doesn't answer the reasoning behind P&O and Cunards decision to only allow scooters and chairs fewer cabins than before.

 

Less assistance = less crew = more profit.

 

They're certainly filling up the suites as people are moving across there if they can afford it! The release next month or shortly after will be interesting.

[SoosieSoo]

Ambassador also acknowledge that if you are travelling with an able bodied companion then they can help you rather than a member of staff.

[S1971]

8 minutes ago, SoosieSoo said:

Ambassador also acknowledge that if you are travelling with an able bodied companion then they can help you rather than a member of staff.

 

Sounds as though Ambassador are applying some common sense, unlike Carnival UK!!!

[AchileLauro]

2 hours ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

 As someone who has spent their working life heavily involved in contingency and emergency planning,

That's clearly evident by your comments on some of the complexities of what is a very complex subject that is not always understood by the majority of passengers regardless of how often they have cruised previously.

 

You touched on the subject of the standard of crew training something that I have wondered about myself, especially considering that it has often be mentioned about the difficulty of recruiting new crew and how so many of them are relatively inexperienced.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the actions of Carnival are a result of perhaps being given a gypsy's warning? 

After all if you look at the historic safety record of Cunard (and I'm not talking about the Titanic) their record is hardly stellar. I think most of us can remember the QE2 being arrested by the U.S. coastguard in New York for serious safety violations. That was after she had already sailed from Southampton and crossed the Atlantic with workmen on board.

[S1971]

12 minutes ago, AchileLauro said:

After all if you look at the historic safety record of Cunard (and I'm not talking about the Titanic) their record is hardly stellar

 

Wasn't RMS Titanic owned by White Star Line?

 

With the exception of ships lost in war time, I can't think of anything which makes their safety record bad, unless you can enlighten me?

[Selbourne]

On 9/22/2024 at 8:37 PM, sandancer said:

Both my husband and I have the app and use it regularly unfortunately in this instance it’s not just blood tests and both GP and consultant are involved. Unlike Selbourne we have not been waiting weeks. It’s just that due to bad timing we have to make final payment and renew the travel insurance this week. 

I thought that you might find the following update useful. I checked with my GP that they hadn’t received my test results (they haven’t) and they recommended contacting the PALS team (Patient Advice and Liason) at the hospital. This service seems to be designed to head off complaints before they are made (important for them in these CQC days). I left a voicemail yesterday afternoon and a very helpful chap called me back at lunchtime today. He had already looked up when my appointment was (I had deleted it from my diary) and he noted all of my concerns about the anxiety of waiting for results (having been told that I would have received them by now) plus the potential issue that this might cause with insurance. The system they use is that they follow up with the relevant department and a senior member of staff from that department has to call me within 5 days. Thankfully this will still be well before my insurance renewal date. 
 

In other news, I received a letter from Aviva today as they are gradually taking over the Nationwide Flex Plus cover from UK Insurance Ltd. It was concerning upgrades including pre-existing medical conditions. I found the wording on this (including test results) to be very interesting. You have to report diagnosed medical conditions. The word ‘diagnosed’ is used consistently. With regards to medical treatment or tests, yet again it refers to diagnosed conditions. Now, in my case, I am having a precautionary test due to my age and family history. I have not been diagnosed with anything, unless the letter (when it eventually arrives) says that I have. Under the section detailing what you must declare about diagnosed conditions it states (and I quote) “If an insured person has any medical conditions that don’t meet the above criteria you don’t need to tell us about them, and they are covered without the need for a pre-existing conditions upgrade”.
 

Whilst it would be foolish not to declare a diagnosed condition, as for the assertion that by not doing so your whole policy becomes invalid, that is also dispelled by the letter. It specifically goes on to say that if you don’t declare a diagnosed pre-existing medical condition then you will not be covered for claims resulting from that specific condition. 
 

I only mention this because I know from personal experience when I booked our 65 night cruise last year, this forum is sometimes subject to some scare mongering and alarmism, which is all made with good intent, but different insurance companies have different terms and conditions (and different reputations). All the things that people scared me to death about last year were all easily overcome and at perfectly reasonable cost (not the thousands that some had predicted). Hope that helps. 

[terrierjohn]

3 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

Could be the volume of passengers they carry who have mobility difficulties.  Looking at the demographics on some ex UK sailings for both lines, particularly in the off season periods and the longer cruises, there can be a markedly older group of people with all the health issues connected to that.  

 

The issue may well not be limited to only those with full disability requirements, it could be the number of "fringe" semi disabled who are affecting the sailings and it is having a knock on effect of large proportions for those who have always needed to declare their assistance needs.

 

Certainly on Aurora, which I had never sailed before, I could not help but notice the large number of people with walking difficulties and also the number of rollators, frames etc.and whilst the onboard wheelchair and mobility scooter numbers were similar to other ships the other guests were not.

 

 

On our last Princess cruise from Southampton, I was amazed at the number of rollators, and just how many of their users seemed to have quite severe mobility issues,  and who would definitely need an evacuation chair in any emergency.

As regards the push to make scooter users book an accessible cabin, I do think that P&O could look at different options that would enable these passengers to use a standard cabin. 

For passengers who could use stairs in an emergency, or even just one to one assistance, they could maybe provide parking locations where scooters could be safely stored overnight. This would eliminate the need for wider cabin doors and in cabin storage, leaving far more accessible cabins available for passengers who genuinely require them.

[S1971]

6 minutes ago, terrierjohn said:

For passengers who could use stairs in an emergency, or even just one to one assistance, they could maybe provide parking locations where scooters could be safely stored overnight. This would eliminate the need for wider cabin doors and in cabin storage, leaving far more accessible cabins available for passengers who genuinely require them

 

Sounds far to easy John!!! 😁

 

[AchileLauro]

38 minutes ago, S1971 said:

 

Wasn't RMS Titanic owned by White Star Line?

 

With the exception of ships lost in war time, I can't think of anything which makes their safety record bad, unless you can enlighten me?

It was but White Star was the forerunner of Cunard.

 

Ship fires are far more common than you think, look up Star Princess and Achile Lauro that's just two straight off the top of my head. 

I'm sure that the Lloyds register will have an extensive list of ship fires including many cruise ships and ferries. 

 

Personally I've been part of a crew that dealt with two ship fires. I was also on a cruise that passed close to a ship on fire in the Med just off Sicily some years ago. P&O gave all the passengers on board a copy of a photograph taken by the ship's photographers of that one. 

[AchileLauro]

4 minutes ago, S1971 said:

 

Sounds far to easy John!!! 😁

 

Not as easy as it sounds. These storage rooms would require to be fire resisting compartments with all the usual active and passive fire safety measures in place equating to cost and loss of saleable space.

You would also need to have several of  them spaced out on each passenger deck level.

Edited Tuesday at 03:13 PM by AchileLauro