Denarius

Very true. When I started cruising in the 1990s the QE2 was thought of as being a very large ship. Nowadays at 70000 GRT and carrying 1800 passengers she would be regarded as mid size at the most. In a few years time she will no doubt be regarded as small.

They can. But they choose not to.

I believe that there is a strong case for getting rid of self service buffets on cruise ships in favour of served ones, even if there is no obvious infection onboard. Much more hygenic.

Sorry, slip of the finger. Bacteria in final sentence should have read virus.

Earlier this year I was on a cruise with another line. There were a small number of cases of norovirus identified on board and preventative measure were introduced including the enforced washing of hands before entering any restaurant; all had washbasins at the entrance. Some people asked why they could not just use hand sanitisers such as had been used during the covid emidemic and were told that this was because hand sanitisers were generally only effective against bacteria. Covid was an exception as the alcohol in the sanitiser destroyed the bacteria's oily coating.

I also use Firefox but tried Edge as well and got the same result, but I think that the key lies in your final paragraph. The Spring and Summer cruises do not go on sale to non Britannia Club members until tomorrow so are not yet visible to the general public on the website, only by clicking the link sent to Britannia Club members. I am a Britannia Club member so got the email but I deleted it as I had already booked my 2025 cruises.

My summer 2025 cruise to the Baltic is now £1300 more than I paid from advance registration but my second cruise - "coastal delights of France and green Spain" on 19 September 2025 - does not appear on the website. Curious!

I doubt whether NCL are likely to be in the frame as their operations and market positioning are far removed from Saga's. There could however be an element of informed speculation present as NCL's parent company Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings also own Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises as well as NCL. Both Oceania and Regent occupy a similar market position to Saga and operate smaller ships. So the acquisition of Saga as an additional sub brand alongside Oceania and Regent (or even merger with Oceania as the closest fit) may make some commercial sense. Similarly as regards P&O. P&O would not be a good fit. But P&O's parent company Carnival Corporation also own Cunard and (perhaps more significantly) Seabourn. Watch this space!

One would hope not, for their sake. Disclosure of confidential price sensitive informaion which could materially affect share values is a very serious matter. Where the source to be identified the very least they could expect would be to lose their job.

I will be interested to see what form the deal takes if and when it is agreed. Will the new partner own and operate the ships like Scylla provide ships to Riviera travel (see my earlier post #3) or will it just own the ships with Saga renting them on long term lease and operating them itself?

It has. I am on that cruise as a solo traveller. A few weeks ago Saga sent me a flyer including that cruise and I noticed that all single grades were sold out!

I remember that well! Not the Canberra, she had just been retired when I first sailed with P&O, but the comments. My first P&O ship was the Oriana and I thought that she was marvelous but she was, as I was told, "not like the Canberra". The problem as I understood it was not her size - the "great white whale" was herself a big ship and carried nearly as many passengers - but the absence of particular features which P&O stalwarts had come to expect. In particular, the absence of a ballroom.

I have read this thread with interest. I first sailed with P&O in 1997 having previously sailed with Cunard and Costa. They were not cheap but represented fair value for money. Whilst I continued to sail with other lines P&O became my first port of call. Over the next 20+ years I sailed with them around 40 times and at times attained the Baltic tier of the Peninsular Club. Over the years however, I have noticed a steady deterioration in the cruise experience; mainly little things which taken in isolation are of no great consequence but which taken together and cumulatively represent a gradual slide from up market luxury to cheap and cheerful. P&O undoubtedly now provide excellent value for money, but the overall cruise experience is no longer what it was. But to get the latter, you need to be able and prepared to pay significantly more. In real terms, similar to what P&O charged 30 years ago and what Saga, Viking etc charge now!

Never sailed on her but sailed on her sister ship Saga Ruby when she was the Vistafjord. A fine traditional ship which took the weather well.

I have never seen the logic of why cabins on a higher deck cost more than identical cabins on a lower one. I suspect that it goes back to the days when cabins were in the hull and public rooms in the superstructure, so canins on a higher deck were closer to the latter; also cabins on the lower decks were close to the waterline where bad weather was more apparent. Old habits die hard. Personally I prefer a cabin closer to the public rooms - but not so close that unwanted noise could be a problem - and on Saga D deck is my deck of choice. I cannot see the point of paying considerably more for a an identical cabin on a higher deck, although others may differ. Perhaps this is why cabins on the lower decks sell faster, and those on higher decks have larger discounts for longer. If so, Saga's pricing policy is surely wrong.