MX-Drew

Maybe a freedom of information request to P&O is required for this information.

People were in a rush to get to the bars as I recall.

Totally agree, I haven't seen anything to back up Moley's claim, in fact quite the opposite, price dropped but no refund yes received a small amount of OBC but only making up a fraction of new booker's OBC. I wrote to customer service dept. and basically told that's the way it goes. So that turned out to be my last ever booking with P&O.

Correction to my previous post. That entry on the Southampton VTS is remaining from before the maiden cruise was cancelled as that would have arrived in Southampton in the morning for the changeover. Just my thought.

Maybe she is due to do a shakedown cruise for a day or two in the Channel first and these dates aren't shown.

Possible but Moley said "repairs" to a movable structure. I think it is unlikely that something still being built needs repairs unless of course they set light to it.

Some of us, like myself have cruise booked up to 2024 (not all with P&O) so without losing in some case a large deposit we have little choice. I should add that whilst I have booked other cruises non have or will be with P&O. The final straw was changing or should I say trying to change the T&C's after I had booked then trying to retrospectively apply them to my booking.

Likewise, it would be down to P&O to schedule the cruises and whilst I understand you don't want a large asset sitting idle on the the other hand having to cancel a cruise is not good either.

Sorry I wasn't "having a go" at you I just wanted to understand the figures like yourself. It is very strange P&O offered refunds on the maiden when the price dropped but not any other cruise.

Where do you get this £1000 refund or £1000 OBC from? Whilst I'm not on the cancelled cruise I am on the Christmas cruise that has also dropped in price (well did while it was still on sale), and I have received no refund and a pittance extra in OBC that will be spent on drink on the first day.

Which is exactly what P&O are not doing, they are not paying for out of pocket expenses or insurance excess. Yes they are giving 10% of the new discounted price (is that why they discounted the price I wonder?) but who gains from this at the end of the day? Oh yes P&O get another booking and more money. Seems to me the customer is in a lose lose position and the company is in a win win position. For the record I run a small retail business and if I handled things this way I would lose my repeat customers over night.

A refund of any money paid is just that, the money you paid, or you referring to refund of excess? If so I agree.

But still an excess applies. In my opinion P&O at the very least should pay the excess amount. A company shouldn’t run so they always win. At the end of the day P&O haven’t factored in the possibility of a delay on build, instead they risked being able to cruise almost the first day theoretically possible and now they can’t they (P&O) should pay the price and not the customers who put there faith in them. Don’t worry P&O won’t be out of pocket after this as there will be insurance and penalties from the ship yard.

I looked at that and thought it was extremely expensive for what you get.

What I know is, I’m not booking with P&O again.

Please tell me that you are joking that P&O want to charge you extra for making you change plans with such little notice. I think this fits my theory why the Christmas cruise was withdrawn from sale, they were holding a number of cabins for people from the cancelled maiden cruise. Although I'm feel very sorry for those who have had their holidays spoiled, I hope very few take up this offer leaving P&O with empty cabins and whilst not losing money they will not make as much. Hearing this behaviour by P&O has made me decide no more cruises with them, however cheap. They have lost all faith I had in them. I really wish I was not sailing with then at Christmas now.

To be clear myself, I'm not saying P&O are responsible for the build of the ship but they are responsible for the communication to their customers (guests).

No P&O aren’t responsible for building the ship but they are the ones passing on the information or do you believe the ship yard sent similar information to P&O information (which somehow I doubt very much).

Yes they get a massive 10% FCC.

I understand what you’re saying but P&O have a track record of using the stock phrase “For reasons beyond our control” and never a semi reasonable explanation in my opinion. Also, sorry but to say the fires did not cause much impact etc is my opinion rubbish. Agreed the entire ship is not finished on the same day but there is only a finite number of workers so once they have finished one area they will be required elsewhere and may well not be available not only to redo the work in the fire damaged area but that has to be cleared and cleaned first so it is logical to think there is some impact. This is just my opinion and I could well be wrong but I have experience in project planning and after this is just one big project.

Still time to book with Fred, I have just received an email offering festive cruises. They weren’t slow.

What I don’t understand is why are P&O a little more honest with the issue? Something like due to earlier incidents during the build the final completion has been delayed etc. or due to unplanned repairs to a movable structure on the Ems the transfer to the North Sea has had to be delayed with the knock on effect of the hand over date to P&O being delayed etc. May be they think (and they maybe right) this is too detailed for some / most to understand. I would certainly appreciate the honesty a lot more.

Really? I think in the end there were three fires but at least two. The last one was just after the float out.

It will more likely drive them to go elsewhere. I have already started going to other cruise lines for my core cruising and only now use P&O if the price and itinerary is right (not very often).

Whilst that is a totally plausible to a point, this type of work in know about months or even years in advance, this could be an unusual case granted but I wonder if it is more to do with the damage done in the fires and maybe the subsequent repairs have taken a little longer than expected. Just a thought.