Teddy123

I will be on QM2 mid December.  Can anyone tell me the current perks for booking on board? Thanks.

Anybody know where the ship's "Amsterdam On Your Own" tour from Rotterdam drops off in Amsterdam?  Thanks.

2 hours ago, DebiGee said:

thank you ,it looks like I will have to do that

I assume you know that you don't need to buy wifi to use the app for booking restaurants, etc.  You can connect to the ship intranet for free for that.

Could be that there are simply no more places in Olive Grove.  Recently on Ventura, Sindhu couldn't be booked online, only when onboard.

1 minute ago, Yorkypete said:

So you think that P&O should stop honest people boarding if they have symptoms of a cough. Can you explain what you think is a symptom of a cough? They also mentioning aching limbs and tiredness. Most people suffer from one of these but what on earth are they symptoms of? That is how ridiculous the whole thing is.

I'm just pointing out the facts here.  I'm not responsible for them. But they are what they are.

5 minutes ago, wowzz said:

You are missing the point.  

Having a cough is not neccessarily a indication of Covid. Indeed, as others have indicated, it is entirely possible to have a cough, and yet not be sick with anything 

So, why should P&O arbitrarily decide, purely by a tick in a box, that someone should be denied boarding. It is an arbitary and grossly unfair protocol.

I'm not missing the point.  Clause 22 says anybody with symptoms of any virus will be denied boarding, without compensation.  P&O are simply applying this condition when anybody who says they have such a symptom is denied boarding.  P&O are not claiming that the person has Covid, or anything else.  So the only way to contest the decision is to show the clause is invalid.  Is the clause arbitrary and grossly unfair?  Almost certainly, but that doesn't necesarily make it invalid.

Like so much else in life, people have to make their own minds up about their appetite for risk, and decide if they want to sail with this clause in the contract.  Of course, if they are led to believe that insurance will cover them if the clause is invoked, and that belief is unfounded, that's a different matter.

2 hours ago, david05 said:

Insurers I believe require a doctor's certificate or similar for medical claims so perhaps the OP should ask P&O for a medical certificate signed by a doctor to show why they were refused boarding on medical grounds. In the (unlikely) event that P&O provide a doctor's certificate a complaint to the GMC would be in order as any reputable doctor would have investigated further and not just relied on a tick in a box. If no certificate is forthcoming this would seem to give further grounds to challenge this ridiculous decision.

But the point is, P&O do NOT deny boarding on the basis that a passenger has Covid (or anything else).  The grounds are that the passenger has a SYMPTOM and if the passenger fills in a form saying "I've got a cough", then clearly he does have a symptom.  The T&C condition may not be appropriate, and perhaps isn't enforceable, but the logic is clear.

2 minutes ago, FangedRose said:

Passports are checked before embarkation, after that the ship is 'sealed' with egress and access only allowed via your cruise card, which becomes a de facto 'passport'. Many port authorities ask to see your cruise card when returning to the ship. They obviously trust the cruise companies to have the proper passport checks prior to issuing the cruise card.

It's more complicated than just checking the passport at embarkation. The reason for the checking and stamping for every airport entry/exit is to track who goes in and that they have left.  So countries must trust the cruise line to tell them if a passenger doesn't get back on board (and is therefore still in the country, presumably) for any reason.  Strictly, it seems the situation should be like it used to be in Russia: every passenger on a trip checked in and out with passport.  Perhaps that's how it will end up.

1 hour ago, Eglesbrech said:

No issues going off a ship, no one checked. France, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway all fine.

 

We flew into Hungary and waited for ages in a lengthy queue to get through passport control. Passports were carefully checked in and back out of the country.

Yes, cruising is different to flying (not sure why but it's fine by me). Had long queues at airports in Germany, Italy and Spain.  Now the UK is not in the EU, passports need to be stamped on every entry and exit. As Harry says, the new system will be even worse.  It's what the UK voted for.

Just back from shore trips in France, Spain, Portugal and Italy. No checks on passports or vaccination records.

2 hours ago, P&O SUE said:

I’ve seen this ‘elsewhere’ although you were at least given FCC then, that if you ticked No in error no amount of pleading would change it, cruise cancelled!

The exclusion condition is that you have a symptom. If you don't have any symptoms, accidentally say you have, then contact P&O to say it was an error and you don't have any, they have no grounds to deny boarding.  If they still do it, I would see grounds for a full cash refund and compensation - perhaps after a battle!

39 minutes ago, Eglesbrech said:

Interesting that it is so specific about symptoms of  viral and bacterial illness.
 

If someone in all honesty ticks the box to say they have a cough which is caused for example by a reaction to medication or allergies or the after effects of an illness which is no longer active etc then the clause surely could not be invoked? Based on that I would have thought P&O would need to explore the reason for the cough before denying boarding. There can’t be that many people who tick yes surely.

 

Failure to establish to cause of the cough means they can’t say it was a symptom of a bacterial or viral illness.
 

There is an old adage, those who accuse must prove.

 

 

I'm afraid a cough IS a symptom of Covid and if you have one, you have a symptom of Covid whether or not you actually have Covid.  So P&O can say you have a symptom of Covid. The clause only refers to having a symptom, not actually having the infection - which is the nub of the problem, of course.

1 minute ago, Megabear2 said:

One week cruises are not getting the same number of cases.  Ventura had well in excess of 100 on her last cruise and masking was ordered.  Queen Victoria had the same problem at the identical time with even CC host Hattie having her husband quarantined.  

I know, I've seen the posts.  I'm just presenting an alternative experience to get a more balanced picture. I also know that whether or not there are 100 cases or zero doesn't alter the problem of people being denied boarding in what might seem an unreasonable manner.

There is inevitable variation between cruises.  Within the last month we have been on Ventura and Queen Elizabeth, both for a week.  No masks, no more coughing than in pre-Covid days (probably less), and no signs of anybody being quarantined.  So the current approach to tests/questionnaires doesn't necessarily mean disaster.

But the old wording for the flexible policy said "this policy modifies the transfer policy in our Booking Conditions".  So while it also said the policy could be changed at at any time, changes for bookings made before 3 August imply a retrospective change to the Booking Conditions.  I'm not sure this is enforceable. 

I use video rather than still, and have managed to capture quite a lot of movement in the lights.  I can also zoom in quite a bit.  This is an example still from the video, taken from the ship

I've been to Alta with P&O twice, done a total of 4 excursions and seen the Northern Lights every time (varying in intensity, of course), as well as on the ship when leaving Alta.  I'm now considering a cruise on Queen Anne, with the principal aim of seeing the Lights again, but I'm hesitant because Cunard don't go to Alta, but instead visit Tromso and Narvik.  Does anybody have good/bad experiences of seeing the NL from these two? Thanks.

This reflects incredible disorganisation within Cunard.  Any communication with customers about any department's activities should be approved by that department (not each individual e-mail, of course, but they should see an example as part of the overall verification process).

I suppose it could be that Cunard's IT systems are really that bad!

The confirmation e-mail says the 15% is added to the onboard account "after the service is rendered", not paid up front, so there's scope for Cunard to drop it.

It's a long time since I booked an excursion(!) but I think this is a new departure, that I too noticed.  I will be asking for my service charge to be removed unless I get a very convincing explanation for it.  Given its quality, Cunard should be paying me to use their website, not vice versa!

18 minutes ago, howmuch! said:

I have just received a response to my second set of questions from LV insurance - 

 

Dear *****

 

Answers for your additional questions

 

 Q1.The cost of quarantine hotels and food, exceed the £!50/day ‘confinement’ benefit by quite a margin. As Covid 19 is an illness, that could be serious for people with underlying health conditions, are all the costs expended by the ‘positive’ person, covered in full by the Medical Section D?

1. The £150 Cabin Confinement is per person. It is a benefit aimed at compensating Cruise customers should they need to stay in their cabin for a period of time due to illness. In the circumstance where this confinement is carried out “off shore” we would still look to pay this benefit.  It is not therefore a benefit aimed at covering costs of quarantine hotel. There is no specific provision for Quarantine Hotel costs under our policies. For customers who are ill and require medical treatment (either whilst in the Quarantine Hotel or in a medical facility) medical expenses are covered by Section D.  E.g medicines, consultation with a doctor, or hospital treatment

 

Q2. In order to be released from quarantine, supervised PCR and/or lateral flow tests are required. Are these expenses covered by the Medical Section D?

 

2. There is no provision for the costs of testing within the Travel policy. Costs of testing (pre-departure, post departure or during a period of isolation) are not covered.

 

In this reply, LV say "there is no specific provision for Quarantine Hotel costs under our policies." Yet para 9 of section K of the policy says there is cover "for you to stay longer at your destination because of a quarantine period that has been ordered by a government or public authority for you specifically whilst you are at your destination".  While there is scope for debate about the word "destination" - not defined in the policy - this seems another example of contradictory statements. 

2 hours ago, Edith1950 said:

Thank you Megabear2 for highlighting this problem and all the work you have done. On Monday I emailed my Travel Insurance Company Barclays Travel Pack. I quoted P&Os updated T&Cs of 12 January 2022 and asked the 3 questions you advised with a Yes or No answer. The reply I received today didn't reply in the way I had asked. What I found interesting was that if one or both of us had tested positive for Covid in the past 12 months we wouldn't be covered and would need to speak to the Risk Assessment Team to be assessed if we could be covered. Thinking on this is probably the same as normal when you have a change in your health you have to inform them. Luckily we haven't had Covid but I'm not sure if we had and recovered in say a week or two would I have thought it necessary to inform them as it is not a permanent condition. In the email a Travel Pack policy booklet was sent but it's the same as I have December 2020 and obviously doesn't take into account of where we are now. The email received is as follows:

Thank you for your recent contact request form.

 

 I can confirm if an insured person tests positive for Covid-19 on a trip, the policy provides medical cover to £10,000,000 per person. This is providing there has not been a positive test result within the last 12 months which we have excluded from cover. If somebody has tested positive, please call our medical risk assessment team on 0800 158 2688 who will assess if we are able to cover Covid-19.  

 

 

 

The insurance will also provide cover for additional travel/accommodation expenses until you can get home if you are in self-isolation. If the whole family need to self-isolate due to being a close contact, we will provide cover for each insured person. If the whole family is not required to self-isolate, we will cover an adult to stay with a child. 

 

 

 

To request a confirmation of cover document should the cruise company ask for it please follow the link below. You will be asked to create a password before submission at the bottom of the form, please take a note of this.

 

 

 

https://www.aviva.co.uk/barclaystravelproof

 

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

I read this as saying if somebody is quarantined because they are positive, their family members are covered too if they are in close contact.  This is good, but my understanding is that people are being quarantined because they are a close contact of somebody not in the family.  If one is quarantined because one sat next to a stranger who turns out to be positive, I'm not sure this provides any cover  (perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't).

23 minutes ago, Slugsta said:

That's a lot better than some, but still doesn't state that they will cover other negative contacts (people in bars, on coaches etc).

As one of my earlier posts said, the actual policy wording simply says there is cover if you go into quarantine, no other qualification applied.  However, that's the £1,000-limit extra accommodation/travel clause.

4 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Just for you Zap!  Just received from Ancile regarding GoodToGo.

 

Good afternoon,

 

All polices provide cover for emergency medical treatment and repatriation, when medically necessary, if you catch COVID-19 whilst abroad. Our cover for cancellation varies on different schemes.

 

Please note that our policies do not provide cover for cancellation caused by a change in FCDO advice, to advise against all or all but essential travel, due to COVID-19 or any other pandemic. If you travel to a destination where the government is advising against all or all but essential travel, our policies will not provide any cover.

 

There is no cover if you choose or are instructed or recommended to quarantine or isolate abroad as a result of an infectious disease including COVID-19 unless you incur emergency medical treatment.

 

There is no cover under any other section of the policy for anything caused by or relating to COVID-19/Coronavirus/SARs COV 2, any mutation of Covid 19/Coronavirus/SARs COV 2 or any pandemic or fear or threat of any of the above.

 

We do offer additional cover which is called over sea return quarantine which is the following:
Additional travel insurance cover if you are denied boarding on your return journey due to having or being suspected of having an infectious disease (including COVID-19).

Up to £40 per person per day (up to a maximum of £560) towards additional accommodation expenses (of a standard no greater than your original booking).

Up to £300 (Europe), £500 (Worldwide) per person towards the cost of return transport home. (This must be at a standard no greater than the class of transport on your outbound journey, on the same mode of transport and at the earliest possible date based on medical or local authority advice).

Please note: This cover is not applicable if you have booked a package holiday. In that situation you should contact your tour operator for support.

 

 

This is all the wording around COVID-19 and I hope this helps. You can contact MoneyHelper travel directory on 0800 138 7777 to find some alternative travel insurance providers.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Amy Groves

So if you buy the extra cover and are quarantined ashore, the insurer will only pay for you to get back home if you return by cruise ship (for up to £300)!  Presumably there is some flexibility!