Topic: Couple feeling feverish about P&O Cruises

QUOTE:

Thanks... (sob)

Hi Dave was only joking sorry.

QUOTE:

Hi Dave was only joking sorry.

Hi Denna. No problem at all - I know I can be just a tiny bit sarcastic at times, but it's always good-natured sarcasm! ;)

QUOTE:

Very smug Wilba.

Many people would assume that Google is an eye movement because unless they, unlike you, probably do not have a PC or access to the that modern-day 'Oracle' called the internet, they rely on word of mouth or the written word and a little bit of advice, help and guidance.

Instead, they have been subjected to insults, criticisms, named by clued-up people like you, as 'inept,' and finally blown over £4000 quid which was 'snatched' by P&O for doing nowt.
Talk about highway robbery - this surely is seafaring robbery.

It's a damn good job that our society has progressed from stoning people which, judging by the outcry this mistake has caused, this poor couple would have been right in it.

Remember, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."

Not like you, Gordon. I didn't think that a man of your intellect would take that attitude towards Wilba for stating his position.

To a major degree he was right too. Would you buy a new house without studying everything about it, would you take out a bank loan or buy a car without knowing what you were buying into? People do though and then try to blame everyone bar themselves for any mess that they find themselves in. Buying a cruise is often a major financial act and to do so with a laissez faire attitude is just asking for trouble.
There are people who decide not to insure their houses, their cars and or their holidays in the hope that as nothing has happened before and nothing will happen this time. Condoning these actions would be foolish but those actions are almost tantamount to not knowing the conditions of a purchase. It is, as Wilba and Spartan so rightly pointed out, there for all to read and if you can't read there will be someone near you who can. Regards. ......Neil

QUOTE:

Perhaps the one eyed man could read the brochure
I feel sorry for them and feel they should have been advised better by the travel agent of something so important, but at the end of the day the cruise line acted correctly

Its all well and good being wise after the event and gifted with hindsight - but would you still say "the cruise line acted correctly" if it was YOUR £4000+ that had been 'blown'?

Remember only one of the couple did not have the correct innoculation certificate - but both were penalised.

I'm tempted to consider whether P&O, in refusing boarding, were in breach of some form of legislation such as, Consumer Protection or the simple Weights and Measures in ensuring that customers get what they paid for.

Barrack-room lawyers will no doubt put me right on this.

This case, whatever your view, amounts to poor customer relations, and I've been on the receiving end of that from P&O.

P&O are supposed to be 'in contact' with the aggrieved couple, no doubt to offer them a 'sweetener.'

The decent option for P&O is to utilise the 'unredeemed'
£4000+couples' money to provide an equitable compensation cruise on or about their first wedding anniversary.

This would (unfortunately) require the approval of the female Managing Director of P&O who, as I know from personal experience, is personally unreachable, inflexible in considering a case review and unwilling to judge each individual case on its own merits, that is, unless she is willing to prove me wrong.

Nevertheless its worth a try and if P&O have not already come up with a reasonable offer - I would go for it, with the advice of a legal eagle.

Those of us previously occupied in managerial roles will understand that our respective duties included making arbitrary decisions, at our discretion, in order to uphold and protect the good name and reputation of the Company.

I suggest that senior management of large Companies are not exempt from making similar minor decisions, rather than delegate the responsibility to a junior member of staff to concoct a reason for inaction, as in my case, which remains acceptably unresolved and of which I am dissatisfied and still complain.

Gordon Rhys-Williams

"Remember only one of the couple did not have the correct innoculation certificate - but both were penalised." How do you mean, Gordon? Are you suggesting that as one of them had the certificate the other one should have been let off without one? Or that one half of the couple might have gone alone but wasn't given the option?

QUOTE:

This would (unfortunately) require the approval of the female Managing Director of P&O...

What has the sex of the M.D. got to do with it? The female M.D.! Would you have written the male M.D.? I don't think so.

I like a good squabble...but folks come-on, these are only individuals views. I still agree with the early comments that it is all in the T&C's and if you fail to read them then you fail in your duty of care to yourself. You cannot then start pointing the finger at others.

Gordon, most of us have been on the receiving end of poor customer services, many of us from a Cruise Line. Unfortunately these large organisations do become faceless and cases are often dealt with via procedures and not with any bit of descretion. Its not necessarily correct but its the way things are. You can always vote with your feet, many do.

The initial article asked:

QUOTE:

Do you think the requirement for yellow fever jabs could be made clearer for holidaymakers?

My answer is Yes. In this sad case, both cruise line and customers have lost. I'm sure lessons will have been learned.

QUOTE:

Not like you, Gordon. I didn't think that a man of your intellect would take that attitude towards Wilba for stating his position.

To a major degree he was right too. Would you buy a new house without studying everything about it, would you take out a bank loan or buy a car without knowing what you were buying into? People do though and then try to blame everyone bar themselves for any mess that they find themselves in. Buying a cruise is often a major financial act and to do so with a laissez faire attitude is just asking for trouble.
There are people who decide not to insure their houses, their cars and or their holidays in the hope that as nothing has happened before and nothing will happen this time. Condoning these actions would be foolish but those actions are almost tantamount to not knowing the conditions of a purchase. It is, as Wilba and Spartan so rightly pointed out, there for all to read and if you can't read there will be someone near you who can. Regards. ......Neil

Hi Neil

Please read my lengthy reply on the subject to Spartan (I think) it was.

Of course the views that I have expressed are my personal ones, and with no disrespect to Wilba intended, merely disagreement with his views, and if I've said them, I mean them and I make no apology for them conflicting with the views of others, for without disagreement there would be no argument.

My reactions are far from being out of character since I always put myself in the position of those hard done by before arriving at a decision.

In this instance some members, whilst expressing sympathy, were shedding metaphorical crocodile tears and, understandably, being glad that it hadn't happened to them and, as you well know, some members had no sympathy at all for the unfortunate couple and seemed to delight in putting the boot in or adopting a 'holier than thou' attitude.

On the question of dotting I's and crossing T's, how many times, prior to departure for airports or cruise terminals, do we go through a sort of 'cockpit drill' saying, got the passports, got the tickets, mobile phone, are you sure the passports haven't expired?

The best of us are guilty of oversight, because we are only HUMAN.
Humanity, in the case we are discussing is dismally short on it.

The boarding authority were abysmally short on humanity and customer handling technique when they stuck to their bureaucratic stance in refusing boarding.

Such a serious situation, for this couple, should at least have been worthy of seeking a solution to the problem other than complete dismissal.

Why, in the interests of good customer handling, could they not have been taken somewhere private whilst attempts were made, possibly of a higher authority, to accomodate the unfortunate couple by arranging a belated yellow-fever vaccination by either the ship's medical officer or a local doctor in Southampton?

In my view this incident was a complete Customer Relations 'cock-up' with disastrous consequences for the couple and from which P&O have not come out of it unblemished.

You make the similarity between paying for a cruise and buying a new car, TV set, house and so on, but its not a fair comparison.

Those unfortunate enough to have bought a new car which seems to have inherent problems, is referred to in the trade as, 'a Friday car,' but at least it's covered by manufacturers warranty and will be fixed or replaced.

Similarly purchases of new homes are legally protected in the terms of the contract drawn up by a legal representative.

Electrical items likewise are guaranteed by the manufacturer or vendor and also enjoy the benefit of the Consumer Protection Act and local Authority small claims facility.

Travel Insurance does not seem to have been mentioned, in the case of the honeymoon couple, which usually includes cancellation.

Tragically, common sense does not appear to have been used in solving this dilema, for if it had, then a better outcome may have been achieved rather than lump all the blame on the heads of this (possibly) inexperienced young couple rather than leaving them with an unwelcome and soul-destroying experience that will remain with them for ever. (Man's inhumanity to man)

The wasted £4000, to this couple, is a substantial amount of hard saving no doubt, but to P&O its a mere trifle who are still in profit by not having to feed two mouths for X number of days and if a sense of morality exists within the portals of Terminal House I exhort them to do the honourable thing in compensating these disappointed customers.

Fair's fair after all, and so is unfairness, and in this respect I remain firmly in support of the cheated honeymooners.

Gordon Rhys-Williams

"Why, in the interests of good customer handling, could they not have been taken somewhere private whilst attempts were made, possibly of a higher authority, to accomodate the unfortunate couple by arranging a belated yellow-fever vaccination by either the ship's medical officer or a local doctor in Southampton?" Gordon, I believe 10 days must elapse following vaccination for Yellow fever before the person may enter an affected country.