Topic: Couple feeling feverish about P&O Cruises

QUOTE:

I recently had a 'freeview' television installed in one of the rooms by an 'engineer' who my son recognised as a former labourer in a vehicle breakers yard in Chester.

Some metamorphosis eh ?

Gordon

Ay U R U sayin that us vicle breakas yard men is fick or summut.

QUOTE:

"Those that have eyes to see, let them SEE" (Bible)

If you can't see where I'm coming from then the explanation must be that you refuse to SEE where I'm coming from.

Its called flexibility -v- intransigence

I asked two quite valid questions. I cannot see that you have answered these, other than by saying what you think the cruise line should have done. Suggesting I'm somehow being 'intransigent' suggests to me that you can't answer these questions adequately.

QUOTE:

I asked two quite valid questions. I cannot see that you have answered these, other than by saying what you think the cruise line should have done. Suggesting I'm somehow being 'intransigent' suggests to me that you can't answer these questions adequately.

Gordon does not answer questions he only has his own view.
It is a good job it is Brown and not Rhys running things or we would be going broke faster than we already are

P & O suggested I get my tet**** shot updated for a trip to the Canaries. As it had been 20 years since the last one I thought it was a good call and got it done. However, my power supplier informed me there'd be changes to my bills, detailed on page 10 of an accompanying booklet.Guess I fainted from boredom before I got to page 10 because I didn't know they were changing to 6-monthly billing until my January bill didn't turn up. Can't win them all.

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.

I don't know about Weights and Measures, BUT......... and a big one. It has to be realised that NOONE on the ship would have been allowed into Brazil if just ONE passenger or crew had not got the certificate. I don't know about P & O, but am assuming that also calls in at Devils Island in French Guyana? If it does, then no landing and none allowed off the ship if anyone on board has not got the certificate. I do not think that P & O would be very pleased if all the passengers were to sue because one had not adhered to the conditions, which as it is in the brochure and have presumably signed a booking form they have accepted. So contract law comes into it.

Incidently I have recently spoke to someone who has done a similar cruise with Regent. The Brazilians carried out an inspection of certificates/passports before they would allow anyone off it and I do remember that happenng in Zanzibar too on the Indian Ocean cruise I took. This is also applicable if travelling to Rio, which gives easy access to the Amazon area and their immigration form asks if you have been in a Yellow Fever area. You have to state where you are going within Brazil and if you are travelling into the Yellow Fever area. If so, you have to produce the certificate. I am sure that P & O would be held to have breached some immigration/health laws of countries on the itinarary if not 100% carrying passengers and crew with valid certificates.

QUOTE:

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.

I don't know about Weights and Measures, BUT......... and a big one. It has to be realised that NOONE on the ship would have been allowed into Brazil if just ONE passenger or crew had not got the certificate. I don't know about P & O, but am assuming that also calls in at Devils Island in French Guyana? If it does, then no landing and none allowed off the ship if anyone on board has not got the certificate. I do not think that P & O would be very pleased if all the passengers were to sue because one had not adhered to the conditions, which as it is in the brochure and have presumably signed a booking form they have accepted. So contract law comes into it.

Incidently I have recently spoke to someone who has done a similar cruise with Regent. The Brazilians carried out an inspection of certificates/passports before they would allow anyone off it and I do remember that happenng in Zanzibar too on the Indian Ocean cruise I took. This is also applicable if travelling to Rio, which gives easy access to the Amazon area and their immigration form asks if you have been in a Yellow Fever area. You have to state where you are going within Brazil and if you are travelling into the Yellow Fever area. If so, you have to produce the certificate. I am sure that P & O would be held to have breached some immigration/health laws of countries on the itinarary if not 100% carrying passengers and crew with valid certificates.

Very well put
It is one thing missing a port due to weather that is life
Totally different missing out the Amazon due to one passenger not having a Yellow Fever jab. :mad:
The guy could get throw overboard by the other passengers

QUOTE:

P & O suggested I get my tet**** shot updated for a trip to the Canaries. As it had been 20 years since the last one I thought it was a good call and got it done.

Hi, I am intrigued, wondering why you needed a tet**** shot update specifically for the Canaries? Lizzie

QUOTE:

What is wrong with it? The guy is just trying to improve himself. You are beginning to sound like Sir Nicholas Winterton

Well he had not improved very much from his former job of wielding a big hammer on scrap motors.

The proof was in the pudding actually.
He was accompanied by a female colleague who spent most of the visit on her mobile phone, leaving him to effect the installation.

He was unsuccessful in installing it, after using a multitude of excuses.

Another older 'engineer' was sent for who, after shaking his head and deeply exhaling without comment, proceeded to correctly instal it and its worked ever since.

The point that I was making is that these 'front-line troops' are very often recruited cheaply, who are lacking in previous experience, dressed in a corporate uniform, sent on a crash course and instructed in how to say "how may I help you?" given a certificate of 'proficiency' then thrown in at the deep-end and, when actually asked for help, (unless its something simple) often look blank and seek help themselves.

We, meanwhile are at the receiving end of this 'service' having paid for 'expert' support and after-sales support.

The guy in question, by today's standards, will probably aspire to becoming a 'team leader' or whatever bumph is currently in vogue.

Gordon

On one particularly long cruise we often chatted to the Customer Relations Officer after hours in the bar. (Actually, that was the only time anyone ever saw him - he spent daylight hours hiding!)

Apparently, his main task was to fend off passengers who wanted free upgrades. It was fascinating to listen to him recount some of the 'problems' people had with their cabins. His other responsibility (and undoubted skill) was to listen to complaints, but do absolutely nothing about them. ;)

QUOTE:

I asked two quite valid questions. I cannot see that you have answered these, other than by saying what you think the cruise line should have done. Suggesting I'm somehow being 'intransigent' suggests to me that you can't answer these questions adequately.

It's not YOU I was accusing of being intransigent, it was P&O.

As for your rude comment about me not answering questions, merely voicing an opinion.

It's not MY responsibility to answer any provocative questions posed by contributors to this site who disagree with my opinion

You are presumably acquainted with the story thus far and have your own views on its merits, or otherwise, therefore you have no
need of MY assistance, you merely wish to challenge my views.
Whilst this is your prerogative, it is not incumbent on me to provide you with any answers or satisfaction.

My comments are based upon what I believe to be the fair and moral rights and wrongs of the outcome of this story.

I am not here to justify the actions of P&O in their handling this situation.

P&O do not need the support of members of this forum to uphold their ill-judged decision, and there are no medals or free cruises for doing so.

P&O are perfectly capable of defending themselves and probably have a big gun Barrister waiting in the wings.

This discussion has been overwhelming in its condemnation of the lack of intelligence supposedly displayed by the couple - we do not know the full story, only what we are told, and to those who condemn the couple for involving the local press - what other option was open to them?

With no help from P&O, the local rag was their only means in bringing attention to their plight, they were hardly likely to sound the praises of P&O in their version of the story,were they?

I am disappointed with the self-righteous attitude displayed by certain contributors in their comments on this story.
But there again we are not all made the same and I can hardly expect compassion to survive over condemnation in this case.

I hope that this has been helpful to you.

Gordon Rhys-Williams