Topic: Couple feeling feverish about P&O Cruises

I wrote-:

Which is why Gordon, with all due respect, Carol Marlow is MD of an international company and you aren't. This is business. P&O are perfectly within their rights to act as they did whether it is condemned by yourself and others or not. You may not like their business practice but it is what it is. If precidents are set which go against their usual codes, it may open the floodgates to all sorts of future problems.

Your answer -:

QUOTE:

Moreton

The same answer that I gave to Bosscat, Argola today, also applies to you, it is relevent and not subject to change.

How can I answer a leading member of the Carol Marlow fan-club?

What your reason is for creating an analogy between myself and Ms Marlow mystifies me - that is unless you are assuming that the MD of P&O descended from a more priviledged background than I, or that she is imbued with a higher standard of education than I, or that her qualifications for the job are higher than mine, - all perfectly and possibly correct.

One of the qualification for such a senior position is, displaying toughness or hardness of heart and uncompromising - rather a conflicting personality requirement for a female of the human species.

If a business only, hard-hearted, approach to the job was required of me, then Yes, I'm unsuited for the job and I would, and have, sought other appointments that allowed me to exercise moderate style management without loss of authority.

But then, come on, your question and comparison between me and Ms Marlow was a gloved fist shielding a fist of iron, or wolf in sheep's clothing and really concealing personal points scoring at my expense, courtesy (or discourtesy) of your sarcastic 'wit.'

Sarcasm, being the lowest form of wit, forgive the repitition but if the cap fits, wear it.

I'm not a member of any fan club Re p&o.

The only link [def. not analogy] I made between you and Ms Marlow came about because she is ultimately in charge of policy decisions there and you're not. She is a business 'person' and seems to display the qualities required to run a successful company. If it was Fred Bloggs [sorry Fred] in charge I would have named him. Your reply is convoluted, rambling and on at least one point, to my way of thinking, archaic.

As to sarcastic wit, I can't see any sarcasm [or wit for that matter] in my post. It was a genuine answer, succinctly [I thought] reflecting my opinion.

I feel i must come to the aid of my new best friend Gordon Rhys-Williams of Chester. He appears to be getting stick from all corners. It's not that dear Gordon is out of step - it's everyone else who is out of step.

I propose that he be elected President of the World. I hang on his every word which is full of .... wisdom and clarity. Gordon could sort out all the ills in the world.

You sock it to 'em Gordon. You are greatly misunderstood.

cheers
Harvey

ps maybe President of the World is going a wee bit too far.

QUOTE:

I feel i must come to the aid of my new best friend Gordon Rhys-Williams of Chester. He appears to be getting stick from all corners. It's not that dear Gordon is out of step - it's everyone else who is out of step.

I propose that he be elected President of the World. I hang on his every word which is full of .... wisdom and clarity. Gordon could sort out all the ills in the world.

You sock it to 'em Gordon. You are greatly misunderstood.

cheers
Harvey

ps maybe President of the World is going a wee bit too far.

Harvey, you are a wag!

What is the greater inequality in this particular set of circumstances? That a couple who failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the cruise lost their money as a result or that all the people who did abide by the rules had to pay a higher cost for their cruise to fund P and O refunds to the former?

As a business person (who happens to be of the female persuasion ;)) the only reason why I could see that P and O would make any refund would be if this couple were regular customers who made a mistake or if they hadn't made the requirement clear. The employees of a company are employed to make business decisions not dispense charity. They are audited and need to justify all such business decisions. Any manager should understand that. Personal opinions need to be separated from business. Perhaps that is harsh but you are employed to safeguard the bottom line profit in every decision.

BTW and for the record, I am no fan of P and O either but I happen to think they are right in this instance

It occurs to me those that are advocating 'Rules are Rules' perhaps would insist when they have commited a motoring offence, that they must be prosecuted for the said offence, and not let off with a warning!.

I'm sorry officer I cannot accept a warning, I must be prosecuted and also I need to have points on my licence as well, 'I have broken the rules'. Would anybody admit to saying that? We all rely on the compassion of others from time to time.

Mercy inspires greatness and understanding. P&O would do well to revise it's position on this issue, and make an offer to the couple.

QUOTE:

It occurs to me those that are advocating 'Rules are Rules' perhaps would insist when they have commited a motoring offence, that they must be prosecuted for the said offence, and not let off with a warning!.

I'm sorry officer I cannot accept a warning, I must be prosecuted and also I need to have points on my licence as well, 'I have broken the rules'. Would anybody admit to saying that? We all rely on the compassion of others from time to time.

Mercy inspires greatness and understanding. P&O would do well to revise it's position on this issue, and make an offer to the couple.

Oh come on now, a motoring offence that received a warning (as long as no one was hurt) can hardly be compared toa public health violation. Imagine the consequences if the man in question had caught Yellow Fever! It would have caused havoc and a lot of people would have been running around sorting it out-all because he didn't read the onfo provided or had the common sense to wonder if he might need vaccinations when travelling far from home.

QUOTE:

It occurs to me those that are advocating 'Rules are Rules' perhaps would insist when they have commited a motoring offence, that they must be prosecuted for the said offence, and not let off with a warning!.

I'm sorry officer I cannot accept a warning, I must be prosecuted and also I need to have points on my licence as well, 'I have broken the rules'. Would anybody admit to saying that? We all rely on the compassion of others from time to time.

Mercy inspires greatness and understanding. P&O would do well to revise it's position on this issue, and make an offer to the couple.

I do have sympathy for the Painters, it's a hard lesson.

An offer to the couple in the form of a discounted cruise could be made by way of recompense, without costing the company anything. They have after all, been paid for the original one.

My thoughts are ambivalent due to the fact that future claims by passengers could be expected. By refusing to compensate in any way the company is ensuring that no passenger will make the same mistake.

Certainly I would be careful to read the small print and I am sure many others would too with all the publicity this has generated.

QUOTE:

Oh come on now, a motoring offence that received a warning (as long as no one was hurt) can hardly be compared toa public health violation. Imagine the consequences if the man in question had caught Yellow Fever! It would have caused havoc and a lot of people would have been running around sorting it out-all because he didn't read the onfo provided or had the common sense to wonder if he might need vaccinations when travelling far from home.

---------------------------------------------------
No P&O were quite right in their decision to not let him travel, but they could, as others have suggested, offered them some recompense for their loss, another cruise at a later date, or at least a refund of their money less a minimal amount for their trouble.

All the hassle that this has caused, and all the bad feeling will certainly make me think twice before I cruise with them again and I'm a P&O fan, or I was.

QUOTE:

---------------------------------------------------
No P&O were quite right in their decision to not let him travel, but they could, as others have suggested, offered them some recompense for their loss, another cruise at a later date, or at least a refund of their money less a minimal amount for their trouble.

All the hassle that this has caused, and all the bad feeling will certainly make me think twice before I cruise with them again and I'm a P&O fan, or I was.

If it's any consolation, I think all the cruise lines would probably taken the same attitude. It's a tough world out there in business.

Goodwil?????? Sorry Gordon. It opens the floodgates. Not you maybe, not Neil maybe and certainly not me, but, there are bound to be some individuals out there thinking.... sob story ....now what can we think of?

If for instance this couple had...missed the sailing through a sprained ankle or something, then an insurance policy would cover and P & O in Public Relations terms for a honeymoon would look very good to say rebook them. This however is different. It is a Health and Safety/Imigration matter. Not just of the passengers of the ship, but all the millions of people resident in Brazil who may contract Yellow Fever from an unprotected passenger who had the responsibility to get protected and didn't. It is not just the cost of the cruise to P & O. They would risk being excluded in the future from Brazilian waters and just maybe other lines may get sanctions against them too should this lead to an outbreak originating on a cruise ship. How do think that the Brazilian authorities reading this forum feel about P & O? They must look pretty good to them.

Another thing the publicity has done is send out the message loud and clear and hopefully educate cruisers. If you enter a region with a serious infectious disease and are required to have a certificate, YOU are resposible to the rest of the ship, the population of the coutries visited, and cruisers who may wish to visit in the future.