Talk:P&O

P&O

would anyone be horribly upset if moved this to P&O? Morwen - Talk 06:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Already redirects here, so no point! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Seagoing Staff

Have removed this entire section from the article...

The seagoing staff at P&O were never treated as the office staff in London would have treated their own. On many ships the principle ingredient of the traditional Sunday curry lunch was chicken necks. Only the senior offices got breast or leg. Stories abounded of Christmas cruise ships "at the equator" that never got there, but instead circled the ocean in mid-sea elsewhere while the Captain anounced the "crossing of the line" to the fare-paying customers. Dictats from London became more frequent, and staff were not even allowed to buy their own pencils locally (in case they stole the cash), instead pencils were airfreighted out from London. The final straw came when standard contracts were removed and the crew placed on uncertain "overseas" contracts. The crews left on-masse.

P&O was one of the greatest shipping companies. It was destroyed by the shore-based staff.

Staff who worked for P&O were constantly misled and betrayed. On one occaision a Director flew out from London to persuade staff not to go on strike. Senior officers were threatened with the sack if they didn't withdraw their votes for a strike. We were assured that the six ships (the StrathE's) had an assured future.

Six weeks later they sold them.

Liars.

...on the basis that it breaches NPOV, doesn't cite sources, and also doesn't make any chronoligical sense in relation to the rest of the artcile. I think perhaps an expert on P&O's history (which I am not) should wikify this section into a heading such as "Controversy over Staff Treatment." Otherwise it shoudl be left out entirely. A1octopus 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

2.3 - 2.5 - not neutral, not even a professional tone

The subsections on ships, mergers and staffs (2.3 - 2.5) need particular attention to remove the NPOV.

The wording of this criticism of P&O is out of order, but the general synopsis of the treatment of its staff may have some merit.

The handling of the closure of 2 of the Portsmouth Western Channel services was not very impressive. A recent journey on P&O's only surviving West service suggests staff have- rightly or wrongly- a grievance with the company.

P&O are no longer the same people as once they were

Apologies

Yes, apologies, got a little carried away there.

"On many ships the principle ingredient of the traditional Sunday curry lunch was chicken necks. Only the senior offices got breast or leg."

Reference: Any Officers who sailed on the Vendee and Vosges during their charter to Carmel on the Ashdod to Marseilles run.

Perhaps "many" should be replaced with "some". Other ex-staff should be able to confirm this. In addition Officers were so hungry that they would raid the galley at night to cook chips. This resulted in the galley being locked (against fire regulations) because staff were "stealing potatoes".

"On one occaision a Director flew out from London to persuade staff not to go on strike. Senior officers were threatened with the sack if they didn't withdraw their votes for a strike."

Reference: This should appear in the Union (then MNAOA) journals. A Union meeting was held to decide whether staff could change their votes. It was agreed by a majority that they could not. The staff involved telegrammed the Union to change their votes anyway. This took place (IIRC) at Port Said prior to a southbound transit of the Suez Canal.

Hope this helps a little.

Fair use rationale for Image:P&O logo.PNG

Image:P&O logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reinstated Talk

Undid the blanking of the talk page. Not clear why it was removed. Jawsdog 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Slogan and Misleading information on the HoFE

Once again it seems the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster is being directly blamed on P&O. The official court transcript (which I have a copy of and will quote if you like) names Townsend Thoresen as a company filled with the disease of slopiness, NOT P&O who had only just purchased the company and had yet to implement a new corporate structure. You have taken the BBC reference out of context. The company they and the court referred to is TT. It was the directors of Townsend Thoresen that allowed the HoFE disaster to occur, not P&O. Please amend this inaccuracy.

As for the slogan "theres a world out there". This was never P&O's slogan. It was P&O Cruises slogan who were already owned by Carnival cruises at the time, therefore nothing to do with the original P&O company. P&O as a group, as far as I am aware, never had a slogan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamanrob (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Initial paragraph context is all wrong

It should read 'The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which is usually known as P&O, was a British shipping and logistics company which dates from the early 19th century. Its head office is in London. In March 2006, it was sold to Dubai Ports World for £3.9 billion. Prior to its takeover, it was listed on the London Stock Exchange and was a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index.' The current edit suggests that DP World owned and ran the shipping line from the start of the nineteenth century building it up into the world's premier shipping line well as suggesting the hq was no longer in London. I will adjust accordingly. Twobells (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

List of passenger ships of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company

I was considering creating this list, or something similar. Although it would need a lot of work in sourcing, would anyone have any concerns if it included all liners (as opposed to ferries or cargo ships) until the ompany was broken up in 2006? Jhbuk (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jhbuk, I think that would be a great addition. Happy to help. Hbachus (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Townsend Thoresen purchased 1987 not 1986?

The article states that "The operator of the ship, Townsend Thoresen, had been purchased by P&O in 1986". However wasn't the company bought in 1987, after the disaster?Royalcourtier (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on P&O (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60p5yRNx0?url=http://www.poheritage.com/ to http://www.poheritage.com/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60p5yRNx0?url=http://www.poheritage.com/ to http://www.poheritage.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

History

Elsewhere in Wikipedia (e.g. Cruise ship) this company is mentioned (and should be linked to this article). But if done so, the link is shown as P&O (with info on current company - I tried in prewiew), which doesn't quite make sense as the context is wrong, and so far from historically accurate.

In 1844 it seems that the later P&O was called Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company; before it was called Peninsular Steam Navigation Company, etc., and I expect sources for that context relate to those names.

If parts of section P&O (company)#History were either subsectioned with names and their changes through time, or have permanent links created to parts of article with those names, appropriate name (for historical context for the event in question) could be linked.

Other context (about company through time, including changes of names) seems OK for that use. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

---

• P&O (company) → P&O
• P&O → P&O (disambiguation)

– Appears to be a clear primary topic. The current dabpage is essentially a list of P&O's subsidiaries. 162 etc. (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support: the original P&O is defunct, but I agree that in this sense no dab is required, as the others have different titles anyway. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. BD2412 T 04:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.