Two cruise experts have revealed that they have been banned from all Carnival Group cruise lines after the couple “demonstrated that (Carnival) cannot offer the holiday” they were looking for.

Dan Wailing and Jay Cannon are known for their publication Sail Away Magazine which is a printed cruise magazine. They also have a popular podcast and a YouTube Channel with over 40,000 subscribers.

The pair revealed that they have received a letter from Carnival UK, informing them that they would be banned from all cruise lines in the Carnival Group for at least the next 5 years.

The Carnival Group is made up of eight brands – Carnival Cruise Line, Princess Cruises, P&O Cruises, Cunard, Holland America Line, Seabourn, AIDA Cruises and Costa Cruises.

The letter stated:

“Following a review of your recent interactions with us, we believe that you have both clearly demonstrated that we cannot offer the holiday that you are looking for. It is thus no longer appropriate for you to travel with us, or any of the Carnival group brands. This includes Cunard, P&O Cruises and Princess Cruises.

“I am sorry to have to convey this decision to you. Please note that this letter represents our final decision on this matter, and you will therefore not be permitted to travel with us for a period of 5 years, after which we may review.”

Letter sent to Dan & Jay

Sail Away Magazine, across its print magazine, podcast and social channels, aims to offer unbiased and real cruise reviews and information to help experienced and new cruisers.

By Dan and Jay’s own admission, they have spent the year asking “difficult questions”, which includes challenging cruise lines on cuts to their service, poor communication and complaints that guests have made.

Why The Ban?

In a podcast episode where they announced the ban, the couple questioned exactly which of their negative reviews might have sparked it.

Recently they shared a review of their first cruise with Carnival, calling it the “worst cruise” they’d ever done.

Some of Sail Away Magazine’s other recent publications include:

• Criticism of P&O Cruises when the line cancelled their cruise on Aurora with less than 24 hours notice
• Running a public poll which showed that 72% of cruisers believe that cruising has worsened under the leadership of Carnival UK President, Paul Ludlow
• Speaking out about a recent phone call with Carnival UK’s PR and marketing team where the content creators called the cruise line representatives ‘delusional’

Of course, not all of the content created by Sail Away has a negative slant. Far from it, in fact.

Dan and Jay sailed with Holland America Line last year for their wedding, which they state that the cruise line paid for. Dan and Jay clarify that they didn’t ask for this – the cruise line offered it generously.

In terms of other Carnival Group lines, they haven’t ever sailed with Costa Cruises, AIDA or Seabourn. They have sailed on Princess Cruises and P&O Cruises ships, but not for at least two years.

The couple admit that they are baffled as to why they have been banned from cruise lines that they have never sailed with, and that the letter is very vague in the reason given.

They also expressed their distaste at being lumped in with other banned cruisers, who typically have started fights or acted in a dangerous manner onaboard – not simply expressed their personal opinions.

Censorship Questions Raised

The ban certainly prompts some important debate about what this means for the future of criticism in the travel industry. Should a company blacklist customers for being too critical?

This isn’t the first time this has happened. A 66-year-old father was banned for life from P&O Cruises after raising safety concerns about his trip on social media.

A woman was also banned from the residential cruise ship Villa Vie Odyssey after sharing her thoughts in a private WhatsApp group. Although the ban has since been overturned.

Of course, Dan and Jay are not the only influencers who share their cruise experiences online in a warts-and-all fashion. The couple drew attention to fellow YouTubers ‘Cruise With Ben and David‘ who regularly create videos that are far from complimentary, but are yet to receive such a ban.

If independent reviewers – especially those who have also praised some of Carnival’s brands – can be removed from future sailings entirely, doesn’t that set a dangerous precedent? Might it discourage other travellers from sharing honest feedback out of fear of retribution?

As I write this, I’m editing my vlog of my recent cruise on Cunard’s Queen Anne. Should I consider leaving out the parts where I discussed what I didn’t enjoy, for fear of being banned from other cruise lines I love such as Princess and P&O Cruises?

Should I consider stopping reporting cruise news, such as Cunard’s decision to start charging for room service?

Of course, my opinion is no. I should be free to share my opinions, and so should Sail Away Magazine.

Defamation or the reporting of false statements is, of course, not okay. But that’s not the issue here. If it were, the letter would have stated as such.

Dan and Jay, known for their transparency and frank style, argue that their critiques are always grounded in personal experience, and offered in the spirit of helping the cruise industry improve.

Their Carnival Miracle review, while perceived as harsh, highlighted issues they felt were of genuine concern to cruisers – from onboard service to ship maintenance. For them, the ban feels like a retaliation rather than a reasonable response.

However, others may see a more nuanced side. From a legal perspective, Carnival UK, like any private company, has the right to decide who it does business with.

Could the Carnival UK team have felt that Sail Away Magazine’s approach was more confrontational than constructive – potentially damaging rather than encouraging improvement?

Given that many cruise lines are still struggling financially after the shutdown of 2020, perhaps this was entirely a financial decision. Maybe the company felt that any negative press generated from this ban wouldn’t be as damaging as the negative press that Sail Away Magazine had the potential to generate, should they continue cruising with the eight brands in question.

Of course, we can only speculate on the motives behind this.