Shock!!!! Are britons charged much more (25%) for cruise than continental residents?

If you want another reference here is from a legal site in the UK that specializes in travel compensation claims.

 

What is a Package Holiday?

 

The Package Travel Regulations 1992 lay down rules that tour operators and holiday companies must follow and these rules are found in the company’s ‘booking terms and conditions’.

For a holiday to receive the benefit of protection under the Package Travel Regulations 1992 the package must meet the following definition:

• The package was sold or offered for sale in the UK
  
• The package was sold at an ‘inclusive price’ (eg one price for everything);
  
• The package must comprise of two of the following:
  
  • Transport (eg airplane, ship, train, coach)
    
  • Accommodation (eg hotel, villa, apartment)
    
  • Other tourist services not ancillary to transport or accommodation and accounting for a significant proportion of the package (eg tours or excursions included in the overall package)
    

  [*]The package must cover a period of at least 24 hours or include overnight accommodation

Note: a cruise can constitute a ‘package’ because it covers both transport and accommodation.

Reading the above rules, not sure how a cruise only can be covered by the PTR since is only consists of one of the three possibilities yet must be composed by two. Also, the last of the 3, Other tourist services is extremely subjective and not specific at all using a term significant which by definition is subjective. Normally laws have to be very specific or the lawyers have a field day. Perhaps transport via coach can become the 2nd of the qualifying events by delivering the passenger from the airport to the ship but, feel that might be pushing the intent of the rule.

RDC1 also said in their previous post "Actually the PTR coverage is not baloney. If you do some basic research you will find that it applies to cruises. A cruise by its very nature includes both lodging and transportion and therefore falls under the PTR."

This is not definitive and does not cover all cruises and need the caveat of the 2 out of 3 minimum requirement.

Thank you so much for your posts. It is very enlightening and makes one wonder why anyone living in the U.K. would want to book with a U.S. travel agent!?

Primarily cost. When one books in the UK you get various protections, but usually with increased costs.

However the cruise lines have written their UK contracts and established their processes with that in mind. For example if you read the Celebrity UK contract it explicitly defines what would constitute a major deviation from route in order to trigger compensation under the PTR. So missing one port and substituting a second port would be considered to be a minor, nor major deviation and thus not generate compensation. Because the contract is written to state that in advance it protects the cruise line from most claims for missing a port.

Reading the above rules, not sure how a cruise only can be covered by the PTR since is only consists of one of the three possibilities yet must be composed by two. Also, the last of the 3, Other tourist services is extremely subjective and not specific at all using a term significant which by definition is subjective. Normally laws have to be very specific or the lawyers have a field day. Perhaps transport via coach can become the 2nd of the qualifying events by delivering the passenger from the airport to the ship but, feel that might be pushing the intent of the rule.

 

 

RDC1 also said in their previous post "Actually the PTR coverage is not baloney. If you do some basic research you will find that it applies to cruises. A cruise by its very nature includes both lodging and transportion and therefore falls under the PTR."

 

 

This is not definitive and does not cover all cruises and need the caveat of the 2 out of 3 minimum requirement.

I have been on very few cruises that would not qualify.

1. transport. Most cruise I have been on have had the ship move from port to port. I am pretty sure that meets the definition of transport under the law.

2. Accommodation. Every time I have been on a cruise ship I have also had an accommodation, otherwise called a cabin which also meets the definition under the law.

So you meet 1 and 2, sometimes you could even say 3.

Most cruises include transport, the ship moves from location to location, so transport is provided, even if the cruise returns to the same port it started from. It also includes lodging. So you have two out of the 3 covered in order to meet the requirements of the PTR. They also are for longer than 24 hours (that factor knocks out most ferries though they would also qualify if you purchased a room on one if the trip was longer than 24 hours).

Now if you booked a room on a ship that did not move, such when cruise ships are left docked and used as floating hotels, then they would not be covered under PTR. Or if it was for less than 24 hours then it would also not be covered.

Chapter 18 of Modern Maritime Law and Risk Management by Aleka Mandaraka Sheppard discusses it in depth and the interaction between the PTR 1992 and the Athens Convention 1974 and 2002 as far as passenger claims and limitation of liability are concerned. Section 2.10 of that chapter deals with PTR 1992 in depth.

Most cruises include transport, the ship moves from location to location, so transport is provided, even if the cruise returns to the same port it started from. It also includes lodging. So you have two out of the 3 covered in order to meet the requirements of the PTR. They also are for longer than 24 hours (that factor knocks out most ferries though they would also qualify if you purchased a room on one if the trip was longer than 24 hours).

 

 

 

Now if you booked a room on a ship that did not move, such when cruise ships are left docked and used as floating hotels, then they would not be covered under PTR.

Thanks for the explanation. Didn't think about it that way but makes sense

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Thanks for the explanation. Didn't think about it that way but makes sense

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Wow, after reading this so called "protection" for our British friends, I can see why you have to pay a premium. Add to that the Sterling depreciation against the USD and EUR, 25% seems fair.

Life has no guarantees, you get what you pay for.

Wow, after reading this so called "protection" for our British friends, I can see why you have to pay a premium. Add to that the Sterling depreciation against the USD and EUR, 25% seems fair.

Life has no guarantees, you get what you pay for.

Keep in mind that the additional regulatory risk and cost of compliance might impact some of the cost differential directly, I think more of it is due to the competitive landscape that gives the cruise lines more pricing power in the UK, some of which is because of the impact of the consumer protection regulations on competing holiday options.

Actually the PTR coverage is not baloney. If you do some basic research you will find that it applies to cruises. A cruise by its very nature includes both lodging and transportion and therefore falls under the PTR.

If that is the case, isn't it true that similar PTR would apply in other EU member countries as well the UK? After all, to date, the UK is still part of the European Union and standards and rules in the UK are "harmonized" with other EU member countries. (Brexit looks like it will happen, but it will not take place until at least next year, so in all intends and purposes, the UK is still part of the EU. ) Cost of covering for PTR in the UK would therefore, be similar to costs of covering for similar PTRs in other EU countries, wouldn't it? So why is it that fares offered for the same cruise in the Netherlands still so much lower than in the UK now ? Have we missed something?

We just wondered that covering for PTR in the UK is really the reason for the HUGE differences in fares? Could it be the company management felt that the company could "sneak in" much higher fares for Brits because they felt they (the Brits) could pay more especially when they did not know they were paying that much extra, just to maximize profits?

If that is the case, isn't it true that similar PTR would apply in other EU member countries as well the UK? After all, to date, the UK is still part of the European Union and standards and rules in the UK are "harmonized" with other EU member countries. (Brexit looks like it will happen, but it will not take place until at least next year, so in all intends and purposes, the UK is still part of the EU. ) Cost of covering for PTR in the UK would therefore, be similar to costs of covering for similar PTRs in other EU countries, wouldn't it? So why is it that fares offered for the same cruise in the Netherlands still so much lower than in the UK now ? Have we missed something?

 

We just wondered that covering for PTR in the UK is really the reason for the HUGE differences in fares? Could it be the company management felt that the company could "sneak in" much higher fares for Brits because they felt they (the Brits) could pay more especially when they did not know they were paying that much extra, just to maximize profits?

Now the price is €5549 for a B1 and €4449 for the C1, I think when the price was showing €4449 for the B1 it was already discounted for the Promo "2 categories upgrade".

Now the price is €5549 for a B1 and €4449 for the C1, I think when the price was showing €4449 for the B1 it was already discounted for the Promo "2 categories upgrade".

We found that out when Oceania sent an email with their "2 categories upgrade" promotion.

The comparisons for the two list of prices for identical cruises were done on the same day. Both fares offered have the same 2 categories upgrade offer. Everything looked identical apart from the HUGE fare difference .

Like so many people, we received that 2 categories upgrade offer, and use there email link to the cruise offers and fares.

When we used VPN to "click" the link to the cruise offers and fares via the Dutch list (because the VPN had the server in the Netherlands), the price quoted in Euros was much lower. When we did not use VPN, and therefore, as we are based in the UK, we were directed to the link offers for British based customers, quoted in pounds sterling (£). When we converted the fares in pounds to Euros , that was when we were SHOCKED to see the difference! And it was not just one fare. Initially, we could not believe what we saw.

You mentioned the fare(s) has/have gone up now for that quoted in Euros. Just wondered if they changed it (and raised the European fare list) comparable to British fare list after they read what has been mentioned on this board ? Of course, it would have been better if they lowered the fares quoted in pounds , rather than raised the fares quoted in euros, but then, we have to live in the Real World!!! It just shows how low some cruise fares could so, we guess, even for them to make a profit. It's only a question of how much profit.

Perhaps, in future cruisers here could be more "Eagle-eyed" and look out for the differences in fares offered in different currencies/countries, and mention them on this board, as a way to support each other (cruisers) to get the best deals.

Apologies for butting-in on this thread. Oceania is not my cruise line of choice and therefore I seldom frequent this Board.

Without wishing to offend all the posters who have supplied so much interesting and valuable information, IMO all this talk of UK regulations, Brexit, exchange rates etc is irrelevant to the original post.

IMO, there will only be two reasons for the difference between prices in the UK and the Netherlands for the Oceania "Stars of the Pacific" cruise (and others). The differences could be due to one or the other or a combination of the two:

1. Oceania UK pricing includes air (economy flights); I suspect that the pricing in the Netherlands is cruise only
   
2. All cruise-lines have target markets where they are trying to increase bookings and therefore offer very good deals with a view to enticing new customers. Sometimes it is the UK, sometimes other countries. Perhaps the Netherlands is a target market for Oceania at this time
   

The offer of "upgrading 2 categories ...... on selected cruises" pointed out by cruiseaholic78 was also offered in the UK but has now ended

Hope this helps

"The offer of "upgrading 2 categories ...... on selected cruises" pointed out by cruiseaholic78 was also offered in the UK but has now ended"

When we looked at this offer,it said dependant on availability.We could not find a cruise with availability before the offer ended today.Wondering how many were available.?

If that is the case, isn't it true that similar PTR would apply in other EU member countries as well the UK? After all, to date, the UK is still part of the European Union and standards and rules in the UK are "harmonized" with other EU member countries. (Brexit looks like it will happen, but it will not take place until at least next year, so in all intends and purposes, the UK is still part of the EU. ) Cost of covering for PTR in the UK would therefore, be similar to costs of covering for similar PTRs in other EU countries, wouldn't it? So why is it that fares offered for the same cruise in the Netherlands still so much lower than in the UK now ? Have we missed something?

 

We just wondered that covering for PTR in the UK is really the reason for the HUGE differences in fares? Could it be the company management felt that the company could "sneak in" much higher fares for Brits because they felt they (the Brits) could pay more especially when they did not know they were paying that much extra, just to maximize profits?

No, the PTR is strictly a UK law. The EU does have some consumer protections. Primarily the EU Package Travel Directive 1990 with an updated version in 2015. However those protections are not as extensive as the PTR. The EU harmonization for consumer protections is usually to set minimum standards or to allow common market access They usually do not prevent countries from establishing higher levels of consumer protections.

Here is a link to the PTR 1992

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3288/contents/made

Here is a link to the EU Package Travel Directive 1990

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31990L0314

Now there was a 2015 update to the 1990 travel directive which provides companies an ability to sell travel across the EU without having to make changes for each countries individual laws (which clearly shows that the travel protections were not normalized across the EU).

Here is a link to the 2015 update

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2015:326:TOC

On 25 November 2015 the the new Package Travel Directive (2015/2302/EU) was adopted, bringing it up to date with the developments in the travel market.

The new Directive entered into force on 31 December 2015. The Member States have to transpose it by 1 January 2018 and it will be applicable from 1 July 2018. The Commission is supporting the Member States in this process in particular through workshops in Brussels to discuss questions arising in connection with the transposition

The 2015 update does not go into force until July 1, 2018. Even there it does not appear to be as strong as the 1992 PTR. Will see the impact on UK pricing vs EU pricing once that date is reached.

Apologies for butting-in on this thread. Oceania is not my cruise line of choice and therefore I seldom frequent this Board.

 

Without wishing to offend all the posters who have supplied so much interesting and valuable information, IMO all this talk of UK regulations, Brexit, exchange rates etc is irrelevant to the original post.

 

IMO, there will only be two reasons for the difference between prices in the UK and the Netherlands for the Oceania "Stars of the Pacific" cruise (and others). The differences could be due to one or the other or a combination of the two:

1. Oceania UK pricing includes air (economy flights); I suspect that the pricing in the Netherlands is cruise only
   
2. All cruise-lines have target markets where they are trying to increase bookings and therefore offer very good deals with a view to enticing new customers. Sometimes it is the UK, sometimes other countries. Perhaps the Netherlands is a target market for Oceania at this time
   

The offer of "upgrading 2 categories ...... on selected cruises" pointed out by cruiseaholic78 was also offered in the UK but has now ended

 

Hope this helps

Most of the time I look at the price differential between US and UK. In general if you run a number of comparisons across several cruise lines that market in the UK, US and also have agents in the EU the price differential comes out from lowest to highest US, EU, UK. Basically in order of increasing regulatory protections. That does not mean that there are not exceptions where one can find deals in each of the markets, only that in general the pricing is cheapest in the US and most expensive in the UK.

Most of the time I look at the price differential between US and UK. In general if you run a number of comparisons across several cruise lines that market in the UK, US and also have agents in the EU the price differential comes out from lowest to highest US, EU, UK. Basically in order of increasing regulatory protections. That does not mean that there are not exceptions where one can find deals in each of the markets, only that in general the pricing is cheapest in the US and most expensive in the UK.

Just out of curiosity, where do Australia/NZ stand in that pecking order?

Just out of curiosity, where do Australia/NZ stand in that pecking order?

Have not looked lately. When I last looked Australia tended to be higher than US for cruises not originating in Australia. Not sure if that has changed with the increasing activity of cruise lines in Australia. I tend to follow UK and EU more since we spend a lot of our time there.

Due to some corporate entities being based in Australia (P&O Australia for example) the cruise lines do have to be compliant with some Australia laws for cruises starting and ending in Australia. Not sure how that has impacted pricing policy in general in Australia.

Cahpek, I totally agree with your view from the UK, I have been commenting on another thread and did a search which brought me to you. I fail to see why in this Global age Oceania are restricting our personal right to choose which TA we buy from, we get the comments that the UK has greater protections but that is a lot of baloney as the 'protections' only apply when you book at package or if the flight is ATOL, when you book the commensurate parts of the package individually these 'protections' do not apply and a credit card fills the void. I believe what is actually happening is Oceania are protecting their own office in the UK which acts as a TA, if customers had the ability to buy for a discount worldwide then the ability to fund their UK office would be limited. I do transfer my booking to a UK TA who is a Connoisseur Club member and do receive some greater benefits to Oceania but I would like the option of shopping around maybe for a better price and definitely for better service which my current TA fails to offer.

There's plenty of travel agents in the UK who deal with O, several,of whom have been there since the beginning 11 or so years ago.......We have been with O since the beginning and with the same agent here in the UK that has worked with them since the start.

We have always had similar deals to North American customers and usually better deals on this side of the pond with the added benefit of UK consumer protection......as with any cruise line in any country there's really no need to need to book directly with any cruise line.

My niece was studying in England at the time of the volcano in Iceland. She had purchased a tour to Italy on her spring break and was subsequently stranded there. Her travel agency covered all expenses for her extended holiday, which was a lifesaver for a student travelling on a shoestring. I was very impressed at the time. [emoji106]

This thread has been very interesting and enlightening.

Mo

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Yes I agree, the Thread has been informative and thank RDC1 for his research. I was basing my views on previous advice from a UK TA and unaware of the updated information regarding cruises so delighted to receive that information. I checked with ABTA (Association of British Travel Agents) today and they confirmed that a cruise is now considered as part of the PTR, they state that it only applies if booked through a UK TA and would not be covered if booked in the US as US regulations would apply. I presume the cruise companies referring to the regulations make the case for their cruises in Europe where EU and UK regulations would pertain. Seems to me then it is a case of, if I choose to use a US TA and take the decision based on the facts then why should Oceania prevent me from making that choice?

The price differentials can be enormous between USA and UK. We know of one lady who travels every year on Cunard World cruise in a balcony, she books with a US agent by using a US address & CC. In 2016 the price difference was over £10,000 taking into account the 100% single supplement.

If you have travel insurance what do you actually gain from the ABTA/PTR regulations that insurance wouldn't cover?

Yes I agree, the Thread has been informative and thank RDC1 for his research. I was basing my views on previous advice from a UK TA and unaware of the updated information regarding cruises so delighted to receive that information. I checked with ABTA (Association of British Travel Agents) today and they confirmed that a cruise is now considered as part of the PTR, they state that it only applies if booked through a UK TA and would not be covered if booked in the US as US regulations would apply. I presume the cruise companies referring to the regulations make the case for their cruises in Europe where EU and UK regulations would pertain. Seems to me then it is a case of, if I choose to use a US TA and take the decision based on the facts then why should Oceania prevent me from making that choice?

If a cruise line that markets in the UK allows open booking from a UK address across the internet or phone to the US, one can argue that the cruise was marketed and sold in the UK and UK protections apply. Thus they require UK addresses to go through UK terms and conditions. One can go to lengths to find a way around the restrictions and get US prices, but in doing so it would be very clear that the booking was not marketed or sold in the UK.

Primarily cost. When one books in the UK you get various protections, but usually with increased costs.

 

However the cruise lines have written their UK contracts and established their processes with that in mind. For example if you read the Celebrity UK contract it explicitly defines what would constitute a major deviation from route in order to trigger compensation under the PTR. So missing one port and substituting a second port would be considered to be a minor, nor major deviation and thus not generate compensation. Because the contract is written to state that in advance it protects the cruise line from most claims for missing a port.

Again, very interesting. You mentioned Celebrity so I hope it is okay if I mention Regent again since that is what I am more familiar with and there is a current thread about pricing in the U.K. and U.S. on the Regent board In the case of Regent, the lowest category suites (which are not small by any means), are less money than the same suite when booked in the U.S. While international Business Class air is now included for U.S. and Canadian residents, the current U.K. prices are less than when Regent only offered Coach class.

So, I am obviously a bit confused as to why people in the U.K. feel that they are paying 25% more. Is this on one particular itinerary? Would really like to hear the specific cruise the TS is discussing so we can compare what the price is on the U.K. site and on the U.S. site.

So, I am obviously a bit confused as to why people in the U.K. feel that they are paying 25% more. Is this on one particular itinerary? Would really like to hear the specific cruise the TS is discussing so we can compare what the price is on the U.K. site and on the U.S. site.

give up. having tablet keyboard issues with some funny and not helpful 'correction'

One factor that may affect pricing in different currencies is that many bookings are made very far in advance. In volatile economic times, by the time final payment is due, exchange rates could be very different from those that existed on the day we booked. I have no doubt that cruise lines might add wiggle room that benefits them. OTOH, when these pricing disparities exist closer to or after final payment, then my reasoning falls apart :confused:

The "TS" in the "OP" is actually about an itinerary they price in UK vs. the same priced in Netherlands. In that post they are speaking of higher price compared with Continental cruisers not USA. You are smart to get the same cruise information. Often see posts comparing cruises but even a sailing date difference on the itinerary can make a big price difference so w/o precise details it is not too useful.

give up. having tablet keyboard issues with some funny and not helpful 'correction'

Using "TS" instead of "OP" since this is Cruise Critic's new designation. Thank you for bringing this information to my attention. Typically people in the U.K. compare pricing with the U.S. I have no idea whatsoever what type of consumer rules/laws they have in the Netherlands. Do they even have included air? If not, this may account for the higher pricing in the U.K.

If a cruise line that markets in the UK allows open booking from a UK address across the internet or phone to the US, one can argue that the cruise was marketed and sold in the UK and UK protections apply. Thus they require UK addresses to go through UK terms and conditions. One can go to lengths to find a way around the restrictions and get US prices, but in doing so it would be very clear that the booking was not marketed or sold in the UK.

ABTA were quite clear that the booking had to be made in the UK to qualify, i gave them a scenario of booking a cruise through a US TA and they stated that the PTR would not apply as the booking would be 'made' in the US and US regulations would apply, it is not the advertising but the place of booking that is relevant.