Can a cruise line do this?

[smeyer418]

Sorry, Spongerob, but your argument doesn't figure.:confused:

 

Australians don't pay more for cars or gas or liquor. Everyone in Australia pays more, including visitors from the US.

Likewise the price of gas in the US is the price of gas. For you or me or Crocodile Dundee. Our nationality is irrelevant.

 

Bar a paying customer on the grounds of their nationality or country of residence, or charge them a higher price? It's immoral & in the UK, it'd be illegal.:eek:

 

There's exceptions. For state-subsidised services, I can understand the local taxpayer being given a better deal. Health services for instance.

 

But Princess are a profit-making organisation, the nationality of the customer should be irrelevant, and I've seen nowt in this thread or elsewhere to make me believe anything other than that they are screwing non-US residents. :mad:

 

I'm happy to stick to UK ships - whose customers know where they stand.:)

 

John Bull (in Mr Angry mood)

 

can you buy gas sold in the US if you live in Australia? Its based upon where you purchase the goods. Just as English law doesn't permit a US based insurance agent to sell insurance not licensed in the UK, a principal(here the cruise company) can prevent an agent from selling its goods for a reason not prescribed by law. The reason that the Nationality and residence is important is because EU/UK law provides additional security to its citizens so any one selling things to these citizens has to be bound by that law. The seller is the Cruise line- the principal- not the TA who is only an agent.

 

Its not that they are screwing the non- US residents they are passing these additional costs to those people only. The alternative is to raise the cost for everyone-even people not covered by the EU/UK's laws- to make up for the different cost.

 

You may not see it that way and be angry at the additional cost but you have no choice about the different level of protection provided by EU/UK law.

 

and as for the difference in requiring the service charge/auto tip to be prepaid its because of cultural differences.

 

BTW I don't believe that this is illegal discrimination based on national origin or race. Its a discrimination based upon where people live no matter their race or national origin(and discrimination based upon the country of residence is not proscribed by law-at least not in most places). National origin is not a suspect classification(race is) and a business justification for the difference -here the different levels of consumer protection would normally be a sufficient reason to avoid an illegal discrimination based on national origin anyway.

 

Its not illegal in my view although others may differ...

[John Bull]

can you buy gas sold in the US if you live in Australia? Its based upon where you purchase the goods. Just as English law doesn't permit a US based insurance agent to sell insurance not licensed in the UK, a principal(here the cruise company) can prevent an agent from selling its goods for a reason not prescribed by law. The reason that the Nationality and residence is important is because EU/UK law provides additional security to its citizens so any one selling things to these citizens has to be bound by that law. The seller is the Cruise line- the principal- not the TA who is only an agent.

 

Its not that they are screwing the non- US residents they are passing these additional costs to those people only. The alternative is to raise the cost for everyone-even people not covered by the EU/UK's laws- to make up for the different cost.

 

You may not see it that way and be angry at the additional cost but you have no choice about the different level of protection provided by EU/UK law.

 

and as for the difference in requiring the service charge/auto tip to be prepaid its because of cultural differences.

 

BTW I don't believe that this is illegal discrimination based on national origin or race. Its a discrimination based upon where people live no matter their race or national origin(and discrimination based upon the country of residence is not proscribed by law-at least not in most places). National origin is not a suspect classification(race is) and a business justification for the difference -here the different levels of consumer protection would normally be a sufficient reason to avoid an illegal discrimination based on national origin anyway.

 

Its not illegal in my view although others may differ...

 

Hi again,

 

Re your first line - err, thats MY argument.:confused:

Gas sold in the US is subject to US laws, taxes & prices - whatever the nationality of the guy who pulls up at the pumps.

 

Re the principal preventing an agent from selling its goods in another country. Coca-cola, attempting to protect their UK licensees, tried to block UK wholesalers from selling in the UK Coke bought from much cheaper licensees in other countries (Germany, France, Kuwait & Russia amongst others). They threatened but we ignored them, we knew as well as they, that they had no case. And had they pursued it through the Courts, they'd have probably been found guilty of restraint of trade. If US law were the same as UK law, I think Princess' policy might be considered illegal on the same grounds.

I agree that discrimination on the grounds of residency isn't the same as race/religion/etc - it just might be held to be a blind for such discrimination, but I'm guessing that's a pretty shaky argument.

 

Service charge/auto-tip. Wasn't part of my rant - but I'll gladly take a pop at that too :)

Were I to sail a US ship, I'd tip at US rates (usual provisos), same as I do on US soil. Many Brits and Aussies do not, because it's a culture they're not used to, and with newbies because it's deliberately & carefully camouflaged in promotional material - the culprits are the cruiselines themselves & British T/As. Many don't find out about the tipping requirement until they've boarded, and some will wipe out the auto-tips. Sadly, its also obvious from UK cruise forums that some book knowing about the tipping culture and planning from the outset to cheapskate. Hence the cruise lines policy which, given the culture difference, I can understand.

But with US ships sailing European routes, with many non-US pax, we have a US culture nowhere near US shores. Life would be so much simpler if US cruise lines paid sensible wages, charged ticket prices accordingly, and left pax to show appreciation for the extra mile.

Then their ticket prices would be transparent & on a level playing field with UK ships.

But tipping is a whole different can of worms & an argument which will run & run.

 

I see the "extra protection" afforded to UK/EU pax as an excuse. What extra protection? I know less than the average barrack-room lawyer (is that a phrase you also use in the States?), but it's a generally-held view in the UK that if you can sue in a US Court rather than a UK Court you'll be mega-bucks better off. And cancellation terms are much much harsher for UK pax. So where's the extra cost/risk with non-US residents??

 

Beginning to sound anti-American. Which I'm not.:) Just peeved about this topic.:mad:

 

Regards

 

Mr Angry :D (alias John Bull)

[smeyer418]

Hi again,

 

Re your first line - err, thats MY argument.:confused:

Gas sold in the US is subject to US laws, taxes & prices - whatever the nationality of the guy who pulls up at the pumps.

 

Re the principal preventing an agent from selling its goods in another country. Coca-cola, attempting to protect their UK licensees, tried to block UK wholesalers from selling in the UK Coke bought from much cheaper licensees in other countries (Germany, France, Kuwait & Russia amongst others). They threatened but we ignored them, we knew as well as they, that they had no case. And had they pursued it through the Courts, they'd have probably been found guilty of restraint of trade. If US law were the same as UK law, I think Princess' policy might be considered illegal on the same grounds.

I agree that discrimination on the grounds of residency isn't the same as race/religion/etc - it just might be held to be a blind for such discrimination, but I'm guessing that's a pretty shaky argument.

 

Service charge/auto-tip. Wasn't part of my rant - but I'll gladly take a pop at that too :)

Were I to sail a US ship, I'd tip at US rates (usual provisos), same as I do on US soil. Many Brits and Aussies do not, because it's a culture they're not used to, and with newbies because it's deliberately & carefully camouflaged in promotional material - the culprits are the cruiselines themselves & British T/As. Many don't find out about the tipping requirement until they've boarded, and some will wipe out the auto-tips. Sadly, its also obvious from UK cruise forums that some book knowing about the tipping culture and planning from the outset to cheapskate. Hence the cruise lines policy which, given the culture difference, I can understand.

But with US ships sailing European routes, with many non-US pax, we have a US culture nowhere near US shores. Life would be so much simpler if US cruise lines paid sensible wages, charged ticket prices accordingly, and left pax to show appreciation for the extra mile.

Then their ticket prices would be transparent & on a level playing field with UK ships.

But tipping is a whole different can of worms & an argument which will run & run.

 

I see the "extra protection" afforded to UK/EU pax as an excuse. What extra protection? I know less than the average barrack-room lawyer (is that a phrase you also use in the States?), but it's a generally-held view in the UK that if you can sue in a US Court rather than a UK Court you'll be mega-bucks better off. And cancellation terms are much much harsher for UK pax. So where's the extra cost/risk with non-US residents??

 

Beginning to sound anti-American. Which I'm not.:) Just peeved about this topic.:mad:

 

Regards

 

Mr Angry :D (alias John Bull)

 

there is a significant difference between the coke example and the cruise lines. Coke sells the syrup to the suppliers- they are then free to sell it for whatever they would like in price to whomever they wish. The TA's don't sell in the same way. They are merely an agent for a principal. There is a vast difference. The TA never has a risk of loss on the product- or gain for that matter. They get a commission that is all. A company selling through an agent can control the price and who they sell it to. There is no anti trust or anti competitive issue on price fixing your own goods which you sell directly or through an agent. Anti trust violations requires an agreement with someone else. You can't agree with someone else if its only you who are selling directly or through a commissioned agent only. Its only when you wholesale and then the buyer can sell at what ever price they want. Microsoft problem was not in what it sold it goods for but tying arrangements which prevented others from selling theirs.

 

I think we agree its the situs of the sale. In cruise parlance the sale takes place where the person lives not in the cruise line home office.

[John Bull]

there is a significant difference between the coke example and the cruise lines. Coke sells the syrup to the suppliers- they are then free to sell it for whatever they would like in price to whomever they wish. The TA's don't sell in the same way. They are merely an agent for a principal. There is a vast difference. The TA never has a risk of loss on the product- or gain for that matter. They get a commission that is all. A company selling through an agent can control the price and who they sell it to. There is no anti trust or anti competitive issue on price fixing your own goods which you sell directly or through an agent. Anti trust violations requires an agreement with someone else. You can't agree with someone else if its only you who are selling directly or through a commissioned agent only. Its only when you wholesale and then the buyer can sell at what ever price they want. Microsoft problem was not in what it sold it goods for but tying arrangements which prevented others from selling theirs.

 

I think we agree its the situs of the sale. In cruise parlance the sale takes place where the person lives not in the cruise line home office.

 

I'll freely acknowledge seriusly limited knowledge of the law, made up for in spades by a sense of fair play. But we may be seeing a difference in law on the two sides of the pond.

 

Coca-Cola's attempts to prevent the free purchase of its product & shipment for sale in another country were blocked, they were unable to legally enforce their terms, which were in restraint of trade. I believe they have similar terms which restrict sales across state borders, but that would of course come under US law.

 

The restriction on US cruise agents has been applied at about the same time by more than one US cruise corporation. Shades of a cartel, a price-fixing "ring"? Certainly that's the result. Difficult to prove the intent, but that would be an offence in the UK.

 

And just for good measure. I've just learned, uncorroborated, that RCI's price-promise, which applied in the UK, now "applies only to guests in the 50 states and Canada".

 

And I still haven't heard a good reason why we are being over-charged.

 

Was it something we said :D

 

Regards to all

 

John Bull

[Buddy604]

If Princess didn't have Princess Australia or Princess UK, I might agree with you but they do and the agents of those companies have exclusive rights to sell Princess cruises to citizens of their country.

Not to quibble, but the agents only have the rights to sell to travelers resident in their particular country - citizenship is irrelevant. The question too remains if the exclusivity is applicable only to purchases made within that country. I.e. can an Aussie tourist buy a last-minute cruise from an agent in LA while they're on a trip to Disneyland? Jurisdiction issues like that muddy the waters.

 

Its all an unfortunate hangover from Princess's entanglement with P&O Lines in both Australia and the UK.

[Globaliser]

Just as English law doesn't permit a US based insurance agent to sell insurance not licensed in the UK, a principal(here the cruise company) can prevent an agent from selling its goods for a reason not prescribed by law. The reason that the Nationality and residence is important is because EU/UK law provides additional security to its citizens so any one selling things to these citizens has to be bound by that law. The seller is the Cruise line- the principal- not the TA who is only an agent.

 

Its not that they are screwing the non- US residents they are passing these additional costs to those people only. The alternative is to raise the cost for everyone-even people not covered by the EU/UK's laws- to make up for the different cost.

If this is the case, then it might (under UK discrimination law) amount to a justifiable reason for the differential treatment. I am sure that the cruise line would try to put up such a case. It may even have merit. But fundamentally, (under UK law) the onus is on the cruise line to establish that it has a proper reason like this for doing so.

 

There is one shining analogy which, in my view, casts considerable doubt on whether the cruise lines would be able to establish such a justification. Remember, the cruise line is selling a travel product whose delivery and performance would be entirely outside the UK/EU - at least, it is so if the cruise is sold as a cruise-only product, as most US-sold cruises are.

 

The analogy is this: There is absolutely no difficulty with US airlines selling US domestic air travel directly to residents of the UK and the EU, or selling it through agents.

 

Indeed, US airlines can actually sell air travel directly to residents of the UK and the EU even though the flights concerned will take place entirely within the UK or the EU, and even though a UK resident who buys the same flights from a UK travel agent will be covered by the UK's more generous consumer protection laws.

 

In addition, we have seen the list of cruise lines that have imposed such a restriction. It is not comprehensive - there are many cruise lines who will still sell to UK residents via US travel agents. Are they all in legal trouble? It would be surprising if this was certain, otherwise we'd find all cruise lines refusing to sell to UK residents via US travel agents.

 

Princess may well be justified in doing what it's doing. But I'd personally like to see it explained properly and fully. And (under UK law), unless Princess does explain it properly and fully, it is committing indirect race discrimination under UK law (see posts above).

BTW I don't believe that this is illegal discrimination based on national origin or race. Its a discrimination based upon where people live no matter their race or national origin(and discrimination based upon the country of residence is not proscribed by law-at least not in most places). National origin is not a suspect classification(race is) and a business justification for the difference -here the different levels of consumer protection would normally be a sufficient reason to avoid an illegal discrimination based on national origin anyway.

 

Its not illegal in my view although others may differ...

I've tried to be very specific that the position I'm talking about is under UK law. It is obviously not direct discrimination on the grounds of nationality (and "national origin" is a different concept under UK law), but purports to be based only on residence. However, the prohibition against discrimination (under UK law) extends to indirect discrimination, and what Princess is doing undoubtedly disadvantages UK nationals within that definition because residence is so closely tied to nationality.

 

The important thing about indirect discrimination is that although direct discrimination is unlawful whatever the reason, indirect discrimination can be lawful if it is properly justified. But the business concerned bears the burden of justifying it. Unless Princess can fully and properly justify what it's doing, it may well be acting unlawfully.

 

And Princess is vulnerable because it is in part a UK company doing business in the UK.

 

Hence there is in my view an argument here for anyone who wants to take it up and see how far it will run. But perhaps more importantly, Princess might want to sit up, take note, and eliminate the disadvantage to UK customers - that would be an entirely satisfactory outcome.

 

It is partly for these reasons that businesses in the UK cannot lawfully offer different prices to residents of Scotland from those it offers to residents of England.

 

Similarly, businesses operating in the EU cannot lawfully offer different prices to residents of (say) Germany from those it offers to residents of the UK. They can lawfully say: If you book through a German travel agent you pay X, but if you book through a UK travel agent you pay Y. But any German resident must be able to book the UK price through a UK travel agent, and vice versa, otherwise that business practice is illegal over here because it's discriminatory. The business cannot lawfully say to a German resident that he must book through a German travel agent and must pay the German price.

 

That is different from the (acceptable) US practice of offering specials to (say) residents of Florida only. This may help to illustrate how the legal position over here is different from the legal position in the US.

 

BTW, a disclaimer: This is just personal musing about a legal topic. None of this is legal advice and should not be relied on. If you need legal advice, please go and see your own lawyer!

[friedshrimp]

If this is the case, then it might (under UK discrimination law) amount to a justifiable reason for the differential treatment. I am sure that the cruise line would try to put up such a case. It may even have merit. But fundamentally, (under UK law) the onus is on the cruise line to establish that it has a proper reason like this for doing so.

 

There is one shining analogy which, in my view, casts considerable doubt on whether the cruise lines would be able to establish such a justification. Remember, the cruise line is selling a travel product whose delivery and performance would be entirely outside the UK/EU - at least, it is so if the cruise is sold as a cruise-only product, as most US-sold cruises are.

 

The analogy is this: There is absolutely no difficulty with US airlines selling US domestic air travel directly to residents of the UK and the EU, or selling it through agents.

 

Indeed, US airlines can actually sell air travel directly to residents of the UK and the EU even though the flights concerned will take place entirely within the UK or the EU, and even though a UK resident who buys the same flights from a UK travel agent will be covered by the UK's more generous consumer protection laws.

 

In addition, we have seen the list of cruise lines that have imposed such a restriction. It is not comprehensive - there are many cruise lines who will still sell to UK residents via US travel agents. Are they all in legal trouble? It would be surprising if this was certain, otherwise we'd find all cruise lines refusing to sell to UK residents via US travel agents.

 

Princess may well be justified in doing what it's doing. But I'd personally like to see it explained properly and fully. And (under UK law), unless Princess does explain it properly and fully, it is committing indirect race discrimination under UK law (see posts above).I've tried to be very specific that the position I'm talking about is under UK law. It is obviously not direct discrimination on the grounds of nationality (and "national origin" is a different concept under UK law), but purports to be based only on residence. However, the prohibition against discrimination (under UK law) extends to indirect discrimination, and what Princess is doing undoubtedly disadvantages UK nationals within that definition because residence is so closely tied to nationality.

 

The important thing about indirect discrimination is that although direct discrimination is unlawful whatever the reason, indirect discrimination can be lawful if it is properly justified. But the business concerned bears the burden of justifying it. Unless Princess can fully and properly justify what it's doing, it may well be acting unlawfully.

 

And Princess is vulnerable because it is in part a UK company doing business in the UK.

 

Hence there is in my view an argument here for anyone who wants to take it up and see how far it will run. But perhaps more importantly, Princess might want to sit up, take note, and eliminate the disadvantage to UK customers - that would be an entirely satisfactory outcome.

 

It is partly for these reasons that businesses in the UK cannot lawfully offer different prices to residents of Scotland from those it offers to residents of England.

 

Similarly, businesses operating in the EU cannot lawfully offer different prices to residents of (say) Germany from those it offers to residents of the UK. They can lawfully say: If you book through a German travel agent you pay X, but if you book through a UK travel agent you pay Y. But any German resident must be able to book the UK price through a UK travel agent, and vice versa, otherwise that business practice is illegal over here because it's discriminatory. The business cannot lawfully say to a German resident that he must book through a German travel agent and must pay the German price.

 

That is different from the (acceptable) US practice of offering specials to (say) residents of Florida only. This may help to illustrate how the legal position over here is different from the legal position in the US.

 

BTW, a disclaimer: This is just personal musing about a legal topic. None of this is legal advice and should not be relied on. If you need legal advice, please go and see your own lawyer!

 

Those rules only took place though after the EU was born and the borders removed. So in effect, anyone joining the EU has given up their sovereign rights to become a "State" in the EU.

 

EU airlines *can* refuse to sell to US customers flights that originate in the US and terminate in the EU. They cannot refuse to sell on flights that originate and terminate in the EU (this has happened to me).

 

This is a simple supply and demand problem. There is a limited supply and Brits (and Aussies) are willing to pay higher costs to take the same trip. If, as a collective, the British population decided not to cruise anymore until the prices were similar to US costs, then the prices would come down. But I dare say, why does anyone begrudge anyone else paying less for something? You purchase a product, you were happy at the time of purchase, and then you see someone else got a better price and instead of being happy for them, you're mad you didn't get the same deal? Be forewarned though, actions taken may result in Princess saying "why bother?" and they just shut down operations outside of the US and then you have no access to cruising instead of just lowering prices.

[Cruisin_on_th_net]

but are the prices (outside US) really dearer? I checked the site posters are talking about re that US online agency. they were offering a balcony cruise for 3100pp, in a basic balcony, + fees and taxes + gratuities. (US dollars)

 

With an Aus agent, I found the exact same cruise for Aus 3700pp including fees n taxes and gratuities. This was for a much better rated balcony cabin. (ie approx 4x grades higher) I don't think that the difference is all that much, when you include the conversion rates and inconvience of dealing with an OS agent v an aussie agent. for the extra snitchy amount it is, I'd rather keep my money local.

 

great thread btw :)

[Globaliser]

Those rules only took place though after the EU was born and the borders removed. So in effect, anyone joining the EU has given up their sovereign rights to become a "State" in the EU.

The UK's Race Relations Act is nothing to do with the EU.

This is a simple supply and demand problem. There is a limited supply and Brits (and Aussies) are willing to pay higher costs to take the same trip. If, as a collective, the British population decided not to cruise anymore until the prices were similar to US costs, then the prices would come down. But I dare say, why does anyone begrudge anyone else paying less for something? You purchase a product, you were happy at the time of purchase, and then you see someone else got a better price and instead of being happy for them, you're mad you didn't get the same deal? Be forewarned though, actions taken may result in Princess saying "why bother?" and they just shut down operations outside of the US and then you have no access to cruising instead of just lowering prices.

The chances of Princess shutting down operations outside the US are somewhere between zero and nil. Remember, Princess was a purely UK company from 1974 to 2003 (as part of P&O), and is still partly a UK company (via Carnival plc). It may hurt Princess a bit if they have to stop charging UK customers more than is justifiable by any differences in the cost of selling to the UK market, but I've never heard of a company that withdrew from a market simply because it was no longer allowed to rip off that market, and henceforth had to operate fairly but profitably.

 

I don't see this as anything to do with supply and demand. The supply of product is exactly the same in the US market as in the UK market - the ship has the same number of cabins whether we book from the UK or book in the US. If Princess artificially restrict the number of cabins available to the UK market without good reason, just to increase the price, then that is market manipulation (which of course is subject to other legal controls).

 

I don't see myself begrudging anyone else for getting good prices. All I want is either a fair opportunity to access the same prices, or else a full and proper explanation of why that isn't possible. Being told that I can't get the same price as the US market for the sole reason that I live in the UK (without any other reason being proffered) is just wrong - without a good reason, it's just unfair.

[moniquet]

I don't see myself begrudging anyone else for getting good prices. All I want is either a fair opportunity to access the same prices, or else a full and proper explanation of why that isn't possible. Being told that I can't get the same price as the US market for the sole reason that I live in the UK (without any other reason being proffered) is just wrong - without a good reason, it's just unfair.

 

Absolutely agree.

[smeyer418]

senior discounts? Military discounts? Union discounts, friends and family discounts....there are many discounts that you are not entitled to but don't rise to the level of illegal discrimination(senior discounts are assuredly a discrimination)...but there is no need to go there.

 

I think people either misunderstand what I wrote or misunderstand a basic tenet of anti-trust law. Price fixing is illegal almost everywhere(with some exceptions when the government sets the rate) but to be illegal there has to be an agreement between two entities to set prices or otherwise divide a market illegally. But a vertically integrated company can set prices legally because technically there is no agreement between anyone but them selves.

When Coke licenses its products with independent entities it doesn't own, it can't contol price or geography of where it sells its products. When a cruise line uses a TA to sell its product, the agent is not legally independent and can't set its own price and if the principal says it can't split its commission(absent a law prohibiting this) it can tell its agent what it can do.

 

If a company own the retail store it can set the price. If it wholesales to a department store it can't.(there are sometimes quality issues which it can set).

 

Like wise McDonalds which franchises its stores can't tell the store what price to sell hamburgers---it can where it owns the stores directly.

 

car companies don't own most of the dealerships hence the price is only suggested. Some car companies own all the dealerships and can set the price.

 

The TA is not selling its own inventory(although sometimes they do when the buy a net cabin) they are selling the cruise line's inventory. hence the cruise line can and does limit what they can do. Can an employer tell an employee you can't sell in a place? of course and so can an agent be told by a principal. These rules are the same everywhere.

 

There are also other issues in anti-trust dealing with competition between cruise lines. If the cruise lines between them agreed not to sell except by a local agent that would be illegal since it would be an agreement in restraint of trade but a single cruise line on its own deciding to do so is not inherently illegal.

 

In any case no one is going to rely on this opinion anyway make up your own mind, see a lawyer or file a complaint with what ever entity in your country is responsible for anti-trust/discrimination issues and see what they say. I can tell you when some of the cruise lines decided individually no more rebating of commissions, a complaint was filed with the US Federal Trade commission and US Department of Justice and they decline to take any action because as they said a principal can tell an agent not to rebate its commission.

[Globaliser]

senior discounts? Military discounts? Union discounts, friends and family discounts....there are many discounts that you are not entitled to but don't rise to the level of illegal discrimination(senior discounts are assuredly a discrimination)...but there is no need to go there.

Under present UK law, I think that none of these are illegal forms of discrimination because none of them are based on "colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins", or on sex (which is covered by a different statute).

 

Discounts for the disabled don't disadvantage the disabled, so no problem there.

 

And I think our age discrimination legislation currently only applies to employment.

 

So I can't complain about any of them, at least not on legal grounds.

 

What I'm interested in is whether Princess might be committing a form of discrimination which is undoubtedly illegal under UK law: race discrimination on the ground of nationality.

I think people either misunderstand what I wrote or misunderstand a basic tenet of anti-trust law.

This isn't anything to do with anti-trust/competition law. (Market manipulation by Princess of the kind that I referred to would probably fall under our fair trading law, which is also different from our anti-trust/competition law.)

 

This would be a possible application of anti-discrimination legislation. And I think it's Princess' particular corporate structure (or, rather, Carnival's) that gives it this vulnerability.

[mistermc2005]

We are looking at a Canada/New England cuise in September. The best my wife can do (she is a travel agent) through Princess Australiua for a BB cabin is $3,600.00 AUD. We can , through a US agent, obtain the same cabin for $1,965.00 us, including all charges & taxes. At today's exchange rate that is $2,233.00 AUD, big difference.

[friedshrimp]

The UK's Race Relations Act is nothing to do with the EU.The chances of Princess shutting down operations outside the US are somewhere between zero and nil. Remember, Princess was a purely UK company from 1974 to 2003 (as part of P&O), and is still partly a UK company (via Carnival plc). It may hurt Princess a bit if they have to stop charging UK customers more than is justifiable by any differences in the cost of selling to the UK market, but I've never heard of a company that withdrew from a market simply because it was no longer allowed to rip off that market, and henceforth had to operate fairly but profitably.

 

I don't see this as anything to do with supply and demand. The supply of product is exactly the same in the US market as in the UK market - the ship has the same number of cabins whether we book from the UK or book in the US. If Princess artificially restrict the number of cabins available to the UK market without good reason, just to increase the price, then that is market manipulation (which of course is subject to other legal controls).

 

I don't see myself begrudging anyone else for getting good prices. All I want is either a fair opportunity to access the same prices, or else a full and proper explanation of why that isn't possible. Being told that I can't get the same price as the US market for the sole reason that I live in the UK (without any other reason being proffered) is just wrong - without a good reason, it's just unfair.

 

Well, I'd say I have to disagree with just about every word you said with the exception of the one in green (I like that word). That being said, I'm tired of arguing with you. You feel free to believe whatever you want. I guess since you feel you're being ripped off by Princess I won't be seeing you on any of their cruises. If you feel you have such a strong case and can bring Princess to their knees, hire yourself a barrister, file a lawsuit, and win millions of pounds. That should get you suites on RCCL for the rest of your life!

 

BTW - Who ever told you life was fair? It's not. If it were, I'd be drinking a German beer right now instead of lousy American beer and I would have only paid $1 for it!

[Globaliser]

That being said, I'm tired of arguing with you. You feel free to believe whatever you want. I guess since you feel you're being ripped off by Princess I won't be seeing you on any of their cruises.

Then I promise I won't tell you if I'm coming.

 

Anyway, as I'm pretty sure I have a better knowledge of UK anti-discrimination law than you do, I'll just content myself with my confidence that Princess/Carnival will have thought about this issue and the risk that they run. After all, it would be about the first thing that I'd advise them to do if they were my clients.

[Thumper69]

My wife, a German citizen, must show her Green card everytime she leaves the US on any type of transportation (cruise, air, car). She was told by Immigration that if she didn't show/use her Green card when leaving the country, it could be considered that she was forfeiting her US residency and would not be allowed back in. Scare tactic maybe, but it works for us. But what you are doing in purchasing a cruise is perfectly correct. You live in the US and are purchasing from a US distributor. What others wish to do is to purchase from a US distributor without living in the US, trying to use a friend's address or a PO Box.

 

I know what I am doing is correct but they just have never asked or said anything. I don't have a green card so I don't know those requirements. I have an investors visa, which allows me to enter the USA for extended periods and get a social security number so I can purchase things like a car, house, credit card etc and I can not work for anybody but myself. To the check-in staff my visa looks very similar almost exactly the same as a tourist visa.

 

Anthony

[spongerob]

I don't see myself begrudging anyone else for getting good prices. All I want is either a fair opportunity to access the same prices, or else a full and proper explanation of why that isn't possible. Being told that I can't get the same price as the US market for the sole reason that I live in the UK (without any other reason being proffered) is just wrong - without a good reason, it's just unfair.

That's the way the world works. Different nations have different rules, both for their own citizens and how companies are allowed to operated. I think you arguments tend towards the idealistic - you're ignoring the realities that are imposed by different forms of government, how governments choose to fund themselves, and corporate governance policies, all of which have an effect on how people conduct trade with one another. Whether you like it or not, it is restrictions contained within those factors I have listed that influence the price you pay because business entities have to comply with the varying regulations in the countries where they operate.

 

You can't leave out political influence, either. We still have the PVSA and Jones Act, for example. Which incidentally are also good examples of the law of unintended consequences.

 

You probably pay more than we do in the US for most of the items you buy. You cannot isolate the cost of your cruise from the argument and suggest that you are being "ripped off" when the trend in pricing in the UK versus the US is similar for just about everything else.

[stingau]

G'day I am an Aussie who was unaware of this situation but I have booked and paid for from an online TA a caribbbean cruise out of Ft Lauderdale. At no stage was I told that I could not book it. My cruise personaliser shows my Australian Address so they know where I live. They even had all my details inc family names ages dates of birth and passport numbers. This information could only have come from our P & O bookings

 

At a much cheaper rate than by booking it here. I have cruised before with P & O out of Aust. and NZ. where the price difference comes in is a weird discount system.

 

Here in Australia the earlier you book the cheaper the cruise as the cruise gets closer the price goes up.

 

In the US the exact opposite occurs why I don't know and one that no one can answer. After reading this thread I spoke to a Local TA who I know and the pressure actually came from our TA's becaus of this reverse discount system by the cruiselines... and its all lines not just Carnival lines.

 

The only problem I have encountered is when I want to talk to Princess about the cruise all I am shown on their site is an Aust phone number when I call it I am rudely told "You have booked this in the USA call them we will only assist you if you had booked it via Princess Australia".

 

When I call Princess in the USA I have no problems, At no time have I ever been told that my booking is wrong I have only ever had pleasant assistance. The last contact was I have purachased for my wife a flower arrangement as a surprise gift to be in our suite when we walk in. THe downloaded forms showed an Aust Fax number so I completed and faxed it off. When I didnt recieve a response nor had my Visa card been charged I contacted the number on the form...to be told " you should have sent it to the US dept. we would have just thrown it in the bin. I asked her for the number to send it to the Sates she said "I dont know you will have to find it yourself". I rang Princess in the US and within minutes the details were given over the phone and all arranged.

 

So until im told different from the cruiseline I will continue to book online. I dont think it is a Princess USA problem but rather a greedy Aust TA and Princess Aust issue

[lauraemma]

Hi I have just tried to book a mini cruise whilst staying in Orlando for three weeks. I have tried through several American companies as it was cheaper, they wrote back saying as much as they would love to book my cruise they wouldn't be able to as I was not an american citizen with an american address. I said couldn't they use my hotel address but they said it would be fraud. So I have booked through an english tour operator at a much highter cost.:mad:

[Globaliser]

That's the way the world works. Different nations have different rules, both for their own citizens and how companies are allowed to operated. I think you arguments tend towards the idealistic - you're ignoring the realities that are imposed by different forms of government, how governments choose to fund themselves, and corporate governance policies, all of which have an effect on how people conduct trade with one another. Whether you like it or not, it is restrictions contained within those factors I have listed that influence the price you pay because business entities have to comply with the varying regulations in the countries where they operate.

If there are valid reasons along these lines why cruise lines cannot allow UK residents to book in the US market, then that's fine. However:-

 

1. They should explain their reasons. If the reasons are valid, they should have nothing to fear from explaining them. If it's actually illegal for Princess to allow UK residents to book in the US market, then it might be a good start for Princess to say this. But I haven't seen anything this explicit.

 

2. The current position casts some doubt on the validity of any reasons along these lines, because there are some cruise lines which do not feel the same difficulty that Princess (amongst others) feels. If it's actually illegal for Princess to allow UK residents to book in the US market, one would expect all cruise lines to feel the same way and impose the same policy, but they don't.

 

3. Further doubt is also cast on this by the fact that other sectors of the travel industry, who are fundamentally selling nothing different from the cruise lines' product, feel no difficulty in allowing UK residents to book in the US market.

 

As I say, there may well be good answers to these questions. But if so, what are they?

You probably pay more than we do in the US for most of the items you buy. You cannot isolate the cost of your cruise from the argument and suggest that you are being "ripped off" when the trend in pricing in the UK versus the US is similar for just about everything else.

Maybe all it shows is that we are ripped off for many things? ;)

 

There are certainly other aspects of the UK market in which we have been demonstrably ripped off over the years. New car sales, for example - the car manufacturers were only brought to heel and made to deal fairly in the UK market when the UK and EU governments signalled their approval of grey imports. The manufacturers had come up with any manner of disingenuous arguments for charging UK consumers much more than on mainland Europe. But they seem to be coping very well with the current playing field, which is much more level. Most of us think that they were lying before.

[diamondsparkling]

We've cruised with Princess a couple of times and are Platinum members as having cruised with P&O too. When we have tried to book online through the US site we are automatically redirected to the UK site.

 

We are visiting my sister in Canada in August for a month and she has booked an Alaskan cruse for us, for my birthday. As she has purchased this and gave our UK addresses to her TA I trust this will be in order for us to board.

 

Val & Dave

[drewlin]

Our agent from the well mentioned online US TA has told us that Carnival will accept international customers which seems weird as their associate cruise lines e.g. princess, costa, celebrity etc. will not! So all Brits and Aussies book with Carnival!

[spongerob]

If there are valid reasons along these lines why cruise lines cannot allow UK residents to book in the US market, then that's fine. However:-

 

1. They should explain their reasons. Would anyone listen? And let's be honest, when governments put up barriers to free trade, big companies find a way to take advantage.

2. The current position casts some doubt on the validity of any reasons along these lines, because there are some cruise lines which do not feel the same difficulty that Princess (amongst others) feels. I think this comes down to the difference between trying to charge an individual for something that might technically violate trade laws, versus a large corporation. An individual doesn't have enough assets (usually) to make such a pursuit worth the resources required. But a big corporation with assets and cash is a different animal. It's the difference between hunting elephants and bunny rabbits, the effort might be similar but the rewards lopsided.

3. Further doubt is also cast on this by the fact that other sectors of the travel industry, who are fundamentally selling nothing different from the cruise lines' product, feel no difficulty in allowing UK residents to book in the US market. Princess and Royal Caribbean maintain branch offices in the UK, while Disney does not. So, there might be different sets of rules in play.

 

As I say, there may well be good answers to these questions. But if so, what are they?Maybe all it shows is that we are ripped off for many things? ;)

That's basically my point. BP sells the same product in the US and the UK, but where does it cost a lot more, and why? Even if you subtracted the taxes, there would still be a difference.

 

The playing field can't be level when the rules of the game are different. We're playing baseball, you're playing cricket. When both are trying to be on the same field using whichever rules are most advantageous at the time the result is quite chaotic (but perhaps terribly amusing...I'd pay to see a test match between your best team and the World Series champs). :)

[Globaliser]

Princess and Royal Caribbean maintain branch offices in the UK, while Disney does not. So, there might be different sets of rules in play.

I don't think that this can be it. The question isn't whether we can buy in the UK market - of course we can, should we choose to. After all, sometimes it is actually cheaper to buy a cruise in the UK market than in the US market.

 

The question is whether there is any good reason why a UK resident cannot (or should not be allowed to) choose to buy the cruise in the US market - of course abiding by US rules, and accepting US levels of customer protection etc.

 

As I say, there might be a good reason.

 

But the existence of a good reason is called into question by the fact that other cruise lines (like the main Carnival brand, as drewlin rightly points out) are happy to allow a UK resident to buy in the US market. So a different division of the same company clearly sees no good reason to prevent a UK resident from doing this.

 

Disney's website has a similar redirect in place for UK residents, to try to get us to book cruises in the UK market. But this can be overridden, and Disney does not seem to prevent UK residents from booking in the US market if they choose to do so - its website doesn't reject a UK address.

 

And NCL has a busy branch office in London (through which my NCL bookings are made), but it permits UK residents to book in the US market if they wish to do so.

 

So all of this suggests that there is no good reason for preventing UK residents from booking in the US market. Obviously, we can't demand UK rules, UK levels of customer protection etc. That would be our choice. But we can't even get to that point.

BP sells the same product in the US and the UK, but where does it cost a lot more, and why? ... The playing field can't be level when the rules of the game are different.

Just like buying BP's petrol at a UK pump is going to be more expensive, I can understand why buying Princess' product at a UK travel agent may be more expensive.

 

But I'm free to buy BP's petrol at a US pump if I choose. All I'd like is a similar opportunity to buy Princess' product at a US travel agent, according to the rules in force on the US playing field - or else to know a good reason why that isn't permissible (despite the fact that a different division of the same company doesn't impose a similar restriction).

[mikedw]

Several years ago, I read an article about how the big three US automakers got tired of people living close to the border, going into Canada to buy cars because they were priced cheaper in Canada. They rectified the situation by saying that if you bought a car in Canada and registered it in the US, it voided the waranty. Not sure if this is in effect, but companies do have different rules for selling things in different countries, it's just not cruises.