Is Princess charging room service fees fleet wide or only on the Regal?

[wilfros]

How quickly this thread fell off page 1. I guess it's a case of "Keep walking, folks. Nothing to see here."

 

I have to say this though, because I feel as strongly about it as others here apparently did when they complained about 1.) the new fees; and/or 2.) how they were implemented.

 

Princess was entirely within its right to implement these fees. It perturbs me, and I imagine that it has given some at Princess pause, too, that some of its loyal passengers would so quickly turn on them when it tries to implement new usage-based fees. We cruise Princess often enough and for long enough periods to know that policies change, and prices change, from one cruise to the next. We have never, and would never make a complaint about it. If Princess ceased to follow the Ts & Cs of its passage contract, I'd be the first in line to say so. But this situation was clearly different.

 

I think some people see Princess as a relationship in their life, and when Princess does something they don't like, it becomes a personal affront. We see Princess as exactly what it is - a corporation that exists only to make a profit for its shareholders. As a shareholder, I hope it continues to do so, for a long time in the future. As a realist, I hope we'll see these fees reappear somewhere soon; otherwise, Princess has no option but to degrade the cruise experience for all of us and I'm not looking forward to that.

 

 

WELL!!!! This should certainly get it back on page one! :confused:

[shredie]

WELL!!!! This should certainly get it back on page one! :confused:

 

I think possibly some people see Princess as their personal friend who makes them feel special (maybe even entitled?) and will forgive them any little "naughty" thing they might do. I think some people feel the need to defend their personal friends against perceived attacks no matter how odious the friend's behavior has been. I think some people wear blinders when it comes to corporations they consider their special, personal besties. Aren't corporations people, too, my friend? (I heard that somewhere.)

 

Yep. Back on page one.

[jean s]

I look at Princess as a business which provides a service. At no point do I have a personal relationship with Princess. I am a bit irritated however with how this corporation implemented new charges without being upfront and transparent. It is just my opinion but any company which provides a service needs to clearly announce and post changes to their charges. Just think about getting a service from you hairdresser or car mechanic or landscaper and being surprised with a price change you were not made aware of in advance. It is a business and all businesses need to keep in mind who their customer base is and what it takes to keep their customers.

[4cats4me]

I think possibly some people see Princess as their personal friend who makes them feel special (maybe even entitled?) and will forgive them any little "naughty" thing they might do. I think some people feel the need to defend their personal friends against perceived attacks no matter how odious the friend's behavior has been. I think some people wear blinders when it comes to corporations they consider their special, personal besties. Aren't corporations people, too, my friend? (I heard that somewhere.)

 

Yep. Back on

 

 

:D

 

Oh, boo-hoo, POOR Princess. Guess we should be more "sensitive" to their corporate feelings. :rolleyes: My bad.

[insidecabin]

How quickly this thread fell off page 1. I guess it's a case of "Keep walking, folks. Nothing to see here."

 

I have to say this though, because I feel as strongly about it as others here apparently did when they complained about 1.) the new fees; and/or 2.) how they were implemented.

 

Princess was entirely within its right to implement these fees. It perturbs me, and I imagine that it has given some at Princess pause, too, that some of its loyal passengers would so quickly turn on them when it tries to implement new usage-based fees. We cruise Princess often enough and for long enough periods to know that policies change, and prices change, from one cruise to the next. We have never, and would never make a complaint about it. If Princess ceased to follow the Ts & Cs of its passage contract, I'd be the first in line to say so. But this situation was clearly different.

 

I think some people see Princess as a relationship in their life, and when Princess does something they don't like, it becomes a personal affront. We see Princess as exactly what it is - a corporation that exists only to make a profit for its shareholders. As a shareholder, I hope it continues to do so, for a long time in the future. As a realist, I hope we'll see these fees reappear somewhere soon; otherwise, Princess has no option but to degrade the cruise experience for all of us and I'm not looking forward to that.

 

The T&C's cannot override legislations and those that booked in the EU booked a cruise with complimentary room service and the company was still selling cruises with complimentary after the fee was introduced.

 

The arrogance of the cruise line, the cheerleaders and shareholder is beyond belief, mind you Princess is not alone Celebrity has been just as bad recently.

[Bill B]

The arrogance of the cruise line, the cheerleaders and shareholder is beyond belief, mind you Princess is not alone Celebrity has been just as bad recently.

 

You can add Costa to the list -

They're now cancelling fully paid, confirmed booking made on their website (saying the price was in error). This is wonderful news for people who have bought non-refundable, non-changeable air tickets!

[timetravler]

The first time I have EVER written a complaint letter to Princess was yesterday. Now some write as many as 20 letters a cruise to Princess complaining about trivial things. However I was upset with charges for room service and Alfredo's. Now they have temporarily stopped those charges. But I suspect they will be back. Anyways if those extra charges NEVER come back, I will be happy with Princess once more. My point is Princess does listen to their passengers, so lets all hope more letters are written on this subject.

[Loonbeam]

You certain can waive rights when you sign a contract. It's quite common, look for arbitration clauses which mean you effectively give up your right to sue for example.

 

From a read of an exec summary of EU law, it looks like technically people could claim their room service fees back. Alfredos would be a tougher sell as there are multiple areas where specialty dining already has charges.

 

As a reminder, I am speaking strictly of Princess' exposure legally, not ethically and/or from a PR/CR standpoint

 

 

The T&C's cannot override legislations and those that booked in the EU booked a cruise with complimentary room service and the company was still selling cruises with complimentary after the fee was introduced.

 

The arrogance of the cruise line, the cheerleaders and shareholder is beyond belief, mind you Princess is not alone Celebrity has been just as bad recently.

[Cruise Junky]

You certain can waive rights when you sign a contract. It's quite common, look for arbitration clauses which mean you effectively give up your right to sue for example.

 

From a read of an exec summary of EU law, it looks like technically people could claim their room service fees back. Alfredos would be a tougher sell as there are multiple areas where specialty dining already has charges.

 

As a reminder, I am speaking strictly of Princess' exposure legally, not ethically and/or from a PR/CR standpoint

 

Also Princess already charge for room service for some items, they're just expanding the items.

[CI66774]

How quickly this thread fell off page 1. I guess it's a case of "Keep walking, folks. Nothing to see here."

 

I have to say this though, because I feel as strongly about it as others here apparently did when they complained about 1.) the new fees; and/or 2.) how they were implemented.

 

Princess was entirely within its right to implement these fees. It perturbs me, and I imagine that it has given some at Princess pause, too, that some of its loyal passengers would so quickly turn on them when it tries to implement new usage-based fees. We cruise Princess often enough and for long enough periods to know that policies change, and prices change, from one cruise to the next. We have never, and would never make a complaint about it. If Princess ceased to follow the Ts & Cs of its passage contract, I'd be the first in line to say so. But this situation was clearly different.

 

I think some people see Princess as a relationship in their life, and when Princess does something they don't like, it becomes a personal affront. We see Princess as exactly what it is - a corporation that exists only to make a profit for its shareholders. As a shareholder, I hope it continues to do so, for a long time in the future. As a realist, I hope we'll see these fees reappear somewhere soon; otherwise, Princess has no option but to degrade the cruise experience for all of us and I'm not looking forward to that.

 

I don't consider myself loyal to any cruise line (or company, for that matter). The temporary institution of the fees wasn't a "personal affront" at all. It was, IMHO, a poorly-thought out business decision that the company quick rescinded (for now, at least). It's like airlines who charge for carry-on luggage, etc. I don't care for those fees and try to book only airlines who don't have them, etc. As consumers we speak with our checkbooks/credit cards/cash, etc. and sometimes complaining to the powers at be is effective. Our money talks and this forum is a place for people to express their opinions, etc. I think it's very unlikely anyone on this boards sleep with a cardboard cutout of the Princess CEO next to them at night or has developed a "relationship" with Princess - except a customer relationship.

Edited May 28, 2014 by CI66774

[PescadoAmarillo]

What was attempted by Princess was no different than when they raise their drink prices by $1, or when they started charging for cappuccinos and shuttles in ports. Are you saying these things were all against EU regulations? How did they manage to get those price increases implemented?

 

What you seek, of course, is that Princess err on the side of caution and announce all on board price increases two years in advance, before any bookings have been made. Somehow, I think that we would see many more price increases if Princess was forced to do that, to protect itself against inflation. But it would silence those up in arms last week.

 

And the elephant in the room is fuel surcharges. Princess would be entirely within their right to implement fuel surcharges of $9 per day per passenger. We all agree to it when we book our cruise (even those in other countries!), just as we agree to all of these potential changes. I don't believe that Princess will do that, as they seem to want to compete with other cruise lines solely on price instead of quality of cruise experience (which I think is a losing proposition; a raise to the bottom). But they could. On what basis could you possibly complain about that, an increase of $18 per couple which surely results in a higher vacation cost than any changes Princess attempted last week?

 

I am not a cheerleader (as any Royal Princess enthusiast will tell you); I am definitely a pragmatist. And I do have trouble with people who expect contract compliance to be a one way street. Of course the passage contract is written by Princess lawyers to benefit Princess but we do all agree to it; and it seems disingenuous for us to later come back to complain about the business practices it allows Princess to adopt.

 

What are also disingenuous are the people who claim they want to keep the cruise fare low and have usage based fees on board but then complain when those usage based fees are charged for something that THEY use. No, I'm not a cheerleader but I do lose patience with people who want it both ways when that's clearly not possible.

Edited May 28, 2014 by PescadoAmarillo

[Squire5000]

We sailed the Royal in February. We were impressed with the Piazza, but that was about it. We enjoyed Alfredo's twice and were surprised that there wasn't a cover charge. Food was good there as well as the service. We also enjoyed the Horizon Court. However, when it came time to book our November cruise, I asked my wife if she wanted to go on the Regal. No was the immediate answer. We enjoy like the Emerald Class/ Grand Class much better. In the end, we booked HAL for November as we feel it's a better deal for us based on our cruise preferences, e.g., larger cabin, full breakfast room service, better in cabin liquor offerings and larger balcony.

 

Regarding room service fees, we always tip a few bucks to the room service person when they deliver breakfast, etc. I can understand why Princess would want to tack on another charge to improve the bottom line though I think they are shooting themselves in the foot on this issue. This is just another example of the nickel and dimeing that all the cruise lines engage in these days. For example, we no longer go to the wine tastings, we don't go to Sabatini's anymore (lousy), we skip the jewelry sales, the on board shops, etc. From what we observe on recent cruises, many of our fellow cruisers are doing the same. These are the true profit centers for the cruise lines and if these centers are not producing, they have to come up with new sources of revenue.

 

For the few times we use room service, if it adds to our cruise enjoyment, we'd pay it. After laying out thousands of dollars for a cruise, $12 bucks isn't going to kill us.

[insidecabin]

You certain can waive rights when you sign a contract. It's quite common, look for arbitration clauses which mean you effectively give up your right to sue for example.

 

From a read of an exec summary of EU law, it looks like technically people could claim their room service fees back. Alfredos would be a tougher sell as there are multiple areas where specialty dining already has charges.

 

As a reminder, I am speaking strictly of Princess' exposure legally, not ethically and/or from a PR/CR standpoint

 

Clearly stated that Alfedos is a casual dining location NOT a speciality.

Edited May 28, 2014 by insidecabin

[insidecabin]

What was attempted by Princess was no different than when they raise their drink prices by $1, or when they started charging for cappuccinos and shuttles in ports. Are you saying these things were all against EU regulations? How did they manage to get those price increases implemented?

 

What you seek, of course, is that Princess err on the side of caution and announce all on board price increases two years in advance, before any bookings have been made. Somehow, I think that we would see many more price increases if Princess was forced to do that, to protect itself against inflation. But it would silence those up in arms last week.

 

And the elephant in the room is fuel surcharges. Princess would be entirely within their right to implement fuel surcharges of $9 per day per passenger. We all agree to it when we book our cruise (even those in other countries!), just as we agree to all of these potential changes. I don't believe that Princess will do that, as they seem to want to compete with other cruise lines solely on price instead of quality of cruise experience (which I think is a losing proposition; a raise to the bottom). But they could. On what basis could you possibly complain about that, an increase of $18 per couple which surely results in a higher vacation cost than any changes Princess attempted last week?

 

I am not a cheerleader (as any Royal Princess enthusiast will tell you); I am definitely a pragmatist. And I do have trouble with people who expect contract compliance to be a one way street. Of course the passage contract is written by Princess lawyers to benefit Princess but we do all agree to it; and it seems disingenuous for us to later come back to complain about the business practices it allows Princess to adopt.

 

What are also disingenuous are the people who claim they want to keep the cruise fare low and have usage based fees on board but then complain when those usage based fees are charged for something that THEY use. No, I'm not a cheerleader but I do lose patience with people who want it both ways when that's clearly not possible.

 

That is one that is specificaly covered by EU package holiday regulations, in the UK contracts(not checked others but german regulations tend to be tighter)

 

Princess hass to absorb the first 2% and if it goes over 10% they have to give you the option to cancel with a full refund. each cruiseline writes their interpritation slightly differently this is the princess UK version.

 

In the case of any small variation, an amount equivalent to 2 per cent of the fare for your travel arrangements, which excludes insurance premiums and any amendment charges, will be absorbed for increases and retained from refunds. For larger variations this 2 per cent will still be absorbed for increases but not retained from refunds. In either case there will be an administration charge of £1 per Passenger, together with an amount to cover agents' commission. If this means the Passenger has to pay an increase of more than 10 per cent of the fare for the Package, the Passenger may cancel the Contract and receive a full refund of all monies paid,

Edited May 28, 2014 by insidecabin

[KruzPrincess]

Princess is not my BFF. I buy cruises from them. I like the product that I buy and I come back, but if they do something I don't like I'll tell them. I don't spend 100's of days a year on the cruise line. Princess made a mistake in how they handled this price increase and they knew it. I give them credit for taking it back. Who thought it would be OK to slap on these new extra charges that went against advertised amenities on the inaugural for their newest ship?? Incredible. No one is talking about the new ship. Everyone is talking about how lame Princess is for testing this new plan. Why didn't they do a test on the Caribbean Princess and send emails to the people with booked cruises ahead of time? Did they want to attract negative attention? I doubt it, but you have to wonder.

[bluesea321]

We see Princess as exactly what it is - a corporation that exists only to make a profit for its shareholders. As a shareholder, I hope it continues to do so, for a long time in the future. As a realist, I hope we'll see these fees reappear somewhere soon; otherwise, Princess has no option but to degrade the cruise experience for all of us and I'm not looking forward to that.

 

As you know, Princess is owned by CCL and CCL stock has underperformed the market by a wide margin over both a 5 and 10 year period - it has been a bad investment. In the first quarter of 2014 CCL had no profits, actually a loss of 2 cents per share. Revenues for the 1st Q were in line with the previous year so the loss is attributed to increased expenses. If we look at a 10 year period, CCL stock increased from $33.22 on 5/28/04 to today's price (10 am CDT) of $39.31 or 18% over 10 years. This compares with a 70% increase for the SP500 over the same 10 years.

 

Stockholders cannot be happy over this. From the outside it is difficult or impossible to discern the profitability of each of the CCL cruise lines individually but no doubt Princess is looking at ways to increase revenues, a bad omen for passengers that cruise based on price. I, like you, would prefer a non-degraded cruise experience at a somewhat higher cost than a "carnavalization" of the line; PR and contract issues aside which are important, not minimizing them here.

 

:)

[insidecabin]

Rather than cutting operating costs on the product they should look at the costs of running the sales business and selling the cruises.

 

For Carnival brands(2013) this is currently running at 36% of the cruise fare revenue.

 

and like the othe majors they make no money from the ticket revenue it all comes from on board(averaged across the fleet)

[pablo222]

And the elephant in the room is fuel surcharges. Princess would be entirely within their right to implement fuel surcharges of $9 per day per passenger.

 

If princess did this, there are many who would retaliate by

cancelling their tips.

[bluesea321]

If princess did this, there are many who would retaliate by cancelling their tips.

 

Did you forget an "r" or did you mean what you said?

[bhopal21]

Did you forget an "r" or did you mean what you said?

 

I'm sure he meant what he typed as some just look for an excuse to cancel their tips and this would be just the incentive.

 

Instead of penalizing the cruise line it would be the crew.

 

Mike:)

[billco]

If princess did this, there are many who would retaliate by

cancelling their tips.

How would I know if Princess hasn't already implemented a fuel surcharge just by factoring it into the cost of the cruise? I do know we wouldn't be among those who would retaliate, either by canceling the trip or the tips.

[waltd]

If princess did this, there are many who would retaliate by

cancelling their tips.

 

No we would not! Most of us understand that when oil goes up so does the price of cruising as well as running your auto or our home. What a silly thing to say.

[chamima]

As you know, Princess is owned by CCL and CCL stock has underperformed the market by a wide margin over both a 5 and 10 year period - it has been a bad investment. In the first quarter of 2014 CCL had no profits, actually a loss of 2 cents per share. Revenues for the 1st Q were in line with the previous year so the loss is attributed to increased expenses. If we look at a 10 year period, CCL stock increased from $33.22 on 5/28/04 to today's price (10 am CDT) of $39.31 or 18% over 10 years. This compares with a 70% increase for the SP500 over the same 10 years.

 

Stockholders cannot be happy over this. From the outside it is difficult or impossible to discern the profitability of each of the CCL cruise lines individually but no doubt Princess is looking at ways to increase revenues, a bad omen for passengers that cruise based on price. I, like you, would prefer a non-degraded cruise experience at a somewhat higher cost than a "carnavalization" of the line; PR and contract issues aside which are important, not minimizing them here.

 

:)

 

 

i think the biggest problems for CCL as a corporation the last couple of years have more to do with the Costa disasters than anything else.

[insidecabin]

I'm sure he meant what he typed as some just look for an excuse to cancel their tips and this would be just the incentive.

 

Instead of penalizing the cruise line it would be the crew.

 

Mike:)

 

Cruise lines make up the wages, they want the crew to stay.

[insidecabin]

No we would not! Most of us understand that when oil goes up so does the price of cruising as well as running your auto or our home. What a silly thing to say.

 

Cruise lines use futures to protect against fuel prices.

 

They have plenty of time to notify new bookings of any increases.

 

This was sorted last time they tried it retrospectively.