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

[Cahpek]

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.

 

So, it means that technically, someone residing in the UK could book a cruise (Oceania Cruises or whichever cruise line) through a US Travel Agent and get the LOWER fares offered to those residing in the United States? Would the cruise line companies allow that?

 

Just wondered when the cruise line company put up the UK prices compared to those offered to people in the United States or Europe, would the extra prices Britons or British residents have to pay exceed the cost of covering for UK PTR? We mean, could the cruise company perhaps think, "Since we are charging Brits more for their cruises and they are still willing to pay for them, why do we not add even a bit more to the already higher prices , so that we can make even more PROFITS?" .

 

Looks like the BIGGEST LOSERS are the poor BRITS.

 

Maybe British cruise customers need to find out exactly how much extra the PTR costs for each passenger, and what would be the "fair" amount the cruise company should add to cover PTR? And if a cruise company constantly/frequently exceed the amount used to cover PTR, in their fares, perhaps they ought to be pointed out and uh, "named and shamed" ????!!! That might make the cruise company think twice before putting up the fares for Brits and perhaps at least make the difference we Brits have to pay to be a bit fairer and not to be so great (e.g. 25%?). After all the UK is the THIRD LARGEST cruising market in the world, so our business is not insignificant to cruise companies. If cruise companies want our (UK) money, they need to treat us fair (if they have not done so).

Edited July 28, 2017 by Cahpek

[Host Hattie]

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.

The details of the specific cruise are in the first post.

[marylizcat]

Just thought I would mention that many US cruise lines do allow UK residents to book through US agents. We always book our Disney cruises through an American travel agent. Of course then it is a gamble on exchange rate fluctuations between time of booking and final payment. But the advantage is that you can cancel before final payment without losing your deposit.

[Cahpek]

Just thought I would mention that many US cruise lines do allow UK residents to book through US agents. We always book our Disney cruises through an American travel agent. Of course then it is a gamble on exchange rate fluctuations between time of booking and final payment. But the advantage is that you can cancel before final payment without losing your deposit.

 

That's interesting. Wonder if Oceania would allow their UK customers to do that (book through US agents)? Does anyone have any idea?

[RDC1]

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.

 

What consititutes made in the UK. If you have a cruise marketed in the UK and where you can purchase it from your home in the UK courts have held, that without additional restrictions that the transaction would quality as being made in the UK. So it all comes down to the definition of "made". Thus the cruise lines have put in place additional restrictions. A first line of defense that a company would use is that they are located in the US. Rather difficult for companies such as P&O, Princess, etc. that have substantial corporate presence in the UK to make that claim stand on its own.

 

As a result they would also have other restrictions to support their claim.

 

Now some restrictions that the court would look at is:

 

1. The currency in which it is charged

2. The phone number or Internet address where it is booked

3. The contractual language applying to the purchase and that clearly states where the purchase is occurring

 

 

 

It was after there were some consumer protection changes in the UK, EU and Australia that some of the cruise lines put in restrictions 4 and 5.

 

4. Must have a mailing address in the country under which the terms the vacation is being purchased.

5. Using technology to redirect consumers to the web site applicable for their country.

 

On another note while the PTR covers vacations sold by travel agents, it is not limited to only those sold by travel agents. If a cruise line or airline or any other entity were to sell vacations that meet the requirements of the PTR.

 

Now changes 4 and 5 might also have been put in place as part of travel agent and company agent (the party actually representing the cruise line in some countries where the cruise lines do not have a corporate presence) agreements.

 

No matter the exact reason 4 and 5 do substantially increase the companies defense as to the location of the transaction and which court system has jurisdiction.

 

While is traditional commercial transactions the courts have usually given priority to the contractual language that states which court system applies. However, recent consumer protection laws have increasingly included language that state that consumers have protections that they cannot give away in contracts or other agreements. PTR and later laws have those kind of statements. While they do have not to date made any clear statements about jurisdiction the area is getting grayer. As a person that has overseen a contracts department for a number of years, I can certainly see why a cruise line might want to make sure that their statement of jurisdiction on each transaction is bulletproof.

[RDC1]

So, it means that technically, someone residing in the UK could book a cruise (Oceania Cruises or whichever cruise line) through a US Travel Agent and get the LOWER fares offered to those residing in the United States? Would the cruise line companies allow that?

 

Just wondered when the cruise line company put up the UK prices compared to those offered to people in the United States or Europe, would the extra prices Britons or British residents have to pay exceed the cost of covering for UK PTR? We mean, could the cruise company perhaps think, "Since we are charging Brits more for their cruises and they are still willing to pay for them, why do we not add even a bit more to the already higher prices , so that we can make even more PROFITS?" .

 

Looks like the BIGGEST LOSERS are the poor BRITS.

 

Maybe British cruise customers need to find out exactly how much extra the PTR costs for each passenger, and what would be the "fair" amount the cruise company should add to cover PTR? And if a cruise company constantly/frequently exceed the amount used to cover PTR, in their fares, perhaps they ought to be pointed out and uh, "named and shamed" ????!!! That might make the cruise company think twice before putting up the fares for Brits and perhaps at least make the difference we Brits have to pay to be a bit fairer and not to be so great (e.g. 25%?). After all the UK is the THIRD LARGEST cruising market in the world, so our business is not insignificant to cruise companies. If cruise companies want our (UK) money, they need to treat us fair (if they have not done so).

 

Easy way to find out for a given cruise line is 1. does their web site redirect 2. Do they require a US address. If both of those occur then call a US travel agent as ask.

 

There are still a few (usually higher price point lines lower volume lines that do not have the higher restrictions).

 

 

As far as the cost of PTR compliance. Again the key element is not what it costs the cruise line. It is how the PTR has impacted the overall holiday market in the UK and impacted the competitive environment. Not just cruise lines but, land tours, etc. All of those are taken into account when pricing is put in place. While regulatory and currency risk is also part of a model. The biggest component is the competitive market place. A cruise line competes with other forms of holiday travel, not just other cruise lines.

 

So a good way to see such an impact is to look at the competitive market. What does a land tour booked in the UK cost vs a similar one in the US (adjust for air fare component depending upon location). What is the relationship between cruise costs and land tour costs?

 

Also keep in mind that pricing for cruises is highly variable (often on a daily or hourly basis driven by fairly complex computer models). What is a 25% difference could be a negative 5% difference later on. All depend upon bookings. The only way to get a good look is a process of sampling over time.

[tine-tine]

What one has to remember that these are UK Regulations that apply in the UK therefore the purchase has to be made in the UK, if the purchase was made outside the UK then the regulations of that country would apply. Don't get bogged down in over complicating the issue it is simply where and who receives your money and where your Agent is based. eg if I book a cruise on board Oceania and decide to keep your booking with Oceania it will be transferred to the UK office of Oceania and then UK PTR will apply as the cruise will be paid to to them in GBP, likewise if you transfer your booking to the US then you will pay in US$ to Oceania US office and PTR will not apply. My interpretation but seems sensible.

[RDC1]

What one has to remember that these are UK Regulations that apply in the UK therefore the purchase has to be made in the UK, if the purchase was made outside the UK then the regulations of that country would apply. Don't get bogged down in over complicating the issue it is simply where and who receives your money and where your Agent is based. eg if I book a cruise on board Oceania and decide to keep your booking with Oceania it will be transferred to the UK office of Oceania and then UK PTR will apply as the cruise will be paid to to them in GBP, likewise if you transfer your booking to the US then you will pay in US$ to Oceania US office and PTR will not apply. My interpretation but seems sensible.

 

The following is a discussion of an EU consumer protection law that demonstrates just how national boundaries can be very gray when dealing with business conducted across the Internet and that companies need to make sure the location of transactions are very well defined. Now while the Brussels Convention only applies to EU member states the trend is clear.

 

Article 15(1)© arguably brought significant changes to the Brussels Convention, in

both substantive terms and conceptual ones, which provoked strong concern within

the business community. It follows, as with other areas in private international law, a

consumer protectionist approach, assuming that the consumer is in an economically weaker position than the business when entering into the transaction13. It is

tantalising to read predictions of its future implications on e-commerce. Some,

astonishingly, argue that the adoption of Article 15(1)© allocates the jurisdiction of

the consumer s domicile in respect of all electronic transactions with a website

established in a Member State, for no other reason than having being accessible (online presence)14. Another puzzling argument is that this provision subjects

businesses to the laws of the Member State where the consumer is domiciled. Whilst

the former argument has some truth, insofar as the website is seemingly interactive,

the latter is erroneous in principle, because it confuses the courts jurisdictional

powers, which are governed by Brussels I, with the substantive law applicable to the electronic contract, which is governed by the Rome Convention15. However, it is

understandable that the new provisions could pose some problems for businesses seeking to benefit from the global nature of the Internet16

[tine-tine]

The following is a discussion of an EU consumer protection law that demonstrates just how national boundaries can be very gray when dealing with business conducted across the Internet and that companies need to make sure the location of transactions are very well defined. Now while the Brussels Convention only applies to EU member states the trend is clear.

 

Article 15(1)© arguably brought significant changes to the Brussels Convention, in

both substantive terms and conceptual ones, which provoked strong concern within

the business community. It follows, as with other areas in private international law, a

consumer protectionist approach, assuming that the consumer is in an economically weaker position than the business when entering into the transaction13. It is

tantalising to read predictions of its future implications on e-commerce. Some,

 

 

astonishingly, argue that the adoption of Article 15(1)© allocates the jurisdiction of

the consumer s domicile in respect of all electronic transactions with a website

established in a Member State, for no other reason than having being accessible (online presence)14. Another puzzling argument is that this provision subjects

businesses to the laws of the Member State where the consumer is domiciled. Whilst

the former argument has some truth, insofar as the website is seemingly interactive,

the latter is erroneous in principle, because it confuses the courts jurisdictional

powers, which are governed by Brussels I, with the substantive law applicable to the electronic contract, which is governed by the Rome Convention15. However, it is

understandable that the new provisions could pose some problems for businesses seeking to benefit from the global nature of the Internet16

 

 

Interesting post which I suppose proves that current Laws have still to catch up with the Digitial Age.

[Harters]

I too would not be able to rationalize a 25% difference between the two prices on the identical cruise in different markets versus the current exchange rate on those two currencies. Like the OP I would be questioning it.

Me too.

 

We have just returned from a Southampton to Southampton cruise on Marina. This was booked in January, through O's Southampton office and paid for in sterling. Of course, I have no way of knowing how that was priced, at the time, to my fellow Europeans but let me assume that it was around the 25% suggested in the OP.

 

I simply cannot explain that as a consequence of the change in dollar/sterling rates, plus the cost of additional regulatory protection available to we Britons but not to other Europeans. A quick Google indicates an exchange rate of 1.44 in 4/16 (prior to the Brexit referendum), 1.32 in 7/16 (post referendum), 1.25 in 1/17 (when we booked) and 1.29 in 7/17. The argument simply isnt supported by the evidence.

 

 

I wil take a more cynical view of O's pricing. I was genuinely surprised how relatively few Britons were on our cruise (based on listening to accents - so not scientific analysis), bearing in mind the UK to UK nature, meanign no additoonal cost for air fares.. Only around 5%. I would suggest that O sees us as an small and expendable market that they can be priced "until the pips squeak".

[ORV]

Me too.

 

We have just returned from a Southampton to Southampton cruise on Marina. This was booked in January, through O's Southampton office and paid for in sterling. Of course, I have no way of knowing how that was priced, at the time, to my fellow Europeans but let me assume that it was around the 25% suggested in the OP.

 

I simply cannot explain that as a consequence of the change in dollar/sterling rates, plus the cost of additional regulatory protection available to we Britons but not to other Europeans. A quick Google indicates an exchange rate of 1.44 in 4/16 (prior to the Brexit referendum), 1.32 in 7/16 (post referendum), 1.25 in 1/17 (when we booked) and 1.29 in 7/17. The argument simply isnt supported by the evidence.

 

 

I wil take a more cynical view of O's pricing. I was genuinely surprised how relatively few Britons were on our cruise (based on listening to accents - so not scientific analysis), bearing in mind the UK to UK nature, meanign no additoonal cost for air fares.. Only around 5%. I would suggest that O sees us as an small and expendable market that they can be priced "until the pips squeak".

 

I believe, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that citizens of the UK are Oceania's 3rd largest market. I wouldn't view that as "expendable".

[Harters]

I believe, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that citizens of the UK are Oceania's 3rd largest market. I wouldn't view that as "expendable".

 

Assuming my 5% British travellers is generally representative on other cruises, then that being the third largest market is not of great significance for Oceania, particularly as soem of them are going to cruise with O pretty much whatever the price, because they prefer the experience to other companies. I'll stick with my cynicism unless anyone can come up with a more evidence based explanation for a 25% uplift on prices for Britons.

[jo-b]

That's interesting. Wonder if Oceania would allow their UK customers to do that (book through US agents)? Does anyone have any idea?

 

No they don't. There is a large internet based US agent friends have used before very successfully. We were on the point of booking a HAL cruise with them some years back, as it was for 3 couples we had the rates agreed whilst we confirmed everyone's agreement. Next day we had an email to say that they had been told HAL would no longer accept UK bookings through a US agent. We booked the exact same cabins at about £200pp more the same day,

[Harters]

Just thought I would mention that many US cruise lines do allow UK residents to book through US agents. .

 

As part of a trip to America a couple of years or so back, we booked a short cruise out of Miami with Norwegian. My recollection is that we booked it direct with them, paying the dollar price with our credit card (obviously converted to sterling by our card issuer)

[Travelcat2]

I believe, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that citizens of the UK are Oceania's 3rd largest market. I wouldn't view that as "expendable".

 

I wouldn't say that the U.K. is expendable, however, why should Regent give lower prices because of their devalued GBP? When our neighbors in Canada had their dollar devalued, there were a few specials for them but, even today, they are still having to "bite the bullet" and pay more for their cruises. Before the devaluation of the GBP, Regent cruises were a bargain for people living in the U.K.

 

Things change in the world -- for years people in the U.S. paid a lot of money to visit the U.K., Europe and other countries where our dollar was weak. Then it happened in Canada and is now affecting people living in countries with the Euro and GBP. And, as mentioned previously, many European itineraries are less money than in the U.S. because of the cheaper air fares.

 

I ask the same question as "Harters" did...... kindly show evidence of a 25% increase in pricing for people in the U.K.

[Cahpek]

I wouldn't say that the U.K. is expendable, however, why should Regent give lower prices because of their devalued GBP? When our neighbors in Canada had their dollar devalued, there were a few specials for them but, even today, they are still having to "bite the bullet" and pay more for their cruises. Before the devaluation of the GBP, Regent cruises were a bargain for people living in the U.K.

 

Things change in the world -- for years people in the U.S. paid a lot of money to visit the U.K., Europe and other countries where our dollar was weak. Then it happened in Canada and is now affecting people living in countries with the Euro and GBP. And, as mentioned previously, many European itineraries are less money than in the U.S. because of the cheaper air fares.

 

I ask the same question as "Harters" did...... kindly show evidence of a 25% increase in pricing for people in the U.K.

 

Pardon, did you say Regent Cruises? Think you are travelling with a different cruise line!!!! Imagine your thinking you were travelling on with Regent , and then paying Regent Cruise prices, and then found the ship you boarded was an Oceania Cruises vessel. Now, that would be a real shocker!!! :p:p:p

 

If you only read my first message at the beginning of the thread, you would have been aware the "evidence" of the differences in prices for the same cruises. We even asked anyone to show us that we are mistaken, and to date nobody did!

 

No one is saying that there shouldn't be any differences for cruise lines to sell their cruises in different geographical markets. But to create a difference of 25 per cent is way too much (that was comparing fares charged between residents in Britian and in the Netherlands. If we had compared the differences in prices between those in the US and in Britain, who knows, they could be even more than 25 percent!!!! ). British cruisers should not be taken as "suckers", we are reasonable people and we are willing to pay a fair price to cruise, giving different conditions including the devaluation of the GBP(pound) due to Brexit and the cost of covering for British specific regulations. However, we also do not like to be taken for a ride.

[Csardas]

Well said Cahpek!!

When you consider the pre internet days and near impossibility of checking against other prices, you can only wonder how long these " anomalies" have existed in the industry.

[Harters]

However, we also do not like to be taken for a ride.

Speaking of going for a ride, I wonder how this matter would play with residents of Northern Ireland and, more to the point, would they be able to easily take a couple of miles trip over the border into Ireland to be able to book in euros. I do raise that as a serious point, knowing from TV adverts that some products/services in the rest of Great Britain are not available in Northern Ireland, where the replacement supplier comes from the Republic.

 

 

When I have more time/inclination, I may look at a 2018 cruise (probably UK to UK) and price it in dollars, sterling and euros, then converting them to a common currency just to see if the wide discrepancies are continuing now the sterling devaluation has settled (I expect worse is to come when we actually leave the EU and our economy goes downhill).

[Travelcat2]

Pardon, did you say Regent Cruises? Think you are travelling with a different cruise line!!!! Imagine your thinking you were travelling on with Regent , and then paying Regent Cruise prices, and then found the ship you boarded was an Oceania Cruises vessel. Now, that would be a real shocker!!! :p:p:p

 

If you only read my first message at the beginning of the thread, you would have been aware the "evidence" of the differences in prices for the same cruises. We even asked anyone to show us that we are mistaken, and to date nobody did!

 

No one is saying that there shouldn't be any differences for cruise lines to sell their cruises in different geographical markets. But to create a difference of 25 per cent is way too much (that was comparing fares charged between residents in Britian and in the Netherlands. If we had compared the differences in prices between those in the US and in Britain, who knows, they could be even more than 25 percent!!!! ). British cruisers should not be taken as "suckers", we are reasonable people and we are willing to pay a fair price to cruise, giving different conditions including the devaluation of the GBP(pound) due to Brexit and the cost of covering for British specific regulations. However, we also do not like to be taken for a ride.

 

Okay - my mistake. I cruise Regent, Oceania and Silversea. Since Regent and Oceania are sister ships - under the same umbrella, I tend to make comparisons between the two cruise lines. I meant to say "Oceania" - not Regent (but the same issues exist for U.K. passengers on Regent).

 

I reread your first post and did note that you are comparing a country with the Euro to a country with GBP. This is likely the first time I've seen this comparison - generally it is the U.S./Canada and the U.K. In any case, it seems that the Euro is not devalued as much as the GBP (at least not against the U.S. dollar) which could account for the discrepancy.

 

My point was simply that no one is trying to take Brits "for a ride" nor do I believe that Oceania is targeting them for higher prices. In fact, people in the U.K. tend to get lower prices than in the U.S./Canada on European itineraries. If there is anyone to blame for this situation, it is the governments ........ but that is not an issue to be discussed on CC.