Fuel surcharges

[FLACRUISER99]

Great, waste tax payers money, I'm sure they appreciate it. Fuel Surcharges aren't new!! Other cruise lines have implemented them years ago. Don't you think if they were illegal something would have been done before now? The case posted in 1997 has absolutely no bearing to fuel surcharges. They didn't pay the port costs that the charged to passengers. I challenge you to show that they don't pay the fuel costs that they pass on to passengers. Jeez people.....it's a reality, either pay it or cancel. My flight to Europe has a $180 fuel surcharge on it. Either I pay or I don't fly..I don't file complaints to tie up public servants. Some people have way too much time on their hands. Volunteer!!

FYI the FL AG has started an investigation. All others surcharges imposed by RCI, Crystal, Oceania, Ncl, etc. Do not apply to existing paid bookings or bookings paid before a certain date. ONLY CARNIVAL OWNED LINES ARE CHARGING PASSENGERS ALREADY BOOKED AND PAID

[Ethel5]

I am not asking anyone to fell sorry for me. This comment has no bearing on this thread. You are just jealous.:D

 

I don't deny it! :D :p Just a little levity-don't get all uptight.

[gatour]

That agreement between the FL AG applies to port charges. At the time what was happening a particular gov't port authority would charge let's say $10 per person, but then the cruise line was telling the passengers (and charging them) them that the port charges were $12. This was misleading, so the agreement.

 

The fuel surcharge has nothing to do with the gov't imposed port charge that the referenced agreement covers.

 

Others have posted the cruise contract verbiage that allows them to do this. The cruise lines are not the only industry that does this. Airlines, UPS, have FedEx periodically imposed fuel surcharges.

 

While you may not like it, your only option is to cancel your cruise if you do not want to pay the fuel surcharge.

[kruisey]

Great, waste tax payers money, I'm sure they appreciate it. Fuel Surcharges aren't new!! Other cruise lines have implemented them years ago. Don't you think if they were illegal something would have been done before now? The case posted in 1997 has absolutely no bearing to fuel surcharges. They didn't pay the port costs that the charged to passengers. I challenge you to show that they don't pay the fuel costs that they pass on to passengers. Jeez people.....it's a reality, either pay it or cancel. My flight to Europe has a $180 fuel surcharge on it. Either I pay or I don't fly..I don't file complaints to tie up public servants. Some people have way too much time on their hands. Volunteer!!

Then why should Canadians traveling on an over 15 day cruise be charged over $80 Canadian each because they booked their cruise in Canadian Dollars????

You are a Canadian look on the April Diamond sailing to Hawaii over $80CAN. per person.

Why should a Canadian have to book their cruise in USD to pay $70 USD they still have to pay more than USA clients due to rates of foreign exchange.

Yes I have cancelled my cruise with Princess because I don't like as a Canadian being treated this way by the Carnival Corporation of the USA.

[Cruise Junky]

Then why should Canadians traveling on an over 15 day cruise be charged over $80 Canadian each because they booked their cruise in Canadian Dollars????

You are a Canadian look on the April Diamond sailing to Hawaii over $80CAN. per person.

Why should a Canadian have to book their cruise in USD to pay $70 USD they still have to pay more than USA clients due to rates of foreign exchange.

Yes I have cancelled my cruise with Princess because I don't like as a Canadian being treated this way by the Carnival Corporation of the USA.

 

Your usual currency exchange rant has no bearing to what I said.

[Cruzin2paradise09]

. . . Using that one sentence to recommend a course of action without doing the research necessary to verify its accuracy is premature.

 

. . .

 

I most certainly DID NOT recommend ANY course of action -- and if you read what I said (below) I do not state ANYTHING as fact! Please do not accuse me of something I did not do! I take offense to that.

 

I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be one on TV, but based on this:

Under the agreements, the cruise lines can no longer charge customers any fees in addition to the advertised initial ticket price except those fees actually passed on by the company to a governmental agency.

 

I wonder if the way around this is the fact this is called a fuel surcharge, rather than a fee . . . just a thought.

[kruisey]

Your usual currency exchange rant has no bearing to what I said.

 

You are always defending these fuel increases.

I wonted your opinion as a fellow Canadian on the fact that Princess is charging $80 CAN per person on long cruises in the spring.

Do you think that is justified?

[spongerob]

I most certainly DID NOT recommend ANY course of action -- and if you read what I said (below) I do not state ANYTHING as fact! Please do not accuse me of something I did not do! I take offense to that.

If you're going to get all bent out of shape and yell, don't combine a post I made in response to another person with the response I made to you. If anyone has a reason to be offended, it should be me. You used multiple quotes to change the meaning of my comments and the flow of the thread.

 

This was my response to you:

The statement you quoted is an author's interpretation (or summarization) of the actual 1997 settlement. It should not be construed as law or even be considered accurate.

[spongerob]

There could be a silver lining to increased travel costs.

 

I believe that a significant portion of cruise passengers contribute little to the bottom line. On a similar thread, someone posted that they were thankful for the people who pay for higher-category cabins, buy art, play in the casino, and spend money on board because the profits from those items served to subsidize those who were content with the very cheapest cabins and traveled frugally.

 

Given that premise, the added fees will have the greatest impact on those who contribute the least to profitability. They will either have to pay their fair share of the costs, or consider other vacation alternatives. This will have two beneficial effects. First, higher prices come with an expectation of improved service, so the cruise lines will have to deliver. Second, with the freeloaders out of the picture, and maybe even some empty cheap cabins, the crew/passenger ratio improves which will take some pressure off of them.

 

Maybe this will turn out to be a good thing.

[Cruzin2paradise09]

If you're going to get all bent out of shape and yell, don't combine a post I made in response to another person with the response I made to you. If anyone has a reason to be offended, it should be me. You used multiple quotes to change the meaning of my comments and the flow of the thread.

 

Read between the lines (threads) and that is what I read. Sorry I misunderstood the things you said. I stand corrected then. :)

[Cruise Junky]

You are always defending these fuel increases.

I wonted your opinion as a fellow Canadian on the fact that Princess is charging $80 CAN per person on long cruises in the spring.

Do you think that is justified?

 

Heather, I'm not defending fuel surcharges, I just chose to accept them as a current fact of life and refuse to expend anymore energy talking and whining about them. As for the Currency exchange, I just priced a cruise on Princess in April which according to my calendar is still the spring and the fuel surcharge was $74.90 cdn. We know Princess likes to play the currency game which I why we don't book in CDN. $$ we book in US and did quite well thank you. When we hit $1.10 US couple of weeks ago we immediately paid off our cruise. $1676 US went through on my credit card as $1575 Cdn. I admit they make us jump through stupid hoops, but we certainly don't have to come out on the raw end of this deal, you just have to learn how to play.

[Ethel5]

Heather, I'm not defending fuel surcharges, I just chose to accept them as a current fact of life and refuse to expend anymore energy talking and whining about them. As for the Currency exchange, I just priced a cruise on Princess in April which according to my calendar is still the spring and the fuel surcharge was $74.90 cdn. We know Princess likes to play the currency game which I why we don't book in CDN. $$ we book in US and did quite well thank you. When we hit $1.10 US couple of weeks ago we immediately paid off our cruise. $1676 US went through on my credit card as $1575 Cdn. I admit they make us jump through stupid hoops, but we certainly don't have to come out on the raw end of this deal, you just have to learn how to play.

 

But then she wouldn't have anything to rant about!:)

[lang138]

For those that are interested, check out the attached link. Glad to know that there are a lot more people out there who think that what Princess and other cruise lines are doing is wrong and are willing to do something about it.

 

http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-definitely-feel-we-were-ambushed-by-royal-caribbean/

[dforeigner]

Everyone is using surcharges. Hotels in California use energy (electricity) surcharges. Airlines use surcharges for a while, first was fuel, then excess luggage weight, then they took away in-flight meals, etc.

[Lynda90]

I can't believe this thread is still going. I guess I'm not really complaining because my next year's cruise will only be an additional $35 for fuel. I got a fantastic price on my cruise, FCC from Princess, promotional $$ from Princess and a nice cabin credit from my TA. I'm accepting the fuel charge as a fact of life. I have the choice of not cruising or paying the charge. Frankly, I'm not willing to give up cruising and most of you are not, either.

 

BTW, there's a nice Motel 6 in Cow Pasture, OR that's not charging a fuel charge. Be careful where you step. :p :D Sorry, the devil made me do it.

[kruisey]

But then she wouldn't have anything to rant about!:)

You have been taking a bite out of me for two years now. Every post I make querying anything in you jump in.

I was querying a $80 CAN. fuel surcharge on the Princess Canadian web site when the max in USA is $70.

That does not make any sense to me..

I was asking a logical question.

Maybe we will meet onboard one day and have a nice chat:)

[LARGIN]

You can always move to the US... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

And like I said before, I'll pay you the $10 difference for as long as you cruise if you pay me $330 every 3 months for medicine that I can buy in Canada vice what I have to pay for it in the US..

[kruisey]

You can always move to the US... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

And like I said before, I'll pay you the $10 difference for as long as you cruise if you pay me $330 every 3 months for medicine that I can buy in Canada vice what I have to pay for it in the US..

Why do you buy your medicine in Canada?

Would not it be cheaper over the border?

Unless it is BC weed for medicinal purposes?:D :D

[bUU]

Given that premise, the added fees will have the greatest impact on those who contribute the least to profitability. They will either have to pay their fair share of the costs, or consider other vacation alternatives.

Interesting thought. It is, in that way, a flat tax, reversing some of the progressive-tax-nature of typical cruise pricing. I never thought of it that way.

 

This will have two beneficial effects. First, higher prices come with an expectation of improved service, so the cruise lines will have to deliver.

This doesn't make any sense. The surcharge is only legitimate because it allegedly accounts STRICTLY for an unexpected increase in a very specific cost (the cost of fuel) to the cruise line. Therefore, there is no basis on which to presume that any of that extra money would go towards improved service -- it ALL must go towards paying for fuel.

 

Second, with the freeloaders out of the picture, and maybe even some empty cheap cabins, the crew/passenger ratio improves which will take some pressure off of them.

I doubt that will happen. Instead, I think the cruise line will just discount the empty cabins further, ostensibly reversing the surcharge for folks who book late. That's one reason why Carnival's approach (charging a flat fee for passengers already booked, as well as new bookings) is the best one for addressing an unforeseen skyrocketing of the cost of fuel: Generally speaking, few passengers already booked will cancel, but passengers booking late will generally be more price sensitive, so restricting surcharging to just them will backfire.

[Steamboatin]

We have a 14 day transatlantic cruise on the Carnival Freedom. So that is an extra $140.

 

OK, now consider that we are only paying $938 for an aft extended balcony on that 14 day transatlantic cruise via Carnival's military pricing. So I am paying only $67 a day per cruise day.

 

Heck I can eat that much.:D

 

So now I am paying $72 per day with the added fuel charge. Still a big bargin.

 

And again I still can eat that much.:D

 

So Carnival is still loosing money on our 14 day cruise even with the extra fuel charge.

 

Certainly at a daily cruising rate of $72 per day at that per day price I would opt to cruise forever.:D

[spongerob]

Interesting thought. It is, in that way, a flat tax, reversing some of the progressive-tax-nature of typical cruise pricing. I never thought of it that way.

That's why many states have lotteries...they're basically a tax on the poor (ostensibly for education) and people who are really, really bad at math - as one mathematician put it, your odds of winning are approximately the same whether or not you buy a ticket.

 

This doesn't make any sense. The surcharge is only legitimate because it allegedly accounts STRICTLY for an unexpected increase in a very specific cost (the cost of fuel) to the cruise line. Therefore, there is no basis on which to presume that any of that extra money would go towards improved service -- it ALL must go towards paying for fuel.

True, but if it ALL goes towards fuel, then the fare I'm paying should be going towards improving quality. What I'm saying is that if I have to pay more, regardless of the mechanism, then I'm going to expect to get what I'm paying for. The value had better be there or I'll be looking for alternatives.

 

I doubt that will happen. Instead, I think the cruise line will just discount the empty cabins further, ostensibly reversing the surcharge for folks who book late. That's one reason why Carnival's approach (charging a flat fee for passengers already booked, as well as new bookings) is the best one for addressing an unforeseen skyrocketing of the cost of fuel: Generally speaking, few passengers already booked will cancel, but passengers booking late will generally be more price sensitive, so restricting surcharging to just them will backfire.

You're probably right. One of the KPI's cruise lines use is the percentage of cabins booked. My argument is, why fill cabins with people who don't contribute to profitability? Not all market share is profitable market share - something our own marketing group has finally figured out.

[bUU]

True, but if it ALL goes towards fuel, then the fare I'm paying should be going towards improving quality.

No, the fare you're paying goes towards what it always was going for. It, and the surcharge, doesn't represent any change whatsoever in service quality.

 

What I'm saying is that if I have to pay more, regardless of the mechanism, then I'm going to expect to get what I'm paying for.

I'm paying a lot more this week for gasoline for my car than I did several months ago, yet I'm not getting any better mileage from the gasoline, even though it is more expensive.

 

The value had better be there or I'll be looking for alternatives.

Which is why it is important that all major cruise lines applied surcharges: All your alternatives are commensurately more expensive now too, so if you made a wise decision before, this surcharge won't change the wisdom of your original choice.

 

You're probably right. One of the KPI's cruise lines use is the percentage of cabins booked. My argument is, why fill cabins with people who don't contribute to profitability?

You're presuming that the don't contribute to profitability when in reality they problem simply don't contribute to profitability AS MUCH. BIG difference.

 

Not all market share is profitable market share - something our own marketing group has finally figured out.

I agree completely, and often make that same point when it comes to discussions about basic cable service, old technology cellular telephone service, etc. Again, the fundamental consideration is whether they contribute to profitability at all -- not whether they contribute AS MUCH AS other customers.

[spongerob]

No, the fare you're paying goes towards what it always was going for. It, and the surcharge, doesn't represent any change whatsoever in service quality. If it's costing me more and profitability is being maintained, I expect to receive the same quality I have grown accustomed to. That's the type of consumer I am. I will gladly pay the price to get the service...or I'll look elsewhere. There is still competition out there.

 

I'm paying a lot more this week for gasoline for my car than I did several months ago, yet I'm not getting any better mileage from the gasoline, even though it is more expensive. Apples and oranges. Product versus service. Now you're just bickering! :D But I can tell you how to improve your mileage by about 20%, if you are interested.

 

Which is why it is important that all major cruise lines applied surcharges: All your alternatives are commensurately more expensive now too, so if you made a wise decision before, this surcharge won't change the wisdom of your original choice. There are other options besides cruising. Resorts, land vacations, etc. Cruise lines have to stay competitive in terms of price and service with those options, too.

 

You're presuming that the don't contribute to profitability when in reality they problem simply don't contribute to profitability AS MUCH. BIG difference. That is the assumption I'm making. I base that on the many comments on the various boards that have been posted in the last couple of weeks. That's the perception I get, but admittedly I am making a generalization and there are no doubt many exceptions.

 

I agree completely, and often make that same point when it comes to discussions about basic cable service, old technology cellular telephone service, etc. Again, the fundamental consideration is whether they contribute to profitability at all -- not whether they contribute AS MUCH AS other customers.

 

That is the fundamental consideration. Why put resources towards market share that is not profitable? This isn't a charity or non-profit business. I believe that the flat fee per passenger is targeted towards addressing this very issue.

 

I am admittedly ambivalent about surcharges at best. But, if this is the way that service quality can be maintained, versus new and clever ways to lower operating costs with cutbacks or through even more on-board charges for once-included items, then I'll live with it. Princess (or whoever else) had better deliver. These higher charges aren't a direct result of supply and demand, so my evaluation of the value I receive will be more critical. I'm not rolling over, quite the opposite, in fact.

[DanJ]

Well, that was an uncommon, civilized debate. I'm not sure what to make of that LOL.

[bUU]

True, but if it ALL goes towards fuel, then the fare I'm paying should be going towards improving quality.

No, the fare you're paying goes towards what it always was going for. It, and the surcharge, doesn't represent any change whatsoever in service quality.

If it's costing me more and profitability is being maintained, I expect to receive the same quality I have grown accustomed to.

The same quality, not improving quality.

 

Even that isn't necessarily the case: The surcharge need not cover the entirety of the increase in the cost of fuel. Rather, with a recession coming, all cruise lines are probably splitting the difference with regard to the increase: accounting for some of it via the surcharge, accounting for some of it via internal cost-cutting (which could actually degrade quality), and accounting for the rest via a reduction in profit.

 

Switching to a competitor, as likely as not, will result in switching to a supplier that is relying more on savings from reducing service than on the surcharge (especially if you switch to a competitor that did not apply the surcharge to existing bookings).

 

I'm paying a lot more this week for gasoline for my car than I did several months ago, yet I'm not getting any better mileage from the gasoline, even though it is more expensive. Apples and oranges. Product versus service.

Uh, no. With respect, it is apples and apples. Gasoline is not a product in the classical sense. Rather, it is operationally the same as a service, for the context we're discussing.

 

This is a very important point -- it is not "bickering". We're all paying more for a lot of things, products, services, utilities, consumables and so forth -- paying more without getting more. That's the hard, cold, unfortunate reality.

 

There are other options besides cruising. Resorts, land vacations, etc.

All those things are showing price increases as well, so if you haven't booked them already, you probably will find the price already reflects the higher fuel prices.

 

You left out the most powerful way consumers can operationalize their disappointment with prices: DOING WITHOUT. This is really the only way you can avoid the impact of skyrocketing fuel prices.

 

Cruise lines have to stay competitive in terms of price and service with those options, too.

Many folks will make the point that cruise lines are already the best value, even after the surcharge. Therefore, I won't belabor that point myself.

 

I base that on the many comments on the various boards that have been posted in the last couple of weeks. That's the perception I get, but admittedly I am making a generalization and there are no doubt many exceptions.

I've found that talk is cheap. Consumer behaviors rarely if ever tracks what people say they'll do. That's why companies now most heavily rely on normalized surveys instead of unsolicited feedback.