I did something about the fuel surcharge

[big_duck]

Important posts by both you and duck -- but aren't all Canadians having this waived (assuming bookings before 11/07) whether or not they booked with a Canadian TA?

 

Yes, I guess that was a can of worms Carnival didn't want to open.

[firefly333]

Looks like a Canadian answered you. thanks big duck

[jaxon41]

You can order one online, pick one up at any travel agency, or call Carnival for a copy.

 

Saying "I didn't know" or "I didn't have a copy of the brochure" doesn't mean that the rules and regulations don't apply to you....sorry if I'm harsh.

 

Still not happy about the fuel surcharge...

 

You made an important find in that Carnival brochure, but I think it could be argued, that the term fuel surcharge refers to the air supplement. I am not saying it isn't reasonable to argue it the other way, because I think it is, but given the industry language regarding allowing for the pass through of a fuel surcharge imposed by the airlines given that the lines negotiate/book blocks of seats well in advance, I believe it can be argued that the term does not relate to a general cruise line fuel surcharge. I believe the more recent changes in contract language would also further that point. Brochure language, as we have seen, may cut both ways, and we can't argue in one instance it counts, and in one, it doesn't.

[In2why]

You can order one online, pick one up at any travel agency, or call Carnival for a copy.

 

Saying "I didn't know" or "I didn't have a copy of the brochure" doesn't mean that the rules and regulations don't apply to you....sorry if I'm harsh.

 

Still not happy about the fuel surcharge...

 

 

Serious question. When a brochure and a contract say different things which one should the consumer believe? Personally, I look at brochures as advertisements and contracts as the fine print.

[jaxon41]

Serious question. When a brochure and a contract say different things which one should the consumer believe? Personally, I look at brochures as advertisements and contracts as the fine print.

 

Great question. I think you would have to have a specific example. There has been litigation concerning what was advertised by a cruise line and what was actually delivered.

[Snorkel2Much]

I'm just curious as to why people get upset when they see a business making a profit :confused:

 

I don't get it. Every time I cruise I wonder HOW they manage to provide what they do, at such a reasonable cost to me. I don't feel I've 'absorbed' anything. When I think about the money I shell out for everything in my daily life, I can honestly say that when I cruise, it is the ONLY time I ever feel like I get my money's worth PLUS.

 

You all do have the choice to stop cruisin'....just saying.

At first I was curious how you drew that conclusion from the partial quote of my post, then I decided that if you didn't take the time to read and comprehend what I've been saying all along, you're not likely to read and comprehend any detailed explanation I could write in response.

 

Carry on quoting me out of context and adding words I didn't write to my posts.

[firefly333]

Serious question. When a brochure and a contract say different things which one should the consumer believe? Personally, I look at brochures as advertisements and contracts as the fine print.

 

Im still stuck on the part where because a brochure some poster has in their possession states they may add a surcharge, that means I should have read this particular brochure and it is no excuse that I didnt know it existed. If this brochure was so important Carnival should have sent it to me instead of a contract with my boarding papers.

[Snorkel2Much]

Im still stuck on the part where because a brochure some poster has in their possession states they may add a surcharge, that means I should have read this particular brochure and it is no excuse that I didnt know it existed. If this brochure was so important Carnival should have sent it to me instead of a contract with my boarding papers.

The "Terms and Conditions of Contract" (also known as eDocs) that I downloaded on November 5th for my Paid-in-Full cabins specifically state in Section 1.(f) :

This contract constitutes the entire agreement between Carnival and Guest and supercedes all other agreements, oral or written.

The quote unquote "new" version of the contract I downloaded on November 7th has two paragraphs labeled 1.(f) , the second of these reads the same as what I've quoted above.

 

IMO, at Carnivals insistence in their own contract, those brochures or ads people are bringing up mean nothing.

[halos]

At first I was curious how you drew that conclusion from the partial quote of my post, then I decided that if you didn't take the time to read and comprehend what I've been saying all along, you're not likely to read and comprehend any detailed explanation I could write in response.

 

Carry on quoting me out of context and adding words I didn't write to my posts.

 

Ok, here's the entire section of that post related to what I responded.

 

Carnival's "we've been absorbing the added fuel cost for this long" statement is utter B.S., have you looked at their quarterly profit history and compared it to the price of fuel? The only one's who've absorbed the cost so far have been the passengers.

 

 

I have misread and miscomprehended many posts on this board and for all those previous, I have apologized for the misconception.

 

As for yours, it still reads bitter to me so I'm not offering one.

[bethwendy]

OK - So here's the question - Why is the fuel surcharge being withdrawn for Canadians only, with bookings prior to Nov 7,2007? Doesn't seem fair that not all passengers are treated equally on the sepcific item of a fuel surcharge.

[Snorkel2Much]

Ok, here's the entire section of that post related to what I responded.

 

 

 

 

I have misread and miscomprehended many posts on this board and for all those previous, I have apologized for the misconception.

 

As for yours, it still reads bitter to me so I'm not offering one.

I wasn't expecting an apology, so no surprise there. I was replying directly to the post that I quoted. Said poster having brought up the "absorbing the cost" B.S. line that Carnival used as part of their spin on this.

 

Let's get back to the heart of this, Carnival is the one that raised the "absorbing the cost" issue when they announced this deceptive practice. IMO it's ridiculously disingenous for any corporation to state that they have historically absorbed increases in their raw material costs without also stating the impact on their profitability over that period. Leaving that part of the equation out of the claim makes it sound like they've been losing money. Which in Carnival's case, based on their 10-Q's and earnings calls, is hogwash.

 

I've always had an incredible time vacationing on Carnival's cruise ships, and I always have willingly put way more money in their pocket than I had pre-planned. Just about everyone I've ever met aboard does the same. I don't mind, as long as that's MY choice to do so. Carnival is the one who has now changed the equation, based on the terms of their contract, along with their actions to make retroactive changes to agreed charges. Carnival's onboard staff get it, they really know how to get me to fork over the money and enjoy doing it, it's the home office executives who just don't get it. It's a simple process, keep me fed, keep me entertained, keep me comfortable, and ask me for more money, you'll win. Charge me more for my next booking, raise the price of drinks 25 cents, add $1 to new excursion bookings, just let me believe it's MY choice.

 

Maybe you don't get this halos, but others reading this just might. Am I bitter that clueless exec's are ruining a good thing? You bet.

[Kurbanfan]

OK - So here's the question - Why is the fuel surcharge being withdrawn for Canadians only, with bookings prior to Nov 7,2007? Doesn't seem fair that not all passengers are treated equally on the sepcific item of a fuel surcharge.

 

Evidently Carnival Corp. did not read the fine print that Canadian law protects them from Company's in the travel business from coming back to collect money after the fact when their contract is paid in full. Oh and I'm sure someone will correct me if I didn't state this right, word for word:rolleyes:

In other words it is wrong what they did. The Canadians are protected from such acts.

[halos]

Maybe you don't get this halos, but others reading this just might. Am I bitter that clueless exec's are ruining a good thing? You bet.

 

Actually, I do get it. I won't debate that it was wrong. When it first happend I was quite annoyed myself...for about 10 minutes.

Then I decided it wasn't worth it so I paid the dang money and now I'm over it. The only difference between us is you're still pissed and I'm not.

 

I don't stay pissed over big stuff. There's no way I'm gonna be crazy over this even though it is sleazy. If being bitter works for you and 'others reading this', then go for it. I still feel I get a good deal when I cruise. When the day comes that I no longer feel that way, I won't cruise anymore.

[big_duck]

Evidently Carnival Corp. did not read the fine print that Canadian law protects them from Company's in the travel business from coming back to collect money after the fact when their contract is paid in full. Oh and I'm sure someone will correct me if I didn't state this right, word for word:rolleyes:

In other words it is wrong what they did. The Canadians are protected from such acts.

 

That's the Coors Light answer. :p

[okgirl]

Kurbanfan is correct

 

 

by the end of feb, i will have taken my 3rd cruise in 13 months. i am only 29 now, and at the rate of 3 a year, the way i see it, they are missing out on a lot of money.

 

So let me ask kf4zra, just how big of a hole is left in the pool when you get out???? That's about how much Carnival is going to miss your business :rolleyes:

[DGP1111]

Yo, Snorkel . . . I need you to cover for me this next week. Thanks! :)

I still haven't heard anything about the progress of the braille site, have you??

[sassy0930]

The whole surcharge really is Sleazy. I agree with an above poster who made a great point. Raise the price of the "optionals" on board. People are going to drink, gamble, and buy things no matter what. I have emailed my PVP and I will see where that gets me, if it's nowhere I'll consider going higher up. I am considering getting married on the ship and that may not happen just because I don't want to give them anymore money for this sailing. I'm fine with paying for another cruise, even with carnival, because every company has to make decisions like this, but I don't think I want to pay any more for this particular sailing. Just seems to me that they didn't think it out all the way to the end.

[JLC@SD]

You need to watch the markets more closely. Oil is down over 10% from its peak, even with today's increase.

 

ok......you conviced me....at 88 / bbl today.........that is so much better than 95 / bbl last week........but wait........oil used to be 60 / bbl.......last March......;)

[Cuizer2]

Kurbanfan is correct

 

i know fuel prices have risen, not upset about that. if i was told in advance i would be charged, it would have been no big deal.

 

carnival absolutely would do nothing for me, regarding having fees tacked on, so i will no longer do business with them.

 

by the end of feb, i will have taken my 3rd cruise in 13 months. i am only 29 now, and at the rate of 3 a year, the way i see it, they are missing out on a lot of money.

 

doesnt really matter to me, i will be having fun on someone's ship, just not one that belongs to the carnival group. i sent corporate an email letting them know that i have already booked my next cruise with RCCL, but i dont expect anything from it based on their prior attitude. if they gave me $70 OBC, or upgraded me, i would sail with them again.

 

if $70 was really too much money for me, do you think i would have booked an additional cruise?

I have future cruises with Carnival (Aug 2008) and Royal Caribbean (April 2008 & June 2009). All the 2008 cruises are paid in full. Carnival and Royal Caribbean have both asked me to pay a fuel surcharge. I paid it.

[benicehavefun]

I wasn't expecting an apology, so no surprise there. I was replying directly to the post that I quoted. Said poster having brought up the "absorbing the cost" B.S. line that Carnival used as part of their spin on this.

 

Let's get back to the heart of this, Carnival is the one that raised the "absorbing the cost" issue when they announced this deceptive practice. IMO it's ridiculously disingenous for any corporation to state that they have historically absorbed increases in their raw material costs without also stating the impact on their profitability over that period. Leaving that part of the equation out of the claim makes it sound like they've been losing money. Which in Carnival's case, based on their 10-Q's and earnings calls, is hogwash.

 

I've always had an incredible time vacationing on Carnival's cruise ships, and I always have willingly put way more money in their pocket than I had pre-planned. Just about everyone I've ever met aboard does the same. I don't mind, as long as that's MY choice to do so. Carnival is the one who has now changed the equation, based on the terms of their contract, along with their actions to make retroactive changes to agreed charges. Carnival's onboard staff get it, they really know how to get me to fork over the money and enjoy doing it, it's the home office executives who just don't get it. It's a simple process, keep me fed, keep me entertained, keep me comfortable, and ask me for more money, you'll win. Charge me more for my next booking, raise the price of drinks 25 cents, add $1 to new excursion bookings, just let me believe it's MY choice.

 

Maybe you don't get this halos, but others reading this just might. Am I bitter that clueless exec's are ruining a good thing? You bet.

Very well put. I haven't commented on this subject because people get off course and take things out of context.

 

For me the point is I had a contract with Carnival, I followed all the terms of that contract and payed in full. THEN they came up with a NEW contract and said you have to follow these terms now. It's really not the $35 per person, it's violating a valid contract that get's me. If it wasn't wrong, why does Canada have LAWS to PROTECT their citizens from this type of FRAUDULENT ABUSE?

 

Thanks for letting me vent!

[benicehavefun]

Actually, I do get it. I won't debate that it was wrong. When it first happend I was quite annoyed myself...for about 10 minutes.

Then I decided it wasn't worth it so I paid the dang money and now I'm over it. The only difference between us is you're still pissed and I'm not.

 

I don't stay pissed over big stuff. There's no way I'm gonna be crazy over this even though it is sleazy. If being bitter works for you and 'others reading this', then go for it. I still feel I get a good deal when I cruise. When the day comes that I no longer feel that way, I won't cruise anymore.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight here so relax, but IMO it doesn't matter if it's the little stuff or the big stuff, but we should all be pissed over the "wrong" stuff. This is just wrong plain and simple. If they would have raised the price before I paid, I still would have paid. This is like buying someone a really nice, expensive present, giving it to them, then getting a bill for more money that says pay me or we take it back. Not cool.

 

If people didn't get pissed about the little things, there would have been no Boston Tea Party (after all, it was just a little tea bag) and then where would we be?

[bgbaird]

Most contracts today are written in such a way that the provider can pass along additional costs (beyond cost of goods sold) to the buyer.

 

It would serve no purpose for any of us if the cruise providers were unable to pay their bills, AND turn a profit for their stakeholders.

 

Remember, the stakeholders (entities that put up the up front money so that we can sail on Billion dollar ships) provide capital to realize a return.

[big_duck]

Very well put. I haven't commented on this subject because people get off course and take things out of context.

 

For me the point is I had a contract with Carnival, I followed all the terms of that contract and payed in full. THEN they came up with a NEW contract and said you have to follow these terms now. It's really not the $35 per person, it's violating a valid contract that get's me. If it wasn't wrong, why does Canada have LAWS to PROTECT their citizens from this type of FRAUDULENT ABUSE?

 

Thanks for letting me vent!

 

You've obviously never read the license agreements for the software you are using to write this. They're much worse then Carnival's contract.

[halos]

I'm not trying to pick a fight here so relax, but IMO it doesn't matter if it's the little stuff or the big stuff, but we should all be pissed over the "wrong" stuff. This is just wrong plain and simple. If they would have raised the price before I paid, I still would have paid. This is like buying someone a really nice, expensive present, giving it to them, then getting a bill for more money that says pay me or we take it back. Not cool.

 

If people didn't get pissed about the little things, there would have been no Boston Tea Party (after all, it was just a little tea bag) and then where would we be?

 

LOL I am relaxed, which is my point!! :)

I know you're not picking a fight and neither am I.

I have 2 cruises in my signature, life is good and I'm not in a mood to fight. :D

[jaxon41]

I'm not trying to pick a fight here so relax, but IMO it doesn't matter if it's the little stuff or the big stuff, but we should all be pissed over the "wrong" stuff. This is just wrong plain and simple. If they would have raised the price before I paid, I still would have paid. This is like buying someone a really nice, expensive present, giving it to them, then getting a bill for more money that says pay me or we take it back. Not cool.

 

If people didn't get pissed about the little things, there would have been no Boston Tea Party (after all, it was just a little tea bag) and then where would we be?

 

clapping hands, here