big_duck Posted December 7, 2007 #101 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefly333 Posted December 7, 2007 #102 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Looks like a Canadian answered you. thanks big duck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxon41 Posted December 7, 2007 #103 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In2why Posted December 7, 2007 #104 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxon41 Posted December 7, 2007 #105 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorkel2Much Posted December 7, 2007 #106 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefly333 Posted December 7, 2007 #107 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorkel2Much Posted December 7, 2007 #108 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halos Posted December 7, 2007 #109 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bethwendy Posted December 7, 2007 #110 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorkel2Much Posted December 7, 2007 #111 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurbanfan Posted December 7, 2007 #112 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halos Posted December 7, 2007 #113 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_duck Posted December 7, 2007 #114 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okgirl Posted December 7, 2007 #115 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGP1111 Posted December 7, 2007 #116 Share Posted December 7, 2007 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?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassy0930 Posted December 8, 2007 #117 Share Posted December 8, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLC@SD Posted December 8, 2007 #118 Share Posted December 8, 2007 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......;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuizer2 Posted December 8, 2007 #119 Share Posted December 8, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benicehavefun Posted December 8, 2007 #120 Share Posted December 8, 2007 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benicehavefun Posted December 8, 2007 #121 Share Posted December 8, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgbaird Posted December 8, 2007 #122 Share Posted December 8, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_duck Posted December 8, 2007 #123 Share Posted December 8, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halos Posted December 8, 2007 #124 Share Posted December 8, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxon41 Posted December 8, 2007 #125 Share Posted December 8, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.