Fuel Surcharge Illegal?

[abitaturbodog]

My DH found this article at MSNBC which states that, "some cruise lines have hedged their fuel costs, which means they aren’t really paying more for energy. And...that those same cruise lines also agreed in 1997 to not charge any fees in addition to the advertised initial ticket price, except those actually passed on by the company to a government agency."

 

Here's a link to the article: Fuel Surcharge Illegal?

 

If you click on the link in the original article just after the "1997" it takes you to the Florida State Attorney General's Office Website. Here it is: Florida Attorney General

 

This details the settlement of a lawsuit in 1997 against Carnival Cruise Lines, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Norwegian Cruise Line Limited, Celebrity Cruises Inc., Dolphin Cruise Line and Majesty Cruise Line. This agreement states that 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. This includes Fuel Surcharge!

 

I'm wondering what my fellow, CC'ers think....

[sheri18]

hmmmmmmmmmmm.....interesting, ................

[klfrodo]

My thoughts?

#1. Carnival's contract CLEARLY states that fuel surcharges may be added on.

#2 Did they go about this the right way? No, they should have announced the the charges would only be applied to new bookings.

#3 I'll let the courts handle it. If the court determines that it is/was illegal, then I'll receive my refund sometime in the future.

 

In the meantime, I'm not going to pi$$ and moan about $70. I'll pay the surcharge and enjoy my cruise.

[Cruisin' Ron VA]

I will let the courts decide.

 

Personally I think the cruiselines, for psychological purposes, could have just raised the cruise fares 70.00 on new bookings and nobody would have complained. But if you keep the price the same and add on 70 bucks all hell breaks loose.

 

This could have been done quietly and nobody would have noticed.

 

But I dont get paid to make business decisions for Carnival.

 

Perhaps I will just spend 70.00 less onboard the ship.

[Tigers2]

http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi47.photobucket.com%2Falbums%

[OceanDreamin]

It sounds to me that the 1997 Settlement Agreement included fees and operating costs misleadingly passed allong to passengers as "Port Charges." The actual charges being levied by the governmental agencies regulating the ports was less than what the cruiselines were charging, and then the cruiselines were apparently pocketing the extra.

 

Carnival clearly has in their contract that they can add a Fuel Surcharge if they want to (which they apparently do), and since they are not claiming it is "Port Charges," don't seem to be out of line legally speaking for doing so. Do I think the implementation of the surcharge could have been handled better? You betcha - especially since they came out with it a few days after my initial deposit for my upcoming cruise:rolleyes: , but I don't think it is violating the Settlement Agreement.

[firefly333]

Sounds to me like you are referring to RCL. They did hedge fuel costs. Carnival does not hedge fuel costs.

 

P. S. I love this guy Christopher whatever his last name is, he writes a column every sunday for our local Dallas travel section.

[Snorkel2Much]

My thoughts?

 

#1. Carnival's contract CLEARLY states that fuel surcharges may be added on.

#2 Did they go about this the right way? No, they should have announced the the charges would only be applied to new bookings.

#3 I'll let the courts handle it. If the court determines that it is/was illegal, then I'll receive my refund sometime in the future.

 

In the meantime, I'm not going to pi$$ and moan about $70. I'll pay the surcharge and enjoy my cruise.

It sounds to me that the 1997 Settlement Agreement included fees and operating costs misleadingly passed allong to passengers as "Port Charges." The actual charges being levied by the governmental agencies regulating the ports was less than what the cruiselines were charging, and then the cruiselines were apparently pocketing the extra.

 

Carnival clearly has in their contract that they can add a Fuel Surcharge if they want to (which they apparently do), and since they are not claiming it is "Port Charges," don't seem to be out of line legally speaking for doing so. Do I think the implementation of the surcharge could have been handled better? You betcha - especially since they came out with it a few days after my initial deposit for my upcoming cruise:rolleyes: , but I don't think it is violating the Settlement Agreement.

{bolding mine}

Read some of the hundreds of previous posts on this. The "contract" most certainly did not have this clause until the day surcharges were announced. Some of us had paid in full cabins, and eDocs containing contracts, that clearly do not say what you claim.

 

The amount of misinformation spouted as fact on this topic is huge. Read up for yourself and decide.

[klfrodo]

{bolding mine}

Read some of the hundreds of previous posts on this. The "contract" most certainly did not have this clause until the day surcharges were announced. Some of us had paid in full cabins, and eDocs containing contracts, that clearly do not say what you claim.

 

The amount of misinformation spouted as fact on this topic is huge. Read up for yourself and decide.

 

Then do something about it. File a law suit. File a complaint with the States Attorney General, cancel your cruise,,,, do something other than cry foul on an internet board

[big_duck]

IANAL but whether in breach of agreed to conditions of a lawsuit settlement or not, nothing they are doing is illegal - they are not in breach of any law.

 

JMHO, but I think it is just as legitimate as that of a travel reporter. :cool:

[sea_u_onboard]

I already contacted the FL Attorney Generals Office. They are "processing" my complaint. I'll let them sort it out.

[jessemon]

{bolding mine}

Read some of the hundreds of previous posts on this. The "contract" most certainly did not have this clause until the day surcharges were announced. Some of us had paid in full cabins, and eDocs containing contracts, that clearly do not say what you claim.

 

The amount of misinformation spouted as fact on this topic is huge. Read up for yourself and decide.

You are incorrect on this. Carnival had this in place for many years. This is not the first time they added a fuel surcharge. After they did that the last time this clause was added.

It was even in my contract for my cruise last October of which I booked last February. ;)

[Snorkel2Much]

Then do something about it. File a law suit. File a complaint with the States Attorney General, cancel your cruise,,,, do something other than cry foul on an internet board

You really should read the full post history regarding fuel surcharges, particularly mine, before you give me misdirected orders. ;) . Your post is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption regarding my actions, or lack of action.

 

 

You are incorrect on this. Carnival had this in place for many years. This is not the first time they added a fuel surcharge. After they did that the last time this clause was added.

It was even in my contract for my cruise last October of which I booked last February. ;)

If you go back and read that again, you will find that your clause speaks VERY specifically to "Government imposed fuel surcharges".

 

As to illegality of Carnival's actions, I'll defer to the Florida AG's opinion in regards to my states DUTPA. My non-lawyer's opinion is that this a violation, which makes it illegal in the civil law, as opposed to criminal law, sense.

[jessemon]

You really should read the full post history regarding fuel surcharges, particularly mine, before you give me misdirected orders. ;) . Your post is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption regarding my actions, or lack of action.

 

 

 

If you go back and read that again, you will find that your clause speaks VERY specifically to "Government imposed fuel surcharges".

 

As to illegality of Carnival's actions, I'll defer to the Florida AG's opinion in regards to my states DUTPA. My non-lawyer's opinion is that this a violation, which makes it illegal in the civil law, as opposed to criminal law, sense.

As per old Carnival contract from my October cruise last year and purchased in Feb. 07...

 

Section 1 Definitions and Scope of Contact.

Paragraph © Cruise fare does not include Government taxes and fees imposed or sanctioned by the US Government or other Governments. These charges are in addition to the Cruise fare and include but are not limited to, Passsanger Facility Charges, Security Surcharges,Fuel Surcharges International Passanger Arrival or Departure Tax, Customs User Fee, Immigration Fee and Agricultural Fee.

 

This makes it very clear....kinda sorta....in legalese.....LOL

The key words in this "but are not limited to".......Which means they can add this at any time even after purchase.

Also in the contract section 7 paragraph (a) Carnival reserves the right to increase the published fares without prior notice. In the event of an increase, the Guest has the option of accepting the increased fare or canceling reservations without penelty.

So they can even increase your fare after you have booked....

 

And remember...I booked that cruise February of 2007......;)

[Snorkel2Much]

As per old Carnival contract from my October cruise last year and purchased in Feb. 07...

 

Section 1 Definitions and Scope of Contact.

Paragraph © Cruise fare does not include Government taxes and fees imposed or sanctioned by the US Government or other Governments. These charges are in addition to the Cruise fare and include but are not limited to, Passsanger Facility Charges, Security Surcharges,Fuel Surcharges International Passanger Arrival or Departure Tax, Customs User Fee, Immigration Fee and Agricultural Fee.

 

This makes it very clear....kinda sorta....in legalese.....LOL

The key words in this "but are not limited to".......Which means they can add this at any time even after purchase.

Also in the contract section 7 paragraph (a) Carnival reserves the right to increase the published fares without prior notice. In the event of an increase, the Guest has the option of accepting the increased fare or canceling reservations without penelty.

So they can even increase your fare after you have booked....

 

And remember...I booked that cruise February of 2007......;)

Thanks for posting this, I didn't feel like digging up all the old threads again.

 

Ask any English teacher (or Catholic school alum ;) )what the key word is in that sentence, it's the word "These". All that follows the word "These" in that sentence merely describe the attributes of the subject labeled as "These".

 

The sentence before it identifies the subject "These" as something "not included in the cruise fare", and gives the subject the additional attributes of "Government taxes and fees imposed or sanctioned by the US Government or other Governments".

[jessemon]

Thanks for posting this, I didn't feel like digging up all the old threads again.

 

Ask any English teacher (or Catholic school alum ;) )what the key word is in that sentence, it's the word "These". All that follows the word "These" in that sentence merely describe the attributes of the subject labeled as "These".

 

The sentence before it identifies the subject "These" as something "not included in the cruise fare", and gives the subject the additional attributes of "Government taxes and fees imposed or sanctioned by the US Government or other Governments".

First thing is I was responding to your post #8 on the board where you stated that this was not in the contract until they started the Surcharge. As you can see...it was.

As to your response on my post.......Surcharge means in addition to and it does not have to be imposed by the government and could not be. They have already taxed the fuel The surcharge according to the contract is legal.

If you have a friend that is an attorney...give them a call and fax the exact post I made on this subject. They will tell you it is worded properly and Carnival can do it.

In closing...I do not agree with the way Carnival handled this (I have a cruise booked for next October and deposited before the surcharge) I feel that they should have only done it with new bookings. That said I will pay the extra $45.00 for my nine night cruise. This time though I will for the first time be taking a couple bottles of vodka and or rum with me.

I'll get my $5.00 a day back and then some. My bar bill will be about $20.00 a day less.;)

[Snorkel2Much]

First thing is I was responding to your post #8 on the board where you stated that this was not in the contract until they started the Surcharge. As you can see...it was.

As to your response on my post.......Surcharge means in addition to and it does not have to be imposed by the government and could not be. They have already taxed the fuel The surcharge according to the contract is legal.

If you have a friend that is an attorney...give them a call and fax the exact post I made on this subject. They will tell you it is worded properly and Carnival can do it.

In closing...I do not agree with the way Carnival handled this (I have a cruise booked for next October and deposited before the surcharge) I feel that they should have only done it with new bookings. That said I will pay the extra $45.00 for my nine night cruise. This time though I will for the first time be taking a couple bottles of vodka and or rum with me.

I'll get my $5.00 a day back and then some. My bar bill will be about $20.00 a day less.;)

You're right that I was unclear when I stated the bolded portion above. What I should have said was "The contract wording did not allow surcharges on the day of the surcharge announcement". I have my contract from November 5th, which has the wording you show above.

 

Government agencies most certainly do impose and/or sanction fuel surcharges. Check your utility bill. I have yet to see evdence that any govt agency sanctioned this one. By the way, surcharge also means "phony charge" or "over-charge", look it up. :D

 

The new contract wording that went into play the day of announcement does NOW allow for "fuel supplements" as seen below:

 

c) Cruise Fare does not include Government taxes and fees imposed or sanctioned by the U.S. Government or other Governments. “Government fees and taxes” may include any and all fees, charges, surcharges, tolls and taxes imposed by U.S. and/or foreign governmental or quasi-governmental authorities including, but not limited to, U.S. Customs fees, Guest Facility Charges, Security Surcharges, International Passenger Departure or Arrival Tax, Agricultural Inspection Fee, head taxes, Panama Canal tolls, dockage fees, wharfage fees, inspection fees, taxes on airline transportation, hotel or VAT taxes incurred as part of a land tour, immigration and naturalizations fees, and Internal Revenue Service fees, whether assessed on a per Guest, per berth, per ton or per vessel basis. In the case of per ton or per vessel assessments, those assessments will be spread over expected Guest counts.

(d) Cruise Fare does not include fuel supplement charges. “Fuel supplement” shall mean any additional charge to defray a portion of Carnival’s fuel costs. Carnival reserves the right to charge a fuel supplement charge without prior notice. The amount of fuel supplements and government fees and taxes are subject to change and Carnival reserves the right to pass through to the Guests (including fully paid and deposited guests) any increases in such items.

[freedomrider]

You're right that I was unclear when I stated the bolded portion above. What I should have said was "The contract wording did not allow surcharges on the day of the surcharge announcement". I have my contract from November 5th, which has the wording you show above....

 

FWIW, I believe your command of the English language and interpretation of the legaleze are spot on. The evidence is especially damning when you compare the old and new wording side by side. Unfortunately, the legal system will have to work it out. Maybe one day several years from now we'll all get refunds...right...

[mek]

quote=Cruisin' Ron VA;12982344

 

Perhaps I will just spend 70.00 less onboard the ship.

 

I sure hope not. If everyone who has a problem with the fuel surcharge does this and revenues go down, don't you think they will simply raise prices or cut back on something to compensate and still keep the fuel surcharge as well? :eek:

[CruzVinnieCruz]

Just because it's in the contract and is in legal terms does not mean that Carnival is in the clear on this. Many contracts and terms of contracts have been set aside by the courts.

 

If they put in the contract:

 

If a passenger becomes drunk and/or belligerent it will be at the discretion of the ships officers to remove that passenger from the ship immediately. Accepting the terms of this contract the passenger cannot hold Carnival or their employees liable for any loss that may result from this action.

 

Does that mean they can just throw someone overboard or put them in a life boat and tow them to the next port?

 

Of course not that's why there are Attorney Generals (in this case) that determine if there is a legal argument to take to court. It may take years but I think the fuel surcharge will have it's day in court.

[Cruz4us]

 

Here you go:D Who wants butter:p

[firefly333]

quote=Cruisin' Ron VA;12982344

 

Perhaps I will just spend 70.00 less onboard the ship.

 

I sure hope not. If everyone who has a problem with the fuel surcharge does this and revenues go down, don't you think they will simply raise prices or cut back on something to compensate and still keep the fuel surcharge as well? :eek:

 

RCL claimed one of the reasons they took a full time ship away from Galveston was because Texans spent less on board than they got on other ships from other ports.

 

So, if the consequence would be that lots would do this, could result in even more ships being pulled from our favorite ports.

 

I agree with the last poster who said he believes this surcharge will have its day in court. Dont sweat it for now.

[abitaturbodog]

I'll be keeping my receipts just in case this does goes to court! The extra $70 would come in handy.

[big_duck]

I'll be keeping my receipts just in case this does goes to court! The extra $70 would come in handy.

 

 

... 5 years from now.

[Timmys_mom]

I'll be keeping my receipts just in case this does goes to court! The extra $70 would come in handy.

 

... 5 years from now.

Don't be silly, you won't get $70. This will end up as a class-action lawsuit, the attorneys for the plaintiffs (us) will get 1/3 of the settlement (i.e., millions of dollars) and the remaining 2/3 will pay for litigation costs and what is left will be divided equally among the people who agreed to become part of the class. We will all end up with a coupon for a free 8x10 on our next Carnival cruise.:D :p