Carnival & RCC rebating fuel surcharges

[starfamily]

when I called to change our cabin today I asked the csr if there was any word and she said "hang on-here is the statement we are supposed to read if asked about the fuel surcharge..." basically it said they are still in negotiations with the atty general and no decisions have been made. She said she didn't know a thing about it.....at least I got my Celebrity one comming back as an on board credit, still leaves another 70.00 for my princess cruise next month and 120.00 for my med. trip this summer, I am more than happy to take it as an obc as I will spend way more than that. I don't know if it is going to happen though...

[jaxon41]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2008/03/carnival-defend.html

 

This looks like Carnival is digging in their heels. This is not the first time I have read that they are claiming that they disclosed the possibility of a retroactive fuel surcharge in their contracts for two years (another poster had another link). This is NOT what many of you Carnival cruisers have said -- and you have from time to time posted language from your contracts to prove it along with Carnival's new contract language which addressed the surcharge.

 

Just really curious as to where you think they are coming from -- what they referring to.

[jason534]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2008/03/carnival-defend.html

 

This looks like Carnival is digging in their heels. This is not the first time I have read that they are claiming that they disclosed the possibility of a retroactive fuel surcharge in their contracts for two years (another poster had another link). This is NOT what many of you Carnival cruisers have said -- and you have from time to time posted language from your contracts to prove it along with Carnival's new contract language which addressed the surcharge.

 

Just really curious as to where you think they are coming from -- what they referring to.

 

"They said the retroactive piece of the surcharge -- separating the portion raised solely on passengers who had already booked from those who booked after the announcement -- is expected to raise $40 million for Carnival, should it withstand the state's inquiry. "

 

I copied the part in quotes from the story from the above post. No wonder Carnival isn't giving in! They are going to make (or give back) $40 million on those of us that booked before the charge!!!

[VentureMan_2000]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2008/03/carnival-defend.html

 

This looks like Carnival is digging in their heels. This is not the first time I have read that they are claiming that they disclosed the possibility of a retroactive fuel surcharge in their contracts for two years (another poster had another link).

 

 

 

I've been posting all along that I have Carnival brochures have clearly stated since Jan 2004 (earliest brochure I have) that fuel surcharges could be charged any time.

 

My Sept 2005 cruise contract (my Docs) states the same, as well as the two cruises I went on after that.

 

In addition, there is an disinterested Investment Researcher from USB Investments that states the same position that I have been posting all along... "Carnival Corp. cruise brands have included disclosures about potential fuel surcharges in their sales contracts for the last two years, according to a UBS Investment Research note."

 

You don't have to take my word... but Investment Bank Researcher's opinions are their bread and butter... they dare not give an opinion they can't support. They are hard to ignor or to defunk.

 

Here is the link: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2008/03/carnival-defend.html

 

I would certainly take the opinion of an Investment Bank Researcher note over the heresay of the nay-sayers posting here.

 

I've been backing up my position with available facts... while those ticked off from their ignorance of their contract have been backing up thier positions with thier OPINIONS...

[jason534]

Venture,

 

Early on in this thread I wrote a post about the charge being listed under "federal taxes/fees" and not "fuel supplement". and you called me a "liar". Never saw anything from you after my reply???

 

The contract may have allowed for a fuel surcharge. The problem for Carnival is that they did not disclose the charge that they added. For many of us, the charge was listed under "federal taxes/fees". You stated that they had fuel surcharge language in the contract as early as Jan. 04, but they did not list that charge in my case untill 2-25-08 (5 months after I booked, and 3 months after "federal taxes/fees went up $50.)

 

If the contract was so valid, why would they hide the charge in a different catagory?

[jaxon41]

I've been posting all along that I have Carnival brochures have clearly stated since Jan 2004 (earliest brochure I have) that fuel surcharges could be charged any time.

 

My Sept 2005 cruise contract (my Docs) states the same, as well as the two cruises I went on after that.

 

In addition, there is an disinterested Investment Researcher from USB Investments that states the same position that I have been posting all along... "Carnival Corp. cruise brands have included disclosures about potential fuel surcharges in their sales contracts for the last two years, according to a UBS Investment Research note."

 

You don't have to take my word... but Investment Bank Researcher's opinions are their bread and butter... they dare not give an opinion they can't support. They are hard to ignor or to defunk.

 

Here is the link: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2008/03/carnival-defend.html

 

I would certainly take the opinion of an Investment Bank Researcher note over the heresay of the nay-sayers posting here.

 

I've been backing up my position with available facts... while those ticked off from their ignorance of their contract have been backing up thier positions with thier OPINIONS...

 

I am aware of what you have been posting -- but others directly refute it, and I have never seen you post your old contract language. In the mega thread, months ago, the old contract language was scanned/posted. And I know you have seen the new contract language posted here with the obvious question -- if it was always in there, there would not be a need for the new language. Brochures can make weight, of course, but the contract language is what is most important.

 

Maybe you would like to scan your language into your computer and post it?

 

Forgive me for not wanting to take the UBS note for gospel, although I understand why some would. I am just too jaded, seen too many accountant notes, remember Anderson and Enron, that just don't pan out to be true. I favor the good old black and white -- if it was always there, I'd sure like to have them (or you) print it.

[chandom]

Maybe you would like to scan your language into your computer and post it?

The attached image was taken from the 2006-2007 cruise brochure.

This brochure does not contain the Freedom. Shows the Liberty doing the Europe route.

 

Added...

The ticket contract from April 26, 2004 can be viewed at

http://web.archive.org/web/20040426055554/http://www.carnival.com/CMS/Static_Templates/ticket_contract.aspx

 

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

The quote can be argued as being towards Government sanctioned reasons.

 

Added some more

Another thing is Carnival refers to this a fuel supplement, not surcharge. So that might be another strike against Carnival.

[In2why]

I've been posting all along that I have Carnival brochures have clearly stated since Jan 2004 (earliest brochure I have) that fuel surcharges could be charged any time.

 

My Sept 2005 cruise contract (my Docs) states the same, as well as the two cruises I went on after that.

 

In addition, there is an disinterested Investment Researcher from USB Investments that states the same position that I have been posting all along... "Carnival Corp. cruise brands have included disclosures about potential fuel surcharges in their sales contracts for the last two years, according to a UBS Investment Research note."

 

You don't have to take my word... but Investment Bank Researcher's opinions are their bread and butter... they dare not give an opinion they can't support. They are hard to ignor or to defunk.

 

Here is the link: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2008/03/carnival-defend.html

 

I would certainly take the opinion of an Investment Bank Researcher note over the heresay of the nay-sayers posting here.

 

I've been backing up my position with available facts... while those ticked off from their ignorance of their contract have been backing up thier positions with thier OPINIONS...

 

 

Even Investment firms have opinions not facts. If you look on the exact same blog you will see another investment firm with a different opinion. And I quote.....

 

At least one investment firm expects that cruise-industry titan Carnival Corp. will soon follow Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.'s lead and refund fuel surcharges that were applied retroactively to some customers. (More on that decision, part of a settlement Royal Caribbean negotiated with Attorney General Bill McCollum's office, is here.)

In a brief research note, analysts at Susquehanna Financial Group write that, with the AG's office still investigating Carnival's fee, "we think it is reasonable to assume that CCL [Carnival's stock symbol] will come to a similar conclusion regarding its retroactive surcharges."

Analysts Robert LaFleur and Brian Dobson also said investors should be encouraged by Royal Caribbean's announcement that refunding the charges for any passenger who had already booked their cruise -- a decision McCollum's office estimated would affect 300,000 bookings -- would not have a significant impact on its revenue projections.

"This should allay some fears about a potential consumer-related slowdown and yield deterioration in the industry, as this would have been a perfect opportunity for RCL [Royal Caribbean's stock symbol] to revise expectations if the business was softening, as the surcharges from the batch of cruises in question was clearly baked into the company's previous yield and revenue guidance," the analysts wrote.

 

It is also their bread and butter and they have a reason to be objective. As for your brochures I haven't seen any of them but they aren't legally binding, but a contract is, and the the contract I booked under in 2007 states:

 

1. DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE OF CONTRACT

(a) Whenever the word “Carnival” is used in this Contract it shall mean and include the Vessel, its owners, operators, employees, agents, charterers and tenders. The term “Guest” shall include the plural where appropriate, and all persons or entities booking or purchasing passage and/or traveling under this Contract, including heirs, representatives and any accompanying minors. The masculine includes the feminine. “Guest” shall have the same meaning as “Passenger” in this Contract.

(b) “Cruise Fare” or “Fare” means the amount paid for cruise plus any air travel to or from the vessel at the beginning or end of the cruise, if arranged by Carnival. The fare includes full board, ordinary ship’s food during the voyage, but not spirits, wine, beer, soft drinks or mineral waters, or any other incidental charge or expense. The cruise fare shall be deemed to be earned when paid and not refundable except as stated in Carnival’s brochure applicable to the voyage and as provided in Clause 8, herein.

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

(d) This ticket is valid only for the person(s) named hereon as Guests and cannot be transferred or modified without Carnival’s written consent. The acceptance or use of this ticket by the person(s) named hereon as Guests shall be deemed acceptance and agreement by each of them to all of the terms and conditions of this Passage Contract.

(e) All rights, exemptions from liability, defenses and immunities of Carnival under this contract shall also inure to the benefit of Carnival’s facilities, whether at sea or ashore, servants, agents, managers, affiliated or related companies, suppliers, shipbuilders and manufacturers of component parts and independent contractors, including, but not limited to, shore excursion or tour operators, ship’s physician, ship’s nurse, retail shop personnel, health and beauty staff, fitness staff, video diary staff, and other concessionaires, who shall have no liability to the Guest, either in contract or in tort, which is greater than or different from that of Carnival.

(f) This contract constitutes the entire agreement between Carnival and Guest and supersedes all other agreements, oral or written. Any alteration to any term of this contract must be in writing and signed by Carnival. Except as provided in Clause 13 below, should any provision of this contract be contrary to or invalid by virtue of the law of the jurisdiction in which this contract is sought to be enforced or be so held by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision(s) shall be deemed to be severed from the Contract and of no effect and all remaining provisions herein shall be in full force and effect and constitute the Contract of Carriage.

 

 

Opinions are wonderful, we all have them, and I am not ticked off by yours. I find the idea that you think your opinions are facts amusing and misguided, but not anything to get excited about one way or the other. We will all find out when Carnival and/or the AG announces something. Anything else is just guessing.

[jaxon41]

The attached image was taken from the 2006-2007 cruise brochure.

This brochure does not contain the Freedom. Shows the Liberty doing the Europe route.

 

Added...

The ticket contract from April 26, 2004 can be viewed at

http://web.archive.org/web/20040426055554/http://www.carnival.com/CMS/Static_Templates/ticket_contract.aspx

 

The quote can be argued as being towards Government sanctioned reasons.

 

Yes, that is the language that the poster put up on the mega thread several months ago. Thanks. And your analysis was the same as ours back then -- the fees are in the nature of fees imposed by airlines/airports. There are certain cannons of construction in the law which would require this interpretation, such as ejusdem generis -- of the same kind, class or nature.

[chandom]

Yes, that is the language that the poster put up on the mega thread several months ago. Thanks. And your analysis was the same as ours back then -- the fees are in the nature of fees imposed by airlines/airports. There are certain cannons of construction in the law which would require this interpretation.

However, the image I attached no way in my mind implies that a fuel surcharge would have to be a government sanctioned one to be valid.

[VentureMan_2000]

Another thing is Carnival refers to this a fuel supplement, not surcharge. So that might be another strike against Carnival.

 

 

Good point. But this is what legal folks argue in court. Just as President Clinton asked during the Luinski inquiries, "What exactly do you me by 'is'..." :D

 

I'm sure it will come out as a po-TAE-toe, po-Tah-toe issue regarding the use of surcharge vs. supplement. "Energy surcharge" has been used for over 5 years in the Hotel industry.

 

 

I haven't seen anyone angry admit that they screwed up and didn't read the contract... and that is why they are in the position that they are in. I would give a lot of credibility to that.

 

But whining due to ignorance, I give very little, if any, credance to.

[jaxon41]

However, the image I attached no way in my mind implies that a fuel surcharge would have to be a government sanctioned one to be valid.

 

I understand -- I believe the fuel charge is in that string of airport related items because it is meant to refer to fuel charges added by airlines in the air/sea bookings. That is how I would argue it -- it makes perfect sense when seen that way, and would be in accordance with the cannon of ejusdem generis -- when a list of more specific descriptors is followed by a more general descriptor, the wide meaning of the general descriptor is limited/restricted to the same class, of the specific words that preceed it.

 

Thanks all -- when I read that piece, I kept thinking -- could we have missed something -- it is good to know we didn't. If this is not solved via the AG I would totally expect a class action suit -- the issues are as clear cut as with RCI.

[VentureMan_2000]

Seems most class actions end in the class getting 5% -10% of what they are charged from the one's I've been a member of.

 

In fact, it is not uncommon for a Corporation to actually instigate a class action in order to limit damages.

 

This is an interesting subject line... but I would not hold my breath for an outcome, for less than four years. JMHO.

[MIcruiser2]

I'll be standing at my mailbox waiting:D

[rgwiazdzinski]

here is a quote from the ag's settlement withthe cruise lines in 1997

 

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.

so to me unless the government gets the fuel surcharge it is flat out breaking the aggrement

[big_duck]

here is a quote from the ag's settlement withthe cruise lines in 1997

 

No, it's a quote from a press release on the settlement with the cruise lines. I'm sure the actual settlement is written in lawyerize so no one knows what it actually says.

[GottaLuvCruising]

The investigation of Princess' Fuel Surcharges is now listed on AG's website...why not Carnival?

 

http://myfloridalegal.com/lit_ec.nsf/investigations/524A6833E60651DF852574130051CD3B

[GottaLuvCruising]

here is a quote from the ag's settlement withthe cruise lines in 1997

 

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.

so to me unless the government gets the fuel surcharge it is flat out breaking the aggrement

 

That's exactly my take on it, too and precisely the reason I've been fighting what I perceive to be an injustice.

[LADYBUG34113]

Looks like someone else filed with FL AG against Princess which is still Carnival.

 

http://myfloridalegal.com/lit_ec.nsf/investigations

[firefly333]

Another thing is Carnival refers to this a fuel supplement, not surcharge. So that might be another strike against Carnival.

 

I pulled up my bookings from my TA for my Carnival cruise and it says "cruise fuel surcharge", it doesnt say supplement.

 

Not sure what that has to do with the price of apples, but it is being referred to as a surcharge in my docs.

[firefly333]

Venture,

 

Early on in this thread I wrote a post about the charge being listed under "federal taxes/fees" and not "fuel supplement". and you called me a "liar". Never saw anything from you after my reply???

 

The contract may have allowed for a fuel surcharge. The problem for Carnival is that they did not disclose the charge that they added. For many of us, the charge was listed under "federal taxes/fees". You stated that they had fuel surcharge language in the contract as early as Jan. 04, but they did not list that charge in my case untill 2-25-08 (5 months after I booked, and 3 months after "federal taxes/fees went up $50.)

 

If the contract was so valid, why would they hide the charge in a different catagory?

 

Jason, you and I see eye to eye, and you cant budge Venture man and he cant support his argument

 

Venture man doesnt have a dog in this fight and bought stock so he is blindly supporting Carnival, he is just jealous to me.

 

He cant seem to understand the onus isnt on me to have requested the language that might say they could add this on, the onus is on Carnival to have told ME up front they have the right to add it on, sign on the dotted line you were advised of this.

 

Venture man ignores any facts he doesnt like and keeps repeating himself 25 times that a brochure states carnival could add it. Venture man cant you find something new? or move on and discuss how this means I should have read said brochure and its my responsibility to find this brochure you have in your brochure...move along in the conversation.

[trock]

This is my take on it...I booked my May Miracle cruise last July. and Paid for it.

I dont have a problem with the fuel charge. I have a problem with them telling me to "come back into the store" because they decided there was an increase. Well not they, but you know what i mean.

 

My personal feeling is that anyone paid in full or booked should not have been charged the FC. Will i 'fight' or argue the FC? NO! If i get it back in an OBC... it will be found money.. if not.. i just chalk it up to part of the cruise.. Life is too short!

[LADYBUG34113]

This is my take on it...I booked my May Miracle cruise last July. and Paid for it.

I dont have a problem with the fuel charge. I have a problem with them telling me to "come back into the store" because they decided there was an increase. Well not they, but you know what i mean.

 

My personal feeling is that anyone paid in full or booked should not have been charged the FC. Will i 'fight' or argue the FC? NO! If i get it back in an OBC... it will be found money.. if not.. i just chalk it up to part of the cruise.. Life is too short!

 

Trock, I agree and I am still going on the cruise. Do I think they did it correctly, no. I was booked at time, but not fully paid. A $70 OBC would be nice though.

[jaxon41]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com:80/business/orl-carnival2108mar21,0,5837311.story

 

interesting from a couple of perspectives. Wasn't the link a few posts back talking about Carnival saying they had disclosed the potential for a fuel surcharge in their contracts? Now it's brochures, but I can't see that flying even if it is in there, as many, many people never see those -- was it on their web site, and all PVP's and TA's instructed to inform? If they thought the brochure covered it, then why the new contract language? Curious stuff.

 

I also noted that they are blaming the loss of revenue on less ship board buying -- oh, molly, how many people said they would cruise, but cut back on their ship accounts? The article said in the same breath that prices were up, at least in the caribbean.

 

Just sort of curious how many will be changing brands -- I read one poster who did, and found it to his/her likeing. Is Carnival cutting off its nose to spite its face by digging in its heels?

[trock]

Trock, I agree and I am still going on the cruise. Do I think they did it correctly, no. I was booked at time, but not fully paid. A $70 OBC would be nice though.

absolutely!!!!!