Anyone Else Worried About GAS / FUEL ?!?!

[Arizona Laura]

They say next yr the estimate is that over 70 cities will lose flight services and that there will be no cheap seats due to fuel costs.

Also with companies absorbing high fuel costs and the price of health care that employers will not be able to provide the coverage for their employees as they have done in the past. So continued higher premiums for us, higher copays, besides the cost of gas and the impact on the price of goods and food etc cruising may become out of reach for many.

Will see if RCCL can fill those Genesis ships on a consistant basis.

Laura

[Son of a Cruiser]

I think it's once you pay in full - not just the reservation (and deposit)

 

Cruiserbryce is correct. Once you pay the deposit, the price will not increase. We booked before the fuel surcharge was added and have not yet paid in full, but we are not being charged the fuel surcharge. Last week there was a price drop on our sailing and we were given the reduced fare without the surcharge being added, since our original booking was in June 2007.

[Pootle]

Posts like this are funny!

 

You should try having to fill your car up here in the UK at the moment. We are currently paying around $2.40 for a litre, yes that's right a LITRE, of petrol!!!

[TEXASMUNK]

OceanBoy has a good heart, but not the facts. The caribou love the Alaska Pipeline...it warms them in the winter, the Caribou herd has grown dramatically since the pipeline was built.

 

Enough of the horror stories! You have politicians on one hand beating each other to death to get in front of a TV camera crying tears for our pain at the pump while at the same time refusing to let this nation drill and build refinaries.

 

Ethanol? What a joke! Destroys engines, denies basic food stuffs, dramatic impact on food prices!

 

Airlines? You will begin to see shrinkage in fleet sizes as they cut those route where they are losing the most money. Where is the logic in selling me a ticket RT, DFW-MSP-DFW for $146.00? Carriers need to set prices where they can break even with a 70% load factor. If the flight does not meet that expectation, eliminate it from the schedule.

 

But...no matter where this thread goes....on to the next cruise!!!!!

[isujim]

Keep checking airfares.......not only daily but several times a day. While prices in general keep going up, there are still deals out there. We are flying to Palm Springs in Feb........about 3 weeks ago the airfare for two people was $1,054, yesterday I found flights for $285pp........with the airlines it is always timing is everything.........keep checking.

[veryhotred]

Keep checking airfares.......not only daily but several times a day. While prices in general keep going up, there are still deals out there. We are flying to Palm Springs in Feb........about 3 weeks ago the airfare for two people was $1,054, yesterday I found flights for $285pp........with the airlines it is always timing is everything.........keep checking.

 

YOU are exactly right!! This is what you have to do to get a deal...I constantly check several times a day for what I am looking for and eventually I find the good deals. Yesterday I found RT from KC to Tampa for $159!! It takes patience and time but it is worth it...

 

 

With all this increase in fuel, food, etc...is the government still saying we are not in a recession? Or that one is not coming?? THAT is a joke :eek:

[73nikita]

I would expect prices to ease after the election cycle. There is no pressure (reelection) on the current administration, so things tend to get a bit out of control. The corps are stuffing their pockets before the gravy train comes to an end. There will be significant pressure on the new administration to keep fuel and food prices steady, and to keep the airlines and tourist industries going. If you look back through history there is a president to this.

That being said, I would pay in full to lock prices in if you are traveling between now and Q1 of 2009. After that prices should ease.

[Dive Master]

Cruiserbryce is correct. Once you pay the deposit, the price will not increase. We booked before the fuel surcharge was added and have not yet paid in full, but we are not being charged the fuel surcharge. Last week there was a price drop on our sailing and we were given the reduced fare without the surcharge being added, since our original booking was in June 2007.

 

 

Seems like I read this somewhere before (like RCCL's current 2008 brochures). That sure did not stop RCCL from trying to raise my fair after depsosit ! They lost my trust forever.

[xpcdoojk]

Unfortunately, we have needed other fuels for a very long time. However, it doesn't look like it will happen until every drop of oil is out if the ground. So sure, lets go dig up Alaska then when that oil is gone we will be in this very same predicament minus the prestine Alaskan wilderness and the habitat that it provides. But of course, who cares about a polar bear or a caribou when one is comparing that to a full tank of gas.....

 

The ball was dropped years ago. Now we pay the price.

 

OB, when we stop using oil, the economy will come to a grinding halt, and we will revert to a pre-industrial level, and starvation world wide will be beyond shocking. We live in a world that is based upon the use of oil. It is a fantasy to believe that we can just quit using oil. There may be a technology in the future that will replace oil, but it is not anywhere near happening. In the meantime I choose to not kill billions of people, by continuing feeding them.

 

http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/Top-ten-reasons-to-support-ANWR-development.php

 

jc

[xpcdoojk]

Seems like I read this somewhere before (like RCCL's current 2008 brochures). That sure did not stop RCCL from trying to raise my fair after depsosit ! They lost my trust forever.

 

Yeah, we know, you tell us constantly.:rolleyes:

 

jc

 

PS

 

By the way. I love this fact. We need to have access to less than 2000 acres to access all of the oil.

 

Size of ANWR relative to U.S. states:

1. ANWR19.0 million acres Portion of ANWR permanently closed to development (Wilderness & Refuge)17.5 million 2. West Virginia15.5 3. Maryland 6.64. Vermont 6.15. New Hampshire5.96. Massachusetts5.37. New Jersey4.98. Hawaii 4.19. Connecticut3.2 Area proposed for exploration 1.5 million10. Delaware 1.311. Rhode Island.7

[flagger]

Unfortunately, we have needed other fuels for a very long time. However, it doesn't look like it will happen until every drop of oil is out if the ground. So sure, lets go dig up Alaska then when that oil is gone we will be in this very same predicament minus the prestine Alaskan wilderness and the habitat that it provides. But of course, who cares about a polar bear or a caribou when one is comparing that to a full tank of gas.....

 

The ball was dropped years ago. Now we pay the price.

Well first off all, the area set aside by Carter for the exploration and production of oil and nat gas is not exactly pristine. Environmentalists like to show pretty pictures of Denali National park to use as an excuse for not drilling in these 2000 acres. It is nothing like that at all.

 

Secondly, the people of Alaska WANT to develop it for oil production. We honor the people of CA who do not WANT drilling off their shores, we should honor the people of AK who stand to benefit greatly from drilling for oil.

 

Thirdly, these are OIL companies not ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY COMPANIES. What does anything think they are going to procure, produce and sell?

 

The NIMBYs of this country do not really want alternative sources of energy because it is not cost effective, it is ugly, or it is not convenient. Find a source that meets one if not all three, then you are in business.

[Cuizer2]

What gets me, is that the U.S. has PLENTY of oil reserves--we just need to be allowed to drill for it, both in Alaska and offshore. We need to get on the ball! I know we also need to develop other fuels (Ethanol is NOT the answer), but we still need gas, until we do!

 

And what do you propose to do when all the oil is gone? How about conserving? We don't need to have one person per vehicle getting only 15 MPG. More fuel efficient vehicle, more sharing and a better mass transit system would drive down the demand which would greatly reduce the cost of the fuel.

 

Also, the weak dollar has a lot to do with the cost. If the dollar was stronger, then it would take less dollars to purchase the oil. That would also reduce the cost.

 

Finally, if more oil was available, who would refine it? Where is there excess refinery capacity?

[xpcdoojk]

And what do you propose to do when all the oil is gone? How about conserving? We don't need to have one person per vehicle getting only 15 MPG. More fuel efficient vehicle, more sharing and a better mass transit system would drive down the demand which would greatly reduce the cost of the fuel.

 

Also, the weak dollar has a lot to do with the cost. If the dollar was stronger, then it would take less dollars to purchase the oil. That would also reduce the cost.

 

Finally, if more oil was available, who would refine it? Where is there excess refinery capacity?

 

Look at my Avatar...:D

 

Hmm... why don't we have more refineries? O, the same people that won't let us drill in ANWR.

 

Looks to me that the be green or die crowd has chosen be green and die.:D :rolleyes:

 

It feels so wierd to be on the same side as Flagger.:p

 

jc

[katerkat]

My husband use to live in the Tacoma/Seattle area. He did say the drive is very pretty. We love the road trips we have taken in the passed and I this won't be any different. We are giving ourselves 2 full days for the drive so no worries that we won't make the sail date. We are so excited about this trip.

 

I take it back - your husband is right. I googled your route and you'd be going a much different route that skips a lot of the boring stuff! If you went up and over, instead of over and up, you'd find that Montana is boring. But the drive to Salt Lake was very nice and I know 82 to 90 is a much better drive than straight 90. So ignore my previous comment and enjoy your drive! ;)

[Cuizer2]

No, prices will go up and service will contiue to stink. Passengers will still be crammed into small seats, the back of the seat in front of you will be in your nose when the rude person sitting in it decides he/she just has to put the seat all the way back.

 

Why is the person putting their seat back rude? They paid for that seat just like you did. There are airlines with seats that have more room. If you purchase your seat based solely on cost, then don't expect to have the most comfortable seat available. If you purchase your seat based on comfort, you will find you can get a lot more leg room for very little more money.

 

On United additional leg room for a flight from California to Texas cost an additional $39 (as of last year - the last time I did this) each way. On Jet Blue a seat with additional leg room cost an extra $20 each way for a cross country flight (Burbank to JFK). The Jet Blue seat is for a flight I'll take this summer.

 

Or, if you want even more room, book a business or first class seat.

 

The comfort of your seat is up to you. However, just because the person in the seat in front of you wants to be comfortable also does not make them rude.

[Ocean Boy]

 

The comfort of your seat is up to you. However, just because the person in the seat in front of you wants to be comfortable also does not make them rude.

I do not put my seat back out of respect to the person behind me as I know how uncomfortable it can feel to have the seat in front of you so close. It is fine that you do not consider it rude. I do. You are probably of those people who just has to push his seat back rearward.

 

I simply try to have some consideration for the person behind me, OK? But thanks for the lesson on how to book a flight.

[twoputt.plusone]

It is a smart idea to pay down debt. Rather than book that next vacation why not pay off a credit card instead?

 

For once I agree with you. (I can't believe I said that) :rolleyes:

 

2P.P1

[Ocean Boy]

OB, when we stop using oil, the economy will come to a grinding halt, and we will revert to a pre-industrial level, and starvation world wide will be beyond shocking. We live in a world that is based upon the use of oil. It is a fantasy to believe that we can just quit using oil. There may be a technology in the future that will replace oil, but it is not anywhere near happening. In the meantime I choose to not kill billions of people, by continuing feeding them.

 

http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/Top-ten-reasons-to-support-ANWR-development.php

 

jc

JC...

 

I wasn't trying to imply that we should just stop using oil. It can't be done. But the fact is there is a finite supply of the stuff and one day it will be gone. The time will come when alternatives will have to be devised. My only point was do we have to finish getting every drop out of the earth before we start addressing this? I'm sure that whatever the answer ends up being it will be just as good at supporting the world ecomony as oil is now. Unfortunately, there seem to be many politicians who seem to this jumping on the ethanol bandwagon is politically correct right now. I doubt that this will end up being the route to go but I suspect we will end up spending billions on this dead end before that is figured out.

[twoputt.plusone]

What gets me, is that the U.S. has PLENTY of oil reserves--we just need to be allowed to drill for it, both in Alaska and offshore. We need to get on the ball! I know we also need to develop other fuels (Ethanol is NOT the answer), but we still need gas, until we do!

 

All the easily accessible oil reserves are gone. Cheap fuel is over and we'd better get used to it. The only real answer is a viable alternative fuel source such as the electric car.

 

2P.P1

[Ocean Boy]

Thirdly, these are OIL companies not ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY COMPANIES. What does anything think they are going to procure, produce and sell?

 

I competely agree with this statement. However, the day will come when they will either become ALTERNATE SOURCES OF ENERGY COMPANIES or cease to exist as they are dealing with a finite commodity.

[twoputt.plusone]

Also, the weak dollar has a lot to do with the cost. If the dollar was stronger, then it would take less dollars to purchase the oil. That would also reduce the cost.

 

Don't bet the rent on this one. The Canadian dollar has been at or near par with the US dollar for a year or so. Today I saw regular gas at $125.9 per liter. That makes our gas more expensive than yours and our dollar hasn't been this strong for decades.

 

2P.P1

[Ocean Boy]

Don't bet the rent on this one. The Canadian dollar has been at or near par with the US dollar for a year or so. Today I saw regular gas at $125.9 per liter. That makes our gas more expensive than yours and our dollar hasn't been this strong for decades.

 

2P.P1

$125.9 per liter??

[twoputt.plusone]

$125.9 per liter??:confused: :eek:

 

Yup!

 

2P.P1

[Ocean Boy]

Don't bet the rent on this one. The Canadian dollar has been at or near par with the US dollar for a year or so. Today I saw regular gas at $125.9 per liter. That makes our gas more expensive than yours and our dollar hasn't been this strong for decades.

 

2P.P1

 

Sorry, mistake. I initially read it as $125.90!!!!

[xpcdoojk]

JC...

 

I wasn't trying to imply that we should just stop using oil. It can't be done. But the fact is there is a finite supply of the stuff and one day it will be gone. The time will come when alternatives will have to be devised. My only point was do we have to finish getting every drop out of the earth before we start addressing this? I'm sure that whatever the answer ends up being it will be just as good at supporting the world ecomony as oil is now. Unfortunately, there seem to be many politicians who seem to this jumping on the ethanol bandwagon is politically correct right now. I doubt that this will end up being the route to go but I suspect we will end up spending billions on this dead end before that is figured out.

 

ethanol is economic stupidity. I agree, OB. It wouldn't be economically feasible without all of the government subsidies, and the product sucks. It produces 20% less power, and to produce it costs almost as much energy as it provides. Not to mention what it is doing to the price of food products all over the world. It is making some farmers profitable, so that is good. Since almost all districts (congressional districts) in the US has farmers so pork is good for re-election.

 

jc