Fuel Surcharges

[lilsdad]

With fuel prices dropping faster than my 401k, you might think NCL would drop the fuel surcharge of $11 per person per day. Has anyone heard anything on this?

[chesquinn]

This should answer your question

 

http://www.ncl.com/nclweb/pressroom/pressRelease.html?storyCode=PR_103008

[ebedore]

Seems like oil is significantly lower in price today than it was when they instituted the charge, yet they are going to wait til 2010. For now I suppose it makes sense to play it cautiously in case oil prices soar back up. However, NCL needs to play it carefully so that the message they send to potential clients is not one of "rip off". I am going to guess that 99.9% of their customers buys gasoline and knows the price has dropped.

[mrtractor]

A barrel of oil is now fully a third of it's high and is actually trading at $12 a barrel LESS than what it was at the beginning of the year. This was before the lines all instituted a "Fuel Surcharge." Yet they continue to charge this "surcharge" while advertising super low prices for a cruise. They continue to pocket the fuel surcharges even though they are paying significantly less for it.

 

This is EXACTLY what the cruiselines all agreed NOT to do. Seems to me I remember an agreement with the State of Florida in which CLIA members agreed to advertise prices that reflected the true cost of a cruise. I think it was a consumer group that sued CLIA accusing them of adding "hidden" charges." They won, and from that point on, only government taxes could be stated as a separate item. They have now broken that agreement with the advent of "Fuel Surcharges." Let's be REAL. These are nothing but an increase in the price of the cruise. If that's what they are, they should be added to the price of the cruise. I"m OK with that. But if they're not, and the only justification for them is the price of a ton of bunker fuel, THEN THEY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.

 

I'm aware that some cruiselines buy their fuel well in advance and may have had to pay a premium earlier this year to insure their ships weren't left at the dock without fuel. But if that's true, then they are buying their fuel futures now for cruises going forward. So shouldn't they be eliminating or drastically reducing (assuming they still have some shortfalls to make up, which they probably don't!) the "Fuel Surcharges" that they are illegally adding to the price of cruises? Using the logic that the lines are purporting, buying the futures at near today's prices for fuel to be delivered in February should result in a REDUCTION IN THE BASE COST OF THE CRUISE! Fat chance of that happening.

 

At the very least, they should be eliminating the fuel charges until the price of crude increases. If they feel that fuel prices have significantly impacted the cost of doing business, let them increase their prices. Goodness knows they have found all sorts of little ways to get into your wallet AFTER you get on the ship. What's next, a "Laundry Detergent Surcharge?" caused by the increase in the cost of phosphorus? Or maybe a "Food Surcharge" forced upon them by the cost of corn??

 

In light of the current price of oil, Fuel Surcharges are now nothing more than a way to advertise a low price and charge a higher one on the pretext that fuel is so expensive. Well it's NOT anymore. Should the AG of Florida be looking into this????

 

MrTractor<----------hadn't stirred anything up in a while and thought it was a good time to start......:rolleyes:....