How are "taxes and fees" defined

[owl61]

I booked a short HAL cruise via an online agent. The invoice the TA sent to me listed "Taxes/Fees" in the total amount of $564.26 in addition to a cruise price of $1131.28.

When I accessed the HAL website to simulate a direct online booking for the same cruise and cabin it quoted " cruise/tour Taxes & Fees" in the amount of 264.26 plus a higher cruise price of $1598.

I'm left scatching my head how to account for the difference in the amounts quoted for taxes and fees. I'ver written to the agent and a service I used to locate that agent and I am awaiting their responses, but can anyone here educate me?

[patseacruiser]

I may be wrong - wouldn't be the first time but I think the way the travel agent does it - the taxes are the port charges, fees and non-commissionable fare plus the fare. HAL generally lists the fare as the fare and the non-commissionable fare together.

[smeyer418]

various places break up this differently.

Many on line sites include NCF(non-commissionable fare-the part of the fare that the TA receives no payment for) as part of the taxes and fee lines.

Taxes and fees are supposed to represent actual taxes and port related charges(including pilots, wharfage, actual port fees etc)...they can add up.

In most cases its irrelevant how its broken up- only the total fare including all taxes, fees and everything else. It can also mean that they are showing what they actually pay the cruise line(a net fare) and what they can keep as their fee(profit)

The chances that they will explain this is pretty small. Its how there websites are set up.

[owl61]

I may be wrong - wouldn't be the first time but I think the way the travel agent does it - the taxes are the port charges, fees and non-commissionable fare plus the fare. HAL generally lists the fare as the fare and the non-commissionable fare together.

Sorry, but you lost me on this. Can you try again?

[CruiseChick00]

If a cruise is quoted at $799 then within that quote NCF's are included. This stands for non-commissionable fares. These used to be called port charges until the cruise lines were sued for it. They have nothing to do with port charges. They are simply fees the cruise line charges and they do not pay travel agents commissions on these fares....hence...non commissionable fares.

 

The taxes are what the cruise lines pay for various things like docking. A 7 night cruise typically will have approximately $159 worth of NCF's and the tax will vary but usually will run between $69-$99. I'm not sure but I think it has to do with the size of the ship. It varies with each cruise line but anytime a price is advertised, it's supposed to include the NCF's but will almost never include the actual taxes.

 

Hope this helps.....

 

CruiseChick00

[owl61]

various places break up this differently.

Many on line sites include NCF(non-commissionable fare-the part of the fare that the TA receives no payment for) as part of the taxes and fee lines.

Taxes and fees are supposed to represent actual taxes and port related charges(including pilots, wharfage, actual port fees etc)...they can add up.

In most cases its irrelevant how its broken up- only the total fare including all taxes, fees and everything else. It can also mean that they are showing what they actually pay the cruise line(a net fare) and what they can keep as their fee(profit)

The chances that they will explain this is pretty small. Its how there websites are set up.

 

Thank you for this explanation. So I take it that the non-commisionable fare is very small (around $150) and that it is lumped in by the agent in what he chooses to call taxes and fees (together with "real" port taxes, and other "real" governmental fees). If I understand your explanation correctly, I think this way of describing an element of cost is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. I think that the cruise fare quoted by the TA should include whatever commission he earns, the exact amount of which I don't need to know. Taxes and fees are commonly understood to be charges assessed by governmental entities alone. As you say "taxes and fees are supposed to represent actual taxes and port related charges(including pilots, wharfage, actual port fees etc." To artificially supplement true taxes and fees with some portion of the cruise fare should be prohibited as misleading.

 

I'm not sure why you say that "in most cases it is irrelevant how it is broken up." I think it is relevant because it makes comparison shopping all the more difficult. I see many cruise quotes written as a specific fare amount plus an unspecified amount for "taxes and fees." In such cases one can not easily compare pricing unless we know exactly what taxes and fees mean. Consumers should not be required to compare apples with oranges to price a cruise.

I can not know for sure whether, as you say, the chances are small they will "bother" (!) to answer me forthrightly to explain this discrepancy. I would regard such failure as a separate and independent act of malfeasance. I can be pretty tenacious in defending my rights and in correcting what amounts to an unfair business practice. Most jurisdictions have consumer protection statutes that are triggered by misleading business practices if that is in deed what we are dealing with here.

[firefly333]

Sorry, but you lost me on this. Can you try again?

 

All cruiselines put the port fees in with the cruise fare (they are required to do this and not allowed to add it on).

 

The TA is breaking out the port charges (and adding it into the add on fees and taxes), non commissionable fare part, because they dont receive commission on this part of the cruise fare.

 

If the bottom line amount is the same dont stress over it.

[firefly333]

Thank you for this explanation. So I take it that the non-commisionable fare is very small (around $150) .

 

Port charges run a tad over $50 each port on average, so $150ish is typical for 3 ports for port charges.

[yogi2929]

My TA separates the commisionable portion of the fare from the noncommissionable portion of the fare. The noncommissionable portion is taxes, fees and whatever else the line deems to be noncommissionable. It's easier for her to make sure she gets paid correctly.

As long as the bottom line is the same I am fine.

[smeyer418]

Thank you for this explanation. So I take it that the non-commisionable fare is very small (around $150) and that it is lumped in by the agent in what he chooses to call taxes and fees (together with "real" port taxes, and other "real" governmental fees). If I understand your explanation correctly, I think this way of describing an element of cost is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. I think that the cruise fare quoted by the TA should include whatever commission he earns, the exact amount of which I don't need to know. Taxes and fees are commonly understood to be charges assessed by governmental entities alone. As you say "taxes and fees are supposed to represent actual taxes and port related charges(including pilots, wharfage, actual port fees etc." To artificially supplement true taxes and fees with some portion of the cruise fare should be prohibited as misleading.

 

BTW the person above is correct. The port charges are supposed to shown in the fare- its the taxes that are supposed to be added separately and that is almost always a pretty small amount.

 

I'm not sure why you say that "in most cases it is irrelevant how it is broken up." I think it is relevant because it makes comparison shopping all the more difficult. I see many cruise quotes written as a specific fare amount plus an unspecified amount for "taxes and fees." In such cases one can not easily compare pricing unless we know exactly what taxes and fees mean. Consumers should not be required to compare apples with oranges to price a cruise.

I can not know for sure whether, as you say, the chances are small they will "bother" (!) to answer me forthrightly to explain this discrepancy. I would regard such failure as a separate and independent act of malfeasance. I can be pretty tenacious in defending my rights and in correcting what amounts to an unfair business practice. Most jurisdictions have consumer protection statutes that are triggered by misleading business practices if that is in deed what we are dealing with here.

 

The only way to comparison shop is to get the total fare including taxes and fees. How they break it up before they get there is doesn't matter. The bottom line is the apple. Its the total charge. They show you that. If the total is the total how they get there won't be a consumer issue. This has been going on for years. The rules apply when they advertise the price-not how they calculate it on line. Its the airlines that hide this more than the cruise lines and the FTC has allowed them to do it that way as long as it is disclosed. When you see the paper ads the total price for cruises are shown. When you are looking on line and imputing info they show the total price. How they get there is less important that what it actually is. Is it misleading...not if they show the total price. NCF includes expendables like fuel and can be a lot---more than the basic cruise fare sometimes. It varies with destination and how the cruise lines break it up as well. As to the net fare issue markup can also be a lot. Its all over the lot. So I say again what you need to compare is the total fare including all taxes and fees.

BTW why can the fees vary so much? because how the cruise lines calculate them. Lets use pilot charges as an example. The pilot charge(the fee that the guy who comes on the ship to help them into the harbor) is based on the tonnage of the ship in most places...not the number of people aboard. Some cruise lines divide the number of lower passengers on the ship ie. lets use 1000 as the number of rooms times 2 =2000 and that the pilot charge is 20,000(a true number btw) that means that the cruise line adds $10 per passenger but another cruise line uses 105% of lower two to divide the same $20,000 in this case it would be 20,000 divided by 2100= $9.52- almost a 5% difference... you will never get this fully explained. How they calculate the differences are a trade secret.

 

BTW the person above is correct. the cruise lines show the port charges as part of the fare. actual taxes they show separately. The $50 Alaska charge is a tax. Most user fees for the use of the port like wharfage(which is again a per ship charge) is different than the fee that most ports charge per passenger for getting on or off(charged whether you actually get off the ship or not) and not to confuse the matter too much, many port rebate this on/off fee if the cruise line hits a certain number of passengers at that port....and you will never get it back(NCL has a rebate arrangement with the NY City(Manhattan and Brooklyn-although they have never left from Brooklyn yet) ports- if they go over x passengers a year all or a significant portion is returned to them-retroactively)

[cruiseco]

As you say "taxes and fees are supposed to represent actual taxes and port related charges(including pilots, wharfage, actual port fees etc." To artificially supplement true taxes and fees with some portion of the cruise fare should be prohibited as misleading.

 

.

 

One problem lies in how each cruise line chooses to break down their expenses. "Taxes" are self explanatory. But "port charges" and "fees" are open to interpretation. For example, say while in a port of call a ship is using shore-side power to run the lights and what not. Cruise line A might decide that that expense is just a part of the cost of doing business and includes it in the commissionable fare. Cruise line B says there's no way they are paying a travel agent commission on that so it goes into the NCF -- non-commissionable fare. And if a portion of that cost is also determined to be a tax by the cruise line's accountants it may further be broken down into NCF and taxes.

 

The agency probably is running some sort of software that integrates it's billing and invoicing into it's back-office accounting system. They need to know and separate out the amount(s) they are being paid commission on and the amount they are not being paid on. Years ago when these software programs first were developed there were only two categories of monies being collected by the cruise line -- (A) the cruise fare, and (B) everything that was non-commissionable -- port charges and taxes/fees lumped together. But a few years back (as a result of some lawsuits) the cruise lines started breaking everything down into three distinct categories when dealing with a travel agency -- (A) commissionable fare, (B) non-commissionable fare, and © taxes and fees.

 

This new way of splitting up the total cost of the cruise does not match up well with the older accounting systems which can only handle two types of fare instead of the three. So the travel agency will still split it into two -- (A) commissionable fare and (B) NCF plus taxes and fees, basically everything else. There is absolutely nothing illegal or deceptive about doing this as the lawsuits applied only to the cruise lines but it does make it tougher for those shopping around to compare quotes from different sources.

 

Your total fare quote will consist of

(A) Commissionable cruise fare

(B) Non-commissionable cruise fare

© Taxes/fees

 

The cruise line will quote (A + B) + C

TA #1 may quote using the exact same formula

TA #2 may quote A + (B + C)

TA #3 may quote A + B + C as three separate items

TA #4 may quote them all as a lump sum of all combined

 

All are correct and legal when done by a travel agency. It's only the cruise lines that are constrained as to how they break down the total cruise cost in their advertising or when quoting directly to the general public.

[jagoffee]

Cruiseco,

 

Very nice explanation.

[owl61]

All cruiselines put the port fees in with the cruise fare (they are required to do this and not allowed to add it on).

The TA is breaking out the port charges (and adding it into the add on fees and taxes), non commissionable fare part, because they dont receive commission on this part of the cruise fare.

If the bottom line amount is the same dont stress over it.

 

If by port fees you mean port taxes, then this appears to be an incorrect statement acc to what is posted below. Port taxes are not lumped in together with the cruise fare by the cruise line. If by port fees, you mean fixed expenses that the cruise line incurs, but that it doesn't want to pay a commission on, then, your statement appears to be correct, except this cost will be denominated as non-commissionable cruise fare, NCF, and not port fees per se.

p.s. thanks for the admonition not to stress

 

The only way to comparison shop is to get the total fare including taxes and fees. How they break it up before they get there is doesn't matter. The bottom line is the apple. Its the total charge. They show you that. If the total is the total how they get there won't be a consumer issue.

 

...and not to confuse the matter too much, many port rebate this on/off fee if the cruise line hits a certain number of passengers at that port....and you will never get it back(NCL has a rebate arrangement with the NY City(Manhattan and Brooklyn-although they have never left from Brooklyn yet) ports- if they go over x passengers a year all or a significant portion is returned to them-retroactively)

 

I think it does matter how the price is expressed. That is the whole philosophy behind the Federal Truth In Lending statutes (consistency in disclosure) which applies to all kinds of consumer financing. Some on line TAs quote a cruies price as a specified $ amount plus unspecified applicable taxes and fees. If the TA defines fees differently than does the cruise line (or a competing TA) shopping is rendered unnecessarily confusing.

p.s. If the cruise line receives a refund of a fixed per passenger fee it passes through to the passenger without disclosing or accounting for them, then I see a legal issue (though admittedly obscure).

 

One problem lies in how each cruise line chooses to break down their expenses. "Taxes" are self explanatory. But "port charges" and "fees" are open to interpretation. For example, say while in a port of call a ship is using shore-side power to run the lights and what not. Cruise line A might decide that that expense is just a part of the cost of doing business and includes it in the commissionable fare. Cruise line B says there's no way they are paying a travel agent commission on that so it goes into the NCF -- non-commissionable fare. And if a portion of that cost is also determined to be a tax by the cruise line's accountants it may further be broken down into NCF and taxes.

 

The agency probably is running some sort of software that integrates it's billing and invoicing into it's back-office accounting system. They need to know and separate out the amount(s) they are being paid commission on and the amount they are not being paid on. Years ago when these software programs first were developed there were only two categories of monies being collected by the cruise line -- (A) the cruise fare, and (B) everything that was non-commissionable -- port charges and taxes/fees lumped together. But a few years back (as a result of some lawsuits) the cruise lines started breaking everything down into three distinct categories when dealing with a travel agency -- (A) commissionable fare, (B) non-commissionable fare, and © taxes and fees.

 

This new way of splitting up the total cost of the cruise does not match up well with the older accounting systems which can only handle two types of fare instead of the three. So the travel agency will still split it into two -- (A) commissionable fare and (B) NCF plus taxes and fees, basically everything else. There is absolutely nothing illegal or deceptive about doing this as the lawsuits applied only to the cruise lines but it does make it tougher for those shopping around to compare quotes from different sources.

 

Your total fare quote will consist of

(A) Commissionable cruise fare

(B) Non-commissionable cruise fare

© Taxes/fees

 

The cruise line will quote (A + B) + C

TA #1 may quote using the exact same formula

TA #2 may quote A + (B + C)

TA #3 may quote A + B + C as three separate items

TA #4 may quote them all as a lump sum of all combined

 

All are correct and legal when done by a travel agency. It's only the cruise lines that are constrained as to how they break down the total cruise cost in their advertising or when quoting directly to the general public.

 

Thank you for the lucid explanation, however, with all due respect, I think your conclusion that TAs are within their legal rights to characterize non commissionable cruise fare as fees simply because their computer systems are not up to snuff is not convincing. Such a characterization is misleading and adds to the confusion attendant to cruise buying. The industry should regulate these kinds of issues to promote clarity. Otherwise a suit against TAs similar to what curbed the misleading pricing by the cruise lines will be the second shoe dropping.

[smeyer418]

If by port fees you mean port taxes, then this appears to be an incorrect statement acc to what is posted below. Port taxes are not lumped in together with the cruise fare by the cruise line. If by port fees, you mean fixed expenses that the cruise line incurs, but that it doesn't want to pay a commission on, then, your statement appears to be correct, except this cost will be denominated as non-commissionable cruise fare, NCF, and not port fees per se.

p.s. thanks for the admonition not to stress

 

 

 

I think it does matter how the price is expressed. That is the whole philosophy behind the Federal Truth In Lending statutes (consistency in disclosure) which applies to all kinds of consumer financing. Some on line TAs quote a cruies price as a specified $ amount plus unspecified applicable taxes and fees. If the TA defines fees differently than does the cruise line (or a competing TA) shopping is rendered unnecessarily confusing.

p.s. If the cruise line receives a refund of a fixed per passenger fee it passes through to the passenger without disclosing or accounting for them, then I see a legal issue (though admittedly obscure).

 

 

 

Thank you for the lucid explanation, however, with all due respect, I think your conclusion that TAs are within their legal rights to characterize non commissionable cruise fare as fees simply because their computer systems are not up to snuff is not convincing. Such a characterization is misleading and adds to the confusion attendant to cruise buying. The industry should regulate these kinds of issues to promote clarity. Otherwise a suit against TAs similar to what curbed the misleading pricing by the cruise lines will be the second shoe dropping.

knock your self out. It still doesn't help you compare the prices. There is no consumer lending here. They charge for a service you pay. The amount is disclosed as the full price with all costs(taxes fees NCF etc)....

is it as simple as it should be? probably not but it is fully disclosed before your pay and before you book.

[LHT28]

What difference does it may as long as the bottom line is the same or less than the cruise line :D

[cruiseco]

 

Thank you for the lucid explanation, however, with all due respect, I think your conclusion that TAs are within their legal rights to characterize non commissionable cruise fare as fees simply because their computer systems are not up to snuff is not convincing. Such a characterization is misleading and adds to the confusion attendant to cruise buying. The industry should regulate these kinds of issues to promote clarity. Otherwise a suit against TAs similar to what curbed the misleading pricing by the cruise lines will be the second shoe dropping.

 

There are law firms that do nothing but litigate travel-related and travel agency-related issues. They make very nice livings suing for every real or perceived violation of "fairness" with regards to the dealings of clients with agencies, clients with the cruise lines, agencies with cruise lines, and everything in-between. If there was a breach of law here I am 100% convinced that there would have been lawsuits flying all over the place a long time before now. Although I am no lawyer, the absence of any litigation about how travel agents quote cruise fares speaks volumes to my untrained ears. If you want to start a class-action suit you can contact any of these firms and if there is any merit to your claims I'm sure they'll be all over it. There's dozens of them in the Miami phone book.

[njhorseman]

There are law firms that do nothing but litigate travel-related and travel agency-related issues. They make very nice livings suing for every real or perceived violation of "fairness" with regards to the dealings of clients with agencies, clients with the cruise lines, agencies with cruise lines, and everything in-between. If there was a breach of law here I am 100% convinced that there would have been lawsuits flying all over the place a long time before now. Although I am no lawyer, the absence of any litigation about how travel agents quote cruise fares speaks volumes to my untrained ears. If you want to start a class-action suit you can contact any of these firms and if there is any merit to your claims I'm sure they'll be all over it. There's dozens of them in the Miami phone book.

 

 

And to add to what cruiseco said, when you call make sure you tell the lawyer that you think this a violation of the Truth In Lending Act.

[owl61]

Gee whiz, you would think I had insulted someone here with my observation/opinion that the discrepancy in the way fees are defined gives rise to confusion and that the industry ought to self regulate to avoid it. Is someone here anti-consumer or just anti-lawyer? (I realize that lawyers are not popular until, of course, you want one to defend you or punish someone you think has wronged you).

In my former life as a litigation lawyer for a large financial institution, I tended to opine defensively when asked about the fairness requirements in our docs or actions. In my position with Legal Aid I often prosecuted cases on behalf of consumers who got ripped off by overreaching merchants. At no time did I feel what I was doing was a bad thing. It's our system and compared to almost all others, its a pretty good one. So you can deride me for my opinion, but nothing anyone has said has convinced me to alter it. Simply put, the way fees are defined gives rise to confuson and it ought to be fixed. It may not rise to the level of an actionable unfair business practice, but as cruiseco admitted, "it does make it tougher for those shopping around to compare quotes from different sources."

[G'ma]

I booked a short HAL cruise via an online agent. The invoice the TA sent to me listed "Taxes/Fees" in the total amount of $564.26 in addition to a cruise price of $1131.28.

When I accessed the HAL website to simulate a direct online booking for the same cruise and cabin it quoted " cruise/tour Taxes & Fees" in the amount of 264.26 plus a higher cruise price of $1598.

I'm left scatching my head how to account for the difference in the amounts quoted for taxes and fees. I'ver written to the agent and a service I used to locate that agent and I am awaiting their responses, but can anyone here educate me?

 

Most agencies break out fees differently. In some cases, if the agency charges a fee, that will be reflected in that amount.

 

It really doesn't matter as long as the total you've paid adds up to what the price of the entire cruise is.

[smeyer418]

Gee whiz, you would think I had insulted someone here with my observation/opinion that the discrepancy in the way fees are defined gives rise to confusion and that the industry ought to self regulate to avoid it. Is someone here anti-consumer or just anti-lawyer? (I realize that lawyers are not popular until, of course, you want one to defend you or punish someone you think has wronged you).

In my former life as a litigation lawyer for a large financial institution, I tended to opine defensively when asked about the fairness requirements in our docs or actions. In my position with Legal Aid I often prosecuted cases on behalf of consumers who got ripped off by overreaching merchants. At no time did I feel what I was doing was a bad thing. It's our system and compared to almost all others, its a pretty good one. So you can deride me for my opinion, but nothing anyone has said has convinced me to alter it. Simply put, the way fees are defined gives rise to confuson and it ought to be fixed. It may not rise to the level of an actionable unfair business practice, but as cruiseco admitted, "it does make it tougher for those shopping around to compare quotes from different sources."

gee wiz you ask a question we answer it. You don't like the answer and start talking about a lawsuit. I am a lawyer as I said knock your self out. You might as well knock your head against the wall. You don't like the way the TA's present the info. What I said was it doesn't matter. Do I think its illegal? As I said unless the amount at the end- before you buy- is misleading I don't think so but you too can be a don quixote if you want. It won't change the info as it currently exists. We explained to you why it may be different. I don't think we said we thought it was ok but it is the way it is and why. This is not a financial institution. There have been complaints with state's attorney generals about it and for the most part they say its ok as long as its not misleading. Since its disclosed its probably not. But as I said if it troubles you so much buy from a source that does it the way you want....and we all know the fact that banks have lots of lawyers doesn't mean they are doing it right either.

[jeph]

Cruiseco, I'll address this to you, since you seem to have a lot of experience in the field: Since most of my friends are busy doing other things when I want to go, or spending their vacation dollars on skiing, or have no spare vacation dollars anyhow, I've done most of my cruising solo. This naturally leads me toward lines such as HAL which cut solo travelers a bit of slack, charging me 150% of a per-person cabin-share fare, rather than than the 200% that most cruise lines do. But here's what REALLY gets my goat: some lines not only charge single travelers full double fare, but also double up on the port charges, and even the gov't taxes & fees! Aren't those supposed to be strictly per PERSON, not per CABIN?! I didn't even see how this could be legal-- how can they get away with this?

[cruiseco]

Cruiseco, I'll address this to you, since you seem to have a lot of experience in the field: Since most of my friends are busy doing other things when I want to go, or spending their vacation dollars on skiing, or have no spare vacation dollars anyhow, I've done most of my cruising solo. This naturally leads me toward lines such as HAL which cut solo travelers a bit of slack, charging me 150% of a per-person cabin-share fare, rather than than the 200% that most cruise lines do. But here's what REALLY gets my goat: some lines not only charge single travelers full double fare, but also double up on the port charges, and even the gov't taxes & fees! Aren't those supposed to be strictly per PERSON, not per CABIN?! I didn't even see how this could be legal-- how can they get away with this?

 

As noted previously, the cruise lines are only allowed to quote at most three components of the total cruise cost -- when dealing with a TA they break it into commissionable fare, non-commissionable fare, and taxes. When dealing with the general public it's usually only two -- cruise fare and taxes. So as far as the cruise line is concerned a person paying a 200% single supplement is paying double the cruise fare plus one tax.

 

Remember, there is no longer anything known as "port charges". The lawsuits several years ago eliminated that. They don't exist. Do some travel agents still toss that term around? Unfortunately, yes. Many are lazy, ignorant or both. So if you're getting quoted double "port charges" for a single occupancy cruise don't read anything into it as being some sort of "per person" charge. It's not. You're paying double the commissionable fare plus double the non-commissionable fare which means nothing more or less than you're paying double the cruise fare.

 

I've been out of the cruise biz for many years so this may be outdated but I believe "taxes" still are truly a per person line item so if you are really being charged double taxes on a single occupancy cruise something is wrong and you should question it.

 

The stupid/ignorant/lazy/unprofessional travel agents who still use the term "port charges" have no idea how much confusion they cause.

[owl61]

I don't think we said we thought it was ok but it is the way it is and why .

Hmmm. Thank you for agreeing with me that it is not ok. Thank you for at the same time suggesting that trying to do something about it would be tantamount to knocking my head against a wall because it probably is not "illegal." We appreciate that you think how taxes and fees are disclosed is irrelevant.

Don Q.

[smeyer418]

Hmmm. Thank you for agreeing with me that it is not ok. Thank you for at the same time suggesting that trying to do something about it would be tantamount to knocking my head against a wall because it probably is not "illegal." We appreciate that you think how taxes and fees are disclosed is irrelevant.

Don Q.

 

Many times a lawsuit to correct this accomplished nothing. I didn't say it was right or wrong. It just is. The bottom line is you get the full price. The TA's use this as jargon. Its their short hand. Its the "in" way to describe it that is not completely modern. I won't even say its not accurate. Many times a correction is worse than the previous situation. So go ahead and fight it if you must but hopefully it won't cost the rest of us money.

 

You seem to be unwilling to accept that the bottom line includes all the taxes fees etc. Its more like you have to have it your way and no matter what people point out to you you won't listen.

 

Yes over 6 years I have 15,000 posts. Its nothing that I am ashamed of. If it bothers you put me on ignore.

I reread my posts and none of them can be called an attack of you. They point out what you are doing. Whether your head its the wall or the wall hits you head, its your head that is going to be hurt. I understand how the prices are shown and its really pretty simple to compare the bottom line of the cruise lines and the TA's. Its you that seems to have a problem with that not me.

[smeyer418]

not to add to my post count but there may actually be a reason why some TA this- which has to do with the way they rebate some of their commission.

Commission is only paid on the basic cruise fare(excluding NCF and Taxes). To calculate the amount they will rebate they need to use this base amount and multiply it by the percent that are using as a rebate to the passenger. While they could probably do it differently now especially since computers are more powerful and easier than they once were. I can see a programmer coming and saying the easiest way to do this is to lump the non commission-able items together and someone saying yes.

 

Doing it any other way is much more complicated for them.

Since NCF varies greatly from cruise line to cruise line and different itineraries it is by far the easiest way just to do it as they do it now. Estimating it otherwise would surely make the estimate of the discount less to be on the safe side.

 

So be careful what you wish for...