New Add-on charges for "Government Fees and Taxes"

[LAexNY]

As of this month, O is adding on an extra charge for Government Fees and Taxes. On a new booking I made today, the charge was $223 a person. Seems like a sneaky way to raise prices as these fees were previously included in the base fare.

[nparmelee]

We had a separate government fees and taxes item on both our 2006 and 2009 cruises with O. Also had them on a Princess 2004 and Celebrity 2005 cruise. I don't think these are new, maybe a different invoicing program from your TA?

[Acrusa]

As of this month, O is adding on an extra charge for Government Fees and Taxes. On a new booking I made today, the charge was $223 a person. Seems like a sneaky way to raise prices as these fees were previously included in the base fare.

 

No I think its a sneaky way to lower the base price then add on taxes and fees.Or maybe your right they just add on those fee's to the already base price.

I noticed when I went onto the cruise we booked last year for Splenders down under there was no extra fee posted. Now when I double check the price on the crusie it is the same price but an extra fee and taxes.

[sitraveler]

When my TA advised us about the "three day Sale", notice of the increase effective 9/1 was there.

[rallydave]

It's a PCH thing. Regent did it of Aug. 1. Didn't change the fares a penny but, added $17/nite/person so actually an across the board price increase. Oceania did the same thing Oct. 1.

 

Know the Regent increase was without prior notice or any notice once it occurred. Fares looked the same but, surprise, $17 more for each cruise nite.

 

They say it is government taxes and fees but, I'm not so sure. Not sure how taxes could be the same for everyone when the amount paid varies by cabin. And, for it to be port fees doesn't make sense when TA's with few ports compared to port intensive cruises have the same $17/nite added fees. Now some cruises are a little less than the $17/nite but, haven't figured out any logical way they are figured.

[Oceans&Rivers]

Not sure how taxes could be the same for everyone when the amount paid varies by cabin.

 

The "government fees and taxes" is a fixed amount per individual, not a percentage of the cruise fare paid. You could think of it as a "life vest tax", one per passenger.

[rallydave]

The "government fees and taxes" is a fixed amount per individual, not a percentage of the cruise fare paid. You could think of it as a "life vest tax", one per passenger.

 

And what government agency that covers cruise world wide does this tax and fees go to?? Only one that covers most of the earth is the UN??

 

And, with PCH, Oceania, and Regent Florida based, they all signed an agreement that anything defined as government taxes or fees would have to be paid to that government agency. Lots of taxes here in the US but, can't think of any that are a fixed amount per individual per day on any cruise anywhere in the world?

 

Assume there is something out there as I sincerely doubt that they are going to break an agreement they signed with the state of Florida. Anyone out there have any specific ideas??

[hondorner]

Oceania used to charge for taxes, fees, and security, which is fairly open ended, and added an amount that was an average of what they typically had to pay. The taxes involved are taxes charge by a port depending on a head count, which varies depending on who is doing the counting and how many are on the final manifest, unknown at the time of booking. Port fees ca vary according to the day of the week, the number of ships in port, which berth is occupied and other factors and again, are unknown at the time of booking. the best they can do is try to predict an average and charge everyone the same amount.

 

Because of the Florida nonsense it became too difficult to predict the fees according to the Florida rules, so they just wrapped them into the fare in general. I guarantee you were still paying them, just not aware of it. I imagine someone has knocked some sense into the Florida Attorney General (not hard to do considering who last held the job) and there is now a reasonable way to assess the fees without violating the rules.

 

I can also predict that no matter whether you think there was a price increase or not involved in this change, you would have been paying more either way, At least, this way you know how much of it is going to the cruise line and how much is beyond their control.

[rallydave]

Oceania used to charge for taxes, fees, and security, which is fairly open ended, and added an amount that was an average of what they typically had to pay. The taxes involved are taxes charge by a port depending on a head count, which varies depending on who is doing the counting and how many are on the final manifest, unknown at the time of booking. Port fees ca vary according to the day of the week, the number of ships in port, which berth is occupied and other factors and again, are unknown at the time of booking. the best they can do is try to predict an average and charge everyone the same amount.

 

Because of the Florida nonsense it became too difficult to predict the fees according to the Florida rules, so they just wrapped them into the fare in general. I guarantee you were still paying them, just not aware of it. I imagine someone has knocked some sense into the Florida Attorney General (not hard to do considering who last held the job) and there is now a reasonable way to assess the fees without violating the rules.

 

I can also predict that no matter whether you think there was a price increase or not involved in this change, you would have been paying more either way, At least, this way you know how much of it is going to the cruise line and how much is beyond their control.

 

Thanks Don for an excellent explanation if the AG did in fact relent on the necessity to pay everything identified as Government Fees and Taxes to the appropriate Government entity. Yes, I am aware that the costs for this were previously rolled into the cruise fare just like the "free" air, "free" hotel, etc. In doing that, the cruise lines were able to average the costs and pay only the specific amount billed by the gov. agency and not run afoul of the agreement.

 

Have to believe you are correct and the AG removed that billing issue so cruise lines based in Florda are now able to label the costs and collect them separately from the cruise fare. If this is all true, PCH had 3 choices, do nothing and leave the costs buried in the fare, show the costs separately as they chose to do and reduce the cruise fare accordingly or what they did which was to show the costs separately and leave the basic fare alone thus increase revenue without changing the basic cruise fare. All perfectly legal but, somewhat sneaky to those who are unaware of the added taxes/fees and erroneously believe that the total cost hasn't gone up. Anyone comparing fares from August to September will not see any increase but, in fact, their costs are going up by $17/day/person.

[lovetocruise16]

From what we have learned, Oceania executives have added these new Government fees and taxes. Is it "legal" to do so? Seems that Oceania clients should join together to oppose them. We saw no stated Gov't fees in our previous two Oceania trip invoices. Why are we seeing them now on our just-booked 2013 cruise? And a hefty fee it is! For what?

[Rickey 88]

From what we have learned, Oceania executives have added these new Government fees and taxes. Is it "legal" to do so? Seems that Oceania clients should join together to oppose them. We saw no stated Gov't fees in our previous two Oceania trip invoices. Why are we seeing them now on our just-booked 2013 cruise? And a hefty fee it is! For what?

 

You would be advised to re-read the previous posts again, before jumping to conclusions that are incorrect.

 

No! - "Oceania executives have added these new Government fees and taxes" is totally wrong. These fees and taxes have always been there. However, for years, they were "included" in the bottom line. Now, and it was fully disclosed previously, these fees are being shown on each invoice as separate entry - but are still part of the overall total.

 

Hope the above will clear up any misunderstanding on your part.....

[DaveFr]

Oceania used to charge for taxes, fees, and security, which is fairly open ended, and added an amount that was an average of what they typically had to pay. The taxes involved are taxes charge by a port depending on a head count, which varies depending on who is doing the counting and how many are on the final manifest, unknown at the time of booking. Port fees ca vary according to the day of the week, the number of ships in port, which berth is occupied and other factors and again, are unknown at the time of booking. the best they can do is try to predict an average and charge everyone the same amount.

 

Because of the Florida nonsense it became too difficult to predict the fees according to the Florida rules, so they just wrapped them into the fare in general. I guarantee you were still paying them, just not aware of it. I imagine someone has knocked some sense into the Florida Attorney General (not hard to do considering who last held the job) and there is now a reasonable way to assess the fees without violating the rules.

 

I can also predict that no matter whether you think there was a price increase or not involved in this change, you would have been paying more either way, At least, this way you know how much of it is going to the cruise line and how much is beyond their control.

 

Thanks Don for an excellent explanation if the AG did in fact relent on the necessity to pay everything identified as Government Fees and Taxes to the appropriate Government entity. Yes, I am aware that the costs for this were previously rolled into the cruise fare just like the "free" air, "free" hotel, etc. In doing that, the cruise lines were able to average the costs and pay only the specific amount billed by the gov. agency and not run afoul of the agreement.

 

Have to believe you are correct and the AG removed that billing issue so cruise lines based in Florda are now able to label the costs and collect them separately from the cruise fare. If this is all true, PCH had 3 choices, do nothing and leave the costs buried in the fare, show the costs separately as they chose to do and reduce the cruise fare accordingly or what they did which was to show the costs separately and leave the basic fare alone thus increase revenue without changing the basic cruise fare. All perfectly legal but, somewhat sneaky to those who are unaware of the added taxes/fees and erroneously believe that the total cost hasn't gone up. Anyone comparing fares from August to September will not see any increase but, in fact, their costs are going up by $17/day/person.

As far as I know, the agreements signed by the Florida AG and various cruise lines have not changed since their amendment in early 2008. A little history is helpful. I believe about six or seven years ago, some cruise lines were moving some cruise fare items, such as administrative costs, from cruise fares (where they belonged) to the government taxes and fees column. Doing so allowed the cruise lines to advertise lower fares.

 

There were many complaints so the Florida AG entered into agreements with the cruise lines. The agreements stated that only taxes and fees could be separated from the advertised cruise fare and that no taxes and fees could be kept by the cruise lines. The stated purpose of the agreements was to enable consumers to more easily compare cruise fares from different cruise lines. Of course, since the object of the agreement was to stop cruise lines from low balling cruise fares, cruise lines were free to include taxes and fees in their cruise fares since that would raise the amount of the fares advertised.

 

In 2007 various cruise lines instituted fuel surcharges on all bookings after specified dates whether deposited or not. Among the many complaints was the assertion that the surcharges violated the prior agreements because they were not part of the cruise fare but also were not government taxes and fees. Consequently, the original agreements were amended after negotiations to provide that, fuel surcharges as well as government taxes and fees could be shown separately from cruise fares and that fuel surcharges could be kept by the cruise lines.

 

In addition to including government taxes and fees in their cruise fares, nothing in the agreements prohibits cruise lines from including part of the taxes and fees in their cruise fares while showing the remaining taxes and fees as a separate item. The cruise lines have an obligation to pay the entire amount of taxes and fees to the government regardless of how they are advertised.

 

IMHO, Regent and Oceania are moving up to $17 per person per day in taxes and fees from the cruise fare column to the taxes and fees column partially as a means of silently raising total cruise fares and partially as a way of better competing with lines such as Seabourn which appear not to include taxes and fees in their advertised cruise fares. Any taxes and fees in excess of the $17 per day amount are being kept in the cruise fare column. So, taxes and fees which work out to less that $17 per day are most likely the total taxes and fees. IMO, many cruises show taxes and fees of $17 per day because taxes and fees average more than $17 per day on those cruises. For example, a one week Regent Alaska cruise shows additional taxes and fees of $119. I took such a cruise in 2009, the year before taxes and fees were included in the cruise fare. The separately shown taxes and fees on my cruise, exclusive of air taxes, were $354, including a $50 State of Alaska head tax and a tax of $4 from the city of Ketchikan. I did some research and the total taxes and fees for the Regent one week Alaska cruises have always been in excess of $200. The $50 tax is no longer in effect but I cannot imagine that full taxes and fees have been reduced from about $300 to $119. That makes no sense. If anyone believes taxes have been reduced so much, I have a nice bridge in New York City you might want to buy. It has had many owners through the years :D

 

Dave

[World20]

So why break them out seperate? Why not just raise the base fare? This looks like a price increase to me. Like the airlines charging for each extra that used to be included in the base fare!

[rallydave]

Thanks DaveFr for that excellent analysis. The $17 is not the total Gov. taxes and fees. The cruise lines are making sure that the total the $17/nite creates is less than the total taxes/fees thus the still comply with the agreement.

 

Do have a question though. We are on a 15 nite TA with only 6 Ports. While this does not affect us since we booked before the change, The total Gov. taxes/fees is $255. Just wonder how there arrived at the $17 with so many different ports and possibilities of varying taxes and fees. Say our cruise was a port intensive 15 nite cruise with say 13 ports, that would be $19.61/port while ours is $42.50/port; both averages. Guessing it took a really good computer program to generate the $17 figure so as to stay out of trouble with the agreement.

 

Yes, I am a nitpicker but, believe this is a real situation that customers need to understand as proven by the one rather strange post today. Guess it was worth the effort to calculate the $17 so as to be able to not change the listed fare but, still gain an additional approx. 2 to 3% revenue increase.

 

Thanks again Dave; think your post puts this issue to bed.

[lovetocruise16]

Re: my earlier post... I had read the previous posts before sending mine out. I was passing on information that our TA told us. Still not entirely satisfied, but this issue seems to be dead now.

[DaveFr]

Thanks DaveFr for that excellent analysis. The $17 is not the total Gov. taxes and fees. [i suppose the total taxes and fees may average out to exactly $17 per day but most of the time taxes and fees probably average more than $17 per day] The cruise lines are making sure that the total the $17/nite creates is less than the total taxes/fees thus the still comply with the agreement. [i don't understand this sentence. Under the agreements, cruise lines can show anywhere from zero to the full amount of taxes and fees in the separate taxes and fees column. The separate taxes and fees don't have to be less than the total taxes and fees. The cruise lines must pay the entire amount of taxes and fees to the government entities regardless of whether they are fully included in the cruise fare, partially included in the cruise fare and partially included in the taxes and fees column, or fully included in the taxes and fees column. Please explain.]

 

Do have a question though. We are on a 15 nite TA with only 6 Ports. While this does not affect us since we booked before the change, The total Gov. taxes/fees is $255. Just wonder how there arrived at the $17 with so many different ports and possibilities of varying taxes and fees. [The total taxes and fees on your cruise are probably greater than $255 as that figure is just 17 x 15.] Say our cruise was a port intensive 15 nite cruise with say 13 ports, that would be $19.61/port while ours is $42.50/port; both averages. [You seem to be assuming that the taxes and fees would be the same for both cruises. While the $255 figure would be the same for both cruises because that is the maximum amount Oceania/Regent will separate out for a 15 day cruise, there would be additional taxes and fees on the port intensive cruise that would be included in the cruise fare.] Guessing it took a really good computer program to generate the $17 figure so as to stay out of trouble with the agreement. [Again, the $17 figure has nothing to do with the agreements.]

 

Yes, I am a nitpicker but, believe this is a real situation that customers need to understand as proven by the one rather strange post today. Guess it was worth the effort to calculate the $17 so as to be able to not change the listed fare but, still gain an additional approx. 2 to 3% revenue increase.

 

Thanks again Dave; think your post puts this issue to bed.

I'm confused. See my comments in red, above.

 

Dave

[Jancruz]

You would be advised to re-read the previous posts again, before jumping to conclusions that are incorrect.

 

No! - "Oceania executives have added these new Government fees and taxes" is totally wrong. These fees and taxes have always been there. However, for years, they were "included" in the bottom line. Now, and it was fully disclosed previously, these fees are being shown on each invoice as separate entry - but are still part of the overall total.

 

Hope the above will clear up any misunderstanding on your part.....

 

Sorry Rickey, these are new and have been added as of September 1st..prices were not reduced by these taxes..as of September 1st prices were raised by these "taxes and government fees" IMHO it is a way to increase the bottom line without raising the base price.

Jancruz1

[rallydave]

Will try to explain my thoughts a little better Dave. To do this I couldn't copy your copy of my post so I copied my original post and will try to rewrite it so it is more understandable. My mind works in mysterious ways and what makes perfect sense to me confuses others so am glad to clarify.

In order

 

Thanks DaveFr for that excellent analysis. The $17 is not the total Gov. taxes and fees. The cruise lines are making sure that the total the $17/nite creates is less than the total taxes/fees thus the still comply with the agreement.

e

As I understand the agreement, the cruise line must pay all money specifically identified as taxes/fees to a Gov entity. Prior to this change, the taxes/fees were buried in the total fare so whatever the cruise line collected or paid to the Gov. entity didn't matter as no one could say all the money wasn't paid. With the taxes/fees now separately identified, all of it must be paid ot a Gov entity. Nothing says the identified amount is the total amount paid, just that all the identified money must go to the Gov.

Now, if the cruise line collects more than the amount of the taxes/fees, what are they to do with the extra money. Can't give it to the Gov as the Gov accounting system won't know what to do with more than the "invoice" value thus, the cruise line must make sure the money collected is equal to or less than the amount paid or any extra money paid will unbalance the books. Guess that's what I know but, didn't say. This logic applies to my example below where a port intensive cruise with the same number of nites as a TA with very few ports could have an issue where the TA collects more money than the actual Port tax/fees.

The above is also why the calculation of the $17 or whatever is the right amount is becomes so difficult as that value times the number of nites cannot exceed the Port fees/taxes for any cruise anywhere in the world. If my conclusion regarding where money collected in excess of the actual taxes/fees is correct, the above makes sense. If on the other hand, the cruise line can overpay for the taxes/fees, no harm, no foul and my theory blows up.

Having worked as a Gov. Contractor for many years in Contracts and Finance, I know that at least for the US Gov., bills must be paid in the exact amount and an error of even a penny will result in problems and a refund where the cost of the check is more than the value of it. Assuming all or at least most Governments and Gov. entities have the same issue. Cost accounting standards cause this. This issue will also cause problems in any public company where the auditors will have a field day with accounting variances.

You are correct that the $17 has nothing to do with the agreement other than it must generate a value equal to or less than the actual charges. Perhaps this is why at least on Regent there are some cruises where the Port charges are less than $17/day as using the $17 will exceed to total to be paid and this keeps them honest and within the agreement as I understand it.

As to your comment that the same issue arises when the taxes/fees are included in the total fare, I highly doubt it as the fare is just a number that the cruise line chooses to charge and there is no need, reason, or requirement to break that value down to any lower level. Consider then they do a true sale and reduce the fare say $3000, there is no chance they would break that $3000 reduction down to specifics pieces of the fare such as taxes/fees, dining, excursions, drinks, etc. Or when one gets a past passenger discount, on Regent an Ambassidor discount, a future cruise credit, etc.that is a total and not broken down either so I sincerely believe the cruise lines went to the taxes/fees included in the fare to avoid any possibilty violating the agreement. It is this move to identifying the taxes/fees that creates the need to make sure they are all paid to a Gov. agency.

Be glad to answer any other questions and apologize for forgetting the part about overpaying in my original post.

Thanks,

Dave

 

 

Do have a question though. We are on a 15 nite TA with only 6 Ports. While this does not affect us since we booked before the change, The total Gov. taxes/fees is $255. Just wonder how there arrived at the $17 with so many different ports and possibilities of varying taxes and fees. Say our cruise was a port intensive 15 nite cruise with say 13 ports, that would be $19.61/port while ours is $42.50/port; both averages. Guessing it took a really good computer program to generate the $17 figure so as to stay out of trouble with the agreement.

 

Yes, I am a nitpicker but, believe this is a real situation that customers need to understand as proven by the one rather strange post today. Guess it was worth the effort to calculate the $17 so as to be able to not change the listed fare but, still gain an additional approx. 2 to 3% revenue increase.

 

Thanks again Dave; think your post puts this issue to bed.

[Don P]

I don't understand how this could be labeled "nonsense". If a destination port is skipped why should the cruise line be allowed to retain that portion of the port charge or per capita fee. How is that fair?

 

Oceania used to charge for taxes, fees, and security, which is fairly open ended, and added an amount that was an average of what they typically had to pay. The taxes involved are taxes charge by a port depending on a head count, which varies depending on who is doing the counting and how many are on the final manifest, unknown at the time of booking. Port fees ca vary according to the day of the week, the number of ships in port, which berth is occupied and other factors and again, are unknown at the time of booking. the best they can do is try to predict an average and charge everyone the same amount.

 

Because of the Florida nonsense it became too difficult to predict the fees according to the Florida rules, so they just wrapped them into the fare in general. I guarantee you were still paying them, just not aware of it. I imagine someone has knocked some sense into the Florida Attorney General (not hard to do considering who last held the job) and there is now a reasonable way to assess the fees without violating the rules.

 

I can also predict that no matter whether you think there was a price increase or not involved in this change, you would have been paying more either way, At least, this way you know how much of it is going to the cruise line and how much is beyond their control.

[hondorner]

I don't understand how this could be labeled "nonsense". If a destination port is skipped why should the cruise line be allowed to retain that portion of the port charge or per capita fee. How is that fair?

The nonsense to which I referred had nothing to do with cruise lines or port fees. However, to answer your question, the amounts collected for port fees and taxes have always been an average, not a strict accounting of such fees.

 

There is no way to determine such amounts in advance, thus all passengers, regardless of the number of ports they enter or the amounts actually incurred on their voyage, are charged a fair average of the predicted amounts, based on the length of their cruise. Such amounts are actually an average of the number of ports visited during a season by all ships owned by that company.

 

If cruise A has five ports, cruise B has 7 and cruise C has 9, yet they are all 10 day cruises, they all carry the same amounts. The money paid by passengers goes into a pooled account, and money paid to ports and governments comes out of that pool. In the past, if there was any money left in that account at the end of an accounting period, perhaps the cruise lines retained it. Under the Florida ruling, that would no longer be possible. The simple answer is for the cruise line to either include the fees in the base fare, thus disguising what is actually paid, or to fix the amounts a little less than hat is predicted so the pooled account never has a surplus.

 

Since all such charges on based on the length of the cruise, not the specific number of ports visited, there would be no return of a specific amount if a port is skipped.

[LAexNY]

Interesting.

 

The cruise I booked is 18 days with 5 sea days. The "Fees and Taxes" I was charged was $223 per person. If they are using the $17 a day rate, I was only charged for the 13 non-sea days. I guess there are no "Fees and Taxes" for sea days!

[rallydave]

Interesting.

 

The cruise I booked is 18 days with 5 sea days. The "Fees and Taxes" I was charged was $223 per person. If they are using the $17 a day rate, I was only charged for the 13 non-sea days. I guess there are no "Fees and Taxes" for sea days!

 

First question, is your cruise 18 days or nites. The fees/taxes are per nite and there is a difference. They always report one more day than nite.

 

Secondly, 17 X 13 is $221 so they didn't simply charge for the non-sea days. What I think this is is the same as Regent where the pricing is a maximum of $17/day and as I stated in a previous post, when the $17/nite is too much, they lower the add-on fees/taxes such that they don't collect more than what they will pay to the Gov. authority. Whether or not the 18 is days or nites, the reduction is mathmatically not a multiple of the $17 and therefore must be a reduction as the taxes/fees for the ports visited on this cruise are less than what $17/nite would generate.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the number of sea days or nites as described above.

[LAexNY]

18 nights.

[DaveFr]

Will try to explain my thoughts a little better Dave. To do this I couldn't copy your copy of my post so I copied my original post and will try to rewrite it so it is more understandable. My mind works in mysterious ways and what makes perfect sense to me confuses others so am glad to clarify.

In order

 

Thanks DaveFr for that excellent analysis. The $17 is not the total Gov. taxes and fees. The cruise lines are making sure that the total the $17/nite creates is less than the total taxes/fees thus the still comply with the agreement.

e

As I understand the agreement, the cruise line must pay all money specifically identified as taxes/fees to a Gov entity. Prior to this change, the taxes/fees were buried in the total fare so whatever the cruise line collected or paid to the Gov. entity didn't matter as no one could say all the money wasn't paid. With the taxes/fees now separately identified, all of it must be paid ot a Gov entity. Nothing says the identified amount is the total amount paid, just that all the identified money must go to the Gov.

 

Now, if the cruise line collects more than the amount of the taxes/fees, what are they to do with the extra money. Can't give it to the Gov as the Gov accounting system won't know what to do with more than the "invoice" value thus, the cruise line must make sure the money collected is equal to or less than the amount paid or any extra money paid will unbalance the books. Guess that's what I know but, didn't say. This logic applies to my example below where a port intensive cruise with the same number of nites as a TA with very few ports could have an issue where the TA collects more money than the actual Port tax/fees.

 

The above is also why the calculation of the $17 or whatever is the right amount is becomes so difficult as that value times the number of nites cannot exceed the Port fees/taxes for any cruise anywhere in the world. If my conclusion regarding where money collected in excess of the actual taxes/fees is correct, the above makes sense. If on the other hand, the cruise line can overpay for the taxes/fees, no harm, no foul and my theory blows up.

 

Having worked as a Gov. Contractor for many years in Contracts and Finance, I know that at least for the US Gov., bills must be paid in the exact amount and an error of even a penny will result in problems and a refund where the cost of the check is more than the value of it. Assuming all or at least most Governments and Gov. entities have the same issue. Cost accounting standards cause this. This issue will also cause problems in any public company where the auditors will have a field day with accounting variances.

 

You are correct that the $17 has nothing to do with the agreement other than it must generate a value equal to or less than the actual charges. Perhaps this is why at least on Regent there are some cruises where the Port charges are less than $17/day as using the $17 will exceed to total to be paid and this keeps them honest and within the agreement as I understand it.

 

As to your comment that the same issue arises when the taxes/fees are included in the total fare, I highly doubt it as the fare is just a number that the cruise line chooses to charge and there is no need, reason, or requirement to break that value down to any lower level. Consider then they do a true sale and reduce the fare say $3000, there is no chance they would break that $3000 reduction down to specifics pieces of the fare such as taxes/fees, dining, excursions, drinks, etc. Or when one gets a past passenger discount, on Regent an Ambassidor discount, a future cruise credit, etc.that is a total and not broken down either so I sincerely believe the cruise lines went to the taxes/fees included in the fare to avoid any possibilty violating the agreement. It is this move to identifying the taxes/fees that creates the need to make sure they are all paid to a Gov. agency.

 

Be glad to answer any other questions and apologize for forgetting the part about overpaying in my original post.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

 

 

Do have a question though. We are on a 15 nite TA with only 6 Ports. While this does not affect us since we booked before the change, The total Gov. taxes/fees is $255. Just wonder how there arrived at the $17 with so many different ports and possibilities of varying taxes and fees. Say our cruise was a port intensive 15 nite cruise with say 13 ports, that would be $19.61/port while ours is $42.50/port; both averages. Guessing it took a really good computer program to generate the $17 figure so as to stay out of trouble with the agreement.

 

Yes, I am a nitpicker but, believe this is a real situation that customers need to understand as proven by the one rather strange post today. Guess it was worth the effort to calculate the $17 so as to be able to not change the listed fare but, still gain an additional approx. 2 to 3% revenue increase.

 

Thanks again Dave; think your post puts this issue to bed.

Dave,

 

With the exception of your final paragraph, I understand and agree with most of what you said. I'm not sure to which part of my post above, your last paragraph is referring. It's possible Regent moved all taxes and fees within the cruise fare to avoid problems with the agreement signed in early 2009 (I mistakenly said 2008 in my earlier post) but I doubt it. I think it more likely that Regent made taxes and fees part of the cruise fare in 2020 as part of their "All Inclusive" marketing strategy. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. :D

 

I have a minor quibble with your statement that:

 

"As I understand the agreement, the cruise line must pay all money specifically identified as taxes/fees to a Gov entity. Prior to this change, the taxes/fees were buried in the total fare so whatever the cruise line collected or paid to the Gov. entity didn't matter as no one could say all the money wasn't paid."

I'm pretty sure the various governmental entities involved (or at least their computers) knew exactly how much was owed and whether the full amount owed was paid. A little nitpicking on my part. :D

 

Dave

[rallydave]

Dave,

 

With the exception of your final paragraph, I understand and agree with most of what you said. I'm not sure to which part of my post above, your last paragraph is referring. It's possible Regent moved all taxes and fees within the cruise fare to avoid problems with the agreement signed in early 2009 (I mistakenly said 2008 in my earlier post) but I doubt it. I think it more likely that Regent made taxes and fees part of the cruise fare in 2020 as part of their "All Inclusive" marketing strategy. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. :D

 

I have a minor quibble with your statement that:

 

"As I understand the agreement, the cruise line must pay all money specifically identified as taxes/fees to a Gov entity. Prior to this change, the taxes/fees were buried in the total fare so whatever the cruise line collected or paid to the Gov. entity didn't matter as no one could say all the money wasn't paid."

I'm pretty sure the various governmental entities involved (or at least their computers) knew exactly how much was owed and whether the full amount owed was paid. A little nitpicking on my part. :D

 

Dave

 

Thanks Dave for your response. As things go on these message boards, for such a complex issue, think we are extremely close to being in agreement, at least for those things where the information we are discussing is in the public domain. Where you want to agree to diasgree, that's absolutely fine with me. In both our analysis, we both have valid conclusions and only the people at PCH at the time know the real reason for the move of the taxes.

 

As far as your nitpicking, think we are not communicating well on this issue. Of course course the Gov. entities receiving the money from PCH know if the full amount is paid or not. I was talking about the Florida AG knowing whether the full amount collected for fees/taxes was paid. With the taxes/fees buried in the total fare, only the cruise knows how much of the fare is for the taxes/fees so using the included the taxes/fees in the cruise fare, it is impossible for the AG to determine that the cruise line violated the agreement. My comment was regarding the amount paid by the passengers and not the amount paid by the cruise line. That is what the AG is interested in; that the amount paid by the passengers is all paid to the Gov. entities.

 

Reallly enjoy discussing these issues with you as appears we have a similar mind set. Would hope we could meet sometime on a Regent or Oceania cruise.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave