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

[DaveFr]

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

Thanks, Dave. I too hope we meet on a cruise someday.

 

Just a couple of nitpicking comments and then I'll sit down and shut up. :D First, the agreements with Oceania and Regent are entitled: "Assurance of Voluntary Compliance." So I doubt the Florida AG's Office will be actively monitoring the cruise lines for compliance with the agreement. The requirement that all taxes and fees imposed separately be sent to the various governmental entities is the enforcement mechanism. If cruise lines are violating the agreement, passengers will have to file complaints with the AG to get the investigation ball rolling.

 

Second, whether the AG can determine if full taxes have been paid if the taxes are part of the advertised cruise fare is irrelevant. By definition, if taxes and fees are included in the cruise fare, there cannot be a violation of the agreement. The agreement only deals with taxes and fees that are not included in the advertised cruise fare.

 

Dave

[rallydave]

Thanks, Dave. I too hope we meet on a cruise someday.

 

Just a couple of nitpicking comments and then I'll sit down and shut up. :D First, the agreements with Oceania and Regent are entitled: "Assurance of Voluntary Compliance." So I doubt the Florida AG's Office will be actively monitoring the cruise lines for compliance with the agreement. The requirement that all taxes and fees imposed separately be sent to the various governmental entities is the enforcement mechanism. If cruise lines are violating the agreement, passengers will have to file complaints with the AG to get the investigation ball rolling.

 

Second, whether the AG can determine if full taxes have been paid if the taxes are part of the advertised cruise fare is irrelevant. By definition, if taxes and fees are included in the cruise fare, there cannot be a violation of the agreement. The agreement only deals with taxes and fees that are not included in the advertised cruise fare.

 

Dave

 

Interesting comments DaveFr! If what you say is true and I have no reason to doubt you (kind of unusual on this board), the agreements are interesting to say the least but, relatively unenforceable. The voluntary compliance indicates that Regent Oceania are self policing and only responsible to themselves. For sure passengers could notify the AG to investigate any perceived violations so the cruise lines do have to follow the rules of the agreement. How a passenger would know that the agreement had been violated is beyond my comprehensive but, guess if a passenger felt agrieved, they could file with the AG and Regent/Oceania would need to provide records to prove their compliance so they do need to be careful when setting the prices for each cruise and if they miss one or more ports that they don't have to pay for and pay out less than to collected amount, would expect a refund to the passengers.

 

Sure that won't need to be a regular occurrance but, with significant cruise issues involving expensive ports, could be an issue.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

[hondorner]

... and if they miss one or more ports that they don't have to pay for and pay out less than to collected amount, would expect a refund to the passengers.

I don't know for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that the amounts are treated as a summary account for the entire cruise line over an accounting period, not for individual cruises or specific ports. Thus, if they have a surplus, all they would have to do is create a reserve account against future deficiencies and keep that account separate from their operating accounts. If they ever had a surplus at the end of an accounting period (one year, for example), I suppose they could cut checks to all the passengers for that year to refund the surplus, probably something like 17 cents per passenger -- no one is going to require them to account for every port missed and every penny at the end of every cruise. The whole purpose is to prohibit the cruise lines from profiting from something they collected for an external reason.

[DaveFr]

Interesting comments DaveFr! If what you say is true and I have no reason to doubt you (kind of unusual on this board), the agreements are interesting to say the least but, relatively unenforceable. The voluntary compliance indicates that Regent Oceania are self policing and only responsible to themselves. For sure passengers could notify the AG to investigate any perceived violations so the cruise lines do have to follow the rules of the agreement. How a passenger would know that the agreement had been violated is beyond my comprehensive but, guess if a passenger felt agrieved, they could file with the AG and Regent/Oceania would need to provide records to prove their compliance so they do need to be careful when setting the prices for each cruise and if they miss one or more ports that they don't have to pay for and pay out less than to collected amount, would expect a refund to the passengers.

 

Sure that won't need to be a regular occurrance but, with significant cruise issues involving expensive ports, could be an issue.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

Dave,

 

I guess I'm breaking my promise to sit down and shut up but if a cruise line attempts to sneak something into the taxes and fees column that doesn't belong there, I'm sure complaints will be filed with the Florida AG in a flash. See: http://myfloridalegal.com/__852562220065EE67.nsf/0/643DFEFD721F2C5285257553005A7351?Open&Highlight=0,classic,cruise

 

Dave

[rallydave]

Dave,

 

I guess I'm breaking my promise to sit down and shut up but if a cruise line attempts to sneak something into the taxes and fees column that doesn't belong there, I'm sure complaints will be filed with the Florida AG in a flash. See: http://myfloridalegal.com/__852562220065EE67.nsf/0/643DFEFD721F2C5285257553005A7351?Open&Highlight=0,classic,cruise

 

Dave

 

Don't doubt the complaints will come in a flash if the customers are aware of something that is inappropriate. The problem is that it will be difficult for the customers to discern if all the money identified as taxes/fees was in fact paid to the appropriate Gov. entity or not. Missing a one or more ports may or may not result in the company keeping money that should be paid to the Gov. entity. Sets up the possibility of people complaining every time a ship misses a port and lots of time spent proving that all the money collected was in fact pait.

 

I don't know for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that the amounts are treated as a summary account for the entire cruise line over an accounting period, not for individual cruises or specific ports. Thus, if they have a surplus, all they would have to do is create a reserve account against future deficiencies and keep that account separate from their operating accounts. If they ever had a surplus at the end of an accounting period (one year, for example), I suppose they could cut checks to all the passengers for that year to refund the surplus, probably something like 17 cents per passenger -- no one is going to require them to account for every port missed and every penny at the end of every cruise. The whole purpose is to prohibit the cruise lines from profiting from something they collected for an external reason.

 

Don, nice to hear from you on this subject and wondering why you wrote the last two statements above which appear to me to be contradictory. Totally agree with the last sentence as to the purpose for the agreement.

 

As to your comment that no one is going to require them to account for every port missed and every penny at the end of every cruise; I certainly do expect a cruise line to keep track of that, otherwise they cannot verify their compliance with the agreement they signed. If not, why did they sign the agreement. From DaveFr's comment above, a similar occurrence required Regent and Oceania to refund hundreds of people for collecting fuel surcharges that they weren't due. Am sure PCH does not want to go thru that with taxes/fees so assume they will keep good track of payments vs. collections and refund the correct amount, if necessary.

 

By my posts, am not making accusations against PCH or any people, simply pointing out the facts as I know them and as others add to the story. Know many people that missing a few ports that results in the cruise line being enriched by unpaid port taxes/fees is no big deal while others including the Florida AG feel differently. PCH along with other cruise lines felt they needed to reach agreements with the AG to not keep any unpaid fees/taxes. Some people feel it is no big thing while others will turn in th cruise line in a New York second. Different strokes for different folks. Just making sure everyone is aware of their choices.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

[hondorner]

...the last two statements above which appear to me to be contradictory. Totally agree with the last sentence as to the purpose for the agreement.

 

As to your comment that no one is going to require them to account for every port missed and every penny at the end of every cruise; I certainly do expect a cruise line to keep track of that...

I probably didn't explain myself very well. Sure, they keep track of how much they collected for a specific cruise and how much they paid out, in the same sense that a business keeps track of each sale and each expenditure. But, at the final accounting, all those sales are lumped as income and all those purchases are lumped as expenses.

 

All a cruise line has to do to prove compliance with the rule is to add up how much they collected from passengers and how much they paid to ports. If the amount they paid is equal to or greater than the amount they collected, they are home free. If the amount the paid is less than the amount collected, all they have to do is show that the surplus is escrowed in a reserve account and was not added to the cruise line's general revenue.

 

Because everybody pays into the fees and taxes account, if it grows too large they would most likely send a small refund to everybody. But, the greater likelihood is that they would lower the amount collected in order to pay down the collective account.

 

I think you can think of the fees and taxes much like the escrow accounts a bank sets up for many mortgagors. The bank never knows exactly what the insurance and property tax bills will be on a house, so they guess as closely as they can and set an average amount to be collected each month. When the actual insurance and tax bills are paid, the bank holds any excess in the escrow account. It never mixes that money with it's operating fund. Every so often, if the excess grows too large, they may send a refund check to the mortgagor. In the meantime, they may lower the amount collected each month in order to pay down the escrow account once the bills come due.

 

The difference is that while the bank keeps a separate account for each mortgagor, the cruise line keeps an an account for each ship, not each passenger who sails on the ship.

[rallydave]

Well Don, you may very well be correct or, with the computers available today, the cruise line may collect all of the data on a cruise by cruise basis. No way for us mere mortals to know the real method. Suggest we simply leave this issue as unresolved unless or until we get information direct from PCH.

 

Guess the issue will be resolved once Regent or Oceania make refunds to the passengers be it everyone or everyone on a particular cruise. In either or any other case does it really matter the method of refund, if there ever is such; it's simply the reality that should either cruise line underpay the Gov. entities, a refund of some sort will eventually be paid to people who cruised.

 

Thanks,

[Berwin]

I called Oceania. This $17 per person is a daily fuel surcharge which they implemented Sept 1. If in doubt, call Oceania

[rallydave]

I called Oceania. This $17 per person is a daily fuel surcharge which they implemented Sept 1. If in doubt, call Oceania

 

I would change the last sentence to If you want to remain in doubt, call Oceania.

 

I would bet good money that the rep you talked to gave you the wrong answer. Try again and you will probably get a different answer and possibly another wrong answer.

 

Regent implemented the "maximum" $17/nite charge for taxes/fees on August 1. This was stated on their web site and while most cruises are the $17/nite, some are less due to the taxes/fees being lower. Oceania, also owned by PCH implemented the same charges on September 1. Some of Oceania charges are less than the $17/nite so can't be fuel charges.

 

And, oil has gone down significantly in the past few months, now close to the lowest in the past few years when there have't been fuel charges for quite awhile. Oceania and PCH would be shooting themselves in the food by implementing fuel charges when the price of oil is decreasing and ships are having a difficult time selling cabins.

 

In fact, went to the Oceania website and the $17/nite is identified as taxes/fees and not fuel surcharge.

[Jancruz]

As I started out saying, they can call it anything they want, it increases their bottom line.

Jancruz1

[DaveFr]

As I started out saying, they can call it anything they want, it increases their bottom line.

Jancruz1

Actually Jan, they cannot call it anything they want. Unless it is a governmental or quasi-governmental tax or fee, or a fuel surcharge, Regent or Oceania would be violating the agreement they signed with the Florida AG in 2009.

 

Dave

[Berwin]

Don't you find it odd that no matter whar your itinerary, the increase is $17 per day. If it smells like a fuel charge, feel like a fuel charge, guess what.

[rallydave]

Don't you find it odd that no matter whar your itinerary, the increase is $17 per day. If it smells like a fuel charge, feel like a fuel charge, guess what.

 

What I actually find odd is that you don't believe what the experienced people have posted on this thread and the absolute fact in writing Oceania has identified the charges as taxes/fees on their website.

 

Also Regent (sister to Oceania and also owned by PCH) added the identical charges on August 1 and also identified them as taxes/fees. In addition, Regent stated that the charges would be a maximum of $17/nite and there are several cruises where the total charges are less than the $17/nite. Bet there are some on Oceania also below $17/nite.

[dino2067]

What I actually find odd is that you don't believe what the experienced people have posted on this thread and the absolute fact in writing Oceania has identified the charges as taxes/fees on their website.

 

Also Regent (sister to Oceania and also owned by PCH) added the identical charges on August 1 and also identified them as taxes/fees. In addition, Regent stated that the charges would be a maximum of $17/nite and there are several cruises where the total charges are less than the $17/nite. Bet there are some on Oceania also below $17/nite.

 

There certainly are. As a sample I did a search on TA's on the Oceania site and the per person charge for government fees and taxes ranges from a low of $80 up to a high of $272:

 

http://www.oceaniacruises.com/searchresults.aspx?available=0&regionid=transoceanic&days=0.999

 

Kathleen