Hal discriminates European cruisers

[navybankerteacher]

But this doesn't answer the question of why HAL prohibits people living in Europe from booking at the lower price without that level of consumer protection.

 

Oh, except for US (and, to be fair, Canadian) citizens living in Europe, from whom HAL is happy to take bookings at the lower price without that level of consumer protection.

 

What's the logic?

 

The logic may lie in the strong possibility that the British government (and possibly others) would impose penalties upon HAL if they did engage in efforts to circumvent British governmental regulations.

 

I find it difficult to understand your adamant inability to concede any possibility of there being some effect of government regulation in play.

[iancal]

I agree with a previous poster. If you do not like it then simply vote with your feet. Select a cruise line that does not do this.

 

But keep in mind that there are many consumer and commercial products that are priced in the same fashion.....to maximize profits.

 

We happen to live in Canada. There are a number of European products that are significantly less expensive to buy here than in Europe-including in the do called duty free shops.

 

Not saying that it is fair but the only way to change it may be to stop dealing with companies that price in this manner...where possible.

Edited September 28, 2014 by iancal

[Karennella]

I think that we all nowadays accept "dynamic pricing" when buying plane tickets and hotel rooms. I buy books by Australian authors online and they are sent from London at a fraction of the price of buying them here, (if I could find a bookshop, as most have closed, because of people like me!)

How much of the higher price of cruises here is because of Australian consumer laws is a mystery to me. However we were in London a couple of years ago when Qantas shut down the day we were to fly out. We had our flight with another airline paid, were given free flights, and other compensation and were pretty pleased with it all. Imagine how pleased we were when, a few weeks later, we were paid an extra $1500 which we were owed, according to EU consumer law as we were grounded in the EU.

So I accept that for whatever reason we generally pay more. And that I do not have to buy that cruise if I don't like it. The problem is, however, that there are no large Australian cruise companies to go with instead.

[Globaliser]

I have run into several cases where others in a given country have been charged less then in the US. A good example was Air New Zealand, where residents of New Zealand could book at substantially lower fares then the US.

Except for occasional one-off and/or short-term promotions, this is not the way that the airline industry works. Normally, everyone can buy the lower fares sold in Australia/New Zealand/South Pacific. A common restriction is that if the fare is cheap, the ticket must be issued there. But there are no end of channels (including the airline’s own website) for securing that.

The UK law specifically says that the protections apply to all packages sold in the UK. It also says that they cannot be waived (similar by the way to other EU laws pertaining to travel).

 

The US web site clearly identifies that such are done under US law. Now are you trying to claim that a US companies disclaimer takes priority over UK law if they intentionally sell to UK residents, in spite of how the law reads?

 

…

 

If you go through the web site terms and conditions, the U.K. web site clearly says the U.K. law apply. The booking conditions on that site clearly reflects the application of the PTR 1992.

 

Even though you may think that the U.K. laws don't apply if you buy from the U.S. web site Holland America apparently believes differently.

There is no question of a US disclaimer “taking priority” over UK law, because a transaction made on a US website is one to which UK law simply does not apply. There is nothing for US disclaimers to take priority over.

 

This is the way that countless other companies, whether in the travel industry or otherwise, do business with UK-based people.

 

And if HAL believes differently, then it is strange that another Carnival group company (Princess, IIRC) didn’t say so when it had the chance, but used a lot of waffly mealy-mouthed weasel words that referred vaguely to commercial and marketing considerations; and strange that other Carnival group companies (in common with other non-Carnival cruise lines) don’t feel inhibited in doing business through the US websites with UK-based cruisers. None of that is consistent with there being legal reasons why HAL must do what it does, or to think that HAL believes that it must do what it does for legal reasons.

Now if one takes a look at U.K. e-commerce laws you can find the following:

 

"Most significantly, the Regulations do not apply the country of origin principle to the terms of consumer contracts. In practical terms, this means that a UK-based e-commerce site's terms and conditions should meet the laws of every Member State in which consumers can buy its products, not just UK laws. As a result of the consumer contract exception, any site selling to French consumers must provide its terms and conditions in French, to comply with French consumer laws (though compliance with all French consumer laws will require more than just a translation)."

 

This would also tend to be counter with your interpretation. Clearly if U.K. e-commerce laws do not apply country of origin to consumer contracts then its courts would consider that a web site selling to consumers in the U.K. would meet the offered for sale language in the PTR and explains why Holland America has set up web sites based upon the country of the purchaser.

 

Note the there is an EU directive which matches the U.K. PTR.

Actually, the PTR transpose (ie implement into UK law) the EU Directive.

 

The PTR and the Regulations that you’re referring to above (the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002) apply to UK websites. Clearly, if anyone books through the UK website these regulations will apply. And the customer will have to pay the (usually) higher prices and accept the more onerous terms because that’s part of the quid pro quo for having higher levels of consumer protection etc reflected in those regulations and in other laws. You may remember that I’ve been explaining these differences – and the effect on prices – here for years.

 

But the issue here is why – unusually amongst multi-nationals in the travel industry, and multi-nationals in other industries – HAL prohibits the use of US booking channels, including the US website, by European customers who choose to transact under US law and under US levels of consumer protection etc. That is perfectly possible and lawful, because countless Europeans do it, across any number of retail industries (including travel), all the time. So if there's no legal reason for prohibiting access to (normally lower) US prices and (normally better) US conditions, then the obvious inference is that the reason is to increase yield.

[Globaliser]

But this doesn't answer the question of why HAL prohibits people living in Europe from booking at the lower price without that level of consumer protection.

 

Oh, except for US (and, to be fair, Canadian) citizens living in Europe, from whom HAL is happy to take bookings at the lower price without that level of consumer protection.

 

What's the logic?

Not quite. If you look at the web sites they explicitly ask region and country of residence, not citizenship. So for a U.S. citizen, who is resident in the U.K. they would have to falsely identify their residency, and supply a US address.

HAL’s US website may not be set up to reflect this, but HAL’s policy permits US and Canadian citizens to book through US channels with the US office, on US terms and at US prices. You can get the details of this policy from US travel agents, who have been instructed to refuse bookings from European residents unless they are US or Canadian citizens.

[Globaliser]

I find it difficult to understand your adamant inability to concede any possibility of there being some effect of government regulation in play.

Because if it were the reason for HAL’s policy, it would be a very understandable reason. It would also be very easy for the reason to be explained. But Carnival group companies have had the opportunity to say this, and did not do so. Instead, there was obfuscation.

 

In addition, if it were the reason, then one would expect a similarity or consistency of approach across similar cruise lines with UK and European presences, who would labour under the same legal restriction. But there isn’t, and other companies are happy to do business with UK-based customers through US websites on US terms without fear of financial penalties.

 

Similarly, if it were the reason, there are other sectors of the travel industry who would also fall within such laws and regulations, and who could be expected to apply similar defences in order to avoid being in breach of the law. Yet you do not see this happening.

 

And finally, the same principle (UK regulation applies to a purchase made by a UK-based person from a US website purportedly on US terms) would apply to any number of everyday e-commerce situations. So one would expect to see similar legal defences being put in place by other industries. Yet they do not exist.

 

That is why I find it near impossible to believe that laws or regulations have got anything to do with HAL’s stance. It’s purely a commercial policy. And we all know the effect: it extracts a higher yield from us.

[iancal]

There are people who skate around this restriction by having a USA or Canadian accomodation address and a friendly US or Canadian TA.

 

Just as we have done in the past with certain travel offerings from UK/ European vendors that were priced at much higher rates in North America. But please don't tell them that we did it or that we will probably do it again at some point in the future!

[RDC1]

Because if it were the reason for HAL’s policy, it would be a very understandable reason. It would also be very easy for the reason to be explained. But Carnival group companies have had the opportunity to say this, and did not do so. Instead, there was obfuscation.

 

In addition, if it were the reason, then one would expect a similarity or consistency of approach across similar cruise lines with UK and European presences, who would labour under the same legal restriction. But there isn’t, and other companies are happy to do business with UK-based customers through US websites on US terms without fear of financial penalties.

 

Similarly, if it were the reason, there are other sectors of the travel industry who would also fall within such laws and regulations, and who could be expected to apply similar defences in order to avoid being in breach of the law. Yet you do not see this happening.

 

And finally, the same principle (UK regulation applies to a purchase made by a UK-based person from a US website purportedly on US terms) would apply to any number of everyday e-commerce situations. So one would expect to see similar legal defences being put in place by other industries. Yet they do not exist.

 

That is why I find it near impossible to believe that laws or regulations have got anything to do with HAL’s stance. It’s purely a commercial policy. And we all know the effect: it extracts a higher yield from us.

 

Not necessarily.

 

The UK laws deal with travel packages. That means that it must be a combination of accomendations and travel. As such it doesn't apply to Airlines, hotel chains, etc. It does apply to cruise lines.

 

Also UK e-commerce laws treat contracts differently then purchases. Purchases following country or origin would not be impacted.

 

If you look at Disney for example. You cannot book packages on line, you must go through a travel agent, unless you utilize their UK web site. You can book hotel rooms and theme park tickets, but not what is defined as a package under UK law.

 

So there are really very few businesses to compare with. Cruise lines are pretty much in a class by themselves since they not only sell what is defined as packages, but also provide the services themselves. Travel agents sell packages, but do not provide the services (the airlines and hotels do that) as a result have substantially different risk profile.

 

So the real questions is how do the other cruise lines handle the situation. The main US cruise lines (Royal Caribbean, Celebrity, NCL, Holland America, Princess) are pretty consistent. They all have separate UK web sites, with separate pricing.

 

For example on the Royal Caribbean site one cruise was $1509 per person, including taxes and fees, the UK price was 1323 pounds or the equivalent of $2116.8. I called Royal Caribbean and asked them could a resident of the UK book a cruise using the US website or if they had to go through the UK web site. Their response was, like Holland America, that they had to have a US or Canadian address to use the US web site, otherwise they had to use the UK web site.

 

Similar response from Celebrity.

 

Princess's US web site allows access but does not allow you to book, unless you have a US web site. I cannot access the UK web site to compare pricing. I called and they confirmed that a UK resident had to go through the UK office.

 

We all know about Holland America.

 

 

So we have 4 cruiselines from two totally different companies that treat the UK pretty much exactly the same. Must be a conspiracy.

 

Now lets go to the ones that behave a bit differently

 

NCL has a UK website that has prices that are significantly different then the US prices, but their web site will accept a UK address. UK web site has substantially different terms and condition then the US site

 

Disney has a UK web site, but it seems to just point back to the US web site when cruises are selected. The terms and conditions for Disney is just the same as the US terms and conditions.

 

So out of the 6 main stream US cruiselines that operate cruises in both the US and also cruise out of UK ports, the 4 that are part of Royal Caribbean and Carnival act pretty much the same. They have separate web sites for countries that have different consumer protections and require people that do not have a US address to utilize the web sites for their countries.

 

Interesting to note that for Holland America if you put in a different country that does not have such protections, such as Brazil or Japan, you are routed to a web site with US pricing and US terms and conditions. Now considering the cost of living in Japan one would thing that if the pricing and web site restrictions was not driven by regulation then they would price Japan differently. Especially with the rapidly increasing Asian cruise presence.

 

You have two companies, NCL and Disney that take a different approach. NCL has a UK web site with higher pricing and different booking conditions matching the UK laws, but apparently let people outside of the US book on the US web site. Disney is the most different in that all online cruise booking route through the US and only have the US booking conditions.

 

Both of these have apparently evaluated the legal and financial risk differently.

 

It is logical that Disney, for whom the cruise line is the smallest part of their overall business, and who charges the highest per passenger prices of the group would also have the most open policy. Disney is also a company known for customer service and for very quickly moving to solve problems when an issue comes up (accident at one of their theme parks for example). They may have decided that their pricing model, benefits with the Disney brand, their proactive legal response would enable them to handle the claims under the UK regulations themselves on an individual case by case basis. This would fit that they often link their cruises with theme park stays and with other elements of the overall Disney brand.

 

Looks like you can cruise NCL or Disney (though Disney's US fares are higher then the other lines UK fares)

 

It is also quite clear that nothing can convince you that it is not a Corporate plot to get more money from you.

 

By the way go to the Holland America web site and do a search of country by region. You can then go through each country and see what web site structure you are taken to and the pricing and booking conditions. The amazing thing is that most, those without fairly restrictive consumer protection laws, get the US booking conditions and US pricing. The only ones that don't get US pricing are those that have to use different booking conditions.

Edited September 28, 2014 by RDC1

[navybankerteacher]

To the extent that HAL, alone among Carnival Corporation's lines, seems to be the sole culprit, could it be that their ships are registered in an EU country have anything to do with the perceived "discrimination"? It would be strange if only one line in the family would elect to follow such practice?

[RDC1]

To the extent that HAL, alone among Carnival Corporation's lines, seems to be the sole culprit, could it be that their ships are registered in an EU country have anything to do with the perceived "discrimination"? It would be strange if only one line in the family would elect to follow such practice?

 

They are not the sole culprit so to speak. Their business practices are in line with Celebrity, Royal Caribbean and Princess. Carnival itself is different in that they currently do not cruise in Europe. They follow a totally different structure and have different web sites based upon the country their cruises leave from (US and Australia)

[RDC1]

Except for occasional one-off and/or short-term promotions, this is not the way that the airline industry works. Normally, everyone can buy the lower fares sold in Australia/New Zealand/South Pacific. A common restriction is that if the fare is cheap, the ticket must be issued there. But there are no end of channels (including the airline’s own website) for securing that.There is no question of a US disclaimer “taking priority” over UK law, because a transaction made on a US website is one to which UK law simply does not apply. There is nothing for US disclaimers to take priority over.

 

This is the way that countless other companies, whether in the travel industry or otherwise, do business with UK-based people.

 

And if HAL believes differently, then it is strange that another Carnival group company (Princess, IIRC) didn’t say so when it had the chance, but used a lot of waffly mealy-mouthed weasel words that referred vaguely to commercial and marketing considerations; and strange that other Carnival group companies (in common with other non-Carnival cruise lines) don’t feel inhibited in doing business through the US websites with UK-based cruisers. None of that is consistent with there being legal reasons why HAL must do what it does, or to think that HAL believes that it must do what it does for legal reasons.Actually, the PTR transpose (ie implement into UK law) the EU Directive.

 

The PTR and the Regulations that you’re referring to above (the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002) apply to UK websites. Clearly, if anyone books through the UK website these regulations will apply. And the customer will have to pay the (usually) higher prices and accept the more onerous terms because that’s part of the quid pro quo for having higher levels of consumer protection etc reflected in those regulations and in other laws. You may remember that I’ve been explaining these differences – and the effect on prices – here for years.

 

But the issue here is why – unusually amongst multi-nationals in the travel industry, and multi-nationals in other industries – HAL prohibits the use of US booking channels, including the US website, by European customers who choose to transact under US law and under US levels of consumer protection etc. That is perfectly possible and lawful, because countless Europeans do it, across any number of retail industries (including travel), all the time. So if there's no legal reason for prohibiting access to (normally lower) US prices and (normally better) US conditions, then the obvious inference is that the reason is to increase yield.

 

I have given you plenty of reasons why a legal department might consider that it does apply.

 

1. They do have both a UK physical and legal presence.

2. If the web site is openly accessible in the UK then the offerings on it can be considered to be "offered for sale" in the UK which is what the law defines as being within its scope. The law does not define itself as being limited to physical presence in the UK only that it apples to all travel packages offered for sale within the UK.

3. Other UK law dealing with web sites clearly excludes country of origin application of law when dealing with contracts

 

As far as others most other web site transactions do not fall under the PTR. Only a very limited set. Even then does company have a legal UK presence or a physical presence there? Even then as I have indicated before a company can decide to absorb the cost is their structure in other ways or might have to for competitive reasons. That is a business decision. What I have done is shown sufficient reason why a company might have logical reason to price the UK differently and why they might make the business decision to do so. Increased regulation has increased costs and those costs often get passed on back to the consumer.

 

Finally if it was only driven by maximizing price then why do all of the countries, including most of the EU, including those with a high cost of living, get to book at the US price and US booking conditions. Only those with more expansive consumer protections directly applicable to the cruise business (which a number of EU countries have not implemented in spite of the EU directive) get a different price structure and a different booking conditions. There is a direct correlation between booking conditions and different price structure. There is not a direct correlation with any other individual factor, only when different booking conditions are required.

[happygran]

FYI

 

I tried to book a HAL cruise through an online TA in the US. This is the reply that I received..........

 

If you have a residence in the U.S. or Canada or are traveling in the same cabin with someone that does, we can help you with any cruise we offer.*

 

Unfortunately, if you do not meet the criteria mentioned above, Holland America, Princess and Star Clippers now prohibit all U.S. travel agencies from selling cruises to you. The only other exception to this policy is if we previously arranged a cruise for you on Holland America or Princess and you're interested in booking again with that same cruise line.

 

We truly regret that we are not allowed to offer these cruise lines to all of our international customers. This is not a matter of international law or a policy of xxxxxxxx or the U.S. government. Rather, it is a corporate policy instituted by each of these cruise lines. We are very disappointed in the restrictions these cruise lines have placed on U.S. travel agencies.

 

Fortunately, many cruise lines allow customers of all nations to book deeply-discounted cruises through xxxxxx. Here is a list of cruise lines we can offer you: Azamara, American Cruise Lines, Blount, Carnival, Celebrity, Costa, Crystal, Cunard, Disney, Hurtigruten, Lindblad Expeditions, MSC, Norwegian, Oceania, Orion Expedition Cruises, Paul Gauguin, Ponant, Pullmantur, Regent Seven Seas, Royal Caribbean, Seabourn, SeaDream, Silversea, Swan Hellenic, Voyages to Antiquity, Voyages of Discovery and Windstar.

 

If you are interested in booking one of these cruise lines, please let me know.*

 

Thanks again for writing, and we look forward to being of service!

[RDC1]

FYI

 

I tried to book a HAL cruise through an online TA in the US. This is the reply that I received..........

 

If you have a residence in the U.S. or Canada or are traveling in the same cabin with someone that does, we can help you with any cruise we offer.*

 

Unfortunately, if you do not meet the criteria mentioned above, Holland America, Princess and Star Clippers now prohibit all U.S. travel agencies from selling cruises to you. The only other exception to this policy is if we previously arranged a cruise for you on Holland America or Princess and you're interested in booking again with that same cruise line.

 

We truly regret that we are not allowed to offer these cruise lines to all of our international customers. This is not a matter of international law or a policy of xxxxxxxx or the U.S. government. Rather, it is a corporate policy instituted by each of these cruise lines. We are very disappointed in the restrictions these cruise lines have placed on U.S. travel agencies.

 

Fortunately, many cruise lines allow customers of all nations to book deeply-discounted cruises through xxxxxx. Here is a list of cruise lines we can offer you: Azamara, American Cruise Lines, Blount, Carnival, Celebrity, Costa, Crystal, Cunard, Disney, Hurtigruten, Lindblad Expeditions, MSC, Norwegian, Oceania, Orion Expedition Cruises, Paul Gauguin, Ponant, Pullmantur, Regent Seven Seas, Royal Caribbean, Seabourn, SeaDream, Silversea, Swan Hellenic, Voyages to Antiquity, Voyages of Discovery and Windstar.

 

If you are interested in booking one of these cruise lines, please let me know.*

 

Thanks again for writing, and we look forward to being of service!

 

Of course it is a corporate policy. That does not mean that there is a valid reason for it which is driven by real costs.

 

One should note that the policy does mean that UK travel agents are able to be competitive for those lines, unlike those that allow booking through US TA's.

 

Now what is interesting is that Celebrity and Royal Caribbean does not allow booking outside the US through their US web site but still apparently do through a US TA. They might consider that since the TA is handling the sale that it provides adequate legal separation since it is the TA selling the package and not them.

 

Of course that place UK travel agents at a severe disadvantage and probably more likely to push Princess and HAL cruises.

 

Of course for those that don't like HAL's policy you have plenty of other choices. Of course most of them are far more expensive then HAL.

Edited September 28, 2014 by RDC1