Hal discriminates European cruisers

[Jade13]

HAL doesn’t want people from Europe to book their cruises.In the unlikely event you still want to cruise with them, just refuse to pay the hotel service charge. According to European law this has to be part of the total price you pay for your cruise and cannot be charged afterwards.

 

Wow. Stiff the crew.

[RDC1]

While it makes sense that there are different pricing structures, I don't believe that there's any evidence that HAL (or any cruise line adopting a similar approach) designs them to yield equivalent net revenue after costs and risks. The pricing differences are far too big for that in many instances - particularly when you compare Australian market prices with US market prices.I think that if you did a thorough analysis, you'd find that the difference is not nearly so great.

 

For example, if you go to a restaurant in the US and order something priced on the menu at $10, you end up paying about $13. If you go to a restaurant in the UK and order something priced at £10, you end up paying just over £11.

 

In addition, much of the difference is accounted for by different rates of sales tax. If you were to strip out the sales tax from those numbers, the US meal would be about $12, and the UK meal would be about £9.50.

 

And sales tax is important for comparisons of travel, because travel is not subject to sales tax in the UK (and I think that's the same in the US). So trying to extrapolate from comparisons between the prices of taxable retail items really doesn't get you anywhere.

 

The best guide to all of this is, I think, still the Big Mac Index.On this aspect, I am confident that there are no laws or regulations in the UK which prohibit HAL from taking bookings in the US, on US conditions, from UK residents. You're right that these would be subject to the different consumer protection rules in the US, and that the customer would no longer have the benefit of the (usually higher) UK consumer protection rules. But is it illegal or a violation of some law for HAL to take that booking in the US? The answer is no.

 

Why can I be so confident? There are two reasons.

 

First, if you are a US citizen resident in the UK, HAL will take a booking from you in the US. If there were any law that required UK residents to book in the UK, there could be no exemption for US citizens. So if any such law exists, HAL would be in breach of it. So by accepting bookings from UK-resident US citizens, HAL demonstrates that there is no such law.

 

Second, if there were any such law, it would apply equally to Carnival Cruise Line, which is a sister company of HAL and to which identical rules would apply. Yet CCL's US office will happily take a booking from a UK resident, on US conditions. CCL applies no such restriction, even though it's a sister company. If it's not illegal for CCL to do this, it isn't illegal for HAL.

 

Therefore the only conclusion is that HAL does this of its own volition, in order to divide and conquer - or, to be less polite, gouge.

 

 

Think what you want. Prior to retiring I ran market research, strategic pricing, contracts, and commercial operations finance for a company with multiple corporate locations in different countries. In each country where we had a corporate presence we had to track revenue from that country and pays taxes to that country. Now there is no perfect system for making sure that 100% percent of transactions get captured by the appropriate corporate entity, but they certainly had to provide sufficient mechanism to satisfy the taxing authority in each county. If the taxing authority audits and finds too many gaps then they have to tighten until it satisfies the authorities.

 

As far as CCL is concerned. How many CCL cruises leave from the UK? From the CCL web site it does not cruise in Europe. A couple of years ago they did have a ship in the med. I would suspect that unlike Holland America, or Princess, or Celebrity, etc. Which do require bookings to go through the local corporate presence, that CCL has not crossed the hurdle of a business presence that requires local taxation, because they are not really doing business there. By doing business I mean having local staff, procurement, etc. that comes from ships actually docking and resupplying there. Just having a .uk web site does not mean that they actually have a UK corporate presence.

 

Now CCL does cruise in Australia, but try and book it. If you select Australia on the US web site it forces you to the Australian web site. So they may have set up their accounting based upon cruise location and report revenue using that mechanism for the national authority. That would seem to be a logical structure for a company that cruises primarily in the US.

 

Unlike Holland America, Princess, etc that conducts cruises that cross many national boundaries that only logical way would be to capture and report by residency of the booking passengers.

 

As far as the price comparisons. Yes I did include the considerations of taxes in my comparison. The point is that taking in the UK vacation is significantly more expensive then in the US in similar accommodations. A model including competitive analysis takes that into account.

 

If you want to think that they are doing it just to gouge that is your choice. Then just go spend your money elsewhere. Companies spend a lot of money to develop pricing models and conduct market research. Very little is arbitrary.

[RDC1]

If HAL takes a booking in Europe, on European terms, then of course that is right. And the customer will take the benefit of the higher levels of consumer protection here.

 

But CCL will happily take a booking in the US from a European, on US terms. If CCL can do it, so can HAL.

 

So the HAL prohibition on European customers booking in the US, on US terms, has got nothing to do with any laws or regulations. HAL has unilaterally chosen to impose that prohibition on European residents (other than the specially favoured treatment accorded to European-resident US citizens, of course, which also demonstrates why this has got nothing to do with laws or regulations).

 

No they can't CCL does not have a European presence. They only operate cruises in two markets. US, where everyone books through the US website and Australia where everyone books through the Australian web site. They keep their revenue separate in that way. Easy for a company that only operates in two markets. Accounting is much different when they have cruises originating and ending in many markets.

 

Also what contracts does CCL have in each country? How are they different then Holland or Princess, etc.? As I understand it one of the drivers for separation was due to agreements with travel agents in each region. No incentive for travel agents in the UK to push trips, if their customers can purchase a trip cheaper, without the protections required on travel in the UK by just going to a US travel agent or web site.

Edited September 25, 2014 by RDC1

[Hlitner]

Up until recently, CCL has allowed their brands to run their own show independent of each other. Cunard is an exception since, because it was not doing well financially, the corporate put it under the Princess umbrella (many Cunard passengers are unaware). HAL has always seemed to be very independent which might explain having their home office in Seattle while most of the other brands are based in Florida. But who knows what the future will hold for HAL. Their next build is nearly 100,000 tons...which is so UN HAL.

 

Hank

[navybankerteacher]

[quote name=Globaliser;44218921

 

 

Therefore the only conclusion is that HAL does this of its own volition' date=' in order to divide and conquer - or, to be less polite, gouge.[/quote]

 

Ah... the conspiracy theory is alive and well. The protections which the British government provides purchasers of cruises undeniably contributes something to the cost which British citizens pay for cruises. Admittedly it is difficult to trace exactly the amount, but the very fact of the British government's proclivity to " protect" British citizens makes it difficult to accept the notion that they would permit such blatant discriminatory pricing as the conspiracy theorists like to claim exist.

[Hlitner]

Ah... the conspiracy theory is alive and well. The protections which the British government provides purchasers of cruises undeniably contributes something to the cost which British citizens pay for cruises. Admittedly it is difficult to trace exactly the amount, but the very fact of the British government's proclivity to " protect" British citizens makes it difficult to accept the notion that they would permit such blatant discriminatory pricing as the conspiracy theorists like to claim exist.

 

The answer, when it comes to the Brits is quite simple and very obvious. HAL is simply trying to recover the money the colonies paid back in 1765-66 to mother England for their darn Stamp Tax. HAL has been around for a while and probably remembers that tax....and we have seen a few HAL passengers that looked old enough to have been around in those days :)

 

Hank

Edited September 26, 2014 by Hlitner

[RDC1]

Duplicate

Edited September 26, 2014 by RDC1

[RDC1]

Just a little information about one of the reason cost structures are different is hinted in the terms and conditions of the HAL's US web site

 

This is a United States website and all bookings purchased through this website will be subject to these

terms and conditions. We do not represent that this site and the terms and policies contained herein are

appropriate or compliant with laws outside the United States. Persons who choose to make bookings on this site from locations outside the United States do so on their own initiative, and understand that local

laws will not apply to their bookings. If you are booking from outside of the United States and would like

the laws of your home country to apply to your booking, please contact a travel agent in your country.

European guests may book travel through Holland America Line's Rotterdam office at 0900 SAIL HAL or

London office at 0845 351 0557 and Australian guests may book travel through our Sydney office at

1300987321. ALL HOLLAND AMERICA LINE CRUISES AND CRUISETOURS ARE SOLD SUBJECT TO

THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE HOLLAND AMERICA LINE CRUISE CONTRACT THAT WILL

BE ISSUED TO YOU PRIOR TO DEPARTURE. YOUR ATTENTION IS ESPECIALLY DIRECTED TO

CLAUSES A.1, A.3, A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7, A.9 and C.4 OF THE CRUISE CONTRACT, WHICH CONTAIN

IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS ON YOUR RIGHT TO ASSERT CLAIMS AGAINST US AND AGAINST

CERTAIN THIRD PARTIES. By booking travel on this site, you agree to be bound by the terms of

the cruise contract prior to completing your booking. Holland America Line policies and information that

apply to every booking are also available for review on this website.

 

 

 

 

I added the bolding for a key section. Gives you a clear idea that there are different protections in place in Australia and the EU. The areas that seem to complain the most about increased costs.

 

I am looking to see if I can find a copy of travel agent agreements in each region.

 

Also does anyone know of any court rulings in the EU or Australia that has gone against the cruise lines and their cruise contracts when booked through the US site. If so that would also explain why they do not allow bookings because the language would not protect them from the increased potential costs.

[RDC1]

The U.K.'s Package Travel Regulations Act 1992 specifically says that it applies to all packages sold in the U.K.

 

Now in this day of Internet online booking, if a web site is available with no restrictions to people from the U.K. to book on then couldn't the courts argue that it applies to all booking made from someone in the UK, even if the web site has disclaimers saying that it does such non-US regulations does not apply.

 

On the other hand if the web site is set up to block access and bookings from the U.K. and require someone to basically fake out the system to enable such a booking to occur then would not the company have far better legal standing to make the claim that the bookings on that site are not sold in the U.K. and as such the Package Travel Regulations Act 1992 would not apply even if it is a resident of the UK that has managed to initiate the booking?

 

Just an example of why things might be set up the way that they are.

[Globaliser]

Think what you want. Prior to retiring I ran market research, strategic pricing, contracts, and commercial operations finance for a company with multiple corporate locations in different countries. In each country where we had a corporate presence we had to track revenue from that country and pays taxes to that country. Now there is no perfect system for making sure that 100% percent of transactions get captured by the appropriate corporate entity, but they certainly had to provide sufficient mechanism to satisfy the taxing authority in each county. If the taxing authority audits and finds too many gaps then they have to tighten until it satisfies the authorities.

You're rather confusing two issues here.

 

It's perfectly legitimate for a company to decide to have a US operation and a UK operation and to run them separately. They must respectively report to the US and UK authorities for tax, etc. And bookings made with the US operation will be on US terms and bookings made with the UK authorities must be made on UK terms. Given the higher levels of consumer protection in the UK, and other factors, the prices charged by the UK operation will tend to be higher. All that is perfectly fine.

 

It would also be perfectly legitimate for CCL to have a US operation that sells all cruises of a particular kind to everyone, and an AU operation that sells all cruises of another kind to everyone. Whether you're based in AU or the US, if you want to book a cruise of the first kind you must book through the US operation, and if you want to book a cruise of the second kind you must book through the AU operation. Everyone gets the same price and the same treatment. The US operation accounts to the US authorities for all the tax on profits on bookings made by anyone anywhere for that category of cruises, and the AU operation likewise accounts to the AU authorities for its profits.

 

What HAL does is different. HAL says:-

• If you're in the US, you can choose to book with the US operation (on US terms and with US levels of customer protection) or with the UK operation (on UK terms and with UK levels of customer protection), at your own choice.
• If you're in the UK and you happen to be entitled to hold a US passport, you can choose to book with the US operation or with the UK operation, at your own choice.
• If you're in the UK and you're not allowed to hold a US passport, then you must book with the UK operation and you cannot book with the US operation.

Why?

 

There are no laws that require this result, just as there are no laws that require that I book with American Airlines' UK operation rather than its US operation, and just as there are no laws that require that I buy my books from Amazon's UK operation rather than its US operation.

 

This result is imposed entirely by HAL's choice.

[Globaliser]

The U.K.'s Package Travel Regulations Act 1992 specifically says that it applies to all packages sold in the U.K.

 

Now in this day of Internet online booking, if a web site is available with no restrictions to people from the U.K. to book on then couldn't the courts argue that it applies to all booking made from someone in the UK, even if the web site has disclaimers saying that it does such non-US regulations does not apply.

Personally, I very much doubt this. I'm not aware of any pattern of UK courts imposing UK laws on transactions made by UK people on websites that are clearly outside the UK (eg buying goods from a US website which the seller ships to the UK, and the goods turn out to be defective).

 

It doesn't pose a problem for the very many other multinational operators from selling package travel on the Internet to people physically located in the UK, using sites based outside the UK, even when those operators also have UK operations. An example is an airline that has both US and UK operations, selling flight + hotel packages through both websites. If you buy a package through the US website, it's obviously subject to US laws and rules. You don't see airlines refusing to take bookings through the US website from people located in the UK.

 

Whatever you might say about CCL (which has in the past operated cruises within Europe, so clearly in the same position as HAL), Disney definitely has substantial operations in Europe, including cruises within Europe, but does not prohibit UK people from booking with the US operation.

 

Anyway, AFAIK the Package Travel Regulations wouldn't apply to a cruise-only booking anyway because that's not a "package". So this would be a red herring for a large proportion of UK people who'd choose to book with the US operation (who are by definition more likely to be the savvy DIY type). A US site would also mostly avoid accidentally selling "packages" to UK people because the add-on most likely to turn it into a package would be flights - but the US site wouldn't offer flights from the UK so very few UK people would be likely to book something from the US that would fall within the definition of "package".

 

All of this adds up to a substantial body of reasons why there are no legal reasons that compel HAL to impose a prohibition on a sub-set of UK residents booking with the US operation. As I said, it's purely HAL's choice - and when you couple that with routine reports of prices being substantially higher, it's a struggle to think of any innocent explanation.

[RDC1]

Personally, I very much doubt this. I'm not aware of any pattern of UK courts imposing UK laws on transactions made by UK people on websites that are clearly outside the UK (eg buying goods from a US website which the seller ships to the UK, and the goods turn out to be defective).

 

It doesn't pose a problem for the very many other multinational operators from selling package travel on the Internet to people physically located in the UK, using sites based outside the UK, even when those operators also have UK operations. An example is an airline that has both US and UK operations, selling flight + hotel packages through both websites. If you buy a package through the US website, it's obviously subject to US laws and rules. You don't see airlines refusing to take bookings through the US website from people located in the UK.

 

Whatever you might say about CCL (which has in the past operated cruises within Europe, so clearly in the same position as HAL), Disney definitely has substantial operations in Europe, including cruises within Europe, but does not prohibit UK people from booking with the US operation.

 

Anyway, AFAIK the Package Travel Regulations wouldn't apply to a cruise-only booking anyway because that's not a "package". So this would be a red herring for a large proportion of UK people who'd choose to book with the US operation (who are by definition more likely to be the savvy DIY type). A US site would also mostly avoid accidentally selling "packages" to UK people because the add-on most likely to turn it into a package would be flights - but the US site wouldn't offer flights from the UK so very few UK people would be likely to book something from the US that would fall within the definition of "package".

 

All of this adds up to a substantial body of reasons why there are no legal reasons that compel HAL to impose a prohibition on a sub-set of UK residents booking with the US operation. As I said, it's purely HAL's choice - and when you couple that with routine reports of prices being substantially higher, it's a struggle to think of any innocent explanation.

 

Disney might have different contractual arrangements with travel agents in Europe. They probably have different corporate and accounting structures. Disney certainly has a fairly high price structure so their revenue models may absorb more risk parameters into their overall pricing. Lots of reasons why they might decide to do business differently.

 

You keep coming back to the comment that there is no legal reason. Never said that there was a legal reason, only that there are a number of business, legal, tax, and regulatory requirements that must be met and those reasons are a driver in the business decisions. Some companies may decide to absorb costs across their complete customer base, others may price each section based upon those costs.

 

I am pretty sure that the cruise lines have heard from customers that live in the UK, and booked through the US web site that have then tried to claim protections offered under UK law. They might have gotten enough of such that they decided to solve the problem by eliminating the possibility. Could be lots of things. We will never know because we don't have access to the management meetings where those discussions take place. All I have done is to identify a number of issues that I would have looked at in putting together a pricing model when I was responsible for such activities. The one thing I am absolutely certain of is that there are drivers behind it that are based upon facts and business impacts, not just an adhoc response that they don't like residents of the EU, UK, Australia, etc. It is also interesting that the groups that tend to face higher prices tend to be in areas that have higher consumer protections, tend to have higher costs of living, tend to have substantial regulatory environments, etc.

 

Bottom line is if you don't like how some lines develop their business model go with someone else. Enjoy cruising with Disney.

[RDC1]

You're rather confusing two issues here.

 

It's perfectly legitimate for a company to decide to have a US operation and a UK operation and to run them separately. They must respectively report to the US and UK authorities for tax, etc. And bookings made with the US operation will be on US terms and bookings made with the UK authorities must be made on UK terms. Given the higher levels of consumer protection in the UK, and other factors, the prices charged by the UK operation will tend to be higher. All that is perfectly fine.

 

It would also be perfectly legitimate for CCL to have a US operation that sells all cruises of a particular kind to everyone, and an AU operation that sells all cruises of another kind to everyone. Whether you're based in AU or the US, if you want to book a cruise of the first kind you must book through the US operation, and if you want to book a cruise of the second kind you must book through the AU operation. Everyone gets the same price and the same treatment. The US operation accounts to the US authorities for all the tax on profits on bookings made by anyone anywhere for that category of cruises, and the AU operation likewise accounts to the AU authorities for its profits.

 

What HAL does is different. HAL says:-

• If you're in the US, you can choose to book with the US operation (on US terms and with US levels of customer protection) or with the UK operation (on UK terms and with UK levels of customer protection), at your own choice.
• If you're in the UK and you happen to be entitled to hold a US passport, you can choose to book with the US operation or with the UK operation, at your own choice.
• If you're in the UK and you're not allowed to hold a US passport, then you must book with the UK operation and you cannot book with the US operation.

Why?

 

There are no laws that require this result, just as there are no laws that require that I book with American Airlines' UK operation rather than its US operation, and just as there are no laws that require that I buy my books from Amazon's UK operation rather than its US operation.

 

This result is imposed entirely by HAL's choice.

 

Let me clarify what I have said repeatedly. Laws do not define how a company structures its business model. However, laws are one of the many influences that a company faces, along with tax policy, competition, legal, etc. A company takes all of that information a puts together their business model based upon all of those drivers. One company might decide to spread all costs across all customers and have a single price model. Another company, such as the airlines, where the primary driver is maximizing revenue based upon a very complex model (interesting you should mention an airline where everyone on the plane pays a different amount) and where consumer protections are largely based upon international convention and not have much national deviation. Most of the mainline US cruise lines have developed price structures by major region or nation (probably influenced by one or more of the various categories I have mentioned) with a high degree of correlation with the consumer protection laws in each area.

 

Now I would suspect if you order from the US version of Amazon you will have to pay a pretty high shipping cost, as well as customs charges that you don't face if you order from their UK branch. If you don't then I suspect that the IT systems are really putting you into the appropriate structure behind the scenes. I also would not be too sure that you, in fact, could do that on all amazon items, For example a friend of mine in Europe could not order e-books from the US site, he had to order e-books from his national site.

[Globaliser]

Disney might have different contractual arrangements with travel agents in Europe. They probably have different corporate and accounting structures. Disney certainly has a fairly high price structure so their revenue models may absorb more risk parameters into their overall pricing. Lots of reasons why they might decide to do business differently.

 

You keep coming back to the comment that there is no legal reason. Never said that there was a legal reason, only that there are a number of business, legal, tax, and regulatory requirements that must be met and those reasons are a driver in the business decisions. …

But the question of whether there’s a legal reason for HAL to do what it does is very relevant to the question of whether HAL “discriminates against European cruisers” (or, for that matter, Australian cruisers) – which is where this thread started.

 

If HAL is legally bound to do what it does, then that’s the legal structure we Europeans/Australians live under, and we have to pull other levers to try and change it.

 

If the legal reason for the policy is that HAL has had bad experiences of Europeans/Australians choosing to book on US terms and then trying to claim the benefit of UK consumer protection under UK law, why doesn’t it say so? We could all understand and have some sympathy with the company if there are customers trying to take unfair advantage like this. But if you look through the (very few) public pronouncements made by the Carnival group companies which operate this policy, you will find lots of mealy-mouthed weasel words, but nothing that even hints at this.

 

However, if HAL is not legally bound to operate this policy, then it makes its contractual, commercial and other arrangements of its own choice. It chooses to make arrangements that allow US residents to opt to book with the US operation on US terms, or with the UK operation on UK terms. It also chooses to prohibit UK residents from having the same choice of whether to book with the US operation, or with the UK operation. Why?

 

In the absence of any other explanation, and in the light of the price differences involved (sometimes very stark and going well beyond the differential costs of doing business in different countries), a natural conclusion is that this is market segmentation at work for the purposes of extracting higher yields from non-US markets.

… The one thing I am absolutely certain of is that there are drivers behind it that are based upon facts and business impacts, not just an adhoc response that they don't like residents of the EU, UK, Australia, etc. It is also interesting that the groups that tend to face higher prices tend to be in areas that have higher consumer protections, tend to have higher costs of living, tend to have substantial regulatory environments, etc.

The higher prices charged in the markets with higher costs makes complete sense. But this is not a case of someone in the higher cost market wanting the lower price while inflicting the higher costs on the company. Contracting with the company in the lower cost market only comes with the lower costs.

 

And nobody is suggesting that this is because HAL doesn’t like EU/AU residents! This is because HAL sees an opportunity to make more money out of us.

(interesting you should mention an airline where everyone on the plane pays a different amount)

But everybody, everywhere in the world, can get access to the same price at any particular moment. You don't pay a different amount from the next person because of where you live, but because of the price that was on offer at the time that you booked.

Now I would suspect if you order from the US version of Amazon you will have to pay a pretty high shipping cost, as well as customs charges that you don't face if you order from their UK branch. … I also would not be too sure that you, in fact, could do that on all amazon items, For example a friend of mine in Europe could not order e-books from the US site, he had to order e-books from his national site.

At least it’s my choice whether to buy on US terms (eg low price, high shipping cost) or UK terms (high price, low shipping cost). Amazon lets me choose. HAL does not.

 

And e-books illustrate the precise difference. That is likely to be for a legal reason: copyright laws which prevent Amazon selling to people to whom they’re not authorised to sell.

 

Of course, I can choose to cruise on another line. Or (as is more often the case) I’ll buy a cruise only when the price suits me and I don’t feel I’m being ripped off – because it’s not universally the case that UK/EU prices are higher than US prices.

 

But the more public exposure that’s given to this issue, the better. Not only can those who read CC be better informed about what’s going on, and decide whether or not they are prepared to pay a higher price, it might even be part of a small indirect lever on HAL. You can imagine the outcry that would erupt here if it turned out that UK residents were being offered much cheaper cruises and US residents were prohibited from booking at those prices and were being forced to pay much higher prices for the same cruise in the US market.

[RDC1]

But the question of whether there’s a legal reason for HAL to do what it does is very relevant to the question of whether HAL “discriminates against European cruisers” (or, for that matter, Australian cruisers) – which is where this thread started.

 

If HAL is legally bound to do what it does, then that’s the legal structure we Europeans/Australians live under, and we have to pull other levers to try and change it.

 

If the legal reason for the policy is that HAL has had bad experiences of Europeans/Australians choosing to book on US terms and then trying to claim the benefit of UK consumer protection under UK law, why doesn’t it say so? We could all understand and have some sympathy with the company if there are customers trying to take unfair advantage like this. But if you look through the (very few) public pronouncements made by the Carnival group companies which operate this policy, you will find lots of mealy-mouthed weasel words, but nothing that even hints at this.

 

However, if HAL is not legally bound to operate this policy, then it makes its contractual, commercial and other arrangements of its own choice. It chooses to make arrangements that allow US residents to opt to book with the US operation on US terms, or with the UK operation on UK terms. It also chooses to prohibit UK residents from having the same choice of whether to book with the US operation, or with the UK operation. Why?

 

In the absence of any other explanation, and in the light of the price differences involved (sometimes very stark and going well beyond the differential costs of doing business in different countries), a natural conclusion is that this is market segmentation at work for the purposes of extracting higher yields from non-US markets.The higher prices charged in the markets with higher costs makes complete sense. But this is not a case of someone in the higher cost market wanting the lower price while inflicting the higher costs on the company. Contracting with the company in the lower cost market only comes with the lower costs.

 

And nobody is suggesting that this is because HAL doesn’t like EU/AU residents! This is because HAL sees an opportunity to make more money out of us.But everybody, everywhere in the world, can get access to the same price at any particular moment. You don't pay a different amount from the next person because of where you live, but because of the price that was on offer at the time that you booked.At least it’s my choice whether to buy on US terms (eg low price, high shipping cost) or UK terms (high price, low shipping cost). Amazon lets me choose. HAL does not.

 

And e-books illustrate the precise difference. That is likely to be for a legal reason: copyright laws which prevent Amazon selling to people to whom they’re not authorised to sell.

 

Of course, I can choose to cruise on another line. Or (as is more often the case) I’ll buy a cruise only when the price suits me and I don’t feel I’m being ripped off – because it’s not universally the case that UK/EU prices are higher than US prices.

 

But the more public exposure that’s given to this issue, the better. Not only can those who read CC be better informed about what’s going on, and decide whether or not they are prepared to pay a higher price, it might even be part of a small indirect lever on HAL. You can imagine the outcry that would erupt here if it turned out that UK residents were being offered much cheaper cruises and US residents were prohibited from booking at those prices and were being forced to pay much higher prices for the same cruise in the US market.

 

Actually probably not much of one. You have other choices. There are UK based cruise lines so use them.

 

I have given you a number of reason why from a corporate perspective they have different costs and risks structures based upon country, especially a countries laws concerning travel and consumer protection.

 

Go to any lawyer and ask them about intent to sell. Since the Internet is world wide, a company can be considered to have an intent to sell in a country unless they intentionally block it. I currently do not have access to court cases in the EU to determine if any there are or have been any cases against US cruise lines based upon UK or EU consumer laws, but I do know that if they were to freely allow sales to people in the UK then a court would clearly find intent to sell and would have a chance of finding that such laws apply. By putting the restrictions in place they have pretty much eliminated that possibility. Now the restrictions are not such that someone could not find a way around them (use a friends address in the US, fake the locations of your source PC, etc.) but if they do so then it is clear that they have and the cruise line would have a very strong legal argue that such laws do not apply.

 

As far as Disney goes I can see why they might take a different tact. First of all is that the cruise business is a very small part of their overall business (compared to theme parks, hotels, condo's, movies, television, etc.). In the case of their model the potential risks is a much lower percentage then with a company where all of their revenue comes from cruise business. In Disney's case brand identification is more important then some potential risk.

 

You want the cheaper prices and to have access, move to a country with less consumer protection, because even if you want to waive the protections, the current law does not allow the consumer to waive the protections. Actually it prevents the consumer from waiving those protections by accepting contract terms that are counter in return for a cheaper price. So actually when it comes to travel it is not your choice. The way the law is written eliminates your ability to choose concerning travel protections on something sold in the UK.

 

The material I quoted earlier from the web site specifically raises those concerns and points out that such booking are under US law. Now a good attorney would tell you that such a disclaimer is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition considering intent to sell and the ways the protection laws are written. That requires a situation where it is clear that there is not an intent to sell in the UK as well.

Edited September 26, 2014 by RDC1

[CI66774]

Another poster nailed it - we all have a choice. If you believe HAL's (or any cruise line's) policy is unjust/discriminatory/unfair - whatever - take your business elsewhere. It is what it is and it's more than likely not going to change. To me, UK and European cruisers have greater consumer protections - that adds to costs. You have a higher costs of goods (generally) - higher costs. Those increased consumer protections aren't free - you pay for them through higher cruise fares, etc.

[CI66774]

As far as HAL goes, I don't think there are any taxes or cost differences that justify their price discrimination strategy. I don't like it either so I'll pay and play whatever best deal I can get, and to h@ll with Carnival Corp's profits.

 

On what do you basis this statement? Europeans have much greater consumer protections than those in the U.S. Who do you think pays for the greater protections???? Why you do. Nothing is free and it shouldn't be. If you have greater protections, you should be paying more - period.

[OleSalt]

It is the price of living in the "Nanny State" Overbearing government interference with legitimate business is the problem. You voted for it now don't complain.

[navybankerteacher]

As far as HAL goes, I don't think there are any taxes or cost differences that justify their price discrimination strategy. I don't like it either so I'll pay and play whatever best deal I can get, and to h@ll with Carnival Corp's profits.

 

Of course you are entitled to shoot for the best deal you can get - so why isn't HAL entitled to the same approach? You simply need to recognize that your best deal is diametrically opposed to HAL's - so if you want to engage them you should bear in mind that they have the same "to h@ll" attitude towards your bank account.

[iancal]

I worked for a multi national for 25 plus years. Consumer and commercial products. Prices varied by county-because of in county costs and because of the ability to realize higher margins. More so the latter than the the former in most cases. These discrepencies cause the 'grey market' to thrive. Less of it now but it still exists.

[RDC1]

I worked for a multi national for 25 plus years. Consumer and commercial products. Prices varied by county-because of in county costs and because of the ability to realize higher margins. More so the latter than the the former in most cases. These discrepencies cause the 'grey market' to thrive. Less of it now but it still exists.

 

It still thrives in industries that are heavily regulated, such as the pharmaceutical industry. Regulation and price variations tend to go hand in hand.

[Globaliser]

Actually probably not much of one. You have other choices. There are UK based cruise lines so use them.

This is being either naive or disingenuous.

 

Do you really think that there would be no outcry here if a cruise to Alaska was being sold to UK cruisers at a significantly lower price than that offered to US cruisers, and US cruisers were prohibited from booking in the UK in order to take advantage of that lower price?

 

Telling US-based CC members to book a Caribbean cruise instead would go down like the proverbial lead balloon.

Go to any lawyer and ask them about intent to sell. ...

 

...

 

You want the cheaper prices and to have access, move to a country with less consumer protection, because even if you want to waive the protections, the current law does not allow the consumer to waive the protections. Actually it prevents the consumer from waiving those protections by accepting contract terms that are counter in return for a cheaper price.

You are leaping into the realms of pure speculation here. I am a lawyer. Let me put it bluntly in non-legal terms.

 

I am not aware of anything that suggests that the courts here impose UK consumer protection on contracts made by UK-based people using US websites and agreeing to US terms, whether in the travel industry or in other fields.

 

Other companies in other sectors of the travel industry - including those who sell packages - happily trade with UK-based customers on the basis that agreement to US terms means US terms without UK consumer protection.

 

Other cruise lines happily trade with with UK-based customers on the basis that agreement to US terms means US terms without UK consumer protection.

 

Unless there is anything to support your assertion that UK consumer protection would be imposed on a booking made by a UK-based person on a US website on US terms, your proposition is no more than unfounded speculation.

 

And unless UK consumer protection would be imposed on such a booking, the whole spectre of "higher costs when dealing with a UK-based customer" is a complete red herring. The costs and risks are exactly the same as dealing with a US-based customer, because the terms and conditions are identical.

[Globaliser]

To me, UK and European cruisers have greater consumer protections - that adds to costs. You have a higher costs of goods (generally) - higher costs. Those increased consumer protections aren't free - you pay for them through higher cruise fares, etc.

Europeans have much greater consumer protections than those in the U.S. Who do you think pays for the greater protections???? Why you do. Nothing is free and it shouldn't be. If you have greater protections, you should be paying more - period.

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?

[RDC1]

This is being either naive or disingenuous.

 

Do you really think that there would be no outcry here if a cruise to Alaska was being sold to UK cruisers at a significantly lower price than that offered to US cruisers, and US cruisers were prohibited from booking in the UK in order to take advantage of that lower price?

 

Telling US-based CC members to book a Caribbean cruise instead would go down like the proverbial lead balloon.You are leaping into the realms of pure speculation here. I am a lawyer. Let me put it bluntly in non-legal terms.

 

I am not aware of anything that suggests that the courts here impose UK consumer protection on contracts made by UK-based people using US websites and agreeing to US terms, whether in the travel industry or in other fields.

 

Other companies in other sectors of the travel industry - including those who sell packages - happily trade with UK-based customers on the basis that agreement to US terms means US terms without UK consumer protection.

 

Other cruise lines happily trade with with UK-based customers on the basis that agreement to US terms means US terms without UK consumer protection.

 

Unless there is anything to support your assertion that UK consumer protection would be imposed on a booking made by a UK-based person on a US website on US terms, your proposition is no more than unfounded speculation.

 

And unless UK consumer protection would be imposed on such a booking, the whole spectre of "higher costs when dealing with a UK-based customer" is a complete red herring. The costs and risks are exactly the same as dealing with a US-based customer, because the terms and conditions are identical.

 

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.

 

It happens get used to it.

 

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?

 

Since you are an attorney then you know that it is the job of a legal department to protect their client. Holland America has clearly done that by both the disclaimer, as well as the blocking of UK residents from the US web sites. If you claim otherwise, isn't interesting that the groups that are blocked are all those where the countries have implemented travel protection laws that would apply to cruises. Otherwise that is one of the most interesting coincidences.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Now if you were dealing with a small company that did not have a legal and physical presence in the U.K. you might be able to get the court to agree with your point, however, Holland America clearly does have a physical and legal presence. The U.K. web site gives the address and contact information of its legal location there.

Edited September 27, 2014 by RDC1

[RDC1]

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. This falls under what I have said before. There are ways around the web sites restrictions, but they would make it clear in a case that someone has gone out of their way to do such bookings and would support the company that they were not offered for sale in the U.K. and Europe (and for that matter Australia.

 

Because as I have explained repeatedly the company and the consumer in the EU and the UK CANNOT enter into a contract which legally voids those protections. The law explicitly prevents that. The only way is if Holland America does not offer it for sale in the U.K. and that is why they have constructed the web sites the way that they do.

 

Note if you become resident in the U.S. and are physically present here then you can legally buy under U.S. terms and conditions because even though your are a U.K. citizen you are buying a package that is not offered for sale in the U.K. I would suspect that you could log in from a hotel in the U.S. provide the hotels address in the booking and quite easily book from the US web site since the package you are buying is not being offered for sale in the U.K. and you are not physically present there.