Oceania adds Fuel surcharge

[Penzance]

I'm sorry, we were at cross purposes. I was referring to just the extra oil surcharge IF oil prices were to fall before departure of your particular cruise - not referring to canceling the whole cruise.

[Kaileygirl]

Thanks for sharing the news, Jan!

[ccsunfun30]

This is a classic case of "follow the leader" with Carnival implementing the fees last week and each and every cruise line following their lead, and Oceania being the price leader at $7 without a cap because the upscale guest will pay regardless. They should remember that there are plenty of other cruise lines out there to choose from. Maybe their repeat percentages won't be so high in the future. It certainly does leave a sour taste. Paying a balance of $30000 within 10 days so that they can hold onto our money for a year? And they certainly will not be giving your money back if the price of oil goes down.

[LHT28]

This is a classic case of "follow the leader" with Carnival implementing the fees last week and each and every cruise line following their lead, and Oceania being the price leader at $7 without a cap because the upscale guest will pay regardless.

I think RSSC is the leader at $7.50

http://www.rssc.com/fuelsurcharge

[rogfam]

So, since we board our cruise in Istanbul and don't sail until the next evening, there shouldn't be a fuel surcharge for that day since the ship isn't moving!!!

[Druke I]

The diesels are operating on that overnight, providing hotel power!

[cruzagain]

Has anyone read the threads on RCCL re: fuel surcharge? It's pretty active and seems like theyr'e talking about class action suit.

[bbuchanan]

This is a classic case of "follow the leader" with Carnival implementing the fees last week and each and every cruise line following their lead, and Oceania being the price leader at $7 without a cap because the upscale guest will pay regardless.

 

Regent is $7.50 per passenger, Cruise West $12, Majestic and Windstar $8.50 and Silversea $10 all per passenger without a cap.

 

Bonnie

[Aussie Gal]

I think Oceania is very fair with their fuel charge. They are not in the same league as the big cruise companies which can afford to cover a lot of their costs.

 

Jennie

[Mirela]

Carnival clearly deserves the lion's share of the blame for the latest round fuel surcharges. Carnival was the major first line to implement the latest round of fuel surcharges, which essentially forced the other lines' hands (i.e., follow suit or suffer a lesser return). I would hope that federal regulators at some point will look at whether Carnival, with its 60% market share in the U.S., is exercising market power over pricing to the detriment of consumers. Certainly, any future mergers or acquisitions involving Carnival should be carefully scrutinized with respect to their practices concerning surcharges and ancillary charges. And while the AGs and others are looking at the fuel surcharges, they should take a fresh look at what is included in the cruise lines' port charges, to ensure that the lines are playing fair there too (I have my doubts, but that's more a hunch than anything else at this point).

[Leonid]

Mirela - Not only are the port charges interesting, you might want to question the "govt fees". Try to get a breakdown! Good luck! :rolleyes:

[tlmlb]

I would doubt very much that Oceania's costs have increased as much as the amount of surcharge they collect.

 

If they do not hedge against the cost of fuel then management is sorely lacking in foresight. It is not like you and I going to the gas station every week. There are contracts in place that protect them against increases. Put it this way, Oceania has locked in the cost of fuel by hedging on the free market in advance. It is a way to insure price and operating margins. Apollo being a private equity fund is familiar with all financial derivatives/options and would have been required to accomplish this. Do you really think they would put their investment at risk by not protecting themselves against rising fuel costs? Apollo is a sophisticated financial firm and well aware of hedging against rising fuel costs.

 

The surcharge is a way for the lines to make even greater profits and pay for the costs of hedging.

[CruseKrazy]

This issue has legs. My TA informs me that she has written to Oceania on behalf of her clients (she does a ton of group cruises with them) to question the legal validity of imposing a price increase after a deposit has been made.

 

O has not replied yet but is very sensitive to customers views. My TA mentioned that some customers who had already antied up the surcharge or going to get it back, but I forget what cruise line this was.

 

If one of the major cruise lines capitulates on this, they all will likely follow suit. Stay tuned, fairness or more likely market power, may yet prevail. :cool:

[TERRIER1]

I am new to cruising and Oceania but I just called my TA (the one that was listed on Oceania's site when I booked). I was calling to find out how I pay the balance on the cruise which is due 1/14/08 for the 4/13 sail date. She told me that Oceania is charging $7 per day per person for the fuel charge. That's an additional $168. If they had notified me, I would had paid the balance prior to 12/1 but I never received any communication. Sounds like they are going through with it.

 

Jean

[LHT28]

She told me that Oceania is charging $7 per day per person for the fuel charge. That's an additional $168. If they had notified me, I would had paid the balance prior to 12/1 but I never received any communication. Sounds like they are going through with it.

 

Jean

I would ask your TA why they had not notified you back in November when the surcharge was announced.

 

Most of us were notified by our TA's

[XTEACH281]

We got a notice from our TA ---and even a date (that was a few days earlier than Dec. 1 Oceania deadline) that the TA office needed the payment by- so they could process....I also believe I had a reminder from O itself - even though we don't travel until 11/24 , I have all our info filled out online with O already and if memory serves (and it has been overloaded lately) O did email me .....:)

[TERRIER1]

Had I not contacted my TA (the one that Oceania provided) on Friday about the method of paying my balance I would have never even known about the surcharge. I just emailed my TA and Oceania about this since if I had known I would have prepaid by 12/1. Thanks for the info.

 

Jean

[Jancruz]

This issue has legs. My TA informs me that she has written to Oceania on behalf of her clients (she does a ton of group cruises with them) to question the legal validity of imposing a price increase after a deposit has been made.

 

O has not replied yet but is very sensitive to customers views. My TA mentioned that some customers who had already antied up the surcharge or going to get it back, but I forget what cruise line this was.

 

If one of the major cruise lines capitulates on this, they all will likely follow suit. Stay tuned, fairness or more likely market power, may yet prevail. :cool:

 

Sorry, dont hold your breath..it is very legal if you read the fine print in the contract..the fuel charge stands..and Oceania is busier than ever!

Jan

*****

[Mirela]

Sorry, dont hold your breath..it is very legal if you read the fine print in the contract..the fuel charge stands..and Oceania is busier than ever!

Jan

*****

 

Never believe a lawyer who tells you his contract is iron clad. Throughout the history of contract, there have been too many examples of supposedly water-tight contracts springing leaks. Even where a contract provision is drafted clearly, it can be struck down on other grounds, e.g., if it constitutes a deceptive trade practice. I have no idea whether such considerations would apply to Oceania, but, by the same token, I wouldn't necessarily assume because something may be in a contract that it is not subject to challenge.

[BeBeReader]

Absolutely true. Sorry Jan but you're wrong on this one. The small print of the Oceania contract is not clear. Any attorney worth her/his salt can make an excellent argument that the language does not allow for this surcharge. The upshot - class action lawsuit. The result - who knows.

 

I didn't choose to be the one to pursue the matter -- not worth it with my booking. And now I'll probably get thrown overboard on my up and coming cruise. No seat at the captain's table for me.

 

BeBe

[owl61]

Would an airline, bus, or train be permitted to raise the price of a previously sold seat ( for fuel surcharge or for any reason whatsoever) prior to departure? I think not. And I question whether the cruise contract terms are binding upon those who make a deposit prior to ever having a chance to read the terms of the cruise contract ( should the contract purport to reserve the right to arbitrarily raise prices).

This fuel surcharge that is demanded from those who have booked and partially paid for cabins is further evidence that the industry is in need of some regulation. By the way, do the cruiselines intend to pay interest on the deposit $ of customers who refuse to travel because of the increased prices? Don't you think they should have to pay interest having had the benefit of those deposits interest free for some time? Especially since they caused the customer to cancel because the agreed price was raised.

For many years I was a trial lawyer for a large bank so I am familiar with the legal realities of running a large business. Americans, in particular, are notoriously sue happy, but that sue happiness is just an unwelcome byproduct of what is arguably one of the fairest, most transparent, successful legal systems in the world. Just ask those large corporations who are subject to the vagaries of foreign legal systems why they include choice of venue clauses that require law suits to be brought in FL or other domestic jurisdictions. As it now stands they enjoy the benefits of the US system, but without regulation they are dodging ethical business norms.

So to, the attempt by cruiselines to contractually exculpate themselves for every conceivable claim, to the extent it is enforceable, is unique within the passenger transport universe.

Is there no congressman out there who would spearhead legislation regulating cruiselines business practices at least to an extent similar to that which governs airlines?