Fuel Supplement announced (4 merged threads)

[MDchopper8]

Here’s the irony, and Jaxon41 you will especially get a kick out of this, well sort of..

 

Here is how I think that this debacle will play out. The cruise line will quickly recognize their mistake, bow to pressure , “re-find it’s ethical center”, whatever and rescind the ill-conceived application of this surcharge. Or do it later under force of litigation. Unfortunately both the litigation and/or their need to clean their legal house of the counsel that unwittingly placed them in this position in the first place will be costly for them. They make the costly mistake but it will still be passed on to the passenger in the form of higher fares.

 

“Penny wise and pound foolish”

[Hootsie]

I wonder why they just aren't raising prices? We booked in August and it's the same price today as it was then. Strange.

[Dive Master]

NCL?? :eek: Comparing NCL to Celebrity is like comparing apples and oranges. Have a great time on NCL. I'd never even consider this line.

 

Good for you !!!! You know what they say about opinions? As a former travel agent I have had the pleasure of cruising all of the mainstram lines. I will say Celebrity was my favorite all things considerd (best food and service).All of the cruise lines provide a good vacation--they all feed you, take you to several locations while unpacking once,etc. The point I was trying to make is that NCL was the only one of the big 3 to not pass on fuel surcharges to already depositied guest.I guess you could look at it as :

Appples to Oranges or

Ethical to Unethical

 

To me, trust plays a major part as to where I do business----but you know what they say about opinions.

[FinelyCruising]

Actually, the original language did allow for a surcharge in the case of increased port charges. One might argue that the surcharge is not part of the "fare," but in any case, the clear implication of the brochure language is that full deposit freezes the price of the cruise except for additional charges actually levied against RCI by outside agencies. It's clearly the kind of thing that courts can decide on, but once again, it's worth noting that the contract was changed, post-surcharge, to permit fuel surcharges. SO iff it was part of the deal to start with, why the hurried covering-one's-tale?

 

Here is what my take is based on some opinions I have read here...

 

1) The booked contract did not allow for fuel surcharges.

 

2) Conract law says if you change a contract it is null and void unless you agree to the change in terms

 

3) The cruiseline has said, we are changing the contract terms at this time and need to as a result of these changing times.

 

4) We know you are booked under the old contract. We need to collect this new fee so...because the law indicates our old contract is no longer valid since we changed it, if you still want to go here is the new contract and the new charge.

 

5) If you decide you do not want the new contract terms, you can cancel your cruise and we will not penalize you as we would if you cancelled this close to sail date.

 

It seems to me that they have fulfilled their obligations based on contract law as described by some who have posted here to give you the opportunity to agree to the new terms since the old ones no longer count.

 

So, if you still want to go, you are making the decision to accept the new terms, but otherwise the contract in effect when you booked is no longer valid.

 

So since its no longer valid, you are able to decide two things, one is still go at the new terms, or two, decide not to go because you don't want to pay the surcharge. They leave the choice to you.

 

Unless you were already paid in full. In that case they have accepted all your obligations to complete the deal that was contracted to occur and as a result they have to live up to our end of the bargain.

[SHill64]

Ethical or unethical? Does anyone honestly believe that a massive company like RCCL would do something that might hurt their business and is unethical? If the surcharge is illegal/unethical, don't you think legal counsel for RCCL would have advised them not to do it? Why would they risk tarnishing their reputation in the court of public opinion by losing a protracted court case? Makes no sense.

 

To me, trust plays a major part as to where I do business----but you know what they say about opinions.

I trust American made cars, but I don't drive one! Apples and oranges.

 

SDT

PS: I own a considerable amount of RCCL stock.

[SHill64]

Finely, that makes complete sense to me! But, what they did is unethical and not of sound principle. :rolleyes:

 

Hey! Who wants to talk about jeans in the dining room, kids in the pool wearing swimmy diapers or thongs!!:D How 'bout passports? :eek:

[FinelyCruising]

You know I think they are doing what they have to do, but I don't think the intent is to harm any one. I personally think they ought to have given a bit more opportunity to prepay with cruisers so close to their final payment, and I am guessing they will find a threshold and make that kind of thing happen because it was so sudden and abrupt.

 

For the rest of us, plan on a few extra dollars for the priviledge of gracing their ships...unless of course we are lucky enough to have the fuel prices go down, but by that time the cost of cruise fares will be going up and we might feel so lucky to cruise we'll overcome the fear of diaper rash and our passports will have photos of us when we were all actually happier:D

[Susan-M]

If the surcharge is illegal/unethical, don't you think legal counsel for RCCL would have advised them not to do it?

 

I made the same comment quite a number of posts back, but now I'm wondering why Celebrity can't provide an answer to those who have emailed them asking about their right to apply the surcharge. The only response I've seen from Celebrity is in post #349...and it wasn't an answer at all. They must have anticipated the many complaints and questions ...but it's now 13 days after the announcement was made, and they still can't provide an answer. :confused:

[usha]

but it's now 13 days after the announcement was made, and they still can't provide an answer. :confused:

That's because all they have is horsesh*t. They buy & pay for fuel many, many months before the fact. The only reason for the fuel supplement is greed. Everybody's doing it, but that doesn't make it right, or legal.:cool:

[Drew B]

That's because all they have is horsesh*t. They buy & pay for fuel many, many months before the fact. The only reason for the fuel supplement is greed. Everybody's doing it, but that doesn't make it right, or legal.:cool:

 

People keep saying this, but fuel prices have been up for years! I remember about five years ago, gas was well under $2 a gallon. It's a recent phenomenon that it's as high as it is (the $3.50/gallon range where I live), but it's been around $3 for well over a year. Do you think they bought and paid for the fuel longer ago than that? So even 18 months ago, fuel was much higher than it was 4 or 5 years ago. Cruise fares are NOT much higher. We're lucky that it took them this long to charge us more for fuel!

[shepp]

2) Conract law says if you change a contract it is null and void unless you agree to the change in terms

 

3) The cruiseline has said, we are changing the contract terms at this time and need to as a result of these changing times.

 

4) We know you are booked under the old contract. We need to collect this new fee so...because the law indicates our old contract is no longer valid since we changed it, if you still want to go here is the new contract and the new charge.

 

Unless you were already paid in full. In that case they have accepted all your obligations to complete the deal that was contracted to occur and as a result they have to live up to our end of the bargain.

 

I know nothing about contract law, really, but it does seem strange to me that one party can simply abrogate a contract without penalty, simply by giving the other party the option of agreeing to getting screwed. It's like a do-over, right? So if I make a contractual

agreement and have second thoughts, I get the legal option of just backing out unilaterally? Hmm. Weird. I mean, I'll take your word for it. Just didn't think the world worked that way.

 

In this case, though, any reasonable person reading the brochure language would, I think, assume that the price was frozen upon full deposit, not final payment, so RCI making that distinction seems really iffy.

[Sky Sweet]

I personally would rather pay a fuel surcharge to offset the cruise line's substantial increase in fuel costs than have them cut costs that would compromise the overall quality of my cruise.

[Drew B]

I know nothing about contract law, really, but it does seem strange to me that one party can simply abrogate a contract without penalty, simply by giving the other party the option of agreeing to getting screwed. It's like a do-over, right?

 

If abrogating the contract causes real, demonstrable damages, the injured party has got a legitimate tort case to recover those damages. It's not that one party can break the contract scott free. The law CAN force them to compensate for any damages that severing the contract caused, but it cannot force them to uphold the contract (I don't believe). The company cannot be punished for breaking the contract beyond actual damages found by a judge and jury...

 

That's the case here, too. However, how many of us would want to [potentially] hire a lawyer and go through litigation over the cost of a flight and a hotel? Also, I think that even if the damages from the change in travel plans - non-refundable flights and hotels - amounted to several thousand dollars (which could very easily happen in the case of a European cruise), a court would consider the behavior of the person who sacrificed thousands of dollars to save no more than $70 unreasonable. I doubt they would award more than the $70 in settlement, although that would depend on the judge and jury involved...

[jaxon41]

I've been on about 45 cruises, on 10 different lines. I've done NCL just once and like Carnival, never again. Plus, I've read lots about NCL and their troubles. Yes, NCL and Celebrity both have their faults, but they are apples & oranges.

 

Sorry, since you said "I'd never even consider this line," I thought you had never sailed them.

[jaxon41]

Here is what my take is based on some opinions I have read here...

 

1) The booked contract did not allow for fuel surcharges.

 

2) Conract law says if you change a contract it is null and void unless you agree to the change in terms

 

3) The cruiseline has said, we are changing the contract terms at this time and need to as a result of these changing times.

 

4) We know you are booked under the old contract. We need to collect this new fee so...because the law indicates our old contract is no longer valid since we changed it, if you still want to go here is the new contract and the new charge.

 

5) If you decide you do not want the new contract terms, you can cancel your cruise and we will not penalize you as we would if you cancelled this close to sail date.

 

It seems to me that they have fulfilled their obligations based on contract law as described by some who have posted here to give you the opportunity to agree to the new terms since the old ones no longer count.

 

So, if you still want to go, you are making the decision to accept the new terms, but otherwise the contract in effect when you booked is no longer valid.

 

So since its no longer valid, you are able to decide two things, one is still go at the new terms, or two, decide not to go because you don't want to pay the surcharge. They leave the choice to you.

 

Unless you were already paid in full. In that case they have accepted all your obligations to complete the deal that was contracted to occur and as a result they have to live up to our end of the bargain.

 

wrong

[jaxon41]

I made the same comment quite a number of posts back, but now I'm wondering why Celebrity can't provide an answer to those who have emailed them asking about their right to apply the surcharge. The only response I've seen from Celebrity is in post #349...and it wasn't an answer at all. They must have anticipated the many complaints and questions ...but it's now 13 days after the announcement was made, and they still can't provide an answer. :confused:

/quote]

 

Not sure if I already posted this, but in August 2007, the CEO was asked about imposing a fuel surcharge, and he admitted that because of the 1997 settlement regarding illegal over charges of port fees, there were some legal problems with enacting it. Why can't they just respond to the emails with their legal reasoning/justification? Why did NCL not impose it, except prospectively? They were also subject to that 1997 settlement.

I am guessing that there is some game playing here, sort of going like this:

 

By imposing the surcharge on those who are already under deposit, plus new bookings, we have a considerable amount of cash we can be earning interest on. What is the worst the AG is going to do to us -- make us give an OBC to the ones under deposit, a chit on a future cruise for those who have already sailed in the 18 or more months it will take to settle this, which means the suckers have to spend more money with us to use it (which is how the port fee thing worked out)? So what? Meantime we are collecting interest. Our #1 competitor is doing it, so we aren't going to lose customers to them, and NCL? out of principle? Well, our cruisers really aren't free stylers. So we lose a few bookings -- we can absorb that with no problem. It's just business, folks!

[jaxon41]

I know nothing about contract law, really, but it does seem strange to me that one party can simply abrogate a contract without penalty, simply by giving the other party the option of agreeing to getting screwed. It's like a do-over, right? So if I make a contractual

agreement and have second thoughts, I get the legal option of just backing out unilaterally? Hmm. Weird. I mean, I'll take your word for it. Just didn't think the world worked that way.

 

In this case, though, any reasonable person reading the brochure language would, I think, assume that the price was frozen upon full deposit, not final payment, so RCI making that distinction seems really iffy.

 

The world doesn't work that way.

[jaxon41]

If abrogating the contract causes real, demonstrable damages, the injured party has got a legitimate tort case to recover those damages. It's not that one party can break the contract scott free. The law CAN force them to compensate for any damages that severing the contract caused, but it cannot force them to uphold the contract (I don't believe). The company cannot be punished for breaking the contract beyond actual damages found by a judge and jury...

 

That's the case here, too. However, how many of us would want to [potentially] hire a lawyer and go through litigation over the cost of a flight and a hotel? Also, I think that even if the damages from the change in travel plans - non-refundable flights and hotels - amounted to several thousand dollars (which could very easily happen in the case of a European cruise), a court would consider the behavior of the person who sacrificed thousands of dollars to save no more than $70 unreasonable. I doubt they would award more than the $70 in settlement, although that would depend on the judge and jury involved...

 

Drew, didn't you mention specific performance in another post?

[Cathrine the Great]

I made the same comment quite a number of posts back, but now I'm wondering why Celebrity can't provide an answer to those who have emailed them asking about their right to apply the surcharge. The only response I've seen from Celebrity is in post #349...and it wasn't an answer at all. They must have anticipated the many complaints and questions ...but it's now 13 days after the announcement was made, and they still can't provide an answer. :confused:

/quote]

 

Not sure if I already posted this, but in August 2007, the CEO was asked about imposing a fuel surcharge, and he admitted that because of the 1997 settlement regarding illegal over charges of port fees, there were some legal problems with enacting it. Why can't they just respond to the emails with their legal reasoning/justification? Why did NCL not impose it, except prospectively? They were also subject to that 1997 settlement.

I am guessing that there is some game playing here, sort of going like this:

 

By imposing the surcharge on those who are already under deposit, plus new bookings, we have a considerable amount of cash we can be earning interest on. What is the worst the AG is going to do to us -- make us give an OBC to the ones under deposit, a chit on a future cruise for those who have already sailed in the 18 or more months it will take to settle this, which means the suckers have to spend more money with us to use it (which is how the port fee thing worked out)? So what? Meantime we are collecting interest. Our #1 competitor is doing it, so we aren't going to lose customers to them, and NCL? out of principle? Well, our cruisers really aren't free stylers. So we lose a few bookings -- we can absorb that with no problem. It's just business, folks!

 

Jaxon41:

 

You have given a very reasonable and clear of exactly what the situation is with Celebrity. The bottom line is that at this time Celebrity is convinced that it can do whatever it wants too and even ignore the cruise contract and raise the price of a cruise after deposit has been made.

 

I think your analysis is exactly right on target. As long as the loyal Celebrity cruisers will stand for this as they have usually accepted everything else that Celebrity has done, then with a little more advertising X can feels they can make a lot of claims to charm new passengers to replace those that defect because of principle.

 

As far as recourse the best bet in my opinion is a class action lawsuit. It is a great way for a large group to correct misdeeds by any company. My feeling is that a large class action law suit may well be the only way to bring an end to any cruise line that feels that it can do as it pleases, while trampling on the rights of passengers. Perhaps attorney Drew can explain the legal procedures of a class action lawsuit.

 

Cathy

[FinelyCruising]

I thought that was Jaxon's job...

[Goofyisme]

wrong

 

Wrong

[MDchopper8]

Isn't it a shame that we have to analyze contracts and wording to see if they can legally get away with the fuel charge.

 

Wouldn’t it be nice if they just showed some integrity and did the right thing?

 

Of course that would mean that they valued their reputation more than revenue.

[badger71]

i think it is dangerous for non-attys to be giving legal opinions or interpretations on this thread the post a couple back is incorrect the original contract is not null and void it is enforceable by either party frankly, this is an interesting thread, but i find it hard to believe how much time is being devoted to it. i don't believe anyone will go to miami to sue royal(celebrity) in small claims court. it might be a class action type situation given the thousands of passengers affected. the likely outcome of such litigation is that the atty for the class(not me) will make a large fee, the named plainfiff will get something, and the frest of us will get a gift certificate for a martini. the litigation and settlement will be in a number of years. if an earlier poster is correct re the florida atty general looking into this, then maybe some relief will be given. of course, the cruise lines will just raise the cost of everything else: higher future fares, immediate hikes in drink prices(oh no) and spa services etc i don't like the way celebrity did this, but given the entire scheme of things, i am very much looking forward to my cruise. i hope everyone enjoys their upcoming cruises as well happy holidays to all:)

[FinelyCruising]

I thought the one is said it was null and void was an attorney...so since you put yourself into this brouhaha and spend some time on it....you seem to be stating the booking contract remains in place, although it is silent on fuel surcharges.

[Drew B]

Drew, didn't you mention specific performance in another post?

 

I don't think so. I don't know what that means.