Fuel Supplement announced (4 merged threads)

[jaxon41]

Hal announced their surcharge on Nov. 10th

 

Hal is owned by Carnival, correct? When did Carnival do it? It was the first large line to do it, and I am thinking it was in October or maybe Nov 1st -- not sure, and would need to check.

[Jade13]

You have caught the catch 22 -- they refer you to a website, but then they changed the website. Actually, I think under some state laws, this could be a problem along the lines of full disclosure statutes, IF that information is different than the brochure information.

 

In any case, all I can tell you is that I pulled one of the brochures from X (2007-8 Exotics) and on page 100, under, cruise/cruisetour vacation price, you will find the same language as in RCI's brochure. To wit: ..once Celebrity Cruises has recieved a full deposit for the service intially booked by the guestthe cruise/cruisetour rates...will not change, although the guest will remain liable for any applicable taxes, fees or surcharges that may be assessed by any GOVERNMENT or quasi-governmental agencies.

 

As for a PDF prior to Nov 15th, I'll let the AG's request that. Those of us who wrote the FL AG got an email this morning saying they were refering the matter to their economic crimes division. They also say that since this involves a cruise, we may want to contact the Federal Maritime Commission to file a complaint. You can see the full email on the RCI thread about the surcharge, with addresses and links.

 

Interesting since HAL's is on a web-site only, but Celebritys does have a link that can be saved to PDF (I just did not save it). But, I never thought to look in the old brochures.

 

Another question: What is the definition of "Full Deposit" since those at issue only paid a deposit, not a "full" deposit. I think I may have hit the nail on the head if this is the language they are using to let anyone paid in full by November 15 off the hook.

[Jade13]

Hal is owned by Carnival, correct? When did Carnival do it? It was the first large line to do it, and I am thinking it was in October or maybe Nov 1st -- not sure, and would need to check.

 

HAL and Princess are owned by Carnival. Someone posted to me on the HAL board that the surcharge was announced on Nov 7th, to be effective 86 days later, Feb 1st.

 

For whatever reason I am not mad at HAL, only Celebrity for their uneven way of handling this, plus my Celebrity cruise is in mid February.

[jaxon41]

Interesting since HAL's is on a web-site only, but Celebritys does have a link that can be saved to PDF (I just did not save it). But, I never thought to look in the old brochures.

 

Another question: What is the definition of "Full Deposit" since those at issue only paid a deposit, not a "full" deposit. I think I may have hit the nail on the head if this is the language they are using to let anyone paid in full by November 15 off the hook.

 

I just checked and the date of the Carnival increase was Nov 8th according to a news article. It would be interesting to know when the Hal language changed -- earlier than Oct 9th, always there, as I understand Carnival's was. It just all goes back to the contract under which you booked. My understanding of the 1997 settlement would be that you could change your contract to include a fuel surcharge in the initial price, but baring that, you can not increase your price except for taxes and other government imposed fees over the intitial price. So one has to wonder if a fuel surcharge was NOT put in that initial price, for those who had already booked, can it be added, now, or increased in the future, no matter what new contract language says? On the RCI board, someone is going to FOIA the actual settlement.

 

We are thinking full deposit excludes "next cruise" deposits which are $100, and not for a specific cruise, and which can be lost, I believe, under certain circumstances. Full deposit would not be the same as paid in full. A deposit under common parlance is a down payment to hold something, specific. Courts would not allow a clever reading of what is commonly understood. I believe a full deposit is what the line has charged for you to deposit on your cruise given the cabin and number of people in it.

[Drew B]

I think that if the assessment of a fuel surcharge makes a person inordinately angry or upset, perhaps that person SHOULD cancel. Why should they spend all of that money when they're already predisposed to not have the kind of good time you should as a result of this change?

[jaxon41]

Well let's take a look at a scorecard for booked cruises: For corrections or addtions please update as needed.

 

 

HAL - All paid and unpaid after February 2008

 

Carnival - All paid and unpaid after February 2008 (?)

 

NCL - Only on new bookings

 

Celebrity - All unpaid for salings February 2008

 

 

If we compare the Celebrity decision beside HAL and Carnival, the idea that at least all those cruisers must pay is a more fair approach...I think the X decision takes in less dollars....who knows how much each line really needs per ship...maybe the other lines are taking more than they need based on thier approach to the supplement.

 

RCI (assuming same for X since they own them) all unpaid, even if deposited, as of November 16th, not Feb 1, 2008. Different contract language than Carnival/Hal prior to Nov. 15th. No notification to TA's or customers who booked direct of a cut off date for pif to avoid the surcharges.

[jaxon41]

I think that if the assessment of a fuel surcharge makes a person inordinately angry or upset, perhaps that person SHOULD cancel. Why should they spend all of that money when they're already predisposed to not have the kind of good time you should as a result of this change?

 

Only those who believe vehemently in a country of law, who are fine tuned to injustice, are concerned enough to put their actions where their sentiments are. I believe we are content to watch this play out, legally, before making any decision to cancel.

 

You are presumptuous to believe that fighting for the principles one believes in would impact one's enjoyment of anything.

On the contrary, not fighting for their principles would make them miserable -- it is the way that principled people are made.

 

I read last night, that one TA lost $22,000 in bookings on Carnival because of cancellations. Some Carnival people are willing to cancel, even though, from what I have read, their contracts allowed such things, and it is a stickier question on whether the contract could allow for such things given the 1997 settlement to which Carnival was a party. Perhaps they did feel that they could not enjoy themselves, as you suggest, and then that would be a right decision for them to cancel.

 

RCI, is a different situation and judging from the RCI boards, I believe folks fighting this, there, are concerned with the bigger question. Cancelling may assuage one individual's angst, but it does nothing in the fight for a larger cause -- honoring the law/honoring contracts.

[Drew B]

believes in would impact one's enjoyment of anything.

On the contrary, not fighting for their principles would make them miserable -- it is the way that principled people are made.

 

 

My post had nothing to do with loftier principles. I'm simply saying that if a passenger is already quite unhappy (about ANYTHING, just or unjust) when they step aboard a ship, their chances of having an enjoyable vacation are reduced. Given that, why risk throwing away all that money if it's already unlikely that the trip will be successful?

 

This is not the case with me. I would take the trip and enjoy it. But my point was about people who are "inordinately angry or upset". Those people are bound to have a lousy time.

[Jade13]

I just checked and the date of the Carnival increase was Nov 8th according to a news article. It would be interesting to know when the Hal language changed -- earlier than Oct 9th, always there, as I understand Carnival's was. It just all goes back to the contract under which you booked. My understanding of the 1997 settlement would be that you could change your contract to include a fuel surcharge in the initial price, but baring that, you can not increase your price except for taxes and other government imposed fees over the intitial price. So one has to wonder if a fuel surcharge was NOT put in that initial price, for those who had already booked, can it be added, now, or increased in the future, no matter what new contract language says? On the RCI board, someone is going to FOIA the actual settlement.

 

We are thinking full deposit excludes "next cruise" deposits which are $100, and not for a specific cruise, and which can be lost, I believe, under certain circumstances. Full deposit would not be the same as paid in full. A deposit under common parlance is a down payment to hold something, specific. Courts would not allow a clever reading of what is commonly understood. I believe a full deposit is what the line has charged for you to deposit on your cruise given the cabin and number of people in it.

 

I am not an attorney although I work on contracts all day. So contract law really interests me.

 

And to Drew, it has nothing to do with whether I will enjoy my cruise. I just have a problem with the way that Celebrity handled this, not even across the board. In fact, I am booked direct with both lines. HAL sent me an e-mail immediately. I have yet to receive anything from Celebrity.

[Drew B]

And to Drew, it has nothing to do with whether I will enjoy my cruise.

 

Then I guess I wasn't directing it at you. :D I was talking about the folks who wouldn't enjoy their cruise as a result of this.

[FinelyCruising]

I did get the email the other day. It was curteous enough and explained their desire for this to be a temporary measure. It also indicated the one logo item per cabin.

 

I know many think Celebrity has been unfair because those who paid in full are not being assessed.

 

The point I tried to make ealier today is that there are other lines who are assessing even those who are paid in full. So here we have Celebrity who is not taking a boat-load of cash from their cruisers as others apparently are.

 

Now I realize that is no consolation to those who did not get the opportunity to avoid the surcharge, but it is clear that Celebrity is looking at taking fuel costs from their passengers a bit differently than they could have.

[jaxon41]

I did get the email the other day. It was curteous enough and explained their desire for this to be a temporary measure. It also indicated the one logo item per cabin.

 

I know many think Celebrity has been unfair because those who paid in full are not being assessed.

 

The point I tried to make ealier today is that there are other lines who are assessing even those who are paid in full. So here we have Celebrity who is not taking a boat-load of cash from their cruisers as others apparently are.

 

Now I realize that is no consolation to those who did not get the opportunity to avoid the surcharge, but it is clear that Celebrity is looking at taking fuel costs from their passengers a bit differently than they could have.

 

My understanding of those lines, which are assessing even those who had paid in full, is that they had different contract language (whether the different language is voidable given that 1997 settlement is another question). Personally, I would not have paid my 09 cruise in full before the final payment date, even if I had been notified. It is a bad financial practice to let someone else use your money before it is required -- they are getting the interest on it, when you should be getting it. I do expect them to honor their contracts, just as the law expects me to. I have yet to hear from them.

[Shirley and Les]

Oops, I thought I was going to read about STP for cruise ships! Oh, oh, now I get it. It's a fuel supplement, not a fuel additive. :o :o

BTW, does anyone else remember Andy Granatelli? :confused:

Les

[Mellowtraveler]

Just got a note from my TA explaining the fuel charge and a new cruise invoice reflecting this charge. Then I got another note that made me laugh. If I want to have the additional $35 per person covered on my travel insurance that will be an additional $1.82 per person. Everybody wants their cut.

[d&a Delaware]

OK -- I've been following this thread only episodically from time to time, and I haven't read anywhere near all the posts. But I have read several pages at the beginning and at this end of the thread, and have not yet seen anyone addressing an issue that has come up on our Millennium 3/23 roll call, which is really a question of how many days we will be charged for. Celebrity sells their curises by the number of nights, but has imposed this fuel surcharge policy on the number of days. Our seven night cruise actually spills over into an eighth day. Do we get charged for eight days at $5/day? If that was the case, then they are getting the fuel charge twice for the day which is our eighth and day 1 for the next cruise. I think there are lots of ambiguities like this in the policy, and the real nightmare may come as different TAs start to apply it according to their own interpretations. I haven't yet heard word one from either Celebrity or our on-line TA about this, but I have a very uneasy feeling that there are many problems which will be difficult to sort out as this thing gets implemented.

 

David

[usha]

Mellowtraveler, that IS funny!:cool:

[Susan-M]

Do we get charged for eight days at $5/day?

 

They will base it on the # of nights...i.e. a 7 night sailing = a 7 day sailing. Your cruise actually runs for less than 7 full days from embarkation to disembarkation.

[jaxon41]

At least two people who have filed complaints with the Fl Attorney General post that they received phone calls today. I did not. One reports that he was told that all the cruise lines counsel have been contacted for statements and that a preliminary inviestigation has been opened.

[d&a Delaware]

Susan -- thanks, That's what I was figuring as well (7 nights = 7 days), but they did choose the different wording for the policy statement. Anyway, that's the discussion that's been on our roll call. And yes, I know we are not a full seven 24 hour periods, but that would be another possible way to apply this charge. If it is convoluted and a possible candidate for misinterpretation, someone is bound to do it (misinterpret).

 

David

[asrs]

*Note: For North America reservations, a fuel supplement of $5.00 per day per person for the first two occupants of a stateroom (Subject to a maximum of $140per Stateroom) will apply to all sailings departing on or after February 1,2008.

 

We appreciate your understanding while we update our systems to reflect the fuel supplement in the reservation summary

[Ships R Great]

"The company will not apply the supplement where the guest has already paid the full cost of the cruise for bookings paid in full prior to the implementation date. " (From the X web site)

 

Does this mean paid in full by Nov. 16th or paid in full by Feb. 1st? And if you book a 1/31 cruise will it apply since you will be cruising on 2/1? What a mess!

[Flipflopsnfrozendrinks]

Hi,

Your info came at a great time, I am making final payment on Friday for our 10 night Feb 8 cruise. It will be the 4 people in our family. Am I reading this correctly, that it will only be $100.00, not the $200.00 I expected? Is it only for the first 2 people in the stateroom, and no charge for the other 2?

Thanks for posting,

Kim

[Ships R Great]

As I understand it (HA!) the charge will apply to the first two people in a stateroon and for nomore than $70 per person on any cruise. i could be wrong.

 

It will be a mess until it has been in effect for a while. And there will be people fussing about it for months!

[Ships R Great]

Oops! Sorry.

[denims]

Oops, I thought I was going to read about STP for cruise ships! Oh, oh, now I get it. It's a fuel supplement, not a fuel additive. :o :o

BTW, does anyone else remember Andy Granatelli? :confused:

Les

 

My God!!! A name from the past.

 

Boy, do I feel old now!