Fuel Surcharge

[jaxon41]

I am not arguing that either. The OP wants to debate it with the cruiseline. This is the cruiselines stance and will stick by it.

And yes...that is on the old contract in that spot. It used to be in paragraph ©.

I have paid mine for my next cruise...

 

Ok, I understand, but if the OP wants to argue his case with the line, he needs to argue it from the contract that he was obligated under, and let them know that he knows the old contract which contains their agreement, doesn't contain that language.

[jaxon41]

One more thing...

 

I included two cruise confirmations in my letter to Florida's Attorney General. Both bookings were paid-in-full prior to Carnival's "fuel surcharge" (retroactive cruise fare increase).

 

Neither confirmation (dated 9/5 and 10/11) has a line item for fuel surcharge. Both have many lines with zero dollar values:

 

Add-on Amount

Credit/Coupon

Tour Package

Transfers

Administration Fees

Deviation Fees

Airport Fees

 

But there is no line for a "fuel surcharge". And the balance due is "$0.00".

 

Maybe the confirmation will make a point, maybe not. But it makes sense to include it with the letter.

 

Jaxon41 - input?

 

You did a smart thing, and those who were fully paid prior to the implementation date have the strongest of cases. Have you received any information, confirmation of the receipt of your complaint?

[jaxon41]

To the OP:

 

If you want to go on the cruise, I would advise paying the $70.

 

Then, write your your state's attorney general as well as Florida's. This will take a long time to resolve. But Carnival obviously did not research the retroactive application of this cruise fare increase (regardless of what they call it) since they have already had to reverse it from most Canadian bookings.

 

In my opinion, shared by many other thinking people, it is simply wrong to apply this "surcharge" to confirmed bookings. We'll just have to wait and see how it is resolved. I don't give a rodent's backside that some folks fail to see the injustice...

 

Well said, it took 18 months on the overcharging of the port fees case. There was an AG settlement/consent decree, and a class action suit. It might be that the recompense is not to our likeing, an OBC on a future cruise which just gives them more of your money to book it, but that makes not a wit of diffference to me. I could care less if I get a dime back; it's the principle of the matter. One either believes in the rule of law, or one doesn't. If the cause, for some legal reason yet to be explained to any of us who have asked, is lost, so be it, we tried.

 

I do understand those who would say -- in the greater scheme of my life, this isn't worth my time or in the greater scheme of the world, I would rather spend my extra time fighting for a bigger cause -- I am totally ok with those folks, but then they aren't here dissing anyone.

[Soccerfan]

Well said, it took 18 months on the overcharging of the port fees case. There was an AG settlement/consent decree, and a class action suit. It might be that the recompense is not to our likeing, an OBC on a future cruise which just gives them more of your money to book it, but that makes not a wit of diffference to me. I could care less if I get a dime back; it's the principle of the matter. One either believes in the rule of law, or one doesn't. If the cause, for some legal reason yet to be explained to any of us who have asked, is lost, so be it, we tried.

 

I do understand those who would say -- in the greater scheme of my life, this isn't worth my time or in the greater scheme of the world, I would rather spend my extra time fighting for a bigger cause -- I am totally ok with those folks, but then they aren't here dissing anyone.

 

Hi Jaxon,

 

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have used your info to start another thread in the hope that more people on this board will do something about this issue. I feel that this issue is dying as time goes on, this is to Carnivals advantage.

 

I agree, it's not the money. I have spent many hours debating this issue with Carnival and my TA, more hours than $70 is worth!

 

If a fuel supplement has to be applied then so be it, as long as it is applied correctly and appropriately and not as a cash grab from people who had already made their purchase. I have no problem paying a fuel surcharge on my future cruises.

 

It is the way that this was implemented that annoys me. :mad:

[GottaLuvCruising]

Hi Jaxon,

 

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have used your info to start another thread in the hope that more people on this board will do something about this issue. I feel that this issue is dying as time goes on, this is to Carnivals advantage.

 

I agree, it's not the money. I have spent many hours debating this issue with Carnival and my TA, more hours than $70 is worth!

 

If a fuel supplement has to be applied then so be it, as long as it is applied correctly and appropriately and not as a cash grab from people who had already made their purchase. I have no problem paying a fuel surcharge on my future cruises.

 

It is the way that this was implemented that annoys me. :mad:

 

I paid $280 in retroactive fuel surcharges and it's STILL not worth my time! But I think the retroactive charges are unjust. If Carnival (and other lines) get away with adding this arbitrary figure after-the-fact, and people let them get away with it, what happens next time? $70 is OK, so what about $100? Is $200 OK? Even if nothing is done this time, as long as consumer protection laws are strengthened so this doesn't happen again, I will feel the effort worthwhile.

[Cuizer2]

there is no fuel charge on my pizza delivery. If my pizza place advertised free delivery and when it got to my front door they wanted an additional 1.50 I'd be sending my pizza back.

So does this mean you have sent your cruise back by canceling your cruise?

[jaxon41]

Hi Jaxon,

 

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have used your info to start another thread in the hope that more people on this board will do something about this issue. I feel that this issue is dying as time goes on, this is to Carnivals advantage.

 

I agree, it's not the money. I have spent many hours debating this issue with Carnival and my TA, more hours than $70 is worth!

 

If a fuel supplement has to be applied then so be it, as long as it is applied correctly and appropriately and not as a cash grab from people who had already made their purchase. I have no problem paying a fuel surcharge on my future cruises. "

 

 

You are most welcome. One thing in Carnival's favor is their new contract language only goes to fuel surcharges, while RCI's new language allows them to raise the price at any time and for any "unforseen" reason, so I guess if a pod goes down, they can hit you up while on board, and hold you hostage until you pay, and surcharge your OJ at breakfast, like it was an alcoholic drink.

[Donnask8pro]

Hi Jaxon,

 

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have used your info to start another thread in the hope that more people on this board will do something about this issue. I feel that this issue is dying as time goes on, this is to Carnivals advantage.

 

I agree, it's not the money. I have spent many hours debating this issue with Carnival and my TA, more hours than $70 is worth!

 

If a fuel supplement has to be applied then so be it, as long as it is applied correctly and appropriately and not as a cash grab from people who had already made their purchase. I have no problem paying a fuel surcharge on my future cruises.

 

It is the way that this was implemented that annoys me. :mad:

 

 

I totally agree. As I have said in the past, I understand the need.. but I also was paid in full. That is where the problem lies

[mlpcruiser]

Wow, I can't believe the attitude of most of you on here. I was just asking a question, not trying to make some huge ordeal out of one little question. It wasn't like I'd thought on it for days and days. The thought popped in my head and I posted the topic.

 

Sorry to tell you but this isn't my first time posting on a message board. I looked through the entire first page of this forum before posting my question. Generally on other boards the search function does not work well and its ok if a similar topic is posted as long as there was not a thread about it on the first page. Some people even prefer that to continually bumping up old threads. Plus if there was some sort of great thread on this why don't you link me to it instead of continually giving me condescending answers?

 

I'm not going to sue over $70. I don't think I'm more important than anyone else booked on my cruise. If I spend 60 seconds asking the question and get my money back its not going to set a precedent because none of you bothered to call and ask to get your money back, so how would you know that it was a possibility? I will stop asking you guys for advice. I posted the question in advance of my calling Carnival because I just thought of it tonight. I usually come on these boards to get great advice from great people and it saves me calling Carnival for the 15th time. I'm sorry that I bothered you all and wasted your time with my silly question. All I wanted to know if anyone had asked for the refund and got it. I wasn't looking for people to judge me and get hypercritical on me.

 

This isn't my first time booking travel or a cruise. I know the industry is geared toward lowering customer service. But I can choose where to spend my vacation dollars. If I feel that Carnival isn't treating me right then I can choose to spend my money somewhere else. I don't believe Carnival has a policy of not caring about customers at all. But if they won't budge on this issue at all, fine. I'll get my $70 back one way or the other. Maybe I won't order as many photos or order less drinks at the bar. Its not something I'm losing sleep over. But I know for sure I won't post any questions here again.

 

 

 

OMG. I am so sorry at some of the unkind things said on this thread. I agree this has probably been beaten to death 10 times over, but everyone has a right to their opinion. I personally think Carnival did what they had to do...fuel prices have been high for over 2 years, and I think they waited as long as they could to charge a fuel surcharge, thinking maybe the price would go down. We have no idea how much money they have lost over the last couple of years with fuel prices high and no way to recoup the rising costs. I don't think they wanted to do this, but HAD to. And any way they did it, somebody would have been upset. You can't please all the people all the time! We were a little perturbed, too. But we have also seen companies offsetting high fuel prices in different ways (whether surcharges or increased prices) long before Carnival implemented them. I'm just thankful that I am not the Carnival bigwig that had to make that decision. I still think that cruising is a better value than a land vacation, no 2 ways about it, and will continue to cruise, with or without the fuel surcharge. I hope you have a wonderful time on your cruise and don't give up on this message board! There are some great people on here! :D

[cathyoo]

tigervixxen, please don't let those nasty people chase you away. I get so annoyed at those who critize new threads but saying its been done already. Then they don't need to read it. Your post was clearly titled and if someone was sick to death of surcharge issues they should have ignored it. You have every right to post whatever you want.

 

Sometimes I will post a link to another thread if the poster asks a specific question (examples: hotels, menu, etc) but when it is opinion related it should be a new thread.

[Sneezykevina]

for those of you saying to sue, here's a bit from Carnival's contract.

 

13. CLASS ACTION WAIVER

THIS CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR THE EXCLUSIVE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES THROUGH INDIVIDUAL LEGAL ACTION ON GUEST’S OWN BEHALF INSTEAD OF THROUGH ANY CLASS ACTION. EVEN IF THE APPLICABLE LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE, GUEST AGREES THAT ANY ARBITRATION OR LAWSUIT AGAINST CARRIER WHATSOEVER SHALL BE LITIGATED BY GUEST INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF ANY CLASS OR AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION, AND GUEST EXPRESSLY AGREES TO WAIVE ANY LAW ENTITLING GUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION. IF GUEST’S CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION UNDER CLAUSE 12 (d) ABOVE, THE ARBITRATOR SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ARBITRATE CLAIMS ON A CLASS ACTION BASIS. GUEST AGREES THAT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE SEVERABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE SET FORTH IN SECTION 12 (d) ABOVE, AND IF FOR ANY REASON THIS CLASS ACTION WAIVER IS UNENFORCEABLE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR CLAIM, THEN AND ONLY THEN SUCH CLAIM SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION.

 

it can of course be deemed unenforceable.

[jaxon41]

OMG. I am so sorry at some of the unkind things said on this thread. I agree this has probably been beaten to death 10 times over, but everyone has a right to their opinion. I personally think Carnival did what they had to do...fuel prices have been high for over 2 years, and I think they waited as long as they could to charge a fuel surcharge, thinking maybe the price would go down. We have no idea how much money they have lost over the last couple of years with fuel prices high and no way to recoup the rising costs. I don't think they wanted to do this, but HAD to. And any way they did it, somebody would have been upset. You can't please all the people all the time! We were a little perturbed, too. But we have also seen companies offsetting high fuel prices in different ways (whether surcharges or increased prices) long before Carnival implemented them. I'm just thankful that I am not the Carnival bigwig that had to make that decision. I still think that cruising is a better value than a land vacation, no 2 ways about it, and will continue to cruise, with or without the fuel surcharge. I hope you have a wonderful time on your cruise and don't give up on this message board! There are some great people on here! :D

 

There have been postings about the various line's stock, so they were not hurting so badly as to have to charge a fuel surcharge on those booked, and worse, yet, already paid in full. Because Pax #'s and PRICES increased, some recouping of rising fuel prices were realised.

[jaxon41]

for those of you saying to sue, here's a bit from Carnival's contract.

 

 

 

it can of course be deemed unenforceable.

 

Good input, and yes, often we see things in contracts which are unenforceable because of public policy, as my GUESS would be that this is. It would be interesting to know if this existed pre 1997, and if any such clause has been litigated.

[Soccerfan]

OMG. I am so sorry at some of the unkind things said on this thread. I agree this has probably been beaten to death 10 times over, but everyone has a right to their opinion. I personally think Carnival did what they had to do...fuel prices have been high for over 2 years, and I think they waited as long as they could to charge a fuel surcharge, thinking maybe the price would go down. We have no idea how much money they have lost over the last couple of years with fuel prices high and no way to recoup the rising costs. I don't think they wanted to do this, but HAD to. And any way they did it, somebody would have been upset. You can't please all the people all the time! We were a little perturbed, too. But we have also seen companies offsetting high fuel prices in different ways (whether surcharges or increased prices) long before Carnival implemented them. I'm just thankful that I am not the Carnival bigwig that had to make that decision. I still think that cruising is a better value than a land vacation, no 2 ways about it, and will continue to cruise, with or without the fuel surcharge. I hope you have a wonderful time on your cruise and don't give up on this message board! There are some great people on here! :D

 

Mlpcruiser, I read your post in dismay, You try to elicit sympathy for Carnival, the poor guy that had to make the decision and how they probably held off as long as they could to save us this surcharge :rolleyes: CRY ME A RIVER.

 

I don't think you get it at all - Carnival handled it all wrong! They should not have imposed the surcharges on trips that were already booked! Coming in with the big boot makes for bad customer service and yes, it will backfire. I will not cancel my upcoming 2 cruises as I have flights booked and a large group of us going on these cruises. However, I will be looking at other Cruise lines for future cruises. By the way, we have only ever sailed on Carnival, 8 times in 2 years, seeing how they have handled this issue means that my loyalty will not be there any longer.

[mlpcruiser]

There have been postings about the various line's stock, so they were not hurting so badly as to have to charge a fuel surcharge on those booked, and worse, yet, already paid in full. Because Pax #'s and PRICES increased, some recouping of rising fuel prices were realised.

 

I still don't think they wanted to cause this kind of ruckus. And I still wouldn't have wanted to be the one to make that decision. If they started losing money because of the price of fuel, and their stock prices went down, then they would have had all their stockholders causing the uproar instead of the PAXs. No win situation. I agree the PIFs should not have been charged, but that wasn't my call, or anyone on this board. You cannot say what you would have done if you were in their shoes, not being on the inside track.

[Sneezykevina]

good thing I'm a packrat I guess....

 

I looked up my old contract from 06 and it clearly states they can add a fuel surcharge. It does not state about the lawsuit as I posted above.

 

Is it legal? Don't know. Was it handled wrong, IMHO yes.

 

in the end it's still cheaper to sail with carnival.

 

Life goes on. I'm done with surcharge threads now.

[tigervixxxen]

If you all want an update on my question, I called Carnival and they said there was nothing they could do about it and that they couldn't even offer me any coupons or discounts to keep me happy either. So I'll probably write a letter and let them know about my displeasure and then drop it. I probably wasn't going to use Carnival for any cruises in the near future so its no pain to me to let them know they lost my future business.

 

I agree, the point isn't about rising costs. I get that fuel costs more. But those of us who booked and paid for our cruise already are the ones who are being treated unfairly. Airlines have fuel costs too but I've never gotten a letter from Frontier Airlines saying that if I want to board my flight I better have $70 with me at the gate. If costs are out of hand then by all means, raise prices! Just don't put the burden on people who already paid!

 

Thanks for your thoughts whether or not I agree with them. The issue is over to me so I'll drop it. But I'd still love to hear if anyone does have success overturning the charge.

[Top-Cat]

NOT that it's fair, nor am I suggesting it, but it will be interesting to see if people "adjust" there tipping to obsorb some of this cost..

 

Are there any cruiselines not charging this? We are looking to book our next.

[jaxon41]

good thing I'm a packrat I guess....

 

I looked up my old contract from 06 and it clearly states they can add a fuel surcharge. It does not state about the lawsuit as I posted above.

 

Is it legal? Don't know. Was it handled wrong, IMHO yes.

 

in the end it's still cheaper to sail with carnival.

 

Life goes on. I'm done with surcharge threads now.

 

Thanks again, it is interesting to note that the class action lawsuit stuff is of recent vintage -- maybe post Nov 7th?? Gee, I would love to know -- anyone? That would certainly say something, wouldn't it? Please don't leave, you have given us important additional information.

 

Could you be so kind as to copy the applicable fuel surcharge clause in your 2006 contract since this is the first I have seen that mentioned on the boards. I just want to be sure it is not the part regarding the sea/air stuff that was in the contract prior; the mention of the fuel surcharge there is very confined as was discussed by me on the link to the old surcharge thread a few posts back where another posted their old contract.

[jaxon41]

NOT that it's fair, nor am I suggesting it, but it will be interesting to see if people "adjust" there tipping to obsorb some of this cost..

 

Are there any cruiselines not charging this? We are looking to book our next.

 

To my knowledge, Disney is not, currently. It is still under evaluation.

[Cuizer2]

To my knowledge, Disney is not, currently. It is still under evaluation.

For what Disney charges, they should offer to pick you up pre-cruise and drop you off post-cruise.

[Daisydog7]

To an earlier poster, is Carnival really cheaper than the other cruise lines? I don't think so. On a recent cruise on the Conquest their minute to minute rate for internet was a staggering 75 cents. RCCL goes for 50 cents. Booking a cruise seems about the same to me, and NCL seems a little cheaper. The photos were pricey too. The embarkation photo was about $20. It would be interesting for a comparison of prices between cruise lines to see how Carnival really compares.

[jaxon41]

I still don't think they wanted to cause this kind of ruckus. And I still wouldn't have wanted to be the one to make that decision. If they started losing money because of the price of fuel, and their stock prices went down, then they would have had all their stockholders causing the uproar instead of the PAXs. No win situation. I agree the PIFs should not have been charged, but that wasn't my call, or anyone on this board. You cannot say what you would have done if you were in their shoes, not being on the inside track.

 

Not to over argue the point, but in the law you are charged with intending the normal and foreseeable consequences of your actions. Of course, any company would WISH that their customers would just willingly and happily give them more money for the product that they have already purchased, but it's not very realistic that they will without a ruckus. Again, this is not about charging a fuel surcharge on NEW bookings -- I think we all agree that is probably reasonable (hedgings aside, and Carnival for some strange reason doesn't hedge)to add a fuel surcharge going forward.

 

Are you old enough to remember the Pinto case? People died horrible deaths because the car manufacturer did not make a simple and inexpensive fuel tank adjustment on a recall. The company, Ford, if I recall correctly, calculated the costs of the wrongful death lawsuits against the hassle and cost of fixing the problem for the entire line -- in the end, it cost them a great deal more than their calculations. I do believe that most large corporations today will calculate the bottom line against illegality.

 

Let's look at this situation. Carnival says 20,000 have complained, 1%. They could absorb even that many lost bookings -- in fact they have said as much -- they don't care. If this goes the way of the port charges rip offs, they can actually end up making more money, because only very restricted credits were given in that case, to be used on another cruise. It's a no brainer! Do they care about their pax -- hell, no! More where that came from. Arthur Frommer and Christopher Elliott say it in their articles -- tip of the iceberg.

 

So one might ask, why bother? My answer is very philosophical. When you have the power to try to right a wrong, any injustice, you need to step forward and try to do it. Fewer and fewer seem willing to do it, and if none of us do, bad things will not only continue to take place, but accelerate -- and I am not talking some pittance fuel surcharge. Do you remember the TIME Magazine cover a few years ago with the female whistle blowers? Some are actually willing to give up their livelihood to do the right thing. Those are the people who I admire. Yes, I do know what I would have done if I had the decision. I'd got the way of NCL and some other lines, new bookings, only.

 

I hope what we get out of this in the very end, are laws like Canada and Europe. If you are unable to properly project costs, then your shareholders will take a hit like in any other business -- but google, because they are not presently.

[Snorkel2Much]

good thing I'm a packrat I guess....

 

I looked up my old contract from 06 and it clearly states they can add a fuel surcharge. It does not state about the lawsuit as I posted above.

 

Is it legal? Don't know. Was it handled wrong, IMHO yes.

 

in the end it's still cheaper to sail with carnival.

 

Life goes on. I'm done with surcharge threads now.

That's odd, I have the contracts for our paid-in-full cabins in March 2008, and no such clause exists. I'd be interested in reading the specifics of whatever it is that you're claiming gave them this right in your 2006 contract. But seeing as you've stated that you've bailed on "surcharge threads" after making such a dubious claim, I might very well have a long wait.

 

There is a clause that let's them pass along any Government imposed fees including fuel surcharges, but I've yet to see anyone name the government agency that sanctioned this fraudulent act by the cruise lines.

[cruisecruisecruise1234567]

If you order a pizza, you get charged a $1.50 fuel charge. Same story with anything these days that is delivered. If anyone is to blame, blame our government for not allowing drilling where we know there is oil.

 

.

 

 

Help me understand your logic please..

 

If I order from Pizza hut and they tell me its $22 for my order, I pay by credit card over the phone in full except for the tip and the driver shows up and tells me there is a $1.50 surcharge now that I must pay?:confused: