fuel surcharge really irks me

[coombs2]

i know this was already discussed and i apologize for starting a new thread, but i figured i need to vent a bit here. i booked my july 2008 cruise on CB back in June 2007. i received what i thought was a good price, albeit an inflated one due to my desire for a balcony and cruising at a very popular time.

my parents and my wife's parents are also going with us.

some months after booking, i started hearing rumblings of the fuel surcharge and read numerous posts about it. i resisted the urge to vent then because i had yet to receive confirmation from my TA that i would be assessed the extra fee. finally last week, she confirmed it when i called to discuss adding traveler's insurance in the next few weeks.

i recognize fuel prices are high and i recognize that at some point that expense is passed on to other passengers, but i am really angry that princess is passing it along to me after i made my reservation. my price should be fixed and i should not be required to pay an extra 90 bucks for my wife and i. is $90 the end of the world? no, but it is the nickel and diming that gets to be annoying after awhile. had i been charged this from the beginning, ie if i were to book today for july, then i would not be as upset. but the fact that i already booked and am then being re-assessed, i think that is just plain wrong.

[flamomo]

Those of us who booked early don't appreciate having the surcharge added to our original fare. I booked in June of 2006 for my upcoming cruise in March, and was delighted several months later to find and get a fare reduction. Now part of that reduction is being negated by the addition of the surcharge.

However, this cruise is important enough to me that I will pay that surcharge without complaint about fairness. I don't know about you, but the area where I live has seen a significant rise in gas prices. Because of that I was not at all surprised when the surcharge was announced. It was not a matter of if it would happen, only when. Do I like having it tacked on after the fact? No. But somewhere in the fine print there is a statement that "fares are subject to change without prior notice". And it has happened, so the choice is to pay it and cruise, or don't and don't. Doesn't seem to be important enough to get worked up about. That's just MHO.

[beth4652]

I think this is just part of doing business. I have contracts with the lawn service company and the exterminator. They have both added fuel surcharges.

[Host CJSKIDS]

I think many of us are with you on this one. I booked our 3/29 Crown sailing back in April of 07 and I dislike the fact that my two cabins are costing me an additional $280 due to the fuel surcharge. Hey, that was part of my bar tab!

[paul929207]

We got hit for $330 for our B2B2B this coming March. I had booked it a year ago. I am not thrilled with the extra, but the price of oil was up about 70% last year.

[City_Woman]

I had a thought this morning after reading this post.

 

How would we feel if we saw how cruise lines broke out the cruise cost entirely - not just fuel charges - regardless if we use the services offered or not? Example: I don't travel with children, but I pay a portion of the children's program.

 

Wonder how I would like - or not like - to see it broken down by:

- entertainment (cost to me for each show whether I see it or not)

- food

- casino

- staffing

- itemized port charges (seeing each port separately)

- maintenance

- programs

- etc.

 

For me, I would prefer if they would lump it all into one charge. Breaking things out raises my awarness of the reality of what I'm paying for and I, for one, would rather stay in the dark.

 

The fuel costs don't bother me. Airlines have started telling us how much things are costing us. We have to look at a one way flight of $99 that's really $200 once all the taxes, and extra costs are added it. Why not just tell me my flight is $200 each way.

 

Okay, I'm in marketing communications, so I get that it's a promotional tool, a "gocha."

 

Bottom line: Just tell me what it's going to cost me - in full.

 

My 2 cents.

 

Judy

[peterv]

Exactly Carnival Corporation needs the cash since their Net Income went up by only 6% this year to 2.4 billion from 2.2 billion last year. At least they made out on income tax this year with a 60% cut at only 16 million, from 39 million last year. I just do not know how they cope with a tax rate of 6/10ths of 1%.

 

Cheers,

Peter

[purplefan01]

We too booked months out and paid our balance and then were hit with this surcharge. When the TA read me the letter they rec'd about it I got even more angry. Princess is only charging for the first two passengers in the cabin so people with more in the cabin are not paying for everyone and that makes me mad. If it were everyone pays, it would be more fair. Second, it states they have been paying the higher costs and must recoup some money now - why are we paying for those who have already sailed. Third, it said it may only be for the duration of about six months of the year so, we are also paying for those that have not sailed yet!

We saved for a while to take our very first cruise for our anniversary and we got the smack down. Princess really did not care and told us to cancel if we did not like it.

[woodofpine]

I suppose it goes without saying that if Carnival Corp.'s balance sheet or a particular line's fares offend you, then cancel and don't patronize them.

[kywildcatfanone]

Yes, I too am a bit frustrated with the fuel surcharge being assess on previous bookings. I get the fact that fuel costs are higher, but why make this retroactive to folks who have already booked and paid for their cruise? Why not just say "for cruises booked after 2/1/2008 a fuel surcharge will be assessed" and go from there. And just go ahead and make the cost of the cruise $5 per day per person higher, instead of calling it a surcharge.

 

Mike

[Daniel1313]

I am not happy either... I think it should be for any new bookings.... But what can we do... I wrote Princess a letter, but they did not say much other than they were sorry and hoped I did not cancel my current booking..... I want to go to Hawaii so I guess I am paying... But reluctantly!!!!!!

[Huebie]

What would you rather have them do--charge a fuel surcharge or cut services? Another option would be adding extra charges for even more things once you get onboard. The company exists to make a profit. No one likes it, but high fuel costs are a reality for all of us.

[bhopal21]

I think this is just part of doing business. I have contracts with the lawn service company and the exterminator. They have both added fuel surcharges.

 

I agree with the first part; but have you paid your law care company a year in advance like I paid Princess for our cruise next month?

 

In that case it is simply greed since they had the use of several thousand dollars of my money for almost 11 months.

 

Mike:)

[purplefan01]

Funny thing was, they kept saying everyone is doing it. I tried to point out to them several times at that time that if you are going to follow what everyone is doing then, you don't put the surcharge on people paying by December 1st their balance. They did not respond.

As for the person that said vote with your feet, we would have cancelled if we would have gotten our money back but at that point we would not have gotten all of our money back and to us th $500 deposit is alot of money. Plus the TA takes another $100 so, that was not going to happen, now will I travel Princess again.......that is another question - they will have to WOW us...

[lvtotrvl1]

Oh My!! So much whining............

It seems to me that part of the problem is that cruise lines allow us to book so far out in advance that they cannot predict the cost of fuel 2 years out in a very very volitale market. It benefits US that we can book so far in advance. If they did not open sailings up until 6 months prior, so that they could get the pricing more in line with the actual costs fo fuel (and not have to seperately itemize a fuel surcharge), we would be much more inconvenienced than having to pay a few additional dollars. I still think that cruising is a good value for the money, and we need to understand that these are public corporations that have to be profitable to please the stockholders.

 

Happy Cruising................

 

Steve

 

AMEN!

[bubbadog]

dont feel so bad, we have 4 other cruises booked,and we get it for all of them, irks ne too,so im trying to ignore and move on to how nice my cruises will be, and to forget about it,hope this helps you feel better lol:rolleyes:

[coombs2]

it makes me laugh how some ppl can justify the cruise line actions with: "it is a benefit to us that we can book 1 year out. they dont have to let us do that." well i would argue the benefit the cruiseline gets knowing they have guaranteed income for the upcoming year(s). the less time you have to sell out a cruise, the more likely a cruise sails at less than capacity.

secondlly, others argue the incredible value offered on cruiselines. i am not disputing that- it is a good value. however, how many more extra charges will it take for that argument to no longer be valid? there will come a point in time when the value is diminished. would it then be alright to complain about extra charges? my contention is that some extra charges have merit and others do not,regardless of the overall value a trip or service provides. a fuel surcharge, especially the way it is being billed to passengers is meritless and should not be assessed to those of us who booked at a particular rate over a year in advance and before the fuel surcharge went into effect.

[bdjam]

Exactly Carnival Corporation needs the cash since their Net Income went up by only 6% this year to 2.4 billion from 2.2 billion last year. At least they made out on income tax this year with a 60% cut at only 16 million, from 39 million last year. I just do not know how they cope with a tax rate of 6/10ths of 1%.

 

Cheers,

Peter

I wonder if you consistently trash the company of which you are part owner just to start debates. How much of that profit goes into your dividends and how much have you returned to offset the cost of fuel. And of that Net Income, perhaps you can tell us how much they are reinvesting in infrastructure and ships? Because if they're not reinvesting, it's going straight to the stockholders.

Fuel prices are high - if you want to partake in something that has a cost of fuel somebody has to pay for it. Who else would you suggest? I know - take it out of the crew's tips, right? Rock bottom prices for a cruise, dividends from the company to boot and still complaints - with no reason.

It seems to me that part of the problem is that cruise lines allow us to book so far out in advance that they cannot predict the cost of fuel 2 years out in a very very volitale market.

And normally those far in advance bookings are at a substantial cost savings - quite possibly offsetting any fuel surcharge that would be added later. I agree with your sentiments totally.

[BJS]

It's sad but true if you don't like paying the fuel charge then don't cruise. It is a callous attitude on the part of the cruise lines but that is big business. If you cancel they will have many others more than willing to take your place.

 

To the OP I realize you are just venting your frustration but you admit that you have been aware of this for quite some time. I can't understand why you would think that you would be an exception. When you first heard rumors about the fuel charge that was the time to contact your TA and book another cruise line, if you could find one, that was not implementing a fuel charge if you booked or paid in full at that time.

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

.

[Colo Cruiser]

Could I have a hamburger today and pay you for it Tuesday? :D

[Colo Cruiser]

[coombs2]

i never said i eexpected to be the exception nor did i say i was cancelling my cruise as a result. i am merely stating that i disagree with a policy that princess and its parent company chose to implement.

i do not think it should have been done and feel they should have implemented a policy for future bookings, not ones that locked in already.

having said that, i recognize the value cruises offer as previous posters have stated.

i also recognize the increase in fuel costs has to be paid for somehow. i just disagree with the way princess chose to do it.

[SeattleCruiselover]

Pam: Me thinks that you have hit the nail precisely on the head. If it was applied only to new bookings, then only a small percentage of the pax would be paying the fuel surcharge. Before I left Princess in September, we were already well booked into the 2009 cruises that had been released for sale, and that was not at all unusual.

 

In order to make it fair for everyone, EVERYONE needs to pay. I've paid my surcharge fees for my September cruise.

 

In essence, you are paying surcharges when you pay $3.00+ per gallon for gas for your car--have any of you stopped driving in protest? Same thing, in my mind (though I don't drive, I walk to work, and don't even own a car....)

[peterv]

I wonder if you consistently trash the company of which you are part owner just to start debates. How much of that profit goes into your dividends and how much have you returned to offset the cost of fuel. And of that Net Income, perhaps you can tell us how much they are reinvesting in infrastructure and ships? Because if they're not reinvesting, it's going straight to the stockholders.

 

Fuel prices are high - if you want to partake in something that has a cost of fuel somebody has to pay for it. Who else would you suggest? I know - take it out of the crew's tips, right? Rock bottom prices for a cruise, dividends from the company to boot and still complaints - with no reason.

 

Sorry that you do not like my opinions, however you really do not have much to say against the points that I raise and the cruise industry is big enough and can take some pressure to change the way they do things.

 

More to the point, what actually is the point of an added surcharge when they have every right to raise the basic price of the service that they offer? I know, could it be because they cannot raise a price after it has been sold, so this way they get to charge it to everyone, not just new bookers, no, that would be cynical wouldn't it.

 

They say they need to add this surcharge because fuel costs have skyrocketed, okay, well they still seem to have a nice healthy rise in profits, so it is not like they needed to do it in this way, now did they?

 

As to rock bottom prices for cruises, well I don't know about that, I am not one of those that see a $5 price drop and get right onto calling my TA to get that adjustment, which booking in the UK I cannot do anyway. In any event it is way more expensive to book here in the first place, and having Princess, along with others, decide that free markets should not be so free, so yep, I am all for those low prices, NOT.

 

I would actually like to see them raise them so that the crew gets paid a fair wage, the food goes back as it used to be, no extra charges for inconsequential items like coffee, room service pizza, alternate dining venues, Sanctuarys and the myriad of nickle and diming opportunitists they have become, from flea markets in the atria selling crap watches and junk jewelry.

 

Cheers,

Peter

[caribill]

Yes, the airlines are raising prices citing the higher cost of fuel.

 

But, they only apply to new reservations, not ones already paid for.

 

The cruise lines should have done the same.