Fuel Surcharge - Illegal?

[wombat50]

I also agree with Nita...

 

Weathergirl..don't take it personally...it's just that this subject really has been beaten to death here, and instead of posting on the original threads, people keep starting new ones.....it just does get very tiring. There is alot of great info on these boards..really hope you don't give up.

i agree with weathergirl and no you shouldnt take it personally but if you think a subject has been beaten to death then why do the same people get on here and and berate the people who posted it why dont they just read the topic line see what it is and move on to the next one

[dforeigner]

i see everyone jumping on people posting their opinons on the fuel surcharges but you don't seem to care that the canadians and people from the UK seem to really rub it in that they don't have to pay the fuel surcharge and i have repeatedly seen them calling the people booking through US TA's babies basically for putting up with it when we really have no choice.

so, let's be nice and not jump on people for an opinion. be fair - tell the others how you feel about them going on the ship with the fuel YOU are paying extra for and they are NOT per their postings.

 

Have you seen the rates that people from the UK and Canada have to pa?. In addition that the proper exchange rate is not being utilized.

[Poulsbo Cruisers]

When I discovered this site, I thought it was an excellent place to share princess cruise experiences, hints, and ask questions. I also saw it as a great venue for venting about some things that can really annoy you- such as this fuel surcharge. This gives you a place to get it off your chest with other people that may feel the same way you do. It’s not like your co-workers or family want to hear about it, right?

But then I noticed that many people on this site are also really quick to jump on you for your opinions, and then make you feel bad. Worse yet they point out every little thing you say or explain incorrectly.

It just really takes the fun out of things, which is what I thought this site was about.

 

So please don’t attack people. I very much respect free speech and I respect that some people think being upset about the fuel charge is silly, but let everyone be and let everyone else feel the way they want too and express that.

 

If you really think everyone is being ridiculous about this surcharge or other things we are all venting about, please move onto another thread. Why are you continuing to read these and further comment?

 

Thank you. Thank you. When I posted this, I thought it was interesting that it may be illegal (per the article) to pay a fuel surcharge when the cruise had already been paid for. I never implied that I wouldn't pay the surcharge, nor did I indicate I wouldn't cruise Princess due to the surcharge. I was shocked at the people who jumped all over my case for this post. I guess I will have to be more careful in the future due to the thought police who are at work on this board.

[Pam in CA]

Thank you. Thank you. When I posted this, I thought it was interesting that it may be illegal (per the article) to pay a fuel surcharge when the cruise had already been paid for.

This affected very, very few people, most of whom pre-paid or paid in full well in advance of their final payment date. I agree that anyone who had pre-paid shouldn't have been charged the surcharge but as mentioned, that was very few. Princess deliberately set the implementation date so that those who had paid wouldn't be affected but a few slipped through when they pre-paid. Unless you pre-paid for your cruise months in advance, you will have the option to decide whether you want to take the cruise or not, without penalty, before final payment. The article's supposition that the fuel surcharge is "probably" illegal is not based on any facts that are presented. They can say "probable" as much as they want without fear of being sued.

[cruiserbryce]

this is getting really tired...for those of us like myself...who have no legal knowledge what so ever to insist that the fuel charge is illegal is absurd...dont you think Carnival Corporation would have had their vast legal dept look into and legality issues connected with doing something like this...no offense to anyone in particular but get over it already with the fuel charge

[cruiserbryce]

this is getting really tired...for those of us like myself...who have no legal knowledge what so ever to insist that the fuel charge is illegal is absurd...dont you think Carnival Corporation would have had their vast legal dept look into and legality issues connected with doing something like this...no offense to anyone in particular but get over it already with the fuel charge

[daveco58]

Thank you. Thank you. When I posted this, I thought it was interesting that it may be illegal (per the article) to pay a fuel surcharge when the cruise had already been paid for. I never implied that I wouldn't pay the surcharge, nor did I indicate I wouldn't cruise Princess due to the surcharge. I was shocked at the people who jumped all over my case for this post. I guess I will have to be more careful in the future due to the thought police who are at work on this board.

 

And why would you think it's illegal? Because CNN said so? Please. I mean, if you have a credible source disclose it. But CNN?

[cruisePRN]

weathergirl, don't give in because some one posted something ridiculous

[ginagirl]

To inform the poster who seems to think she knows it all, I booked a 2 week cruise with Princess shortly before the fuel surcharge went into effect and prior to it being announced. However, I was within the "pay in full" period at the time of booking. And after paying in full as required by Princess, when the fuel surcharge was announced several days later, guess what. I was charged the additional $140 for DH and myself. So I really wish Pam would discontinue the myth that such things didn't take place.:eek: And as for the obnoxious bullying that seems to go on, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. I truly sympathize with the poster who unwittingly started this thread and poor Weathergirl for even voicing her opinion, but now you can all jump on me instead. Bring it on!!!!!!:D

[B40 Tha Cruisa]

To inform the poster who seems to think she knows it all, I booked a 2 week cruise with Princess shortly before the fuel surcharge went into effect and prior to it being announced. However, I was within the "pay in full" period at the time of booking. And after paying in full as required by Princess, when the fuel surcharge was announced several days later, guess what. I was charged the additional $140 for DH and myself. So I really wish Pam would discontinue the myth that such things didn't take place.:eek: And as for the obnoxious bullying that seems to go on, you should all be ashamed of yourselves. I truly sympathize with the poster who unwittingly started this thread and poor Weathergirl for even voicing her opinion, but now you can all jump on me instead. Bring it on!!!!!!:D

 

MercedMike put it best. There was no "jumping". She voiced her opinion, and others in turn voiced theirs.

[kruisey]

I have been jumped at many times on this board but I still come up smiling.:D

Princess is doing very well indeed with this added fuel tax.

When I see also the price of my cruise that I took 3 years ago has nearly doubled at todays rates.:eek:

Also instead of Princess paying their employees a decent wage they have charged their passengers an additional 50cents extra per day gratuaties ,suite passengers even more I have heard....I feel so obligated that I tip alot more to help the staff make decent pay to sent home to their families.

Yes Princess is doing very well indeed.

Unfortunately they are pricing me as a single senior widow out of their market.

[Poulsbo Cruisers]

And why would you think it's illegal? Because CNN said so? Please. I mean, if you have a credible source disclose it. But CNN?

 

Please explain why you feel that I said it was illegal. I only posted an article. I did not take a stand. Maybe if you and others would take the time to actually read what a person posted instead of taking a few words out of context we would all be better served.

 

I must reiterate that I am a Princess fan. I feel that the fares charged by Princess are more than reasonable and I will continue to cruise on Princess whenever the opportunity arises. That shouldn't mean that I can never say anything negative against Princess or post an opinion that may not agree with that of some Princess loyalists.

[Colo Cruiser]

Please explain why you feel that I said it was illegal. I only posted an article. I did not take a stand. Maybe if you and others would take the time to actually read what a person posted instead of taking a few words out of context we would all be better served.

 

 

The title of the thread (only a few words) is probably a hint. :rolleyes:

[Poulsbo Cruisers]

The title of the thread (only a few words) is probably a hint. :rolleyes:

 

Did you see the question mark?

[Colo Cruiser]

Did you see the question mark?

 

 

 

Yes. :)

[Pam in CA]

To inform the poster who seems to think she knows it all, I booked a 2 week cruise with Princess shortly before the fuel surcharge went into effect and prior to it being announced. However, I was within the "pay in full" period at the time of booking. And after paying in full as required by Princess, when the fuel surcharge was announced several days later, guess what. I was charged the additional $140 for DH and myself. So I really wish Pam would discontinue the myth that such things didn't take place.

Note that I said that this affected very few people and that I didn't think that someone who had pre-paid should have been charged. So, please quote me correctly. Also, your "pay in full" date -- was that the official Princess date or your TA's date? I know that many TAs have a "paid in full" date several days before it's really due and I think Princess should have taken that into consideration when determining the date when the fuel surcharge went into effect. According to the sources I've read (off CC), Princess established the fuel surcharge based on their final payment date, thinking (erroneously) that people who had paid in full wouldn't have to pay. I AGREE THAT PEOPLE WHO PAID IN FULL SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHARGED THE FUEL SURCHARGE. Is there any way I can make that clearer?

[Cruise Junky]

this is getting really tired...for those of us like myself...who have no legal knowledge what so ever to insist that the fuel charge is illegal is absurd...dont you think Carnival Corporation would have had their vast legal dept look into and legality issues connected with doing something like this...no offense to anyone in particular but get over it already with the fuel charge

 

They obviously didn't do their homework or they wouldn't have had to back peddle for Canadians and do all the refunding.

[Ldyandrea]

I think there are a couple of issues, only the first of which I believe was addressed:

 

1. Retroactively charging customers who had already fully paid before the surcharges were announced - This is one of the issues that the FL AG is looking into. I won't elaborate, since this issue has been pretty well covered I think.

 

2. Charging any kind of extra fee from the fare that is not taxes or port charges - The cruise lines all settled on this just over 10 years ago when they entered into an agreement that they would not do this. The problem being that cruise lines were charging fees that weren't related to the taxes and port charges, lumping them in with those items, and that way their advertised cruise fares would still look "normal" and they had more revenue. It is illegal for airlines to do this as per the US Department of Transportation. While it is not technically "illegal" for cruise lines to do this, the investigation from 10 years ago had the State of FL settling this issue with the cruiselines who then committed to an agreement that they wouldn't practice this any longer. Basically, they're going back on their word, which is another thing the FL Attorney General is interested in investigating. (As an aside note, it appears as though Princess is the only cruise line that is not separating out the fuel surcharges from the cruise fare. Mind you, they're mentioning the surcharge, but it is included in the advertised fare......the other cruse lines are not. So, if they have to do it, at least they are doing it right for the purposes of this point.)

 

There are some really good articles, that I believe does an excellent job of conveying exactly why cruiseline customers should be more than a bit miffed about this whole thing. In them, he covers issues that really made me question what the cruise lines think they are doing. Issues of charging an arbitrary amount rather than what the fuel increases actually cost, issues of possible "double-dipping" (raising the cruise fare to cover the higher costs, and slapping a surcharge on top of it because everyone else is doing it), and even possible anti-trust violations for price-fixing.

 

http://www.elliott.org/blog/cruise-lines-concertedly-and-deceptively-implemented-a-fuel-surcharge/

 

http://www.elliott.org/blog/we-definitely-feel-we-were-ambushed-by-royal-caribbean/

 

http://www.elliott.org/blog/3-secrets-for-fighting-the-latest-round-of-fuel-surcharges/

 

I agree that we all have to decide for ourselves if we are willing to pay these charges now to cruise. But that certainly doesn't mean that I don't question their tactics, and I have a feeling there will be a lot of questions the cruise lines are going to have to answer in the coming months on some of these issues. Hopefully, they will be resolved to the benefit of us, the customers.....which is as it should be. :)

[KirkNC]

When we signed up for our cruise, Princess quoted us a price, we accepted. Three months later they changed their mind and up the price. Why they did that or how legitimate it may be does not matter. In my mind we made a contract and they violated it. I wrote Princess and they basically said, pound sand. I can accept that but some of the responses to this thread are way over the top. The person did not say they were never cruising again they just vented a legitimate compliant. If you disagree fine but many of you who say get over it need to take your own advice. I don't know what is next but my bet is a chicken surcharge, with the price of corn going up it is bound to find its way into chicken prices.

 

Peace and Love

[Colo Cruiser]

I think this has been beat to death. :cool:

[Ldyandrea]

When we signed up for our cruise, Princess quoted us a price, we accepted. Three months later they changed their mind and up the price. Why they did that or how legitimate it may be does not matter. In my mind we made a contract and they violated it. I wrote Princess and they basically said, pound sand.

 

Well, that's the part that stinks for current customers. At least now we're going into it with open eyes (and yes, I just booked a cruise for myself and paid the charges without complaint....mainly because I know it would fall on deaf ears), but that sure doesn't mean I will be upset if they have to refund some of our money later on. I think up front, there's nothing to be done. The cruise lines won't willingly return that money or make amends unless they are forced to through legal action in court, or at the insistence of state or federal authorities. *shrug* :cool:

[NAS-KARR]

I think this has been beat to death. :cool:

 

AMEN !

[dforeigner]

I think this has been beat to death. :cool:

 

 

 

I believe the flies are an indicator the horse actually has been dead for a while. :D

[Colo Cruiser]

 

I believe the flies are an indicator the horse actually has been dead for a while. :D

 

 

Your right I don't see any movement. :eek: