Thanks ever so much Celebrity...

[Coco Creek]

Bob, those of us who live in Florida (with the hurricanes) at least know we can secure inexpensive Caribbean trips our of Ft. Lauderale and Miami (which in my case are 10 and 45 minutes away).

 

Eliminating the air fare is the key for me.

[Coco Creek]

Bob, those of us who live in Florida (with the hurricanes) at least know we can secure inexpensive Caribbean trips our of Ft. Lauderale and Miami (which in my case are 10 and 45 minutes away).

 

Eliminating the air fare is the key for me.

[nycglitter]

No, this thread is no longer just about $84. That is what got it started, but it has morphed into a thread about inflation and recession, and the effects each is and will be having on those of us whose preferred method of vacationing is cruising.

 

 

 

Bob

 

Bob -

 

I understand what this has morphed into, and yes, I read the entire thread. That said, it did in fact start out as a complaint over $84. That blew my mind. The rest of the thread is indeed sad but true. If this were a thread to lament the cost of travel in general I would not have been shocked at all!:)

[Drew B]

If 84bucks makes or breaks a cruise, I think you should stay home :rolleyes:

 

Those of you who keep bringing up the $84 issue are missing the OP's point. It's not the fact of the $84 itself - it's the shady way in which the OP alleges that X held back opening bookings on new itineraries so that people could not book them in time to save themselves the $84 surcharge. It's a matter of principle, not of money. Now, I don't know if the OP's facts are correct, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I would say that I also try to avoid doing business with companies that I believe act in unethical, manipulative ways...

[Maya-Tucker]

Those of you who keep bringing up the $84 issue are missing the OP's point. It's not the fact of the $84 itself - it's the shady way in which the OP alleges that X held back opening bookings on new itineraries so that people could not book them in time to save themselves the $84 surcharge. It's a matter of principle, not of money.

 

I'm glad that somebody else besides me also was able to understand the OP's point because it was all based upon principle and not the dollar amount.

[FinelyCruising]

There is no corporation right now that is not jockeying for every last dollar and there are a variety of ways they are going about it.

 

All at the expense of and by hands in the pockets of the consumers. We're in trouble kids 'cause no one is concerned to make it stop. It's way of control.

[nycglitter]

There is no corporation right now that is not jockeying for every last dollar and there are a variety of ways they are going about it.

 

All at the expense of and by hands in the pockets of the consumers. We're in trouble kids 'cause no one is concerned to make it stop. It's way of control.

 

Not to mention that others posted on this thread that they were able to find available cabins just fine. Not to mention that the OP is looking at cruises in 09-10 and there will most definitely be an increased fuel surcharge form many if not all cruises as another poster pointed out.

 

Principal and shady operations have zero to do with this issue. It is a matter of our current economy.

 

Has anyone else noticed that the OP has disappeared? Hmmmmmm

[FinelyCruising]

Not to mention that others posted on this thread that they were able to find available cabins just fine. Not to mention that the OP is looking at cruises in 09-10 and there will most definitely be an increased fuel surcharge form many if not all cruises as another poster pointed out.

 

Principal and shady operations have zero to do with this issue. It is a matter of our current economy.

 

Has anyone else noticed that the OP has disappeared? Hmmmmmm

 

I don't doubt this 'shady idea' was the OP's perception. A Perception is an idea that is not about being right nor is it about being wrong, it is some particular thing that rises to the surface as a concern and that begs to be evaluated.

 

I think that is what was occurring. That the lousy economy is part of the mix and the probable trigger of many concerns is an example of the issues we all face.

[salty dingo]

I think the way to deal with the "fuel surcharge" is to just add it to the fare and treat it as a fare. They try to keep fares low and call the fuel cost a "surcharge", but that is a disservice to us.

 

Do away with the surcharge and raise all fares by the amount of the surcharge. Thanks!

[bobbyleduck]

The airlines are now taking a play from the cruise industry playbook, with fuel surcharges. British Airlines announced today (or yesterday) a new fuel surcharge. I don't know that airlines haven't done this in the past, but now we get fare increases AND fuel surcharges. How long before the cruise industry does the same thing. Of course, oil prices have gone down by nearly 8 percent in the past three days. Do you think we'll ever see a fuel rebate?:p

 

The news is on at this moment, and the question on everyone's mind is, "Why is the price of everything going up at the same moment?" Of course, more important, is why does our government tell us that inflation is running at about 4 percent, when anyone with half a brain knows that costs are increasing at double-digit rates? Insane! On the other hand, the jobs report that is due out tomorrow is expected to show that the U.S. lost more than 75,000 jobs last month. But, an unnamed public leader continues to insist that the U.S. is not experiencing a recession.

 

By the way: Lucky are those who live near a cruiseport! I am not one of those.

 

Happy cruising to all who can still afford to cruise!

 

Bob

[FinelyCruising]

I think the way to deal with the "fuel surcharge" is to just add it to the fare and treat it as a fare. They try to keep fares low and call the fuel cost a "surcharge", but that is a disservice to us.

 

Do away with the surcharge and raise all fares by the amount of the surcharge. Thanks!

 

I am holding out some hope that at a future point in time this surcharge can go away, so for the moment I am OK that it remains separate from the fare.

 

I did read at one point that it needed to be separate for accounting on the books since it was not 'revenue', but I am not an expert in those kinds of matters.

[hcat]

We booked a great 14 day cruise on Connnie for late Jan 2010 soon after the bookings opened up We got the original fuel charge-- guess they may have held some back but the itin on this one was lovely--

 

our plan is to take fewer but longer trips to economize on the airfare--since it is going to go sky high --no more flying down to Florida for a 5 day cruise to get out of the cold!

 

fuel surcharges are everywhere--our elctric bill itself is just about lower than the fuel surcharge ! sign of the times..

[chessbriar]

My wife was so upset about the fuel charge, she made me cancel our cruise on the Freedom of the Seas and book the Mercury to get a longer cruise on a better line. Now we have to fly to San Juan instead of Orlando.

 

We booked as soon as it came out.

[bobbyleduck]

It's getting tough all over. Did you read the NY Times article by Carter Dougherty and Katrin Bennhold that told about how the middle class in Europe is shrinking and that a professional couple earning the equivalent of $62,500 a year went out and bought a bread machine because "their local bakery in this town south of Paris raised the price of a baguette for the third time in six months"? In fact, gasoline is so expensive that this same couple "sold one of their two cars."

 

If the cruise industry is depending on Europeans to keep the business "afloat," then I'm afraid they're in for a real shock. The story goes on to tell us that the problem is not only in France, but Germany, Spain and Britain as well.

 

As I said earlier, we're in the midst of a world-wide recession and that can't be good for any part of the travel and leisure industry. Couple that with rising food and energy costs, and nearly everybody is hurting.

 

Happy cruising to all who can still afford to cruise.

 

Bob

[RLM77]

My apologies for publicly venting. I appreciate the constructive feedback that many of you have provided and will not post in the future unless I have something constructive, or at least informative, to say. Having said that, though, there are three lines of thought from earlier in this thread to which I feel I need to respond:

Most important is that the additional $84.00 is not a deal-breaker and is, honestly, not consequential given our travel budget. However, I viewed this as a matter of principle. Yes, the cruise I was looking for is nearly two years out, but X had officially announced that these cruises were open for bookings on April 23. If they are open, then reservations should be accepted. Yet, Connie's March 2010 sailings were not on either Celebrity’s web site or on Revelex (the web reservations system used by a number of on-line cruise TA’s) on April 30. From my perspective, then, they were holding these back for some reason, and the bottom line pressure on both RCCL and Carnival made it easy to imagine that the reason could have been to collect the additional $3.00 per person per day surcharge that is being imposed on reservations taken on or after May 1. Yes, there could be several other reasons (see apology above). BTW, I did not know that certain TA’s could book itineraries that don’t appear on the web, but I will remember that next time around.

Second, we have over 500 posts on Cruise Critic, have completed five Celebrity cruises, and have two more in the pipeline (see signature). These are all small numbers compared to some of you, but it’s hard for me to see how anyone with similar history and similar future plans could have a grudge against Celebrity. Chalk my previous rant up to a bad day.

Finally, I am not yet privileged enough to be among the ranks of the retired. Consequently, I only have time for Cruise Critic about twice per week. That’s why I have not returned to this thread before now.

I have learned a valuable lesson and will keep my rants to myself unless I truly believe that others will benefit.

Rich

[chessbriar]

However, I viewed this as a matter of principle. Yes, the cruise I was looking for is nearly two years out, but X had officially announced that these cruises were open for bookings on April 23. If they are open, then reservations should be accepted. Yet, Connie's March 2010 sailings were not on either Celebrity’s web site or on Revelex (the web reservations system used by a number of on-line cruise TA’s) on April 30. From my perspective, then, they were holding these back for some reason, and the bottom line pressure on both RCCL and Carnival made it easy to imagine that the reason could have been to collect the additional $3.00 per person per day surcharge that is being imposed on reservations taken on or after May 1. Yes, there could be several other reasons (see apology above). BTW, I did not know that certain TA’s could book itineraries that don’t appear on the web, but I will remember that next time around.

 

Rich,

 

You accuse RCCL/X of holding back, yet on the day itineraries were released the were available on RCCL/X's website for Travel Agents through both the old and new program. There were also people on these boards who called RCCL/X directly and booked with no problem.

 

RCI is going to make open booking available first to where they get the most bookings. It takes time to get all the info into all systems. So they made it available on their TA website which is the same site their own agents use.

 

Had you called in or asked you TA to call in or use RCI's direct website, you would have had no problem booking the very first day.

 

I didn't

 

By the way, for March 2010, the only cruise they have an itinerary for is a 15 Hawaii on the 13th that is not open for booking yet as they have not release itineraries for Hawaii. And checking into it further, the March 13th cruise has been cancelled as the ship has been chartered for a Hawaii cruise March 19th. http://www.bare-necessities.com/Hawaii2010/itinerary.html.

 

Any further openings in Connies schedule with be Panama Canal cruises.

[Drew B]

...on the day itineraries were released the were available on RCCL/X's website for Travel Agents through both the old and new program. There were also people on these boards who called RCCL/X directly and booked with no problem.

 

RCI is going to make open booking available first to where they get the most bookings. It takes time to get all the info into all systems. So they made it available on their TA website which is the same site their own agents use.

 

Had you called in or asked you TA to call in or use RCI's direct website, you would have had no problem booking the very first day.

 

 

I'm not sure why a lay person is expected to know so much about the inner workings of the cruise line's business. If one looks on X's website and sees that a cruise is not open for booking THERE, I can understand the assumption that it is not open for booking, period. I think Rich's conclusion was very reasonable, given the evidence he saw. The fact that it [perhaps] turned out to be incorrect does not change the fact that what he thought at the time of his post made perfect sense.

[chessbriar]

I'm not sure why a lay person is expected to know so much about the inner workings of the cruise line's business. If one looks on X's website and sees that a cruise is not open for booking THERE, I can understand the assumption that it is not open for booking, period. I think Rich's conclusion was very reasonable, given the evidence he saw. The fact that it [perhaps] turned out to be incorrect does not change the fact that what he thought at the time of his post made perfect sense.

But rather than check with X to ask what's going on, he choose to vent here. A simple question could have answered all. Instead, he choose to come up with a conspiracy theory of X looking for extra fuel charge money.

 

I'm not saying he should know, but with every partial release of the itineraries, it has taken a couple days for X's website to get caught up with the rest of the available booking choices. In the end, X wants customers to book with TAs. If they didn't, they'd make better strives to have good customer service.

[Drew B]

with every partial release of the itineraries, it has taken a couple days for X's website to get caught up with the rest of the available booking choices.

 

I did not know this... And I've booked both of my X cruises on their website and haven't had the slightest problem with customer service. Is it just a coincidence, then, that the partial release just happened to coincide with the deadline to book without incurring the higher surcharge? Perhaps it is a coincidence. I just don't know...

[chessbriar]

They higher surcharge went into effect May 1. Europe, Alaska, and Caribbean were all released and available to purchase before then.

[bobbyleduck]

Here is another sign of the recession. A couple of the local Burger Kings in Bend (there are three, and I never visit the other one) have layed off about 2/3 of their workforces, and restricted the availability of condiments.

 

I don't know if this is just a local quirk or a harbinger to things to come. What do you all think?

 

Happy cruising to all who can still afford to cruise!

 

Bob

[Coreopsis]

Here is another sign of the recession. A couple of the local Burger Kings in Bend (there are three, and I never visit the other one) have layed off about 2/3 of their workforces, and restricted the availability of condiments.

 

I don't know if this is just a local quirk or a harbinger to things to come. What do you all think?

 

Happy cruising to all who can still afford to cruise!

 

Bob

I think it could be a sign that people realize that the food doesn't taste good at Burger King - and that fast food is generally pretty unhealthy. At the same time organic foods are seeing double digit improvements.

 

I don't think these examples have as much to do with the economy as it does buying trends.

 

We probably are in a recession, but I wouldn't use your local Burger King as an example of an indicator species.