Oil Prices Drop - Give Me Back My Money

[james j feller]

As i am writing this now, the oil prices dropped to $96 a barrel.

 

Come on HAL and the rest of you give up that sur charge for fuel . It seemed like you raised it fast enough, now we want it back.

 

Who am i kidding once they get it , just like a tax you'll never see it.

 

JIM

[Krazy Kruizers]

Have you checked to see how much HAL is paying for fuel???

 

They sign contracts which can't be broken.

[kenevenpar]

Jim:

 

You are not holding your breath, are you?:D

[james j feller]

I am just about out of breath now.

 

As far as fuel cost, they should come down, you would think that HAL wouldn't sign a long term agreement for fuel.

 

Wait and see, i think they will reduce the charges.

 

JIM

[Krazy Kruizers]

At the time -- it appeared that oil prices were going to keep going up. So they signed a contract -- wish I knew when it will be up.

 

But they sign contract just like the airlines thinking that if prices do go up they will save money.

 

Unfortunately that doesn't always work out.

[jhannah]

Another wrinkle is that I'm confident that HAL took a hit on fuel prices for quite a while before they resorted to the surcharge. It will take a while to recoup that. And all you good CCL shareholders should want them to do that. ;)

[MadManOfBethesda]

Another wrinkle is that I'm confident that HAL took a hit on fuel prices for quite a while before they resorted to the surcharge. It will take a while to recoup that. And all you good CCL shareholders should want them to do that. ;)

 

On a slightly different subject....

 

All those good CCL shareholders each lost $227 per 100 shares today, and have lost almost $800 per 100 shares since September 15th!

 

Which is why I wince every time I see someone post that they are going to buy CCL stock for the sole purpose of getting an OBC.

 

Scott

[richwmn]

On a slightly different subject....

 

All those good CCL shareholders each lost $227 per 100 shares today, and have lost almost $800 per 100 shares since September 15th!

 

Which is why I wince every time I see someone post that they are going to buy CCL stock for the sole purpose of getting an OBC.

 

Scott

As long as you hold the stock, you haven't lost anything. When (If) you choose to sell the stock you will gain or lose based on the price you sell for, not the price it happens to be at today.

 

Rich

[Hugh0906]

At the time -- it appeared that oil prices were going to keep going up. So they signed a contract -- wish I knew when it will be up.

 

But they sign contract just like the airlines thinking that if prices do go up they will save money.

 

Unfortunately that doesn't always work out.

 

 

I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't hedge against fuel costs, more along the lines of SWA.

 

It is awful hard to tell really what the effects are on their financials. Yes they pay more for fuel this year then last year. but they also added to the fleets. Believe me, I've tried.

 

Hugh in Dallas

[Hugh0906]

crud ( a duplicate post)

 

Hugh in Dallas

[sail7seas]

If one cruises enough and gets the OBC for Carnival stock 5 -7 times a year, it adds up to real money. Of course, depends how much one paid for the stock.....when. :)

 

 

 

[meterman2]

OK. HAL signs "contracts" to purchase fuel. Under this premise, they would know the price for their fuel for specific time periods when cruises are scheduled (no matter what the price was when they signed it). Why not just priced that fuel cost into the cruise prices going forward? It has been about 10 months since the "surcharge" came about (amount varying on the date of booking). Isn't it disingenuous of HAL to continue this "backdoor" fee which is standard "overhead" of the product they sell? :confused:

 

JMHO

[Mary Ellen]

Another wrinkle is that I'm confident that HAL took a hit on fuel prices for quite a while before they resorted to the surcharge. It will take a while to recoup that. And all you good CCL shareholders should want them to do that. ;)

BINGO! We have a winner. HAL's extra fuel costs were about 10X what they passed on to us. Knowing the uproar over the $10 surcharge, it isn't had to imagine what would have happened if they had passed the actual costs on to the passengers. :eek: IMHO it is unrealistic to expect the fuel surcharge to disappear anytime soon.

[HamOp]

Gee, Rich, thanks for that lesson in Stock Market 101. Now, do you disagree with my statement that people shouldn't invest in CCL solely for the OBC, which, after all, WAS THE POINT OF MY POST??

 

Or do you have another insightful comment to make like buy low/sell high?

Rich is exactly right. Lighten up. If the CCL stock is low now, this is the time to buy. It's on sale.

I just love it when people panic cause the market took a dump. The smart money either buys now, or just gives a big yawn.

It will come back. Always has and always will.

And yes, I "lost" a lot of money today too. If you want to look at it that way. I don't.

[waASPCrusier]

BINGO! We have a winner. HAL's extra fuel costs were about 10X what they passed on to us. Knowing the uproar over the $10 surcharge, it isn't had to imagine what would have happened if they had passed the actual costs on to the passengers. :eek: IMHO it is unrealistic to expect the fuel surcharge to disappear anytime soon.

 

 

Now you have me curious, what was HAL contract price for fuel 10 months ago when the surcharge went into effect vs. say what was the surcharge 6 months before that...I figured only an amount of time before somebody who knew these figures would post.

 

Thanks in advance,

Tayo

[Boytjie]

As i am writing this now, the oil prices dropped to $96 a barrel.

 

Come on HAL and the rest of you give up that sur charge for fuel . It seemed like you raised it fast enough, now we want it back.

 

Who am i kidding once they get it , just like a tax you'll never see it.

 

JIM

 

 

Fast enough? How long was HAL taking a hit on rising oil prices before starting the surcharge?

[pms4104]

Based on the results at market close today and the dire circumstances of the economy these past several days ... my total fuel surcharge for a 14-day for two passengers is a mere pittance when compared to where we all might find ourselves in the immediate future.

 

As others have stated, HAL ate the fuel charges for a long time before determining it was prudent to ask guests to share the pain. Not coming down anytime soon, nor should it ... if HAL reduces the surcharge today, they will look very foolish in a week or month if they need to increase it at that time.

[waASPCrusier]

As others have stated, HAL ate the fuel charges for a long time before determining it was prudent to ask guests to share the pain.

 

 

I sure would like to see the numbers that support that....for all anyone knows here they are still on a contract they hedged quite sometime ago....

 

Count me as one of those who thinks if their costs go up fine, then just build the increase into the fare.

 

Tayo

[m steve]

but if you depend on your investment account to pay for your cruises and you take a one day drop of $10,000 thats 2 cruises you can't take this year. Many observers of the market are saying it will be 5+ years before the markey returns and we will see more drops in the next few days. With fuel prices also dropping it is about time for Carnival to drop the surcharge or there may not be anyone on the ships to pay for it. I just booked a cruise for 4 people and am ready to cancel. I may need that $5000 to live on next year. I BOUGHT WHAT WAS ONCE $100,000 worth of tech stocks after 9/11 for about $10,000 and ended up selling them for about 80% of what I paid for them.

[Snorkel2Much]

I see no reason to believe that they wouldn't hedge against fuel costs, more along the lines of SWA.

 

It is awful hard to tell really what the effects are on their financials. Yes they pay more for fuel this year then last year. but they also added to the fleets. Believe me, I've tried.

 

Hugh in Dallas

The Carnival Corporation 10-K report would beg to differ. Try page F-41 of this years report available from secinfo.com:

Bunker Fuel Price Risks

We do not use financial instruments to hedge our exposure to the bunker fuel price market risk. We estimate that our fiscal 2008 fuel cost would increase or decrease by approximately $3.3 million for each $1 per metric ton increase or decrease in our average bunker fuel price.

 

Page F-29 & F-30 are also interesting reading

[meterman2]

I sure would like to see the numbers that support that....for all anyone knows here they are still on a contract they hedged quite sometime ago....

 

Count me as one of those who thinks if their costs go up fine, then just build the increase into the fare.

 

Tayo

 

Thanks for looking at this objectively.

 

I booked prior (1 year ago) for a cruise this Nov. I'm not affected by the surcharge (this Nov cruise). Originally, CCL companies (followed by other lines) attempted to apply the surcharge retroactively to pax already booked, but after some challenges, the surcharges were added to new bookings only (I had it applied-then it was removed).

 

Why not just add to the "cruise prices" going forward. In most products, consumers expect taxes. That is a given. But a consumer shopping for a cruise views a cost pp pre-tax that is, in reality going to much more (first "port fee's" and now "fuel surcharges"). Not all consumers are savvy CC members! Sure, you still have the choice to say "no thanks" when you do see the "add-on's", but an emotional decision has already been made and many will proceed.

 

Hey, if the cost of oil and breadpudding had plummeted, do you think they would of applied a rebate? No way. If demand was high for cruise cabins at anytime, regardless of fuel cost, HAL would charge and get as much as they could (and they do) for each of those cabins. That is "supply and demand". Hidden fee's and surcharges, in any which way or form, are fundamentally bad for the consumer.

[MadManOfBethesda]

I just love it when people panic cause the market took a dump. The smart money either buys now, or just gives a big yawn.

 

It will come back. Always has and always will.

 

LOL. Tell that to the people who bought stock in Countrywide, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, IndyMac, Washington Mutual, etc., etc. when they "went on sale" earlier this year.

 

Or how about all the people who bought tech stocks after the initial plunge in April 2000. How are those investments in AOL, Sun Microsystems, JDS Uniphase, Intel, Cisco, etc. doing? And those are the ones that at least are still in business!

 

Now, I'm not saying that CCL will cease to exist, or even that it won't return to it's former level. Hell, I even own CCL! In fact I bought it at around 20 many years ago after the Ecstacy fire.

 

I'll try this once again. The whole point of my post was that people shouldn't invest in CCL for the sole purpose of getting an OBC.

[HamOp]

I'll try this once again. The whole point of my post was that people shouldn't invest in CCL for the sole purpose of getting an OBC.

 

Your point on not investing for SBC is well taken. And I agree.

Those who lost money in the stocks you mention, were out to make a killing based upon past history of the stocks. Bad plan.

 

Most of my $$ are in well picked mutual funds. I just don't like all of my eggs in one basket.

 

Tom

[Hugh0906]

The Carnival Corporation 10-K report would beg to differ. Try page F-41 of this years report available from secinfo.com:

Bunker Fuel Price Risks

We do not use financial instruments to hedge our exposure to the bunker fuel price market risk. We estimate that our fiscal 2008 fuel cost would increase or decrease by approximately $3.3 million for each $1 per metric ton increase or decrease in our average bunker fuel price.

 

Page F-29 & F-30 are also interesting reading

 

My memory is always fuzzy. But If I recall the fuel surcharges were introduced at the end of last year. As of last week, they are still up 20% over that price and double what they were on 1-1-2007

 

I don't think the fuel surcharges are going away anytime soon

[Cruzman]

Thanks for looking at this objectively.

 

I booked prior (1 year ago) for a cruise this Nov. I'm not affected by the surcharge (this Nov cruise). Originally, CCL companies (followed by other lines) attempted to apply the surcharge retroactively to pax already booked, but after some challenges, the surcharges were added to new bookings only (I had it applied-then it was removed).

 

Why not just add to the "cruise prices" going forward. In most products, consumers expect taxes. That is a given. But a consumer shopping for a cruise views a cost pp pre-tax that is, in reality going to much more (first "port fee's" and now "fuel surcharges"). Not all consumers are savvy CC members! Sure, you still have the choice to say "no thanks" when you do see the "add-on's", but an emotional decision has already been made and many will proceed.

 

One very good reason why this won't be done; travel agents are paid commission on the cruise price not including gov't taxes & fees AND fuel surcharges. If fuel surcharges were rolled into the cruise price, the cruise lines would have to pay commissions on that total amount.