RCL Mirrors HAL On Fuel Surcharge....

[prescottbob]

FYI:

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=ACBJ&Date=20071116&ID=7827237&Symbol=RCL

[hammybee]

With the current exception of NCL, all significant cruise lines are now imposing a fuel surcharge.

The surcharge of cruise line brands under the Carnival ( CCL) and RCL umbrellas are the lowest, consistent and capped.

Given NCL, Oceania and Regent are now majority -owned by the same investment firm, I will be surprised if NCL does not announce a fuelcharge in the very near future, given Oceania and Regent have surcharges.

[Sundagger]

With the current exception of NCL, all significant cruise lines are now imposing a fuel surcharge.

The surcharge of cruise line brands under the Carnival ( CCL) and RCL umbrellas are the lowest, consistent and capped.

Given NCL, Oceania and Regent are now majority -owned by the same investment firm, I will be surprised if NCL does not announce a fuelcharge in the very near future, given Oceania and Regent have surcharges.

NCL announced their surcharge yesterday.

"NCL Corporation announced today that it will begin assessing guests a fuel supplement in response to record high fuel prices. Effective on all new NCL and NCL America bookings made on or after December 1, 2007, the fuel supplement will be $7 per person per day for the first and second guests in a stateroom and $3 per person per day for any additional guests in the same stateroom."

[hammybee]

NCL announced their surcharge yesterday.

"NCL Corporation announced today that it will begin assessing guests a fuel supplement in response to record high fuel prices. Effective on all new NCL and NCL America bookings made on or after December 1, 2007, the fuel supplement will be $7 per person per day for the first and second guests in a stateroom and $3 per person per day for any additional guests in the same stateroom."

Thanks. I blinked yesterday and missed it.:)

[Drew358]

Actually, RCL isn't exactly copying HAL. They aren't charging you if you pay in full by a certain date, unlike all of Carnival's cruise lines.

[Krazy Kruizers]

Actually, RCL isn't exactly copying HAL. They aren't charging you if you pay in full by a certain date, unlike all of Carnival's cruise lines.


Wish HAL would give us this option!!

[sail7seas]

HAL gave us through January (?) before it goes into effect, didn't they?

It's a maximum of $70. Would you really pre-pay by months a 20+ day cruise in order to save the $70? Why get into penalty period any earlier than necessary, is my opinion. ;)

[dobiemom]

"Because of the continuing rapid escalation of fuel prices, the North American brands of Carnival Corporation, including Holland America Line, have announced a fuel supplement of $5.00USD per passenger, per day, for all voyages departing on or after February 1, 2008. The supplement applies to the first and second passengers in a stateroom up to a maximum of $70.00USD per person per voyage, for both new bookings and those that are currently under deposit or fully paid."

:(

[kryos]

With the current exception of NCL, all significant cruise lines are now imposing a fuel surcharge.
And now us cruisers have no choice. Either pay the surcharge or don't cruise. We really won't have many options left after the few remaining cruise lines adopt them.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[kryos]

HAL gave us through January (?) before it goes into effect, didn't they?

It's a maximum of $70. Would you really pre-pay by months a 20+ day cruise in order to save the $70? Why get into penalty period any earlier than necessary, is my opinion. ;)
If the cruise is anything other than a really short (read inexpensive) one, you'd probably lose more in interest by paying ahead of time in order to avoid the surcharge. It would actually be cheaper to just go ahead and make your final payment on schedule and just eat the surcharge as a cost of the cruise.

The only thing that rankles me about this is I can't help but wonder what will be next. Cost of food goes up, will they add a surcharge for that as well? How about other overhead expenses? Can the cruise line say, "hey, the cost of bringing entertainment on board just skyrocketed for some reason, so we're gonna have to add a surcharge to help us "absorb" this expense?"

I feel that if you have competent forecasters and economists working for your company (or consulting for the company), these folks should have made some pretty accurate predictions regarding the cost of fuel. They should have foreseen the so-called rapid increase in the cost of fuel several years in advance, and they should have warned Carnival's management of it. Then management could have priced cruises in accordance with these expected increases and easily adjusted for them.

But now, it appears that what you have is either inefficient management ("we never saw this coming") or double dipping ("yeah, we saw this two years ago, and priced subsequent cruises accordingly, but hey ... we'll get an additional $5 per day out of passengers to further offset this increase ... and we'll actually put a few extra bucks into the company coffers that way.")

Either way, it just seems unfair to me. Yes, the cruise lines are playing fair in that they are allowing passengers to cancel without penalty even if they are within the penalty period. But then in another respect things aren't fair at all. If all the cruise lines are implementing this surcharge, then cruisers are left with little or no options. You either pay it or you don't cruise. Simple as that.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[bicker]

Either way, it just seems unfair to me. Yes, the cruise lines are playing fair in that they are allowing passengers to cancel without penalty even if they are within the penalty period. But then in another respect things aren't fair at all. If all the cruise lines are implementing this surcharge, then cruisers are left with little or no options. You either pay it or you don't cruise. Simple as that.It's unfair to the cruise line that all the fuel suppliers increased their prices. Yes, the fuel suppliers are playing fair in that they are allowing cruise lines to cancel their fuel orders. However, since all the fuel suppliers increased their prices, then the cruise lines are left with little or no options. They either pay it or don't cruise. Simple as that. :)

Then we can go from there and realize how unfair it is to the fuel suppliers, since their suppliers have increased their prices, and so on and so forth.

[Jade13]

At least HAL did this across the board for everyone.

What Celebrity did is not fair. They followed HAL with the $5.00 per day on yesterday, Friday, for Cruises February 1st and after BUT anyone who paid in full by Thursday is exempt. So, anyone with inside knowlege that this was coming could pay off their cruise in full on Thursday (I would not do that for a cruise next summer but folks already traveling in February have due dates in the next several weeks).

Regent gave guests the ability to pay in full by I think December and HAL did not but at least in both cases it is the same for all passengers.

[hammybee]

I feel that if you have competent forecasters and economists working for your company (or consulting for the company), these folks should have made some pretty accurate predictions regarding the cost of fuel. They should have foreseen the so-called rapid increase in the cost of fuel several years in advance, and they should have warned Carnival's management of it. Then management could have priced cruises in accordance with these expected increases and easily adjusted for them.

But now, it appears that what you have is either inefficient management ("we never saw this coming") or double dipping ("yeah, we saw this two years ago, and priced subsequent cruises accordingly, but hey ... we'll get an additional $5 per day out of passengers to further offset this increase ... and we'll actually put a few extra bucks into the company coffers that way.")

Either way, it just seems unfair to me. Yes, the cruise lines are playing fair in that they are allowing passengers to cancel without penalty even if they are within the penalty period. But then in another respect things aren't fair at all. If all the cruise lines are implementing this surcharge, then cruisers are left with little or no options. You either pay it or you don't cruise. Simple as that. Blue skies ...--rita

I spend a tremendous amount of time online and when I do this I am often listening to many corporate analyst and shareholder meeting calls, in the background. I can tell you that both Carnival and RCL have been considering fuel surcharges for the past 2 years. Given what they consume they know better than anyone what fuel costs and the increasing uncertainties with future costs.

The airlines were the first to assess fuel surcharges to tickets, back when. Crystal and Regent followed the airlines a few years ago and both recently increased their charges to $7.00 and $7.50, respectively.

Anyone who chooses to travel from point A to point B in anything that requires fuel, will pay more because fuel costs more. Anyone who buys product/food/service that requires fuel to transport it, will pay more for it.

The alternatives to passing on the cost of doing business, any business, would be to reduce the number of employees and/or reduce employee compensation and/or reduce the return on investment to shareholders, people just like you and me, that have a few $ stashed somewhere.

TANSTAAFL. (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.) We all however, have the choice to skip lunch.:)

[terrydtx]

I can not believe how much discussion there has been on this thread over a maximum surcharge of $70 per person for a 10 day or longer cruise. When you consider the average price of a cabin on a 10 day cruise of around $2000 this is a very insignificant amount of increase and a totally idiotic reason to cancel a booked cruise. The cost of gas for my work vehicles has increased by over a $100 a month and I am not going to park them and close down my business. I think some people in this forum are not happy unless they have some issue to complain about.:p :p

[Susie51]

I thought it was $5 instead of $7 a day. Stating it per day sounds cheaper than a $49 surcharge for the week. I wonder if it actually costs that much extra for the fuel or they making money on the surcharge. Although, it would be bad business to frequently increase the surcharge.

[hammybee]

Terrydtx,

The fuel surcharge noise on this board is rather insignificant compared to some other boards at CC and other online sites.

Cruising has been made afffordable for almost everyone, thanks to the incredibly low price of inside cabins and the magic of a credit card.

I have seen some quad cabins priced at less than $20 p/p per day on HAL and other mass marketed cruise lines. This price may represent a substantial portion of a passenger's current or in the case of credit cards, future disposable income. The fuel surcharge represents a significant increase in expense for some bookings.

Instead of reading about massive cancellations, I am reading more and more disturbing plans to stiff the crew on tips to offset the fuel surcharge. I am hoping that this is just a lot of people blowing off steam.

At the end of the day, the world is chock full of people who want more, sometimes substantially more, than they are willing or able to pay for. And some of these people are on every ship, every sailing, every day.

[hammybee]

$5 fuel surcharge p/p, per day, applied to first two pax/ $70 cap

Azamara
Carnival
Celebrity
Costa
Cunard
HAL
Princess
RCL
Seaborn

$7 surcharge p/p per day *
Crystal ( recent increase of former charge)
Oceania

$7 surcharge p/p per day, 3rd/4th pax $3 p/p per day
NCL

$7.50 surcharge p/p per day*
Regent ( recent increase of former charge)

$8.50 surcharge p/p per day*
Majestic
Windstar

$10 surcharge p/p per day*
Silversea

$12 surcharge p/p per day*
Cruise West

* Press releases did not make mention of a cap on charges

[terrydtx]

I thought it was $5 instead of $7 a day. Stating it per day sounds cheaper than a $49 surcharge for the week. I wonder if it actually costs that much extra for the fuel or they making money on the surcharge. Although, it would be bad business to frequently increase the surcharge.

I am sorry for my typo, it is $5 per day or $10 for 2 pax in one cabin per day and the max is capped at $70 for any cruise, A 10 day cruise for 2 people would be a $70 which makes it even more insignificant when compared to overall price of the cruise for 2.

[bicker]

Just one more note about forecasts: Most people were caught off-guard about the rise in fuel prices. Otherwise, you would have seen a lot more fuel price hedging last Spring, and you would have seen a big run-up in oil futures earlier in the year. The foundation for the surcharge was that the fuel price increase was unexpected. If, as was the case this time, the price increase is something that oil industry experts did not foresee, then it isn't reasonable to expect that cruise lines and airlines would have foreseen it.

[prescottbob]

HAL Announcement:

New Fuel Supplement


Because of the continuing rapid escalation of fuel prices, the North American brands of Carnival Corporation, including Holland America Line, have announced a fuel supplement of $5.00USD per passenger, per day, for all voyages departing on or after February 1, 2008.
The supplement applies to the first and second passengers in a stateroom up to a maximum of $70.00USD per person per voyage, for both new bookings and those that are currently under deposit or fully paid. We are in the process of contacting all existing bookings, most of which are outside of the cancellation period. Those within the cancellation fee period will be given five days to cancel without charge, after receipt of notification

Bon Voyage and Good Health!
Bob:)

[kryos]

TANSTAAFL. (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.) We all however, have the choice to skip lunch.:)
Agreed. However, what I am arguing is the ADDED charge. HAL saw this coming ... saw the increased fuel costs. Then why on earth didn't they price their cruises accordingly starting way back 2 years ago so as to absorb it? Why only now come back to passengers hat in hand and assess the added charge?

My concern is that they actually did see this coming, and adjusted pricing for it ... and are now still coming back for the added $5 per day per passenger ... in effect, double dipping.

I just don't think surcharges of any type are fair unless a situation is extremely unusual. For example a resort adding a special fee to compensate for expenses related to clean up after a major, major natural disaster ... something that it would have been really hard to forecast for. But something like fuel? No, the cruise lines, the airlines, and anyone else who uses a lot of fuel very easily saw this coming and I am sure they long ago adjusted for it. Now they are just adjusting again. And, we, the passengers, will pay.

You are right ... I could "skip lunch" and not pay it at all. But the cruise lines are smart. The surcharge is small enough that most cruisers won't forfeit their cruises for such a small amount of money. We'll just pay the $5 per day and forget about it. And that's exactly what Carnival Corporation is banking on.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[hammybee]

Agreed. However, what I am arguing is the ADDED charge. HAL saw this coming ... saw the increased fuel costs. Then why on earth didn't they price their cruises accordingly starting way back 2 years ago so as to absorb it? Why only now come back to passengers hat in hand and assess the added charge?

My concern is that they actually did see this coming, and adjusted pricing for it ... and are now still coming back for the added $5 per day per passenger ... in effect, double dipping. Blue skies ...--rita

Of course all the cruise lines saw it coming.

Mass market cruise lines know that passengers book by price on the hyper-competitive intineraries, Caribbean, Mexico and Alaska.

The cruise line with a price inconsistent with the competition is either going to sell out faster if priced less or sail with empty cabins if priced more. It's like the price wars between airlines, not too long ago.

I think the mass marketed cruise lines squeezed every drop of blood out of their unit cost to asorb the rising cost of fuel and waited till the 500 pound gorilla ( CCL) cried uncle.Within a week or so, the rest followed and leveled the playing field. And life goes on.

[Grumpy1]

Agreed. However, what I am arguing is the ADDED charge. HAL saw this coming ... saw the increased fuel costs. Then why on earth didn't they price their cruises accordingly starting way back 2 years ago so as to absorb it? Why only now come back to passengers hat in hand and assess the added charge?

My concern is that they actually did see this coming, and adjusted pricing for it ... and are now still coming back for the added $5 per day per passenger ... in effect, double dipping.

I just don't think surcharges of any type are fair unless a situation is extremely unusual. For example a resort adding a special fee to compensate for expenses related to clean up after a major, major natural disaster ... something that it would have been really hard to forecast for. But something like fuel? No, the cruise lines, the airlines, and anyone else who uses a lot of fuel very easily saw this coming and I am sure they long ago adjusted for it. Now they are just adjusting again. And, we, the passengers, will pay.

You are right ... I could "skip lunch" and not pay it at all. But the cruise lines are smart. The surcharge is small enough that most cruisers won't forfeit their cruises for such a small amount of money. We'll just pay the $5 per day and forget about it. And that's exactly what Carnival Corporation is banking on.

Blue skies ...

--ritaYou actually think that they saw an increase of this magnitude two years ago? GET REAL! If they had that kind of forecasting ability they would have locked up long term contracts at that time.

[cruisecrasy]

If we take an 11 day cruise we wld pay just the $70 total cap for 2 people but because it's a B2B - same 11 days of course, we have to pay 11 days total (4 days first segment & 7 days second) x 2 x $5 totalling $110.
Yet, the ship is using exactly the same amount of fuel as a straight 11 day cruise...!!!

How then is a further $40 surcharge justified except as a $ "GRAB'...??

I do not object to a fuel surcharge, I object to being 'squeezed' !!

[cruisecrasy]

You actually think that they saw an increase of this magnitude two years ago? GET REAL! If they had that kind of forecasting ability they would have locked up long term contracts at that time.

There have been warnings galore for years now that oil prices cld go to $100 or more per barrel.
Do u honestly think the cruiselines are run by 'dummies' who have no idea what is going on? Please...!

Why wld they lock in long-term contracts and risk being wrong and out of pocket, when they can simply, with no expense to themselves, do as 'kryos' states & levy a small fuel surcharge? This is a win-win for them, revenue coming in and no risk of losing with a fuel contract..

Most will pay & forget about it and likely won't even complain about it if fuel prices do drop but the fuel surcharge doesn't.

I agree with 'kryos' that the cruiselines are 'smart' and we tend, collectively, to get used to something and forget it and will this time also. Sad but true and something the cruiselines are 'banking' on.

Happy cruisin'!

[bicker]

There have been warnings galore for years now that oil prices cld go to $100 or more per barrel.For years? Yes:For many years. But like you said, the warnings were only about what could happen. The point is that no one could peg when the prices would jump. It could have happened last year; it could have happened in 2010. The timing of this increase was not foreseen (not even by some of the best oil industry investors), and that is why nothing in our society which was priced 18 months ago reflected that run-up in pricing, and why surcharges now are appropriate.

[terrydtx]

For years? Yes:For many years. But like you said, the warnings were only about what could happen. The point is that no one could peg when the prices would jump. It could have happened last year; it could have happened in 2010. The timing of this increase was not foreseen (not even by some of the best oil industry investors), and that is why nothing in our society which was priced 18 months ago reflected that run-up in pricing, and why surcharges now are appropriate.

Thank you Bicker, finally a voice of reason! How could anyone forecast $100+per barrel oil costs. And no fuel supplier is going to give a 2 year contract for fuel oil purchases to a cruise line and guarantee prices either as some have suggested. Cruise prices are published and cruises are booked in many cases 18 - 24 months out and being able to forecast prices in fuel in this volatile market are almost impossible and not in control of the cruise companies. Surcharges are the only way to make up for shortfalls in revenue due to unforecastable cost increases. Our cruise this week on the Volendam has had 2 port fee increases of about $35 since we booked last year due to Panama Canal transit cost increases, I didn’t see anyone objecting to those. For receiving products I sell in my business freight companies have been charging fuel surcharges for several years do I refuse to pay them, well I could but then I would have no products to sell and be out of business. If you do not like the very little and insignificant $5 per day surcharge from HAL don’t go on a cruise go somewhere else by plane or car, but wait that plane trip will have a fuel surcharge too and you may be paying $4 a gallon for gas in your car. I still contend than some people in this forum are not happy unless they have some issue to complain about.:p :p

[gizmo]

I still contend than some people in this forum are not happy unless they have some issue to complain about.:p :p

Is it really necessary to get snarky with those that don't agree ?