Price fixing by HAL and others

[localady]

One has to wonder whether the cruise lines, including the Carnival family, may be involved in price fixing in announcing that they will be "leveling the playing field" by eliminating rebates and penalizing those agents and agencies that offer lower prices???

Unless I am missing something, it sure sounds like the 2 major players in the cruise industry are possibly "price fixing", a practice that has been ruled illegal before. It seems anti-competitive at best, and can only lead to higher prices for all cruisers. :(

If I am missing the point, would someone enlighten me as to how this is not possible price fixing given the 2 companies (RCCL and Carnival) clearly hold very large shares of the U.S. cruise industry. Granted I am not an expert in anti-trust, but from what I can see, it sure seems improper at best, illegal at worst.:eek: I am thinking of writing to the Attorney General here in our fair State to request they look into the possible anti-trust violations, as both companies do business here.

I look forward to your comments and interpretations!!:cool:

[smeyer418]

here is a fairly extensive discussion of the issue(by me). Anti-trust is very fact specific. There are announce differences that would absent a true agreement between any of them negate an anti-trust violation. BTW accusing someone of an anti-trust violation is libel. Its ok to ask I wonder if they are ... but be careful about accusing someone of being an anti-trust violator. The fact that they are the biggest doesn't make them a monoply with so many other independent cruise lines...both foreign and domestic.

didn't fall asleep in law school and have made a number of successful anti-trust complaints in my days(the podiatrists in Wisconsin should remember me). I have done this in numerous states and with the feds in health care related matters and have I think a fairly good(not necessarily great) understanding of most anti-trust issues. Since no one player here controls the relevant market to more than 20%, there is really little monopolistic power on any one player. There are just too many cruiselines for any one to have monoply power. I find it very interesting that the Carnival discussion clearly indicates that unadvertised discounting will be allowed and that Celebrity/RCCI seems not to. That alone would be a substantial difference idicative of the fact that they did not collude. There is no anti-trust issue (NONE) about a supplier setting a uniform price that it will sell its product. There is no anti-trust issue for a principal telling its agent what price to sell something. This is the vertical integration rule that means that it is only one entity setting the price. Anti-trust activity(as opposed to anti-competive one) requires collusion between two entites. An entity can't collude with it self. It is merely setting a price. However when one sells to an independent distributor(as opposed to making them your agent for a set percentage of what is sold on the retail level) you may NOT tell that independent person what price they can sell the goods or service at. This is true whether its GM, coke pepsi etc. You may have already seen my discussion about how this is one entity- the cruise line and the travel agent and I won't repeat that here. This isn't Microsoft who controls 80% + of the operating system and bundled something that prevents other sellers from selling at all. Its a cruise line with less than 10% of the market. Notice that Carnival was careful not to do this accross all its lines. I did discuss the concept of selling blocks of rooms. When a cruise line does that and then tries to control the price those rooms are sold at, it in my view is treading on thin ice. Fair trade laws controlling manufacturers prices don't exist. And the person who mentioned Saturn should look at the Saturn website where it says it doesn't control price. The no haggling rule means that they have to put their best price and not negotiate. Since that is a branding quality issue and not a price one its not an anti-trust issue(sometimes the law is blind). So I don't see an anti-trust issue yet. But if the cruise lines through winks and secret handshakes have set thisw up as a trial balloon and then will all follow suit that clearly would be a violation. While the demise of the travel agent has been forecast for years, that business like all business, must change with increasingly difficult time and I look forward to buying you that drink...if I am wrong. enough legal nonsense already I need a drink...

[localady]

SMeyer-
My intent was not to libel anyone. My intent was to bring this up as a question. Frankly I believe there are some first amendment rights left! To appease the lawyers in the crowd I will be happy to rephase it as a question, but I think it is a reasonable topic for discussion here. Thank you for your comments.:cool:

[SueSea]

The cruise lines are outlawing the advertising of travel agent discounts, not the practice of giving discounts. Travel agents are free to rebate any or all of their commission or offer other discounts. I don't see how price fixing can apply.

[smeyer418]

I wasn't stifling yoiur free speech. The internet in general makes people sometimes careless on what they say. The simpliest and non threatening example is saying the a cruise line is going bankrupt. It can hurt their business and put them out of business. In that case the cruiseline has to prove that you damaged them. and people have sued and won large judgements when someone says something like that and does hurt the business. Anyone can ask a question but if someone says its antitrust you are accusing them of violating the law. The first amendment allows you political free speech but libel is not protected. I just though some of the more careless among us should remember to be careful of accusing someone of a criminal act. Al Taubman went to jail for an anti-trust violation and people have been threatened by other posters on CC for less. If I was insensitive in pointing this out to you, I apologize.

Suesea you need to read some of the RCCI threads,(here is the thread http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=67050 ) a travel agent there reported that at a meeting with RCCI, they said all rebating was prohibited. This is the major difference between the RCCI announcement and that of Carnival

[localady]

My intention was not to libel anyone, rather it was to actually to see others opinions on the matter. My post was meant to be phased as a question, as I am not a practicing lawyer and truly I was just interested in other cruisers opinions. I take no offense to what you said S Meyer, and I appreciate your comments. It seems to be a fine line between freedom of speech in this case and libel, but my INTENT was truly to pose the question. Clearly my intent was to promote a discussion, not to libel any company.

Is posing a question also libelous? I ask this as I am not an attorney (although I did work with them for 25 years:eek: ). :cool:

[smeyer418]

posing a question is generally not libel. You are not stating a fact. by the way if you say in my opinion and give the facts that generally can't be libel either.....

[Krazy Kruizers]

:)

All I know is that for evey cruise we have booked for next year, the prices have gone up. So people booking those cruises, they won't be able to get the lower prices as it looks like there won't be any reductions offered. :(

Also remember that in the last couple of years the airlines have cut their commisions to TA's.

Will the cruise lines soon to follow and cut their commisions??? :confused:

A lot to think about!

:)

[elmorejj]

I remember when TAs got 20% commission on cruises, but now, according to my invoices they get 15%. I guess its already starting to come down......jean :cool:

[Krazy Kruizers]

:)

Jean - You are right on that!

Right after 9/11 our TA told us that she was getting a cut in commisions from the cruise lines then.

:)

[Bill S]

localady: just a point of clarification with a view to helping you understand and NOT to criticize you--- the first amendment precludes GOVERNMENTAL restrictions on speech-it simply does not restrict private action by someone like the owners from this board from deleting a post, etc. That is just an example--I am not even remotely suggesting that such happent to your post. Perhaps a better example is what happened to Whoopi Goldberg after her controvesial comments about President Bush--she was canned by the diet product company for whom she was doing ads-the First Amendment did not protect her-it did not apply. Libel is also not protected by the First Amendment.

I re-read your post and while it is fair to question someone's or some entity's actions, it is safer, legally to frame potentially or borderline libelous statements in the form of an opinion. For many years here in Vegas, we had a very colorful, vocal and highly opinionated, now-deceased, deli owner who had several prominent signs in his restaurant stating his "opinion" about various individuals and companies-I'm not aware that he was every sued for libel.

I'd hate for anyone here to be receive any cease and desist letter from a cruiseline or from anyone else, for that matter. Ask for the inquiry from your state AG, but state your concerns in the form of an opinion, to be safe! How's that for a legal tip of the day???

[Nasmas]

I've been wondering about all those discount agencies, too. It is my opinion and someone tell me if I'm wrong that the ones with the cheaper prices work on a smaller commission. Is that right or do the cruise give some companies better prices. I see some advertising 'cheapest price on the internet' when they are not the cheapest. That is not exactly the point of this discussion but I've seen some posters slamming the cruise lines for giving online agents cheaper prices than local TAs. I have always thought the locals most of which are small independents couldn't work on such a small profit.
I really think this price fixing or whatever it may be called, will mean a bigger bottom line for all of us. But, maybe if the prices do go back up, we'll have the same service we used to get when everyone was paying top dollar for the best cruises.

[jazzsea]

Scroll down to "Cruise Discount Article" posted by TedC.

I think my response for number 23. If I could figure out how to copy that repay and past it on this thread I would do it.

[localady]

Thanks again for all of your responses!! As I said previously, I truly was posing a question, and had hoped for a dialogue regarding the question. Thanks again for your responses and Carol, I will review your response in the other post!:cool:

[HeatherInFlorida]

....I am thinking of writing to the Attorney General here in our fair State to request they look into the possible anti-trust violations, as both companies do business here.I cannot believe the response to this innocent statement!!! There is no accusation here which is why I have quoted it above. Localady clearly says she is "thinking of writing"....look into the "possible"..... There is no libel there. She clearly says she doesn't know whether there are any violations and was looking for comments, etc.

Everyone should ease up on her for heaven's sake.

As to the rest of it, discount cruising will continue. From what I understand the cruiselines are simply saying they do not want to see those prices "advertised". But beyond that any agency can charge whatever they want for a cruise.

[HeatherInFlorida]

Scroll down to "Cruise Discount Article" posted by TedC.

I think my response for number 23. If I could figure out how to copy that repay and past it on this thread I would do it.
Carol, I'm sure there are other ways but you can copy your previous post into an email to yourself. And then copy that email into a post of this thread. I'd do it for you, but that doesn't seem quite right for some reason:)

[localady]

Heather-

Thanks for the vote of confidence!! I worked in the land of sharks:eek: (hehe:D ) for many years, so I understand the nature of this litigious society. Somehow the reality is that no company would want to come after me, as you can't squeeze blood from a turnip!:D I am wealthy, but that wealth is in the form of wonderful memories and friendships!:cool:

[SueSea]

Suesea you need to read some of the RCCI threads,(here is the thread http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=67050 ) a travel agent there reported that at a meeting with RCCI, they said all rebating was prohibited.
I have read many threads on this subject (it's hard to miss them!). In addition to the agent you quote, there are others who have called RCI directly and gotten the opposite information. But while RCI's policy is unclear, Carnival's is not. Their CEO stated in their press release that agents are free to offer discounts, they just cannot advertise them. So I will amend my statement--Carnival is not price fixing, but the jury is still out on RCI.

[smeyer418]

still wouldn't be price fixing but I don't want to get into that issue again....did you see the actual RCCI announcement?

[Randyk47]

Pardon my ignorance but wouldn't it be price fixing only if two or more of the separate cruiselines got together and set a price for say all 7 day cruises? Seems to me that a company can set the price, within the company only which I suppose could include all of the Carnival companies, and be perfectly legal. Certainly Sony, Nikon, etc., do this with their products and I don't know of any cases where they've been charged with price fixing and been found quilty. :confused:

[smeyer418]

yes if the lines(seperately owned) agreed to same price that would clearly be an agreement in restrait of trade but that is not what happened here. each announced a policy concerning rebating. The fact that they did it at roughly the same time is troubling but not conclusive. BTW it would be illegal if two or more independently owned cruise lines agreed not to deal with rebaters. You can buy Nikon all the above for much less than MSRP. It is troubling by assuming that they independently came to this conclusion its not the same as Nikon etc- why you ask because Nikon sales it products to a disributor(or retailer), Travel agents don't buy the product and resell it. They are agents selling for a principal- big difference. But I don't want to go through this again. On another thread, they have sent notices to the FTC let's see how the FTC responds.