tacky or not?

[Lookingforfacts]

Sigh...Princess didn't keep the $2. It paid the entire $50 baggage fee to the claims processing company. If one wants to argue that Princess should have paid the claims processing agent $52 so that the passenger received their entire $50 reimbursement, then fine. Frankly, that is probably the right solution. But don't be fooled into thinking that Princess "kept" any part of this fee and in so doing, profitted in any way.

 

Garbage. Princess agreed to refund to the OP the $50 baggage fee. The fact that it costs Princess more then $50 to process the transaction is irrelevant. It's irrelevant if Princess used its own employees or outsourced the processing. It's not a matter of "keeping the fee". The issue is Princess reducing the amount of the refund by the cost of processing it.

 

Do you really think Princess told the OP something like Don't worry. We'll give $50 to fulfillment vendor and you'll get a % of that. Princess agreed to reimburse $50 and that's exactly how much money the OP should have received.

 

Princess increased their profits, or decreased their losses, by $2.

[S.S.Oceanlover]

at least they outsourced to a U.S. company.:D

 

Bill

[JimmyVWine]

Princess agreed to reimburse $50 and that's exactly how much money the OP should have received.

Not disputing that one bit. But Princess didn't cook up this scheme to put $4,000 in its pocket.

 

The passenger is out $2.00. Princess is out $50.00. The airline got its $50.00. And the processing company made $2.00. So who profited? The processing company. That is undeniable. The same $2.00 cannot be used to show a profit for two different entities. To complete the circle, Princess should have paid $52. So it didn't pay as much as it should have. But to say that someone who doesn't pay as much as they should have "made a profit" is like saying that you "make a profit" when a store has a sale. No. You simply do not spend as much as you otherwise would have, which is very different from making a profit.

 

You go to the store expecting to pay $50 for a pair of shoes that you saw the week before. You have $60 in your wallet. The store is having a sale and now the shoes are $40. You saved $10 over your expected purchase price. You go home with a pair of shoes and $20 in your wallet instead of a pair of shoes and $10 in your wallet. You saved money and did not spend as much as you thought you were going to. But you haven't made a profit. In order to make a profit, you have to end with more than you started with.

 

profit (prof-it): the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions. The execess of the selling price of goods over their cost.

 

What Princess did is called "cutting itself a good bargain at the expense of the passenger". But a "good bargain" and a "profit" are very different.

[DGNY]

profit (prof-it): the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions. The execess of the selling price of goods over their cost.

 

Princess reduced their expenditure/costs, therefore increasing their profits.

[Lookingforfacts]

Utter rubbish. Princess promised to reimburse the passenger $50. Princess did not. That's not "cutting a good bargain". That's fraud. OK the dollar amount may not qualify as fraud but that's exactly what was done.

 

A company outsources service, in part, because the other company can do it cheaper then they can do it in house. That means the first company increases their profit because their costs have been reduced. Of course the outsourcing company hopes to make a profit as well.

 

Princess is trying to profit by transferring (at least) some of the costs of issuing the refund from Princess to the passenger. Using a third party makes it easier to attempt to justify the action.

 

You want a retail example. The store is selling shoes for $40. I give the sales clerk $38 and walk out of the store. I assume the store isn't going to bother calling security or taking other action of just $2.

 

 

 

 

 

Not disputing that one bit. But Princess didn't cook up this scheme to put $4,000 in its pocket.

 

The passenger is out $2.00. Princess is out $50.00. The airline got its $50.00. And the processing company made $2.00. So who profited? The processing company. That is undeniable. The same $2.00 cannot be used to show a profit for two different entities. To complete the circle, Princess should have paid $52. So it didn't pay as much as it should have. But to say that someone who doesn't pay as much as they should have "made a profit" is like saying that you "make a profit" when a store has a sale. No. You simply do not spend as much as you otherwise would have, which is very different from making a profit.

 

You go to the store expecting to pay $50 for a pair of shoes that you saw the week before. You have $60 in your wallet. The store is having a sale and now the shoes are $40. You saved $10 over your expected purchase price. You go home with a pair of shoes and $20 in your wallet instead of a pair of shoes and $10 in your wallet. You saved money and did not spend as much as you thought you were going to. But you haven't made a profit. In order to make a profit, you have to end with more than you started with.

 

profit (prof-it): the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions. The execess of the selling price of goods over their cost.

 

What Princess did is called "cutting itself a good bargain at the expense of the passenger". But a "good bargain" and a "profit" are very different.

[pablo222]

That does not follow at all. By paying $50 instead of $52 to the processing agent, Princess did not incur as much cost as it otherwise would have. But to suggest that it profited somehow is just wrong. Not losing money is not the same as making money.

 

Seems like a childish point.

 

But, if you prefer, Princess 'benefited' by having the customer

essentially pay the cost of processing the reimbursement.

 

And, you say that this cost princess $50.

It probably didn't, as they have insurance.

[kpgibbs]

Here is another way to think about it. If Princess charged several passengers $2.00, that could add up quick. Therefore making money back for what they refunded.

[S.S.Oceanlover]

Just an update.

 

While I never pursued this any further today i received a check for the $2 processing fee they charged on the initial refund check.

 

Bill

[Nomsayin]

S The next time you cruise, bring on a bottle of water onboard instead of buying one of their bottles and you've got them back. :D

 

Or, buy one of their bottles, but then then refill it. That way you avoid the risk of incurring another baggage fee for excess weight;)

[PescadoAmarillo]

Princess, understanding that their check writing service was goin to charge a $2 fee, should have submitted a request to them for a $52 reimbursement.

[S.S.Oceanlover]

Or, buy one of their bottles, but then then refill it. That way you avoid the risk of incurring another baggage fee for excess weight;)

 

who incurred a baggage fee for excess weight?

 

Bill

 

 

 

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Nomsayin]

who incurred a baggage fee for excess weight?

 

Bill

 

 

Sorry, should have said "an excess baggage fee."

[Gay Cruiser]

Two Dollars per passanger, times number of passangers, times the several times a year this sort of thing happens, all add's up soon it's what they call in Washington D.C. REAL MONEY!

[WeBeGone]

Just an update.

 

While I never pursued this any further today i received a check for the $2 processing fee they charged on the initial refund check.

 

Bill

 

Good for Princess.

[S.S.Oceanlover]

Good for Princess.

 

and today while checking my bank statement the $2.00 check was returned from the bank and $2 amount deducted from my account. lol

 

no reason given

 

Too funny!:p

 

Bill

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

and today while checking my bank statement the $2.00 check was returned from the bank and $2 amount deducted from my account. lol

 

no reason given

 

Too funny!:p

 

Bill

 

This situation is well beyond tacky at this point!

[donaldsc]

I agree - incredibly tacky. Is it worth loosing sleep over - certainly not. Is it worth spending a bit of time nagging Princess and trying to get the money back - just because it will probably cost Princess $50 because of bureaucracy to refund your $2 - I would try it.

 

What I sometimes do when I am annoyed at a company and I owe them a balance on something is to write them a check for 10 cents less than the amount owed or 10 cents more than the amount owed. In the first case, they send me a whole bunch of "please pay" letters before I respond by sending them a check for 5 cents. In the second case, I call customer service, tell them that I made a mistake in paying the bill and ask them to send me a refund. Neither action takes any time by me and it does make me feel better.

 

DON

[ONT-CA]

The original posting asked our opinion of the actions of Princess in charging her a $2.00 fee for processing a warranted refund. The Op called it tacky. It was not the value but the action and tacky to me is too kind a word. But of most importance I wonder if the good folk at Princess know of how much PR damage this trifle amount is costing them? That's where the real value of their action lies.

[critterchick]

and today while checking my bank statement the $2.00 check was returned from the bank and $2 amount deducted from my account. lol

 

no reason given

 

Too funny!:p

 

Bill

 

I hope you weren't charged a $20 (or more) returned check fee!:eek:

 

Having read of the additional refund, I think it was an oversight, therefore not tacky. ;). They at least tried to make it right...

[S.S.Oceanlover]

I hope you weren't charged a $20 (or more) returned check fee!:eek:

 

Having read of the additional refund, I think it was an oversight, therefore not tacky. ;). They at least tried to make it right...

 

Yes I agree they did try to make it right.

 

Wouldn't the person who wrote the check get the overdraft charge?

 

In any case I was not charged anything additional.

 

I am not following you though on the Oversite part:confused:

 

Bill

[angelsx4]

I think it's pretty tacky of them. Those little errors make the company look greedy. We were on a recent cruise that I'm pretty sure Princess also lost money on due to an entire load of luggage being put on the wrong ship. I ran into 1 person who didn't seem to care one bit that our little mini vacation was ruined. We were compensated, but looking back now, I think we're owed more. Even though yours is only $2, it could be a lot more for them if someone reads this and decides not to book with them.

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

Yes I agree they did try to make it right.

 

Wouldn't the person who wrote the check get the overdraft charge?

In any case I was not charged anything additional.

 

I am not following you though on the Oversite part:confused:

 

Bill

 

Some banks do have a returned item fee to the depositing customer. I'm glad you didn't incur any additional expense.

 

This $2 isn't "no biggie" or "not worth complaining over." If that were the case, the processing company wouldn't be so insistent on keeping it for themselves.

[Level six]

I love topics like this........everyone is so passionate. It made my day so much better just reading all the posts. Passion is alive and well:D

[S.S.Oceanlover]

Once I receive the $48 I was not really upset about the two dollars but it was the principle of the thing.

 

At this point is just humorous to me.

 

Bill

[S.S.Oceanlover]

and finally I received a letter that I had to pickup at the post office and sign for that cost the bank $5.75 telling me that they couldn't process the $2 check.

 

Putting it through the shredder now.

 

 

Bill