Royal Carribean no longer to allow discounted cruises

[Brad1185]

I went to the RCI web site and priced a cruise on the Nav, 10/2 inside, cat L and then compared the price on cruise411.com. Cruise411.com was $157.00 lower, which was thier discount. I called cruise411 and said, true they cannot advertise a lower price, but once you get into their system, they can set the final price.

[MattInFLL]

smeyer, you are correct, I am wrong in my terminology, and I will stop using that phrase. There is no collusion among the cruise lines. However I do stand by my basic point. And I think the cruise line will try to do whatever it thinks it can get away with, especially in something that is such a grey area. I have overseen channel sales of commodities, and as the manufacturer if a distributor wanted to sell our product below the price we sold it to them for, that was their right. However stupid a business practice that would be for the distributor, we could not set the final price in the marketplace. In such a situation we could have penalized the distributor by changing their terms, or even just stopped selling to them. But not selling to a distributor would have taken the most egregious acts, because after all, we needed the distributors... And I suppose RCI could do the same to an agency. But RCI is trying to tell the marketplace what price their product will be and how the agencies must run their businesses. And frankly they are really saying is, do we really need you, the travel agent, much longer? Their should be plenty of red flags in that.

 

Mr. Russo speaks to his profitability being so wonderful. And it's about to get more wonderful, at least in terms of their RCI/Celebrity business. So I don't expect them to be very motivated to speak to just how anti consumer these changes are or to do much about it.

 

But mark my words, it will bite them in the *ss in the long term. I certainly wouldn't start a travel agency right now.

[bUU]

actually bicker, you are the one running around claiming price fixing and that this is what RCL is guilty of.

You're clearly confusing me with some other poster. I've been saying the exact opposite.

[jagmanss1]

smeyer, you are correct, I am wrong in my terminology, and I will stop using that phrase. There is no collusion among the cruise lines. However I do stand by my basic point. And I think the cruise line will try to do whatever it thinks it can get away with, especially in something that is such a grey area. I have overseen channel sales of commodities, and as the manufacturer if a distributor wanted to sell our product below the price we sold it to them for, that was their right. However stupid a business practice that would be for the distributor, we could not set the final price in the marketplace. In such a situation we could have penalized the distributor by changing their terms, or even just stopped selling to them. But not selling to a distributor would have taken the most egregious acts, because after all, we needed the distributors... And I suppose RCI could do the same to an agency. But RCI is trying to tell the marketplace what price their product will be and how the agencies must run their businesses. And frankly they are really saying is, do we really need you, the travel agent, much longer? Their should be plenty of red flags in that.

 

Mr. Russo speaks to his profitability being so wonderful. And it's about to get more wonderful, at least in terms of their RCI/Celebrity business. So I don't expect them to be very motivated to speak to just how anti consumer these changes are or to do much about it.

 

But mark my words, it will bite them in the *ss in the long term. I certainly wouldn't start a travel agency right now.

Well said, Could not agree more...... Especially your last comment..........

[rsinj]

I know it for a fact. and you note that I dont use the term "due respect" because in general when people say that they are neither given you your due or any respect. Any manufacturer that sells through distributors or retailers they don't own cannot set prices

and, I know of a manufacturer who has it as part of their reseller agreement a clause similar to what RCI is doing. if they catch the reseller selling below a certain price, they will stop selling the reseller the product and they will terminate the authorization to resell their product. they are protecting their brand from becoming cheapened. the logic is the same as RCI, and they are well within their rights to do so.

 

so, what you know for a fact isn't quite true - at least in this instance, now is it?

 

and drop the attitude. some people - you try to be nice and look what you get.

[smeyer418]

I am sorry but in the US that is illegal. That is different from what RCCI is doing because they use agents. I think you should check YOUR attitude, By the way from what law school is your law degree? and in what states are you admitted to practice. Let me know which manufacturer does that and I will be happy to file a complaint with the FTC on them.

 

This is from the FTC website

 

Vertical agreements between buyers and sellers

 

Certain kinds of agreements between parties in a buyer-seller relationship, such as a retailer who buys from a manufacturer, also are illegal. Price-related agreements are presumed to be violations, but antitrust authorities view most non-price agreements with less suspicion because many have valid business justifications.

 

Resale price maintenance agreements. Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation. It also is illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to agree on a minimum resale price.

[beachchick]

I don't want to get into the middle of a legal debate. I just have a question. Several posters have referred to TAs who book RCI cruises for passengers as "their" (RCI's) agents. Aren't TAs, except the ones who work directly for RCI, independent contractors? How can so many posters think that TAs "work" for RCI? Unless they are employees of RCI, they don't work for RCI and can't be called "agents" of RCI can they? Do they actually have written contracts with the various cruise lines? (Please don't slam me--I really do want to know.)

 

beachchick

[bUU]

Keep in mind that TAs do not buy cruises, and therefore are not resellers. That whole aspect of the law doesn't generally apply to cruises.

[smeyer418]

I don't want to get into the middle of a legal debate. I just have a question. Several posters have referred to TAs who book RCI cruises for passengers as "their" (RCI's) agents. Aren't TAs, except the ones who work directly for RCI, independent contractors? How can so many posters think that TAs "work" for RCI? Unless they are employees of RCI, they don't work for RCI and can't be called "agents" of RCI can they? Do they actually have written contracts with the various cruise lines? (Please don't slam me--I really do want to know.)

 

beachchick

 

 

Yes you are right they are not employees of the cruise line(and most TA's are IC's even within the Travel Agency). However you can still be an agent without being an employee. Insurance agents are generally not employees of the insurance company in most cases and yet they are agents. However in the sense that they provide a service to the cruise line they "work " for the cruise line. I don't believe any cruise line pays a TA unless there is a written agreement between the TA and the cruise line. While you are also right that they are independent contractors they are still travel "agents". You don't need to be an employee to bind a principal and the anti-trust analysis doesn't change as they are not resellers(except for the cases where they buy blocks of rooms and then "resell" them-in that case they are acting as a principal) since they never "own" the product/service although they do "own" the booking. No intent to flame you its a good question(IMO). In rethinking some of this as we lawyers always do, if the cruise line sells groups rooms to a TA and then the TA resells them, I would bet the cruise line takes the position that this is just a multiple transaction and not a sale/resale, so that they would claim no anti-trust violation takes place when they fix a minimum price by directing their agent not to sell below a minimum amount but as I further mentioned there are also some differences between selling a service as opposed to a product(the cruise being a service and not a product).

 

Final point I should have said above that in my opinion it violates the law. When you graduate from law school, they don't give you a crystal ball and there also may be some facts or law that I may be unaware of. Hey in most cases even the Supremes have a desent. Also the reason I don't use "due respect" is listed above. I also said that IN MOST CASES when the termis used its really not meant to convey respect, however I didn't mean to imply that it was used in a negative way in the post above.

[bUU]

There are really a single question with respect to agency. Is there an agreement between the cruise line and the TA to bestow agency on the TA? You can't accidentally allow someone to be your agent -- you have to empower them to make commitments for you. Regardless of how TAs distort their place in the system, if the TAs aren't granted agency, then they're not agents.

[smeyer418]

haven't you seen the movie the "the accidental agent"? I am sure that there are some agents out there who for some reason or other don't have a written contract- either some form of grandfathering issue or because they said they would do it later or some other reason. While I generally would agree that agency implies a written agreement, I am sure there are some circumstances that can have someone be an agent without a written agreement(including agency by estoppel but I refuse to explain that one :) ) but you are diffently right they need an enforceable contract(written, oral or implied)

 

Thanks Bicker at least you let me start this with a joke :)