How much money do you think they got?

[shepp]

Your analogy is again way off-target. The transaction isn't "post" until you board the cruise ship, and SURELY isn't any where near "post" until the cruise cannot be canceled without penalty.

 

 

OK, well, I used the gas station analogy because the poster I was replying to mentioned petrol prices. But - just so everyone is happy - let's try this. You go to macys.com, order French perfume, which is immediately billed to your credit card and will be shipped, you're told, in 3 days. The next day, Macy's gets in touch and tells you, in view of the continuing drop of the dollar, that you have the choice of either paying whatever surcharge they determine or getting your money back and not getting what you ordered. Better?

 

(And do we all think that sort of thing's a common business practice? The only times I'm aware of prices commonly being upped post-payment is when the original price was obviously posted in error...and even so, sellers such as airlines have sometimes stuck by an original, ridiculously low price.)

 

OK, I'm not sure just why having a precise analogy is so important, but we aim to please.

 

Honestly - and I know that this is just subjective li'l me - I feel like I'm being laid into for challenging the Divine Right of Corporations. Ah well...

[RuthC]

because a company can legally do something, that doesn't mean they have to do it. Carnival/HAL had the choice, like other lines, of only applying the charge to new bookings. They chose not to do so.

They also chose not to apply the surcharge to bookings within the final payment period---which they also had every right to do.

From the time I first sailed HAL, which was 1978, I knew that they had the right to increase the fare right up to the point of boarding. So, this is not a new concept. The fact that HAL has not, until now, increased prices once booked means they have tried very hard to keep to the spirit of the contract. This time they had to go with the letter of it. Our luck ran out after a very long run.

The passengers have done well.

[CDRMark]

OK, well, I used the gas station analogy because the poster I was replying to mentioned petrol prices. But - just so everyone is happy - let's try this. You go to macys.com, order French perfume, which is immediately billed to your credit card and will be shipped, you're told, in 3 days. The next day, Macy's gets in touch and tells you, in view of the continuing drop of the dollar, that you have the choice of either paying whatever surcharge they determine or getting your money back and not getting what you ordered. Better?

 

(And do we all think that sort of thing's a common business practice? The only times I'm aware of prices commonly being upped post-payment is when the original price was obviously posted in error...and even so, sellers such as airlines have sometimes stuck by an original, ridiculously low price.)

 

OK, I'm not sure just why having a precise analogy is so important, but we aim to please.

 

Honestly - and I know that this is just subjective li'l me - I feel like I'm being laid into for challenging the Divine Right of Corporations. Ah well...

Precise analogies are important because comparing apples to elephants is a waste of time.

The perfume analogy only works if one adds that the seller tells you at the time of sale that the price may go up and you may be liable for more cash outlay. So few of us actually READ the volumes of stuff we agree to...

 

This discussion/debate is healthy and interesting, but does it in fact rest on a canard if not a fallacy? What evidence is there that a "large number" of cruisers are really upset? Anecdotal? How many cancellations/evil missives have the lines gotten? Someone put a poll together, and remember what a small sample we are. Unless you have a grasshopper in the back forty, pretty much "everyone" is aware of the rise in petrol prices and not happy about it.

Cheers

Mark

[bUU]

OK, well, I used the gas station analogy because the poster I was replying to mentioned petrol prices. But - just so everyone is happy - let's try this. You go to macys.com, order French perfume, which is immediately billed to your credit card and will be shipped, you're told, in 3 days. The next day, Macy's gets in touch and tells you, in view of the continuing drop of the dollar, that you have the choice of either paying whatever surcharge they determine or getting your money back and not getting what you ordered. Better?

Almost: Just add in the part about when you purchasing the perfume you agreed to terms and conditions including the provision that they can surcharge based on an unexpected run-up in the price of the commodity.

 

OK, I'm not sure just why having a precise analogy is so important

Because if an analogy isn't precise, then it doesn't apply.

[George W. Bush]

Principle requires respect for the agreement you entered into, and that agreement included provisions for the surcharging. So no, it is not the principle.

 

There are things that companies ought not to do, even if they contractually allowed to do so. I am allowed to remove the auto tips and not tip my waiter and stewards, but it would be kind of nasty wouldn't it?

 

Just because the company is allowed to do it doesn't make it right Bicker, and I think that is a fundamental difference of opinion between us.

 

What evidence is there that a "large number" of cruisers are really upset? Anecdotal? [/Quote] In truth, even less than that, it is merely my belief that many people are going be annoyed at what they might perceive as being "nickeled and dimed". Will many people cancel their cruise? Probably not, again if I were to guess. Are some going to go home and feel that maybe cruising isn't the deal they thought it was, given all the "Nickel and diming" the company does and choose a difference type of vacation next time . . . well that's the thread!

[CDRMark]

Snip.... I am allowed to remove the auto tips and not tip my waiter and stewards, but it would be kind of nasty wouldn't it?

Snip....

Not if they deserved it, it wouldn't....

The circumstance under which that example would occur is also rare, thankfully. Doesn't mean that it might not be a valid course of action.

Cheers

Mark

[Fairport]

Cruise Ships depending upon size will use up to 200 gallons of fuel per nautical mile, which at todays fuel prices will cost the cruiseline up to $250,000 per week. Two thousand passengers paying an extra $5.00 per day covers $70,000 of that cost. Just about what the increase in fuel costs have been in the last year.

[bUU]

There are things that companies ought not to do, even if they contractually allowed to do so.

Yet who decides what those things are and aren't? The reality is that our society does, and this is not one of the things companies "shouldn't" do.

 

I am allowed to remove the auto tips and not tip my waiter and stewards, but it would be kind of nasty wouldn't it?

We're having this discussion on the Disney boards this month: The automatic gratuities are now being applied to groups six and larger, instead of eight and larger. Again, society decides whether this is or isn't one of the things that companies ought not to do, and the reality is that isn't one of them either.

 

Again, neither is my preference. I'm just talking hard, cold reality.

 

Just because the company is allowed to do it doesn't make it right Bicker

And just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong, George.

 

and I think that is a fundamental difference of opinion between us.

No, the difference of opinion is that I acknowledge that society's principles don't necessarily match my personal preferences. And based on what you say below, you know that they don't match your personal preference either, even though you don't acknowledge it:

 

Will many people cancel their cruise? Probably not, again if I were to guess.

Talk (chat) is cheap. If you want to know what people really think, watch what they do with their money.

[hammybee]

dupe

[hammybee]

This discussion/debate is healthy and interesting, but does it in fact rest on a canard if not a fallacy? What evidence is there that a "large number" of cruisers are really upset? Anecdotal? How many cancellations/evil missives have the lines gotten? Someone put a poll together, and remember what a small sample we are. Unless you have a grasshopper in the back forty, pretty much "everyone" is aware of the rise in petrol prices and not happy about it. Cheers Mark

 

Someone did a poll a few weeks ago. I am too lazy to locate it buried in a thread, I think. Anyway, based on the grains of sand or is that salt, that we represent, only a few posters said they were going to cancel because of the surcharge. At least one of them, chose to do so, for reasons that had nothing to do with the surcharge and all to do with being able to obtain a once in a lifetime refund of the HALL CCP.

[hammybee]

Again, neither is my preference. I'm just talking hard, cold reality.

 

You're an animal, Bicker. :)

[bUU]

Rowl! ;)

[Stevesan]

And was it worth it?

 

How much money do you think HAL got by increasing the fares of customers who already paid by adding the fuel surcharge? Its one thing to increase the cost for customers who hadn't paid yet (and thus knew up front what the cost of the cruise would be) , but do you think the money they got from the pre-existing customers was worth alienating and aggravating thousands of customers?

 

In other words, do you think that $5 per day x 7 days per person was worth pissing off a percentage of their customer base?

 

 

It has been my experience that many people become disproportionately angry over small things. HAL will receive just a small increase in revenue for the sailings, but I suspect many people will remember the surcharge with a great deal of anger.

 

What do you think?

 

Those people will find something to piss them off, I guarantee it.

It might as well be fuel surcharges that will provide a rate of return$.:p

[George W. Bush]

This post may seem a bit awkward, but its in a language that I'm a bit more comfortable conversing in.

 

Let Q be an integer = number of passengers who already paid a deposit who had their fares increased.

 

Let A be an integer = Passengers who were annoyed, but kept their booking.

Let B be an integer = Passengers who weren't bothered by the increase.

Let C be an integer = Passengers who canceled their booking.

 

Then Q = A + B + C

 

Let N = amount of money collected for the fuel surcharge per person.

 

Then (A + B)N = Money collected from people who had paid a deposit.

 

Let D = the percentage of group B who would have booked again "next time" For 0 <=D <=1

 

The B * D = The number of group B who would have booked again if there wasn't a fuel surcharge.

 

Let E = the percentage of BD who were annoyed enough by the fuel surcharge to take a different sort of vacation next time. For 0<=E <= 1

 

Then BDE + C = Number of customers HAL will lose because of the fuel surcharge.

 

Let F = the amount of money it will cost HAL to replace those customers (either in increased booking perks, advertising, decreased fares et.c)

 

Then (BDE + C)F = the amount of money the fuel surcharge cost HAL

 

The original question was: Is (A+B)N > (BDE +C)F?

 

The fact of the matter is: nobody here knows--but it can be fun to speculate in any event. However, while pointing out that Hal has the right to impose the fuel surcharge is true, it doesn't relate at all to (BDE + C)F. Furthermore suggesting that B and C both = 0 because people won't be annoyed because Hal reserves the right to increase fares is in the contract is nonsense.

[Philip217]

"Dubya",

 

You can use all the formulas and arguements you like.

 

At the end of the day, all the cruise ships are still fully booked.

People are waiting in line to book cabins on ships that are already full.

The only ones who REALLY care about this fuel surcharge are the ones who can't really afford to sail anyway.

 

You are spending hours on this board - without pay - trying to explain how the cruise lines are going to lose money.

 

The cruise line I work for just gave me a substantial salary increase, based on increased revenues and profits.

 

Every indication tells us that next year will be the most profitable year ever for the cruise industry.

 

One of us will have the privilege of saying "I told you so" about 12 months from now.

 

Stay tuned............................

[Copper10-8]

Hey Philip, congrats on the increase! Just in time for Christmas shopping!;)

[jhannah]

Just in time for Christmas shopping!;)

Or Hanukkah; or Kwanzaa. :)

[George W. Bush]

"Dubya",

 

You can use all the formulas and arguements you like.

 

At the end of the day, all the cruise ships are still fully booked.

People are waiting in line to book cabins on ships that are already full.

The only ones who REALLY care about this fuel surcharge are the ones who can't really afford to sail anyway.

 

You are spending hours on this board - without pay - trying to explain how the cruise lines are going to lose money.

 

The cruise line I work for just gave me a substantial salary increase, based on increased revenues and profits.

 

Every indication tells us that next year will be the most profitable year ever for the cruise industry.

 

One of us will have the privilege of saying "I told you so" about 12 months from now.

 

Stay tuned............................

 

 

Not really, the term (BDE +C)F (recall (BDE +C)F is the cost associated with the increase) is still true, you just argue that because of excessive demand in the cruise industry that F approaches 0, which makes the entire term approach 0. This was actually the type of discussion I was trying to start.

 

Second, not that its relevant, but you over estimate the amount of time I spend on this board. :)

 

Third, I never predicted that the cruiselines would lose money in general. I do suspect, however, that given that (A +B)N is some finite number (and probably pretty small [a few million maybe?]) that it wasn't really worth (BDE +C)F, which I believe will be >0.

[fann1sh]

May I suggest fuel surcharges aren't really about the rising cost of fuel, but the falling buying power of the U.S. dollar?

 

Those of us who use a different currency always have to factor money fluctuations into the cost of our U.S. vacation.

 

At one point, Canadians had to add 40 percent to the cost of everything U.S. when tallying costs. :( Ouch!

 

But, due to the money markets' changed perception of politics/fiscal management/trade conditions, that's changed. Perhaps this dip in the U.S. dollar will be short lived.

[hammybee]

May I suggest fuel surcharges aren't really about the rising cost of fuel, but the falling buying power of the U.S. dollar?

 

Those of us who use a different currency always have to factor money fluctuations into the cost of our U.S. vacation.

 

At one point, Canadians had to add 40 percent to the cost of everything U.S. when tallying costs. :( Ouch!

 

But, due to the money markets' changed perception of politics/fiscal management/trade conditions, that's changed. Perhaps this dip in the U.S. dollar will be short lived.

 

Most excellent point, Fannish. Most of us, in the U.S., require time to comprehend the far reaching impact of the weak USD.

[shipshape sam]

And was it worth it?

 

How much money do you think HAL got by increasing the fares of customers who already paid by adding the fuel surcharge? Its one thing to increase the cost for customers who hadn't paid yet (and thus knew up front what the cost of the cruise would be) , but do you think the money they got from the pre-existing customers was worth alienating and aggravating thousands of customers?

 

In other words, do you think that $5 per day x 7 days per person was worth pissing off a percentage of their customer base?

 

 

It has been my experience that many people become disproportionately angry over small things. HAL will receive just a small increase in revenue for the sailings, but I suspect many people will remember the surcharge with a great deal of anger.

 

What do you think?

 

I think your analogy is flawed. I think the arguement should be:

 

Once booked, whether paid in full or just waiting till final payment date, the PLANNED cost of that cruise is the same. The problem is they have listed cruises out, in some cases, over two years, thus there are thousands of booked cruises that have not made final payment (paid in full).

 

The issue should be to raise the price of the cruise for NEW bookings starting immediately, they should include the fuel surcharge. To go back to anyone who has previously booked the cruise is an unplanned price increase whether they have paid in full or not.

 

I think they just chose that policy so as to look like they were being fair. If fuel costs are higher now, why because I have paid the fare NOT be subject to the fuel surcharge? Why, for example, a person in the cabin next to me who is making final payment in two weeks be subject to the fuel surcharge. That person could have, for example, actually BOOKED the cruise prior to the person who has paid in full.

[shipshape sam]

This post may seem a bit awkward, but its in a language that I'm a bit more comfortable conversing in.

 

Let Q be an integer = number of passengers who already paid a deposit who had their fares increased.

 

Let A be an integer = Passengers who were annoyed, but kept their booking.

Let B be an integer = Passengers who weren't bothered by the increase.

Let C be an integer = Passengers who canceled their booking.

 

Then Q = A + B + C

 

Let N = amount of money collected for the fuel surcharge per person.

 

Then (A + B)N = Money collected from people who had paid a deposit.

 

Let D = the percentage of group B who would have booked again "next time" For 0 <=D <=1

 

The B * D = The number of group B who would have booked again if there wasn't a fuel surcharge.

 

Let E = the percentage of BD who were annoyed enough by the fuel surcharge to take a different sort of vacation next time. For 0<=E <= 1

 

Then BDE + C = Number of customers HAL will lose because of the fuel surcharge.

 

Let F = the amount of money it will cost HAL to replace those customers (either in increased booking perks, advertising, decreased fares et.c)

 

Then (BDE + C)F = the amount of money the fuel surcharge cost HAL

 

The original question was: Is (A+B)N > (BDE +C)F?

 

The fact of the matter is: nobody here knows--but it can be fun to speculate in any event. However, while pointing out that Hal has the right to impose the fuel surcharge is true, it doesn't relate at all to (BDE + C)F. Furthermore suggesting that B and C both = 0 because people won't be annoyed because Hal reserves the right to increase fares is in the contract is nonsense.

 

 

GREAT! :) :) :)

 

 

If in the booking contract between a customer and HAL, HAL has the right to increase the fare, then they do. What HAL also has to accept is the consequences of the price increase, ie cancellations, decrease in customer satisfaction, this thread, etc.

[hammybee]

GREAT! :) :) :)

 

 

What HAL also has to accept is the consequences of the price increase, ie cancellations, decrease in customer satisfaction, this thread, etc.

 

Don't you think HAL/CCL anticipated fallout? While the number of posters on this board is small comapred to the number who sail HAL each year, I am aware of only a few who cancelled and they did so, because it was an opportunity, not because of the fuel surcharge.

 

Everyone was given the opportunity to cancel their cruise, get their deposit or full payment back, plus the cost of the otherwise non-refundable HAL like insurance.

 

It saddens me somewhat, that some have chosen to not cancel and instead, appear to be preparing to board with a fuel surcharge chip on their shoulder. What a misrerable way to start a vacation.

[Opinions]

Everyone was given the opportunity to cancel their cruise, get their deposit or full payment back, plus the cost of the otherwise non-refundable HAL like insurance.

 

 

What if one had insurance other than HAL's?

[peaches from georgia]

What if one had insurance other than HAL's?

A third party insurance company will allow you to transfer the amount you paid for your policy if you cancel one cruise to another cruise. There is no reason they would refund your premium however.