Comments on: “Cruise lines concertedly and deceptively implemented a fuel surcharge”

By: BriCo

BriCo — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:08:41 +0000

I certainly don’t like to have ANY surcharges added to a price I was quoted for ANYTHING, and fuel surcharges for cruises or air lines are no different. The price quoted should be the price paid, and it should include all costs. However, many hotels call themselves “resorts” and charge a “resort fee” in addition to the daily room rate, supposedly to cover things like towels, in-room coffee, pool use, access to tennis and golf (even though there is an additional charge to actually PLAY tennis or golf), and even though other “non-resort” hotels, even of the same brand, don’t charge extra daily fees for those same amenities. We complain but the hotels just put those charges in their “terms and conditions”, leaving virtually no room for discussion if you want to stay at their hotel. As to cruise line collusion or anti-trust actions, that seems a bit of a stretch to me. When the airlines all raise their fares almost at the same time, no one yells “collusion”, and as frequently seen, once one rolls the fare back, the others usually do also.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:29:22 +0000

Okay, I have to revise one part of my earlier comment. Apparently, Princess Cruises is doing exactly what I had suggested above. They are including the “fuel supplement” charge in the actual fare. Though I don’t think that exonerates them, since they began their fuel supplement charges around the same time everyone else did, and their rates are also $5 per day. Still smells like collusion to me, even if it’s a slightly different flavor.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:39:20 +0000

I suppose you have to admire the strategy in a way. The cruise lines didn’t want to have to roll those additional costs into their actual fares, which would bring the sale prices of cruises up above what customers have come to expect in recent years. For instance, a 7-day cruise that normally costs $699 would instead cost $769 plus taxes and port fees. By adding it as a surcharge, separate from the cruise fare, it just seems like another add-on, and cruise lines don’t have to advertise higher fares than before.

If you think about it, the cruise lines probably thought they all had to use this method of cost increase just to stay competitive with each other. Cruise lines have always touted crusing as an “affordable” way to vacation, particularly for families. However, this method of deceptive pricing was very foolish on thier part. The smartest thing one of the cruise lines could have done would be to up their actual fares slightly, and promote the fact that they weren’t adding these dubious “surcharges”. Because all of them did it within such a short timeframe, it would be tough to believe there weren’t back channel discussions going on between the different companies, particularly when multiple cruise lines are now owned collectively by larger parent companies.

There was, in early 2007, a very similar investigation into fuel surcharges being tacked on by various railway companies. The Surface Transportation Board issued a decision that railway companies couldn’t charge fuel surcharges that did not accurately reflect their actual cost increases.

“Our decision today brings common sense and fairness to the railroads’ implementation of fuel surcharges. This new rule will preclude them from selectively imposing surcharges in a manner that bears little relationship to actual fuel use. It will also remove the possibility that railroads will view fuel surcharges as a profit center.”

There’s no doubt that the cruise lines can use these fuel surcharges as a profit center, and a highly lucrative one at that. It would also be interesting to research how much cruise fares have risen in the last couple of years. If the numbers are significant, the cruise lines could even be guilty of “double-dipping”……raising fares to cover their actual increased fuel costs, and then adding a big fat fuel surcharge on top like a cherry on a sundae.

By: Moe Howard

Moe Howard — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:43:51 +0000

If the cruise lines get away with this,what happens if you start to board for your cruise and are ask to pay and extra $ 100.00 for no reason at all. I thought about Pirate’s during baseball season not on a family vacation !

By: Jesse

Jesse — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:31:19 +0000

Personally, after reading about this the first time around, I was just waiting until this came about.

At this point it seems that travel companies (air & sea) can do whatever they feel like doing to increase their profits, as far as surcharges. How is it consumers are still paying for the increases while the travel companies increase their profits. Every surcharge that comes out is split 50% to the actual surcharge and 50% to increase company profits.

Thankfully, at least this time, there was something consumers could do to reverse such surcharges.