Thread: Quotes needed for article on oil prices/ fuel surcharge

Hi, All!

I'm working on an article about cruiser reactions to rising oil prices and the likelihood of cruise lines re-implementing fuel surcharges.

I'm looking for a variety of short (a few words to a few sentences) quotes on any or all of the following topics:

1) Have you paid a fuel surcharge before? Did it limit your activities in any way, or impact your enjoyment of your cruise?

2) What do you think about the fuel surcharge in general? Would you rather see fares go up, with the supplement rolled in, or would you rather it remain as a separate line item?

3) How would re-implementation of the fuel supplement change your cruising? Would you switch lines (to one that didn't have it)? Would you try to save money elsewhere, such as by limiting shore excursions? Or would it not affect you in any way?

In order to use your quote, I will need the following: your name, city, profession (e.g. Suzy Cruiser, San Diego, retired)

Feel free to PM me if you don't want to put that sort of info on the main board.

Go ahead and discuss freely. I won't use anything posted on the main board w/o contacting you by PM first.

The article will appear either on the Yahoo! Contributor Network or on Yahoo! News, and would look more or less like this one: Reserve Disneyland Rides on Your Home Computer

Thanks!

Dia

To me, fuel supplements are just a way for cruise lines and airlines to increase the price without putting into the advertised price.

Think about it; if you go to a restaurant, look at the menu, and decide on a steak, should you be charged a supplemental fee just because the price of beef went up temporarily?

You could apply that same logic to just about anything.

When the price of doing business goes up, you increase the price - pure and simple. Adding on a supplement is just plain wrong.

But the reason they don't want to put it in the cruise fare is because that would increase the amount of commission they would have to pay to agents. As I've stated many times, the price you see advertised for a cruise is made up of two costs; the cruise fare and the non-commissionable fees (or port fees). Our commission is based on the cruise fare only. If they increase the cruise fare to accommodate a higher cost, then the commissions go up. By adding the higher cost as a 'supplement', they do not have to pay the extra commission. Plus, they can still advertise the original price without the fuel supplement. This way they get the best of both worlds.

Needless to say, agents hate these new 'supplements'. Next they'll be adding a supplement due to increase labor costs, or increase in food costs, or increase in shipbuilding!! Why is a "fuel" supplement any different? And why is a supplement appropriate for fuel?

And my other rant is about the way they do it - they don't say that affective as of a certain date all reservations made will incur a fuel supplement or price increase. They just add it to all the reservations. So if you made a reservation a year ago and have been planning on a certain amount for your cruise, and all of a sudden you are socked with an additional expense is not appropriate. In other words, they are retroactively increasing the cost of your cruise. Show me any other business where this is allowed.

Bottom line is, if it costs more to do business, then increase the price - we all understand that. But increase the price so the advertised amount, the amount commissions are figured on, and the amount comsumers made the purchase for is configured appropriately, honestly, and fairly.

Frankly stated, any "supplement" is just a sneaky way of getting more money and avoiding the responsibilities associated with conducting business.

Pete

Thanks, Pete! I'll PM you in a few days regarding anything I'd like to use.

Anyone else want to chime in?

ETA: I have two good responses from travel professionals. I'd really love to have a response or two from a cruise consumer. Anyone?

Cheers!

Dia

(and FYI, I'm in complete agreement)

Originally Posted by Diotima

Hi, All!

1) Have you paid a fuel surcharge before? Did it limit your activities in any way, or impact your enjoyment of your cruise?

2) What do you think about the fuel surcharge in general? Would you rather see fares go up, with the supplement rolled in, or would you rather it remain as a separate line item?

3) How would re-implementation of the fuel supplement change your cruising? Would you switch lines (to one that didn't have it)? Would you try to save money elsewhere, such as by limiting shore excursions? Or would it not affect you in any way?

1) Yes I have previously paid the fuel surcharge. Yes, it caused a reduction in the number of cruise I more than likely would have taken.

2) I personally despise them. The airlines are a perfect exmaple, they became profitable by charging them and yet they are raising rates again and talking about increasing the surcharges. The paying consumer gets no value added service or itme in return. Once upon a time, in the not so distant past, travel had a class system and for the most part was reserved for the rich. In today's economic envrionment as prices trend upwards more and more people find themselves priced out of the market, the value of the product decreases or a combination of the two occures. Covering costs and making a profit are one thing, gouging and greed are another. Only those in the boardrooms know where their true stand on this is.

3) Brining back the fuel supplement would cause a reduction in the number of cruises I would take in a year. All things being equal I would switch lines to one that decided not to charge it.

Thank you, Michael.

I will contact people by Monday for any quotes I wish to use.

Cheers!

Dia