Cruise lines are taking a hard line when it comes to fuel surcharges.
Consider the recent case of Ron and Gwenda Bennett, who paid a £900 deposit on a £9,000 Mediterranean cruise but were told by the travel company that a surcharge was also due.
Voyages of Discovery, the luxury cruise line with which they’d booked the cruise, blamed the rising cost of fuel and currency exchanges. But since the surcharge came in at £8 less than 10 percent of the total cost of the holiday, the couple were not entitled to a refund of their deposit.
Gwenda Bennett was understandably upset by the loss.
It was quite expensive to start with but with everything going up so much over the last 12 months we found it more and more difficult to rake the money together. The extra £892 was a bitter blow.
Are higher fuel costs really to blame for these surcharges?
No. We don’t have to wait until fuel costs come back to earth to know that this has little — if nothing — to do with higher energy costs. Like airlines, cruise lines have been waiting for an opportune time to impose these surcharges.
It turns out that Carnival had quietly approached Florida’s attorney general as far back as 2006 with a request to impose a fuel surcharge. At that time, a barrel of oil cost about $60.
Cruise lines have wanted this for a long time, and they are clearly delighted that they’ve finally gotten their way.
This is not going to end well, I’m afraid. We’ll see a lot more cases like the Bennett’s. And since the cruise lines don’t have to prove to anyone that the “surcharges” are offsetting the price of fuel, these fees could potentially become pure profit, if companies hedge their fuel purchases or if the cost of oil falls.
Who says you don’t have to worry about pirates anymore?
