<p>When oil prices skyrocketed last year, cruise lines introduced fuel surcharges - supposedly a temporary, stop-gap measure to make up for a failure to hedge against market changes. </p><p>But now most cruise lines are saying (to paraphrase an old NRA bumper sticker): &quot;They won't take my fuel surcharge till they pry it from my cold, dead hand.&quot;</p><p>At a time when Carnival, Norwegian Cruise Line, Royal Caribbean and the rest are trying to keep their published fares low but increase profits, fine-print add-ons such as a fuel surcharge (on average about $10 per person per day, depending on the cruise line) are a gold-pumping goose they have no intention of killing anytime soon.</p><p>Cruise lines set their published fares and itineraries 12 to 24 months ahead, a system that doesn't offer a lot of flexibility when costs rise. Unlike with airlines and hotels, which can quickly adjust rates (and still tack on extra charges), the add-on fee for fuel among cruise lines was somewhat justified by the inability to change prices to meet higher costs.</p><p>If that's the case, however, shouldn't cruise lines start building higher fuel costs into fares for 2009 and 2010? Apparently not. A brief survey of the major large-ship cruise lines found that among those that had adopted a fuel surcharge, not one is planning on phasing it out &quot;for some time,&quot; if ever.</p><p>&quot;Because fuel prices have been so highly volatile, we elected to implement the fuel supplement as a separate charge so we would be in a position to promptly and effectively make adjustments to the ... amount based on the potential for ongoing changes to fuel prices,&quot; said Vance Gulliksen, spokesman for Carnival Corp., which owns a dozen other small lines including Holland America, Princess, Costa and Cunard. </p><p>&quot;You should expect that fuel supplements are going to be around - at least for a while,&quot; Gulliksen said.</p><p>Royal Caribbean and Norwegian (which represent almost all of the North American large-ship market not owned by Carnival) issued similar statements. &quot;At this time, we have no plans to eliminate the surcharge,&quot; said AnneMarie Mathews, spokeswoman for Norwegian.</p><p>In Royal Caribbean's case, there also is an issue of public perception.</p><p>&quot;We've chosen to use the supplement because it specifically highlights that issue for our guests,&quot; said Michael Sheehan, spokesman for Royal Caribbean, which also owns Celebrity and Azamara cruise lines. &quot;It ensures our guests know about it and know specifically what it's designed to do.&quot;</p><p>Whatever the reason, keeping the surcharge makes good business sense: If you can introduce an add-on and the public adapts to it (albeit grudgingly), then there's no incentive to get rid of it. </p><p>Unfortunately, added flexibility in covering costs for the cruise line equates to increased uncertainty for customers about the final cost.</p><p>If you pick a Norwegian Cruise Line trip advertised at $799 per person, for instance, you should plan to pay $1,100 per person (port fees, taxes, service fee, fuel surcharge), and that doesn't include the optional stuff, such as beverages, alternative restaurants or shore excursions. On Norwegian, $77 of that increase ($154 per couple) is for fuel. </p><p>In all fairness, when oil prices jumped, the cruise lines took a hit that in any other industry would have been crippling. (For instance, Carnival Corp., parent company to a dozen cruise lines, expects to consume 3.24 million metric tons of fuel during 2008 - just shy of 1 billion gallons, depending on the type of fuel.)</p><p>Said Sheehan: &quot;People need to be mindful of the fact that the fuel supplements being collected do not cover the record high fuel costs that we have experienced in recent years.&quot;</p><p>Unlike the airlines, however, the big cruise lines are still making very healthy profits. Stockholders for Carnival Corp. and Royal Caribbean International will get a nice dividend from the second quarter, as they did from the one before that and the one before that. </p><p>If the justification for long-term fuel surcharges is a volatile market, shouldn't there be a lobster surcharge (based on market price)? And what about the U.S. dollar? Shouldn't they charge extra to passengers who pay in dollars because its value on the market fluctuates?</p><p>The answer to those questions - and whether a long-term fuel surcharge is justified - should be this: No, because those things are the cost of doing business, which is the responsibility of the business. If it costs more to do business, raise your prices. It really should be that simple. </p>