Rum Runners

[Bosjoe]

I don't consider this stealing. I know of some high price bottle of wines that cost more then a bottle of alcohol. A majority of people bring alcohol on board to have on their room. Its just for convenience, no different then having a glass of wine in your room. This whole thing does not have to do with revenue. If it did, then water soda and wine would not be allowed to bring on board, this eats into their revenue. It has to do more with potential litigation, then losing revenue on a few drinks.

 

Btw i wonder if you ever in your life tasted a piece of fruit at the supermarket, that's eating their revenues. :)

 

 

Ok, couldn't help myself - have to jump back in.

 

It has been quoted as a defense that stealing is taking something that does not belong to you. Agreed. When you smuggle booze onboard you are stealing revenue from the cruiseline, which in turn causes them to make less profit , which in turn causes them to need to raise the prices for everyone in order to make that lost profit. That's the one and only reason why I care. Has nothing to do with a high horse or any claims whatsoever that I myself am perfect and never do anything wrong.

 

If you choose to do it anyway, then you do. Just stop trying to convince everyone that wrong is right. Here's a hint - if you have to sneak around to do something, that might be your first clue that you are doing something wrong.

 

Some of these rationalizations on here of wrong behavior would be amusing if this action didn't cost me money. Let's see - we have it's ok to do it because the prices are too high. It's ok to do it because some people exceed the speed limit. It's ok to do it because if you were at a hotel or resort (which you are not) you would be allowed to do it. And my personal favorite - since the cruiseline is not kicking people off for doing it, they are implicitly condoning it. Good grief. Bottom line, if you smuggle booze onboard you are stealing revenue from the cruiseline. If you choose that route, at least admit it for what it is and move on.

[Evilgrin72]

Here's what I think you're not getting. I don't think the cost of the bottle has much to do with it. There are certainly plenty of drink packages now available for those who like to drink but they have to come out of their cabins and get face to face with someone to get the drinks. I could be wrong, but I believe Celebrity's alcohol management has to do with more than just profit margins and may also be a way to encourage a more responsible drinking behavior which fits in with the kind of ambience Celebrity promotes on their ships.

 

Personally, I'm glad they don't promote a free for all atmosphere. There are plenty of choices available for those that appreciate that kind of cruise experience.

 

Celebrity being the only mass-market cruise line that has all-you-can-drink packages on U.S. based sailings is encouraging a more responsible drinking behavior? I would say that such packages are antithetical to responsible drinking among a random cross-section of individuals, wouldn't you?

 

It's actually the exact opposite of what you just said - Celebrity clearly trusts their clientele to govern themselves appropriately, and for this, I applaud them. However, it takes your implied point about forcing people out of their rooms to obtain alcohol so that their levels of inebriation may be evaluated by a bartender before serving and flushes it down a super powerful cruise ship cabin toilet.

[Evilgrin72]

"They're using the drinkers to subsidize costs for the non-drinkers and that's really not fair."

 

Fair doesn't really come into it -- nearly all restaurants that serve wine and liquor use the markup on the alcohol to subsidize the cost of food. Same here.

 

You're absolutely right, but I don't really think that's fair either. Hence, I rarely if ever drink at restaurants. It's even more egregious here though because they're subsidizing not just food but lodging, entertainment, etc.

 

Increase cruise fares 50% and make beers $2.50 and cocktails $3-4 like in many land-based bars (unless you're in NYC/Miami/San Fran) and you're still getting a tremendous markup on that alcohol sale. You'd also be spreading the burden of overhead across ALL the guests, not just those who like to drink. That would be fair, but it will never happen because the outrage on these boards and people banning the cruise line would cause their bookings to drop significantly.

[Ma Bell]

Celebrity being the only mass-market cruise line that has all-you-can-drink packages on U.S. based sailings is encouraging a more responsible drinking behavior? I would say that such packages are antithetical to responsible drinking among a random cross-section of individuals, wouldn't you?

 

It's actually the exact opposite of what you just said - Celebrity clearly trusts their clientele to govern themselves appropriately, and for this, I applaud them. However, it takes your implied point about forcing people out of their rooms to obtain alcohol so that their levels of inebriation may be evaluated by a bartender before serving and flushes it down a super powerful cruise ship cabin toilet.

 

I couldn't disagree more. Celebrity does trust the clientele base that they appeal to to govern themselves but also aren't interested in encouraging people who would carry a bottle with them on the ship and create their own drinking club in their cabin or on deck. They don't seem to have the problem of groups gathering in more remote areas of the ship and drinking with no observation. If they have to purchase it from the cruise line, it stands to reason that it might be a bit less likely that there will be problem behavior from over indulgence.

 

Maybe when you have the chance to experience a cruise on Celebrity you will see the difference. In all the years we've been sailing with Celebrity, I've never seen any of the falling down drunk behavior associated with party cruising.

[Evilgrin72]

I couldn't disagree more. Celebrity does trust the clientele base that they appeal to to govern themselves but also aren't interested in encouraging people who would carry a bottle with them on the ship and create their own drinking club in their cabin or on deck. They don't seem to have the problem of groups gathering in more remote areas of the ship and drinking with no observation. If they have to purchase it from the cruise line, it stands to reason that it might be a bit less likely that there will be problem behavior from over indulgence.

 

Maybe when you have the chance to experience a cruise on Celebrity you will see the difference. In all the years we've been sailing with Celebrity, I've never seen any of the falling down drunk behavior associated with party cruising.

 

Maybe it's me, it just sounds like you're contradicting yourself. No major US cruise line save for Disney allows you to bring your own liquor on board. No cruise line stops you from carrying a drink (or 6 or 7) back to your cabin. I can go to the pool bar on any boat and buy 2 buckets of beers, take them back to my cabin, and sit there and get loaded to the gills in the privacy of my cabin without consequence. What does bringing your own booze on board have to do with one's ability to drink en suite? If I want to drink irresponsibly in my cabin, they can't stop me. The point of not allowing carry-on booze is 100% revenue-driven, it has nothing to do with not wanting people to get hammered in their cabins.

 

To the latter point, I'm sure you're right. Clearly Celebrity alone among the major cruise lines trusts their clientele to indulge responsibly, hence they're the only ones to offer an unlimited beverage package. You just stressed that over-consumption is not an issue on Celebrity, so you're only further invalidating your original contention that I took issue with, that they discourage BYO in order to keep people from getting drunk in their cabins unsupervised.

[NLH Arizona]

You're absolutely right, but I don't really think that's fair either. Hence, I rarely if ever drink at restaurants. It's even more egregious here though because they're subsidizing not just food but lodging, entertainment, etc.

 

Increase cruise fares 50% and make beers $2.50 and cocktails $3-4 like in many land-based bars (unless you're in NYC/Miami/San Fran) and you're still getting a tremendous markup on that alcohol sale. You'd also be spreading the burden of overhead across ALL the guests, not just those who like to drink. That would be fair, but it will never happen because the outrage on these boards and people banning the cruise line would cause their bookings to drop significantly.

Now how is it fair that people that don't drink or drink very little or children have to subsidize those that chose drink?

 

I guess you would think it is okay to raise the fare another 25% and make massages $45 and facials $55, etc., like many land salons. You would also be spreading the burden of the overhead costs for the spas across ALL the guests, not just those that like spa treatments. Would this be just as fair? And let's not forget, not everyone uses shore excursions, so they will have to spread those costs around to ALL passengers as well.

[WELSH WIZARDS]

Maybe when you have the chance to experience a cruise on Celebrity you will see the difference. In all the years we've been sailing with Celebrity, I've never seen any of the falling down drunk behavior associated with party cruising.

Hear, hear. I could not agree with you more.

This is one of the main reasons we sail almost exclusively with Celebrity now.

However I don't think that would continue to be the norm if drink prices on board the ship were lower, and people were allowed to bring on board as much alcohol as they wished.

It's not really a question of whether it's smuggled on or not ...it's about the volume of drinks. If people can buy it cheaper, and carry it on large amounts, then some will drink more.

The cruise lines try to make the base price as cheap as they can, then give the passengers the choice of paying more for drinks, gambling, eating out, shopping etc.

[abnpaul]

Being the law abiding person I am , I would buy the drinks package , and you are right , there will be a lot of waste , I would chose a cocktail and if I did not like it , would not think twice a bout wasting it and getting a different one . You would think twice if you were paying as you went , more drinks served but wasted = less profit.

[Ma Bell]

Maybe it's me, it just sounds like you're contradicting yourself. No major US cruise line save for Disney allows you to bring your own liquor on board. No cruise line stops you from carrying a drink (or 6 or 7) back to your cabin. I can go to the pool bar on any boat and buy 2 buckets of beers, take them back to my cabin, and sit there and get loaded to the gills in the privacy of my cabin without consequence. What does bringing your own booze on board have to do with one's ability to drink en suite? If I want to drink irresponsibly in my cabin, they can't stop me. The point of not allowing carry-on booze is 100% revenue-driven, it has nothing to do with not wanting people to get hammered in their cabins.

 

To the latter point, I'm sure you're right. Clearly Celebrity alone among the major cruise lines trusts their clientele to indulge responsibly, hence they're the only ones to offer an unlimited beverage package. You just stressed that over-consumption is not an issue on Celebrity, so you're only further invalidating your original contention that I took issue with, that they discourage BYO in order to keep people from getting drunk in their cabins unsupervised.

 

You're right. Maybe it is just you.;) Actually they can stop you from ordering what you want if they think you've had too much. Sure it's possible to do what you describe...they just don't make it easy and it's not likely that their policies will encourage the kind of clientle looking for a booze cruise. If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you.

[Evilgrin72]

Now how is it fair that people that don't drink or drink very little or children have to subsidize those that chose drink?

 

I guess you would think it is okay to raise the fare another 25% and make massages $45 and facials $55, etc., like many land salons. You would also be spreading the burden of the overhead costs for the spas across ALL the guests, not just those that like spa treatments. Would this be just as fair? And let's not forget, not everyone uses shore excursions, so they will have to spread those costs around to ALL passengers as well.

 

It doesn't equate. The markup on liquor is often 1000% or more.

 

Think of it this way... they're charging 50 cents for a hot dog and $2 for mustard on that hot dog. That's not really fair to those who don't care for a hot dog without mustard. That hot dog vendor is banking on the mustard lovers to provide him an obscene margin on that mustard so he can continue to sell tons of hot dogs at artificially deflated prices relative to other quick dining options. So, those who don't like mustard are getting a steal.

 

I'm saying, charge $2 for the hot dog and 50 cents for the mustard, is that then unfair to those who don't like mustard? It doesn't mean the hot dog buyers are now subsidizing the cost of mustard... the guy is still making an equivalent (or probably greater) profit on the mustard.

 

And some people are bound to bring their own mustard packet, just buy a hot dog for 50 cents, and use mustard they brought from home. Apparently, those people are stealing potential revenue from the hot dog vendor because he's posted a sign that says you may ONLY use his mustard on your hot dog or he won't sell them to you any more.

[mrsdoc3]

Bottom line, if you smuggle booze onboard you are stealing revenue from the cruiseline. If you choose that route, at least admit it for what it is and move on.

 

I disagree. If my kids drink the free lemonade instead of buying sodas, is that stealing? If I just get off the ship and tour a port on my own instead of buying a tour from the ship, is that stealing? If I don't buy any pictures that the cruise line took of me, but take my own pictures of my family, is that stealing?

 

It is absolutely not stealing to choose not to purchase something. If I drink the alcohol that I brought with me (whether according to rules or not) but buy nothing from the bar, I don't see that as any different from an alcoholic not buying anything from the bar. If choosing not to buy something is a crime, then you'd better send police from across the country to arrest me because I've not bought a lot of stuff in a lot of states.

[Evilgrin72]

You're right. Maybe it is just you.;) They can't stop you from ordering what you want but they can see what you ordered and it's not likely that it's going to be a group scenario. If you don't get it, I guess I can't explain it.

 

Now you're proposing that the bartenders can tell (and actually care about) what you're going to do with the products you're buying?

 

A couple of years ago, I bought two buckets of beer at the pool on Royal Caribbean and brought them back to my cabin, iced them down and drank them over the course of the day. No one else had one. The bartender somehow wasn't able to foresee that this wasn't a "group scenario." Further, he didn't ask. The cabin steward, seeing that I was going through them alone, recognized it would take a little while and brought me extra ice.

 

Bottom line, discouraging carry-on booze has nothing to do with discouraging in-cabin drinking. Absolutely NOTHING. It has everything to do with profit margin.

 

I don't get that 2+2=5 either, and you'd never be able to explain that to me, but you can keep trying if you like.

[Evilgrin72]

Being the law abiding person I am , I would buy the drinks package , and you are right , there will be a lot of waste , I would chose a cocktail and if I did not like it , would not think twice a bout wasting it and getting a different one . You would think twice if you were paying as you went , more drinks served but wasted = less profit.

 

Just to be clear, this is exactly what I did on my upcoming cruise. I'm locked and loaded with the beverage package and will not be "stealing" any revenue from anyone. I just don't believe that right and wrong are quite as black and white as some people make it out to be. A set of rules created by an individual or individuals is ALWAYS agenda-driven. When the agenda is to protect innocent people or save lives, then those are good rules. When the rules are made to protect an insane profit margin for a huge corporation at the expense of the middle-class passengers who provide their livelihood, then I'm not necessarily going to follow them blindly. Clearly, many folks do - obviously we're just different kinds of people.

[Evilgrin72]

I disagree. If my kids drink the free lemonade instead of buying sodas, is that stealing? If I just get off the ship and tour a port on my own instead of buying a tour from the ship, is that stealing? If I don't buy any pictures that the cruise line took of me, but take my own pictures of my family, is that stealing?

 

It is absolutely not stealing to choose not to purchase something. If I drink the alcohol that I brought with me (whether according to rules or not) but buy nothing from the bar, I don't see that as any different from an alcoholic not buying anything from the bar. If choosing not to buy something is a crime, then you'd better send police from across the country to arrest me because I've not bought a lot of stuff in a lot of states.

 

Bingo. I think many people think that there are only two options for a drinker - BYO or pay the cruise ship price. In fact, it's likely just as often (probably MORE often) that that's not the choice being made, the choice being made is BYO or drink nothing at all.

[A Sixth?]

One thing I think we all can agree on is that these types of threads give the Rum Runner Company a ton of free publicity! :p

 

Hard to put a dollar value on this amount of FREE target marketing. :cool:

[NLH Arizona]

It doesn't equate. The markup on liquor is often 1000% or more.

 

Think of it this way... they're charging 50 cents for a hot dog and $2 for mustard on that hot dog. That's not really fair to those who don't care for a hot dog without mustard. That hot dog vendor is banking on the mustard lovers to provide him an obscene margin on that mustard so he can continue to sell tons of hot dogs at artificially deflated prices relative to other quick dining options. So, those who don't like mustard are getting a steal.

 

I'm saying, charge $2 for the hot dog and 50 cents for the mustard, is that then unfair to those who don't like mustard? It doesn't mean the hot dog buyers are now subsidizing the cost of mustard... the guy is still making an equivalent (or probably greater) profit on the mustard.

 

And some people are bound to bring their own mustard packet, just buy a hot dog for 50 cents, and use mustard they brought from home. Apparently, those people are stealing potential revenue from the hot dog vendor because he's posted a sign that says you may ONLY use his mustard on your hot dog or he won't sell them to you any more.

Sure it equates, the markup on spa treatments is tremendous; it might not be 1000%, but I would say 300% or more. So why is it fair that I would have to pay a 300% markup on a service, but you wouldn't have to pay the markup for booze and the price of my cruise would be raised to pay for your drinking. How about the cost of using the internet...on the Mr. Bayley thread someone said that they don't want to pay for others to use the internet when someone suggested that it be free.

 

If someone choses to drink, spa, internet, shore excursion, special restaurant, buy pictures, etc., I don't want to have to subsidize their purchases, with a higher cost of my cruise, no matter what the markup is. I gamble a lot in the casino and lose, so how about you giving me back some of my loses....now I'm kidding, but it is called personal responsibility. I chose to gamble and you chose to drink - we both should pay our own way and not expect others to subsidize us, no matter our loses or what the markup are, because no one is forcing us to do anything. I don't have to gamble and you don't have to drink.

 

If one choses to pay the costs of alcohol on the ship, the cruise line is going to charge whatever the passengers are willing pay. If no one is drinking, the cost goes down - it is call supply and demand.

 

Business are smart enough to charge the most they can. Using your example of hot dog/mustard, many business get you in the door with lost leaders and then you find out that you can by the basic item cheap, but all of the add ons cost a ton of money (which isn't fair to the person who just needed 1 of the add ons) and if people wouldn't buy the add ons, the store would raise the price of the basic item and include the add ons in that price....it is called business and no one is forcing anyone to purchase the item.

 

As I said before, if one feels the price of alcohol is too high, then why not ask Mr. Bayley (on his question thread) why?

[Ma Bell]

Now you're proposing that the bartenders can tell (and actually care about) what you're going to do with the products you're buying?

 

A couple of years ago, I bought two buckets of beer at the pool on Royal Caribbean and brought them back to my cabin, iced them down and drank them over the course of the day. No one else had one. The bartender somehow wasn't able to foresee that this wasn't a "group scenario." Further, he didn't ask. The cabin steward, seeing that I was going through them alone, recognized it would take a little while and brought me extra ice.

 

Bottom line, discouraging carry-on booze has nothing to do with discouraging in-cabin drinking. Absolutely NOTHING. It has everything to do with profit margin.

 

I don't get that 2+2=5 either, and you'd never be able to explain that to me, but you can keep trying if you like.

 

Bottom line, you choose to take things literally when it suits your purposes and generalize in the broadest way at other times.

 

Of course the cruise line chooses to maximize profits when possible but my point is that there are also other reasons for many policies that businesses support. All of their policies have something to do with the kind of clientele they choose to encourage. As many have said, there are plenty of choices available and if one doesn't care for the policy it's possible to choose another option. That doesn't include just flaunting the rules because we don't agree with the policy. I haven't seen anyone taking advantage of the spa services and then deciding afterward how much they should pay because they can get it cheaper elsewhere.

 

Hope you enjoy your first Celebrity cruise.

[Evilgrin72]

Sure it equates, the markup on spa treatments is tremendous; it might not be 1000%, but I would say 300% or more. So why is it fair that I would have to pay a 300% markup on a service, but you wouldn't have to pay the markup for booze and the price of my cruise would be raised to pay for your drinking. How about the cost of using the internet...on the Mr. Bayley thread someone said that they don't want to pay for others to use the internet when someone suggested that it be free.

 

If someone choses to drink, spa, internet, shore excursion, special restaurant, buy pictures, etc., I don't want to have to subsidize their purchases, with a higher cost of my cruise, no matter what the markup is. I gamble a lot in the casino and lose, so how about you giving me back some of my loses....now I'm kidding, but it is called personal responsibility. I chose to gamble and you chose to drink - we both should pay our own way and not expect others to subsidize us, no matter our loses or what the markup are, because no one is forcing us to do anything. I don't have to gamble and you don't have to drink.

 

If one choses to pay the costs of alcohol on the ship, the cruise line is going to charge whatever the passengers are willing pay. If no one is drinking, the cost goes down - it is call supply and demand.

 

Business are smart enough to charge the most they can. Using your example of hot dog/mustard, many business get you in the door with lost leaders and then you find out that you can by the basic item cheap, but all of the add ons cost a ton of money (which isn't fair to the person who just needed 1 of the add ons) and if people wouldn't buy the add ons, the store would raise the price of the basic item and include the add ons in that price....it is called business and no one is forcing anyone to purchase the item.

 

As I said before, if one feels the price of alcohol is too high, then why not ask Mr. Bayley (on his question thread) why?

 

The point is, because the markup on booze is SO high, it helps subsidize the cost of the cruise for others. If they make the booze prices reasonable and raise the berths to a more cost-effective (for them) number, that doesn't automatically mean that now the non-drinkers are subsidizing the cost of alcohol, it would mean that both items are now being priced fairly. The spa treatments and such are another example - they're ridiculously overpriced as well.

 

Right now the see-saw is imbalanced to one side, it's eminently possible to balance it without tilting it back the other way.

[Evilgrin72]

Bottom line, you choose to take things literally when it suits your purposes and generalize in the broadest way at other times.

 

Of course the cruise line chooses to maximize profits when possible but my point is that there are also other reasons for many policies that businesses support. All of their policies have something to do with the kind of clientele they choose to encourage. As many have said, there are plenty of choices available and if one doesn't care for the policy it's possible to choose another option. That doesn't include just flaunting the rules because we don't agree with the policy. I haven't seen anyone taking advantage of the spa services and then deciding afterward how much they should pay because they can get it cheaper elsewhere.

 

Hope you enjoy your first Celebrity cruise.

 

I have no idea what you mean by that first part, I think I've been consistent on my viewpoint throughout this discussion.

 

To the bolded, you're clearly implying that Celebrity's policies are meant to attract a more well-off, more mature crowd that enjoys the finer things rather than the "Walmart" crowd, a moniker I often see applied to Carnival cruisers, for example. What I'm wondering is how offering an all-you-can-drink package fits in with that marketing strategy. I've seen tons of open bar deals at bars/nightclubs all over the world, I don't think I've ever seen one at the Ritz-Carlton. I'm having a tough time reconciling your contention that not allowing people to smuggle liquor is a policy built to prevent in-room over-consumption from a cruise line that is all over the ship peddling a "drink all you want" package. Those are two diametrically opposed ideas and that's what makes your argument intrinsically incorrect.

 

Also, tons of people eschew a massage in the spa for $200 and get one on the beach at Costa Maya for $25, for example. Doing so would not constitute stealing because you're denying Celebrity a revenue stream.

 

Thank you, sincerely, for your wish that I enjoy my cruise, whether it was disingenuous or not (hard to tell in print_. I enjoy a philosophical discussion, which is what this has become.

[Kevnzworld]

First. I have never brought any wine onboard myself other than the two bottles allowed on embarkation. That being said.

I DO understand why some people while cruising in the Mediterranean like to bring a " local " bottle of wine onboard to enjoy in their cabin. It isn't about money, it's about the experience. A couple I knew through my roll call brought a bottle of wine onboard at every European port. In Toulon, they brought aboard a bottle of local rose from Aix, in Provence to enjoy with cheese and crackers on their balcony.

On my South American cruise many people brought local argentinian and Chilean wines onboard as well. For many people ( me included ), enjoying interesting local wines that aren't exported is part of the allure of traveling to these areas. Nowadays , wight the new strict airline carry on rules, it's difficult to transport wine back to the US. Besides, it's more enjoyable to drink the wine from the place you just visited that afternoon!

Celebrity does seem to allow wine to be brought onboard on wine immersion cruises.

Maybe Celebrity could relax their policy to allow one bottle of wine to be brought onboard at each port!

[WELSH WIZARDS]

I disagree. If my kids drink the free lemonade instead of buying sodas, is that stealing? If I just get off the ship and tour a port on my own instead of buying a tour from the ship, is that stealing? If I don't buy any pictures that the cruise line took of me, but take my own pictures of my family, is that stealing?

 

It is absolutely not stealing to choose not to purchase something. If I drink the alcohol that I brought with me (whether according to rules or not) but buy nothing from the bar, I don't see that as any different from an alcoholic not buying anything from the bar. If choosing not to buy something is a crime, then you'd better send police from across the country to arrest me because I've not bought a lot of stuff in a lot of states.

We are not talking about drinking something allowed by the ship, such as lemonade etc. , we are talking about rule breaking.

The cruise line makes the rules...we should stick to them , or sail with someone else.[/color]

We cannot pick and choose which rules we want to abide by.

All the people who want to fetch candles, irons , or smoke cigarettes and cigars, etc are then free to do exactly as they wish also..

[NLH Arizona]

The point is, because the markup on booze is SO high, it helps subsidize the cost of the cruise for others. If they make the booze prices reasonable and raise the berths to a more cost-effective (for them) number, that doesn't automatically mean that now the non-drinkers are subsidizing the cost of alcohol, it would mean that both items are now being priced fairly. The spa treatments and such are another example - they're ridiculously overpriced as well.

 

Right now the see-saw is imbalanced to one side, it's eminently possible to balance it without tilting it back the other way.

As do the high costs of spa treatments, shore excursions, internet packages, etc., everything helps Celebrity's bottom line. If they raise the prices and lower the prices of alcohol, of course that means non-drinkers are subsidizing the cost of alcohol. Just as if they raised the prices and lower the spa treatments - everyone would be subsidizing my spa treatments.

 

I use to cruise on Crystal, as well as Celebrity, and then Crystal went all-inclusive (all drinks, tips, speciality restaurants were included in the all-inclusive). Before they went all-inclusive, I paid my cruise fare, my travel agent paid my tips and I got a cruise credit from Crystal to spend anyway I wanted (on my last trip with them I got $1,000 which I used to pay for my spa treatments and some shore excursions). Now that they are all-inclusive and don't offer the anyway you want credits, I pay my cruise fare and now I have to pay $1,000 for spa treatments and shore excursions. So what is the majority of the extra $1,000 I would have to pay to be their customer go to, drinks for other passengers. So instead of complaining, I just stopped cruising with them because I disagree with their policy; I let my money do the talking.

 

It is only imbalanced because people will pay that price; again, it is supply and demand. Nothing says you have to drink on a cruise or have a spa treatment or use the ships shore excursions. If you think the prices of drinks are too high, just don't drink on the ship or only drink while on shore.

 

The problem I have is that people want to selectively chose which rules they want to follow and not follow. If you feel it is okay to smuggle booze onboard (which is breaking a Celebrity rule), why isn't it okay for someone to sneak a smoke on the balcony (after all, they disagree with the policy) or how about smuggling another passenger on because they think the cruise fare is too high or how about the chair hogs (afterall, they just want to be gone for a couple of hours to have lunch), etc. What makes it okay to break one rule, becaue one disagrees with it.

 

Again, I say - if you feel the prices are too high, ask Mr. Bayley why they are so high? Not sure he would answer that questions (you know, he probably has to be politically correct), but I would say if I were him, it is because people will pay it.

[Evilgrin72]

We are not talking about drinking something allowed by the ship, such as lemonade etc. , we are talking about rule breaking.

The cruise line makes the rules...we should stick to them , or sail with someone else.[/color]

We cannot pick and choose which rules we want to abide by.

All the people who want to fetch candles, irons , or smoke cigarettes and cigars, etc are then free to do exactly as they wish also..

 

Anyone can do whatever he/she wishes, that's called free will. Of course there are consequences should you do something for which there are penalties. I CAN walk out on the street right now and shoot the first person I see. Of course, society doesn't want me to do that, so they attach a penalty to it, in this case, death or life imprisonment. That's a deterrent. The cruise lines attach a deterrent to booze smuggling as well, they'll confiscate it and give it back to you in a week. If you're willing to run that gauntlet, you can choose to bring alcohol on board.

 

Every human being is subjected to rules and regulations, most of us all our lives. Extraordinarily few of us follow every single rule put before us without questioning them. The amount of rules we choose to bend/break is a personal choice. Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to impose our own morality on others. A little tolerance goes a long way, that's all I'm saying. I don't want or need to smuggle booze on board, but I'm not going to point the finger of judgment at someone who does. That's their choice.

[Evilgrin72]

As do the high costs of spa treatments,

It is only imbalanced because people will pay that price; again, it is supply and demand. Nothing says you have to drink on a cruise or have a spa treatment or use the ships shore excursions. If you think the prices of drinks are too high, just don't drink on the ship or only drink while on shore.

 

The problem I have is that people want to selectively chose which rules they want to follow and not follow. If you feel it is okay to smuggle booze onboard (which is breaking a Celebrity rule), why isn't it okay for someone to sneak a smoke on the balcony (after all, they disagree with the policy) or how about smuggling another passenger on because they think the cruise fare is too high or how about the chair hogs (afterall, they just want to be gone for a couple of hours to have lunch), etc. What makes it okay to break one rule, becaue one disagrees with it.

 

Again, I say - if you feel the prices are too high, ask Mr. Bayley why they are so high? Not sure he would answer that questions (you know, he probably has to be politically correct), but I would say if I were him, it is because people will pay it.

 

#1 - If the price is too high, people will look for ways to circumvent those costs. That's the entire reason we're having this discussion, because many people feel the price is too high. That's why the cruise lines don't want you to have an alternative.

 

#2 - I have no problem at all with people deciding what rules they do/don't want to follow, as long as they're not hurting anyone and they're willing to accept the consequences for their actions. That's just a philosophical difference.

 

#3 - It would be a waste of time. He'd talk about how their prices are competitive within the industry and reflect the cost of goods, etc. etc. You'd never get the real answer.

[NLH Arizona]

#1 - If the price is too high, people will look for ways to circumvent those costs. That's the entire reason we're having this discussion, because many people feel the price is too high. That's why the cruise lines don't want you to have an alternative.

 

#2 - I have no problem at all with people deciding what rules they do/don't want to follow, as long as they're not hurting anyone and they're willing to accept the consequences for their actions. That's just a philosophical difference.

 

#3 - It would be a waste of time. He'd talk about how their prices are competitive within the industry and reflect the cost of goods, etc. etc. You'd never get the real answer.

I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on this.

 

The only thing I will say, is that if Celebrity were to raise the price of my cruise fare to pay for someone alcohol, I'd simply find another cruise line. That is, unless they will also pay for my gambling and spa treatments and shore excursions as well LOL.

 

Thanks for the debate and thanks for keeping it civil, it is much appreciated.