Alcohol now being destroyed

[JimmyVWine]

...one can understand the now total ban on personal spirits. But it is becoming more than obvious that the sole purpose of denying passengers their freedom of this personal pleasure...

 

It seems that the jumping off point for your argument and your displeasure is some "new" policy that removes a freedom that passengers once enjoyed. But the total ban is not a "now" total ban. It was always there. No freedom is now denied that was previously permitted. As noted several pages ago, this is no different than the State Police placing a speed trap on a stretch of road that has been clearly marked as 65mph, but on which motorists routinely drove 90mph with impunity due to lack of enforcement. The presence of the radar gun does not spell a change in the speed limit. Only the state's decision to enforce the already exisiting limit. So too here.

[Loonbeam]

Unfortunately, there is a perception, not limited to cruise ships, of wine being a 'lesser' alcohol in terms of risk of inebriation. While its certainly true its a lot easier to get drunker, faster on hard liquor, it can be done with wine as well.

 

I'm not saying this makes scientific sense, but it is a behavior/attitude pattern I have seen in many places.

 

I still doubt this is ONLY a revenue position, as the math doesn't quite work out for me, I'm thinking something else prompted the decision to enforce the hard liquor ban and the new corkage rules were instituted to offset the costs of that. I have no way of confirming this, this is WAY above my sources' level.

 

 

 

If this kafuffle of possession of personal alcohol has been about the legal implications of responsibility for any passenger’s over consumption what of the passenger who can and does bring aboard a dozen bottles of wine, pays the $180. corkage fees and takes them to his cabin? Surely I would not be accused of being suspicious if I said that the revenue of $180. had taken presedent. And as there being no direct revenue from the bottle of 18-year-old XXX in my luggage, down the drain it goes. A policy concocted in Denmark perhaps?

[Loonbeam]

And as I noted later, if this came from CCL, all of their lines will eventually see it, and if they pull that off, RCCL will follow...

 

And the final thing to consider is....where are they going to go? Disney will let you bring on hard liquor, but their cruises tend to be priced higher. Certainly higher than the price of a bottle of Scotch or gin bought on board. It's easy to say: "I am going to vote with my wallet", but turning down a $799 fare that requires you to buy a $75 bottle of liquor in favor of a $1050 fare for a similar cruise that allows you to bring on your own bottle is a classic example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I just don't see too many (or any) comparable cruise lines in terms of price and atmosphere that one can run to if one intends to escape Princess, completely.

[Bronau]

For me, the point is not the small amount of revenue loss for the cruise line, but how the Consummate Host treats its guests. This is not a very creative solution to a perceived problem.

 

 

RCL and Celebrity are addressing this with prepaid liquor plans.

[baldercash]

Your comment about folks drinking in their room is insulting. We don't go on a cruise to socialize or entertain others. We prefer to enjoy a drink on our balcony or over dinner. We never buy drinks in bars. We can enjoy the ambiance of the ship without sitting in bars. If that is something you enjoy more power to you. It is not for us.

 

I agree one can enjoy a drink and the ambiance of ones balcony.

Appears you just want to do it on the cheap.

As for your description of your socializing patterns ......

[pablo222]

But it is becoming more than obvious that the sole purpose of denying passengers their freedom of this personal pleasure by way of this ban is an attempt to generate more bar revenue for the line.

 

It took you 400+ posts to this thread to figure that out?

 

Or, was this another of your april fools posts?

[ONT-CA]

It seems that the jumping off point for your argument and your displeasure is some "new" policy that removes a freedom that passengers once enjoyed.

 

Thirty-five cruises with many lines and never a question about the liquor stored in my luggage each and every cruise. How can you call this a ban, it is not even a cursory inspection. But from what is being described now, it will be a search and seizure procedure that will prohibit me from including this pleasure. It will be interesting to see the results of my next boarding for it might be business as usual with no adverse effect. If on the other hand there is confiscation, I will need to find suitable savings aboard to offset the increase in bar patronage for this venture is a two way street.

[ONT-CA]

It took you 400+ posts to this thread to figure that out?

 

Then you do agree?

[ONT-CA]

Unfortunately, there is a perception, not limited to cruise ships, of wine being a 'lesser' alcohol in terms of risk of inebriation. While its certainly true its a lot easier to get drunker, faster on hard liquor, it can be done with wine as well. ...quote]

 

 

http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af114/Yarkerhill/stddrnk2.jpg

[tgmtgm]

It’s human nature to not want to be taken advantage of. If the bottle in your luggage is a hazard such as fire or poses legal concerns one can understand the now total ban on personal spirits. But it is becoming more than obvious that the sole purpose of denying passengers their freedom of this personal pleasure by way of this ban is an attempt to generate more bar revenue for the line. This is not fully understood by or a concern of the teetotalers who see it purely as a contractual equation. But what would the general feeling be if the line decided to ban all cameras coming aboard so that their photo gallery could generate even more revenue. Imagine the indignation.

 

 

I entirely agree with your synopsis above, and as a purveyor of all types of spirits, I can sympathize. I'm no big time booze smuggler to begin with, but it was always nice to have a little something extra in the cabin for those times when the nearest bar was just too far of a hike for a simple cocktail. ;) But realistically, there's not much you or I can do about it except take our vacation dollars elsewhere.

 

It's all about increasing revenue for the cruiseline, plain and simple. Those that agree or disagree with these new enforcement policies can have p***ing matches on here till the cows come home, it won't change a thing. As the old saying goes- This too, shall pass...

 

Tony

[PescadoAmarillo]

But it is becoming more than obvious that the sole purpose of denying passengers their freedom of this personal pleasure by way of this ban is an attempt to generate more bar revenue for the line. This is not fully understood by or a concern of the teetotalers who see it purely as a contractual equation.

To some of us, the bar revenue aspect of this new policy was obvious from the get-go. And, for me, this was in spite the fact that, while I've never thought of myself as one, it's clear from this discussion that I'm a "relative" tee-totaler. But you seem to imply that's a BAD thing- that Princess is doing something for their benefit instead of ours. I disagree. Unless Princess does a lot of things for their benefit, they won't survive to do things for ours.

 

I will admit, though, that I don't understand what the heck a contractual equation is.

[pablo222]

Then you do agree?

 

Do I agree that this is an attempt by Princess to raise profits?

Yes, of course.

 

I think that it is complete BS that it is some safety issue.

 

Do I agree with you that the appropriate recourse is to stiff

crew on tips? Absolutely not.

 

If you do this, as you have said you would, you will simply reinforce

the belief that many already have about canadians and tipping.

 

In my opinion, if one doesn't like the rules that Princess establishes,

one should simply take their business elsewhere.

[Loonbeam]

I've confirmed pretty definitively that Princess/CCL's insurers did set some firmer requirements regarding control of alcohol (notably hard liquor) aboard ships after some incidents resulted in payouts. That said, did they mandate the approach that Princess took? Probably not. If this was purely an insurance/saferyty call, the 'right' approach would be to ban all alcohol other than ship provided and train servers to not provide to inebriated passengers.

 

There is one other legal/insurance aspect to this. In the event someone has a mishap related to alcohol smuggled on board when Princess has taken steps to detect it sharply reduces Princess' liability. Under the prior lack of enforcement, that could be construed in a court of law as defacto acceptance of responsibility (and that may have happened for all I know).

 

The new corkage system for wineon the other hand? All about profits. I think it was an attempt to try to blunt the blow of the ban while still improving bottom line.

 

 

Do I agree that this is an attempt by Princess to raise profits?

Yes, of course.

 

I think that it is complete BS that it is some safety issue.

 

[IECalCruiser]

I've confirmed pretty definitively that Princess/CCL's insurers did set some firmer requirements regarding control of alcohol (notably hard liquor) aboard ships after some incidents resulted in payouts. That said, did they mandate the approach that Princess took? Probably not. If this was purely an insurance/safety call, the 'right' approach would be to ban all alcohol other than ship provided and train servers to not provide to inebriated passengers.

If that were strictly the case, why is Carnival rolling out the Cheers Beverage Program

"Here are the details about our Cheers Beverage Program!

 

• With the purchase of this program, you will enjoy the ease and convenience of paying one flat price for your spirited beverages (yep, that’s with alcohol) all cruise long! At only $42.95 per day, this card is an amazing value! (prices are per day; gratuities not included)."
  
  

The Program does have a limit. It allows for up to 15 alcoholic drinks per 24 hours period (6AM - 6AM). That's a lot of alcohol :eek:

 

There is one other legal/insurance aspect to this. In the event someone has a mishap related to alcohol smuggled on board when Princess has taken steps to detect it sharply reduces Princess' liability. Under the prior lack of enforcement, that could be construed in a court of law as defacto acceptance of responsibility (and that may have happened for all I know).

That is probably a valid point.

The new corkage system for wine on the other hand? All about profits. I think it was an attempt to try to blunt the blow of the ban while still improving bottom line.

That is probably quite true.

[bdjam]

Your point is well taken, but I think the first response, (before cancelling all cruises), is to phone, write, email, Facebook post, and communicate in every way possible that enforcement of this policy should be counter-balanced with an increase in high end hard alcohol selection. (Of course, you should expect to pay a premium if you want to move from JW Red to JW Blue). When wine drinkers want to "up their game", they can bring on better quality wines and pay $15. When Scotch and Vodka drinkers want to up their game, there should be a way to do that, and it seems the best way to do that is for Princess to stock up on better bottles for which they can charge a higher price per drink. Seems like a win-win.

 

First, I think this thread is funny. For years people have been smuggling and gloating about it - now finally Princess has put their collective foot down and people are retaliating with wild and elaborate schemes on how to get back at the cruise line. It could actually be sit-com fodder.

 

Second, I checked the luggage tags for my upcoming cruise and the alcohol policy is quite clear. As Mr. Wine pointed out in an earlier post, you get your first bottle of wine or champagne free, the rest incur a $15 corkage fee. You can bring as much as you want, but just like any restaurant or bar, if you bring your own, you pay for the privledge. There are restaurants in my area that charge a "per slice" fee if you bring in your own birthday cake.

 

The choice is play by the rules or choose somewhere else where the rules suit you.

 

Finally, as a follow up to the quote above, Princess has lowered the quality of the product that they stock on board but a lot of that is due to the passenger demographic. While a small percentage of passengers aren't content without fine spirits, compare them with the number of people on these boards who are looking for happy hour prices. Which is more popular? And Princess ain't going to pour top shelf for a $3.99 drink.

 

There is no comparison as the drinks are watered down.

 

I used to tend bar and I've watched the bartenders on Princess - the drinks are not watered down. Princess requires their employees to pour a standard shot and can tell when that rule is violated by the rate of alcohol usage vs. sales. You're getting a standard shot in a Princess drink - establishments which do not use a method to measure the amount of alcohol that goes into the glass are pouring more than the standard shot. If the standard shot is the guideline, you're being over served in those places (and I know because where I worked we didn't use a shot glass - we counted...sometimes up to 10.)

The perks received for the status have been well earned plus, as possible shareholders, are recipients of additional benefits. So for them walking away from the line has financial consequences. And should those who bark on actually be shareholders, they certainly aren’t doing themselves or the company any favors by doing so.

 

I'm not a shareholder, but if I was, I would want every penny of revenue from alcohol sales that I could get so that my shares would remain profitable. Maybe they should have a special alcohol policy for shareholders on a sliding scale based on the number of shares owned?

[pablo222]

I used to tend bar and I've watched the bartenders on Princess - the drinks are not watered down. Princess requires their employees to pour a standard shot and can tell when that rule is violated by the rate of alcohol usage vs. sales. You're getting a standard shot in a Princess drink - establishments which do not use a method to measure the amount of alcohol that goes into the glass are pouring more than the standard shot. If the standard shot is the guideline, you're being over served in those places (and I know because where I worked we didn't use a shot glass - we counted...sometimes up to 10.)

 

I think you're absolutely right about this.

Many places on land over-pour, so drinks on princess taste

weaker that what folks may be used to.

 

The incentive for a bartender to over-pour on land is to get

bigger tips. If he sells two drinks, the house makes money.

If he overpours one drink and gets a big tip, he makes money.

[highheel girl]

Thats my opinion and I am sticking to it. :p

[bigeagle12]

First, I think this thread is funny. For years people have been smuggling and gloating about it - now finally Princess has put their collective foot down and people are retaliating with wild and elaborate schemes on how to get back at the cruise line. It could actually be sit-com fodder.

 

The choice is play by the rules or choose somewhere else where the rules suit you.

 

I agree :)

 

But hey this is Cruise Critic .. let the whiners WHINE :rolleyes:

[Shoalwater]

I think this is a classic case of where "policy" and "practice" clash in an avoidable situation. Certainly Princess had a "policy' about alcohol, BUT their "practice" was so far out of line that it became the expected behavior. They are surely free to change their "practice' to bring it more in line with the written "policy". But IMHO it was how they did this that caused much of the ill-will. Passengers boarded under an established "practice" only to find that it had suddenly been changed and was now substituted by the "policy". Now you can say that adding the words from the PAX contract to the boarding pass and luggage tags was notice, but I disagree. They apparently never announced the "practice' of allowing alcohol to board at embarkation was changing. Given the numerous opportunities with social media, use of their Facebook site and/or at least an email to passengers notifying them of the change would seem to have been in order. In short, they wound up angering customers. Not good. This is what happens when Mr. Big makes a command decision in a vacuum without researching the pinch points that will result. Princess is becoming good at this.

[Cauzneffct]

If on the other hand there is confiscation, I will need to find suitable savings aboard to offset the increase in bar patronage for this venture is a two way street.

 

Classic petulant child reaction: you were mean, so now i"ll be mean to you. If you want to stick it to CCL Corp, fine: Dont cruise Princess. But to punish those tangentially associated to those you want to target (presumably the on board staff) to prove a point which wont be perceived except by those who are wholly not responsible for the "change" in policy you abhor is, at best, ridiculous.

[antsp]

Hello op back. Just got back on board at Hilo. Well the new policy and how it works gets clearer. All wine is taken from you as you board the ship, a receipt is issued and its delivered to your cabin later today, its then checked to see if you have already brought wine on board, if so a charge of $15 is charged to your room, if not its countrd as your free 1 per person.

 

Let the thread continue, me i up to deck 14 for sailaway*

 

Ps landside securitymwhere dealing with all this, 1st time they have done it.*

[Redwing55]

For the discussion of inconsistent enforcement, think about going through customs.

 

Many people do not declare everything they purchase. They hope that they don't get caught. Some do. Is it appropriate for those that get caught to whine about inconsistent enforcement? To make this even more strange, it's up to customs to decide how much duty someone should pay. I've have seen more than a couple of times when someone has goods over the duty free amount and the officer just said, ok, you're good. No duty collected, while others have to pay a duty.

 

And anyone that claims that they didn't know the policy, I really can't believe that they didn't read the luggage tags. I mean, really, you're going on a cruise, and if just for curiosity's sake, you didn't read the luggage tags? Sorry, I doubt that's the case. And I'm not trying to offend anyone.

 

So, to those that are so concerned about this wine issue, is it really worth that much to get worked up about this? Heck, if you do, you probably don't want to book any excursions through Princess since you know they will charge more and make some money off of you.

[azbirdmom]

Hello op back. Just got back on board at Hilo. Well the new policy and how it works gets clearer. All wine is taken from you as you board the ship, a receipt is issued and its delivered to your cabin later today, its then checked to see if you have already brought wine on board, if so a charge of $15 is charged to your room, if not its countrd as your free 1 per person.

 

Let the thread continue, me i up to deck 14 for sailaway*

 

Ps landside securitymwhere dealing with all this, 1st time they have done it.*

 

It will be interesting to see how well this will work, especially if they manage to misplace or break the bottles. Seems like there should be easier ways of doing this that wouldn't involve holding the bottles for later delivery.

[lovemylab]

Do they at least give you an option to store the liquor until the end? Otherwise, I could see this being problematic in the Med. Many people will do a land trip before they board the ship. However if they bought a few bottles of local wine to take home with them this wouldn't be possible if cruising with Princess as it would be dumped :confused:

[PunkiC]

I think this is a classic case of where "policy" and "practice" clash in an avoidable situation. Certainly Princess had a "policy' about alcohol, BUT their "practice" was so far out of line that it became the expected behavior. They are surely free to change their "practice' to bring it more in line with the written "policy". But IMHO it was how they did this that caused much of the ill-will. Passengers boarded under an established "practice" only to find that it had suddenly been changed and was now substituted by the "policy". Now you can say that adding the words from the PAX contract to the boarding pass and luggage tags was notice, but I disagree. They apparently never announced the "practice' of allowing alcohol to board at embarkation was changing. Given the numerous opportunities with social media, use of their Facebook site and/or at least an email to passengers notifying them of the change would seem to have been in order. In short, they wound up angering customers. Not good. This is what happens when Mr. Big makes a command decision in a vacuum without researching the pinch points that will result. Princess is becoming good at this.

 

I absolutely agree. I really don't much care about the corkage fee, but the implementation of this policy has really upset me. How hard would it be for Princess to figure out what they are doing and clearly communicate it to all of their past passengers.

 

Good communications is the key and in that they have failed most miserably.