Booze Smuggling = Higher Cost?

[ihhk2]

PS: Alot of liquor now comes in smaller, plastic bottles, which they PROMOTE as traveling well.

 

No need for the gymnastics of yesteryear in packing glass bottles! :p

 

I won't worry a bit about my liquor or clothes while enjoying a foo-foo drink on the Lido Deck as I board and while waiting for my luggage to arrive!:D

 

See? UPON BOARDING, I'll buy myself a drink!

[yst347]

I don't think poster is begrudging success. I think poster is begrudging greed beyond reasonable excess.

 

Whatever "reasonable excess" may be; what is wrong with selling a product for what people are will to pay? Is selling your home for two or three times what you payed for it "excessive greed"? If not, at what point would it be "excessive greed"?

[DarkJedi]

Okay how about this. Let's say that CCL decides to start strict enforcement of all of it's guidelines. (including chair saving for the poster that compared chair saving to booze smuggling) The new policy is that stewards will be rewarded for pointing out guest with alcohol in their room and that guest would be removed from the ship at the next port to find their own way home. Would that kill their business or would people just begin to comply?

 

Well, since I don't smuggle I know I'd be happy! No more Chogs :D

 

and economics would tell us that increased profit margins give businesses more flexibility in their pricing structure.

 

real life tells me that increased profit margins give business owners more money to stick into their greedy pockets.

 

Another person that begrudges someone for their success. How much exactly do you think that someone who runs a multi million dollar corporation that feeds the families and pays for the housing of thousands of people make? Where would you cap it? Or should the Government cap it? Maybe Government should cap all salaries, prices, everything. Then we could all wear potato sack clothes running through the meadow singing kum bay ya. What a wonderful world it would be.......

 

I don't begrudge success, I begrude multi-million dollar salaries for CEO's. $54,000 an hour is excessive. And some governments have capped salaries to a multiplier, I believe it is Germany that has a maximum salary of 50 times the lowest salary. This allows a company to pay it's top person $900,000 a year if they are only paying it's lowest employee $18,000 a year, and has no effect on owners or stockholders income.If a company wants to pay it's CEO more it needs to pay it's own employees mo or outsource lower end jobs, thus creating more businesses that have a chance to grow instead of larger corporations controlling larger market niches.

 

If you want proof that increased profit margins equates to lower prices walk into your local Wal-Mart, Target, etc......

 

No, increased profit margins increase prices. Buy something at $100 and sell it at 10% profit it sells for $110, sell the same item at 5% profit and it sell for $105. Volume is how Wal-Mart and Target make their money. If someone sell that $100 item for 10% profit and sells 10 of them they make $100 profit, if Wal-Mart sells it for 5% profit and sells 100 of them then they make $500 profit. Which then allows them to get greater volume discounts from their suppliers which allows them to lower their prices even more, at which point they may or may not continue to lower their prices since they can increase profit margins and still be lower than competition.

As an aside, they can also demand that suppliers cater their sales to them, as Wal-Mart has routinely done. Requiring companies to package product differently or even in different sizes.

 

I smuggle my own slot machine onboard and play.

 

Wonder if they loose money

 

You do too? Problem is I never win any money.

 

Whatever "reasonable excess" may be; what is wrong with selling a product for what people are will to pay? Is selling your home for two or three times what you payed for it "excessive greed"? If not, at what point would it be "excessive greed"?

 

Difference is that I don't own all the potential homes you can buy. As long as there is plenty of competition prices will be kept to a certain reasonable point, but then you have things like gas prices right after Katrina. Oil companies were saying how they couldn't get gas and they needed to raise it for so many different cost reasons, and then they posted record profit increases. Did people have to buy gas? Not really, they could have wlkaed or biked more, some could have taken the bus, or sold their cars for more fuel efficient ones. But should they have been gouged to begin with? Should hotels in central FL have been allowed to suddenly charge whatever they could get for hotel rooms knowing that so many people where going without homes just because it's what they market would bear?

[ihhk2]

I think the point is that Uncle Bob and friends, no matter their responsibility to employess, do NOT "have" to make a zillion dollars a year that they couldn't possibly spend in 5 lifetimes, while the average cruiser is gouged on liquor bills, single supplements, etc.

 

"Reasonable excess" could be considered a modest savings in case of financial tragedy. You don't "need" the excess, but it's good to have on hand to maintain your home and family until the crisis passes.

 

At Uncle Bob's level, let's say he has a couple of million dollar shacks in exotic locales, a few fancy cars, a couple of kids in college. "Reasonable excess" might be considered as enough to maintain those things for a year or so if his income hit a crisis.

 

To have more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime is "unreasonable" when it means others are paying a premium for the service you provide when it is not necessary to the bottom line and responsibility to the corporation and shareholders.

 

It just shows your own lifestyle is more important than the consumers who GAVE you that lifestyle by buying your product.

 

It's greedy.

[ihhk2]

I saw this several years ago, but it applies to previous poster's comment about Germany capping incomes.

 

THE Ben & Jerry of the famous ice cream company, when they started, vowed to not make more than 10 times the salary of the guy who sweeps the floor during the night shift (lowest salary).

 

Their opinion at the time was that if there was huge difference in the salaries, the VALUE of the employees would decrease with the difference. In other words, it says very loudly that the guy sweeping the floor is far less important or critical to the smooth operation of the company than the guy in the corner office.

 

Their opinion was than the guy sweeping the floor (as every other employee was considered) was VERY important... no one wants to come into a dirty office with no maintenance, working conditions would be poor, lowering morale.

 

The guy sweeping the floor had an IMPORTANT job, if for nothing else than to create a pleasant working environment for others.

 

The extra cash? It went right back into the company to expand and provide quality product in more quantity to meet demand at a reasonable price that all could afford.

 

Ben & Jerry had it goin' on back then. I don't know what the status of their business model is now, but I have remembered and used this example in many a business class during my graduate program.

 

Uncle Bob, on the other hand, makes a ridiculous salary and STILL insists I pay for a pax that isn't even on the ship!

[yst347]

Difference is that I don't own all the potential homes you can buy. As long as there is plenty of competition prices will be kept to a certain reasonable point, but then you have things like gas prices right after Katrina. Oil companies were saying how they couldn't get gas and they needed to raise it for so many different cost reasons, and then they posted record profit increases. Did people have to buy gas? Not really, they could have wlkaed or biked more, some could have taken the bus, or sold their cars for more fuel efficient ones. But should they have been gouged to begin with? Should hotels in central FL have been allowed to suddenly charge whatever they could get for hotel rooms knowing that so many people where going without homes just because it's what they market would bear?

 

You are taking me out of context DarkJedi. The issue being discussed involved single cruisers paying single supplements which nearly double the cost. Clearly no company controls all berths so by your own logic, your response doesn't apply.

 

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened with fuel prices after hurricane Katrina. I'm not surprised because most people don't understand what happened and why. I'll try to give a nutshell description.

 

The large multi-national oil companies are posting record profits because they are producers and the price of the goods they produce have been driven higher by market forces. A large portion of the increased value of these companies comes from the increased value of the proven reserves they control still in the ground.

 

The spike in prices after Katrina was driven by the reduction of capacity due to the closing of the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port combined with the need by large whole-sale buyers of crude petroleum and natural gas to guarantee delivery to their facilities and to lock in costs. These costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. While the price of a gallon of gas doubled from $1.50 per gallon in late winter of 2005 to $3.00 in the aftermath of the hurricane I would hardly term this gouging. What would have been catastrophic to our economy would have been shortages. The market worked its magic and life has gone on quite smoothly.

 

Major refiners like Valero have not enjoyed anything in the way of increased profits like the large oil producers. Valero's pre-tax profit margin for 2006 was 8.7%. While this is up from about 4% in 2000 it is just about mainstream. I don't know what business you are in but its profit margins are probably inline.

[DarkJedi]

You are taking me out of context DarkJedi. The issue being discussed involved single cruisers paying single supplements which nearly double the cost. Clearly no company controls all berths so by your own logic, your response doesn't apply.

 

Major refiners like Valero have not enjoyed anything in the way of increased profits like the large oil producers. Valero's pre-tax profit margin for 2006 was 8.7%. While this is up from about 4% in 2000 it is just about mainstream. I don't know what business you are in but its profit margins are probably inline.

 

I thought we were still talking about alcohol smuggling. And you used the house as an example, so I used it.

 

As for profit margins. I really, really, really hope that my line of work never becomes profit based!

[salty dingo]

There are people who do not drink (believe it or not) ... so the idea that not buying the ship's booze can affect fares is really not a fair question.

 

If it were a valid concern, you would want to charge the Friends of Bill W a higher fare, right?

[rajntra]

There are people who do not drink (believe it or not) ... so the idea that not buying the ship's booze can affect fares is really not a fair question.

 

If it were a valid concern, you would want to charge the Friends of Bill W a higher fare, right?

 

It is a fair question. I'm sure the cruise lines have a known percentage of guest that drink and those that don't. I'm sure they budget expected alcohol sales based on those percentages. That budget is what they rely upon to purchase new ships, upgrade etc....

 

How about this, no more alcohol on ships period. Everyone is on an even playing field. Would passage fares go up? Yes they would.

[1gr8cruise]

That couple would probably do the same as me, and survive off of water, or whatever allowed drinks they brought with them on board instead. On a ship, I don't buy dirnks to drink in the cabin, I get them for when I am wandering the boat, either in the disco, on lido, etc...I don't think drinks in cabin hurt the cruise line at all. $6/drink is the total you work with, but the person didn't PAY anything close to $6/drink.

 

 

Sorry, I just came off the Glory....A 6oz. rum and coke in the dining room was $5.23..that's close enough for me to $6. Smallest rum and coke I ever saw!!! weak too!!

[ihhk2]

AGREED!

 

Bill W's friends are welcomed at the same price as his "enemies" (using term very lightly and only meaning his drinking buddies whom he can't hang with anymore). OBVIOUSLY, Bill W. has no real enemies, except for John Barleycorn.

 

Let's say a couple of them are just not quite at the table yet, but try every single day with desperation to pull up a seat in total honesty...

 

They have a bottle in their cabin for an exceptionally unique circumstance that may or may not be anticipated (a birthday celebration, the ship sinking, whatever).

 

They probably won't touch that bottle. It's more "security" for the unknown than anything (if the ship were sinking, I'd want to have a little extra "courage" on hand). And, they are not bellying up to every bar on the ship.

 

Is CCL suffering for it? NOPE! They plan, schedule and encourage Bill and his buddies to meet on board.

 

Bottom line: Bottom line doesn't suffer for my 16 gallons of rum that took an entire extra suitcase to bring aboard! :D I could be one of Bill W's friends as easily as I could be falling down drunk with a bottomless wallet.

[yst347]

I thought we were still talking about alcohol smuggling. And you used the house as an example, so I used it.

 

Alcohol smuggling is the topic of the thread. My remarks, which you quoted were in response to other comments which I had quoted. It's just a reading comprehension thing. My comments which you quoted were a response to ihhk2's characterization of corporate business practices as being excessively greedy; specifically about the single supplement being double.

 

We are all free to hold different opinions. I find many of your opinions to be both different and fascinating. That said, if you are going to respond to a statement I made in response to someone else, please keep it in that context.

 

As for profit margins. I really, really, really hope that my line of work never becomes profit based!

 

What ever your line of work may be, having no concern for profit must be a truly wonderful position to enjoy. Cherish it, you are in a very exceptional and unusual position.

[DarkJedi]

How about this, no more alcohol on ships period. Everyone is on an even playing field. Would passage fares go up? Yes they would.

 

And passengers would sure take a spike downward too LOL

[DarkJedi]

Alcohol smuggling is the topic of the thread. My remarks, which you quoted were in response to other comments which I had quoted. It's just a reading comprehension thing. My comments which you quoted were a response to ihhk2's characterization of corporate business practices as being excessively greedy; specifically about the single supplement being double.

 

Sorry if I took it as towards the alcohol issue as opposed to the singles issue.

 

What ever your line of work may be, having no concern for profit must be a truly wonderful position to enjoy. Cherish it, you are in a very exceptional and unusual position.

 

Oh, we still get a budget, it's just that when someone makes a profit they normally end up in the papers, out of work, and often in prison :D

[Taylor Man]

Hello everyone,

Seems this post got out of hand at some point. But here we go. First, I just returned from the Glory and took aboard 6 bottles of wine. I took this wine on my carry on and was questioned about it. But after explaining the amount, for two people, I was quickly allowed to board with the amount. Now for the second, the alcohol prices are beyond reasonable. They border on HIGHWAY ROBBERY! A 12 oz. beer, Coors only, was $3.75 plus a 15% gratuity automatically added to the beverage purchase. Other 12 oz domestic beers were 4.25 plus the 15%. And a 16oz. domestic 4.75 plus 15%. I can tell you one thing for sure, they charge this price just like they do for other things on the ship, to make a killin! I spoke with several people who have cruised for years. All seem to say the same thing, prices used to be reasonable and some even cheap until they realized what a money maker they were missing. Just like the tips. This should be at the individuals descretion, but it has also became a money maker. To think the employees are dependant on the tips when the ship is making a fortune is just obsurd. Who cares about the ships investors making money, I am there to enjoy myself. And if they get to overpricing, Ill just start flying back to Mexico where the prices are truly ALL INCLUSIVE, and yes that means alcohol. See ya,

 

Taylor man

[FishingAddict]

How about just one couple, they bring the fixins for say margaritas. They drink three a piece in their cabin per day over a 7 day cruise.

 

$6 a drink +/- X 6 = $36 per day X 7 = $252.00 per week X 21 (# of ships in Carnivals Fleet) = $5,292.00 X 52 weeks in a year = $275,184.00. Now we know that not "everyone" does it, but we know that more than one couple probably does, so lets say 10 couples out of a soul list of 1000+ or <1% do so....10 X $275,184.00 = $2,751,840.00.

 

Does it make any difference to look at it that way?

 

Don't f forget about the other side of the equation, which is:

 

Person with 3 "free" drinks in them then wanders in the casino and looses $200 in casino, or buys $50 in things on the boat.

 

Or, perhaps that person would never buy a $6 drink sober, but now that they have a little in them they don;t mind doing that rather than waking back to cabin.

 

And if carnival cracked down, you would be the only cruise line doing so, which would steer lots of business to RC or others.

 

There is a reason casinos give people FREE liquor. It opens up their wallets even bigger!

[rajntra]

Hello everyone,

Who cares about the ships investors making money, I am there to enjoy myself. Taylor man

 

Taylor what if your customers said that about your boss, or you if you own your business?

[ihhk2]

First of all (and I meant to ask earlier), Darkjedi, is your dress REALLY cut up to "there"???? Sure looks that way!

 

2nd, even Uncle Bob would rather see his employees enjoying a cruise on WHAT THEY CAN AFFORD in bar bills than to have them suffer because his prices are so high. I doubt he would take issue of his own employees taking a bottle for in-cabin use. He just doesn't care about the "unknowns" who pad his pockets with green that they saved up for all year long.

 

Fishingaddict has it DOWN! The drinkers are more "loose" with their money after a few drinks in the cabin. Ask ANY drinker on board! While they might bring aboard a bottle or two, they are STILL spending significantly in public areas. I know I do.

 

The singles "issue" is just one way to justify bringing a bottle on board. They are gouging in ridiculous proportion to penalize solos. If they have no problem doing so, they should have no problem in my alleviating cost and inconvenience otherwise.

 

Specifically, they should have no problem in my fixing my own drink in my own cabin while I am paying for them to cater to a pax that just isn't even on board.

[cruisehoppers]

 

As a former bar manager for Outback/Carrabas I would disagree just a bit here. Alcohol is a huge profit center for any industry that offers it.

 

Remeber though, THIS IS NOT A JUDGEMENT ON MY PART, JUST A THOUGHT I WANTED TO SHARE AND LET EVERYONE PARTICIPATE ON.

 

The differences between a restaurant chain and a cruise line are vast. In a restaurant you have three-five things that you can upsell: apps, drinks, and deserts. On a ship, they can hit us with a great amount of other items and options that can increase their profits... I wasn't trying to be rude or judgmental on my part, either. Just trying to make a point.

 

I'm confused, though: I thought this whole thread was about the debate over driving up of costs... and not another nitpicking thread over the whole smuggling issue in general. I say this with all due respect to all the other posters out there so please don't jump on my back about this... I find this concept just as interesting, but I don't understand the constant mudslinging...

 

rajntra: Many posters have answered various responses to your original question-- and you clearly disagree or feel their answers are invalid. What more do you want? Again, I say this without a drop of sarcasm. I'm curious.

[eLav8]

How about this, no more alcohol on ships period. Everyone is on an even playing field. Would passage fares go up? Yes they would.

 

PAX fares would go up....occupancy would drop significantly, AND it would increase smuggling!

[eLav8]

Sorry, I just came off the Glory....A 6oz. rum and coke in the dining room was $5.23..that's close enough for me to $6. Smallest rum and coke I ever saw!!! weak too!!

 

I wasn't refering to drinks purchased on board, just the cost of drinks smuggled on and drank in cabin. If the drinks I could smuggle were the same price as they are on board, I wouldn't need to smuggle. But no, if I smuggled my own rum & coke, it wouldn't near cost $6/drink. it definitely wouldnt be small or weak either!!! haha!

[rajntra]

The differences between a restaurant chain and a cruise line are vast. In a restaurant you have three-five things that you can upsell: apps, drinks, and deserts. On a ship, they can hit us with a great amount of other items and options that can increase their profits... I wasn't trying to be rude or judgmental on my part, either. Just trying to make a point.

 

I'm confused, though: I thought this whole thread was about the debate over driving up of costs... and not another nitpicking thread over the whole smuggling issue in general. I say this with all due respect to all the other posters out there so please don't jump on my back about this... I find this concept just as interesting, but I don't understand the constant mudslinging...

 

rajntra: Many posters have answered various responses to your original question-- and you clearly disagree or feel their answers are invalid. What more do you want? Again, I say this without a drop of sarcasm. I'm curious.

 

The thread has evolved just as all threads do. That is what is cool about threads, you start it on one topic and it ends up touching dozen. I just like provoking thoughts. I would have smuggled in September until I found out for a few extra bucks I could buy my booze from Carnival. So now I won't smuggle and arrive in my cabin with my booze already there waiting for me.

 

No answer is invalid, all answers are interesting. Doesn't make a difference to me, just like to see the conversation and other peeps thoughts.

[rajntra]

I wasn't refering to drinks purchased on board, just the cost of drinks smuggled on and drank in cabin. If the drinks I could smuggle were the same price as they are on board, I wouldn't need to smuggle. But no, if I smuggled my own rum & coke, it wouldn't near cost $6/drink. it definitely wouldnt be small or weak either!!! haha!

 

Why not smuggle your own into a bar? Actual cost isn't the $4.25 you're charged at the bar, so why not sneak it in your trousers at a bar? Why is a cruise ship different?

[eLav8]

Why not smuggle your own into a bar? Actual cost isn't the $4.25 you're charged at the bar, so why not sneak it in your trousers at a bar? Why is a cruise ship different?

 

I dont drink smuggled booze anywhere outside of my cabin on the ship. I buy drinks in the bar to drink in the bar or in public spaces on the ship.

 

Some people do sneak a flask into bars/clubs/restaurants. Not me personally, because when I go to a bar, I have set a certain amount for spending...if I cannot afford to buy drinks at the bar, I stay home, or drink BEFORE I go. Either way I don't go on a cruise to drink. And usually on the last sail day, I spend a good chunk of cash on their VERY affordable duty free liquor available on board. If Bon Voyage had prices anywhere near those available on board, I wouldn't need to smuggle, but they don't and I am not going to spend $45 for a $20 bottle of cheap rum or tequila.

[DarkJedi]

First of all (and I meant to ask earlier), Darkjedi, is your dress REALLY cut up to "there"???? Sure looks that way!

 

Yes.