I guess DCL won this one...

[tinkerone]

Totally disagree for the logical and crrect reasons I posted. What you may have done and what many others have posted over the years that they jave done are to different things.

I don't work for Disney so I have no manta to support. Just the facts I note.

AKK

i normally agree with most that you say but how is it your reasons are logical and correct? theres no way you can know for sure, your guess is as good as mine, but its still a guess, so saying your reasons are correct is illogical in itself.
i doubt any of us will know all the reasons but i would say its more than what you or i believe. we can't discount others thoughts. truth is we just don't know for sure…….

 

[squirk]

I tend to agree. However, where I do think Pete was spot on, was when he said that this is likely a signal that DCL realizes that it has probably raised the crusie fares about as high as they can go. So they can't increase revenues by simply raising the fare at the rates that they have over the last several years. So now, in order to increase revenues, they have to look at ways to extract more money from guests while onboard. This may be just the beginning of policy changes/tweaks designed to increase onboard spending.

Honestly, I have no problem with DCL adding options to encourage additional on-board spending. Key word: "adding". Not "subtracting". Other key word: "encourage". Not "mandate".

The alcohol policy change doesn't bode well. And imagine if DCL winds up closing Eye Scream on the Dream so that the only way to get ice cream on-deck is to pay for it at Vanellope's. People will lose. Their. Minds.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

i normally agree with most that you say but how is it your reasons are logical and correct? theres no way you can know for sure, your guess is as good as mine, but its still a guess, so saying your reasons are correct is illogical in itself.
i doubt any of us will know all the reasons but i would say its more than what you or i believe. we can't discount others thoughts. truth is we just don't know for sure…….

I agree with you 100%, I doubt any of us will ever know all the reasons and it may indeed be more then what you and I believe..........when it all comes down to it..no one knows 100% is was DCL stopping the abuse was the reason or if it was for money or whatever. As I said I feel a good part of the reason was the abuse....not all of it. I think the abuse is logical because I don't see money as the full reason. DCL had this policy for years......why change it for just money now?

Tink, I don't mind anyone else having a different opinion I offer mine and supported as I feel is correct. Others are free to have their opinion.


What does bother me about this change, as not the change.......but the short notice.......I think DCL shot themselves in the foot with that.

AKK

 

[squirk]

DCL had this policy for years......why change it for just money now?

I think you just answered your own question.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I think you just answered your own question.

Actually, that is one possibility. AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I found it funny that some of my southern crews from dry counties were all quite willing and happy to tell me they were happy they lived in a dry county......yet everyone of them knew the mileage and time to the minute, to get to the first liqueur store over the county line.


AKK

 

[waltdisneymom]

We don't drink much and have never brought on our own alcohol, but when they cancelled the Mickey Mail and then changed the Alcohol policy, DCL started to make us look at them again. We started thinking, why would they start offering less options? Are they going less upmarket? Apparently, but at an increased price. So, yes, we started looking at Royal Caribbean and Wow. Just as we started looking at Royal Caribbean, we saw an article about how Disney replaced American workers with foreigners in a very callous way. Like the way they did it was so not "magical." If anyone is interested, here is one link: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...americans-with-cheap-foreigners-on-h1b-visas/ We really did not like the H1B Visa deal. But it all seems to tie together to reveal that Disney is going tacky. Watch, soon you will have to purchase a drink package to get a cup of coffee in the morning. It is tacky. It is tacky what they did to their "cast members," it is tacky to change the alcohol policy, and it is tacky to stop Mickey Mail (if they want to limit it fine, but stop it?). Of course, they can do what they want. And yes, DCL can command a high price, still, but perhaps the Disney executives need a "boondoggle" where they study the Greek myths. Or some other archetypal literature where they gain a new understanding of how Arrogance can bring about your own downfall.

 

[JimmyV]

I still feel a big part of the reason for the policy change was guests that abused the system.

when it all comes down to it..no one knows 100% is was DCL stopping the abuse was the reason or if it was for money or whatever.

As I said I feel a good part of the reason was the abuse

Perhaps people could see your side of all of this if you could define what it is you mean when you use the word "abuse". Comments like this naturally cause others to say, (and it happened again in this thread), "I have never seen the abuse of which you speak". But the problem might be that something that you see as "abuse" someone else sees as "legitimate". So the two of you might be seeing the same thing but interpreting them differently. You seem to have a pretty good handle on what Disney considers to be abuse. I am not aware of any published guidelines, but obviously you are part of the inner circle and know what is abusive and what is not. So...

With respect to bottles of wine, how many bottles could one bring on before they are found to be abusing the system? One bottle per day per adult couple? One bottle per day per adult person? However many bottles it takes such that the guest spends no money on wine while on the ship?

With respect to beer, how much was "legitimate personal consumption" and when does it cross the line into "abuse"? Three bottles per adult per day? Six bottles per adult per day? Whatever amount causes one to drink only their beers without buying more from the ship? Whatever amount makes one "choke on your own vomit" drunk?

And with respect to spirits, how much could one bring on board and still be non-abusive, and at what point does one cross the line into abusiveness? What did Disney consider to be the the proper amount, and how much did passengers bring on to get them labeled as "abusers"?

Once we have answers to these questions, then I think we can have an intelligent conversation about personal experiences and whether or not "abuse" was taking place, and whether or not such abuse was witnessed widely by the guests on the ship. If "abuse" means bringing on three bottle of wine or a six-pack of beer, then I think that you are right on the money and abuse was running rampant. But if abuse means that people were bringing on so much alcohol that people were staining the carpets with their vomit on a nightly basis, then I'd have to say, no, I did not see that type of abuse. Until we define "abuse", we cannot have this discussion.

 

[waltdisneymom]

I forgot to mention that we have 3 cruises booked with DCL over the next year and a half but are reevaluating.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Perhaps people could see your side of all of this if you could define what it is you mean when you use the word "abuse". Comments like this naturally cause others to say, (and it happened again in this thread), "I have never seen the abuse of which you speak". But the problem might be that something that you see as "abuse" someone else sees as "legitimate". So the two of you might be seeing the same thing but interpreting them differently. You seem to have a pretty good handle on what Disney considers to be abuse. I am not aware of any published guidelines, but obviously you are part of the inner circle and know what is abusive and what is not. So...

With respect to bottles of wine, how many bottles could one bring on before they are found to be abusing the system? One bottle per day per adult couple? One bottle per day per adult person? However many bottles it takes such that the guest spends no money on wine while on the ship?

With respect to beer, how much was "legitimate personal consumption" and when does it cross the line into "abuse"? Three bottles per adult per day? Six bottles per adult per day? Whatever amount causes one to drink only their beers without buying more from the ship? Whatever amount makes one "choke on your own vomit" drunk?

And with respect to spirits, how much could one bring on board and still be non-abusive, and at what point does one cross the line into abusiveness? What did Disney consider to be the the proper amount, and how much did passengers bring on to get them labeled as "abusers"?

Once we have answers to these questions, then I think we can have an intelligent conversation about personal experiences and whether or not "abuse" was taking place, and whether or not such abuse was witnessed widely by the guests on the ship. If "abuse" means bringing on three bottle of wine or a six-pack of beer, then I think that you are right on the money and abuse was running rampant. But if abuse means that people were bringing on so much alcohol that people were staining the carpets with their vomit on a nightly basis, then I'd have to say, no, I did not see that type of abuse. Until we define "abuse", we cannot have this discussion.

Jimmy....to my thinking.....it was bringing alcohol to the pool areas and on deck and to the theaters, etc, when clearly the RULES say to be consumed in your cabin. That is a pretty good guideline....clear and straight forward. Some folks were posting many times about how they just used a cup from the cabin steward and filed it with their alcohol and bragged if DCL wanted to stop us they would have. I figure CMs were watching and they knew of the problem and finally they decided to stop it. That is why they said no ligeurs. I have stated this before.

To be honest I find it amazing that some folks will not even consider that it is a possibility, that at least part of the reason COULD be Disney felt enough was enough.

As to amounts.....that's really a personal issue...There was no rule about how much you could bring onboard, so DCL had nothing to say.........but if your drinking to the point you bother other people......you stepped over the line. I never saw a people so drunk that they were a problem to me or the family. However I wasn't the a bar hound on the ships. In fact I don't consider it safe to do any heavy drinking on a ship. Emergencies happen to fast. I am sure someone will not like that either.

Jimmy, I have no problem with other opinions. I know a lot of people are mad at DCL....I am not to happy with them either. However, I feel it is very possible DCL limited the alcohol policy partially due to it being abusing it.

AKK

 

[JimmyV]

To be honest I find it amazing that some folks will not even consider that it is a possibility, that at least part of the reason COULD be Disney felt enough was enough.

Thank you for your explanation. That does clear some things up. But in response to the statement quoted above, people have a hard time considering it as a possibility because the new rules are merely volumetric and not venue-oriented. So before, we could bring seven bottles of wine on board, and three of those we could pour into plastic cups (Oh! The Horror!!) and sip them by the pool, and thereby become abusers. Now we can bring four bottles of wine on board, and pour some of those into plastic cups and sip them by the pool, and thereby become abusers, and then replenish our supply. Rinse. Repeat. Same goes for beer. Bring six on board and drink them (abusively) by the pool. Buy 6 more at the next port, and drink them (abusively) by the pool. So the reason why people are having such a hard time taking the "abuse" reasoning seriously is because the new rules do absolutely nothing to alter the behavior that you see as abusive. All the rules do is alter the timing. A couple brings wine and/or beer on at the beginning of the cruise, and they add more bottles as the trip progresses. The total number of bottles doesn't change, nor does the fact that they are going to "abuse" the system and drink them by the pool, out on deck and in the theaters. If Disney wants to attach that type of abuse, it has other and better ways to skin that cat. I will concede that the new rules would seem to put a damper in the "abusive behavior" of people drinking rum and cokes out by the pool. But is that what this is all about?

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Perhaps people could see your side of all of this if you could define what it is you mean when you use the word "abuse". Comments like this naturally cause others to say, (and it happened again in this thread), "I have never seen the abuse of which you speak". But the problem might be that something that you see as "abuse" someone else sees as "legitimate". So the two of you might be seeing the same thing but interpreting them differently. You seem to have a pretty good handle on what Disney considers to be abuse. I am not aware of any published guidelines, but obviously you are part of the inner circle and know what is abusive and what is not. So...

I believe the "abuse" is not abuse of alcohol, as in drunkeness (and related issues) onboard. But abuse of the policy.

As to "published guidelines", I think DCL's policy (prior to the change) was pretty clear:
Q:May Guests bring alcohol onboard?
A:While adult Guests ages 21 and older may bring alcohol onboard, the following guidelines apply:
•-Alcohol brought on board may not be consumed in any lounge or public area.
•-Guests who arrive in the dining room with a bottle of champagne or wine that has been brought on board will be charged a corking fee of $20.00 per bottle.
•-Beverages must be packed in your carry-on bag—which must not exceed 22 inches wide, 14 inches high and 9 inches deep in dimension
•-Coolers filled with personal items (e.g. soda, alcohol, chips, candy, etc.) may not be brought on board.

Please note: Disney Cruise Line reserves the right to remove fragile items (including beverages) from checked luggage. In such cases, items will be stored and returned at the end of the voyage. Beverage containers are considered fragile and have previously caused damage in checked luggage. All fragile items must be transported inside carry-on luggage.

The encouragement of some here to "just fill a glass in your room and bring it to the dining room" is abusing the policy. The hidden flask at Castaway Cay (or poolside) to "top off" your personal drinks is abusing the policy.

While I feel that the change was looked at as a revenue plus for DCL, I think the people who felt "the policy doesn't apply to me" also had a hand in the decision to change the alcohol policy.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Thank you for your explanation. That does clear some things up. But in response to the statement quoted above, people have a hard time considering it as a possibility because the new rules are merely volumetric and not venue-oriented. So before, we could bring seven bottles of wine on board, and three of those we could pour into plastic cups (Oh! The Horror!!) and sip them by the pool, and thereby become abusers. Now we can bring four bottles of wine on board, and pour some of those into plastic cups and sip them by the pool, and thereby become abusers, and then replenish our supply. Rinse. Repeat. Same goes for beer. Bring six on board and drink them (abusively) by the pool. Buy 6 more at the next port, and drink them (abusively) by the pool. So the reason why people are having such a hard time taking the "abuse" reasoning seriously is because the new rules do absolutely nothing to alter the behavior that you see as abusive. All the rules do is alter the timing. A couple brings wine and/or beer on at the beginning of the cruise, and they add more bottles as the trip progresses. The total number of bottles doesn't change, nor does the fact that they are going to "abuse" the system and drink them by the pool, out on deck and in the theaters. If Disney wants to attach that type of abuse, it has other and better ways to skin that cat. I will concede that the new rules would seem to put a damper in the "abusive behavior" of people drinking rum and cokes out by the pool. But is that what this is all about?

OK..but your last sentence hit the target....I don't think any of us will know to 100% surety why DCL changed the policy!

AKK

I added a bit to my post on *amounts*.....To be honest you write much more clearly then I do.[/QUOTE]

 

[JimmyV]

•-Alcohol brought on board may not be consumed in any lounge or public area.

You were no doubt typing when I posted above, but again...how do the new rules in any way curtail the "public area" abuse? If people want to pour their beers into Red Solo Cups and bring them around the ship, they are still going to. Was Disney trying to punish liquor drinkers exclusively?

 

[PrincessShmoo]

You were no doubt typing when I posted above, but again...how do the new rules in any way curtail the "public area" abuse? If people want to pour their beers into Red Solo Cups and bring them around the ship, they are still going to. Was Disney trying to punish liquor drinkers exclusively?

Purely as a guess on my part, but possibly DCL felt the hard alcohol was causing more of an issue than beer or wine. Yes, people can still abuse the (new) policy by bringing such items into the public spaces, but with the more limited supply, maybe people won't as much.

 

[JimmyV]

I never saw a people so drunk that they were a problem to me or the family. However I wasn't the a bar hound on the ships.

And again, thank you for that. I think that a lot of the abrasion that has been felt here and on other threads derived from the fact that people perceived you as having witnessed such behavior while they did not. So once we scratch "drunkenness" off the list, the range of other possible reasons narrows considerably.

 

[waltdisneymom]

Thank you for your explanation. That does clear some things up. But in response to the statement quoted above, people have a hard time considering it as a possibility because the new rules are merely volumetric and not venue-oriented. So before, we could bring seven bottles of wine on board, and three of those we could pour into plastic cups (Oh! The Horror!!) and sip them by the pool, and thereby become abusers. Now we can bring four bottles of wine on board, and pour some of those into plastic cups and sip them by the pool, and thereby become abusers, and then replenish our supply. Rinse. Repeat. Same goes for beer. Bring six on board and drink them (abusively) by the pool. Buy 6 more at the next port, and drink them (abusively) by the pool. So the reason why people are having such a hard time taking the "abuse" reasoning seriously is because the new rules do absolutely nothing to alter the behavior that you see as abusive. All the rules do is alter the timing. A couple brings wine and/or beer on at the beginning of the cruise, and they add more bottles as the trip progresses. The total number of bottles doesn't change, nor does the fact that they are going to "abuse" the system and drink them by the pool, out on deck and in the theaters. If Disney wants to attach that type of abuse, it has other and better ways to skin that cat. I will concede that the new rules would seem to put a damper in the "abusive behavior" of people drinking rum and cokes out by the pool. But is that what this is all about?

I agree that this has nothing to do with "abuse" for the reasons you have stated as well as the fact that disney never issued an reiteration of the alcohol policy to imply they were worried about abuse. We also never saw any abuse. This definitely seems like a low class attempt to raise revenue. But the thing is people are already spending what they can on the cruise. They won't spend more. Maybe they won't go to palo one night so they can buy a couple of drinks buy the pool but no net increase for disney.

 

[JimmyV]

but with the more limited supply, maybe people won't as much.

Ahhh. But herein lies the myth. The new policy allows people to re-supply along their route of travel. So the supply will only be limited at the port of embarkation and won't be limited in toto.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Ahhh. But herein lies the myth. The new policy allows people to re-supply along their route of travel. So the supply will only be limited at the port of embarkation and won't be limited in toto.

I guess the theory is that people may not want to take time out of their limited time in port to search out and purchase additional wine/beer. As well as having to carry it around that day until reboarding. I don't know.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I believe the "abuse" is not abuse of alcohol, as in drunkeness (and related issues) onboard. But abuse of the policy.

As to "published guidelines", I think DCL's policy (prior to the change) was pretty clear:
Q:May Guests bring alcohol onboard?
A:While adult Guests ages 21 and older may bring alcohol onboard, the following guidelines apply:
•-Alcohol brought on board may not be consumed in any lounge or public area.
•-Guests who arrive in the dining room with a bottle of champagne or wine that has been brought on board will be charged a corking fee of $20.00 per bottle.
•-Beverages must be packed in your carry-on bag—which must not exceed 22 inches wide, 14 inches high and 9 inches deep in dimension
•-Coolers filled with personal items (e.g. soda, alcohol, chips, candy, etc.) may not be brought on board.

Please note: Disney Cruise Line reserves the right to remove fragile items (including beverages) from checked luggage. In such cases, items will be stored and returned at the end of the voyage. Beverage containers are considered fragile and have previously caused damage in checked luggage. All fragile items must be transported inside carry-on luggage.

The encouragement of some here to "just fill a glass in your room and bring it to the dining room" is abusing the policy. The hidden flask at Castaway Cay (or poolside) to "top off" your personal drinks is abusing the policy.

While I feel that the change was looked at as a revenue plus for DCL, I think the people who felt "the policy doesn't apply to me" also had a hand in the decision to change the alcohol policy.

Shmoo....that has always been my position, that it was a policy issue with some guests........AKK