Poll on Why we think DCL changed their alcohol Policy

Why did Disney Change the Alcohol Policy?

  • Because they care about their customers

    Votes: 25 9.7%
  • To increase profits

    Votes: 232 90.3%

  • Total voters
    257
Multiple people abuse a policy.

Said policy gets changed.

End of story.

The Omaha zoo gets voted top in the world almost every year. Their yearly pass is about $100 for a family, but via reciprocal memberships you can get into other zoos for a discount. This discount used to be 100%, so people would buy a family pass at a zoo in this program for far less, and wind up getting into Henry Doorly for free. The zoo finally caught onto this, and now the reciprocal benefits are only a 50% discount. Really awesome policy gets abused by too many people, policy gets changed.

Bottom line, Disney is a corporation. Corporations like making money.

If you don't like the policy, then don't cruise on DCL in the future. Complaining about it on an internet message board and acting like your basic human rights have been taken away accomplishes nothing.

I think discussion about it is a great way to figure out what the heck happened, try to find ways to get them to revise it, and then decide whether or not to spend money elsewhere. So, I think our complaining about it is accomplishing something. I'm looking through all the other posts and threads to see where somewhere mentioned human rights. I saw references to Kool Aid and nazis, but nothing about human rights, yet.
 
Multiple people abuse a policy.

Said policy gets changed.

End of story.

If you don't like the policy, then don't cruise on DCL in the future. Complaining about it on an internet message board and acting like your basic human rights have been taken away accomplishes nothing.

One of the most sensible and to the point posts in this thread. Well said, NEGeekymama.
 
Multiple people abuse a policy.

Said policy gets changed.

End of story.

The Omaha zoo gets voted top in the world almost every year. Their yearly pass is about $100 for a family, but via reciprocal memberships you can get into other zoos for a discount. This discount used to be 100%, so people would buy a family pass at a zoo in this program for far less, and wind up getting into Henry Doorly for free. The zoo finally caught onto this, and now the reciprocal benefits are only a 50% discount. Really awesome policy gets abused by too many people, policy gets changed.

Bottom line, Disney is a corporation. Corporations like making money.

If you don't like the policy, then don't cruise on DCL in the future. Complaining about it on an internet message board and acting like your basic human rights have been taken away accomplishes nothing.

And what about those that have paid in full already for there cruise and had a long standing policy revolked they can not just not cruise with dcl in the future? You telling ppl wanting to vent, discuss and protest they have no reason or right to also accomplishes nothing. Bottom line is you have nothin to add to this conversation apart from trying to tell ppl how to feel and behave. may be you need to think about other pax situations before telling them what they should or should not do?
 
The Omaha zoo gets voted top in the world almost every year. Their yearly pass is about $100 for a family, but via reciprocal memberships you can get into other zoos for a discount. This discount used to be 100%, so people would buy a family pass at a zoo in this program for far less, and wind up getting into Henry Doorly for free. The zoo finally caught onto this, and now the reciprocal benefits are only a 50% discount. Really awesome policy gets abused by too many people, policy gets changed.

Sorry but am I the only one who doesn't understand this annology? That isn't abuse of the policy. If the policy allowed for a free visit to other zoos then it allowed for it. The policy clearly changed because those zoos were loosing profit. I don't see how you are abusing this policy but maybe I've missed something?

DCL is exactly the same as this as far as I can see. They have worked out they are loosing money by allowing liquor onboard and therefore have changed the policy. I don't believe that if it was about abusing the policy it would have taken them since they first started the cruiseline til now to implement this change.
 

As I have posted before cruisers have abused the policy, my cruise 7/22 had adults drunk on English alcohol and Russian alcohol in the early morning hours say 2 am to 3 am. As well as being blind drunk on booze they were not used to the strength of, ie Vodka purchased locally mixed with other brought on drinks. They cussed disruption so officers and security were involved, they caused mess to D Lounge after the closing hours and deck 9 pool deck, they left all the empties and trash there and the poor cleaners had a mammoth task, to clear up where the booze was not sold by DCL and therefore no profit and therefore extra cost.

Anyone vomiting from being drunk would cause health and safety issues, we know how quick bugs can transfer in ships, what's the point of having wipes before dinner or getting on the ship, if people are doing this as they can't handle their booze.

This has occurred on a number of cruises, the policy has been abused by a few for a long time often in a very organised way.

Now to make it clear the majority who brought their own on, we're responsible and kept to the rules of not brining it into public areas and drinking responsibly. I feel sorry for the responsible drinkers who suffer for the mindless few.

If this was profit they would have brought this in long ago, say when smoking rules changed, a mid season mid release change indicates a quicker response to a problem, then an upscale in profit targets.

People like a target and often go for the easy target, like someone posting an opposing view, or blaming a conspiracy on profit increase. Actually if they have this policy and people did buy more booze they have to increase purchases, deliveries, stocking, transfer in ship of the booze that increases costs wiping out a lot of profit and they have limited space to hold all of this.

Question, how many people who brought on drink cleaned up after themselves? Who took the bottles cans etc back off, and who has seen the skips of rubbish going off the ship? DCL has to pay for cleaning the ship and the rubbish disposal of all of that, and disposal of trash nowadays is expensive.

I know loads will not believe this as they have made their minds up its Disney, A few will see it's not as cut and dried as that, and that a few who abused it caused this. There us a history of cruisers here on these boards abiding policy causing DCL to change policy. The unlimited internet package went when people here on cruise meets threads originated and grouped people up to share log in and passwords. There was a REAs package for weddings, this romantic escape at sea package included advance booking if palo and spa and shore trips, some worked out you could book it, without paying the fee upfront, then book thief palo, spa and shore trips before anyone else, then after your normal booking window, cancel REAs so not paying for it but keep the palo shore and spa without cancelling.
 
Last edited:
As I have posted before cruisers have abused the policy, my cruise 7/22 had adults drunk on English alcohol and Russian alcohol in the early morning hours say 2 am to 3 am. As well as being blind drunk on booze they were not used to the strength of, ie Vodka purchased locally mixed with other brought on drinks.

This sounds like a regional thing (ie, European cruise) so why punish us across the pond?
 
Lawyers. DCL's legal team figured that when someone has too much to drink and falls overboard or breaks a leg they will hold DCL responsible for serving them too much booze.....and/or allowing him to bring unlimited amounts of booze onto the ship.

My guess is there have been many such lawsuits. Disney gets sued all the time....the seldom lose....but they have deep pockets that draw lawyers like bees to honey.
 
Lawyers. DCL's legal team figured that when someone has too much to drink and falls overboard or breaks a leg they will hold DCL responsible for serving them too much booze.....and/or allowing him to bring unlimited amounts of booze onto the ship.

My guess is there have been many such lawsuits. Disney gets sued all the time....the seldom lose....but they have deep pockets that draw lawyers like bees to honey.

Uh, no. Disney will sell you booze all day and not care. They'll let peoe book back to back mixology and tequila tastings.
 
Uh, no. Disney will sell you booze all day and not care. They'll let peoe book back to back mixology and tequila tastings.


I don't agree. Most bartenders will not continue to serve someone who is drunk. The bartenders themselves could be held liable for serving someone who is drunk. Some bartenders don't care and will serve anyone regardless of age or state of intoxication......but I'd wager my fortune DCL tells their bartenders to cut people off if they become too drunk.

RE the back to back tasting/mixology. First off, not everyone who goes to those things drinks all the drinks! Secondly, it would take about 5 or 6 of such classes to get me falling-down drunk. We all are different sized and we all have different tolerance to alcohol. My wife gets tipsy with a small glass of wine. I can drink 2 bottles of wine and you'd think I was cold sober.
 
Lawyers. DCL's legal team figured that when someone has too much to drink and falls overboard or breaks a leg they will hold DCL responsible for serving them too much booze.....and/or allowing him to bring unlimited amounts of booze onto the ship.

My guess is there have been many such lawsuits. Disney gets sued all the time....the seldom lose....but they have deep pockets that draw lawyers like bees to honey.

This is the funniest thing I've read so far on the topic.

Let me know if your theory changes when they start selling adult beverage packages.
 
This is the funniest thing I've read so far on the topic.

Let me know if your theory changes when they start selling adult beverage packages.


They already do sell booze packages.

The idea that they changed just to increase profits is hard to believe. It took the 15 years to figure that out? No, they have always know they could increase liquer sales by becoming the sole source provider. Something happened....and my guess is a costly lawsuit. Maybe I'm wrong....but this is my opinion.
 
BTW, why do you think DCL changed their lifevest policy of having to take it with you to the drill? Liability! People would trip on straps going up and downstairs and it created a safety issue. My guess is someone got hurt and DCL got sued and they could not justify why you had to bring your lifevest to the drill. So the legal team looked at the liability of getting sued vs the benefit of bringing the vest....and they changed policy.
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone think an unpopular decision was about anything but increasing profits?


I find this mildly amusing. 20 years DCL has been sailing and, as far as I know, had the same alcohol policy. Suddenly some brainiac has an idea, "Hey, we can increase profit if we change our alcohol policy!"

I actually don't think the policy change will effect profit at all and here is why:

1. People will sneak the booze on (see tread about sneaking on booze).

2. The vast majority of family cruisers are not heavy drinkers when they are vacationing with their 4 and 6 year old kids.

3. Most people didn't take advantage of the policy anyway.

4. The minimal increase in revenue generated would be offset by the few people who won't cruise on DCL anymore becasue of the policy change.

5. If you were taking booze on the ship because you were too cheap to pay the DCL prices, you are probably gonna find other ways to cut costs to offset your added drinking cost. Maybe a cheaper room or maybe not play bingo or maybe take one less DCL excursion.

These are just a few things off the top of my head....and I am an engineer not a business or marketing guy. Rest assured there were dozens of DCL business and marking people studying this and several executives reviewing their analysis and number and assumptions. Again, if it was just 'profit' the policy would have changed 20 years ago! Disney did not get to be the number one entertainment company in the world by making decisions without thinking them thru.

Just my opinions.....I could be wrong....but I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree. Most bartenders will not continue to serve someone who is drunk. The bartenders themselves could be held liable for serving someone who is drunk. Some bartenders don't care and will serve anyone regardless of age or state of intoxication......but I'd wager my fortune DCL tells their bartenders to cut people off if they become too drunk.

RE the back to back tasting/mixology. First off, not everyone who goes to those things drinks all the drinks! Secondly, it would take about 5 or 6 of such classes to get me falling-down drunk. We all are different sized and we all have different tolerance to alcohol. My wife gets tipsy with a small glass of wine. I can drink 2 bottles of wine and you'd think I was cold sober.


You must never had a job that makes tips as your livelihood. Most bartenders keep serving well past the point they should be. There are some that do care, especially if they think they may be driving. On a cruise ship, not so much
 
I find this mildly amusing. 20 years DCL has been sailing and, as far as I know, had the same alcohol policy. Suddenly some brainiac has an idea, "Hey, we can increase profit if we change our alcohol policy!"

1) This was not a sudden idea. They've tried it once before.

2) You find it amusing that in a time of never-before-seen demand for cruises, a cruise line would be busy thinking of more ways to part those customers from their money? A la carte is where it's at. Unbundling is where it's at. As DCL themselves said in their response to this, it's 'industry standard'. Industry standard = you don't let the cruisers bring liquor on board because of the insane profit margins in selling them mixed drinks and drink packages.

3) Yes, cruise lines all get sued ALL THE TIME. That is not why they prohibit liquor in carry-ons. See point 2.

I can see that you are very, very invested in your theory, though, so aside from this I will leave you to it. :)
 
BTW, why do you think DCL changed their lifevest policy of having to take it with you to the drill? Liability! People would trip on straps going up and downstairs and it created a safety issue. My guess is someone got hurt and DCL got sued and they could not justify why you had to bring your lifevest to the drill. So the legal team looked at the liability of getting sued vs the benefit of bringing the vest....and they changed policy.

I believe that was a Maritime wide policy change not just DCL.
 
1) This was not a sudden idea. They've tried it once before.

2) You find it amusing that in a time of never-before-seen demand for cruises, a cruise line would be busy thinking of more ways to part those customers from their money? A la carte is where it's at. Unbundling is where it's at. As DCL themselves said in their response to this, it's 'industry standard'. Industry standard = you don't let the cruisers bring liquor on board because of the insane profit margins in selling them mixed drinks and drink packages.

3) Yes, cruise lines all get sued ALL THE TIME. That is not why they prohibit liquor in carry-ons. See point 2.

I can see that you are very, very invested in your theory, though, so aside from this I will leave you to it. :)


Wow, I wasn't aware we were at this point of never before seen demand for cruises! But if there is a high demand for cruises why would this mean cruise lines are thinking of ways to get more money from cruisers. Usually demand drives up the cost of goods and services and therefore increases company profit. I don't understand your logic of tying high cruise demand to the need to increase profit margin? But again, as I stated, I really don't think this policy change will change profit by anything meaningful.

It is the industry standard but that has nothing to do with why they decided to change the policy. Disney has never been one to follow what other cruise lines do. Certainly it was business decision and therefore based on money....but you can lose a ton of profit with one lawsuit.

You seem to be offended that I found your comment as amusing as you found mine. No one will ever know WHY DCL changed that policy....even if they come out with a press conference stating why the did so. We are just having fun opining on why we think DCL may have changed thier policy. No one's opinion is any more or any less valued than anyone elses. That's the cool thing about opinions!

Cheers.
 
Wow, I wasn't aware we were at this point of never before seen demand for cruises! But if there is a high demand for cruises why would this mean cruise lines are thinking of ways to get more money from cruisers. Usually demand drives up the cost of goods and services and therefore increases company profit. I don't understand your logic of tying high cruise demand to the need to increase profit margin? But again, as I stated, I really don't think this policy change will change profit by anything meaningful.

It is the industry standard but that has nothing to do with why they decided to change the policy. Disney has never been one to follow what other cruise lines do. Certainly it was business decision and therefore based on money....but you can lose a ton of profit with one lawsuit.

You seem to be offended that I found your comment as amusing as you found mine. No one will ever know WHY DCL changed that policy....even if they come out with a press conference stating why the did so. We are just having fun opining on why we think DCL may have changed thier policy. No one's opinion is any more or any less valued than anyone elses. That's the cool thing about opinions!

Cheers.

The response to my statistically valid poll is the OFFICIAL reason why DCL changed their policy. Duh. A DisBoards poll has a lot of power and weight, didn't you know?
 
I believe that was a Maritime wide policy change not just DCL.


It was a good decision IMO. I will however miss the geeky family photo of the 4 of us standing on the boatdeck wearing a life vestt. IDK why but I think we took that picture on every cruise...till they changed the policy.

I'm thinking I remember sailing on HAL and not having to take our life vests to the muster and yet DCL still had you to bring your vest. Maybe it just took DCL a little longer to change their procedures to fit the new policy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kae

GET UP TO A $1000 SHIPBOARD CREDIT AND AN EXCLUSIVE GIFT!

If you make your Disney Cruise Line reservation with Dreams Unlimited Travel you’ll receive these incredible shipboard credits to spend on your cruise!

























DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top