Disney changes alcohol policy and raises corkage fee

I agree. It would be way easier for me to buy the abuse reasoning if I had ever, even once seen a single DCL employee say a word to any of these so called abusers. In my 7 cruises over the last 3 years, I have never once seen a DCL employee say anything to a person with a drink from their room. I can't say it never happened, I am just saying I never saw it.

While not really "abusing" this is what happened to us: a DCL Guest Services CM did tell our daughter that she couldn't bring her bottle of wine (that she brought onboard) into the dining room. Mis-information on their part. We did bring it to one of the lounges (with prior arrangement, and corkage fee) for drinking after dinner.

So, at least once someone was "trying" to hold to the "no consumption in public areas" policy. Even though they were wrong.

While not really "abusing" this is what happened to us: a DCL Guest Services CM did tell our daughter that she couldn't bring her bottle of wine (that she brought onboard) into the dining room. Mis-information on their part. We did bring it to one of the lounges (with prior arrangement, and corkage fee) for drinking after dinner.

 

So, at least once someone was "trying" to hold to the "no consumption in public areas" policy. Even though they were wrong.

If you bought it on board (for consumption on board, not as duty free), there should have been no corkage fee. They can easily verify on your account that it was purchased on board.

And you are correct--you can bring any bottle you choose into the dining room. But if it was not an on board purchase, you are supposed to be charged the corkage fee.

If you bought it on board (for consumption on board' date=' not as duty free), there should have been no corkage fee. They can easily verify on your account that it was purchased on board.

 

And you are correct--you can bring any bottle you choose into the dining room. But if it was not an on board purchase, you are supposed to be charged the corkage fee.[/quote']

 

I said "that she brought onboard", so she should have been told "yes, you can bring it to the dining room, and you will be charged a corkage fee." But she was told "No, you cannot bring wine that you brought onboard to the dining room".

I said "that she brought onboard", so she should have been told "yes, you can bring it to the dining room, and you will be charged a corkage fee." But she was told "No, you cannot bring wine that you brought onboard to the dining room".

Sorry, guess I can't read tonight. I read "bought" not "brought." Yes, if she brought it on board, she should have been allowed to bring it into the dining room and charged the corkage.

I wonder if DCL is planning on selling an alcohol drink package once this policy goes into effect.

I was going to as the same thing

I wonder if DCL is planning on selling an alcohol drink package once this policy goes into effect.

I was going to as the same thing

There are reports on the DIS that DCL have said via email or phone call they have no immediate plans to implement a drinks package. But they are listening to Guest feedback.

They have also said (reportedly) to some, not all, that they may cancel their cruise without penalty if they are already PIF. No refunds for airfare or hotels etc.

Sounds like an afterthought to me, but if you feel strongly about this, email karl.holz@disney.com with a suggestion or critique of the new policy.

Ex techie

Making you accept something different than what originally attracted you.

Anyone notice any similarities to the broad definition of bait and switch and what DCL did? EVEN when it is disclosed they can change policy at any time (by the way, the FTC frowns on this practice too).

Even with basic contract law. Did I detrimentally rely on the stated policy of DCL when making my decision and at the PIF date? Well, yes, I relied on their stated alcohol policy in that, I was planning on saving money by having a drink in my room, on the veranda. Not purchasing from the bar.

Any offer made to refund the cruise cost is hollow (I said it before and will again), if it does not include ALL monies out of pocket for the PIF guests cruises. I know very few people who 60ish days before they are traveling do not have air, hotels, other transportation, heck private tours, etc., already booked. Which DCL knows, so makes the offer with very little risk. It is more insulting than the policy change at the late date.

Making you accept something different than what originally attracted you.

 

Anyone notice any similarities to the broad definition of bait and switch and what DCL did? EVEN when it is disclosed they can change policy at any time (by the way, the FTC frowns on this practice too).

 

Even with basic contract law. Did I detrimentally rely on the stated policy of DCL when making my decision and at the PIF date? Well, yes, I relied on their stated alcohol policy in that, I was planning on saving money by having a drink in my room, on the veranda. Not purchasing from the bar.

 

Any offer made to refund the cruise cost is hollow (I said it before and will again), if it does not include ALL monies out of pocket for the PIF guests cruises. I know very few people who 60ish days before they are traveling do not have air, hotels, other transportation, heck private tours, etc., already booked. Which DCL knows, so makes the offer with very little risk. It is more insulting than the policy change at the late date.

I don't think DCL made anyone make (or accept) a reservation with them. And anyone who booked a cruise purely based on being able to bring unlimited alcohol onboard? Personally, that's not why I cruise.

Since DCL attempted to change this perk about 3 years ago, it's obvious they were working on it.

And the contract allowing "changes at any time" is basically what all cruiselines say in their contract.

You make a reservation with any cruiseline agreeing to the policies (and any future changes). Yes, it's gambling that things are going to remain the same, but if you're not comfortable with the "changes at anytime" policy, maybe you shouldn't book any cruises.

I don't think DCL made anyone make (or accept) a reservation with them. And anyone who booked a cruise purely based on being able to bring unlimited alcohol onboard? Personally, that's not why I cruise.

 

Since DCL attempted to change this perk about 3 years ago, it's obvious they were working on it.

 

And the contract allowing "changes at any time" is basically what all cruiselines say in their contract.

 

You make a reservation with any cruiseline agreeing to the policies (and any future changes). Yes, it's gambling that things are going to remain the same, but if you're not comfortable with the "changes at anytime" policy, maybe you shouldn't book any cruises.

It may not be why you booked, does not mean it wasn't for someone else, or that it was not a factor... My budget for this upcoming cruise is now higher than what it was, thanks to the new policy. No judgments either way, right?

And, just to let you know, I had NO idea they had tried to change the policy years earlier, so no, it was not "obvious" that they were going to be doing something about it. Maybe it was to you, kudos for being in the know, but please don't assume that everyone has all your information and therefore should "know" about "obvious" issues....

And, to me, yes they did "make" me accept something other than what I had already paid for. "Making" someone pay more for something that has already been purchased, or making them pay the same amount for a lessor quality item. By your definition, no company should be held liable for a "bait and switch" as NO person was MADE to purchase the item that was advertised....

I was past my paid in full date. At that point, to me, the contract, should be in place, irregardless of whether they have the "right to change" an item. Just because they have put that in the adhesion contract (which I accept for what it is) still does NOT make it right for them to do this. This is my opinion only, doesn't have to be yours.

Oh, and the FTC is going after other business for pulling this type of thing, I think one AG stated something along the lines of, terms may change at any time, was not really that strong of a defense to the bait and switch, kind of a you'll know it when you see it type of thing. Now, in that case, it was a much more blatant bait and switch. Just when you look at the broad definition of what a bait and switch is, what DCL did fits into the definition.

I am probably (notice I don't rule it out, they can still make this right with me) not going to be sailing with DCL much longer because of how their customer service has handled this issue. It is time for me to move on. In all honesty, if DCL were to allow me to cancel this cruise, plus refund any expenditures spent on it that are non-refundable, I would take them up on that offer, but they are not willing to do that. Hence why I am so upset, either let me have the cruise that I paid for at the terms when payment in full was due, or make me whole contractually speaking.

Going forward, I now know the new rules, so will make a FULLY informed decision on which line to sail with, I would not be nearly so upset if I had not paid in full and been outside the cancellation window. That is what has me crying foul. In this case, DCL did not give me that choice.

It may not be why you booked, does not mean it wasn't for someone else, or that it was not a factor...

Going forward, I now know the new rules, so will make a FULLY informed decision on which line to sail with, I would not be nearly so upset if I had not paid in full and been outside the cancellation window. That is what has me crying foul. In this case, DCL did not give me that choice.

Yes this doesn't doesn't seem fair but it is standard practice . Enjoy the cruise anyway .

It may not be why you booked, does not mean it wasn't for someone else, or that it was not a factor... My budget for this upcoming cruise is now higher than what it was, thanks to the new policy. No judgments either way, right?

 

And, just to let you know, I had NO idea they had tried to change the policy years earlier, so no, it was not "obvious" that they were going to be doing something about it. Maybe it was to you, kudos for being in the know, but please don't assume that everyone has all your information and therefore should "know" about "obvious" issues....

 

And, to me, yes they did "make" me accept something other than what I had already paid for. "Making" someone pay more for something that has already been purchased, or making them pay the same amount for a lessor quality item. By your definition, no company should be held liable for a "bait and switch" as NO person was MADE to purchase the item that was advertised....

 

I was past my paid in full date. At that point, to me, the contract, should be in place, irregardless of whether they have the "right to change" an item. Just because they have put that in the adhesion contract (which I accept for what it is) still does NOT make it right for them to do this. This is my opinion only, doesn't have to be yours.

 

Oh, and the FTC is going after other business for pulling this type of thing, I think one AG stated something along the lines of, terms may change at any time, was not really that strong of a defense to the bait and switch, kind of a you'll know it when you see it type of thing. Now, in that case, it was a much more blatant bait and switch. Just when you look at the broad definition of what a bait and switch is, what DCL did fits into the definition.

 

I am probably (notice I don't rule it out, they can still make this right with me) not going to be sailing with DCL much longer because of how their customer service has handled this issue. It is time for me to move on. In all honesty, if DCL were to allow me to cancel this cruise, plus refund any expenditures spent on it that are non-refundable, I would take them up on that offer, but they are not willing to do that. Hence why I am so upset, either let me have the cruise that I paid for at the terms when payment in full was due, or make me whole contractually speaking.

 

Going forward, I now know the new rules, so will make a FULLY informed decision on which line to sail with, I would not be nearly so upset if I had not paid in full and been outside the cancellation window. That is what has me crying foul. In this case, DCL did not give me that choice..

I completely agree with this. If DCL does not do something to try and fix this situation for the PIF cruisers it will definitely affect where my money is going to be spent on my next cruise. If I experience bad business practices from one company, why would I give them more money in the future??

Unfortunately no . You will never get to make a "FULLY informed decision" . As Shmoo posted to you , "And the contract allowing "changes at any time" is basically what all cruiselines say in their contract. You make a reservation with any cruiseline agreeing to the policies (and any future changes)" .

 

Yes this doesn't doesn't seem fair but it is standard practice . Enjoy the cruise anyway .

There are a lot of cruise lines out there and if you experience bad business practices with one line then you have many other lines to give a shot to. Why would you want to spend your hard earned money on a company that practices bad business? I love the Disney brand, but the DCL brand is going to be put on the backburner for my next trip to the sea.

And you're right about Carnival...who's freaking idea was it to put a crappy DJ on the Lido deck playing the same music you hear on the radio at home. Grinds my gears!

In fairness, I don't think this change had anything to do with what happened a several years ago. That episode, which resulted in a very temporary ban on guests bringing any alcohol on board, was likely the result of some "overaged teens" bringing a cooler of beer to the adult pool and proceeding to become very drunk and disorderly. Yes, they were violating several policies (cooler, own alcohol out of cabin, etc.) but DCL chose to enforce the already existing cooler policy and initially instituted the "no alcohol" policy. This was very quickly reversed, within a matter of weeks, after a huge amount of guest outcry.

This policy seems to be much more thought out and does not totally ban guests brining alcohol on board. However, I do feel the erred in not exempting all cruises that were beyond the PIF date.

This makes me believe there is something more behind the policy change--legal or insurance issues do make sense. I didn't think so initially, but I now believe there is more to this than financial motivation.

...

This policy seems to be much more thought out and does not totally ban guests brining alcohol on board. However' date=' I do feel the erred in not exempting all cruises that were beyond the PIF date.

 

This makes me believe there is something more behind the policy change--legal or insurance issues do make sense. I didn't think so initially, but I now believe there is more to this than financial motivation.[/quote']

 

I agree that DCL handled the implementation of the new policy poorly. Totally unfair that those past their PIF dates were caught in the middle.

This makes me believe there is something more behind the policy change--legal or insurance issues do make sense. I didn't think so initially' date=' but I now believe there is more to this than financial motivation.[/quote']

 

What caused you to rethink it? I may be totally blinkered but I personally still don't buy this, if this was the case surely it would have been perfectly acceptable to come right out and say this to passengers. It's kind of hard to argue with legal or even insurance reasons.

What caused you to rethink it? I may be totally blinkered but I personally still don't buy this, if this was the case surely it would have been perfectly acceptable to come right out and say this to passengers. It's kind of hard to argue with legal or even insurance reasons.

In the past, when DCL has made a policy change suddenly, it has come down from legal. An example was the very sudden re-organization of the kid programming with the policy that NO legal adult other than a DCL CM would ever be in contact with a child under DCL's care. Based on timing and on line reporting, we are fairly certain what caused this policy shift, but the wording on the new policy was obviously legal.

DCL has never explained any rationale for a policy change; I wouldn't expect them to start now. And they certainly don't want to be seen to take "orders" from another department or company.

Many other policies have been "grandfathered" when they reflected only a monetary shift--for instance, the change in OBC for cruises booked on board was instituted to apply to cruises booked after the announcement of the policy change AND those booked before but moved to a different date. A cruise booked prior to the policy change and ultimately cruised as booked went under the old policy. Same for rules regarding who you could or could not book for on a rebooking on board.

And on other policies, DCL has shown a willingness to be reasonable if the right person could be dealt with. I just typed and then deleted a personal example because I don't choose to reveal that much info.

This policy seems to be one of those "set in stone" issues. That usually means legal is into it in some way.

Bump, just want to make sure people know about this and keep letting DCL know of our frustration with it...since of course, they haven't explained to the public of their bad business practices.

Not always possible. For example, if this change was in response to a court, insurance or regulatory action, there may be limits on what they can say to avoid liability for prior acts in other open cases or issues.

As a non-Disney example, a former company I worked for had to change an employee policy regarding shoes, which annoyed a lot of employees who had to go out and get new ones (this was min wage retain). The reason stated was 'operational', however the ACTUAL reason was due to a lawsuit that they lost and the insurer required the change, plus they could not say anything about the suit for fear of a whole bunch of people saying, hey I was exposed to same risk, I should sue as well!

There may also be aspects of confidentiality, etc...

What caused you to rethink it? I may be totally blinkered but I personally still don't buy this, if this was the case surely it would have been perfectly acceptable to come right out and say this to passengers. It's kind of hard to argue with legal or even insurance reasons.

As mentioned above they need an all inclusive beverage package. The lack there of is much more frustrating then no longer being able to sneak booze like a middle schooler in my soda bottle.

As mentioned above they need an all inclusive beverage package. The lack there of is much more frustrating then no longer being able to sneak booze like a middle schooler in my soda bottle.

I'd be concerned about an all inclusive alcohol package. One of the draws of DCL is that there is relatively little poor behavior related to overindulgence of alcohol when compared to other lines. I would be concerned that an all inclusive package might lead to a "we paid for it, we're going to enjoy it" mentality.

I can assure you that if you email Karl Holz, you'll get a call back from the executive office. My call did not go well yesterday at all. In fact, it went so poorly, the vengeful side of me wants to post the direct number here for all to call if they so wish. :mad:

Disney's arrogance astounds me. I addressed specific concerns and was told I could order a bottle of Prosecco to have delivered to my room when I complained about the lack of inroom liquor options. He just kept apologizing and reciting their policy, without addressing any of my specific points, except to make fun of me when choosing the word "pedestrian" to describe their wine list.

I wanted to cancel a future concierge cruise deposit. He sounded disgusted that I would actually want to cancel over this policy. He said I was in the minority and that people sailed Disney for the Disney Charm (seriously). I said it wasn't just the policy, it's the way it was rolled out without any consideration for the length of cruise, the way it was communicated, your condescending attitude towards folks who are rightfully upset, your lack of offering better, more sophisticated options onboard.... I said, at this point I'm not even sure why you'd even want me on one your ships. He said I was welcome to cancel, but they'd be keeping my 1600$ deposit.

So, we will just continue to move our deposit at 76 days out until we absolutely have to use it. And then I will find something, anything at around 1600$ and make it a point not to spend a dime onboard.

Disney is dead to me.

These phone calls have gotten really bad. You aren't the only person who is more upset after the call than before. Their wine offerings are pedestrian. And their hard alcohol offerings aren't great either. This idea of the Disney name or the Disney charm is laughable. Their charm isn't worth the insane prices they charge for a product they keep making less attractive.

I'd be concerned about an all inclusive alcohol package. One of the draws of DCL is that there is relatively little poor behavior related to overindulgence of alcohol when compared to other lines. I would be concerned that an all inclusive package might lead to a "we paid for it' date=' we're going to enjoy it" mentality.[/quote']Frankly I have observed very little " poor behavior " due to alchohol abuse on any cruise . Bad behavior due to chair hogging , bad parenting and rudeness in the eating areas - yes on occasion. Due to booze , no . Perhaps I'm not hanging out with the drunks .;) . Besides most drink packages seem to have a maximum limit per day .

 

Personally I don't like drink packages because I don't drink that much and secondly it encourages the cruise lines to bump up individual drink prices so that passengers are encouraged to buy them . So far that's the plan on RC .

30+ DCL cruises and I can think of 3 occasions where rude behavior caused or compounded by alcohol interfered with "my" cruise. If someone wants to be drunk and obnoxious away from me or such that it doesn't affect me, that's not my issue. I've only done 2 other lines recently; both seemed to have more alcohol flowing than DCL but no real issues.

Not recently, on a line known for partying.....you don't want to know.

And you are right--there are more problems due to poor or non-existent parenting on DCL than due to alcohol. I just wonder if an unlimited alcohol policy would result in more consumption and more issues. Guess we don't know the answer to that because there is no unlimited package.

I can assure you that if you email Karl Holz, you'll get a call back from the executive office. My call did not go well yesterday at all. In fact, it went so poorly, the vengeful side of me wants to post the direct number here for all to call if they so wish. :mad:

 

Disney's arrogance astounds me. I addressed specific concerns and was told I could order a bottle of Prosecco to have delivered to my room when I complained about the lack of inroom liquor options. He just kept apologizing and reciting their policy, without addressing any of my specific points, except to make fun of me when choosing the word "pedestrian" to describe their wine list.

 

I wanted to cancel a future concierge cruise deposit. He sounded disgusted that I would actually want to cancel over this policy. He said I was in the minority and that people sailed Disney for the Disney Charm (seriously). I said it wasn't just the policy, it's the way it was rolled out without any consideration for the length of cruise, the way it was communicated, your condescending attitude towards folks who are rightfully upset, your lack of offering better, more sophisticated options onboard.... I said, at this point I'm not even sure why you'd even want me on one your ships. He said I was welcome to cancel, but they'd be keeping my 1600$ deposit.

 

Disney is dead to me.

I talked to this same person a week or so ago. Got the same verbage and all!

As of now we are only in the minority because I have a feeling many people are even unaware of this change. I sail Oct. 4th, one of the 1st cruises this effects, and I GUARANTEE there are going to be people with their bottles ready to board only to get it taken away. This is going to put the Disney charm in the back seat for many.

Disney isn't dead to me. I am a season pass holder of 8 years to the Anaheim park. But after this "common industry change" I am going to cancel my passes and thin out my Disney vacations. There are other primo corps that can get a chance to impress me and my money.

And when they do this' date=' they need to have 2 different check in/boarding lines...similar to "nothing to declare" and those who need to make a declaration and pay. I really don't want my check in or boarding to be delayed while others have their bottles counted and charged. Same if they allow bottles to be brought on in ports of call and charged.[/quote']

The Princess system does not slow the process down at all. If you have more than one wine bottle per person, you head over to a separate table and give them your boarding information. They take that down and charge the corkage to your room. And they stamp the bottles. It takes all of 3 minutes tops, and you then head back in line to finish the boarding procedure. I don't think I even lost my place in line last time I did it. If I did, perhaps two or three couples moved ahead of me. This is a very, very small price to pay for the ability to bring your own wine onto the ship.