Drinks Package rises and Consumer Protection legislation.

[jomf]

Agree. However note the Asterisk on the 123 promotions, even on the beverage package selection.

 

http://www.celebritycruises.com/genericHtmlTemplate.do?pagename=choose_your_offer

 

The asterisk point to this clause:

* Prices shown in U.S. Dollars. Prices are per person, cruise only, based on double occupancy unless stated otherwise, subject to change at any time without notice and subject to availability. Government taxes and fees are additional. Refer to the Cruise Ticket Contract for additional terms and

 

.

 

The "subject to change at any time" relates to the price only being available at that moment not in regards to any perks offered. The drinks for the package were shown on the UK site. They have reduced these. Celebrity has also removed our ability to use Michaels Club, another item shown on the web site.

Celebrity are just penny pinching with no regard for their customers.

 

We have booked with another company for the cruise after this one. If that works well then Celebrity have lost another two customers.

Edited May 13, 2014 by jomf

[ghstudio]

My understanding is that it was always drinks up to "x" amount. The US site didn't have a specific drinks list.

 

 

Actually, they do...even today. This is from reading the classic drink description and clicking on: Pay One Price just a minute or two ago.

 

 

Beverage Package Selections

 

Celebrity Cruises proudly partners with following brands to offer you, our guests, greater pleasure and value. Package selections include, but are not limited to the following brands:

 

Coke, Diet Coke, Fanta Orange, Coke Zero, Sprite, Diet Sprite, Barqs, Bottled Water, Coffee, Tea, Cranberry, Pineapple, Tomato, Apple, Grapefruit, Coors Light, Heineken, Heineken Light, Franziskaner, Leffe, O'Doul's Non-Alcoholic, Dewars White Label, J & B, Cutty Sark, Canadian Club, Seagram's VO, Seagram's 7, Jim Beam, Metaxa 5 Star Classic, Beefeaters, Absolut, Smirnoff, Stolichnaya, Bacardi, Malibu, Captain Morgan Original Spiced, Gosling's Black Seal, Jose Cuervo, Cazadores Blanco, Milagro Silver, Disaronno Amaretto, Frangelico, Drambuie, Kahlua, Campari.

 

Coke Zero

Diet Coke

Sprite

Fanta

Coors Light

Heineken

J&B

Dewar's White

Cutty Sark

Canadian Club

Seagram's 7

Seagram's VO

Jim Beam

Beefeater

Absolut

Smirnoff

Stolichnaya

Malibu

Captain Morgan

Jose Cuervo

Disaronno Amaretto

Frangelico

Drambuie

Kahlua

 

 

Several of the above are (apparently) no longer on the new classic drink package list(s) we've seen posted here eg. Dewars, J&B

Edited May 13, 2014 by ghstudio

[rubens]

I can read a lot of comments and negatives about the exclusion of many drinks to the classic package because X has raised many prices above the $ 8,- limit.

 

But if Celebrity thought this was a good way to exclude some drinks they probably even forgot that the ones that truly will suffer are those who did not took or purchase a drink package.

 

These people (as not everyone took the free package) might be paying those actual prices per drink or they will spend less on buying drinks.

Celebrity has always charged their drinks above the other cruise lines and now they, for sure, will loose customers to Princess and HAL.

 

A far better way to get their customers satisfied is to offer drink packages with a list of products included without mention of price limits and to protect themselves by adding: “this list subject to changes”

This is how the all-inclusive works on Azamara and should be the same on X.

 

So Celebrity is now not only going to piss off the package owners but also the people who did not take the package.:(

[Willman]

I can read a lot of comments and negatives about the exclusion of many drinks to the classic package because X has raised many prices above the $ 8,- limit.

 

But if Celebrity thought this was a good way to exclude some drinks they probably even forgot that the ones that truly will suffer are those who did not took or purchase a drink package.

 

These people (as not everyone took the free package) might be paying those actual prices per drink or they will spend less on buying drinks.

Celebrity has always charged their drinks above the other cruise lines and now they, for sure, will loose customers to Princess and HAL.

 

So Celebrity is now not only going to piss off the package owners but also the people who did not take the package.:(

 

 

Agree.

 

$8.50 (or more) for a shot of Jack Daniels? C'mon...

[elbowroom]

If the package says up to the value of X dollars, there's little more to be said contractually, but the problem is simply that Celebrity does not have the world's best designed website and information is not that easy to track down, beyond the most obvious categories. Hence the suspicion that this lack of clarity is part of a deliberate policy rather than say, inefficiency, lack of attention, sloppiness or anything similar.

It wouldn't seem that difficult for simple information (a list) to be easily located, but that is not the case. If they can display detailed menus, and do so very well, why can't they do the same with infamous packages? These image-based lists are impractical.

 

Perhaps this is all part of a cunning plan to persuade people to upgrade to premium, though if customers are like the ones on this thread, that will backfire.

 

The general feeling of disillusionment (?) comes from the fact, I suppose, that people order their Christmas tree in January and come December it arrives in a smaller size than expected. But if the tree-seller just said a tree from the forest up to the value of X dollars...

 

The devil is in the detail, but the details are not always there.

[NLH Arizona]

My understanding is that it was always drinks up to "x" amount. The US site didn't have a specific drinks list.

 

The same/similar issue happened with Azamara in the past 1-2 years. Azamara suddenly stopped offering their 25% off excursions booked in advance (which had been 50% off if booked 4 days before departure). Additionally, in the case of Azamara a number of UK TA"s were advertising the cruises as "All inclusive" while the US used the more accurate term "More inclusive". I thought the issue in the UK was the travel agents who were promptly told to stop the advertising. Could this be a similar situation, or as some said posted on Celebrity's own web site? If so, they need to change the list to say "Subject to Change". I do think they should give more warning such as changes effective on a certain date.

 

Sorry to hear Baileys is off the Classic list as it was the one drink I had most nights.

According to Kevinyork, who is on board a ship noe, Baiileys is still on the package.

[neptuno]

......The devil is in the detail, but the details are not always there.

 

Unfortunately one published Classic list included names like Chivas, Courvoisier, Glenfiddich, Patron XO, Pernod, Sambuca, Tanqueray, Bombay Sapphire, and more. That list got me excited, only to find out, after purchasing, it was all smoke and mirrors.

[teacherman]

We took the pre-paid gratuities, figuring that we would just pay for our drinks. If they are too expensive, that is one way we can limit our alcohol intake, which isn't a bad idea.

[Balloon Man]

Buy your cruises here in the UK. We pay more but have major protection.

What a cruise line offers when you book is what you are entitled to. And I have the Classic list from when I booked and it includes the drinks I want.

If I have to pay more for them on the ship I can reclaim through our our Small Claims court procedure. You pay a small fee to start the action but get it back when you win. Hopefully Celebrity will see sense and all the letter writing won't be necessary.

[Clydesmom7865]

I too agree. On my last cruise I can count the number of alcoholic and specialty drinks I had on both hands without repeating any fingers. At least on board the ship. All this latest increase will do is have people smuggling more, drinking more in port, and spending less on board.

 

There is no incentive for me to choose a pre-paid drinks package only to have to pay more to upgrade to drink what I would choose because they have made most common ordered cocktails off limits. At the cost of the classic package I would have to drink myself into a stupor or death to get any value out of it and not lose money. This is likely the case for most passengers who are not regular if not over drinkers.

 

I do not expect Celebrity to roll back the prices but this is actually going to have a negative effect on their revenue in the long run not a positive one.

[janewe]

This looks like a typical bait and switch. As a scotch drinker, I now find the good scotches like Chivas are no longer available, just the cheap bar scotches like J & B and Dewars. I don't drink these at home and I don't see myself drinking them on board.

 

Some posters consider the booze package as a freebie. It's not, it's part of the overall package I booked. When factoring in air fares, Hotels, Cruise, tax, tips, this is not a cheap trip. I can go to 5 star all inclusive resorts and it will be a quality experience. Outfits like Celebrity who cut corners to bolster their bottom line will end up being the loser. This is no way to treat your booked customers. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is not nice. If it wasn't that I was meeting family on our up coming cruise, I would, as a matter of principal, cancel.

[cle-guy]

The "subject to change at any time" relates to the price only being available at that moment not in regards to any perks offered. The drinks for the package were shown on the UK site. They have reduced these. Celebrity has also removed our ability to use Michaels Club, another item shown on the web site.

Celebrity are just penny pinching with no regard for their customers.

 

We have booked with another company for the cruise after this one. If that works well then Celebrity have lost another two customers.

 

Show me the language that says its subject to change prior to booking. I have not been able to locate that particular language, just that which I have cut and pasted in my prior post. And it is further repeated later in the details of the offer, without the asterisk, so notification has actually been given in duplicate.

 

One can not assume or insert their own wording in a disclaimer, it must be considered exactly as written. AT ANY TIME. They have other disclaimers elsewhere on other matters that say SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO FINAL PAYMENT and in other places PRIOR TO CONFIRMED BOOKING, so they do know how to use the appropriate language where they want to. Here they have gone full out ANY TIME. So absent someone providing language that the 123 is subject to change prior to booking, the language is AT ANY TIME.

 

Yes they are penny pinching, that is their job as a publicly traded company, return value to the shareholders, such as myself and many others here. They are not here to provide vacations and lose money just to make a bunch of people happy.

 

And they may have no regard for their customers, but as the ships sail full, clearly it's not affecting enough customers to cause them any issue. They will push the line as far as they can until they see a diminishing return on those changes. Again, as a corporation, it is there LEGAL and FIDUCIARY responsibility to do so. Failing to drive profits to the bottom line by raising prices, lowering costs etc. would be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit.

 

They use the subject to change at any time language for a reason, so they can change as they want to.

[txflood33]

So, I have to ask....

 

this thread is going on it's second day in age and I would be willing to bet there are other threads with the same topic a few days older. I have seen 'Live from XXX' saying OMG it's awful we have nothing to drink...(yes, that's hyperbolic) to other threads 'Live from XXX' or 'just got off XXX' saying it's not nearly as bad as it seems.

 

I must admit, UK and Australia consumer protection laws sound awful and time consuming...and my time costs money....I also cannot fathom calling them up to make sure I get the specific brand alcohol for my vacation.

 

Anyway, I digress....has anyone actually talked to Celebrity for an explanation or was we just waiting they stop by our thread of complaints?

 

I get that the hold times are a bit absurd right now, but if you're willing to bring your government into it, wouldn't you talk to the source first?

[cle-guy]

A far better way to get their customers satisfied is to offer drink packages with a list of products included without mention of price limits and to protect themselves by adding: “this list subject to changes”

This is how the all-inclusive works on Azamara and should be the same on X.

(

 

I'm convinced that come 2016-2017 season, the "classic beverages" will be part of the cruise fare, in essence giving an all inclusive feel like Azamara does. Given that the most recent PYP promotion that just started does not offer beverages, I see this year as a year of getting us used to these things, and then come 2016 they will be all about "our cruises now include free beverages!"

 

Yes I know that if you book on board right now, you can get the beverage package for 2016 cruises, but I'm certain that if a change is made, those bookings which will be statistically insignificant versus other booking streams for that period of time, will be offered the Grats or OBC as an alternative.

 

I also imagine the cost to then get a Premium package will be increased for the $11.50 per day cost now to something more like $15 or $20 to drive that revenue stream.

 

And clearly the change and movement of some of the more common items in the classic package to the premium package is a test to see how many people will pay more for the better beverages. It's not sneaky or a trick, its a common business practice to move pricing schemes to maximize revenue. They are a business this is what the SHOULD be doing, testing things to drive revenue growth. I expect over the summer we will see many beverages move back and forth between the packages as they zoom in on the perfect mix of what drives the upgrade to premium.

Edited May 13, 2014 by cle-guy

[cle-guy]

 

Anyway, I digress....has anyone actually talked to Celebrity for an explanation or was we just waiting they stop by our thread of complaints?

 

I get that the hold times are a bit absurd right now, but if you're willing to bring your government into it, wouldn't you talk to the source first?

 

DING DING DING, we have a winner. As stated, I'm convinced there is no legal wrong doing under any of the UK or Australia consumer protection laws, as so far I have not herd one person on any of these threads actually do anything other than piss and moan about it.

 

Yes those laws do have lots of teeth, but they also allow for common sense to be applied. They are very convoluted and have many exceptions to the rules. I have operated a business in both the UK (London) and Australia (Melbourne and Sydney) and am actually quite familiar with those laws, having had to respond to consumer complaints about my pricing scheme on multiple occasions, all of which I was able to hold my ground and "win" against the complainant. I even had the UK Assayer's office contact me from a complaint about the silver and gold I was selling, I even won that complaint.

[RDC1]

DING DING DING, we have a winner. As stated, I'm convinced there is no legal wrong doing under any of the UK or Australia consumer protection laws, as so far I have not herd one person on any of these threads actually do anything other than piss and moan about it.

 

Yes those laws do have lots of teeth, but they also allow for common sense to be applied. They are very convoluted and have many exceptions to the rules. I have operated a business in both the UK (London) and Australia (Melbourne and Sydney) and am actually quite familiar with those laws, having had to respond to consumer complaints about my pricing scheme on multiple occasions, all of which I was able to hold my ground and "win" against the complainant. I even had the UK Assayer's office contact me from a complaint about the silver and gold I was selling, I even won that complaint.

 

Would not be surprised if someone filed a class action case in the US. Have seen cases filed with less reason that have resulted in payouts.

[ghstudio]

They use the subject to change at any time language for a reason, so they can change as they want to.

 

Cle-guy....I don't think this thread is really about the specifics and I don't think it's about various consumer protection laws....it's about style...management style. I think we all accept change, we all accept the need to increase profit, but many were caught off guard, had expectations and so on. I think it's a discussion more of how it was done, than what was done.

 

Celebrity, IMHO, asked for this response...you don't just drop a change on dining prices and drink package content on passengers when they get on board...or you are just asking for strong negative reactions.

 

Royal made some significant changes a few years ago and Alan Goldstein's letter to consumers and passengers is still on the internet...I read it the other day. Where is a similar letter from Mr Bayley or anyone in Celebrity? Who in Celebrity has come forward and shown any thought of how passengers feel about the changes. Rightly or wrongly, legally or not, passengers feel that they have been taken advantage of.....they have been "ripped off"...they have been deceived. That's human nature...it's not rocket science. We would all like to fool ourselves into thinking that large corporations focus on customer satisfaction AND the bottom line. Celebrity seems to have forgotten, to date, about the passenger satisfaction part. Throw in the long wait times on the phone, the IT/website stability, accuracy issues and it's hard to feel loved or even cared about by Celebrity.

 

I think celebrity still offers the best mass market cruise experience.....but I get as angry as many others with the way they introduce change....the buffets, just gone one day; classic package just changes one day; and so on....I'm sure I'll hit another surprise as I walk on my next cruise. I don't want to get into the legal debate, to me it's more of a business ethics discussion...and an interesting harvard business school study on alternate approaches to maintaining customer loyalty and satisfaction.

Edited May 13, 2014 by ghstudio

[cle-guy]

Cle-guy....I don't think this thread is really about the specifics and I don't think it's about various consumer protection laws....it's about style...management style.

 

Royal made some significant changes a few years ago and Alan Goldstein's letter to consumers and passengers is still on the internet...I read it the other day. Where is a similar letter from Mr Bayley or anyone in Celebrity?

 

I think celebrity still offers the best mass market cruise experience.....but I really have a problem with the way they introduce change....the buffets, just gone one day; classic package just changes one day; and so on. I don't want to get into the legal debate, to me it's more of a business ethics discussion...and interesting harvard business school study on alternate approaches to maintaining customer satisfaction.

 

{insignificant portions of the above quote have been snipped to save space}

 

Given the title of the thread includes the words CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION, I'd say it is part of the discussion.

 

I agree it is a management style and perhaps a harsh one. But so far the management style has helped drive growth, revenue, and profits while still maintaining full ships. We know Bailey is more of a number cruncher and not as concerned with how things appear or coddling people. I also thinks he realizes that people will complain for a while then fall away, as the Captains Club conversion process went down. Putting out a formal reply just leaves it out there forever for people to point to, lets it get out to the masses via press release, this way all the complaining is left to the message boards which aren't viewed by the masses but are occasionally picked up on by media outlets, typically limited to industry specific media outlets.

 

IN the world of cruising reservations are so far out it would be impossible to bob and weave and institute changes if they had to wait until a new season with no reservations is open to introduce them. As reservations are now being deposited for 2016 already, should they have to wait until 2017 to raise prices so that no one will be affected? 3 years to adjust to costs that change daily seems a bit extreme to me.

 

I'd like to see someone craft a response they would like him to post that would make people happy and accept these changes - and I don't mean a response they WANT to hear that includes "sorry folks we'll change it back". I just don't think there is a way to make the bad news appear good, so no sense even addressing it. Retail stores don't post signs saying "look we raised our prices!", airlines don't post press releases saying "TO enhance tour flight, we are now not giving out blankets". These things just seep into the organization. What I do see this change doing however, is giving him the ability at some point to make a press release that says "Look we are providing an all-inclusive cruising experience that now includes a range of unlimited beverages!" Surely that will be all over the press. But that good news wouldn't be able to be made if they don't now start preparing people for a change in the offerings.

 

I am a very black and white kind of guy. I live and die by contracts in the business I work in and as such have a strong appreciation for the finer points and nuances that the placement and particular use of words has in those contracts. Contracts have meaning, words have meaning. The lack of use of certain words also has a particular meaning. Disclaimers have meaning.

[jkgourmet]

Wonder why we haven't had a response from Celebrity on this here. Perhaps just to complicated for them

 

Actually, I took the step of sending a private message directly to Celebrity through Facebook. Here is the conversation:

 

Conversation started Monday

MY NAME DELETED

5/12, 11:11am

MY NAME DELETED

 

I think your social media person needs to deal with the comments on this very busy and accurate thread on cruise critic. http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=42729652

Celebrity Cruises

5/12, 12:01pm

Celebrity Cruises

 

We're aware and reading. Don't have a response, but we are sharing comments from that thread with the Miami office.

MY NAME DELETED

5/12, 12:20pm

MY NAME DELETED[/italics]

 

The original poster made a VERY good point about the way your company has handled these changes. Reminder to your Miami office: While your goal is to gain NEW cruisers, you need to protect your reputation. Your reputation comes from previous passengers and travel agents. Having that group THIS unhappy is going to reduce referrals and recommendations from past passengers and travel agents,

 

Celebrity Cruises

5/12, 2:45pm

Celebrity Cruises

 

I think the poster brings up some very good points. Again, my job is simply to relay the message to the team, and I can assure you that this thread, along with some discussion on the beverage package and specialty dining, will definitely be mentioned and discussed. We value what our passengers say, and our Cruise Critic audience is definitely considered.

 

And I've posted on the FB page asking specific questions about the new list and for links to the new list. Unfortunately, cruise critic folks keep posting replies that give me links back to the lists on CC. Which isn't what I want.

 

Personally, I'm not terribly upset about this. I get something for free (and yes, our cruise has increased in price since we booked), and they want to give me Smirnoff vodka instead of Absolute. I'm cool with that. But we have friends who are going with us who drink the specialty coffees, and those appear to have disappeared ENTIRELY from the Classic Package. And we drink red wine - I'd like to see a list of the what is generally available on the Classic Package (what is "House wines").

 

If we gotta add an unexpected $368 per couple to upgrade to the Premium package just to get a few fancy coffees and $10/bottle retail wines by the glass, we are not going to be happy. They've done nothing legally wrong in my view (I can still get vodka, I can still get wine, I can still get espresso), but the management style leaves a very bad taste.

 

As plane tickets and insurance have been purchased, it's too late to cancel. And I think CLE-guy makes some excellent points.

Edited May 13, 2014 by jkgourmet

[ghstudio]

Cle (and anyone else who's interested...read Adam Goldstein's letter written when RCL went through so many changes:

 

http://www.royalcaribbean.com/connect/blog/addressing-recent-rccl-policy-changes/

[20pluscruises]

Would not be surprised if someone filed a class action case in the US. Have seen cases filed with less reason that have resulted in payouts.

 

Yes, and do you know what you will receive? Several $10 - $20 coupons off the price of your next cruise. Only one coupon per purchase may be used....and yes, there is a expiration date. Unbeknownst to us...we received a few hundred dollars worth of these useless coupons when someone filed a class action suit for overcharges / taxes. My guess... the attornery(s) got more than a stack of coupons.

 

The upside...we haven't been overcharged in several years. (as far as I know :))

Edited May 13, 2014 by 20pluscruises

[nomad098]

I see Celebrity UK has been pulled twice by the ASA in the past year, no way to know what for as they admitted being in the wrong and no formal investigation was undertaken

 

Plenty of other cruise lines and TA's being caught for mis-leading advertising

 

Most just admit they were in the wrong and remove offending information with no further action, out of those that think their right very few win

 

Interesting reading

 

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications.aspx?SearchTerms=cruise#1

[neptuno]

This looks like a typical bait and switch. As a scotch drinker, I now find the good scotches like Chivas are no longer available, just the cheap bar scotches like J & B and Dewars. I don't drink these at home and I don't see myself drinking them on board.

 

Some posters consider the booze package as a freebie. It's not, it's part of the overall package I booked. When factoring in air fares, Hotels, Cruise, tax, tips, this is not a cheap trip. I can go to 5 star all inclusive resorts and it will be a quality experience. Outfits like Celebrity who cut corners to bolster their bottom line will end up being the loser. This is no way to treat your booked customers. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is not nice. If it wasn't that I was meeting family on our up coming cruise, I would, as a matter of principal, cancel.

 

I would agree whole heartedly. Well put.

[ghstudio]

This looks like a typical bait and switch. As a scotch drinker, I now find the good scotches like Chivas are no longer available, just the cheap bar scotches like J & B and Dewars. I don't drink these at home and I don't see myself drinking them on board.

 

 

Sorry, but the current list posted from the Eclipse shows only cutty sark and Old Blackbush scotch available on the classic package. J&B and Dewars are no longer there.

[villauk]

Those from the UK and Australia, you talk about the strong consumer protection laws....

 

If these apply in the instance of a swap of beverage brands, why can you simply not just cancel and get a full and timely refund due to the changes? Having the cancellation fees waived?

 

I feel that if they do in fact apply to such a trivial immaterial matter in regard to the overall cruise fare, the UK and Oz authorities would have certainly levied hefty fines by now on such a clearly blatant and flagrant trampling of the laws in those countries - it's free money coming from a foreign country ideal for their budgets.

 

I say the fact that they have not been fined in regards to any of these similar changes of recent times means they are in compliance with those laws, no mater what any of us armchair lawyers like to think. :D

 

The Cruise contract points to the most recent printed brochure, various international treaties in place, Local and international laws etc. It's not as simple as cherry picking 3 or 4 lines out of the consumer protections act or 1 or 2 paragraphs from the Booking Conditions pages. It's quite possible that buried in the consumer protections act they call out cruises specifically for special exclusion from some parts, or mention that if an international treaty applies it trumps the local laws....and several international treaties many of which have been amended over time apply with regard to cruises.

 

So why bother quoting that the UK pays more money for cruises because of all the extra protection they get, when as you say, it's of no use whatsoever? Even if any compensation was paid, it would be offset by the higher costs.

 

May as well just book in the US and get all the extra perks e.g. TA OBC, able to move bookings without being charged, refundable deposits etc. ;) - a lot less hassle :).