Sharing drink package

[papaflamingo]

Actually the drink perk is not all that it is cracked up to be. It has a very limited menu about 10-12 items. Can only be used from 5 - 8:30 pm and cannot be used in any restaurant. Now consider the dinning times, unless one is doing second seating and pounds their three free - it is very hard to accomplish drinking all three - I always do first seating and have been very lucky to get even 3 drinks on an entire 7 day cruise at a bar. I do suites and maybe have two in the concierge lounge nightly.

 

Really depends on drink habits. Now that I've reached my "older age," I don't drink all that much. Back in "the day" I would have loved the Beverage Package. Don't need it now. Only an occasional drink or beer in the afternoon, gave up Bloody Mary's in the morning because they just make me feel "full." Since we are late diners the Diamond perk is great for us. We usually go to the lounge (either Diamond or Concierge depending on crowd) and have 2 or 3 drinks before dinner (over a couple of hours) and a single glass of wine with dinner (sometimes 2). On occasion I'll get an after dinner drink, but usually I just enjoy the nightlife. Since I'm a scotch or martini drinker, the Diamond perk works well for us. Our total bill on a 9 night cruise last month was under $600 and that included wine at dinner (we use our 2 bottles now), tips, and all our drinks (for 2). We prepaid specialty restaurants. If I use an average of $9 for house drinks, figuring 2 drinks per night (and we sometimes did 3),for my wife and I we probably saved between $300 and $400.

[phade]

I am clearly in the minority but I think AngelofSin is the smartest guy in here by leaps and bounds.

 

I suspect that the level of personal offense many posters have taken with an unknown person possibly "stealing" a couple of drinks is directly tied to their beliefs in an imaginary god with his own magic rulebook that "we should all follow."

 

I will not be sharing drinks, it's easier to just buy the second package. BUT, if someone else wants to skirt the system and gets away with it, go right ahead. I don't care at all.

 

As for the concept that you can judge the true spirit of the rule by how it is enforced, I think it's completely valid. Just look at the no shorts in the dining room rule. It's clearly not seriously enforced so how seriously should it be taken?

 

I actually think this is spot on about Angelofsin and the post. The spirit is really what is at stake - the slippery slope is where people get tripped up.

 

I wonder how many couples "share" drinks as they try out something new. I for one get a package, and my wife being a very timid 1-2 drinks a day, does not and pays as she goes. Sitting by the pool I had a fruity drink (don't tell my friends). My wife, ever curious wanted a sip. I gave her a sip - actually she liked it and had two sips. Shen then bought said drink. But, she wasn't on a package. At that point of the first sip, by the letter of the "law" there was some stealing going on. As much as I try to think following the letter of the law is important, the spirit of the law is really what is at terms here. I am entertained by the posts of people saying "be a man" and "this country used to stand for something." Really? if you were in the above scenario, and your wife asked for a sip, as a man, you'd probably oblige. Getting her a drink isn't the proper course because she doesn't know if she likes it or not yet. I pity the men who would tell their wives they cannot have a sip, or go ask the bartender for a sample.

 

If my wife wants a sip of a drink I paid for, and is in my possession, and I let her have a sip...you can call both of us thieves, because I'll call you an idiot. Everyone feels better in the end and my wife got her sip. :D

[GUT2407]

Here is the bottom line 32 shots per bottle - say at a high price $15.00 per bottle - RCL is making an absolute fortune. That why it now cost $12.00 for a Margarita a 58 cent drink. RCL's objective is to push everyone into getting the drink packages. Only the alcoholics think that they are getting a deal.

 

 

A bar makes a profit on mixed drinks, read all about it.

[LMaxwell]

I actually think this is spot on about Angelofsin and the post. The spirit is really what is at stake - the slippery slope is where people get tripped up.

 

I wonder how many couples "share" drinks as they try out something new. I for one get a package, and my wife being a very timid 1-2 drinks a day, does not and pays as she goes. Sitting by the pool I had a fruity drink (don't tell my friends). My wife, ever curious wanted a sip. I gave her a sip - actually she liked it and had two sips. Shen then bought said drink. But, she wasn't on a package. At that point of the first sip, by the letter of the "law" there was some stealing going on. As much as I try to think following the letter of the law is important, the spirit of the law is really what is at terms here. I am entertained by the posts of people saying "be a man" and "this country used to stand for something." Really? if you were in the above scenario, and your wife asked for a sip, as a man, you'd probably oblige. Getting her a drink isn't the proper course because she doesn't know if she likes it or not yet. I pity the men who would tell their wives they cannot have a sip, or go ask the bartender for a sample.

 

If my wife wants a sip of a drink I paid for, and is in my possession, and I let her have a sip...you can call both of us thieves, because I'll call you an idiot. Everyone feels better in the end and my wife got her sip. :D

 

Giving someone a sample of your drink, in which they then go ahead and purchase the same drink, I, and many others, the cruise line included, probably have no issue with whatsoever and I would not label that as theft.

 

Someone else saying they paid so much for their package so they are entitled to steal is justifying theft.

 

Massive difference. Can you not see the difference?

[Desertbelle]

Giving someone a sample of your drink, in which they then go ahead and purchase the same drink, I, and many others, the cruise line included, probably have no issue with whatsoever and I would not label that as theft.

 

Someone else saying they paid so much for their package so they are entitled to steal is justifying theft.

 

Massive difference. Can you not see the difference?

 

I agree, a huge difference between, "I've never tasted a Manhattan before, let me have a sip to see if I like it." and "We're getting ripped off, you drink this one and I'll go grab another for myself."

[Big_G]

I actually think this is spot on about Angelofsin and the post. The spirit is really what is at stake - the slippery slope is where people get tripped up.

 

I wonder how many couples "share" drinks as they try out something new. I for one get a package, and my wife being a very timid 1-2 drinks a day, does not and pays as she goes. Sitting by the pool I had a fruity drink (don't tell my friends). My wife, ever curious wanted a sip. I gave her a sip - actually she liked it and had two sips. Shen then bought said drink. But, she wasn't on a package. At that point of the first sip, by the letter of the "law" there was some stealing going on. As much as I try to think following the letter of the law is important, the spirit of the law is really what is at terms here. I am entertained by the posts of people saying "be a man" and "this country used to stand for something." Really? if you were in the above scenario, and your wife asked for a sip, as a man, you'd probably oblige. Getting her a drink isn't the proper course because she doesn't know if she likes it or not yet. I pity the men who would tell their wives they cannot have a sip, or go ask the bartender for a sample.

 

If my wife wants a sip of a drink I paid for, and is in my possession, and I let her have a sip...you can call both of us thieves, because I'll call you an idiot. Everyone feels better in the end and my wife got her sip. :D

 

Talk about the worst attempt at rationalizing. :rolleyes:

[phade]

Giving someone a sample of your drink, in which they then go ahead and purchase the same drink, I, and many others, the cruise line included, probably have no issue with whatsoever and I would not label that as theft.

 

Someone else saying they paid so much for their package so they are entitled to steal is justifying theft.

 

Massive difference. Can you not see the difference?

 

By the letter of the law, it is the same. By the spirit of the law it is not. That is the slippery slope. Why is it ok to share a sip but not an entire drink? What about half of a drink? The problem is there is the letter of the law and the spirit and everyone has an idea where letter intersects the spirit. I might think my wife finishing my drink after I decide I do not want any more of it is ok, but some may not.

 

What AOS wrote is that RCI wrote a policy tight so they can choose to enforce it as they see fit. If we were going by the letter of that law, sharing a sip with my wife violates it. Black and white, no sharing. But since most people believe that isnt a problem, the letter of the law really isnt what should be followed. It is what RCI allows by enforcing or not enforcing it and to what degree that determines the spirit. If someone thinks sharing 2 or 3 drinks off their package in a week is the line and RCI does not enforce it, then that might be the spirit. Who knows where that line is - I do not. RCI has proven the letter of the law by allowing some element of sharing that is widespread (sipping or otherwise) is not their implicit desire, and if we as a group generally say sipping is OK - that means both parties likely rely on the spirit and where that line is, is probably the balancing point between ethical and not ethical.

Edited March 31, 2015 by phade

[Big_G]

 

I suspect that the level of personal offense many posters have taken with an unknown person possibly "stealing" a couple of drinks is directly tied to their beliefs in an imaginary god with his own magic rulebook that "we should all follow."

 

 

Are you suggesting those that do not believe in an imaginary God have no morals or ethics? You might rethink that or at least research it before making such a claim.

[papaflamingo]

I actually think this is spot on about Angelofsin and the post. The spirit is really what is at stake - the slippery slope is where people get tripped up.

 

I wonder how many couples "share" drinks as they try out something new. I for one get a package, and my wife being a very timid 1-2 drinks a day, does not and pays as she goes. Sitting by the pool I had a fruity drink (don't tell my friends). My wife, ever curious wanted a sip. I gave her a sip - actually she liked it and had two sips. Shen then bought said drink. But, she wasn't on a package. At that point of the first sip, by the letter of the "law" there was some stealing going on. As much as I try to think following the letter of the law is important, the spirit of the law is really what is at terms here. I am entertained by the posts of people saying "be a man" and "this country used to stand for something." Really? if you were in the above scenario, and your wife asked for a sip, as a man, you'd probably oblige. Getting her a drink isn't the proper course because she doesn't know if she likes it or not yet. I pity the men who would tell their wives they cannot have a sip, or go ask the bartender for a sample.

 

If my wife wants a sip of a drink I paid for, and is in my possession, and I let her have a sip...you can call both of us thieves, because I'll call you an idiot. Everyone feels better in the end and my wife got her sip. :D

 

 

Honestly you are being totally absurd. If you can't distinguish the difference between giving someone a taste of a drink, and supplying them with drinks the entire cruise, then you need to seek help. We all know what we are talking about here. We are talking about one person buying a Beverage Package that quite specifically states is for personal use only and cannot be shared, then advocating sharing it with anyone they like. Why do we care? Well, that's simple, if this behavior becomes the norm, like many advocate, then RCCL will either discontinue the package, or require everyone in the cabin to purchase it (like all other cruise lines do). The ability for one person to purchase the package is a great benefit to many of us. So if your behavior causes me to lose a benefit that I enjoy, I get angry at that. Can you blame me? It'll ultimately cause ME extra money.

By the way, no one really cares if an occasional drink is shared. Really...we don't. But quit bragging about it, advocating it, etc. Keep it to yourself.

[iluvit!]

On our Feb Carnival Magic cruise a fratboy type was loudly bragging about how he covered the cost of his drink package by selling some of his drinks! Who would even think of this.

[phade]

Honestly you are being totally absurd. If you can't distinguish the difference between giving someone a taste of a drink, and supplying them with drinks the entire cruise, then you need to seek help. We all know what we are talking about here. We are talking about one person buying a Beverage Package that quite specifically states is for personal use only and cannot be shared, then advocating sharing it with anyone they like. Why do we care? Well, that's simple, if this behavior becomes the norm, like many advocate, then RCCL will either discontinue the package, or require everyone in the cabin to purchase it (like all other cruise lines do). The ability for one person to purchase the package is a great benefit to many of us. So if your behavior causes me to lose a benefit that I enjoy, I get angry at that. Can you blame me? It'll ultimately cause ME extra money.

By the way, no one really cares if an occasional drink is shared. Really...we don't. But quit bragging about it, advocating it, etc. Keep it to yourself.

 

No, it is not absurd. What was discussed was the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. People here are saying that sharing a drink package is wrong, and that the letter of the law is what it is. Yet, many of these same people find no issue with sipping or minor sharing, which is NOT the letter of the law. The inconsistency is just proof that people base following a "law" on their own interpretation 99.9% of the time and not the letter of the law. It really is about the spirit of the law that is to be followed, so people should stop saying that the tight language included by RCI is what should be adhered to.

 

So occasional sharing is OK? That models precisely the point I am making - the letter of the law is not what the majority of people adhere to. So, Angel of Sin was correct in that the spirit of the law is precisely the scope that should be determined.

 

RCI hedges their business moves like any responsible company does when looking out for primary stakeholders - clients, stockholders, and employees. RCI can likely give you a concrete value built into the pricing structure to offset risks to the drinks business model - they know with very high confidence intervals what the opportunity cost really is. They likely know the specific data mining characteristics and what portion of the risk they represent - ie. male, female, age range, accommodation level, etc. Each profile likely has a risk assessment and value, and they likely know what drinks each group is sharing and can assign a fiscal value that needs to be accounted for within their pricing structure. Beyond that, they probably have big data on things like your price elasticity gauge (PEG), and much more. All of this leads to alot of information that they can price confidently knowing that the built in risks are mitigated by a massive, and I mean massive, cushion in the model.

 

The truth is, opportunity for packages to be required for all passengers in cabins, if re-issued, is much more likely to be driven by expanded profit opportunity rather than mitigating losses from the current model. It is unfortunate because many people will associate it with people sharing drinks.

 

Sure, people can say, well if you share drinks, you are raising the prices on me and everyone else. Maybe - but likely, the truth is RCI is pricing their structure with an abundance of cushion that the amount of sharing that would need to take place before adjustment to their risk analytics data would be so big you might just say screw it, and go with one package.

 

I am not saying I endorse or share drinks, other than sipping, but understanding the kind of detail that goes into their business model, I am confident that I am not paying any appreciable amount more for people sharing at this time because the cushion isn't close to being met. If it were, the pricing on the packages would have changed with the recent increases to non-package drinks. The move to price increase the individual drinks to me signifies they want people on the packages because they are increasingly profitable. If there were any concern with drink sharing from a bean counter perspective, the individual drink prices would not have gone up. Their individual prices going up actually increases drink sharing, which in turn, again means RCI isn't even close to their cushion, and wants to actually push more clients to the package for increased profits. How about this for a shocker, RCI knows it is intentionally increasing drink sharing volume? Why? Because they can turn a greater profit...crazy huh?

 

The cool thing for RCI is that they can pass this belief system off pretty easily without needing to do anything. People here are quick to say any drink price increases are due in large to sharing...but in reality, it is perfect cover to expand profit margins.

Edited March 31, 2015 by phade

[Stags14]

It can be done, but it's going to be a task.

[Big_G]

No, it is not absurd. What was discussed was the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. People here are saying that sharing a drink package is wrong, and that the letter of the law is what it is. Yet, many of these same people find no issue with sipping or minor sharing, which is NOT the letter of the law. The inconsistency is just proof that people base following a "law" on their own interpretation 99.9% of the time and not the letter of the law. It really is about the spirit of the law that is to be followed, so people should stop saying that the tight language included by RCI is what should be adhered to.

 

So occasional sharing is OK? That models precisely the point I am making - the letter of the law is not what the majority of people adhere to. So, Angel of Sin was correct in that the spirit of the law is precisely the scope that should be determined.

 

 

You love wordy responses that amount to a whole lot of hooey. If I let you taste my drink, I'm not giving it to you to keep. Just because Royal hasn't caught Angel of Sin sharing his drink package doesn't make it OK with Royal as he suggests. You're entire multi-paragraph diatribe is an attempt to rationalize the absurd.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Big_G

[phade]

You love wordy responses that amount to a whole lot of hooey. If I let you taste my drink, I'm not giving it to you to keep. Just because Royal hasn't caught Angel of Sin sharing his drink package doesn't make it OK with Royal as he suggests. You're entire multi-paragraph diatribe is an attempt to rationalize the absurd.

 

The sky doesn't fall when drinks are shared. Boo hoo. Is that more on your level?

Edited March 31, 2015 by phade

[LMaxwell]

The sky doesn't fall when drinks are shared. Boo hoo. Is that more on your level?

If someone let's another person sample their drink and subsequently purchases one of their own, the cruise line wins and no impact to me.

 

If someone uses their package to hand out drinks to others the one that loses out is the cruise line and eventually it impacts me in the form of higher costs so I carry to costs of unethical behavior.

 

you don't need to be firing on all 8 cylinders to see the clear and demonstrable difference.

 

To me it is about ethics and what ultimately impacts my wallet. I don't hide behind any religious beliefs to try to act morally superior to any other person.

[SW.FloridaPhil]

Boy.....I'm glad no one is talking about Rum Runners.........OOOPS!!

[phoenix1181]

Big_G & LMaxwell, you're wasting your time here. He's got nothing better to do than play with words to get a rise out of people.

 

Anyone with a brain knows tasting or sipping a drink & purchasing one package for two (or more) to use, are entirely different. He can twist it any way he chooses but that reality isn't going to change!

[Mikew0805]

This used to be a beautiful country full to the brim with honorable and righteous men. You MEN making this argument for stealing are no longer real men. It is disgusting.

 

YOU ARE NOT MEN. you are TAKERS. Be proud!!!

 

 

I don't know what country you are talking about, but if it is the USA, then maybe you should take a history course... oh and not one of those history courses that edit out all the bad things people have done, to STEAL this country, and STEAL additions (Hawaii) to this country. I certainly am not promoting stealing.. but let us not LIE either. :rolleyes:

 

My contribution to this thread;

 

I am glad they do not require both people in the cabin to buy this package. My partner has it for our upcoming cruise, and I have the soda package. If history repeats itself, I will likely have two alcoholic beverages on this cruise. A frozen pina colada or miami vice, and likely a kahlua and cream or a mojito. I will pay for any beverage that I get for myself. (I do not drink much because I was born with one kidney, so rarely drink alcohol.. and because of that I tend to be really "tipsy" after even half of one of these drinks.) :D

 

However, I can envision my partner getting some drink at some point and I say "can I taste that?" and of course he will say "yes." I will likely say "yuck" or something to that effect as I usually do when I taste a drink of his. When this inevitably happens, I will not feel that I stole from RCI or that Josh stole from RCI. I know, we are such horrible cheap people. :eek:

 

Do I think it is stealing to go on board with the intention of buying one package for two people to share and each have their own drinks... yes, or at the very least I think it is dishonest, and cheap.

[Capella Black]

To me, there are two points where a person is violating the drinks package concept, and thus being 'unethical'. The first is when by sharing, you cause more drinks to be made than otherwise would have - e.g. you order a drink for yourself, then a second drink shortly afterwards which is mostly or entirely drunk by someone else. People rationalise this by saying "by the other person wouldn't have bought the drink if it hadn't been free, so RCI lost nothing". This is untrue - they lost the cost of the drink raw materials.

 

The second is where you prevent a drink being bought - e.g. you buy a drink, don't like it and so give it to someone who would otherwise have bought themselves a drink. People rationalise this the other way - "the drink was already made so RCI lose nothing" - but RCI did lose as they didn't make the money on the drink the person would have bought.

 

If your version of sharing is to let someone try a sip of something that they wouldn't have bought and which you would otherwise have drunk, RCI lose nothing, and indeed likely gain from the later sale of a whole drink for the person. This is thus different not because of "the rules", but because of impact on RCI.

 

And yes, like everyone else, I only care about RCI losing out because they will pass said cost onto me. RCI's "cushion" is otherwise known as their profits, and they will want that to be as big as possible; they won't let it get eaten into.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Capella Black

[woodyren]

To me, there are two points where a person is violating the drinks package concept, and thus being 'unethical'. The first is when by sharing, you cause more drinks to be made than otherwise would have - e.g. you order a drink for yourself, then a second drink shortly afterwards which is mostly or entirely drunk by someone else. People rationalise this by saying "by the other person wouldn't have bought the drink if it hadn't been free, so RCI lost nothing". This is untrue - they lost the cost of the drink raw materials.

 

The second is where you prevent a drink being bought - e.g. you buy a drink, don't like it and so give it to someone who would otherwise have bought themselves a drink. People rationalise this the other way - "the drink was already made so RCI lose nothing" - but RCI did lose as they didn't make the money on the drink the person would have bought.

 

If your version of sharing is to let someone try a sip of something that they wouldn't have bought and which you would otherwise have drunk, RCI lose nothing, and indeed likely gain from the later sale of a whole drink for the person. This is thus different not because of "the rules", but because of impact on RCI.

 

And yes, like everyone else, I only care about RCI losing out because they will pass said cost onto me. RCI's "cushion" is otherwise known as their profits, and they will want that to be as big as possible; they won't let it get eaten into.

 

So if I buy a drink and don't like it and then give it to my wife who would not buy a drink in any case because they are too expensive then that sounds fine doesn't it.

RCI would have just tipped it out so in effect we are helping the environment and the wife wouldn't have spent any money anyway.

Problem solved without any unethical behaviour.

 

I always feel like a mudslide as I'm drinking my beer but they are almost invariably way too sweet for my tastes. :p

[phade]

Even in the few posts since I last posted, people do not agree where that line really is.

 

So it is OK, to share, but if I buy a drink, and don't like it, but my wife does, and I give it to her, not on a package, it is stealing, unethical, etc.?

 

Interesting.

 

And, that is my whole point. No rationalizing, not nothing. People can't even draw the line with the spirit of the law. That and RCI has a built in cushion clients are not even close to hitting yet.

Edited April 1, 2015 by phade

[Bert64]

Even in the few posts since I last posted, people do not agree where that line really is.

 

So it is OK, to share, but if I buy a drink, and don't like it, but my wife does, and I give it to her, not on a package, it is stealing, unethical, etc.?

 

Interesting.

 

And, that is my whole point. No rationalizing, not nothing. People can't even draw the line with the spirit of the law. That and RCI has a built in cushion clients are not even close to hitting yet.

 

I do wonder what those who have said some pretty harsh and critical things about a person who would dare share a drink with someone...

 

If I buy a drink and decide I don't like it, do I need to throw it away? Because letting another person drink it who doesn't have a package is "stealing" according to you all.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Bert64

[phade]

I do wonder what those who have said some pretty harsh and critical things about a person who would dare share a drink with someone...

 

If I buy a drink and decide I don't like it, do I need to throw it away? Because letting another person drink it who doesn't have a package is "stealing" according to you all.

 

If it fits with their own view, the other person is wrong and no explanation is worthy.

 

Most people agree sharing a sip isn't stealing. Some people think sharing a drink you will not finish is stealing; some do not. Some people think sharing a whole drink is stealing. Some people think sharing two drinks isn't a big deal - it's been said on this thread alone.

 

Other than the sip - there's not clear voice of the people, except that individuals believe they are right, including me.

 

Problem is, I'm not going to cast stones if someone shares a drink. I've never shared a package.

[Charger2008]

I am just curious as to how many people with the ultimate package would get a coffee or water for their spouse/signifiant other/roommate and not consider that sharing but something with alcohol would be considered sharing????? It may have been discussed but I didn't read all 297 posts, just skimmed them:D

 

Thoughts?

[Big_G]

If it fits with their own view, the other person is wrong and no explanation is worthy.

 

Most people agree sharing a sip isn't stealing. Some people think sharing a drink you will not finish is stealing; some do not. Some people think sharing a whole drink is stealing. Some people think sharing two drinks isn't a big deal - it's been said on this thread alone.

 

Other than the sip - there's not clear voice of the people, except that individuals believe they are right, including me.

 

Problem is, I'm not going to cast stones if someone shares a drink. I've never shared a package.

Just like a required element of a crime, it's all about the intent but I'm pretty sure you knew that. Happy trolling.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Big_G