How big a deal is it to grab a free drink for a friend who doesn't have the drinks package?

[SeaShark]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

Speeding is against the law no matter what, but going 16 mph in a 15 zone is a whole lot different than 120 in a 55.

 

Since we've seen this "logic" attempted earlier in the thread, I'll put the same question to you. You present this a 1 mph over the limit is "OK" while 65 mph over the limit is "BAD". Please give the specific number over the limit where "OK" turns to "BAD". Your argument only cites the extremes...where is the actual line drawn?

[Two Wheels Only]

1 minute ago, DCGuy64 said:

You make a great point here, and one I can relate to since it happened to me personally. I bought a new Honda Accord in 2015 and it lacked some features I wanted, but with Honda things are based on trim levels. I ultimately sold the car and bought a new Ford Fusion as a factory special order, and I was able to customize the car in many ways Honda wouldn't let me. I love my car and now won't go back to Honda. You just made my point. Allowing people customization is a good thing.

 

You took your business elsewhere when Honda didn't meet your needs/wants. You did nothing wrong.

 

Violating terms and conditions that you agree to is wrong. If NCL's terms are not what you want, you are free to take your business elsewhere. 

 

The issue here is that people tend to use their dislike of the PBP/PPBP terms as a justification to share drinks with those who don't have the package.

 

Part of the reason for the terms (all adults in the same stateroom must have/upgrade) is because some people share. The more people that violate the terms, the stricter NCL will get.

[DCGuy64]

Just now, SeaShark said:

 

Since we've seen this "logic" attempted earlier in the thread, I'll put the same question to you. You present this a 1 mph over the limit is "OK" while 65 mph over the limit is "BAD". Please give the specific number over the limit where "OK" turns to "BAD". Your argument only cites the extremes...where is the actual line drawn?

Impossible to say, it depends on the situation and the person. Too many unknown factors to make a blanket statement. My wife is an attorney and she used to represent people in court accused of reckless driving and such. If the police clock you at 2 mph over the limit and ticket you, the judge would laugh that out of court because there could have been an issue with the radar gun's calibration, for instance. The "actual line" you want drawn doesn't exist.

[SeaShark]

1 minute ago, DCGuy64 said:

Impossible to say, it depends on the situation and the person. Too many unknown factors to make a blanket statement. My wife is an attorney and she used to represent people in court accused of reckless driving and such. If the police clock you at 2 mph over the limit and ticket you, the judge would laugh that out of court because there could have been an issue with the radar gun's calibration, for instance. The "actual line" you want drawn doesn't exist.

 

Well, then if there is no demarcation between the two, your initial argument is therefore invalid.

 

BTW...I don't want a line...that is something you put on the table when you tried to claim one instance of speeding was OK while another was not. I'm just asking you to specify how we tell the difference.

[Georgia_Peaches]

9 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

Please give the specific number over the limit where "OK" turns to "BAD".

As an aside, my DB is a career police officer...now a chief and I asked him this very question.  Turns out that there is a general rule of thumb that they follow, at least in my state...and that is 12 miles over the speed limit on the interstate and between 7 and 10 miles on surface streets depending on the posted limit.  There's less tolerance for speeding in a 25-35 MPH zone than there is for a 45-50 MPH zone.  We have some 50MPH zones in our area that are on local hyws.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Georgia_Peaches

[DCGuy64]

3 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

Violating terms and conditions that you agree to is wrong. If NCL's terms are not what you want, you are free to take your business elsewhere. 

Yes, you're right about that, but your statement assumes the T&C's are reasonable. When they aren't, violating them isn't wrong-at least that's how I see it. We may have to agree to disagree. Apple used to only support its Safari web browser on its iPhones, leading some people to jailbreak the phones in order to add Chrome, etc., even though that voided the warranty. Ultimately Apple p***ed enough people off (because that was seen as unreasonable BY CONSUMERS, without whom Apple wouldn't exist) so they relented. Examples like this are legion. Just because "that's what you agreed to" doesn't mean I can't challenge them. Lawsuits are filed all the time due to this.

[GeezerCouple]

18 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Actually, it IS. NCL and other cruise lines are in the travel and leisure business, so p***ing off customers isn't a good strategy. I'd actually argue that "forcing" people (deliberately in quotations because it isn't ACTUAL force, but more a condition I object to) to overpay for drinks unintentionally induces people like the OP to consider cheating and giving non-paying customers free drinks. Scenario 1: I get the drink package and my wife doesn't. She pays for hers out of pocket, NCL still makes money. Scenario 2: Neither of us gets the drink package (because it's either both or none) and we drink less than even one of us on his own WITH the package. NCL loses money it would have made had only "I" gotten the package. That's not a smart business decision, in my opinion. I'm not here to convince anyone, BTW. Just shooting the breeze. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but to offer a counter argument.

 

How does this approach work with the buffet situation mentioned earlier?

Is it really "okay" to load up a second plate *and* then give that second plate to a friend who just wandered in with them, straight to the table, without paying. 

Would you consider that the restaurant is "FORCING" either of you to pay if you both paid for the meals you intended to consume, when you "could have" slid that plate over to them...?

GC

[DCGuy64]

2 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

Well, then if there is no demarcation between the two, your initial argument is therefore invalid.

 

BTW...I don't want a line...that is something you put on the table when you tried to claim one instance of speeding was OK while another was not. I'm just asking you to specify how we tell the difference.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there isn't JUST ONE LINE that fits for everybody in all cases. It's different for everybody, which is why I can't say exactly where it is. I'm sorry if my earlier statement seems confusing in light of that.

[latserrof]

If passenger #1 gets the drink package, passenger #2 is forced to get it ... by passenger #1.

[DCGuy64]

2 minutes ago, GeezerCouple said:

 

How does this approach work with the buffet situation mentioned earlier?

Is it really "okay" to load up a second plate *and* then give that second plate to a friend who just wandered in with them, straight to the table, without paying. 

Would you consider that the restaurant is "FORCING" either of you to pay if you both paid for the meals you intended to consume, when you "could have" slid that plate over to them...?

GC

I like this example. I shouldn't pay as much for my stateroom as the guys who load up their breakfast plates 3-4 times whereas I only eat one helping. I want a refund! (just kidding)

[Georgia_Peaches]

1 minute ago, latserrof said:

If passenger #1 gets the drink package, passenger #2 is forced to get it ... by passenger #1.

That's true.  But I think the OP was referring to passenger # 3 in a different cabin.

[cruiseny4life]

14 minutes ago, SeaShark said:

 

Since we've seen this "logic" attempted earlier in the thread, I'll put the same question to you. You present this a 1 mph over the limit is "OK" while 65 mph over the limit is "BAD". Please give the specific number over the limit where "OK" turns to "BAD". Your argument only cites the extremes...where is the actual line drawn?

Welp, according to one state trooper that pulled my husband over on the NYS Thruway, in the rain the BAD is 75 MPH in a 65 when it's raining and 85 MPH in a 65 when it's not raining...but ya know, that's one trooper's discretion (and mood).

 

So, I suppose to one bartender it's one drink for a friend, another bartender may think, "oh hell, I don't give a flying hockey stick" and servers everyone not caring. 

 

But, eh, will anyone ever agree? 

[scooter6139]

4 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Yes, you're right about that, but your statement assumes the T&C's are reasonable. When they aren't, violating them isn't wrong-at least that's how I see it. ------ Just because "that's what you agreed to" doesn't mean I can't challenge them. Lawsuits are filed all the time due to this.

 

I get where you are coming from, but that is a non-starter for me.  Just because I don't LIKE some T&C's doesn't mean I get to ignore or violate it at will, UNLESS I am willing to accept the consequences of such actions.  And if you wish to challenge, you do so in a proper venue, like the courts.  

[PATRLR]

55 minutes ago, Red-Sol said:

That's forcing someone to get it whether they want to or not.

No, the other person could choose to stay in a different cabin.  Or not go on the cruise at all.

[DCGuy64]

8 minutes ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

As an aside, my DB is a career police officer...now a chief and I asked him this very question.  Turns out that there is a general rule of thumb that they follow, at least in my state...and that is 12 miles over the speed limit on the interstate and between 7 and 10 miles on surface streets depending on the posted limit.  There's less tolerance for speeding in a 25-35 MPH zone than there is for a 45-50 MPH zone.  We have some 50MPH zones in our area that are on local hyws.

Well @SeaShark, there's your answer. Turns out there IS a line out there, at least from the standpoint of law enforcement.

[Two Wheels Only]

3 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Apple used to only support its Safari web browser on its iPhones, leading some people to jailbreak the phones in order to add Chrome, etc., even though that voided the warranty. Ultimately Apple p***ed enough people off (because that was seen as unreasonable BY CONSUMERS, without whom Apple wouldn't exist) so they relented.

 

Again, people will violate terms but it is important to know that there can be consequences for violating those terms. People who have had their drink package revoked because of sharing may or may not have known the consequences before they did what they did. People who bricked their phone also suffered the consequences. 

 

I get that people don't like the terms but sharing a drink won't compel NCL to change. 

[cruiseny4life]

2 minutes ago, PATRLR said:

No, the other person could choose to stay in a different cabin.  Or not go on the cruise at all.

OH MY GOSH!!! Yes, please...my husband enjoys waking up at 5 - 6 AM, ergo I'm awake at 5 - 6 AM. Can he pleeeeeease get a different cabin? The ironic part is my old job is what made him a 6 AM riser. 

[DCGuy64]

Just now, scooter6139 said:

 

I get where you are coming from, but that is a non-starter for me.  Just because I don't LIKE some T&C's doesn't mean I get to ignore or violate it at will, UNLESS I am willing to accept the consequences of such actions.  And if you wish to challenge, you do so in a proper venue, like the courts.  

Yep, just like I said. Companies have attempted to shield themselves for decades by saying "it's in the contract" and courts have often replied with the equivalent of "yeah, you can't do that." There was a case where a Muslim girl applied for a job at Abercrombie and Fitch and they wouldn't hire her because they have a rule (T&C's again) against wearing hats, caps, etc., anything covering the head. She sued and won. I'm just trying to get people to challenge the notion of "you agreed to that," because it isn't as black and white as it sounds.

[GeezerCouple]

1 minute ago, DCGuy64 said:

I like this example. I shouldn't pay as much for my stateroom as the guys who load up their breakfast plates 3-4 times whereas I only eat one helping. I want a refund! (just kidding)

 

Good... So since DH and I are light drinkers, we should pay less for that drink package, and X should pay a bit more because they are medium drinkers, and then you, Sir, must be a heavy drinker ( 😉 ), so you pay the most for this package, or maybe there's another level up, the "Blotto drinker" level;  they'd pay more, right?

Uh, that's a slippery slope to the 'per drink' price, but who is doing the counting?  Honor system?  Right.  We already know how that works.

 

But I asked *seriously* - why is the buffet example different from the "drinks" example?

If the buffet is "all in the group must pay", then don't be in the group if you don't want to pay (or eat).  Or travel alone (to the restaurant).  For the drinks package, same thing.  And if you object to the entire arrangement, well... don't choose NCL.

IF you were both FORCED to "sail NCL" and had no choice otherwise, that would be different.  But that's not the situation.

 

I'm sure there are other NCL "rules" that various members of NCL travelers don't like, but... they agree to the terms because "the rest of the trip makes it worthwhile to them".

 

I'm sure that inside, you know very well what is right and what is wrong, but you like the attention here or you like to argue or you are a troll or... or.... but regardless, if you sail NCL, you agree to their rules as part of the contract.  Full Stop.

 

GC

[PATRLR]

 

7 minutes ago, cruiseny4life said:

OH MY GOSH!!! Yes, please...my husband enjoys waking up at 5 - 6 AM, ergo I'm awake at 5 - 6 AM. Can he pleeeeeease get a different cabin? The ironic part is my old job is what made him a 6 AM riser. 

You can thank me for this idea on a future cruise by getting me a drink from your drink package 😉 🙂

[DCGuy64]

Also, FWIW, I think the prices are pretty reasonable. I think we paid about $900 pp (more or less) for the cabin on our upcoming cruise. Now, given that the price of the UBP is $99 pppd (not including the gratuities here since you pay that even when part of the FAS), for 9 days (the length of our cruise) that's $891 for the drinks package alone. So it's almost like paying for the drinks package and getting a free cabin. I also like that NCL allows you to pay only the difference between the included package limit of $15 per drink and the more expensive ones rather than the entire cost of the pricier drink. Not all lines do it that way. And they allow you to bring your own wine and champagne on board, which some other lines prohibit altogether. On balance, it's still a great deal for me. But I still wish it were possible to have the option of only 1 adult getting the UBP. Apologies to the OP for taking this WAY off topic!

[PATRLR]

8 minutes ago, cruiseny4life said:

OH MY GOSH!!! Yes, please...my husband enjoys waking up at 5 - 6 AM, ergo I'm awake at 5 - 6 AM. Can he pleeeeeease get a different cabin? The ironic part is my old job is what made him a 6 AM riser. 

By the way, perhaps my wife has me better trained than you have trained your husband, but, I too am a very early riser.  At home it's easy to exit the bedroom and head to my office (where I interact with my European clients).  On a cruise it's gotten to the point where I leave shoes, card key, book and/or laptop by the door so I can easily sneak out in the dark.

 

[DCGuy64]

5 minutes ago, GeezerCouple said:

Good... So since DH and I are light drinkers, we should pay less for that drink package, and X should pay a bit more because they are medium drinkers, and then you, Sir, must be a heavy drinker

Actually.... you're onto something. What if they *DID* have a light drinker package, so you paid $50 pppd instead of $99 and were limited to, say, 5 drinks per day, then another package that was $75 and included 10 drinks, and so on? Nothing wrong with variety, right?

[SeaShark]

23 minutes ago, Georgia_Peaches said:

As an aside, my DB is a career police officer...now a chief and I asked him this very question.  Turns out that there is a general rule of thumb that they follow, at least in my state...and that is 12 miles over the speed limit on the interstate and between 7 and 10 miles on surface streets depending on the posted limit.  There's less tolerance for speeding in a 25-35 MPH zone than there is for a 45-50 MPH zone.  We have some 50MPH zones in our area that are on local hyws.

 

Now follow it up. Interstate speed limit is 70 mph, so 82 is "OK" and 83 is "BAD". Why does one person get a ticket and the other doesn't over just a paltry 1 mph? You're just as dangerous at 82 mph as your are at 83 mph.

[SeaShark]

21 minutes ago, cruiseny4life said:

Welp, according to one state trooper that pulled my husband over on the NYS Thruway, in the rain the BAD is 75 MPH in a 65 when it's raining and 85 MPH in a 65 when it's not raining...but ya know, that's one trooper's discretion (and mood).

 

So, I suppose to one bartender it's one drink for a friend, another bartender may think, "oh hell, I don't give a flying hockey stick" and servers everyone not caring. 

 

But, eh, will anyone ever agree? 

 

How much rain are we talking? What if its just a light drizzle and not a heavy downpour? Is it different if the rain is accompanied by fog?