HAL's BEER CONFISCATION

[mudscraper]

With all this beer talk... Schlitz might actually make a comeback.

Wake up and smell the barley.:) A few years back Schlitz indeed did reintroduce itself using it`s original recipe. I bought a sixer for old times sake. It was as bad as I had remembered. You can still find some gathering dust on liquor store shelves.

[sapper1]

Looks like you and I are in the minority here. I have not read all the responses - bit I am not a HAL cheerleader either. I understand how you feel.

 

I am not happy about HAL's new policy and do not welcome them enforcing it either. Maybe after a time they will become more relaxed about doing so. It is new after all. Thanks for posting your experience.

 

We don't drink much and will drink less as a result. We don't cruise HAL that much either, only 2 star ... have cruised HAL though since 1995. There are lots of other cruise options, Princess, Celebrity, Cunard and NCL.

 

Maybe if you were to read the responses you would see that this is not a new policy.

[adrift@sea]

So they allow your one beer to be brought on board, because its just one. The person behind you sees this and decides at the next port they will bring just one beer on board. So on and so forth for all the next ports and the next cruises. Before you know it on my Oosterdam cruise in October 1,900 bottles of beer will be brought on board. :D After all it is just one bottle per passenger, not much for the staff to turn a blind eye to.

 

On a more serious note, in this day and age with tighter security and more staff accountability, staff are far less 'tolerant' and will enforce the rules more strictly, it is their job on the line after all and I personally don't expect anyone to put their job on the line because I wish to 'bend the rules'.

 

To the OP, I am not flaming you but I think we are all going to have to adjust our expectations. We can no longer get away with what we used to in the less monitored society of the past.

 

Unfortunately, people have a tendency to view a situation from their perspective and are less likely to look at the bigger picture. The policy regarding beer is not a new one.

 

I agree with you, as security gets tighter, rules will be enforced and they will no longer be looking the other way nor should they.

 

We have been sailing with HAL since the mid 1970's and many new rules have been introduced and implemented over the years. Times have changed and will continue to do so.

[adrift@sea]

I went back to my old documents, and each "Know Before You Go" since 2004 has had the statement prohibiting any alcohol except wine and champagne.

 

A scan of the 2004 Booklet can be found at

http://halfacts.com/kbyg/KBYG-04.jpg

and the 2007 Booklet can be found at

http://halfacts.com/kbyg/KBYG-07.jpg

 

Rich

 

I was pretty sure that I remembered this being in effect in the spring of 2004. We cruised in January 2004 and bought a bottle of alcohol in the gift shop to take home. No problem, bought it, took it back to our cabin and put it in the suitcase. We sailed again over Easter (March/April 2004) and when we purchased another bottle in the gift shop, they informed us that we could not take it with us and it would be sent to our cabin on the last evening as there had been a change in policy. Not a big deal to us.

Edited September 17, 2013 by adrift@sea

[sail7seas]

When we buy a ticket to sail HAL ships, we agree to sail under their rules.

If we don't lilke their rules, we don't have to buy that ticket.

 

The irony is always when people contradict their view of a rule depending upon their side of the issue.

We read here all the time, HAL permits smoking on verandahs. If you don't like it, don't book a verandah.

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2013 by sail7seas

[Irish Eyes Are Sailing]

Unfortunately, people have a tendency to view a situation from their perspective and are less likely to look at the bigger picture. The policy regarding beer is not a new one.

 

I agree with you, as security gets tighter, rules will be enforced and they will no longer be looking the other way nor should they.

 

We have been sailing with HAL since the mid 1970's and many new rules have been introduced and implemented over the years. Times have changed and will continue to do so.

 

Agreed. And with all these horrific incidents happening around the world (like what happened in DC), I would hope that security would be very tight, and the rules strictly enforced. It only takes a moment for someone in security to be distracted, to look away and miss something important, and a tragedy ensues. Let's hope it never happens.

[Tampa Girl]

Looks like you and I are in the minority here. I have not read all the responses - bit I am not a HAL cheerleader either. I understand how you feel.

 

I am not happy about HAL's new policy and do not welcome them enforcing it either. Maybe after a time they will become more relaxed about doing so. It is new after all. Thanks for posting your experience.

 

We don't drink much and will drink less as a result. We don't cruise HAL that much either, only 2 star ... have cruised HAL though since 1995. There are lots of other cruise options, Princess, Celebrity, Cunard and NCL.

 

 

Perhaps you had better read all the responses. It is NOT a new policy. The policy re beer and liquor has been in existence for years.

[whogo]

Allow one less bottle of wine per passenger and Holland America's wine policy will be in line with their beer policy.

[bdmarine]

I am always amazed to see many of the comments on these kinds of threads. Here we have some vacationer just carrying a beer onto a cruise ship and responses range from worries about national security to disobedience of the rules.

 

First, let's distinguish rules made by a properly constituted government authority from rules handed down by the controller of a corporation. The government authority is supposed to be making rules for the health and safety of the governed. The corporation just wants as much money as they can get from the customer. Do we give all rules the same authority, no matter what the motive?

[pris993]

Maybe if you were to read the responses you would see that this is not a new policy.

 

Well it is new in terms of enforcement and that is what counts. Since we were allowed to carryon wine and pay corking fees for years... this is new in my book.

[pris993]

I am always amazed to see many of the comments on these kinds of threads. Here we have some vacationer just carrying a beer onto a cruise ship and responses range from worries about national security to disobedience of the rules.

 

First, let's distinguish rules made by a properly constituted government authority from rules handed down by the controller of a corporation. The government authority is supposed to be making rules for the health and safety of the governed. The corporation just wants as much money as they can get from the customer. Do we give all rules the same authority, no matter what the motive?

 

 

Good question.... some do, some don't.

[RuthC]

I am always amazed to see many of the comments on these kinds of threads. Here we have some vacationer just carrying a beer onto a cruise ship and responses range from worries about national security to disobedience of the rules.

OP is making a mountain out of a molehill. OP was attempting to bring aboard one bottle of a beer readily available on the ship---so was not going to go without anything special when it was taken. The confiscated beer was returned before the end of the cruise, and was consumed on board. So, the OP came out even, although the beer possibly was not consumed at the time desired.

The OP had no loss, unless the wife drank one more beer than she wanted to. For some reason, I doubt that happened.

First, let's distinguish rules made by a properly constituted government authority from rules handed down by the controller of a corporation. The government authority is supposed to be making rules for the health and safety of the governed. The corporation just wants as much money as they can get from the customer. Do we give all rules the same authority, no matter what the motive?

Businesses have as much right to draft and implement rules within their business as governments do within their nations. The subject of the rules may be different, but the authority is not.

Making money is the reason the cruise line exists, after all.

[RuthC]

Well it is new in terms of enforcement and that is what counts. Since we were allowed to carryon wine and pay corking fees for years... this is new in my book.

This thread isn't about wine. You really, really ought to read the thread, and find out what it's about, before you post. :rolleyes:

[CI66774]

I am always amazed to see many of the comments on these kinds of threads. Here we have some vacationer just carrying a beer onto a cruise ship and responses range from worries about national security to disobedience of the rules.

 

First, let's distinguish rules made by a properly constituted government authority from rules handed down by the controller of a corporation. The government authority is supposed to be making rules for the health and safety of the governed. The corporation just wants as much money as they can get from the customer. Do we give all rules the same authority, no matter what the motive?

 

Well - I don't think your post passed my smirk test. Governmental authorities only making rules for the health and safety of citizens???? You must be joking, right? What about all of the various rules/laws that are fees in disguise to raise revenue? You don't think every traffic stop and ticket is a true safety stop? Me thinks you're a bit naïve. Sure, companies (like governments) institute rules, laws (whatever you want to call them) for a variety of reasons - some for safety - some for revenue generation. If you violate the rules for either, they may be consequences - could be monetary, could be confiscation, could be imprisonment. The point is when you sail with a cruise line, you agree to abide by the its rules - period. You don't get to pick and choose. If you do, there may be consequences. In this case, HAL confiscated the beer. Totally within it right to do so. If you don't like the rule, and don't intend to abide it, either takes your lumps like a big boy/girl, or go elsewhere.

[bdmarine]

I'm not sure what is meant by a "smirk" test. I do agree that governments don't always make the best rules. A quick reading of the Declaration of Independence would tell you what needs to be done if that continues.

 

The British government passed a stamp tax to raise revenue. The colonies revolted and the USA was born. HAL wants you to pay them for every beer. The passengers should organize and revolt. You say, "If you don't like the rule, and don't intend to abide it, either takes your lumps like a big boy/girl, or go elsewhere." I say your philosophy is laying the red carpet before tyrants. You don't change bad behavior by tolerating it and giving in to it.

[chrispb]

When we buy a ticket to sail HAL ships, we agree to sail under their rules.

If we don't lilke their rules, we don't have to buy that ticket.

 

The irony is always when people contradict their view of a rule depending upon their side of the issue.

We read here all the time, HAL permits smoking on verandahs. If you don't like it, don't book a verandah.

 

 

 

 

Agreed. And don't grizzle about it later:cool:

[CI66774]

I'm not sure what is meant by a "smirk" test. I do agree that governments don't always make the best rules. A quick reading of the Declaration of Independence would tell you what needs to be done if that continues.

 

The British government passed a stamp tax to raise revenue. The colonies revolted and the USA was born. HAL wants you to pay them for every beer. The passengers should organize and revolt. You say, "If you don't like the rule, and don't intend to abide it, either takes your lumps like a big boy/girl, or go elsewhere." I say your philosophy is laying the red carpet before tyrants. You don't change bad behavior by tolerating it and giving in to it.

 

Here is the U.S. (especially in the legal community) we say your argument can't pass the "smirk test" if, during your oral argument, we can't help but smile in a smug(ish) way. This goes for judges, too. In other words, the argument doesn't pass muster. Regarding tyrants....hum.....I think the British know quite a bit about that. (Although we Americans still love you across the pond). I'm not sure how we got from a company prohibiting beer to laying the red carpet for tyrants, except it has no correlation. If I don't like a company's policies, I can complain and attempt to influence they policy by taking my business elsewhere, etc. In terms of governments, in the U.S., if I don't the laws, etc., I can vote them out. I could even stage protests, etc., to change the laws. But if I break the existing law with respect to protests (get violent, etc.), I have to take my lumps. Trying to smuggle an illicit beer onto a HAL ship is not akin to starting a revolution.

Edited September 17, 2013 by CI66774

[RuthC]

You don't change bad behavior by tolerating it and giving in to it.

HAL exhibited no "bad behavior", though. They have every right to prohibit alcohol in any form from being brought aboard, in an effort to make/increase profits.

Profits. That's their whole reason for being; so long as they do it in a legal fashion they have done nothing wrong.

 

Earlier I said you were making a mountain out of a molehill, but you are rapidly approaching K-2 level. :rolleyes:

[George C]

I have smuggled cognac on my 4 cruises with Hal, I would not have been happy if I was caught, but I know the rules and would not make a fuss.

[comfortcove]

Once we were cruising on Princess, and became friends with a nice couple from Oklahoma after we shared a private excursion. We had drinks and dined together several times. She confided in me that on sailaway day her main suitcase failed to be delivered, and instead she was called to a special location to claim it. An officer sternly asked her if she had packed something she knew was NOT allowed. She agreed, indeed she had, thinking of the contraband she had stashed for their private consumption. Instead, he revealed her small travel iron, and the rest of her belongings were shortly delivered to the cabin intact. She got a lecture on the fire hazard of irons, and they kept it for the cruise length, but did not touch the other forbidden consumable items.

 

I have frequently come back from a port with one bottle of something or another, confessed at security, and just been waved on. We have not cruised in a while though, so maybe this is all getting alot stricter with tighter margins. All lines seem to do their best not to apply the fuel supplement.

[kazu]

Once we were cruising on Princess, and became friends with a nice couple from Oklahoma after we shared a private excursion. We had drinks and dined together several times. She confided in me that on sailaway day her main suitcase failed to be delivered, and instead she was called to a special location to claim it. An officer sternly asked her if she had packed something she knew was NOT allowed. She agreed, indeed she had, thinking of the contraband she had stashed for their private consumption. Instead, he revealed her small travel iron, and the rest of her belongings were shortly delivered to the cabin intact. She got a lecture on the fire hazard of irons, and they kept it for the cruise length, but did not touch the other forbidden consumable items.

 

I have frequently come back from a port with one bottle of something or another, confessed at security, and just been waved on. We have not cruised in a while though, so maybe this is all getting alot stricter with tighter margins. All lines seem to do their best not to apply the fuel supplement.

 

Your experience is not unique. Just three months ago I came back from port with a bottle of Calvados. The stewards were not concerned. Frankly, it was intended to go home, so whether they wanted to store it or not made no difference to me. I think it very much depends upon the crew, the ship, whatever. (now, I suppose if we had wanted to drink it onboard it would have been taken - LOL) That time may well be gone now though.

[Charles4515]

Once we were cruising on Princess, and became friends with a nice couple from Oklahoma after we shared a private excursion. We had drinks and dined together several times. She confided in me that on sailaway day her main suitcase failed to be delivered, and instead she was called to a special location to claim it. An officer sternly asked her if she had packed something she knew was NOT allowed. She agreed, indeed she had, thinking of the contraband she had stashed for their private consumption. Instead, he revealed her small travel iron, and the rest of her belongings were shortly delivered to the cabin intact. She got a lecture on the fire hazard of irons, and they kept it for the cruise length, but did not touch the other forbidden consumable items.

 

I have frequently come back from a port with one bottle of something or another, confessed at security, and just been waved on. We have not cruised in a while though, so maybe this is all getting alot stricter with tighter margins. All lines seem to do their best not to apply the fuel supplement.

 

I don't usually buy any alcohol at a port but once I bought a bottle of wine and one time a bottle of local rum. They told me to take it to the table where they were checking them in to hold. I acted like I was but both times I didn't. There were so many coming thru at the time they didn't notice.

[Watson's aunt]

Hu

 

When was the last time you could carry a bottle/can of beer on a plane or your carry on luggage.

 

Mary

[Charles4515]

Hu

 

When was the last time you could carry a bottle/can of beer on a plane or your carry on luggage.

 

Mary

 

Just buy it inside after going thru security......

[USN59-79]

We first cruised with HAL on the old Noordam in 1994. At that time, you could buy a bottle onboard or ashore, no big deal. Later, you could still buy one onboard, but they would charge you about 20% more if you wanted to consume it onboard. Still no big deal. They were making a couple of bucks and you were still enjoying yourself. Later, they changed it so you could buy a bottle for your room, but the price went up about 300%. Then they would sell you a bottle for your room, but it would be about a third of a liter. I accepted these changes and still enjoyed sailing with HAL. Their cruise prices are reasonable and when you take a Grand Cruise and the sign on the gangway says "Welcome Home" you feel that they mean it. But I hate to see them hassle us with "rules" that only aggravate the guest and do nothing for their bottom line. For example, we were on the Prinsendam in Lithuania a couple of months ago and I found some very nice apple and berry cider in a local store. They don't sell cider aboard ship and it may be 3 or 4 % alcohol; nothing close to the fruit wine I could bring aboard. But when I tried to bring a few cans aboard they made a big deal of it on the gangway, but finally like they were doing me a big favor, let me bring it aboard. I don't understand what HAL gains from treating its guests this way. Maybe it is in the "rules", but to me it is total BS. As a business, they can treat their customers any way they want, but at some point their customers will walk to another cruise line.