Disney changes alcohol policy and raises corkage fee

[RiotAct]

I actually just bought a case for $120 from a great little wine shop that specializes in little known wines from around the world that offer a great expression of terroir. Some are good, some are fantastic. So yes, I do drink $10 wines--but not the $10 from the grocery store. Why would I spend $10 on mediocre wine when I can get good to great wine for the same price? Why would anyone?

 

Not every locale has a "great little wine shop".

[moki'smommy]

Why bring our own? Simple. We strongly prefer wines with age on them and varietals not carried by DCL.

 

You obviously don't have knowledge of wine. Split a bottle and take what's left back to the room? LOL! There are five glasses to a bottle. We finish a bottle at dinner.

 

You are right--no way I'm a wine expert. There are a couple of labels that I know I like and I tend to stick to those. And while they are not "2 buck Chuck,"

they also aren't the $100 per bottle variety. Sorry that my standards are not up to yours.

 

On the other hand, I do know DCL, having cruised more than 30 times, and a total of over 240 nights. Yes, I like the long cruises!

[ducklite]

Not every locale has a "great little wine shop".

 

Get it shipped. I do. There are hundreds of great wine shops who ship. You can call or go online to order. Unless you live in one of the few "no-ship" states (and even in most of those there are ways around it) this is a very easy solution. By the way, the "great little wine shop" I bought that case from is 1100 miles away. UPS is my friend.

Edited August 21, 2015 by ducklite

[ducklite]

You are right--no way I'm a wine expert. There are a couple of labels that I know I like and I tend to stick to those. And while they are not "2 buck Chuck' date='"

they also aren't the $100 per bottle variety. Sorry that my standards are not up to yours.[/quote']

 

Where did I ever say you had to drink $100 wine? I have tasted about 30 different wines this week. (Tasted[/] before the trolls come out) and only one retails for over $100. The majority were in the $20-40 range. We had wine with dinner three of four nights and there are three bottles in the recycle bin. Total retail value is probably about $80 between them.

 

My comment about not knowing wine was regarding the number of glasses in a bottle. Sit down for dinner, figure it takes close to two hours, between two people the bottle is gone at the end of the meal.

 

I'm not sure what the number of days you've cruised have to do with the wine you drink.

[Ex techie]

Not what I meant. It's possible hey may have had even longer notice but for various reasons chose not to give an extended implementation time, even knowing it would annoy current cruisers.

 

Or they may not have had as much time as you think.

 

Changes to insurance policies can take effect in as little as 30 days under commercial contracts if there is a causative factor such as a significant claim. The following is not an uncommon scenario..

 

Incident X happens resulting in a large claim on June 1.

Claim settled July 30

Insurer contacts client and says measures must be taken to mitigate risk or rates will increase or coverage dropped on August 1, corrections to be taken by September 30. The most common example is a hazard trip and fall where the insured is given a window to fix the hazard or it is no longer covered.

 

If you think cruise contracts favor the line, take a good read of your insurance docs and see how unbalanced it is to the buyer, this holds true. Usually in commercial insurance there is a 60 or 90 day mitigation clause triggered by claims representing more than X percent of the policy value being closed with a payment.

 

I'm oversimplifying but its entire possible an external deadline was applied.

 

 

It is n

 

Whilst I agree with the premise of your post, I think it may be different for large organizations who will have very different insurance policies that you, I or even a large business.

They may even self insure for risk of harm or death? (not the actual ships)

But also, there have been no reports on line or promoted by Jim Walker! to suggest that there has been an incident involving someone being injured or worse, or any incidents out of the ordinary where the cause was determined to be excess alcohol. On DCL or other lines.

 

In regards to liability being a cause as you mentioned previously, I have a question. Exactly why liability would DCL need to insure themselves against with the alcohol policy in mind?

 

I've never stayed at the WDW resorts, however, I will assume that they do not scan your luggage for alcohol?

 

On another board, I've just read a comment by someone that one of the reasons could be that if someone decided to drink a whole bottle of liquor themselves and then fell overboard, that DCL could/would be held liable as their alcohol policy allowed them to bring it aboard, and somehow that makes them responsible for the individuals actions and decisions.

 

That I cannot see in the slightest. If DCL had served them whilst they were clearly drunk and incapacitated, then yes.

 

So if that IS true, presumably, all bags at WDW resorts would also need to be scanned incase a Guest got liquored up in their room and fell from a balcony too?

 

Interested in your thoughts?

 

ex techie

[Loonbeam]

There's a difference between reality and legal liability...

 

Let's take an example. Since (right now) Disney does not have any limits on bringing alcohol onboard. So, Adult X decides to bring 2 bottles of vodka on. Daughter Y, 17 decides to imbibe a quantity of said vodka, and has an unfortunate incident (we'll say a fall, there could be much worse).

 

Now, in reality, whose fault is it? BUT legally, a creative lawyer could file suit claiming that Disney's failure to reasonably limit consumption by minors was a proximate cause.

 

Alternate scenario - Adult X brings aboard 2 bottles of Vodka, has a fight with spouse Y and decides to consume all of it. Goes to a bar and orders a beer, busy bartender doesn't notice he's drunk, serves said beer. Adult X falls overboard. Family sues Disney for providing alcohol to an already inebriated individual.

 

There are more of these, and they all have actually happened at one point or another.

 

It's complete bull, but Disney and their insurers don't want to have to keep fighting that battle. (As an example, when I worked for a large local retail operation, someone sued because they broke their ankle while climbing over a 7 foot high snow and ice pile at the edge of a lot while wearing high heels. It was eventually dismissed but just the legal issue cost the company over $80,000 through all the various filings and pleadings) Putting a policy in place gives them a legal fig leaf to knock suits down earlier.

 

If there was an incident, you would NOT hear about it from Disney unless charges were filed. It's just a matter of PR and image. And it only takes one incident to trigger a policy change.

 

Disney does self-insure for some things (I will assume but am not sure that they do it through a separate self-owned entity, but they can also purchase what is called re-insurance for other kinds of claims to limit max liability. So they very easily could have changed carriers, prompting a change in policy, and depending when the original contract was up, could have a limited window to announce the new policy. Or as I mentioned, its not uncommon at all for there to be a hazard clause in commercial insurance contracts (I've had a hand in reviewing more than a few).

 

As with many things, it's unlikely we'll know all the reasons why a change was made. I am fairly confident in saying that they would not have posted a change in such a short time frame if there were not some external factors that made it expedient to do so, otherwise they probably would have followed the final payment window (at least for non-concierge)

 

Whilst I agree with the premise of your post, I think it may be different for large organizations who will have very different insurance policies that you, I or even a large business.

They may even self insure for risk of harm or death? (not the actual ships)

But also, there have been no reports on line or promoted by Jim Walker! to suggest that there has been an incident involving someone being injured or worse, or any incidents out of the ordinary where the cause was determined to be excess alcohol. On DCL or other lines.

 

In regards to liability being a cause as you mentioned previously, I have a question. Exactly why liability would DCL need to insure themselves against with the alcohol policy in mind?

 

I've never stayed at the WDW resorts, however, I will assume that they do not scan your luggage for alcohol?

 

On another board, I've just read a comment by someone that one of the reasons could be that if someone decided to drink a whole bottle of liquor themselves and then fell overboard, that DCL could/would be held liable as their alcohol policy allowed them to bring it aboard, and somehow that makes them responsible for the individuals actions and decisions.

 

That I cannot see in the slightest. If DCL had served them whilst they were clearly drunk and incapacitated, then yes.

 

So if that IS true, presumably, all bags at WDW resorts would also need to be scanned incase a Guest got liquored up in their room and fell from a balcony too?

 

Interested in your thoughts?

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

There's a difference between reality and legal liability...

 

Let's take an example. Since (right now) Disney does not have any limits on bringing alcohol onboard. So, Adult X decides to bring 2 bottles of vodka on. Daughter Y, 17 decides to imbibe a quantity of said vodka, and has an unfortunate incident (we'll say a fall, there could be much worse).

 

Now, in reality, whose fault is it? BUT legally, a creative lawyer could file suit claiming that Disney's failure to reasonably limit consumption by minors was a proximate cause.

 

Alternate scenario - Adult X brings aboard 2 bottles of Vodka, has a fight with spouse Y and decides to consume all of it. Goes to a bar and orders a beer, busy bartender doesn't notice he's drunk, serves said beer. Adult X falls overboard. Family sues Disney for providing alcohol to an already inebriated individual.

 

There are more of these, and they all have actually happened at one point or another.

 

It's complete bull, but Disney and their insurers don't want to have to keep fighting that battle. (As an example, when I worked for a large local retail operation, someone sued because they broke their ankle while climbing over a 7 foot high snow and ice pile at the edge of a lot while wearing high heels. It was eventually dismissed but just the legal issue cost the company over $80,000 through all the various filings and pleadings) Putting a policy in place gives them a legal fig leaf to knock suits down earlier.

 

If there was an incident, you would NOT hear about it from Disney unless charges were filed. It's just a matter of PR and image. And it only takes one incident to trigger a policy change.

 

Disney does self-insure for some things (I will assume but am not sure that they do it through a separate self-owned entity, but they can also purchase what is called re-insurance for other kinds of claims to limit max liability. So they very easily could have changed carriers, prompting a change in policy, and depending when the original contract was up, could have a limited window to announce the new policy. Or as I mentioned, its not uncommon at all for there to be a hazard clause in commercial insurance contracts (I've had a hand in reviewing more than a few).

 

As with many things, it's unlikely we'll know all the reasons why a change was made. I am fairly confident in saying that they would not have posted a change in such a short time frame if there were not some external factors that made it expedient to do so, otherwise they probably would have followed the final payment window (at least for non-concierge)

 

So following that logic we should expect to hear a similar policy at the resorts as well?

Both Disney properties, so same liability right?

 

Additionally, the alcohol packages sold through the in Stateroom gifts section still available online allow you to buy booze in unlimited quantities.

Guest goes ashore, gets drunk in a bar, boards the ship, downs even more Disney supplied alcohol, goes to a bar and orders a beer, busy bartender doesn't notice he's drunk, serves said beer. Adult X falls overboard. Similar situation.

Family sues Disney for providing alcohol to an already inebriated individual?

 

ex techie

Edited August 22, 2015 by Ex techie

[Loonbeam]

It's happened, actually the exact scenario you mentioned below on another line that I know of which resulted in a change in their policy banning almost ALL liquor carried onboard, but now you are in the area of what is known as control...

 

At the resorts, guests have the option to exit the property and purchase alcohol from other sources, therefore there is a certain automatic legal out for the resort/hotel that a ship does not. Even still, look at the legal dockets about a week after spring break in FL or TX and you will see what I mean.

 

Secondly, legally, a ship is considered a high risk environment that most hotels are not because of the difficulty in evacuating in an emergency among other things (including but not limited to the difficulty in identifying/rescuing someone falling off said balcony) You will notice that there are very few resorts in the US with high floor (10 plus) balconies for that reason, and those that do tend to have higher railings or a slope (condos and apartments are different - different rules apply).

 

Third, and this is important, DCL is a separate corporate entity, mostly owned by Disney, but chartered in the UK and operating foreign flag ships, which adds in a whole different set of rules.

 

Fourth, the alcohol packages are not technically unlimited, the cruise line can (and has the obligation to) terminate a sale when it thinks the customer may be inebriated or the sale is excessive for the time frame permitted (refusal of service), something they cannot do with passenger provided liquor.

 

Those are just SOME of the possible legal ways Disney could be exposed to liability. And bear in mind, the issue triggering an insurance change for example doesn't even have to happen on a Disney ship. Take Hurricane Sandy for example where people whose homes were not impacted saw massive increases in insurance because they were now considered to be at risk...

 

Insurance is based on perceived risk of legal action and liability, NOT necessarily reality.

 

 

So following that logic we should expect to hear a similar policy at the resorts as well?

Both Disney properties, so same liability right?

 

Additionally, the alcohol packages sold through the in Stateroom gifts section still available online allow you to buy booze in unlimited quantities.

Guest goes ashore, gets drunk in a bar, boards the ship, downs even more Disney supplied alcohol, goes to a bar and orders a beer, busy bartender doesn't notice he's drunk, serves said beer. Adult X falls overboard. Similar situation.

Family sues Disney for providing alcohol to an already inebriated individual?

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

Firstly, i just want to say thank you for your detailed reply, and secondly, I am in no way arguing with you, but very much enjoying this civilized exchange of ideas and opinions!

 

It's happened, actually the exact scenario you mentioned below on another line that I know of which resulted in a change in their policy banning almost ALL liquor carried onboard, but now you are in the area of what is known as control...

 

At the resorts, guests have the option to exit the property and purchase alcohol from other sources, therefore there is a certain automatic legal out for the resort/hotel that a ship does not. Even still, look at the legal dockets about a week after spring break in FL or TX and you will see what I mean.

With the new policy, DCL will allow you to repeat your alcohol allowance at each port you visit, so 2 more bottles of wine, 6 more beers.

 

Secondly, legally, a ship is considered a high risk environment that most hotels are not because of the difficulty in evacuating in an emergency among other things (including but not limited to the difficulty in identifying/rescuing someone falling off said balcony) You will notice that there are very few resorts in the US with high floor (10 plus) balconies for that reason, and those that do tend to have higher railings or a slope (condos and apartments are different - different rules apply).

Whilst that is true, a 4/5 storey fall, so 30-40' on to concrete would most likely severely disable that person if not kill them as they would be falling head first if they 'fell' over the rail and did not jump.

 

Third, and this is important, DCL is a separate corporate entity, mostly owned by Disney, but chartered in the UK and operating foreign flag ships, which adds in a whole different set of rules.

Remember I used to work for DCL! ;) AFAIK they are wholly owned by the WDW Parks and Resorts division of the Walt Disney Company as a subsidiary.

 

I'm not sure why that is important? The risk of a minor steeling booze in a resort environment is every bit as dangerous as at sea and as such needs to be adequately insured IMO.

Scenario:

2 families vacation together, parents go to V&A's for dinner leaving the two 16/17yr olds to enjoy the pool and get room service for dinner.

Kids raid the parents stash of booze. Go back down to the pool, have an accident.

Kid slips, hit their head and drowns. Are Disney still liable any more on the ship than at the resort?

 

BTW, did you know the company was first called:

Previous Company Names - DEVONSON CRUISE COMPANY, LIMITED - Changed 1 Oct 1996!

 

Fourth, the alcohol packages are not technically unlimited, the cruise line can (and has the obligation to) terminate a sale when it thinks the customer may be inebriated or the sale is excessive for the time frame permitted (refusal of service), something they cannot do with passenger provided liquor.

Sorry, I wasn't clearer in my previous post. I was speaking to the in room gift selection. Imported Beer 6-Pack, Slightly higher alcohol content for someone who usually drinks Bud/Miller Light, and you 'could' order 2 six packs to be delivered to your Stateroom to enjoy on the balcony.

Another scenario:

Family on an Easter Carib cruise. One of the adults hits the bars in St Maarten straight away. They are on vacation!

The two adults row over the one that is drinking too many cocktails/shots/beers. With ashore 8:00am and all aboard, 6:45, a good amount of time to get liquored up if they wanted to!

They board the ship still arguing. The one who is intoxicated, brings their allowed 6 port bought beers back to the Stateroom, then hits a bar. They ARE declined service for being intoxicated.

They have ordered two 6 pack's of imported beers that were delivered to the Stateroom on embarkation day.

So now they have 18 beers on top of what they consumed on the island in the sun getting dehydrated haven not eaten much all day.

They go to their balcony and they hit their 12 beers that DCL sold and supplied for their consumption without anyone being able to regulate their consumption, but themselves and maybe their 6 pack they brought to drown their sorrow. They decide to lean overboard to get a better view of something and fall overboard.

Is DCL still liable, as they supplied beer for that already intoxicated person to consume behind closed doors without any CM being able to cut them off?

Does the scenario change if they were served one more beer in the bar, then cut off and then drank their 18 beer stash?

 

Those are just SOME of the possible legal ways Disney could be exposed to liability. And bear in mind, the issue triggering an insurance change for example doesn't even have to happen on a Disney ship. Take Hurricane Sandy for example where people whose homes were not impacted saw massive increases in insurance because they were now considered to be at risk...

That is a good point. Unless we know if they self insure for say one person fatalities, maybe 2 or 3, but have a bought policy for multiple deaths cause to a larger incident, we wouldn't know.

 

Insurance is based on perceived risk of legal action and liability, NOT necessarily reality.

 

Thanks for your replies, and thoughts!

 

ex techie

[moki'smommy]

Having once been involved in an "incident" on the ship in which the guilty party was strongly suspected by security of obtaining alcohol despite being under age, I can tell you that Security took a strong interest in my daughter--being sure she was OK, etc. However, the visit from the Staff Captain had exactly one purpose--he wanted to hear that I had no intention of suing DCL.

 

You know they have a bad actor on board when my daughter knew the older teen's first name and security could supply the last name. Turned out that the incident with my daughter was at least the third that had been reported to security!

 

Just FYI, security was GREAT. They made sure that my daughter was protected for the remainder of the cruise. They also told us that this family had been flagged so no member would ever be allowed to cruise DCL again.

[Ex techie]

Having once been involved in an "incident" on the ship in which the guilty party was strongly suspected by security of obtaining alcohol despite being under age' date=' I can tell you that Security took a strong interest in my daughter--being sure she was OK, etc. However, the visit from the Staff Captain had exactly one purpose--he wanted to hear that I had no intention of suing DCL.

 

You know they have a bad actor on board when my daughter knew the older teen's first name and security could supply the last name. Turned out that the incident with my daughter was at least the third that had been reported to security!

 

Just FYI, security was GREAT. They made sure that my daughter was protected for the remainder of the cruise. They also told us that this family had been flagged so no member would ever be allowed to cruise DCL again.[/quote']

 

Very reassuring to know, for many people, and good for DCL putting the family on a no cruise list.

 

ex techie

[Loonbeam]

The reason the subsidiary part is so important is because while Disney is a US company, DCL (Magical Cruises Limited or whatever) is a UK company owned by Disney and thus has to operate under UK laws in a lot of cases (where Disney as a parent does not). Some British liability laws are very very different from the US (for example, most negligence cases are heard only by a judge, not jury and the burden of proof standard on causation is very different).

 

BTW, Self-insurance is usually by amount, so Disney may self-insure for claims up to say $250,000 but re-insure or outside insure for largers (or they could also have a policy with a 250K deductible). All of those lead to various levels of insurer involvement and policy decisions.

 

Firstly, i just want to say thank you for your detailed reply, and secondly, I am in no way arguing with you, but very much enjoying this civilized exchange of ideas and opinions!

 

 

 

Thanks for your replies, and thoughts!

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

The reason the subsidiary part is so important is because while Disney is a US company, DCL (Magical Cruises Limited or whatever) is a UK company owned by Disney and thus has to operate under UK laws in a lot of cases (where Disney as a parent does not). Some British liability laws are very very different from the US (for example, most negligence cases are heard only by a judge, not jury and the burden of proof standard on causation is very different).

 

BTW, Self-insurance is usually by amount, so Disney may self-insure for claims up to say $250,000 but re-insure or outside insure for largers (or they could also have a policy with a 250K deductible). All of those lead to various levels of insurer involvement and policy decisions.

 

Sorry, but after a quick Google search, this document states some parts differently.

And maybe why, the Magical Cruise Company Limited is headquartered in the UK?

 

Some key points:

 

Corporate Manslaughter.

Section 1: The offence

An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised -

 

causes a person's death; and

amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.

 

Elements Of The Offence

The following needs to be proved:

 

the defendant is a qualifying organisation;

the organisation causes a person's death;

there was a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased;

there was a gross breach of that duty;

a substantial element of that breach was in the way those activities were managed or organised by senior management; and

the defendant must not fall within one of the exemptions for prosecution under the Act.

 

Foreign companies and Subsidiaries

The offence applies to companies and other corporate bodies operating in the UK, whether they are incorporated in the UK or abroad.

 

Companies that operate using a group structure are all separate legal entities for the purpose of the Act if the subsidiaries are also incorporated.

 

The Gross Breach

Once a relevant duty of care has been established any breach must fall far below what could reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances section1(4)(b).

 

Section 8, sets out factors for the jury which must consider in determining whether health and safety legislation was breached then if so:

 

how serious the breach was (section 8(2)(a);

how much of a risk of death it posed (section 8(2)(b).

 

Other non-causative breaches might be admissible under section 8(3) which says:

 

The jury may also consider the attitudes, policies, systems or accepted practices that were likely to have encouraged the breach or produced a tolerance of it; and

may have regard to any health and safety guidance issued by the relevant enforcement authority that relates to the breach.

 

But importantly:

 

Jurisdiction

The Act sets out specific rules for the jurisdiction of the new offence; i.e. to determine whether a death in a particular place will fall under the new offence.

 

A British company cannot be prosecuted for deaths abroad unless the harm occurs in this country.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/corporate_manslaughter/#a01

 

ex techie

[moki'smommy]

I know that the fine print on WDW tickets states that any legal action must be pursued in Orange County, FL. Yes, you agree to that when you purchase or use a park ticket. I do not know if the cruise contract has a similar clause.

 

I also know that in the incident I referred to earlier, the young man's issues were managed by the prosecutor's office in Brevard County, FL despite the incident occurring at sea.

[meatloafsfan]

You can speculate liability, insurance, abuse all you like but I can't believe that is wholly the reason for this change of policy - not based on other recent decisions and changes.

 

1. removal of outside vendors for onboard deliveries (no more gift baskets, et al from anyone other than DCL).

 

2. Addition of fresh popcorn machines on the ships - extra fee for popcorn.

 

3. Addition of candy store and for fee ice cream during Dream refurb. Next to a high traffic area no less.

 

4. Addition of extra fee add ons to upscale restaurants (Palo and Remy).

 

5. No tea with Alice (or other characters) on new ships but instead the additional of a high cost princess event.

 

6. Increase of corkage fee to $25 a bottle - now one of the highest in the industry.

 

7. Several price increases for Palo over the past 2 years.

 

(and yes, I realize these are not in order but they are all upcharges/increases I've noted over the past 2 years).

 

this just appears to be another way that DCL is looking to raise profits. High price increases in the cruise fare year over year, just don't seem to be cutting it.

[moki'smommy]

The only one of the above that I'm not understanding is the "addition of popcorn machines" for a fee. They have long sold popcorn outside the theatres before movies and shows. This isn't a new event.

 

No question, especially with the higher cruise fares, DCL is all about maxing out the profit margin. And honestly, it's getting worse about the add ons. Yes, you can still have a great cruise without these, but they are increasing in number and cost.

 

And you forgot the Bippidy Boppidy Boutique being added on the Magic at dry dock this fall.

[Loonbeam]

I'm only speculating insurance as to relatively short timing, not the fact its also a revenue generator. I just think that if revenue was the only driver, they would have put a date outside PIF window just to avoid the hassle and complaints.

 

You can speculate liability, insurance, abuse all you like but I can't believe that is wholly the reason for this change of policy - not based on other recent decisions and changes.

 

1. removal of outside vendors for onboard deliveries (no more gift baskets, et al from anyone other than DCL).

 

2. Addition of fresh popcorn machines on the ships - extra fee for popcorn.

 

3. Addition of candy store and for fee ice cream during Dream refurb. Next to a high traffic area no less.

 

4. Addition of extra fee add ons to upscale restaurants (Palo and Remy).

 

5. No tea with Alice (or other characters) on new ships but instead the additional of a high cost princess event.

 

6. Increase of corkage fee to $25 a bottle - now one of the highest in the industry.

 

7. Several price increases for Palo over the past 2 years.

 

(and yes, I realize these are not in order but they are all upcharges/increases I've noted over the past 2 years).

 

this just appears to be another way that DCL is looking to raise profits. High price increases in the cruise fare year over year, just don't seem to be cutting it.

[CELTICGIRLCRUISER]

I find it hard to believe it would be anything but a money making exercise. Call me cynical..............

Edited August 23, 2015 by CELTICGIRLCRUISER

[meatloafsfan]

I'm only speculating insurance as to relatively short timing, not the fact its also a revenue generator. I just think that if revenue was the only driver, they would have put a date outside PIF window just to avoid the hassle and complaints.

 

October 1st marks the next quarter. My guess would be they want to be able to track profits quarter over quarter. At my work, we often see changes to procedures and protocol start October 1st, January 1st, April 1st and July 1st to align with the new quarter.

[meatloafsfan]

The only one of the above that I'm not understanding is the "addition of popcorn machines" for a fee. They have long sold popcorn outside the theatres before movies and shows. This isn't a new event.

 

And you forgot the Bippidy Boppidy Boutique being added on the Magic at dry dock this fall.

 

Previously the popcorn was a "prepackaged snack" (bagged, ready for sale). I would like it to selling the mickey head cheddar snacks or the other chip'n'dale treats.

 

Now with the fresh made popcorn, what's the difference between that and say, French fries from Flo's? Or even the hot pretzels sometimes available on the pool deck?

 

It was a choice DCL made to charge for popcorn, and not all cruiselines made that same choice (Carnival gives free, fresh-popped popcorn during their Dive In Movies every night).

[moki'smommy]

Yes, you are right that it was previously bagged and now fresh....but charged popcorn is still charged popcorn. Just another revenue source.

[Loonbeam]

Another certainly plausible factor though I would doubt revenue changes would be material at first...

 

October 1st marks the next quarter. My guess would be they want to be able to track profits quarter over quarter. At my work, we often see changes to procedures and protocol start October 1st, January 1st, April 1st and July 1st to align with the new quarter.

[ducklite]

I know that the fine print on WDW tickets states that any legal action must be pursued in Orange County' date=' FL. Yes, you agree to that when you purchase or use a park ticket. I do not know if the cruise contract has a similar clause.

 

 

 

I also know that in the incident I referred to earlier, the young man's issues were managed by the prosecutor's office in Brevard County, FL despite the incident occurring at sea.[/quote']

 

 

Criminal acts and civil litigation would be two different jurisdictions. Thus the difference in venue.

[ducklite]

I'm only speculating insurance as to relatively short timing, not the fact its also a revenue generator. I just think that if revenue was the only driver, they would have put a date outside PIF window just to avoid the hassle and complaints.

 

 

I don't think bean counters always have the common sense to anticipate customer reaction to policy changes.

[blondietink]

Well, for what we paid for our Disney Wonder cruise last year you would think they would have enough profit to make things better. Our wait staff was just ok, our room steward was just ok, food was mediocre, ship was overly crowded, hallways were very narrow, elevators way too small, and overall was not what we had hoped for. We did not carry on any liquor, and thought the drink prices were actually reasonable. If we ever sail on a Disney ship again, I am wondering how reasonable those drink prices will be considering they will now have a captive audience (excluding those with rum runners).