Royal testing to bring back same drink package for all

[Milwaukee Eight]

I only read the first few pages of this thread so these questions may have been answered, but I didn't see them.

 

I'm on Harmony in Feb, if I buy the package now for just myself, does anyone know if they will force me to add my wife later if this test run becomes policy---or will I be okay because I bought before the rule started for all sailings?

 

We have several cabins with wives that don't drink much and won't buy the package. Can I just put the wives in the same cabins and the husbands in the others, keeping one original name on the reservation?

 

 

 

Not sure anyone yet can answer this. Test through November. It's very possible Royal may make the change permanent. I would suggest you book the Drink Package now. I booked mine for Harmony April 2018 already and wasn't forced too buy two packages.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Goodtime Cruizin]

I only read the first few pages of this thread so these questions may have been answered, but I didn't see them.

I'm on Harmony in Feb, if I buy the package now for just myself, does anyone know if they will force me to add my wife later if this test run becomes policy---or will I be okay because I bought before the rule started for all sailings?

We have several cabins with wives that don't drink much and won't buy the package. Can I just put the wives in the same cabins and the husbands in the others, keeping one original name on the reservation?

 

If it's offered to you now, I'd buy it. I din't think they will force changes to policy after one has decided to purchase now. At least typically in the past they didn't. The worse that can happen is they do change policy and at that point you can either buy the 2nd package or cancel your purchased package for a full refund. Buy it now.

[Goodtime Cruizin]

Let's all be "keyboard accounts for a minute".

 

What percentage of people do you think "cheat the system"? I personally think it's higher on the "value sailings" is it 10%? 20%? And I'm not talking about getting 1 or two drinks I'm talking about the couple that drinks 8+ a piece and buys 1 package. If buying a beer and re swiping card for a water for her is wrong then I'm guilty. Usually they just give it to you but there are those tenders that ask for both cards.

 

I guess this is possible, but IMO, it's not probable that this occurs very often. This takes a tremendous amount of effort and work. Sixteen drinks on the same sea pass by 2 different people for 7 days? I don't see it. I can visit a bar and in most cases, the bartender knows my name & drink preference before I leave. I don't doubt for a second that one can scam the system for a few drinks, But 8 drinks a day for a 7 day cruise, I'm not a buyer of this thought process.

 

This isn't about sharing as much as it is about revenues. If it was strictly about sharing, they would not be 'testing', they would be implementing the new policy. They are attempting to determine if they will increase or decrease revenues with the new proposed policy. By claiming they are doing this because of sharing serves several purposes. One is to put everyone on notice to stop sharing, two is to blame 'sharing;' for the proposed policy, thus taking RCL off the hook. Many have already fallen for it. It's a money grab folks... plain & simple.

[RFerrington]

this isn't about sharing as much as it is about revenues. They are attempting to determine if they will increase or decrease revenues with the new proposed policy. It's a money grab folks... Plain & simple.

 

^ +1 ^

[icsys]

this isn't about sharing as much as it is about revenues. If it was strictly about sharing, they would not be 'testing', they would be implementing the new policy. They are attempting to determine if they will increase or decrease revenues with the new proposed policy. By claiming they are doing this because of sharing serves several purposes. One is to put everyone on notice to stop sharing, two is to blame 'sharing;' for the proposed policy, thus taking rcl off the hook. Many have already fallen for it. It's a money grab folks... Plain & simple.

^ +2 ^

[rukkian]

I guess this is possible, but IMO, it's not probable that this occurs very often. This takes a tremendous amount of effort and work. Sixteen drinks on the same sea pass by 2 different people for 7 days? I don't see it. I can visit a bar and in most cases, the bartender knows my name & drink preference before I leave. I don't doubt for a second that one can scam the system for a few drinks, But 8 drinks a day for a 7 day cruise, I'm not a buyer of this thought process.

 

This isn't about sharing as much as it is about revenues. If it was strictly about sharing, they would not be 'testing', they would be implementing the new policy. They are attempting to determine if they will increase or decrease revenues with the new proposed policy. By claiming they are doing this because of sharing serves several purposes. One is to put everyone on notice to stop sharing, two is to blame 'sharing;' for the proposed policy, thus taking RCL off the hook. Many have already fallen for it. It's a money grab folks... plain & simple.

 

Everything every business does is to make more money, either in the short term or the long term. Businesses exist to make money for their owners.

[Goodtime Cruizin]

Everything every business does is to make more money, either in the short term or the long term. Businesses exist to make money for their owners.

 

OK by me. I have no issue w/ it except that they blame their customers for the change and some of these same customers believe it. As customers with any business, we either choose to pay or we choose to not pay.

[rukkian]

Just because it was for profit does not mean it was not due to sharing, at least in part. If they are losing money due to people sharing, them making everybody in a room buy would raise the profits.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Forums mobile app

[lampskies]

I only read the first few pages of this thread so these questions may have been answered, but I didn't see them.

I'm on Harmony in Feb, if I buy the package now for just myself, does anyone know if they will force me to add my wife later if this test run becomes policy---or will I be okay because I bought before the rule started for all sailings?

We have several cabins with wives that don't drink much and won't buy the package. Can I just put the wives in the same cabins and the husbands in the others, keeping one original name on the reservation?

 

If You can buy your package now do it! You can cancel at any time. Putting people in different rooms is a "royal pain in the a?!"your sea pass card will only open one room. The one your assigned to. Also that card is what's used to power your room on the Harmony.

[Clarea]

... Also that card is what's used to power your room on the Harmony.

You can use any card in that slot, even a business card to keep the power on.

[lampskies]

You can use any card in that slot, even a business card to keep the power on.

 

When my DDs were younger we'd get a balcony and an inside for the "teenagers". But had to book one adult in each room.....it WAS was "royal pain". Disney actually gave us two other "non chargeable" room cards which worked but that meant caring extra cards...

[Big_G]

OK by me. I have no issue w/ it except that they blame their customers for the change and some of these same customers believe it. As customers with any business, we either choose to pay or we choose to not pay.

Did I miss where Royal blamed it on passengers or is this just a case of CCers blaming it on passengers?

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Goodtime Cruizin]

Just because it was for profit does not mean it was not due to sharing, at least in part. If they are losing money due to people sharing, them making everybody in a room buy would raise the profits.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Forums mobile app

 

If it's really about 'sharing', then I'll say again, they wouldn't be testing anything. They would have immediately made policy change and began the process of implementation.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Goodtime Cruizin

[Milwaukee Eight]

If it's really about 'sharing', then I'll say again, they wouldn't be testing anything. They would be immediately make policy change and implement it.

 

 

 

I think it is like a warning of things to come. I hope not.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Goodtime Cruizin]

Did I miss where Royal blamed it on passengers or is this just a case of CCers blaming it on passengers?

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

Yes, I believe you did. Unless the 'sharing' portion of their explanation was due to employees sharing, which I don't think was the case.

[rukkian]

If it's really about 'sharing', then I'll say again, they wouldn't be testing anything. They would have immediately made policy change and began the process of implementation.

 

The testing comes in as they figure out which way will net more profit. Sharing can and probably is a part of the reason they are looking at this. If forcing people to both buy a package works out to better profits than letting one buy it (and potentially share it) then it will probably spread to more sailings on more ships. If it turns out that there is too much backlash and they make less, then they will probably switch back and work out another solution.

 

Being about profits and stopping sharing are not mutually exclusive. Sharing does lower profits, but it may not be as much as the amount of lost revenue from package purchases if this backfires.

[Big_G]

Yes, I believe you did. Unless the 'sharing' portion of their explanation was due to employees sharing, which I don't think was the case.

 

 

 

OK, I was just curious.

 

 

Gregg

[lbjen]

They only catch a small number of sharers in the act, I'm sure they get a lot more reports that they can't take action on. And there's plenty of people willing to go online and brag about it still. It's smart of them to trial making a change as big as this before just implementing it fleet wide.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ABoatNerd]

Late into this thread, so please correct me if I am incorrect in my understand what is RCL considering, thank you. This may impact my assessment below.

 

I assume RCL is considering a "forced purchase" of beverage package in order to purchase another.product, the cruise itself. If this is correct, then this is a most fascinating anti-consumer action which has both government consumer protection elements.and legal impact.

 

The "tied selling" of products is against the law in many jurisdictions.

 

Our household will not purchase any beverage package on any cruise line as the products are of no interest to us.

 

Thoughts?

[MiniChunks]

The testing comes in as they figure out which way will net more profit. Sharing can and probably is a part of the reason they are looking at this. If forcing people to both buy a package works out to better profits than letting one buy it (and potentially share it) then it will probably spread to more sailings on more ships. If it turns out that there is too much backlash and they make less, then they will probably switch back and work out another solution.

 

Being about profits and stopping sharing are not mutually exclusive. Sharing does lower profits, but it may not be as much as the amount of lost revenue from package purchases if this backfires.

 

Just don't pull a Carnival and limit me to 15 drinks a day:D

[Clarea]

Late into this thread, so please correct me if I am incorrect in my understand what is RCL considering, thank you. This may impact my assessment below.

 

I assume RCL is considering a "forced purchase" of beverage package in order to purchase another.product, the cruise itself. If this is correct, then this is a most fascinating anti-consumer action which has both government consumer protection elements.and legal impact.

 

The "tied selling" of products is against the law in many jurisdictions.

 

Our household will not purchase any beverage package on any cruise line as the products are of no interest to us.

 

Thoughts?

You are misunderstanding. RC is considering requiring all occupants of the stateroom purchase a drink package only when any occupant wants the package. If no occupant of a stateroom wants a package, no purchase would be necessary.

[reallyitsmema]

Late into this thread, so please correct me if I am incorrect in my understand what is RCL considering, thank you. This may impact my assessment below.

 

I assume RCL is considering a "forced purchase" of beverage package in order to purchase another.product, the cruise itself. If this is correct, then this is a most fascinating anti-consumer action which has both government consumer protection elements.and legal impact.

 

The "tied selling" of products is against the law in many jurisdictions.

 

Our household will not purchase any beverage package on any cruise line as the products are of no interest to us.

 

Thoughts?

 

You do not have to buy a beverage package if you purchase a cruise. You do have to buy a beverage package for all those who are of age for select Harmony sailings.

[lbjen]

Late into this thread, so please correct me if I am incorrect in my understand what is RCL considering, thank you. This may impact my assessment below.

 

I assume RCL is considering a "forced purchase" of beverage package in order to purchase another.product, the cruise itself. If this is correct, then this is a most fascinating anti-consumer action which has both government consumer protection elements.and legal impact.

 

The "tied selling" of products is against the law in many jurisdictions.

 

Our household will not purchase any beverage package on any cruise line as the products are of no interest to us.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

No, that's not correct. They are considering forcing all occupants of a cabin to purchase a drink package if one occupant of that cabin wants to purchase one, but nobody is being forced to buy the drinks package in order to be on the cruise.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The_Big_M]

No, that's not correct. They are considering forcing all occupants of a cabin to purchase a drink package if one occupant of that cabin wants to purchase one, but nobody is being forced to buy the drinks package in order to be on the cruise.

 

 

Agreed. It would just mean that packages can only be sold on a cabin (with variations) basis, though as usual priced individually.

 

There's nothing legally that requires only components can be sold - otherwise you'd have the obvious case that the cabin itself would be able to be sold for a single occupant at the twin share price!

[lampskies]

Did I miss where Royal blamed it on passengers or is this just a case of CCers blaming it on passengers?

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

It's the Russians!