Sharing drinks on NCL

[AlmiranteChurruca]

2 minutes ago, D_And_K_gocruising said:

Is it because it's a non USA based cruise that you could have 3 adults in a room and not have the FAS / drinks package?  I thought if one adult had it, everyone over 21 had to?   Again, maybe due to where the cruise is?   

 

Must be the European reservation rules I guess. Third guest was not forced to book any package upon or after reservation. Not sure if this is the usual practice or some promotion.

[AlmiranteChurruca]

Terms and conditions under which reservations are made as of today. At least in Criminal Spain. 😅

 

Free at Sea

Paquete de Bebidas: El 1º y 2º pasajero de la cabina tendrán incluido una selección de bebidas alcohólicas y cócteles, vinos, cervezas de barril, zumos y bebidas no alcohólicas (excepto destino Hawai). A bordo se abonará el IVA y/o impuestos correspondientes en ciertos puertos o itinerarios en función de la legislación aplicable.; Crédito para Excursiones: Descuento para excursiones en tierra de 50$ por camarote y puerto de escala; WIFI: El 1º y 2º pasajero de la cabina tendrán incluido incluidos: - 75 minutos en cruceros de 3 a 6 noches. - 150 minutos en cruceros de 7 a 11 noches. - 300 minutos en cruceros de 12 noches o más. ; Restaurantes de Especialidades: El 1º y 2º pasajero de la cabina tendrán incluido: 1 cena de especialidad: - en cruceros de 3 a 6 noches. - en cruceros de 7 a 11 noches reservando en categoría Estudio, Interior o Exterior. 2 cenas de especialidades: - en cruceros de 7 a 11 noches reservando en categoría Balcón o superior - en cruceros de 12 noches o más reservando en categoría Estudio, Interior o Exterior. 3 cenas de especialidades: en cruceros de 12 noches o más reservando en categoría Balcón o superior. ; Pensión Completa: Incluye todas las comidas en el buffet y restaurantes principales ; 3º y 4º persona: 3º y 4º persona en el mismo camarote pagan solo las tasas. (Válido para una selección de salidas. Gratis el precio de la cabina, los impuestos y restos de gastos tendrán que abonarse)

[DCGuy64]

33 minutes ago, AlmiranteChurruca said:

 

Be welcome to Spain whenever you come back! However, beware! Drinks-stealing criminals galore! 🤪

It's worse! In Spain you order una caña and they give you a tapa. You only paid for the beer and you stole the food. 🤣

[AlmiranteChurruca]

1 minute ago, DCGuy64 said:

It's worse! In Spain you order una caña and they give you a tapa. You only paid for the beer and you stole the food. 🤣

 

Indeed! Plus, tipping NOT mandatory to get good (or bad) service. All inclusive! 😁

[bkrickles1]

11 minutes ago, AlmiranteChurruca said:

Terms and conditions under which reservations are made as of today. At least in Criminal Spain. 😅

After drinking entirely too much this past weekend and paying for every one of my drinks, I have read through this thread because I needed some amusement in my day.

And after reading through it, I don't recall seeing anyone calling you or anyone else from Spain a criminal, so your snide comments are totally uncalled for.

 

With that in mind and to give you some real world experience, I have seen people get drinks for others that didn't have the package on NCL and I've done it myself many years ago on RCCL. I can tell you, with some certainty, that it's extremely unlikely that you would get caught and be in trouble. There's just too much going on for anyone to notice.

 

But, YOU WOULD BE STEALING!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who says otherwise is wrong!

I don't judge and I would never turn anyone in for this, but it's stealing and that would make you a thief!

No wordplay or context or anything else changes it.

If you're ok with it, then go for it and enjoy your cruise.

[BirdTravels]

On 2/11/2024 at 8:34 AM, AlmiranteChurruca said:

 

Or anywhere on this planet for that matter! Do I sense here some kind of prejudice by indicating my country of origin? Just saying...🤨

Most certainly. If it were the US, it would be much easier to make a point. There are several large stores around my US city that are closing because people here feel it is o.k. to fraud and steal items. It is so bad, that the stores will save money by just closing, leaving the local communities without service. It is not o.k. to fraud and steal items. 

[D_And_K_gocruising]

17 minutes ago, BirdTravels said:

Most certainly. If it were the US, it would be much easier to make a point. There are several large stores around my US city that are closing because people here feel it is o.k. to fraud and steal items. It is so bad, that the stores will save money by just closing, leaving the local communities without service. It is not o.k. to fraud and steal items. 

This 100% something that is true.. They will never come right out and say it, but it don't take much reading between the lines.. I know there have been a couple of Kroger stores and a walmart that have closed in the last few months in areas that really, really need a grocery store, but have such a high loss, that they just closed them down.. They are in areas that have lots of elderly and also low income, and they get robbed blind.. 

[Andoria]

I love breaking unenforceable rules.  Last cruise I shared drinks with my parents. I was allowed to get two drinks at a time and had trouble drinking the second one. 

I'm cruising with my mom again in April. We'll be lucky if we can manage two drinks per day without getting wrecked. NCL is still making their money.

[RocketMan275]

3 hours ago, FFTB said:

I'll preface this with I'm not sure how things are charged for those from Europe (or if FAS is even a thing), but over in the USofA with FAS being an option, no one is really "paying" for drinks. The cost is for tips spread amongst the bar tenders for making your drinks.  So if you happen to order extra drinks for a friend, I'd say just make sure to send some extra love to the bar tenders.

The drinks aren't 'free', you are paying for them since they are 'included' in the price.  

[WarfRatWA]

"However, this third adult likes to have just a mocktail or a glass of wine from time to time"

 

From time to time makes it sound like maybe once a day (if that is the true intention).  On a ten day cruise, we're talking less than 150euro for these drinks.  OP is working overtime to justify not getting caught breaking the TC's.  Sounds like a budget issue.  Perhaps the OP bit off more than they could chew on the price of the cruise and is looking for ways to cut corners.  

[havoc315]

1 hour ago, bkrickles1 said:

After drinking entirely too much this past weekend and paying for every one of my drinks, I have read through this thread because I needed some amusement in my day.

And after reading through it, I don't recall seeing anyone calling you or anyone else from Spain a criminal, so your snide comments are totally uncalled for.

 

With that in mind and to give you some real world experience, I have seen people get drinks for others that didn't have the package on NCL and I've done it myself many years ago on RCCL. I can tell you, with some certainty, that it's extremely unlikely that you would get caught and be in trouble. There's just too much going on for anyone to notice.

 

But, YOU WOULD BE STEALING!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who says otherwise is wrong!

I don't judge and I would never turn anyone in for this, but it's stealing and that would make you a thief!

No wordplay or context or anything else changes it.

If you're ok with it, then go for it and enjoy your cruise.

As a lawyer, who has worked on criminal prosecutions — I can say with absolute certainty, it is NOT stealing. It may or may not be a violation of NCL policy, depending on how the NCL employee uses their discretion. 
 

Just as the waiter in a speciality restaurant did not “steal” when they gave me an extra dessert. 
 

Sharing something that you purchased is pretty rarely ever stealing. May indeed be a violation of a policy, but it is not stealing. 

Now, there is a huge difference between using your package to get 10 cocktails per day for other people not on the package… and grabbing 2-3 extra mocktails for a friend over the course of a week. Neither would technically be theft, but the former is clearly an abuse of their system. 

[bkrickles1]

4 minutes ago, havoc315 said:

As a lawyer, who has worked on criminal prosecutions — I can say with absolute certainty, it is NOT stealing. It may or may not be a violation of NCL policy, depending on how the NCL employee uses their discretion. 
 

Just as the waiter in a speciality restaurant did not “steal” when they gave me an extra dessert. 
 

Sharing something that you purchased is pretty rarely ever stealing. May indeed be a violation of a policy, but it is not stealing. 

Now, there is a huge difference between using your package to get 10 cocktails per day for other people not on the package… and grabbing 2-3 extra mocktails for a friend over the course of a week. Neither would technically be theft, but the former is clearly an abuse of their system. 

Lmao 🤣

Your analogy is weak and as someone who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, I'm going to say you're wrong!

[PartyPlannerLady]

15 minutes ago, havoc315 said:

As a lawyer, who has worked on criminal prosecutions — I can say with absolute certainty, it is NOT stealing. It may or may not be a violation of NCL policy, depending on how the NCL employee uses their discretion. 
 

Just as the waiter in a speciality restaurant did not “steal” when they gave me an extra dessert. 
 

Sharing something that you purchased is pretty rarely ever stealing. May indeed be a violation of a policy, but it is not stealing. 

Now, there is a huge difference between using your package to get 10 cocktails per day for other people not on the package… and grabbing 2-3 extra mocktails for a friend over the course of a week. Neither would technically be theft, but the former is clearly an abuse of their system. 

Taking something that is not yours or something you have not paid for is stealing no matter how you twist it or what absurd legal babble you apply.  The numbe of items you steal does not change the fat that you are stealing.

[havoc315]

34 minutes ago, PartyPlannerLady said:

Taking something that is not yours or something you have not paid for is stealing no matter how you twist it or what absurd legal babble you apply.  The numbe of items you steal does not change the fat that you are stealing.

It’s sharing something you paid for. 
 

They can have policies against sharing.  And if you break their policy, you have broken the contract you agreed to, in sailing the ship. 
But breach of a contract is a civil offense, it is not criminal, it is not stealing. 
 

As I said — the number is indeed irrelevant. It’s not stealing, under any number. But NCL would likely consider a larger number to be a breach of the contract, while they would consider me letting my daughter have a sip of my soda to be discretionary.  

[UKstages]

1 hour ago, havoc315 said:

they would consider me letting my daughter have a sip of my soda to be discretionary.  

 

as well they should.

 

but that's not what's been described here.

 

1 hour ago, havoc315 said:

It’s sharing something you paid for. They can have policies against sharing.

 

and they do. and the type of sharing proposed in this thread is expressly forbidden (not by major league baseball, but by NCL).

 

greater legal minds could certainly disagree... but it's quite clear that what the OP will have paid for is a product to be consumed exclusively by the OP and the purchase of that product is contingent upon terms that prohibit sharing of that very product. so to say that you would be "sharing something you paid for" is a bit disingenuous at best.

 

as for whether it's a contract violation or outright theft... again, reasonable minds can disagree.

 

to a layman, it's most certainly theft. NCL offers a product or service for the exclusive use of the OP. the OP chooses to violate the contract solely for the purpose of providing that good or service to another not entitled to it. is it a simple contract violation? or a carefully organized scheme to defraud and steal during which the OP just happens to violate the contract along the way?

 

in any case, i do hope the OP returns to cruise critic after the sailing to gloat or to report on the conditions within the UK prison system. or perhaps just to visit with all the friends made on this thread and reminisce about all the fun we've had these past couple of days.

[havoc315]

10 minutes ago, UKstages said:

 

as well they should.

 

but that's not what's been described here.

 

 

and they do. and the type of sharing proposed in this thread is expressly forbidden (not by major league baseball, but by NCL).

 

 

please show me any criminal law in any jurisdiction which makes it a crime to share something you purchased, just because the seller contractually tried to forbid the sharing.  

 

 

10 minutes ago, UKstages said:

greater legal minds could certainly disagree... but it's quite clear that what the OP will have paid for is a product to be consumed exclusively by the OP

and the purchase of that product is contingent upon terms that prohibit sharing of that very product. so to say that you would be "sharing something you paid for" is a bit disingenuous at best.

 

Actually, they paid for a drink. Consumption is irrelevant. If they go up to the bartender, order the drink. Then decide they aren’t thirsty, and just throw it in the garbage… They haven’t stolen the drink. 
 

In fact — if actually on dry land, there are laws that would invalidate any attempt to prohibit sharing. Such provisions are often unenforceable as a matter of law.  

 

 

10 minutes ago, UKstages said:

as for whether it's a contract violation or outright theft... again, reasonable minds can disagree.

 

to a layman, it's most certainly theft. NCL offers a product or service for the exclusive use of the OP. the OP chooses to violate the contract solely for the purpose of providing that good or service to another not entitled to it. is it a simple contract violation? or a carefully organized scheme to defraud and steal during which the OP just happens to violate the contract along the way?

 

in any case, i do hope the OP returns to cruise critic after the sailing to gloat or to report on the conditions within the UK prison system. or perhaps just to visit with all the friends made on this thread and reminisce about all the fun we've had these past couple of days.

No, reasonable minds don’t disagree.  Criminal law is criminal law. 
 

If I walk up to the bartender, paying for my drink, and I say to the bartender, “oh, my friend isn’t of package, can I get her a Shirley Temple on my card?”   And the bartender nods and pours the drink, that is not theft. Period. Yes, it may be a violation of policy. NCL can choose to kick you off the ship (well… actually… probably not, as it wouldn’t be a material breach of contract, but that’s a whole different discussion). 
What NCL can’t do: they cannot press criminal charges in any Western country. Because it’s not theft. 

[UKstages]

32 minutes ago, havoc315 said:

please show me any criminal law in any jurisdiction which makes it a crime to share something you purchased, just because the seller contractually tried to forbid the sharing.  

 

yeah, there's a whole heck of a lot of that going around the forum lately. please understand that i don't work for you and it's not my job to prove anything or set about to do research to refute this point or that. my "job" (such as it is) is to express my viewpoint, using my words and my ideas, which i have done.

 

i will tell you that someone's intent is indeed key in determining whether or not they committed a crime. it's a foundation principle of criminal law.  in your example with your daughter's sip of your soda, there would have been absolutely no intent to defraud. so you can sleep easily tonight! not so, with the OP's scheme to provide drinks to somebody who didn't pay for a corresponding drink package.

 

respectfully, you're getting hung up on "breach of contract" when the intent to defraud is as plain as day. whatever breach of contract may or may not take place, it matters little since it will have been a means to an end. the end being the theft of NCL's product and its transfer to unauthorized individuals. that is the sole reason the OP would have presumably violated the contractual agreement with NCL.

 

32 minutes ago, havoc315 said:

If I walk up to the bartender, paying for my drink, and I say to the bartender, “oh, my friend isn’t of package, can I get her a Shirley Temple on my card?”   And the bartender nods and pours the drink, that is not theft. Period.

 

i wholeheartedly agree! in fact, i explained this upthread. in this example, NCL - through its agent, the bartender - has decided to grant you the privilege of getting an extra drink to share. NCL is absolutely entitled to do that! for whatever reason it wants! it could be your birthday, it could be your winning smile, the cut of your jib, or - more likely -  it's just more efficient for the bartender to do that then to ring up a separate transaction. we're in complete agreement here. i have no problem with this scenario. NCL can at its discretion bend its own rules as it sees fit.

 

its guests can not.

 

the scenario the OP has described is something very different. the OP doesn't intend to ask for a drink for his friend. the OP intends to ask for two drinks for himself, concealing the fact that the second drink will be shared with somebody not on a corresponding drink package. that's a big difference. and that is not allowed.

 

if the OP said he intended to ask the bartender for an extra drink for his friend, this thread would be a heck of a lot shorter. nobody would likely have a concern about that!

 

32 minutes ago, havoc315 said:

Yes, it may be a violation of policy. NCL can choose to kick you off the ship (well… actually… probably not, as it wouldn’t be a material breach of contract, but that’s a whole different discussion). 

 

no, they can't kick you off the ship. contract law has nothing to with it! they can't kick you off the ship because the guest would have done absolutely nothing wrong!

 

NCL could conceivably have a case to bring disciplinary action against the bartender in accordance with whatever workplace policies it has in place. the person who would have violated NCL policies would have been the bartender under this scenario, not the guest!

Edited February 13 by UKstages

[havoc315]

1 minute ago, UKstages said:

 

yeah, there's a whole heck of a lot of that going around the forum lately. please understand that i don't work for you and it's not my job to prove anything or set about to do research to refute this point or that. my "job" (such as it is) is to express my viewpoint, using my words and my ideas, which i have done.

 

i will tell you that someone's intent is indeed key in determining whether or not they committed a crime. it's a foundation principle of criminal law.  in your example with your daughter's sip of your soda, there would have been absolutely no intent to defraud. so you can sleep easily tonight! not so, with the OP's scheme to provide drinks to somebody who didn't pay for a corresponding drink package.

 

respectfully, you're getting hung up on "breach of contract" when the intent to defraud is as plain as day. whatever breach of contract may or may not take place, it matters little since it would have been a means to an end. the end being the theft of NCL's product and its transfer to unauthorized individuals. that is the sole reason the OP would have presumably violated the contractual agreement with NCL.

 

 

i wholeheartedly agree! in fact, i explained this upthread. in this example, NCL - through its agent, the bartender - has decided to grant you the privilege of getting an extra drink to share. NCL is absolutely entitled to do that! for whatever reason it wants! it could be your birthday, it could be your winning smile, the cut of your jib, or - more likely -  it's just more efficient for the bartender to do that then to ring up a separate transaction. we're in complete agreement here. i have no problem with this scenario. NCL can at its discretion bend its own rules as it sees fit. its guests can not.

 

 

And that’s exactly what the OP is talking about!!!

 

Not handing her card to a friend and telling her friend to pretend to be her. 
 

As I have been saying repeatedly, it is NCL’s discretion of how and when to enforce their policy. It is not theft for the bartender to pour a Shirley temple for the friend. 

 

1 minute ago, UKstages said:

the scenario the OP has described is something very different. the OP doesn't intend to ask for a drink for his friend. the OP intends to ask for two drinks for himself, concealing the fact that the second drink will be shared with somebody not on a corresponding drink package. that's a big difference. and that is not allowed.

 

if the OP said he intended to ask the bartender for an extra drink for his friend, this thread would be a heck of a lot shorter. nobody would likely have a concern about that!

 

 

no, they can't kick you off the ship. because the guest would have done absolutely nothing wrong!

 

NCL could conceivably have a case to bring disciplinary action against the bartender in accordance with whatever workplace policies it has in place. the person who would have violated NCL policies would have been the bartender under this scenario, not the guest!

 

[UKstages]

11 minutes ago, havoc315 said:

And that’s exactly what the OP is talking about!!!

 

Not handing her card to a friend and telling her friend to pretend to be her. 
 

As I have been saying repeatedly, it is NCL’s discretion of how and when to enforce their policy. It is not theft for the bartender to pour a Shirley temple for the friend. 

 

no, just no. it might be what you are talking about, but it's not what the OP is talking about. from the OP's initial post:

 

"if the three of us are sitting together at any bar will the ones with FAS be able to order a second drink to hand it over to that third guest? i know that NCL's policy is that packages are not to be shared, but what I really want to know is if that rule is REALLY enforced onboard somehow."

 

not only does the OP not indicate that they plan to disclose to the bartender what the scheme is (and its clear from subsequent posts that that is not the plan), but the OP specifically demonstrates knowledge that the practice is forbidden.

 

respectfully, you've created an imaginary scenario in which the OP fully discloses the intent to the bartender. and the OP has never said that.

 

11 minutes ago, havoc315 said:

As I have been saying repeatedly, it is NCL’s discretion of how and when to enforce their policy. It is not theft for the bartender to pour a Shirley temple for the friend. 

 

could not possible agree more.

 

that's why i've said it repeatedly, too!

Edited February 13 by UKstages

[havoc315]

4 minutes ago, UKstages said:

 

no, just no. it might be what you are talking about, but it's not what the OP is talking about. from the OP's initial post:

 

"if the three of us are sitting together at any bar will the ones with FAS be able to order a second drink to hand it over to that third guest? i know that NCL's policy is that packages are not to be shared, but what I really want to know is if that rule is REALLY enforced onboard somehow."

 

not only does the OP not indicate that they plan to disclose to the bartender what the scheme is (and its clear from subsequent posts that that is not the plan), but the OP specifically demonstrates knowledge that the practice is forbidden.

 

 

We are reading the same thing very differently. 
I see no fraudulent behavior.  Sitting together at the bar, in plain sight of the bartender, handing the drink to the friend. Not secretly handing off the drink in a secret hiding place. Not lying to the bartender and telling them falsely that your friend is on the plan. 
 

Thus, full discretion of the NCL bartender, whether to ask who the second drink is for, full discretion to say, “excuse me… I’ll need your friends card.”

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, UKstages said:

respectfully, you've created an imaginary scenario in which the OP fully discloses the intent to the bartender. and the OP has never said that.

 

 

could not possible agree more.

 

that's why i've said it repeatedly, too!

 

[cruiseny4life]

On 2/11/2024 at 10:54 AM, justhappy said:

As with any law or rule people usually don’t care what you do as long as it doesn’t affect them.

 Speed limit is 65, you can drive 85. It’s when your speed causes an accident that causes a road shut down or worse than that, an injury. Then your speeding affects others.

 Disregard rules on drink packages to save some money, I’m guessing most people would not be bothered.
But when so many people start doing it that a cruise line has to raise prices or remove certain beverages that were formerly available (Vueve, anyone?) then that affects others.
The problem is so many people only care about themselves and not how their actions impact others even if it’s not directly.

 I think it gets worse when folks have the anonymity of being in a place where most of the people don’t know you, and you’ll be gone in a week or two.

Thats why cruises tend to have chair hogs, elevator hogs, bar hogs and theater seat savers, just to name a few “It’s all about me” people.

I'm just here to say... you won amongst all the posts here today. It's a very me, me, me reason for saying so, but I dont want changes to happen due to umm policy exceptions. I like Free at Sea drink package as it is. 

[PartyPlannerLady]

3 hours ago, havoc315 said:

 

please show me any criminal law in any jurisdiction which makes it a crime to share something you purchased, just because the seller contractually tried to forbid the sharing.  

 

 

 

Actually, they paid for a drink. Consumption is irrelevant. If they go up to the bartender, order the drink. Then decide they aren’t thirsty, and just throw it in the garbage… They haven’t stolen the drink. 
 

In fact — if actually on dry land, there are laws that would invalidate any attempt to prohibit sharing. Such provisions are often unenforceable as a matter of law.  

 

 

No, reasonable minds don’t disagree.  Criminal law is criminal law. 
 

If I walk up to the bartender, paying for my drink, and I say to the bartender, “oh, my friend isn’t of package, can I get her a Shirley Temple on my card?”   And the bartender nods and pours the drink, that is not theft. Period. Yes, it may be a violation of policy. NCL can choose to kick you off the ship (well… actually… probably not, as it wouldn’t be a material breach of contract, but that’s a whole different discussion). 
What NCL can’t do: they cannot press criminal charges in any Western country. Because it’s not theft. 

Thats not what the OP stated.

[complawyer]

the operative words are "you purchased". following your logic, one person can get the package, and share with as many people as he/she feels like it.

 

ncl is very clear about sharing drinks.  while sharing 1 or 2 with a friend might get a pass from the bartender/waiter or whoever might be serving, it's the same as going into a buffet or a place that specializes in salad bar/all  you can eat. while yes, you purchased it, and while sharing is not  a crime per se, giving some to another individual is in fact cheating, and could be considered "stealing" which my friend is in fact a crime.

 

why dont you adhere to the stated policy, and quit finding a way to game the system, before you screw it up for everybody else.

[AlmiranteChurruca]

12 hours ago, bkrickles1 said:

 

 

OP here. Let us imagine a different scenario. Me (Premium Beverage Package) and my cabin buddy (Soda Package) go together to the bartender with cards clearly visibly on our foreheads. I order a mocktail (or a glass of wine) and he/she orders a cola soda. Bartender then proceeds to pour our drinks and swipes BOTH our cards. No rule has been broken since each of us has ordered drinks that are included in our packages. We then proceed to a table, have a sit and I hand him over my mocktail/wine and I get his cola. Suddendly, I feel I prefer a glass of wine over the cola soda and proceed to order it ON MY PACKAGE. Again, no broken law, drinks have been ordered within the rules, cola on the Soda Package and mocktail/wine on PBP and no more than two drinks per serve. The final result is THE SAME as with my original "scheme" (as some have called the original scenario I proposed) but just the way the orders were placed is different. What now? And NO, I AM NOT a thief of sorts trying to find ways to bend the rules, but to those whose say that "rules are rules" and "stealing is stealing" I hope this scenario creates at least a reasonable doubt as to how absurd/unenforceable some written rules can be in the real world.

[insidecabin]

On 2/11/2024 at 1:47 PM, dbrown84 said:

I'm thinking this is because it's a European booking.  In the US, all adults in the cabin are required to get the drink package if one person does.  We also pay the gratuities for the package.  From what I understand, the total cost of the package is in the fare in Europe and there are no separate gratuities to pay

One of the changes to the FAS charges aligned the pppd cost to be similar to the cost charged in the US.

 

More recently they added £50 to each range of dates I think it now makes it more expensive than the US.