Booze Smuggling = Higher Cost?

[gsxrsquid]

Any one who would put the word "French" in the nick name has no credibility in the first place. :p

 

And if smuggling was hurting the cruise lines you can bet they would enforce their rules against it. I don;t think CC is going to be going belly up any time soon.

 

And if it wasn't for whiners who could we pick on?

[MrPete]

Yeah, wouldn't that be FREEDOM_FRY now? :rolleyes:

[cruisehoppers]

$6 a drink +/- X 6 = $36 per day X 7 = $252.00 per week X 21 (# of ships in Carnivals Fleet) = $5,292.00 X 52 weeks in a year = $275,184.00.

 

Interesting theory but your numbers are not quite accurate.

 

The $6 we're charged for a drink is not the actual "cost" of a drink. Every item in a food/beverage establishment is priced at 3 times (?) the original cost (I'm willing to bet it's a higher ratio for Carnival, but don't quote me on it!). So a $6 margarita has a "food cost" of $2. This is what the bar budgets for each drink-- a bit of money for the mix, the liquor, and the manpower to make that drink.

 

If a passenger does not buy said margarita, Carnival loses "potential revenue"-- "potential" because it is never a guarantee-- you might have people who don't drink, people who don't like margaritas, or people who drink in their cabins, whatever. The thing is: income from bar sales is NEVER depended upon by an industry to make or break their prices/budgets/etc...

 

Therefore, the revenue (or lack thereof due to smuggling) from bar sales likely has little impact on the overall price-- probably pennies.

 

The other posters are correct when they state it is the food that has a huge impact-- buffets are the easiest place to lose money: inept employees who let the food go cold (i did that once, so i am NOT insulting anyone other than myself :)), the customer who sneezes/spits/whatever in the food, the customer who takes ten pounds of something and doesn't eat it... buffets=loss. BUT-- buffet "costs" are generally purely food based, because buffets require little manpower... driving down their overall "cost" to Carnival.

 

Carnival only "loses" money when they have already put an investment in products/services that offered little or NO return-- wasted food, etc. Somehow I doubt much of the alcohol on board goes to waste!!! :)

[rajntra]

rajntra,

 

Sounds like the Church of the Presumptuous Assumption.

 

FF

 

Every theory that has ever turned out to be proven fact started off somewhere as a "presumptuous assumption." Remeber the whole "Earth is Round" thing.

[rajntra]

Your math is based on the idea that the couple would have purchased those in room drinks had they not had the stuff in their room.

 

Even with 1% of the passengers smuggling on alcohol I doubt it effects them that strongly. Most of the alcohol suggled on is consumed in room, where there is no convenient bar. While some people I'm sure do consume less purchased alcohol because of their in room drinks it's hard to say if those same people would actually pay more or drink less if they didn't have that in room alcohol.

 

On Celebration we ordered room service when we wanted drinks in the room. Granted they were sometimes a bit diluted when we got them but we still ordered them.

[rajntra]

Interesting theory but your numbers are not quite accurate.

 

The $6 we're charged for a drink is not the actual "cost" of a drink. Every item in a food/beverage establishment is priced at 3 times (?) the original cost (I'm willing to bet it's a higher ratio for Carnival, but don't quote me on it!). So a $6 margarita has a "food cost" of $2. This is what the bar budgets for each drink-- a bit of money for the mix, the liquor, and the manpower to make that drink.

 

If a passenger does not buy said margarita, Carnival loses "potential revenue"-- "potential" because it is never a guarantee-- you might have people who don't drink, people who don't like margaritas, or people who drink in their cabins, whatever. The thing is: income from bar sales is NEVER depended upon by an industry to make or break their prices/budgets/etc...

 

Therefore, the revenue (or lack thereof due to smuggling) from bar sales likely has little impact on the overall price-- probably pennies.

 

The other posters are correct when they state it is the food that has a huge impact-- buffets are the easiest place to lose money: inept employees who let the food go cold (i did that once, so i am NOT insulting anyone other than myself :)), the customer who sneezes/spits/whatever in the food, the customer who takes ten pounds of something and doesn't eat it... buffets=loss. BUT-- buffet "costs" are generally purely food based, because buffets require little manpower... driving down their overall "cost" to Carnival.

 

Carnival only "loses" money when they have already put an investment in products/services that offered little or NO return-- wasted food, etc. Somehow I doubt much of the alcohol on board goes to waste!!! :)

 

As a former bar manager for Outback/Carrabas I would disagree just a bit here. Alcohol is a huge profit center for any industry that offers it. In those establishments my General Manager was busting my tail if my liquor "cost" was more than 17% of sales, so every $.83 of ever dollar was expected to be profit. That is a solid industry standard. When we had server meetings, we insisted that they push ALCOHOL, that they UPSALE ALCOHOL, that they SELL WINE. Food cost on the other hand could run up as much as 42% depending upon the type of place it was. Bottom line high alcohol sales can more often than not be the difference in a establishment that pays the bills, or an establishment that buys the investors several cruises a year.

 

I don't think my "assumed" numbers are out of line. 10 people out of 1,000+, $6.00 average on price. But if it make you feel better cut it down to $4, that would be $1,834,560.00. Is that any better? I think what is going on here is shock from seeing these numbers actually worked out.

 

Remeber though, THIS IS NOT A JUDGEMENT ON MY PART, JUST A THOUGHT I WANTED TO SHARE AND LET EVERYONE PARTICIPATE ON.

[ihhk2]

Wow, that is one SAAAAD photo of a bunch of cruisers on a balcony with no drinks!

 

Considering the fact that CCL probably buys booze for less than $1 per fifth (Caribbean pricing, bulk discounts, regular customer), they aren't "losing" anything when people bring their own on board. Booze is nothing but profit for them. The profit might be more or less, but they aren't buying anything they can't eventually sell for profit.

 

As for singles, I am paying fully double (less taxes of $44) on Freebom Med this summer. They do not have to feed, serve, document, tend to, do laundry (towels, linens) for, invite to parties, or in any other way concern themselves with another pax.

 

The on-board purchases of the 2nd pax in my cabin are negligible compared to their overall profit because I'm sailing solo and paying double without the line having to extend themselves to another pax in any way, shape or form. If the ship is not sold out at final payment and I can't afford the supplement at that time, then instead of 1 pax at a reasonable price, they have no pax in that cabin. Where is the wisdom there?

 

I smuggle. Because I am already paying twice than any other pax in my category, I will save in other areas. My bar bill is one of them, although I still have quite a hefty tab at the end of the cruise from drinks purchased around the ship. Shlepping drinks back to my cabin is not an option. They are half gone by the time I get back (either from quick sips along the way or sloshing about on the stairs).

 

Having a bottle and mixer in the cabin is much nicer. And even MORE NICER (is that grammatically correct? :p ) is to take my soda card and a small flask up to the Lido Deck to discretely (and I mean within the confines of my huge beach bag, where no one would see) mix my own perfectly refreshing beverage.

 

CCL makes PLENTY off the solo cruiser. I have no guilty feelings about their bottom line whatsoever. And if the price of my passage goes up a few bucks, then I save a few more bucks for the cabin. However, I will not increase my budget by $60 per day for the drinks I can bring myself.

[rajntra]

What about buying booze from Carnival for your room? (Which I just found out you can do on another thread here.) If the bottle is 25% more from them than you would pay at the store (Tequilla $45 on land, $60 from them), is that an option? Over a 7 day cruise that would work out to just over $2 a day.

[rajntra]

There is something about a ship that makes peeps look at it in a different way. I just started thinking about it, because I do need a hobby and more friends, and was wondering would I go to high end restaurant and bring my own dessert beacuse they "make enough money" on me off of the entree? "Those bastards charged me $45 for a steak, so I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $8 for a piece of chesse cake.". When you put it into that context it seems silly doesn't it? But isn't that a reasonable comparision. What about a cruise ship makes it different? Please don't tell me it's because you are paying hundres or thousands of dollars already becuase you are paying that for passage to several exotic locations, room and board, service, food, and atmosphere.

[ihhk2]

It's only an option if they confiscate my stash. I will always want liquor in the room, especially with a balcony, which alleviates the need for being on the Lido Deck for fresh air and sunshine.

 

Again, they are making WAY more off me than any other pax on the ship as it is. I pay TWICE AS MUCH as any other pax in my category. For Europe, that is about $2130 on my sailing and category (8B, Aft balcony). I pay an extra $2130 for nothing.

 

Why would I bother to let them make even MORE off me?

[ihhk2]

PS: I wouldn't bring my own drinks to the dining room (I order a nice bottle of wine for dinners), the casino, the show rooms, etc. This is purely for my in-cabin consumption and maybe a few drinks on deck.

 

Similarly, I don't buy drinks for our personal boat at the Club. I bring them along t have on board at our leisure with minimal fuss.

[ihhk2]

Finally, while I am paying for atmosphere, service, etc., why should I have to pay DOUBLE what you pay for the same exact experience?

 

Restaraunts don't charge you double for that steak because you are dining solo.

 

Apples and oranges. And $2130 is alot for ANYONE to pay above the going rate just because they choose to sail solo.

[rajntra]

Finally, while I am paying for atmosphere, service, etc., why should I have to pay DOUBLE what you pay for the same exact experience?

 

Restaraunts don't charge you double for that steak because you are dining solo.

 

Apples and oranges. And $2130 is alot for ANYONE to pay above the going rate just because they choose to sail solo.

 

Can't speak to that. My time on the debating team would let me debate it but I won't becuase I don't understand it. If they could have booked your cabin with two people, that would explain it, but if your cabin would sit empty if you hadn't booked it then I don't understand it. You by yourself don't eat for two, you don't use double linen etc......

 

Going to the med by yourself? Sounds like your like me, need some friends.;)

[Knights on the Beach]

There is something about a ship that makes peeps look at it in a different way. I just started thinking about it, because I do need a hobby and more friends, and was wondering would I go to high end restaurant and bring my own dessert beacuse they "make enough money" on me off of the entree? "Those bastards charged me $45 for a steak, so I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $8 for a piece of chesse cake.". When you put it into that context it seems silly doesn't it? But isn't that a reasonable comparision. What about a cruise ship makes it different? Please don't tell me it's because you are paying hundres or thousands of dollars already becuase you are paying that for passage to several exotic locations, room and board, service, food, and atmosphere.

I don't think it's a reasonable comparison, because people don't typically spend the week at that high end restaurant. They are only there for a few hours. A more reasonable comparison would be to compare a cruise ship to a resort, but the resort doesn't move you from place to place, either, does it?

 

I think if Carnival's bottom line (and the cruise industry in general) were that greatly affected by people "smuggling" on alcohol to have a few drinks in their cabin, the cruise fares would have gone up far more by now. I haven't found that to be the case. Our first cruise was a four night cruise in the 80's (inside cabin). We paid more for it per night than we paid for our eight night cruise in a balcony cabin last month.

[yst347]

I am willing to bet the bean counters at Carnival know what effect stronger enforcement of the alcohol rules would have on their bottom line. Looking at a chart of CCL stock over the last decade is quite impressive; especially considering 9/11 is right smack in the middle and the devastating effect it had on travel companies.

 

I am not privy to Carnival's thinking but I'll just toss out a few thoughts.

 

1) People have limits on how much they can spend. If you reduce smuggled booze it won't necessarily translate into increased drink sales.

 

2) The increased scrutiny of checked luggage would effect all passengers. It would increase time for luggage to be delivered and increase complaints. It would also require greater man-power to implement raising costs.

 

3) Carnival allows wine to be carried on-board. This indicates that loss of sales alone isn't significant enough a factor to ban passengers from bringing alcohol on-board.

[SueSea]

There is something about a ship that makes peeps look at it in a different way.

 

Who says peeps look at it that way? Plenty of us peeps, me included, look at it this way. If I rent a room on land, I can bring my own alcohol into my room for my personal comsumption to enjoy at my convenience. (Yes, even in hotels with bars in them.) If I rent a 'room' on a ship, I am expected to forego that convenience. If I'm dressing for dinner or relaxing on my balcony, I have two choices. I can interrupt what I'm doing and run out to the nearest bar, or I can order room service. Room service would be fine except for the 1/2 - 3/4 hour wait for your order to arrive. Yes, I've smuggled liquor, but only to drink in my cabin. Drinks I have in my cabin do not equate to lost revenue to the cruise line because I would not have purchased them from the cruise line due to the inconvenience.

 

Those bastards charged me $45 for a steak, so I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $8 for a piece of chesse cake.". When you put it into that context it seems silly doesn't it? But isn't that a reasonable comparision. What about a cruise ship makes it different?

 

Actually, except for your tone, this is not silly. There are many who enjoy eating out but like to keep costs down where they can. Some choose to drink water with their meal, others will forego dessert at the restaurant and have it later at home. If the restaurant charges too much for their drinks, one can elect to stop somewhere else for after dinner drinks. On land there are many ways to minimize the cost of dining out. Cruise ships limit you to two options: pay whatever price we choose to charge or go without. That's why some create their own third option--smuggle.

[rajntra]

Okay how about this. Let's say that CCL decides to start strict enforcement of all of it's guidelines. (including chair saving for the poster that compared chair saving to booze smuggling) The new policy is that stewards will be rewarded for pointing out guest with alcohol in their room and that guest would be removed from the ship at the next port to find their own way home. Would that kill their business or would people just begin to comply?

[rajntra]

Who says peeps look at it that way? Plenty of us peeps, me included, look at it this way. If I rent a room on land, I can bring my own alcohol into my room for my personal comsumption to enjoy at my convenience. (Yes, even in hotels with bars in them.) If I rent a 'room' on a ship, I am expected to forego that convenience. If I'm dressing for dinner or relaxing on my balcony, I have two choices. I can interrupt what I'm doing and run out to the nearest bar, or I can order room service. Room service would be fine except for the 1/2 - 3/4 hour wait for your order to arrive. Yes, I've smuggled liquor, but only to drink in my cabin. Drinks I have in my cabin do not equate to lost revenue to the cruise line because I would not have purchased them from the cruise line due to the inconvenience.

 

 

 

Actually, except for your tone, this is not silly. There are many who enjoy eating out but like to keep costs down where they can. Some choose to drink water with their meal, others will forego dessert at the restaurant and have it later at home. If the restaurant charges too much for their drinks, one can elect to stop somewhere else for after dinner drinks. On land there are many ways to minimize the cost of dining out. Cruise ships limit you to two options: pay whatever price we choose to charge or go without. That's why some create their own third option--smuggle.

 

Sue when you walk into that expensive restuarant you know what you are getting. When a seasoned cruiser books a ship they know what they are getting. You have a choice on a ship as well. You can drink water, coffee and tea for free.

[ihhk2]

Can't speak to that. My time on the debating team would let me debate it but I won't becuase I don't understand it. If they could have booked your cabin with two people, that would explain it, but if your cabin would sit empty if you hadn't booked it then I don't understand it. You by yourself don't eat for two, you don't use double linen etc......

 

Going to the med by yourself? Sounds like your like me, need some friends.;)

 

First, I UNDERSTAND the POSSIBILITY of booking that cabin for 2. However, when booking for 2, you are also feeding, serving, documenting, etc. for 2. With one, you don't have the EXPENSE of 2.

 

Let's say they have a profit of $1000 per pax after expenses of serving them (food, cabin service, documents, water, electricity, etc.) for 10 days. Where is it logical that they not only take the profit, but also the EXPENSE of serving that pax and put it all on the solo cruiser?

 

Even if the supplement were ONLY the "PROFIT" lost, I would be happier. But I am paying for the added EXPENSE of a 2nd pax, with no benefit, whatsoever.

 

My earlier comment included the specific note that IF THE SHIP ISN'T SOLD OUT, they would then have yet ANOTHER cabin empty (if I couldn't afford the supplement at final payment) instead of making the cabin more affordable for a solo and gaining that income. To punish the solos in this way is atrocious. Still, I want the trip badly enough to bite the bullet.

 

I might add, that even while PAYING for 2 pax, I only get the Past Guest Credit for ONE.

 

I don't know if I need more friends.... I DO know that I need more friends who can get away for 16 days to go to Europe on a $10,000 trip, though! :p .

[joetrizeo]

and economics would tell us that increased profit margins give businesses more flexibility in their pricing structure.

 

real life tells me that increased profit margins give business owners more money to stick into their greedy pockets.

 

i suspect carnival knows how it impacts them. they arnt stupid. if they wanted to they could enforce it like NCL does (i think thats the one that enforces it).

 

thus a reason i wont cruise NCL. (now is it to their advantage to enforce it?!?)

[rajntra]

and economics would tell us that increased profit margins give businesses more flexibility in their pricing structure.

 

real life tells me that increased profit margins give business owners more money to stick into their greedy pockets. come on man.

 

Another person that begrudges someone for their success. How much exactly do you think that someone who runs a multi million dollar corporation that feeds the families and pays for the housing of thousands of people make? Where would you cap it? Or should the Government cap it? Maybe Government should cap all salaries, prices, everything. Then we could all wear potato sack clothes running through the meadow singing kum bay ya. What a wonderful world it would be.......:rolleyes:

 

If you want proof that increased profit margins equates to lower prices walk into your local Wal-Mart, Target, etc......

[joetrizeo]

I smuggle my own slot machine onboard and play.

 

Wonder if they loose money :):):)

[rajntra]

No one has chimed in yet as to why they wouldn't buy the booze from Carnival for their room. You have to buy it somewhere so why not from them. Easier than bubble wrapping, newspaper placing, ziploc bagging, clothes wrapping, and sitting on the Lido for 3 hours wondering if a bottle broke in your bag ruining your clothes. :eek:

 

Why not use this option if it is for the convenience of having drinks in your room?:confused:

[ihhk2]

I don't think poster is begrudging success. I think poster is begrudging greed beyond reasonable excess.

 

Face it, CCL or any other line is not going to go belly up because a few of us bring our own liquor. In my particular case, I would doubt even THEY can fault me, given the outrageous single supplement.

[ihhk2]

No one has chimed in yet as to why they wouldn't buy the booze from Carnival for their room. You have to buy it somewhere so why not from them. Easier than bubble wrapping, newspaper placing, ziploc bagging, clothes wrapping, and sitting on the Lido for 3 hours wondering if a bottle broke in your bag ruining your clothes. :eek:

 

Why not use this option if it is for the convenience of having drinks in your room?:confused:

 

I did chime in on this...

 

Because the guy at the corner liquor shop needs my business more than CCL needs to sell another bottle of rum. If I'm gone for 2 weeks, Corner Store Guy is losing his profit from selling to me. CCL has already MADE a profit off me for those two weeks.

 

Spread the wealth!