How Have Cruise Ships Changed Since the 70's?

[walksonwater]

Greetings,

 

My husband and I last cruised in the late 70's, always out of Miami or Port Everglades. Those were the days when we could drive to the dock, negotiate a fare and off we'd go. Cruised 5 or 6 times, always to the Caribbean. We were kids without kids.

 

Grandparents now, we're thinking about a 10-15 day cruise that leaves and returns to an American port, not necessarily the same one.

 

I recall (at my age that is subject to correction) a wide disparity in cruise line quality back then. There were some ships on which I wouldn't set foot again now that I'm older and not quite as flexible (mentally and physically). Others were in need of refurbishing but one could imagine their glory days.

 

My questions:

 

Is huge quality disparity still the case?

 

Has the rising tide lifted all boats? That is, are the lower end ships today of higher quality than the lower end ones of 3 plus decades ago?

 

I know many ships are bigger than yesteryear's. What does that gain/lose?

 

I do remember, even as a young adult, that no matter what the ship's quality, there always was an air of civility and wonder. We were heading to foreign ports not often visited by our peers that now seem to be bachelor party destinations.

 

I think we want a relaxing cruise where ports of call are safe but not vital to add to our travel resume' to break up endless days of "at sea"; good entertainment (live music or shows) but not a lot of party noise after midnight; decent sized cabins, consistently good food (we're not drinkers) and an air of cruising like I remember the old ships to offer.

 

Thanks,

 

Walks on Water

[OCruisers]

Welcome to Cruise Critic!

I've been cruising since 1961. Yes, there have been lots of changes over the years.

One good thing is Balcony Cabins have now become abundant and affordable ... not so in the 70's.

Which cruise lines are you considering?

 

LuLu

[Flatbush Flyer]

Greetings,

 

 

 

My husband and I last cruised in the late 70's, always out of Miami or Port Everglades. Those were the days when we could drive to the dock, negotiate a fare and off we'd go. Cruised 5 or 6 times, always to the Caribbean. We were kids without kids.

 

 

 

Grandparents now, we're thinking about a 10-15 day cruise that leaves and returns to an American port, not necessarily the same one.

 

 

 

I recall (at my age that is subject to correction) a wide disparity in cruise line quality back then. There were some ships on which I wouldn't set foot again now that I'm older and not quite as flexible (mentally and physically). Others were in need of refurbishing but one could imagine their glory days.

 

 

 

My questions:

 

 

 

Is huge quality disparity still the case?

 

 

 

Has the rising tide lifted all boats? That is, are the lower end ships today of higher quality than the lower end ones of 3 plus decades ago?

 

 

 

I know many ships are bigger than yesteryear's. What does that gain/lose?

 

 

 

I do remember, even as a young adult, that no matter what the ship's quality, there always was an air of civility and wonder. We were heading to foreign ports not often visited by our peers that now seem to be bachelor party destinations.

 

 

 

I think we want a relaxing cruise where ports of call are safe but not vital to add to our travel resume' to break up endless days of "at sea"; good entertainment (live music or shows) but not a lot of party noise after midnight; decent sized cabins, consistently good food (we're not drinkers) and an air of cruising like I remember the old ships to offer.

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

Walks on Water

 

 

"A rising tide floats all boats"..... Except the ones that are already sinking.

 

Sadly, the newer mass market monstrosities resemble ships only in that they float. Thundering herds of passengers give new (and regrettable) meaning to terms like "'allure' of the seas."

For a taste of the days of yore including the fine food and civility you seek, you will need to look at those ships of premium and luxury lines that limit passenger populations to less than 800 or no more than 2000 (as long as the passenger:crew ratio doesn't exceed 2:1).

[Keith1010]

In many ways they have become more like floating hotels.

 

Keith

[walksonwater]

Lulu,

 

 

 

I am considering Disney, NOT during a holiday or school vacation week. Possibly the Wonder for a Panama Canal Cruise.

 

Also, Celebrity for the same thing.

 

They both are cruises of a desired length but if I could find a good 10 day Caribbean cruise or elsewhere that didn't require me to fly to or from Europe and mess up time zones I'd give that a good look.

 

I don't recall balconies in those days, honestly. And I would love one.

 

Thanks for the quick response.

 

WalksonWater

[navybankerteacher]

Ships are generally much larger and passenger demographic much broader - resulting in much less formality. You can probably count on all ships of mass market lines being in pretty good to excellent condition. As "grown-ups", however you may want to get a feel for the demographic of your likely shipmates.

 

From your self description, I think you would be happier on Cunard, Celebrity or Holland America (among the mass market lines) than, say, Norwegian or Carnival (especially on shorter itineraries - less than a week).

[OCruisers]

WalksonWater ....

 

As time goes by, we can't do all the things now we once could either. While we still cruise on other cruise lines from time to time, we've found Princess to be the best All Around cruise line for us. :)

 

Princess has 10 day Caribbean cruises going to great ports roundtrips out of Ft. Lauderdale. Unfortunately, they are on their two very large ships -- Royal Princess & Regal Princess -- if that would be a problem for you.

Princess also has 10 day round trips out of Ft. Lauderdale for partial Panama Canal sailings on Coral/Island Princess ... great ships.

 

Don't overlook HAL (Holland America). HAL is a very nice cruise line with great service and still has some smaller (at least not huge) ships doing Caribbean roundtrips out of Tampa and Ft. Lauderdale. Lot's of seniors cruise on HAL.

HAL could be a perfect fit for you. :)

 

Think you would be fine with Princess, HAL, Celebrity, or even Disney.

Not so sure you would like RCCL, NCL, or Carnival.

 

LuLu

[walksonwater]

Thanks for the updates and suggestions.

 

I think super large ships might be overwhelming for me.

 

I recall cruising back then on a Holland Am ship that went to South America from FL. It was gorgeous and looked like it was at the end of its decor life. Can't remember its name. If I could find a ship like that I would be content. The cruise was 14 days, not too many passengers, one dinner seating, hit some nice Caribbean ports before it ended somewhere in Venezuela.

 

That's what I want.

[Hlitner]

My goodness, the entire cruise industry and its business model has drastically changed over the past fifty years. When we started cruising (in the 60s) you paid your cruise fare, budgeted for tips, and expected most things onboard to be free or very cheap. Drinks (alcohol) were especially inexpensive and wine prices were a real bargain. But cruise lines eventually moved to a new business model where they count on "onboard revenue" to provide and enhance profits. The $1.98 cocktail soon became the $12 cocktail, the 25 cent BINGO card became the $3 BINGO Card, etc. The free or $5 alternative restaurant soon became the $40 alternative restaurant (where the food quality and service was not as good as when it cost less).

 

So now when you cruise on the so-called mass market lines it should be with knowledge that "increasing onboard revenue" is the message of the day! And I should add, as an ole cruiser, that the move towards Mega ships is really a move away from traditional cruising. The monster vessels are designed to enhance onboard revenue and attract a clientele more interested in a resort atmosphere then a real cruise experience. This is not necessarily a negative, but is simply reality. Personally, we would rather spend 60 days on a 600 passenger ship then a week on a 5000 passenger whatever!

 

Hank

[cb at sea]

If you haven't cruised since the 70's...you may have disappointment....the food is NOTHING like you used to get. The cabins are the same. The service is probably less than you remember. Cruising has changed a lot....A LOT! Today...it's still a fun time, but not the luxury you remember...and yes...for those who just started cruising in the last 8 years or so....cruising was quite luxurious...even in the "cheap" cabins!

[Floridiana]

My husband travelled on the Queen Mary as a child. The lower classes couldn't even enter the parts of the ship for the upper classes. That was before the 70s.

[SantaFeFan]

My goodness, the entire cruise industry and its business model has drastically changed over the past fifty years. When we started cruising (in the 60s) you paid your cruise fare, budgeted for tips, and expected most things onboard to be free or very cheap. Drinks (alcohol) were especially inexpensive and wine prices were a real bargain. But cruise lines eventually moved to a new business model where they count on "onboard revenue" to provide and enhance profits. The $1.98 cocktail soon became the $12 cocktail, the 25 cent BINGO card became the $3 BINGO Card, etc. The free or $5 alternative restaurant soon became the $40 alternative restaurant (where the food quality and service was not as good as when it cost less).

 

So now when you cruise on the so-called mass market lines it should be with knowledge that "increasing onboard revenue" is the message of the day! And I should add, as an ole cruiser, that the move towards Mega ships is really a move away from traditional cruising. The monster vessels are designed to enhance onboard revenue and attract a clientele more interested in a resort atmosphere then a real cruise experience. This is not necessarily a negative, but is simply reality. Personally, we would rather spend 60 days on a 600 passenger ship then a week on a 5000 passenger whatever!

 

Hank

 

Well, Hank, you should be grateful, not critical, that things have changed the way they have. For example, that $1.98 cocktail you slurped down in 1965 (50 years ago) should now cost $15.00 just because of inflation alone. At $12, you are getting your precious cocktails $3 less than it should be costing you. Which means that today you can buy five of your favorite cocktails for the price of four - and still you complain about the alleged price increase. ;)

 

"A rising tide floats all boats"..... Except the ones that are already sinking.

 

Sadly, the newer mass market monstrosities resemble ships only in that they float. Thundering herds of passengers give new (and regrettable) meaning to terms like "'allure' of the seas."

For a taste of the days of yore including the fine food and civility you seek, you will need to look at those ships of premium and luxury lines that limit passenger populations to less than 800 or no more than 2000 (as long as the passenger:crew ratio doesn't exceed 2:1).

 

Yes, the luxury lines are closest to how it used to be. But, there are added amenities that weren't available even on the highest quality ships of the past - larger staterooms, nicer bathrooms, larger availability of balconies, multiple restaurants, and more - oh, and don't forget one of my favorites, very restrictive smoking policies!!!

 

Also interesting is that to have a similar level of quality as back then, one must pay luxury cruise line prices. Which shouldn't be an issue. Cruises were quite expensive in the 70s, definitely out of reach of the average person. For a comparison, cruises back then cost upwards of $500 per person. With inflation, that equates to over $3,000 per person today. (source: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=500&year1=1970&year2=2015) How many people today would be willing to pay $3,000 for a 7-day cruise in a non-balcony room? :eek:

 

Most people reading this would never be able to afford to cruise if prices for all cruises kept up with inflation.

 

Too many people seem to be complaining that they aren't getting champagne when all they are willing is to pay for beer.

Edited August 14, 2015 by SantaFeFan

[tetleytea]

I never cruised in the 70's so my entire impression of cruises in the 70's comes from my watching episodes of The Love Boat. I'm sure that must be accurate.

Edited August 14, 2015 by tetleytea

[Jimnbigd]

Let's Make a Deal 1971 --

Talk about a small ship!

Interesting fact: Chandris Cruises used X on their ships -- the Greek letter Chi (for Chandris) -- on their ships, which included Celebrity.

Royal Caribbean kept the X when they bought the line and that's why Celebrity ships have X on the funnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandris_Line

Edited August 14, 2015 by Jimnbigd

[SantaFeFan]

Let's Make a Deal 1971 --

Talk about a small ship!

Interesting fact: Chandris Cruises used X on their ships -- the Greek letter Chi (for Chandris) -- on their ships, which included Celebrity.

Royal Caribbean kept the X when they bought the line and that's why Celebrity ships have X on the funnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandris_Line

 

The video title says 1970, not 1971. Based on the year being 1970, she passed on an 8-day Caribbean cruise on Chandris' S.S. Regina, with airfare, worth $2,130, which with inflation would now cost $13,100.49.

 

Here is the ship the cruise was on:

 

 

Here is the deck plan. Notice how tiny the cabins are!!

 

Edited August 14, 2015 by SantaFeFan

[buckeye rob]

35 cents a gallon for the 1000 gallon of gas. :o That was a 1971 Chevelle though. Maybe this was a late 1970s episode. I had a 1970 396 Chevelle. I remember my Dad wanting me to get rid of it because gas cost too much for it. Gerry

Edited August 14, 2015 by buckeye rob

[sbbquilter]

We were on the Angelina Lauro in 1974 with friends for a 7 night Caribbean cruise. The ship was a converted military ship - no balconies or atrium. Our cabin had 2 lower berths attached to the wall with a tiny nightstand between, which was our total storage. The bathroom makes current models look spacious. But we were treated like royalty by the warm and friendly Italian crew.

[Hlitner]

DW and I were just talking about our RCCL (now RCI) cruises back in the early 80s. In the MDR there was a waiter for about every 2 tables and an Assistant Waiter for every two waiters. When they served the main course it would come on a plate with no sides. The Assistant waiter would then come around with silver serving bowls and dish out whatever sides a diner wanted. And DW reminded me that when they served a baked potato (RCCL always had backed potatoes) the waiter would open up the potato (on your plate) and then dish out any toppings such as sour cream, chives, bacon bits, etc.

 

As to lobster night (many still love the sad lobster tails now served on most lines) we still remember our Sun Viking (RCCL) waiter (his name was Gary Branch) serving all the entrees (mostly lobster) and then putting a platter in the middle of the table that had another 8-10 lobster tails for those who wanted more.

 

And on Princess Lines (and Sitmar before Princess) the various head waiters and assistant head waiters would have stations all over the MDR where they cooked fresh pasta dishes every evening. They were often served as somewhat of an in-between course (similar to the way the Italians have a pasta course before the main course) and the pasta was always nice and hot since it only came a few feet from the pasta station to the table. And then there were desserts like banana's Foster that were prepared at these same stations and perfectly served within seconds after leaving the chafing dish. And this was all on a normal mass market cruise line. And then about 2 hours after having these nice dinners (we always eat late sitting) it was time for the midnight buffet which was a spectacular event every night of the cruise!

 

 

Hank

[cruisemom42]

And on Princess Lines (and Sitmar before Princess) the various head waiters and assistant head waiters would have stations all over the MDR where they cooked fresh pasta dishes every evening. They were often served as somewhat of an in-between course (similar to the way the Italians have a pasta course before the main course) and the pasta was always nice and hot since it only came a few feet from the pasta station to the table. And then there were desserts like banana's Foster that were prepared at these same stations and perfectly served within seconds after leaving the chafing dish. And this was all on a normal mass market cruise line. And then about 2 hours after having these nice dinners (we always eat late sitting) it was time for the midnight buffet which was a spectacular event every night of the cruise!

 

 

Hank

 

Ah the Sitmar days. As a child on the Fairwind, it's where I first ate caviar, escargot, fois gras, and such exotic entrees (to me) as duck a l'orange and beef wellington. My sister and I were not fond of the heavy Italian desserts that often had quite a wallop of alcohol, so our waiter would bring a large 3-tiered stand with profiteroles and other goodies for us each night at the end of the meal.

 

And let us not forget the FULL afternoon tea served every day in the lounge, and the dedicated pizzeria with what might arguably have been the best pizza at sea to this day....

[SantaFeFan]

DW and I were just talking about our RCCL (now RCI) cruises back in the early 80s. In the MDR there was a waiter for about every 2 tables and an Assistant Waiter for every two waiters. When they served the main course it would come on a plate with no sides. The Assistant waiter would then come around with silver serving bowls and dish out whatever sides a diner wanted. And DW reminded me that when they served a baked potato (RCCL always had backed potatoes) the waiter would open up the potato (on your plate) and then dish out any toppings such as sour cream, chives, bacon bits, etc.

 

As to lobster night (many still love the sad lobster tails now served on most lines) we still remember our Sun Viking (RCCL) waiter (his name was Gary Branch) serving all the entrees (mostly lobster) and then putting a platter in the middle of the table that had another 8-10 lobster tails for those who wanted more.

 

And on Princess Lines (and Sitmar before Princess) the various head waiters and assistant head waiters would have stations all over the MDR where they cooked fresh pasta dishes every evening. They were often served as somewhat of an in-between course (similar to the way the Italians have a pasta course before the main course) and the pasta was always nice and hot since it only came a few feet from the pasta station to the table. And then there were desserts like banana's Foster that were prepared at these same stations and perfectly served within seconds after leaving the chafing dish. And this was all on a normal mass market cruise line. And then about 2 hours after having these nice dinners (we always eat late sitting) it was time for the midnight buffet which was a spectacular event every night of the cruise!

 

 

Hank

 

I find it fascinating how people only remember the good things about those past cruises. They never mention how great their tiny 100 sq ft staterooms were. They never mention how great that set dining was the only option. They never mention how great is was that the dress code was much more formal, requiring a coat and tie at every meal. They never mention how great is was that smoking was allowed everywhere, including the dining rooms. And, they never mention how great it was that they could get this "much better" cruise experience only by spending the equivalent of several thousand dollars more per person (with inflation factored in) than at today's affordable prices.

 

If one is going to compare then and now, suggesting that cruising was so much better then, they should also be comparing the bad as well as the good. Otherwise, they are not being honest with us - or themselves.

Edited August 14, 2015 by SantaFeFan

[kelmac]

I find it fascinating how people only remember the good things about those past cruises. They never mention how great their tiny 100 sq ft staterooms were. They never mention how great that set dining was the only option. They never mention how great is was that the dress code was much more formal, requiring a coat and tie at every meal. They never mention how great is was that smoking was allowed everywhere, including the dining rooms. And, they never mention how great it was that they could get this "much better" cruise experience only by spending the equivalent of several thousand dollars more per person (with inflation factored in) than at today's affordable prices.

 

If one is going to compare then and now, suggesting that cruising was so much better then, they should also be comparing the bad as well as the good. Otherwise, they are not being honest with us - or themselves.

 

SFF,

 

I agree 100%!! My worst cruise was my first cruise back in 1978. It was pretty expensive as well. My second cruise was with Sitmar in 1982, and it was much better than the first, but still had it's issues.

Rose colored glasses I think?

 

Do you remember:

--smoking everywhere on the ship

--linoleum tiled floors in the cabins

--separate twin beds only

--no selection in the buffet, with faux bacon and strange square ham

--dog eat dog service staff that would steal items from other busing stations

--they would kick you out of your cabin the last morning at 7am and the buffet closed at 7:30am because they would run out of food

--105 sq foot cabins with a port hole

--I'm pretty sure the main waiter on our first cruise pocketed the envelope of the asst' waiter. We learned after that to hand it directly to each person.

--Half of the dining room would be empty on the last night, as that was the night the tip envelopes went out

--the officers reeked of BO, like their uniforms never were cleaned or they didn't shower very often

 

 

It took me 11 years before I cruised again, and everything had improved. I think we are in the Golden Years of cruising right now! Cruise number 58 coming up in December!!

 

Enjoy!

Kel:)

[cruisemom42]

I find it fascinating how people only remember the good things about those past cruises. They never mention how great their tiny 100 sq ft staterooms were. They never mention how great that set dining was the only option. They never mention how great is was that the dress code was much more formal, requiring a coat and tie at every meal. They never mention how great is was that smoking was allowed everywhere, including the dining rooms. And, they never mention how great it was that they could get this "much better" cruise experience only by spending the equivalent of several thousand dollars more per person (with inflation factored in) than at today's affordable prices.

 

If one is going to compare then and now, suggesting that cruising was so much better then, they should also be comparing the bad as well as the good. Otherwise, they are not being honest with us - or themselves.

 

Everyone has things that bother them and things that don't. Your list may differ from mine. Doesn't mean I'm not being honest....

 

For example, small cabins don't bother me, I rarely eat in the buffet (mainly it's a last choice), and while I am a little happy not to dress up every night, I'd gladly do it if I could count on the same level of service in the MDR as you got back then. :D

 

Smoking's kind of a non-starter. It was allowed everywhere in the 1970s, including on planes and virtually every office, hotel, and restaurant.

[SantaFeFan]

Everyone has things that bother them and things that don't. Your list may differ from mine. Doesn't mean I'm not being honest....

 

For example, small cabins don't bother me, I rarely eat in the buffet (mainly it's a last choice), and while I am a little happy not to dress up every night, I'd gladly do it if I could count on the same level of service in the MDR as you got back then. :D

 

Smoking's kind of a non-starter. It was allowed everywhere in the 1970s, including on planes and virtually every office, hotel, and restaurant.

 

If you want the same service experience as back then, you can still get it on several luxury lines. The service and food will be similar, the size of the ships will be similar, and the high prices will also be similar.

 

But to complain about the mass market lines of today which charge much, much less than what a cruise cost 40 years ago, is not being honest. If someone complains about how "things have gone down hill", but happily pays the much lower fares while complaining, they are NOT being honest, but just being unrealistic. They are being cheap, unwilling to pay for the same levels of service they once had, and blaming everything on the "greedy" cruise lines.

 

It's a very simple idea - you get what you pay for. So, pay more for a luxury cruise and THEN you can get "the same level of service in the MDR as you got back then." But don't willingly pay much less and then complain about lowered service levels while you enjoy your savings.

 

Your choice.

Edited August 15, 2015 by SantaFeFan

[walksonwater]

Well that's what I was wondering. We didn't have a lot of money back then, the 70's, so I can't imagine we paid a lot for a cruise. Maybe more money relative to inflation still will feel like not a lot of money these days. I don't know. If that's what it takes to get the same aura of civility I remember, then so be it.

 

I remember tendering to Cozumel because even though the cruise ship was relatively small, the port was not big enough to accommodate us. Is that still the case?

 

I also remember truly made to order dinners. What level of service is that now?

[sloopsailor]

If you want the same service experience as back then, you can still get it on several luxury lines. The service and food will be similar, the size of the ships will be similar, and the high prices will also be similar.

 

But to complain about the mass market lines of today which charge much, much less than what a cruise cost 40 years ago, is not being honest. If someone complains about how "things have gone down hill", but happily pays the much lower fares while complaining, they are NOT being honest, but just being unrealistic. They are being cheap, unwilling to pay for the same levels of service they once had, and blaming everything on the "greedy" cruise lines.

 

It's a very simple idea - you get what you pay for. So, pay more for a luxury cruise and THEN you can get "the same level of service in the MDR as you got back then." But don't willingly pay much less and then complain about lowered service levels while you enjoy your savings.

 

Your choice.

 

How true! It's like buying a box of wine at Costco and complaining that it doesn't taste as good as the expensive small lot wine you bought from a marquee vineyard at the top of their game.

 

Don't expect caviar at raisin prices.

Edited August 15, 2015 by sloopsailor