What is the entry level cruise line?

[ldubs]

7 hours ago, EngIceDave said:

 

 

Basically, first time cruisers.

 

Who do you think is the cruise line for first time cruisers?

I doubt it'd be Cunard, Viking or even Celebrity.

 

It really does depend on the person and a whole lot on their financial situation.  I personally know someone that made their first cruise on a luxury line.  Our first cruise was a 3 day trip from San Pedro to Mexico.  

 

First time cruisers can be across the board.  If entry level is to mean "budget" cruises, then that would be a different consideration.    

[Jasonsterling]

I don't think there is one. I think people choose from the start the line they think they'll like most within the budget they have to spend. I can't see someone thinking, "Hmm... I've never taken a cruise so I'll start with Carnival just because they're the entry point cruise line." Then they have such a good time on Carnival they immediately decide to "move up" to a more expensive cruise. No. I have a friend and her first cruise was Disney, cause she loves Disney- later she tried Carnival. So is Disney an entry level cruise line because it was first and Carnival was the "move up" option? No. It was first because she loves Disney and Carnival was later because of timing and itinerary. Now, it is true as people age or as their taste/outlook changes they might switch lines but I don't know that's necessarily "moving up". It's just maybe following your demographic and typically if you've always sailed mass market lines then even as you age you'll continue to do so- like moving from Carnival to Princess to Holland America because the pricing difference between them isn't really that much and as you age you go from paying for a family to just paying for a couple so even if the room cost went up some you're overall costs likely stayed static. 

[MMastell]

My entry level was Celebrity and I was hooked. From there I sailed on HAL, Princess, Renaissance, Radisson (Now Regent), RCL and NCL.  I stayed away from Carnival because of reputation.  I had 20 cruises under my belt before I tried Carnival and I was somewhat surprised.  I wasn't a fan of the Farcus decor but it was a good bang for the book.  I like the evolution that Carnival has done and the days of hairy chest, belly flop contests and longer cruises are not booze cruises.  I am now over 100 days on Carnival and they are definitely the best bang for the buck and I love that they have expanded their itineraries because I'm burnt out on the Carribbean.

[Top_of_the_Cube]

If it is "entry level" to just see if you can handle being on a ship, then hands-down I think it would be Carnival.  I always do a spreadsheet (yes, I am that guy) and compare ships and different lines.  And, at least for the times and embarkation ports I am considering, Carnival always has been the lowest price.

 

If "entry level" to see if you like the whole cruising experience, then picking Carnival might be deceiving.  It caters to a specific market for a reason, and if you are not that market, you might be tainted from all cruising just because you do not like their "vibe".  If you are more discriminating, then skip "entry level" and match a cruise line with your expectations (which may indeed be Carnival).

[cruisinfamily7609]

Our first cruise was our honeymoon on Majesty of the Seas (Royal Caribbean). From there we did Celebrity and then back to Royal when we took our kids with us. This will be our first on Carnival. We stayed away purely because of the reputation Carnival had back in the 90s and early 2000s (haven’t cruised in quite some time). It was known for being a party line for its shorter cruises, and even some of the week itineraries, and we just liked Royal enough to stay with them. Since then though, our oldest went on a Carnival cruise and loved it, so we decided to try it. Why not? 

I will say that I felt very nickeled and dimed on the mass market lines, Carnival and Royal included these days - while booking. For me, it’s not the cost, it’s the hassle-factor. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to choose a cabin level and then have to pay more to be mid-ship or wherever. Onboard, it seems annoying to have to pay for extra entrees, or even to pay for “Faster to the Fun” (I did because I don’t like waiting when I don’t need to) I figure we’ll go this summer, see how it goes, and then decide from there for whatever trip comes next. I’m keeping an open mind, but going in with my eyes open, too. It’s our vacation - we just want to have a good time. 

As for an “entry” line though, I truly believe that word has more to do with budget than it does being a “starter”. I mean, it’s the same with homes. If you’re purchasing a home, you buy what you can afford. In some areas of the country, that could mean buying a very small condo because of the expense. In others, you might take the same amount of money and buy a much larger home on acreage - it’s cheaper there. That doesn’t mean it’s a starter home, but it might be your first home. And let’s face it, we don’t all live in the same area of the country, nor do we all make the same amount of money or have the same budget in mind for a cruise vacation. 

 

The other thing I’d add here is that buying a cruise on Seabourn or Seven Seas, Regent or Cunard doesn’t necessarily mean it is fancier or even that it has different amenities - although it may. It might just mean that there are less people on the ship. Maybe it’s quieter. Maybe it has to do with staff to guest ratio, or being able to go to ports the larger ships can’t even begin to think about.

 

I think it must have a lot to do with how one defines “entry level” as to how this question is answered, and perhaps, to some extent - this is what the OP intended. 

 

At one point in my life, I was all about the nightlife on the ship. I wanted tons of activities and things to do. I didn’t mind loud and crazy. I still don’t mind these things when I’m traveling with my kids, because now they’re older too - my youngest is 15 and my oldest two are in their mid-20s. They want the things I used to look for. These days though, when it’s just my husband and I cruising, I’m looking for something that isn’t necessarily FANCY, but is quieter. Still fun, but in a different way from when I was in my 20s. And fewer kids...because I’ve already raised mine and now I need a good “starter” vacation from taking my kids everywhere with us! 😄

[Saint Greg]

I'm going with Disney. You can't get more entry level than Mickey Mouse and Goofy.

[sgttami]

My first cruise was RCL on Monarch of the Seas from San Juan (31 years ago) and I was in awe of everything. Fabulous!

 

A girlfriends first cruise was a world cruise on Cunard.$$$$$$

 

My parents first cruise was on Homeric Lines on Oceanic in 1970 from NYC and it's still my mothers favorite cruise.

 

Entry levels vary!

 

All good...Smooth sailing!

[Theosprey247]

My first cruise was a 14 day South Pacific cruise on the Paul Gauguin (this was back when the PG was owned by Regent.  

[EngIceDave]

2 minutes ago, Theosprey247 said:

My first cruise was a 14 day South Pacific cruise on the Paul Gauguin (this was back when the PG was owned by Regent.  

 

 

Noice....

 

4 hours ago, Top_of_the_Cube said:

If it is "entry level" to just see if you can handle being on a ship,

 

This is basically the question.

[gazingm42]

Some interesting points I look at on a "starter cruise".  I don't look at the cruise condition

for starter cruise as a price consideration.  Other conditions can be but not limited to the

length of the cruise, ports of call.  Port which you leave from, for example leaving from the UK

if you based in the US is not what a new cruise may do. Also the type of room you have, which can

be price driven, but not always.

 

There too many other variables other than price to make a cruise a starter cruise.  I personally think

a short cruise is a high consideration for a starter condition.  I personally don't care for the short cruises anything less than 7 days.  But everyone has different ideas and conditions.  Everyone has there

conditions or priorities which is good for them,  that's right for their family.

[Eli_6]

My first three cruises were Royal, NCL, and Carnival in that order. So...those were my "starter" cruises. 

 

But I have no idea what makes a "starter" cruise line for the general public.  It probably heavily depends on your location and age and what you are looking for.  I doubt that many first time cruisers with young kids are hopping on Viking or Silver Seas.  And I doubt too many 70 year old first time cruisers are getting on Disney...unless they are taking their grandkids.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Eli_6

[Eli_6]

As an aside, I likely never would have gone on a Carnival cruise on my own accord, but I went with a group of people who were like "this is the cruise our group is going on"...so I went and I had a blast. I had so much fun that I booked a Havana room on the Vista for my husband and I.  It was great.  The Vista was almost new then and it went right out of our home port...and from there on out, I was hooked.   

[Eli_6]

On 2/21/2023 at 2:20 PM, MJSailors said:

Why not Cunard,Viking or Celebrity?

It all depends on the person choosing a cruise ,their style, pocketbook and outlook.

Different strokes for different folks.

MJ

I actually know several people who have been enticed to take a cruise for the first time by the new   Celebrity ships (Apex, Beyond, etc.) who previously would have called themselves "not cruise people."  They are all 30s-40s professionals who either don't have kids yet or have kids that are older (teens/college) and they are leaving behind. 

 

My husband's aunt took her first cruise on a smaller, "luxury" line ...but she is late 60s and it was booked through one of the college alumni groups that travels together.

 

My friends with young kids (jr high, elementary and younger) are almost universally cruising Royal, Carnival or Disney for their first cruise regardless of income.  

Edited February 23, 2023 by Eli_6