Curious about a Scenery Intensive Itin.

[sldispatcher]

I have a series of questions to pose to all of you, especially the seasoned Oceania cruisers. I'll post my personal angle towards the end so as to reveal any biases I might have so that you know the angle I am coming from.

 

1. Would a scenery intensive cruise as opposed to a port intensive cruise appeal to you? (i.e. Would you rather spend most of your time in Juneau/Ketchikan, etc. or hitting the scenic highlights up and down the coast/area)

(Yes, I know Alaska wasn't hugely successful for O, but did they really step out of the box with itinerary to make you say "I want to go?")

 

2. What portion of port stops drive the cost of the cruise?

 

3. Would you be satisfied with an entire day sitting alongside a glacier...or waterfall area...or eye popping leaf color change along the St. Lawrence Seaway?

 

4. Would cruising up a river without making a specific stop..but enjoying the scenery be of any excitement to anyone? for instance, going up the Columbia..or part of the Hudson or othe rivers?

 

5. I like the idea of the overnight stay in ports....I'd rather be able to do one place a lot of justice with access to great entertainment/excursion than quick stops at several ports.

 

6. How could Oceania do that and appeal to its base that 'appears' to demand port intensive itineraries? Would they even have and interest?

 

7. Is this simply a ridiculous concept and should I be thrown out for even asking :)

[Baby Hughy]

I don't consider Oceanias venture into Alaska a total failure. I have done 1 other cruise to Alaska with Holland America and I can tell you that Oceanias cruise was way and above the cruise itinery and chance to observe scenery abd wild life that was offered by Holland America. As far as a scenery only cruise that would depend on the genre of the cruise because if there were not much to see it would be just as much fun just to sail for 7 to 10 days. All you would have to do is beef up the available activities on board.

Bill

[sldispatcher]

Not necessarily scenery only...just mix it up ..insert scenic portion for the day instead of a port stop or two...or three.

[LHT28]

A cruise up the Hudson would be great but I think cruise ships can only go so far Albany I think

Up the Saguenay or the St Lawrence all good spots

Not sure how close the ships can get to shore for other scenery related cruises

[Ms Understood]

Seems to me if people are interested in a river cruise they should book one with a river cruise company? As far as sitting alongside a glacier or an ice berg etc there are many cruises that do just that: I have been on 3 Alaska cruises and every one spent a day at the glacier and I have done Antarctica with Regent which also spent lots of time anchored at glaciers or an ice berg. I did a New Zealand cruise with Princess which spent a day in the fjords as did our Silverseas cruise to Norway.Point is what you have posited is already available and quite popular.

-----------------

Helen

[bbwex]

My guess is generally that most people like to stop in various ports, and the lines cater to the customers. Bear in mind as well, that other than cruising in a river, cruise ships are not going to really be close enough to the shore to make the scenery worth viewing for too long. Even in Glacier Bay, cruise ships stand about a mile off the shore. If you are really interested in an up-close-and-personal type of trip, you might be served better by NGO/Lindblad as they get in much closer. (A tour of Kenai Fjords on a 100 passenger boat that got within 1/2 mile of a glacier was a real highlight (IMHO) that could not be duplicated by a cruise ship.)

 

There are a limited number of rivers that are both navigable for a large cruise ship and offer the scenic wonders you seem to crave. There are some cruises that go up a few rivers particularly in the fall, but they are limited, and people want to visit ports as well. There are a couple of cruises that go part way up the Amazon and offer tons of scenery.

 

Some cruises do have overnights in ports. While these are most often at the start of end of a cruise, St. Petersburg is one that comes in the middle of a cruise. Oceania's R ships also go well up the river there and get very close to the Hermitage, though I cannot say that the river view was extremely interesting on the way into town.

 

I think the limiting factor is the limited number of prospective customers for a scenery-only trip. If they cannot definitely and regularly sell out the trip, they won't schedule it.

 

You might try looking at river cruises as that seems to be closer to your interest here, but even the river boats stop more days than they don't. Some days are partial port days, and partial scenery days.

[azam71209]

We went on the norway and Spitsbergen cruise. Next summer we are going July third to Iceland and greenland. The city stops will be interesting but we are looking forward to great scenery and hiking opportunities.

[trina2]

Any day at sea is a good day.

With this in mind and wishing for a scenery intensive cruise - have a look at Oceania's Land of the Midnight Sun cruise -good amount of time parked in spectacular fjords and more than usual sea days. We absolutely loved this cruise.

 

As for Alaska - have never been there, so cannot comment.

 

While I haven't been on it myself, I am told the Chilean fjords are also spectacular. HAL gets in quite close so I'm sure Oceania is more capable of getting in closer. [Most ships cannot do Magdalene Bay (right up in arctic circle north of mainland Norway) as they are too big to turn around - we spent hours there before turning around and heading out.]

[Wildblue]

YES, I would book a highly scenery-intensive cruise over a port-intensive cruise. We book a cruise to be relaxing and slow-paced, and too many ports can be counter-productive. That's one of the reasons that we chose our upcoming TA, so that there's lots of relax time on the ship, and less in ports. and yes, I am counting on the sunsets on the ocean as being some of that scenery in question.

 

One of the best "cruises" we've done was to take the Alaska ferry when we moved to Alaska from Washington State. The ferry doesn't dawdle in port so people can sight-see, but sitting on deck while going through the fjords and whale-watching was purely devine. And yes, we would have been just fine stopping the cruise/ferry for periods, to just admire the glaciers or something.

 

We may be different than other cruisers, but that's us. Our upcoming cruise desires are a Scandanavian cruise, and Southern Pacific cruise, for the same reason. Doesn't have to be port intenstive. Just want to enjoy the scenery.

[capecodder2]

There are plenty of cruises that do just what you are talking about. River cruises are out there. Do I want Oceania to do that type of cruising? Not particularly. We choose the O cruises we do because they are port intensive. I can do 4 sea days in a row if necessary (like on our Hong Kong to Athens cruise) but that is not usually my choice. Destinations are my preference, not the cruising per se, and there many ports that 1 day is enough and some of the overnights O does are wonderful. I like O just as it is.

[CintiPam]

I do not cruise with Oceania for scenery but rather for its port-intensive itineraries. River cruises provide scenery, but my travel companion, Mr. Military History, so far has balked at trying this option.