Cruise Lines for Antarctica

[koss78b2]

Ok what companies offer Cruises to Antarctica

 

So I am looking at company that does a land fall on shore for the continent. not just a sail by.

 

I know it would be more $$$ but like to know a list of cruise lines or expedition ships to consider that offer actual land stops to Antarctica

[Thecat123]

We went on the Quest and had a magic trip. Seabourn Cruises were excellent. We got ashore with the penguins 5 times

[digitl]

I can't speak for other providers, but we have been to Antarctica twice (and Svalbard, with Greenland coming up) with Hurtigruten and had wonderful trips with crew that were helpful beyond all reason. There are generally two landings each day on both the continent and the islands so you're not likely to be disappointed! Try, if you can, to include South Georgia and the Falkland Islands. Different, but also very special.

Edited November 19, 2014 by digitl

[PerfectlyPerth]

There are plenty:

 

Quark (been with them 3 times)

Aurora

National Geographic Orion

Polar Latitudes

Heritage (planning to go with them in next season)

One Ocean

GA Adventures

Oceanwide (may go with them this season if things go my way)

 

Landings per day can be anything from none - weather and ice dependent always - to 4 - we have done quite a few late evening after dinner landings. 2 is an average most try to attain.

[QM2 fan]

Also,Ponant and Silverseas do zodiac trips ashore on their cruises.

[DPWnRBW]

Ok what companies offer Cruises to Antarctica

 

So I am looking at company that does a land fall on shore for the continent. not just a sail by.

 

I know it would be more $$$ but like to know a list of cruise lines or expedition ships to consider that offer actual land stops to Antarctica

 

We did Silversea and it was terrific. As you can see from my photo, we did shore excursions on the continent. Exact routes will vary depending on sea ice conditions, but we reached 65+ degrees south latitude. Certainly our most amazing trip.

[dileep]

they fly from Punta Arena to King George Island to avoid crossing the Drake!

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1739893

Edited December 31, 2014 by dileep

[maryann ns]

Check out this site where you will find a spreadsheet to help you sort out some of the options. There are way more ships and companies than what you will hear about on CC.

 

http://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowTopic-g1-i12337-k7979316-Trip_research_website-Antarctic_Adventures.html

[rockdoctor]

As a rule of thumb, if a ship has more than 100 passengers, there is no landfall regardless of the cruiseline.

[SarniaLo]

As a rule of thumb, if a ship has more than 100 passengers, there is no landfall regardless of the cruiseline.

By "landfall" do you mean a landing ashore? (sorry, English is not my first language).

If I understood correctly, this rule of thumb is not true. Ships with up to 200+ passengers will provide landings. I was in Antarctica twice with Hurtigruten's Fram (around 200 passengers) and we had daily landings (sometimes twice a day). But as there are only 100 passengers allowed ashore simultaneously, it means we had to take turn, so the time ashore for each person was reduced compared to a ship with less than 100 passengers, but it was still an invaluable part of the trip.

If I misunderstood you, could you please elaborate on what you meant by "landfall"?

[PerfectlyPerth]

As a rule of thumb, if a ship has more than 100 passengers, there is no landfall regardless of the cruiseline.

 

Sorry but that is not a factual statement. There are multiple expedition ships that sit around the 180 to 200 passenger mark. They function on a rotational basis where half the passengers do zodiac cruising while the other half land ashore - then they swap per after a couple of hours - multiple times per day. They carry twice as many zodiacs as the smaller ships and the rotation works well and like clockwork. I have friends on the expedition team for the Ocean Diamond which from memory has 22 zodiacs for the passenger total. The ships I have been on have had 115 or less passengers with 12 or 14 zodiacs.

 

In addition - the 100 person rule is for specific landing zones - the majority. However there are some that have rules of 30 and some that are as low as 10. So even the smallest passenger group ship still does a rotational landing where required by IAATO rules.

[Thecat123]

As a rule of thumb, if a ship has more than 100 passengers, there is no landfall regardless of the cruiseline.

 

I think where you have got the hundred from is the ship is only allowed to have a hundred ashore at one time (I think?)

The Seabourn Quest had 440 passengers and were taken ashore a deck at a time. The Quest had zodiacs ferrying passengers backwards and forwards all day for the 5 days we were there

It worked very well as I didn't hear of any complaints

[PerfectlyPerth]

I think where you have got the hundred from is the ship is only allowed to have a hundred ashore at one time (I think?)

 

As I mentioned above your post - each landing zone has rules specified in IAATO guidelines which are viewable to the public - the majority are 100 and less - but there are some where as little as 10 are permitted at a time. All expedition ships of all sizes use the rotation method.

[Thecat123]

- but there are some where as little as 10 are permitted at a time. All expedition ships of all sizes use the rotation method.

 

There wouldn't be much point in a larger ship with lots of passengers going there would it? :)

I was referring to a luxury ship with 440 passengers like the Quest

We had the best of both worlds

Luxury with all the trimmings and expedition teams from the expedition ships they have worked on in the past to take us ashore :)

Edited January 3, 2015 by Thecat123

[PerfectlyPerth]

There wouldn't be much point in a larger ship with lots of passengers going there would it? :)

I was referring to a luxury ship with 440 passengers like the Quest

We had the best of both worlds

Luxury with all the trimmings and expedition teams from the expedition ships they have worked on in the past to take us ashore :)

 

You may believe you had the best of both worlds but you may have also missed some amazing landing zones and historical artefacts etc because such a large ship is unlikely to get permits for the areas with 10 or 30 minimums.

 

I know what my preference is. The ships I have been on are small and sturdy and very comfortable with 5 star food etc - and we have been in the most incredible places that almost no other passengers have ever been able to reach. One place had only had 3 successful landings in 30 years. only 20 of us could go ashore at a time - for several hours each but every single passenger had those hours through the day.

[Thecat123]

You may believe you had the best of both worlds but you may have also missed some amazing landing zones and historical artefacts etc because such a large ship is unlikely to get permits for the areas with 10 or 30 minimums.

 

I know what my preference is. The ships I have been on are small and sturdy and very comfortable with 5 star food etc - and we have been in the most incredible places that almost no other passengers have ever been able to reach. One place had only had 3 successful landings in 30 years. only 20 of us could go ashore at a time - for several hours each but every single passenger had those hours through the day.

 

PerfectlyPerth Don't forget I was replying to rockdoctors post of

 

As a rule of thumb, if a ship has more than 100 passengers, there is no landfall regardless of the cruiseline.

I was trying to say that larger/luxury ships like Seaboun Quest with 440 passengers do have landings at Antarctica which may give people who wish to do Antarctica more options. I would think that the larger number of passengers on a ship could lower the price per head and still get to do much of the same as the smaller ships with less passengers. When we priced the cruise Seaboun was very cost effective for us as everything was included

[PerfectlyPerth]

Yes well Rockdoctors post was totally factually incorrect so we all need to ensure that the poster wanting our advice is getting the correct information not random guesswork from someone who seemingly hasn't been there.

 

The larger ships such as your do get landings in even with that many passengers but I like to ensure that someone at the early stage of their decision making process understands as many options as possible are available to them - and the pros and cons of each.

 

I personally would not enjoy an "expedition" with 440 people as I just think that is far too many.

 

Even when I went from two trips with 89 people to then one with 115 - that felt over crowded !!

 

But aside from personal preferences re how many you want to travel with - the other pros and cons relate to the landing times and rotation systems etc. The smaller the ship - the more likelihood of those smaller more intimate landings in the rarer regions and historical huts etc.

 

Its all dependant on what the OP themselves wants to achieve and experience. Seemingly - they haven't popped back in since their question was asked in Nov so we are all giving advice without knowing if they are even reading it!!

[Thecat123]

So we both agree there are different options :)

[PerfectlyPerth]

So we both agree there are different options :)

 

I am a Libran - my brain is always full of a thousand options !!

[digitl]

There are, indeed, options but, as PP observes, we need to ensure that the detail surrounding those options is correct and having more than 100 on board certainly does not mean no landfall!

 

Those options mean that there will always be compromises to be made when choosing a cruise. Timing? Itinerary? Cost? Comfort? Landings?

 

For us, Fram ticks our most important boxes. The itineraries are good, we get two landings each day, it's ice-rated 1a/b so we can (and have) push our way through more difficult ice, uses azipods so is highly manoeuvrable, the crew and expedition staff are quality and it's affordable to the extent that we can make return trips.

 

Seabourn Quest, on the other hand, wouldn't meet our needs. With its size, almost 450 passengers (so only five landings in five days!), and at roughly twice the cost of our Falklands/South Georgia/Antarctica trip, the additional comfort is the only positive but can in no way compensate for time ashore.

Edited January 4, 2015 by digitl

[Thecat123]

 

Seabourn Quest, on the other hand, wouldn't meet our needs. With its size, almost 450 passengers (so only five landings in five days!), and at roughly twice the cost of our Falklands/South Georgia/Antarctica trip, the additional comfort is the only positive but can in no way compensate for time ashore.

 

Have you checked the prices? :)

When we booked we also looked at the Fram and found that Seabourn with a balcony and the number of days, 21, the size of the ship crossing The Drake, Drake Lake going down but a bit rougher coming back, every thing was included, all drinks, was a better deal for us. And it was a very similar price to the Fram maybe even cheaper

We didn't go to South Georgia though. Maybe next time

Edited January 4, 2015 by Thecat123

[digitl]

I did check prices and Fram is cheaper by around £4000 per person, though drinks on Fram are not included.

 

The thread is about Antarctica and, whilst the Seabourn trip I checked is 4 days longer than the Fram trip, most are spent in or around South America. From first Antarctic/South Georgia landing to last, Seabourn offers 10 days compared with 14 for Fram, and the Falklands are missed completely so, to me, it is of even less value.

 

Similarly, a balcony is of no interest as I spend my time outside of the cabin, and only one landing each day would make the trip (again, for me) fairly pointless.

[Thecat123]

and the Falklands are missed completely so, to me, it is of even less value.

 

.

 

All Seabourn sailings have the Falklands as a stop.

[digitl]

All Seabourn sailings have the Falklands as a stop.

 

The Falklands are not listed on the itinerary for 20 December 2015.

 

Even if they were, Seabourn Quest, with just one landing per day, is not an option I would consider.

 

YMMV, and clearly does!

[Thecat123]

The Falklands are not listed on the itinerary for 20 December 2015.

 

Even if they were, Seabourn Quest, with just one landing per day, is not an option I would consider.

 

YMMV, and clearly does!

 

Sorry

It appears they have dropped The Falklands on that sailing date but the other cruises have The Falklands included

Still talking about different options to cruise to Antarctica

Edited January 4, 2015 by Thecat123