Big Ship vs Nat'l Geo/Lindblad?

[Mary loves to travel]

Has anyone done both types of trips, and can compare?

We've only done a large ship to Alaska, and have another planned for 2016 with Princess. Friends who are planning to go with us (first cruise ever, first time to Alaska) are having their ear bent by neighbors who believe Nat'l Geo is the answer for any cruise.

 

Personally, I can certainly see the advantages of a small ship for Galapagos (or perhaps other trips), but it seems that for Alaska, one actually gets more exposure to a broader variety of experiences on the big ships (and I'm not talking broadway style shows, but glacier walks/viewing, hikes, train, etc, etc).

 

Has anyone done both a big ship and a tiny ship to Alaska & can offer a fair comparison?

 

Thanks,

Mary

[Kamloops50]

The smaller ship would be based in Alaska . The cost and time of getting to the smaller port can be significant . For a first Alaska cruise I wouldn't recommend doing a small ship cruise . Yes you'll see smaller ports but you'll have a limited selection of tours to do.

[Chenega]

My wife and I have done Royal Caribbean, Radisson/Regent, and Uncruise here in Alaska and National Geographic/Lindblad and Disney in other locations (Norway and the Caribbean).

 

My wife is not a fan of the big ships but I do think they are good for a first time trip stopping at a number of different Alaskan ports. Having said that, we are much more disposed to the small ship experience. They lack the "herd mentality" that go with the big guys and have a focus on the natural environment through which you are cruising.

 

We're doing an Uncruise trip from Seattle to Juneau early next May that meanders through the inside passage. Have to admit that Uncruise is one of my favorite companies and we enjoy the overall atmosphere aboard the ship.

 

Whatever line you select, be sure to go on that includes Glacier Bay since it is one of the highlights of a visit to Alaska.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Chenega

[Budget Queen]

There is little comparison. You get far more Alaska with the small boats, and a grossly superior experience. The routing is coastal, with stops the regular cruise ship never would consider. It's less than ideal to be in main channels, 10 decks above water, compared to on the water and lingering in coves, detouring for wildlife etc. I have a friend who works for Lindblad- for around 100 passengers there are 6 naturalist- and these are a very educated bunch. :)

 

I'm in my volume travel mode, and some things I just haven't been accepting of spending- which are these costly boats. :) Have no clue why, I think nothing of other costly tours, or dumping $5000 for 4 days of Alaska adventure last year as example. And it isn't a matter of money- (you don't spend 10 weeks in Alaska, or travel half the year with 17 cruises in 2014 - if it is). Just haven't done it yet- I know Don- has tried to encourage me- maybe I need help. :)

[Coral]

There was an un-cruise review this year by Boulder Girl (sp?) and it looked amazing.

 

If I could afford it, I would definitely do the smaller ships like un-cruise and Lindblad.

[Mary loves to travel]

The smaller ship would be based in Alaska . The cost and time of getting to the smaller port can be significant . For a first Alaska cruise I wouldn't recommend doing a small ship cruise . Yes you'll see smaller ports but you'll have a limited selection of tours to do.

 

This is what we finally decided! maybe a small ship is in our future, but for now, we can customize the heck out of our trip with floatplanes, whale watching tours for 6 (or fewer), hikes, and more (some of which isn't even possible to do from the small ship) -- then still enjoy the luxury of the big ship.

 

Thanks all for advice - it was helpful!

 

Mary

[zqvol]

We have done two AK cruises on what should be considered small ships (under 400 passengers), but IF we do another AK cruise, it will be on a tiny ship like the Nat Geo ones. You see so much more that way, instead of the stock ports, which are mostly tourists traps. We are thinking that our next AK trip is going to be two weeks and entirely land based because we are over the SE ports.

[Glaciers]

If I could afford it, I would definitely do the smaller ships like un-cruise and Lindblad.

 

We would too. Since airfare isn’t as big of an issue it’s easier for us to wait for last minute deals which is the only way we can swing it.

 

We’ve done Un-Cruise and Alaska Dream Cruises, both were very good and Un-Cruise was best Alaska cruise we’ve taken including many mainline trips. Both had less than 30 passengers plus crew. True that the excursions choice would be different as you’re not always at a mainline port. We didn’t even see a port for a couple days. Instead of doing a flight seeing tour over Misty Fjords we spent the day exploring the area from the ship as well as spending the night in one of the coves in the area. During the day we kayaked and hiked.

 

We had several days of whale watching that included from onboard the ship and also from zodiacs & kayaks that were brought along. Glacier trek, included. Kayaking in front of a glacier in Glacier Bay, included. We also spent the night in Glacier Bay which was a treat.

[Coral]

We have done two AK cruises on what should be considered small ships (under 400 passengers), but IF we do another AK cruise, it will be on a tiny ship like the Nat Geo ones. You see so much more that way, instead of the stock ports, which are mostly tourists traps. We are thinking that our next AK trip is going to be two weeks and entirely land based because we are over the SE ports.

 

We would too. Since airfare isn’t as big of an issue it’s easier for us to wait for last minute deals which is the only way we can swing it.

 

We’ve done Un-Cruise and Alaska Dream Cruises, both were very good and Un-Cruise was best Alaska cruise we’ve taken including many mainline trips. Both had less than 30 passengers plus crew. True that the excursions choice would be different as you’re not always at a mainline port. We didn’t even see a port for a couple days. Instead of doing a flight seeing tour over Misty Fjords we spent the day exploring the area from the ship as well as spending the night in one of the coves in the area. During the day we kayaked and hiked.

 

We had several days of whale watching that included from onboard the ship and also from zodiacs & kayaks that were brought along. Glacier trek, included. Kayaking in front of a glacier in Glacier Bay, included. We also spent the night in Glacier Bay which was a treat.

 

So envious :) Thanks for the reports!

[azevedan]

Has anyone done both a big ship and a tiny ship to Alaska & can offer a fair comparison?

 

We have done both. Did a big boat (NCL) RT from Seattle and several years later a tiny (11 pax, 4 crew) boat in and around Glacier Bay and Icy Strait, RT from Juneau. No comparison. On a small boat, you stop when there's something of interest. No need to go on a whale-watching excursion; you'll see them and linger. You'll have Dall porpoises surfing your bow wake 3 feet below you. You'll anchor in quiet coves alone in the universe. Wake up to see a grizzly bear on shore. Kayak off the boat. Stop in tiny communities.

 

Yes, it was more expensive, but everything was included. Shore excursions, naturalist guide, great chef who sat down and asked preferences and avoidances, wine or beer with meals.

 

That being said, we found much to enjoy on our big ship cruise. We walked around the deck every night after dinner and could see whales, sea lions and otters.

 

But, if you can swing it, go for the small boat. We're doing one on the British Columbia coast next year.

[boulder-girl]

I have not done a big ship Alaska cruise, but I did a small ship with Un-Cruise in June. 60 passengers, 25 crew. Similar to the size of the National Geographic ships. It was awesome!

 

We did not go to ports...instead we anchored in various bays and went kayaking, paddleboarding, and hiking right from the ship. They offered various skiff tours. We saw whales a few times. (No special excursions needed, as someone else mentioned...the captain stops the ship when you encounter whales and you hang out with them all around you.)

 

Here's the link to my trip report: http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2234240

[Chloe1500]

I have cruised the Inside Passage with both Nat Geo/Lindblad and Princess. First of all, Nat Geo/Lindblad trips are not actually cruises in the traditional sense--they are "expeditions" and the focus is on the natural environment and wildlife rather than amenities and experience of a mass-market cruise ship. So the comparison is a bit difficult to make. It really depends on the type of experience you want.

 

The Nat Geo/Lindblad ship was very small with just 40 passengers (capacity 62). The cabins are simple and most are accessed via a deck. Mealtimes are family style or a simple buffet (breakfast). There is no dressing for dinner and no formal dress whatsoever. There were wildlife naturalists/researchers on board plus a Nat Geo photographer who shared their expertise with us. There was no "entertainment".

 

Everyday, we spent off the ship hiking, kayaking, and/or on Zodiacs in small groups with naturalist guides in whale watching and traveling among the fjords and glaciers. All activities were included in the trip cost except for an optional float plane trip. The ship saiked between Sitka and Juneau. The only port stop in town was in Petersburg where we had a choice of activities.

 

Contrast that with a cruise on the Golden Princess with about 2,500 passengers. It was certainly a lot less expensive and with better cabins and many more choices for food, onboard activities and entertainment. The focus was primarily on the ports and various excursions in each. Many might prefer this kind of experience, so one is not necessarily better than the other.

 

The OP mentioned the benefit of a small ship in the Galapagos and that is true (I have done that with Nat Geo as well), but I do think that experiencing Southeast Alaska on a small ship is a wonderful trip as well, getting into places and tracking wildlife in a way not possible on a large cruise ship. It comes down to the kind of trip you want and which option will fit that experience in the best way.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Chloe1500

[Kamloops50]

OP is first time Cruiser. A mainline mass market ship would be the best way to go. We have info about OP or their friends.

[Budget Queen]

OP is first time Cruiser. A mainline mass market ship would be the best way to go. We have info about OP or their friends.

 

The OP has done an Alaska cruise on a "regular" ship.

 

I don't see, even if they were first timers, that "best" couldn't be a small cruise??

 

Depends on THEM.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Budget Queen

[Mary loves to travel]

OP here. There is so much helpful information in these responses! I really appreciate all the input - this may be the most balanced discussion I've seen on a CC posting :-)

 

I did read boulder-girl's trip report of her UnCruise, on a similar small ship, and it was amazing.

 

We're not "go into all the cute little shops in each port" type of people, using the ports as a starting point for getting out into nature instead. We enjoy hikes perhaps the most of all our activities, but also loved the WP&Y RR in Skagway last time. We do look for small group excursions, usually opting to book independently.

 

I like the comment that the small ship is more of an "expedition" than a "cruise". Very accurate. Very unique experiences offered that one simply cannot get at all when doing a traditional big-ship cruise. Something certainly to think about.

 

We've decided to stay with our booked Princess cruise to Alaska for next year, and for us that will be a good decision. A small boat may be in our future, but again, it may not. We think there's more privacy on the larger ships, counter-intuitively. We also like walking around the ship in the evenings, outside (sometimes quite late), and that's unavailable on the smaller/tiny ships -- far too many laps needed to get in a mile or two :-)

 

The room size and comfort are another factor -- we're not large people, but even so we will be a lot more comfortable with a bit more room to move around in the cabin and bathroom.

 

Perhaps this thread should be a sticky - there is just so much helpful information for anyone trying to make such a decision.

 

BQ - I'll be watching to see if you take the plunge and do a small ship trip next year ;-)

 

Thanks so much everyone,

Mary

[janetcbl]

No question. If you can afford it and really want to see and get to know Alaska, Lindblad/NG is the only way to go. We did the Denali Extension before the cruise and then the trip from Sitka back to Seattle. Expensive? Yes, but worth every $. Best example, we came upon a feeding frenzy of orca whales about dinner time and the staff adapted so we could grap a bite and not miss the action which lasted 3 hours. Also on our trip we were joined by hundreds of dolphins that started "showing off"....jumping and flipping, etc....the captain took a vote to see if we preferred to remain with the Dolphins and miss a high tide passage and time in the San Juan Islands...100% voted to stay with the dolphin experience (something even our onboard naturalists had never witnessed.). You can't do this on a huge cruise ship which we also experienced in Alaska (a family celebration).