Antarctica -- Drive By or Step On

[2552phxcrzr]

4 hours ago, 87hoya said:

Thank you so much!  We have started devouring your posts-and the links work!  You are funny and informative-thank you very much!

Diane

My pleasure ... enjoy.

[donaldsc]

On 2/7/2020 at 12:15 AM, SarniaLo said:

I would like to get back to 2 of the interesting points made by celoplyr, because I have a different view on some of them.

 

Safety : there have been, to my knowledge, only two cases when people had to be evacuated from a cruise ship in Antarctica (the MV Explorer, which sank in 2007, and MS Nordkapp which grounded in Deception island in 2007 also). In both cases, the passengers were quickly recovered by another ship in the area (actually, in both cases it was Hurtigruten's MS Nordnorge). It is possible to rescue a couple of hundred people on another ship quickly. I don't believe anyone would have to roll in a lifeboat for 4 days. Recovering thousands of passengers from a big cruise ship would be incredibly more complicated because most ships sailing in Antarctica would not have the capacity. Getting in and out the zodiacs can indeed be a problem, although some ships have very efficient landing platforms that make going into the zodiac quite easy.

 

Also (and I don't have the data to actually back this up, but this is based on a bit of sailing knowledge) I do not think cancellations/delays happen more often with small ships. Very big ships are not always built to endure well this type of weather and seas. Total cancellation of a trip are not common at all (do you know celoplyr which ship the passengers you mention were supposed to sail on initially?).

 

I agree that if you are seriously mobility impaired then it's probably easier to do a drive-by (but I've just seen a report of a man in a wheelchair who landed in Antarctica from an expedition ship, I think it was with Hurtigruten. I've personally witnessed passengers with mobility impairement helped by the crew as much as need be to make sure they would safely land on Antarctica, so I don't think it's an absolute deal-breaker).

 

I've done only expeditions trips with landings. I think the most amazing experience I get from those landings is the close observation of wildlife (and even interaction, when they are curious enough to come close, which is actually quite often). You can definitely get amazing landscapes from the ship, and I think Antarctica's amazingness is enough to make you enjoy a first trip even if it's a cruise-by, but being close to wildlife and ice is something else (and also agree with the zodiac rides).

 

With regard to your mobility impaired comment - this is sort of relevant.  I did a S. Georgia / Falklands trip where all of our landings were zodiac landings.  There was a woman on board who was sort of mobile but she needed 2 canes to get around.  She did all the landings.  She did need a bit of help getting into the zodiacs but the land crew were happy to help her getting in and out.  She did not stray far from the landing sites but she clearly enjoyed herself.  Also, the penguins will come to you.  You do not have to go to them.

 

I am not sure if the OP is mobility impaired but I say that if you want to do a zodiac based trip, give the cruise company a call and see what they say.  Nothing ventured - nothing gained.

[Bookish Angel]

Random thoughts:
 

I can’t imagine spending the time and money to go to Antarctica just for a drive-by but if one has mobility issues then a drive-by is way better than not going. 

 

My husband and I went to thrift stores to gear up prior to our February 2008 trip to Antarctica and spent less than $20. We each got 2 pairs of waterproof pants that would fit snugly over our boots  for water landings.  I am short and thin so I got mine in the kids section, $2.00 each. Hubby is tall and thin so he had no issues finding bargain pants at around $3.00 each.
 

I had good knee-high boots and my husband got a decent pair at little cost. I bought a light pair of new Under Armour gloves that were discounted to $10. They were perfect as they are not bulky, fit snugly but don’t make my hands sweat and were water resistant enough for me. We did not buy special socks but just took multiple pairs of what we had.  Wool for my husband, cotton for me and we were fine. Same for hats and scarves which I never wore but my husband did.  We were rarely cold (low or mid 30’s F) except for a wild Zodiac ride back to ship when water was pouring in at a slightly alarming but thrilling rate.  
 

I wore Under Armour long underwear and left it off after the first landing as I was far too warm with layers.  I switched to my 100% cotton leggings and sweat shirts that were much more comfortable and far cooler than synthetics which I never wear.  Hubby wore his old ski underwear and was fine as well. Our cruise line included expedition jackets that were more than efficient as in too warm for me, lol! My adult small was too big and looked like a short red dress. I’d requested a child’s large but none were available.

 

We wore our sunglasses much of the time and were glad we had them as well as small bottles of hand sanitizer and our small digital camera in our backpacks.

 

We had great lecturers on our ship but blessedly lacking (for us) in cheesy shows, games, and kids. Fellow passengers were well-traveled,  knowledgeable, quiet and understated.

Antarctica was wonderful and in our top 3 places visited. We hope to go again.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Bookish Angel

[sippican]

Bookish Angel!

Interesting post and information.

 

Your post is well-taken. I feel the same way about those who decide to take a land-based trip to the Galapagos Islands.

[87hoya]

I am hoping that our cruise there in Dec. will still go.  Thanks for the tips, Bookish Angel!

[Bookish Angel]

Thanks, sippican and 87hoya.

 

I hope you both make it there soon. Antarctica was spectacular and far surpassed our expectations - as adventure travel tends to do.

 

Safe travels and blue skies.
 

 

[87hoya]

Thank you and I hope so, too!

[donaldsc]

My analogy and I will admit that it is a bad one and much over simplified is that you are going to Europe to see London.  You have 2 choices -

 

1) Go to London and spend some time in London with feet on the ground or

 

2) You fly to England; get on a bus to London and get on one of those sightseeing boats that go up and own the Thames but do not actually stop anywhere; then you go home.

 

Which one would you take?

 

DON

[onyx007]

I returned a month ago from a 20-nights cruise with "G-Expedition" (it belongs to the Canada Based Company G-Adventures).

 

We were a big range of people from the age of 22 till 70...but nobody disabled. All the landings except one was with Zodiac Boats.

 

I agree with most of the above, that a drive-by is not worth the money and the time you spend in Antarctica and Step-On and mingle with the several species of Penguins (we've seen 7 different ones) is the way to go. It's a once-in-a-live time-journey.

The Nature is amazing, and when you do it I would not only go to the Antarctic Peninsula, but also to the Falkland Island and to amazing South Georgia, with colonies of Penguins in their 100'000...(we had 2 days Falklands, 4 days South Georgia and 5 days Antarctica).

 

With G-Adventures you'll get a nice cosy Parka included in the price (so you don't need to bring a warm jacket, but "only" layers for under it) and they have the big waterproof boots for you (no, they have to be returned). So the only thing you should get are some waterproof trousers and a likewise bag for your camera.

 

The ship has only 135 passengers which was great, because many places don't allow more than 60 people on the same time on shore (for example Port Lockroy), therefore either you spent the whole day at one place with a bigger ship until everyone had the chance to go on land or you might visit two or even three places in one day having a smaller ship...or you just will not visit this little gems but other places...

 

During sea days you'll have several lectures about Nature, History and Animals, beside watching out for whales and sea birds.

And the food is just amazing and the same quality as on big ships.

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by onyx007

[lois1112]

On 2/20/2020 at 7:31 AM, AnyWayIsGood said:

 

I can relate to this, since I share the thought of our drive-by as having been quite amazing, but I also agree with the expeditionary guests in that, comparatively speaking, it probably really isn't "enough" in terms of what CAN be experienced down there relative to what we got. It worked for us, but if I'd go back again, now having been to SA, I'd want to focus more on Antarctica. I will add that a disadvantage of the drive-by is that you really have so little time in Antarctica, so if the weather is bad while there, you get what you get, whereas with a smaller ship experience you have several days - increasing the chance of getting some really good visibility. I'm pleased, but it does sort of pull at me to go back down there again sometime. With my luck, though, I'd probably get "Drake shake" next time around rather than the "lake"!  

 

If I might ask, what were your ports of call on the Coral? 

we started in Buenos Aires and ended in Santiago Chili...........stops in Uruguay, falkland islands, and Usisa 

we had about 8 days in antarticia

 

[donaldsc]

I notice that nobody has suggested a drive by cruise of Alaska or perhaps a drive by circumnavigation of New Zealand because none of these cruises make any sense.  I can't see where a drive by cruise of Antarctica is any different.  Just my opinion.

 

DON 

[foodsvcmgr]

Don - respectfully disagree. While Alaska and NZ certainly should be seen in-depth, scenic cruising in such spectacular areas would still have some value.

And a major issue for many, myself included, that differentiates Antarctica from the aforementioned is the prohibitive cost differential between a drive by and an expedition cruise.

Basically a better than nothing proposition than an all or nothing IMO.

[SightCRR]

Haven't gone yet but NCL 14-day drive-by 15 Jan 22 for $2.1k p/p with one discounted air. Crossing Drake twice on big ship. Some people do AK drive-by when they stay on the ship in port especially when tenders are required. It seems like at least $15k savings for three people. sightcrr

[Ride-The-Waves]

On 5/3/2022 at 8:46 PM, foodsvcmgr said:

Don - respectfully disagree. While Alaska and NZ certainly should be seen in-depth, scenic cruising in such spectacular areas would still have some value.

And a major issue for many, myself included, that differentiates Antarctica from the aforementioned is the prohibitive cost differential between a drive by and an expedition cruise.

Basically a better than nothing proposition than an all or nothing IMO.

Must disagree.  My spouse tells a tale from her childhood of driving past the Empire State Buisling in NYC and her father telling her to "look up and see the building."  Stepping on the 7th Continent is more than worth several conventional cruises.  We sailed on Fram to south of the Antarctic Circle and made at least a dozen landings.  Each one was unique and worth the cost.  "Drive bys" just don't work.

[kaisatsu]

I accidentally did a (mostly) drive-by in 2020. It was a 30-day trip and due to weather and sea conditions, once we reached Antarctica we only managed a 15-minute landing at the Dry Valleys and a 30-minute visit to Cape Evans. We did do two zodiac cruises and a helicopter flightseeing trip, but we only managed boots on the ground twice.

 

I love the scenery, and being on a tiny ship let us sail pretty close to some amazing icebergs. But honestly I vastly preferred being able to get off the ship and feel myself surrounded by the environment. Even when you can get super close to shore in a zodiac, it’s not really the same.

 

(Since this was not my first trip, I guess I did know what I was missing, but the first timers seemed a bit disappointed too.)

Edited July 9, 2022 by kaisatsu

[foodsvcmgr]

I understand the latest replies, I have “visited” the Eiffel Tower speeding past on a tour bus and clearly less than ideal.

My only real argument for the drive by is the cost comparison vs expedition ship.

And I’m not willing to forgo 4-5 other trips to save up toward an expedition.

JMO, clearly many rightfully disagree.

 

[OnTheJourney]

On 4/1/2020 at 9:44 AM, onyx007 said:

that a drive-by is not worth the money and the time you spend

Not sure about that, given that a drive-by is far cheaper than an expedition cruise. A drive-by worked for us being that we had never been to South America and so liked the itinerary - getting to do a few ports in SA. We just had little interest in zodiac landings, didn't feel comfortable with the idea, and so while surely NOT the same experience, we were satisfied with what we got to do and see. We had fantastic weather and unbelievably smooth sailing across the Drake both times. 

[OnTheJourney]

On 2/8/2020 at 1:16 AM, PerfectlyPerth said:

But it is 100% a personal choice that generally comes down to someone's budget first, then physicality (tho that is less vital), and own personal desire as to what experience they desire most. 

Not necessarily in that order however. Budget was not really a consideration when we looked at Antarctica trips, so it was your third item - personal desire as to itinerary - that was the determining factor.  All that said, we were a bit concerned about getting in and out of zodiacs, etc. As you say, each to his/her own. Can't argue all the points that have been raised about the advantages of landing versus drive-by. Maybe we'll yet go back and do it that way, but likely not. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by AnyWayIsGood

[Lindae456]

We did antartica in March, had 9 landings in 5 1/2 days in Antartica, and 6 landings in South Georgia. We were so lucky that the weather was good and we had only 64 passengers. Getting in and out of zodiacs, the guides are very helpful. We did have a few people with mobility issues and only one day they advised them to not go ashore and they took them on a zodiac ride. They might not have hiked far on land but there was lots to see right at the shore. For me I would suggest going to shore it was beyond amazing walking around the penguins and seals.  And if budget and time allows South Georgia was awesome. 

[flcraigs5]

On 2/18/2020 at 11:39 AM, Bella0714 said:

Close enough to touch on the Coral Princess? We were on a ship a quarter of the size and never got close enough to touch unless we were on land or in a Zodiac. Do you mean in South America?

Bella0714 Do you cruise alot? If so have you cruised on different lines? Reason I am asking is I have cruised on Royal Caribbean, Holland America, Carnival, NCL  but not princess and was wondering how Princess would compare? I am looking at cruises to Antartica and  Princess was one I am considering. Just worried since I know nothing about Princess.

[teamflames]

On 10/6/2022 at 8:36 AM, Lindae456 said:

We did antartica in March, had 9 landings in 5 1/2 days in Antartica, and 6 landings in South Georgia. We were so lucky that the weather was good and we had only 64 passengers. Getting in and out of zodiacs, the guides are very helpful. We did have a few people with mobility issues and only one day they advised them to not go ashore and they took them on a zodiac ride. They might not have hiked far on land but there was lots to see right at the shore. For me I would suggest going to shore it was beyond amazing walking around the penguins and seals.  And if budget and time allows South Georgia was awesome. 

Hi there, which company were you with?

[Lindae456]

On 12/2/2022 at 11:10 PM, teamflames said:

Hi there, which company were you with?

Ponant (sorry I thought I mentioned it in post)

[Bella0714]

flCraigs5: We’ve been on short Caribbean cruises on Princess.We enjoyed them. We went to Antarctica on Hurtigruten and only would go there on a smaller ship because landing is important. I didn’t realize the large ships were allowed to go there anymore. I thought they’d been banned.