octanis and antartica

[flare3192]

we would like to go to Antartica and a good deal came up but we have to decide by the morning so I am asking for any and all feedback from people regarding this decision.

Viking includes air but we are at their mercy and would not know anything until booked and paid for with the short time frame we would lose our money if we cancelled. Ther are no upgrades to business or comfort available and the flight back is 10 hours on United -- a carrier I haven't flown in 30 years or more.

We also can't pick the cabin -- Viking will assign.

the price is really good and if we waited until next year it would cost double for the trip so this option is attractive. Would appreciate any information. We have not cruised with Viking before but will be going with them to the Mediterranean in May.

Thank you

[Catlover54]

32 minutes ago, flare3192 said:

we would like to go to Antartica and a good deal came up but we have to decide by the morning so I am asking for any and all feedback from people regarding this decision.

Viking includes air but we are at their mercy and would not know anything until booked and paid for with the short time frame we would lose our money if we cancelled. Ther are no upgrades to business or comfort available and the flight back is 10 hours on United -- a carrier I haven't flown in 30 years or more.

We also can't pick the cabin -- Viking will assign.

the price is really good and if we waited until next year it would cost double for the trip so this option is attractive. Would appreciate any information. We have not cruised with Viking before but will be going with them to the Mediterranean in May.

Thank you

 

Are you feeling lucky?

[LindaS272]

1 hour ago, flare3192 said:

we would like to go to Antartica and a good deal came up but we have to decide by the morning so I am asking for any and all feedback from people regarding this decision.

Viking includes air but we are at their mercy and would not know anything until booked and paid for with the short time frame we would lose our money if we cancelled. Ther are no upgrades to business or comfort available and the flight back is 10 hours on United -- a carrier I haven't flown in 30 years or more.

We also can't pick the cabin -- Viking will assign.

the price is really good and if we waited until next year it would cost double for the trip so this option is attractive. Would appreciate any information. We have not cruised with Viking before but will be going with them to the Mediterranean in May.

Thank you

I presume you are not required to take the Viking Air even though included—so you could research your own deal on that…?

[CDNPolar]

I don't know what your deal was for price, but Viking were just launching their expeditions to Antarctica when we were booking our upcoming cruise to Antarctica.

 

We are loyal Viking cruisers BUT we found a cruise line that has been doing Antarctica for a long time and has very good reviews.  We also bought this at less than half the price of Viking per person.

 

I know that Viking have submarines and this line does not, but that was not enough for us to pay double.

 

This line did not offer free air, and we could only book our air ourselves.  This line did not have any contract pricing from Canada.  Even purchasing air (Delta One) we are still half price the air included price of Viking.

 

We like to have control over our airline and class, and we would not do Antarctica if we could not pick our cabin solely because of the Drake Strait.  Because of the potential for extremely rough seas for 2 days each way, I would only book a mid-ship cabin and would not want to risk being forward or aft.

[donaldsc]

I will give you the same reply about Antarctica that I give to people who are stressing out about which ship to go to Alaska on.  In Antarctica it doesn't matter what is on the ship as long as the ship and your cabin are comfortable.  What matters is what is outside of the ship - scenery, excursions etc.  Just my opinion but I feel that spending the large sums of money to do a luxury cruise to Antarctica is a total waste of money.  

 

A few years ago I did an adventure cruise to South Georgia Island - look it up on a map.  My cabin was not large and not fancy but how much time do you spend in the cabin.  There was no balcony but there was lots of outside deck space to see stuff.  Just one dining room without an overwhelming number of menu choices but there was always something that I liked including a meat, fish, pasta and vegetarian option.  The public spaces were not fancy but they sufficed.  The good part was that the trip organization and the adventure staff were wonderful and I was there.  I also got to spend as much time on the bridge as I wanted which I doubt that you would have on Viking.

 

You have to decide what is important to you - a great cruise that might be longer because it is affordable at a fair price or an overpriced fancy cruise that doesn't give you anything more than what you came there for - Antarctica.

 

DON

[CDNPolar]

1 hour ago, donaldsc said:

I will give you the same reply about Antarctica that I give to people who are stressing out about which ship to go to Alaska on.  In Antarctica it doesn't matter what is on the ship as long as the ship and your cabin are comfortable.  What matters is what is outside of the ship - scenery, excursions etc.  Just my opinion but I feel that spending the large sums of money to do a luxury cruise to Antarctica is a total waste of money.  

 

A few years ago I did an adventure cruise to South Georgia Island - look it up on a map.  My cabin was not large and not fancy but how much time do you spend in the cabin.  There was no balcony but there was lots of outside deck space to see stuff.  Just one dining room without an overwhelming number of menu choices but there was always something that I liked including a meat, fish, pasta and vegetarian option.  The public spaces were not fancy but they sufficed.  The good part was that the trip organization and the adventure staff were wonderful and I was there.  I also got to spend as much time on the bridge as I wanted which I doubt that you would have on Viking.

 

You have to decide what is important to you - a great cruise that might be longer because it is affordable at a fair price or an overpriced fancy cruise that doesn't give you anything more than what you came there for - Antarctica.

 

DON

Totally agree with your thoughts here...

[Catlover54]

3 minutes ago, CDNPolar said:

Totally agree with your thoughts here...

 

1. You agree with donaldsc, presumably including his statement

"Antarctica it doesn't matter what is on the ship as long as the ship and your cabin are comfortable."

 

However, you also wrote,

"Because of the potential for extremely rough seas for 2 days each way, I would only book a mid-ship cabin and would not want to risk being forward or aft."

 

So you should be able to understand that the OP can have concerns about Viking assigning the cabin -- e.g., if he were assigned a forward or aft and not mid-ship cabin, he might not be "comfortable" in that cabin crossing the Drake or in any other storm.

 

He also might not be "comfortable" (and might even feel ill, depending on medical and orthopedic issues) flying 10 hours in modern-day coach.

 

2.  Also, (I don't know about the OP), most people who go to Antarctica already know and understand they are going there primarily to see Antarctica.

But they may have the correct idea that, all else being equal,  a larger ship may be more "comfortable" than a tiny ship (potentially less seasickness, which impacts comfort).

They may also have read that if the weather is terrible and landings are postponed day after day, having a decent cabin will make the journey more "comfortable", as will having a variety of things to do on the ship (other than reading, with or without seasickness) .  

 

People generally hope to be able to enjoy every single day on deck and/or on landings when in Antarctica,  and to have smooth sailing, but they like to plan for contingencies.

 

 

[sippican]

Check out Atlas - new ships and very attractive pricing! I am booked on Polaris in two weeks after much research. I think I would have considered Atlas had I known because the submarine on Viking holds little appeal for me. 

Regarding our Viking booking experience, customer service has been horrible. I work in the travel industry and their customer service is among the worst I've encountered, while their price is one of the highest.

 

We booked Viking business class air and have ended up with one business class ticket, and one in economy. Despite being told otherwise by one Viking Rep., they have refused to refund the cost of the business class upgrade for one passenger. It is over 4K and they have issued a voucher, The voucher must be used prior to sailing.(There is nothing to purchase!)  There are BC seats available on the same flight, but strangely, I ws informed their "contract doesn't allow them to book" If we had the refund, we could book it ourselves.

I've spoken to supervisors. I asked if calls were recorded and was told yes. I requested they review the call where I was told they would issue a refund and was refused because " It doesn't matter at all. The representative told you wrong." 

 

I will never book another cruise with Viking for myself or clients. Read the refund policy very, very, carefully and purchase the best cancel for any reason travel insurance you can find. 

 

Hopefully the cruise will be worth every penny!

[sippican]

3 hours ago, donaldsc said:

I will give you the same reply about Antarctica that I give to people who are stressing out about which ship to go to Alaska on.  In Antarctica it doesn't matter what is on the ship as long as the ship and your cabin are comfortable.  What matters is what is outside of the ship - scenery, excursions etc.  Just my opinion but I feel that spending the large sums of money to do a luxury cruise to Antarctica is a total waste of money.  

 

A few years ago I did an adventure cruise to South Georgia Island - look it up on a map.  My cabin was not large and not fancy but how much time do you spend in the cabin.  There was no balcony but there was lots of outside deck space to see stuff.  Just one dining room without an overwhelming number of menu choices but there was always something that I liked including a meat, fish, pasta and vegetarian option.  The public spaces were not fancy but they sufficed.  The good part was that the trip organization and the adventure staff were wonderful and I was there.  I also got to spend as much time on the bridge as I wanted which I doubt that you would have on Viking.

 

You have to decide what is important to you - a great cruise that might be longer because it is affordable at a fair price or an overpriced fancy cruise that doesn't give you anything more than what you came there for - Antarctica.

 

DON

 

While I agree with many of your points, an additional consideration is safety. Cruising to Antartica can't compare to other destinations for many reasons. The remoteness and unpredictability of weather conditions should influence anyone to consider safety  before anything when considering an expedition cruise company. The polar class rating on the vessel, experience of the crew, equipment upgrades, etc. are all of great importance. 

 

The recent Quark tragedy is a somber reminder to all (and they are a very experienced company).

https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/expedition-cruising/two-die-quark-expeditions-zodiac-incident-antarctica?fbclid=IwAR2ISymuxWfbHFwc8XgcuYCmmZj7DJ2_RY1Fj9YaBbpar65FLzDelosBfuI

[flare3192]

Thank you all for your responses. We did go ahead and book it -- as far as the air we are hoping to upgrade at least one way to comfort class -- it is available. When we looked at it,  the deal is such that both my husband and I would be essentially saving $500 an hour. We figure we are paying about half what it would normally cost so we did it. We expect to have to accept being miserable on the flights. It has been a long time since we flew that far in coach. The cabin is assigned and we are about halfway in the dv 3 area. 

 

As far as Atlas goes, we almost did it to Norway this year but changed our plans as the reports of the company were awful. The did change presidents a little while ago so hopefully it will get better but we are not willing to try them yet.

 

As far as hurtigrutin -- their new ships look very nice and they have a good reputation -- but they would have been significantly more for us.

 

I read the article on Quark which is sobering -- it appears to have been an accident which can happen anywhere -- a tragedy to be sure.

[Heidi13]

5 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

 

But they may have the correct idea that, all else being equal,  a larger ship may be more "comfortable" than a tiny ship (potentially less seasickness, which impacts comfort).

 

 

The size of the ship has very little to do with potential comfort in a seaway. The seakeeping ability of a ship is determined by the design and scantlings. Many of the liners I worked aboard in the 70's & 80's are tiny in comparison to some of the modern ships afloat today. They were comparable in size to the current Viking ocean ships and were way more comfortable in a seaway than any current ship, with the exception of QM2. The old liners could also maintain a much higher speed through heavy seas.

 

Those liners handled the seas way better than any of today large ships and were also better than the current Viking ocean ships. I haven't yet sailed on the Expedition ships, nor have I seen the ship out of the water, or the plans, so can't comment on their sea-keeping ability. However, since they were designed for these waters, I expect they have superior scantlings than the ocean ships, especially since they are ice strengthened.

[Catlover54]

3 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

 

 

   8 hours ago,  Catlover54 said: 

 

But they may have the correct idea that, all else being equal,  a larger ship may be more "comfortable" than a tiny ship (potentially less seasickness, which impacts comfort).

 

 

"The size of the ship has very little to do with potential comfort in a seaway. The seakeeping ability of a ship is determined by the design and scantlings. Many of the liners I worked aboard in the 70's & 80's are tiny in comparison to some of the modern ships afloat today. They were comparable in size to the current Viking ocean ships and were way more comfortable in a seaway than any current ship, with the exception of QM2. The old liners could also maintain a much higher speed through heavy seas.

 

Those liners handled the seas way better than any of today large ships and were also better than the current Viking ocean ships. I haven't yet sailed on the Expedition ships, nor have I seen the ship out of the water, or the plans, so can't comment on their sea-keeping ability. However, since they were designed for these waters, I expect they have superior scantlings than the ocean ships, especially since they are ice strengthened."

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

 

Sorry, I think you lost my context, which was to comment about the comfort issue brought up on on posts #5 and #6.

1. *Of the ships that cruise Antarctica and offer landings*, (i.e., this context of discussing "comfort" getting to and cruising that continent)  I think of the Octantis as a *big* ship, not a small ship!  I think of the "adventurer" ships that go to Antarctica, e.g., along the lines of what donaldsc described (and indirectly recommended), as the *small* ships.

I'm not discussing ships the size of the old liners, or the giant Norwegian Epic,  or even Viking Ocean.

 

2.  I also said, "all else being equal", and "may" (at least as one factor in determining , e.g., longitudinal stability)

 

What is relevant  in the "comfort" context is if the little and cheaper adventurer ships donaldsc was on are less stable  (and cause more motion sickness) than the Octantis, or the same.  Both were designed for polar waters. Is it possible for those tiny ships to be just as stable as the larger new Octantis?  If so,   many of us would be happy to save a lot of money and consider the cheap lines instead!

 

3.  BTW (more context)  I was very young, due to our need to repeatedly cross the Atlantic from Europe and my mother's flying phobia after a traumatic experience, I experienced the 'joy' of multiple transatlantic crossings on old fast passenger transport ships, i.e., old ocean liners.  Some of these crossings were in winter, and the amount of ship rocking and rolling was quite frightening (my mother was in a low middle cabin most of the time with severe sea sickness and I was close to sick but instead preferred running around the ship -- including places where I could easily have been washed overboard).  I felt almost equally concerned and quite sick when on the Silver Cloud off southern South America as few years ago,  (pre-modification) but not on the Seabourn Quest (which used to go to Antarctica, pre-Venture), though those two are comparable in size, but smaller than the old  liners I sailed on (like the Bremen). The modern stabilizers and construction style have definitely helped make being on a ship in stormy weather in the 21st century more comfortable for me, I just don't yet know how small (and how cheap) I could go without compromising safety and enjoyment (i.e., avoiding sea sickness).

 

 

 

[Paul73]

On 11/19/2022 at 4:53 AM, CDNPolar said:

I don't know what your deal was for price, but Viking were just launching their expeditions to Antarctica when we were booking our upcoming cruise to Antarctica.

 

We are loyal Viking cruisers BUT we found a cruise line that has been doing Antarctica for a long time and has very good reviews.  We also bought this at less than half the price of Viking per person.

 

I know that Viking have submarines and this line does not, but that was not enough for us to pay double.

 

This line did not offer free air, and we could only book our air ourselves.  This line did not have any contract pricing from Canada.  Even purchasing air (Delta One) we are still half price the air included price of Viking.

 

We like to have control over our airline and class, and we would not do Antarctica if we could not pick our cabin solely because of the Drake Strait.  Because of the potential for extremely rough seas for 2 days each way, I would only book a mid-ship cabin and would not want to risk being forward or aft.

For CDNPolar, we're just starting to think about a cruise to Antarctica.  Viking is an easy option.  Curious who you booked with.  Thanks.

[CDNPolar]

13 hours ago, sippican said:

Check out Atlas - new ships and very attractive pricing! I am booked on Polaris in two weeks after much research. I think I would have considered Atlas had I known because the submarine on Viking holds little appeal for me. 

Regarding our Viking booking experience, customer service has been horrible. I work in the travel industry and their customer service is among the worst I've encountered, while their price is one of the highest.

 

We booked Viking business class air and have ended up with one business class ticket, and one in economy. Despite being told otherwise by one Viking Rep., they have refused to refund the cost of the business class upgrade for one passenger. It is over 4K and they have issued a voucher, The voucher must be used prior to sailing.(There is nothing to purchase!)  There are BC seats available on the same flight, but strangely, I ws informed their "contract doesn't allow them to book" If we had the refund, we could book it ourselves.

I've spoken to supervisors. I asked if calls were recorded and was told yes. I requested they review the call where I was told they would issue a refund and was refused because " It doesn't matter at all. The representative told you wrong." 

 

I will never book another cruise with Viking for myself or clients. Read the refund policy very, very, carefully and purchase the best cancel for any reason travel insurance you can find. 

 

Hopefully the cruise will be worth every penny!

Pre-pandemic Viking Air was different.  My Opinion.  Now, we have been booking our own air.  There is no advantage now for us to book through Viking unless it is Free Air.  We were quoted on a recent trip BC air at over 6K per person, and we booked it for 3.5K on our own.  Same airline.  It seems that there is a lot of trouble with Viking Air Plus lately.  I don't necessarily put all the blame on Viking because any air bookings in the last couple of years are frustrating even on your own, but when dealing with contract rates, I would presume Viking's Air Plus agents have their hands tied.  I have also experienced that you call once and get once story, call twice and a third time and get completely different story.

[CDNPolar]

6 minutes ago, Paul73 said:

For CDNPolar, we're just starting to think about a cruise to Antarctica.  Viking is an easy option.  Curious who you booked with.  Thanks.

We are sailing with Hurtigruten in December - next month.

[janetcbl]

2 hours ago, CDNPolar said:

We are sailing with Hurtigruten in December - next month.

Enjoy! We had a number of trips on Hurtigruten and love traveling with them. If you can, pack some sort of removable studded trax for your boots. You may run into very slippery sidewalks in Northern Norway. 

[CDNPolar]

6 hours ago, janetcbl said:

Enjoy! We had a number of trips on Hurtigruten and love traveling with them. If you can, pack some sort of removable studded trax for your boots. You may run into very slippery sidewalks in Northern Norway. 

Thanks, but we are doing Antarctica, but great trip if we do Norway in the winter!!!

[donaldsc]

15 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

 

 

 

 

   8 hours ago,  Catlover54 said: 

 

But they may have the correct idea that, all else being equal,  a larger ship may be more "comfortable" than a tiny ship (potentially less seasickness, which impacts comfort).

 

 

"The size of the ship has very little to do with potential comfort in a seaway. The seakeeping ability of a ship is determined by the design and scantlings. Many of the liners I worked aboard in the 70's & 80's are tiny in comparison to some of the modern ships afloat today. They were comparable in size to the current Viking ocean ships and were way more comfortable in a seaway than any current ship, with the exception of QM2. The old liners could also maintain a much higher speed through heavy seas.

 

Those liners handled the seas way better than any of today large ships and were also better than the current Viking ocean ships. I haven't yet sailed on the Expedition ships, nor have I seen the ship out of the water, or the plans, so can't comment on their sea-keeping ability. However, since they were designed for these waters, I expect they have superior scantlings than the ocean ships, especially since they are ice strengthened."

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

 

Sorry, I think you lost my context, which was to comment about the comfort issue brought up on on posts #5 and #6.

1. *Of the ships that cruise Antarctica and offer landings*, (i.e., this context of discussing "comfort" getting to and cruising that continent)  I think of the Octantis as a *big* ship, not a small ship!  I think of the "adventurer" ships that go to Antarctica, e.g., along the lines of what donaldsc described (and indirectly recommended), as the *small* ships.

I'm not discussing ships the size of the old liners, or the giant Norwegian Epic,  or even Viking Ocean.

 

2.  I also said, "all else being equal", and "may" (at least as one factor in determining , e.g., longitudinal stability)

 

What is relevant  in the "comfort" context is if the little and cheaper adventurer ships donaldsc was on are less stable  (and cause more motion sickness) than the Octantis, or the same.  Both were designed for polar waters. Is it possible for those tiny ships to be just as stable as the larger new Octantis?  If so,   many of us would be happy to save a lot of money and consider the cheap lines instead!

 

3.  BTW (more context)  I was very young, due to our need to repeatedly cross the Atlantic from Europe and my mother's flying phobia after a traumatic experience, I experienced the 'joy' of multiple transatlantic crossings on old fast passenger transport ships, i.e., old ocean liners.  Some of these crossings were in winter, and the amount of ship rocking and rolling was quite frightening (my mother was in a low middle cabin most of the time with severe sea sickness and I was close to sick but instead preferred running around the ship -- including places where I could easily have been washed overboard).  I felt almost equally concerned and quite sick when on the Silver Cloud off southern South America as few years ago,  (pre-modification) but not on the Seabourn Quest (which used to go to Antarctica, pre-Venture), though those two are comparable in size, but smaller than the old  liners I sailed on (like the Bremen). The modern stabilizers and construction style have definitely helped make being on a ship in stormy weather in the 21st century more comfortable for me, I just don't yet know how small (and how cheap) I could go without compromising safety and enjoyment (i.e., avoiding sea sickness).

 

 

 

 

Since my post has been referenced several times in this reply I feel that a response is in order.  The ships I went on were not the Russian icebreaker types.  I don't even know if any of them are still in use.  The ships I was on could carry 120 - 180 passengers max.  My most recent ship had a maximum capacity of 120 but we had less than 100 people on board so we were not impacted by the 100 passenger landing limit.  This 100 passenger limit is important because if you have more than that all off the passengers on land at the same time so people have to come back before the rest of the passengers can come off.  I do not know how the larger luxury Antarctica ships handle this problem or maybe they just ignore it because they are luxury ships so the rules don't apply to them.

 

With regard to sea keeping ability - we encountered 75 mph winds on my most recent trip.  We also encountered force 10 or 11 (55 - 63 mph) gales on my other trip.  In both cases the ships handled those high winds w/o any problems although my wife chose not to have dinner on the windy days.  Also I did not feel that I had to hide out in my smallish cabin when it was windy.  In fact on my most recent trip where we could spend as much time as we wanted on the bridge (do the luxury ships even allow you to spend time on the bridge) the bridge always had a lot of guests on it and even during the periods of high winds and heavy seas we were allowed there  so we could see the same instrumentation that the crew saw.  We were up on the bridge when the winds hit 75 mph and I even have a picture of the wind speed meter to prove it.

 

Our most recent ship was the Quark Ocean Adventurer.  This is a link to the description of the ship - https://www.quarkexpeditions.com/expedition-ships/ocean-adventurer?creative=&keyword=&matchtype=&network=x&device=c&infinity=ict2~net~gaw~cmp~18605727346~ag~~ar~~kw~~mt~~acr~2450480439&&&campaignid=18605727346&adgroupid=&adid=&gclid=Cj0KCQiAveebBhD_ARIsAFaAvrGIL91C2iRWOE2nYxjvCWxBAetA4h4-FX4Hve-JYmFnDnMJtHwuL1IaAroPEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds.   A perfectly acceptable ship to me.

 

Our other trip was on the Hurtigrutin Nordkapp which was a bit more upscale than the Adventurer but certainly not luxury.  We did that trip maybe 10 or 12 years ago when nobody would have ever imagined a luxury Antarctica cruise and the Nordkapp was luxury compared to the Russion icebreakers that people were doing Antarctica on.  The Nordkapp can hold almost 600 passengers when she does her Norwegian coast runs but they kept it to about 250 for her Antarctica trips.

 

Also someone on another post suggested that they would not want to have the cruise line pick their cabin or make their airplane reservations for them.  That suggestion was absurd.  I can assure you that I picked the cabin I wanted and made my own reservations.

 

I come back to my original statement.  I go on adventure type cruise for what is outside of the ship,  for the quality of the expedition staff and of course to be on a safe ship.  I don't much care about what is inside of the ship as long as it is comfortable.  I feel that I am better off doing two $7000 cruises on my type of ship instead of spending $14,000 on a single luxury cruise.  

 

As I said in my 1st post - "different strokes" etc.

 

DON

 

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by donaldsc

[Heidi13]

14 hours ago, Catlover54 said:

Sorry, I think you lost my context, which was to comment about the comfort issue brought up on on posts #5 and #6.

1. *Of the ships that cruise Antarctica and offer landings*, (i.e., this context of discussing "comfort" getting to and cruising that continent)  I think of the Octantis as a *big* ship, not a small ship!  I think of the "adventurer" ships that go to Antarctica, e.g., along the lines of what donaldsc described (and indirectly recommended), as the *small* ships.

I'm not discussing ships the size of the old liners, or the giant Norwegian Epic,  or even Viking Ocean.

 

2.  I also said, "all else being equal", and "may" (at least as one factor in determining , e.g., longitudinal stability)

 

What is relevant  in the "comfort" context is if the little and cheaper adventurer ships donaldsc was on are less stable  (and cause more motion sickness) than the Octantis, or the same.  Both were designed for polar waters. Is it possible for those tiny ships to be just as stable as the larger new Octantis?  If so,   many of us would be happy to save a lot of money and consider the cheap lines instead!

 

3.  BTW (more context)  I was very young, due to our need to repeatedly cross the Atlantic from Europe and my mother's flying phobia after a traumatic experience, I experienced the 'joy' of multiple transatlantic crossings on old fast passenger transport ships, i.e., old ocean liners.  Some of these crossings were in winter, and the amount of ship rocking and rolling was quite frightening (my mother was in a low middle cabin most of the time with severe sea sickness and I was close to sick but instead preferred running around the ship -- including places where I could easily have been washed overboard).  I felt almost equally concerned and quite sick when on the Silver Cloud off southern South America as few years ago,  (pre-modification) but not on the Seabourn Quest (which used to go to Antarctica, pre-Venture), though those two are comparable in size, but smaller than the old  liners I sailed on (like the Bremen). The modern stabilizers and construction style have definitely helped make being on a ship in stormy weather in the 21st century more comfortable for me, I just don't yet know how small (and how cheap) I could go without compromising safety and enjoyment (i.e., avoiding sea sickness).

 

Regardless, when discussing passenger comfort aboard a ship in a seaway, many factors impact their comfort, with size of the ship having minimal impact. Bigger ships being more stable and more comfortable than smaller ships, is a common passenger myth.

 

When I went to sea, working on ships built in the 50's & 60's, those ships didn't have the technology of modern ships, but they were designed and built to handle seas way better than most modern ships. In addition to the ships being better built to handle heavy seas, we also operated in a different environment, where pax comfort was not given the same priority as it is today. I can provide numerous examples:

 - In 1977, DW embarked SS Oriana in Vancouver bound for Sydney. On clearing Juan de Fuca we encountered a significant Pacific storm. We maintained over 20 kts, pounding through the storm, arriving on time in Hawaii. Modern ships, regardless of size could not maintain that speed and in the current environment, greater emphasis is also placed on pax comfort. With vastly improved forecasting and excellent weather routing advice, current Masters would reduce speed to prevent damaging the ship and steer weather courses to avoid the worst of the storm. The downside of current practices is while the pax had a more comfortable cruise, the ship would miss the next port.

 - As a new Master in the 80's, I sailed regardless of the weather. Somehow, we got the ship away from the dock and safely docked at the destination. During the passage, I used a number of options to get the ship safely to the destination. The ship easily handled the seas, the passengers, not so much. Over almost 30 yrs in command, I have commanded many ships from 150' to 550' and size had no bearing on pax comfort. The alternative route selected, and how we adjusted course and speed in a seaway, majorly impacted pax comfort. In those days, after taking 3 - 4 hrs to complete a 90 min voyage, passengers used to thank us for getting them to the destination safely. These days, once the ship starts moving the cell phones are out and video is sent to the media. Therefore, before retirement, when writing fleet wide operational procedures, I developed the first operational matrix for Master's guidance. Basically, when the winds reach 40 kts the ship probably doesn't sail. In my last company, ships no longer sail in known heavy weather, departing the dock in 70 kt winds.

 - A few years before retirement, one evening my "Gut" screamed bad weather, but none of the forecasts, or even the live lighthouse station reports agreed. I sailed the last trip of the evening in about 30 kt winds and within 1/2 hr sailed into 70 kt winds. We adjusted course and speed to ease the passage. For the return sailing, I monitored the passage of the frontal system, determining that the winds should ease in a couple of hours. I delayed sailing by 2 hours, then stayed in sheltered waters until the front passed. The passage across open waters was eased and we docked in about 40 kts. Passengers from years ago would have experienced a rough crossing, as in those days, I would have sailed regardless and docked in 70 kt winds. The older ships were smaller, so pax assume the easier passage on the newer and larger ship is because of the ship's size, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Yes, we can still get caught in storms, but enhanced forecasting, weather routing and the current focus on pax comfort ensures that few ships experience some of the wild rides we routinely experienced 30+ yrs ago. The Master knows the limitations of the ship, and regardless of the size, will make decisions based on that ship. So, in addition to the design and scantlings,  lots of factors impact passenger comfort more than ship size.

 

 

[Catlover54]

12 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Regardless, when discussing passenger comfort aboard a ship in a seaway, many factors impact their comfort, with size of the ship having minimal impact. Bigger ships being more stable and more comfortable than smaller ships, is a common passenger myth.

 

When I went to sea, working on ships built in the 50's & 60's, those ships didn't have the technology of modern ships, but they were designed and built to handle seas way better than most modern ships. In addition to the ships being better built to handle heavy seas, we also operated in a different environment, where pax comfort was not given the same priority as it is today. I can provide numerous examples:

 - In 1977, DW embarked SS Oriana in Vancouver bound for Sydney. On clearing Juan de Fuca we encountered a significant Pacific storm. We maintained over 20 kts, pounding through the storm, arriving on time in Hawaii. Modern ships, regardless of size could not maintain that speed and in the current environment, greater emphasis is also placed on pax comfort. With vastly improved forecasting and excellent weather routing advice, current Masters would reduce speed to prevent damaging the ship and steer weather courses to avoid the worst of the storm. The downside of current practices is while the pax had a more comfortable cruise, the ship would miss the next port.

 - As a new Master in the 80's, I sailed regardless of the weather. Somehow, we got the ship away from the dock and safely docked at the destination. During the passage, I used a number of options to get the ship safely to the destination. The ship easily handled the seas, the passengers, not so much. Over almost 30 yrs in command, I have commanded many ships from 150' to 550' and size had no bearing on pax comfort. The alternative route selected, and how we adjusted course and speed in a seaway, majorly impacted pax comfort. In those days, after taking 3 - 4 hrs to complete a 90 min voyage, passengers used to thank us for getting them to the destination safely. These days, once the ship starts moving the cell phones are out and video is sent to the media. Therefore, before retirement, when writing fleet wide operational procedures, I developed the first operational matrix for Master's guidance. Basically, when the winds reach 40 kts the ship probably doesn't sail. In my last company, ships no longer sail in known heavy weather, departing the dock in 70 kt winds.

 - A few years before retirement, one evening my "Gut" screamed bad weather, but none of the forecasts, or even the live lighthouse station reports agreed. I sailed the last trip of the evening in about 30 kt winds and within 1/2 hr sailed into 70 kt winds. We adjusted course and speed to ease the passage. For the return sailing, I monitored the passage of the frontal system, determining that the winds should ease in a couple of hours. I delayed sailing by 2 hours, then stayed in sheltered waters until the front passed. The passage across open waters was eased and we docked in about 40 kts. Passengers from years ago would have experienced a rough crossing, as in those days, I would have sailed regardless and docked in 70 kt winds. The older ships were smaller, so pax assume the easier passage on the newer and larger ship is because of the ship's size, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Yes, we can still get caught in storms, but enhanced forecasting, weather routing and the current focus on pax comfort ensures that few ships experience some of the wild rides we routinely experienced 30+ yrs ago. The Master knows the limitations of the ship, and regardless of the size, will make decisions based on that ship. So, in addition to the design and scantlings,  lots of factors impact passenger comfort more than ship size.

 

 

 

1. I really appreciate your taking the time for this exposition, very interesting.

Relevant to the topic of Octantis vs a smaller modern Antarctic adventurer ship, it was most useful for me to read,

 

"Over almost 30 yrs in command, I have commanded many ships from 150' to 550' and size had no bearing on pax comfort. "

 

I am inferring  that the larger Viking Octantis would not necessarily have a more stable ride than the 

Smaller Quark Adventurer (at least all captains being equal :)) -- other variables are more important.

 

Looking back at my transatlantic sailings in the 60's and 70's on good-sized but not huge ships, (my last one was in 1974 on the Stefan Batory), that made my mom and me so ill, it may have been in large part due to the speed at which we sailed -- passenger comfort be damned, people were there for transport, not for leisure (and of course had no cell phones :))

 

2. Is it also a passenger myth that one is more likely to avoid sea sickness in a  a mid-ship cabin (all else being controlled for)?  

Mid-ships tend to be more expensive and book up earlier.  Last minute offers also  not uncommonly involve offers of far aft, or (worse?) far forward cabins, rather than mid-ship (though in the Covid era, we also have seen mid-ship cabins open up when there are infection surges).

 

[Heidi13]

3 minutes ago, Catlover54 said:

2. Is it also a passenger myth that one is more likely to avoid sea sickness in a  a mid-ship cabin (all else being controlled for)?  

Mid-ships tend to be more expensive and book up earlier.  Last minute offers also  not uncommonly involve offers of far aft, or (worse?) far forward cabins, rather than mid-ship (though in the Covid era, we also have seen mid-ship cabins open up when there are infection surges).

 

 

Negative, this is factual. Spaces closer to the CoG move less, so m'ship and lower deck cabins move less in a seaway. When the ship is moving, the Lounge Bar is a better option than Explorers. Also in the MDR, if the ship is moving, request a table closer to the entrance.

[Baron Barracuda]

DW is looking to visit Antarctica so recently began my research and am troubled by the 100 / 500 passenger rules.  Have enjoyed VO and VR sailings so want to consider Octanis but with just under 400 passengers wonder how much land time we'd get.  Smaller ship would avoid this issue but 100 passenger Celebrity Xpedition in calm Galapagos waters still rocked more than I liked.  Anything larger than Octanis would result in a less desirable drive-by sailing.  Anyone have first hand experience?

[CDNPolar]

15 hours ago, Baron Barracuda said:

DW is looking to visit Antarctica so recently began my research and am troubled by the 100 / 500 passenger rules.  Have enjoyed VO and VR sailings so want to consider Octanis but with just under 400 passengers wonder how much land time we'd get.  Smaller ship would avoid this issue but 100 passenger Celebrity Xpedition in calm Galapagos waters still rocked more than I liked.  Anything larger than Octanis would result in a less desirable drive-by sailing.  Anyone have first hand experience?

My understanding is that if you are in the 400'ish range of passengers, to get everyone on shore every day - weather permitting - then you will only get one landing per day and most state that the landing time is between 1 and 2 hours each landing.

 

We have to be aware that they are shuttling people via zodiac boats back and forth and that just takes time.

 

We understand that we will be "scheduled" each day with a time to go ashore.

 

We had friends that did a much smaller ship and they got 2 landings everyday.

 

I would go directly to Viking for this information.  We are not sailing with Viking so our information may be different.

 

I do know that ships with more than 500 passengers cannot do landings, so the closer you have to 500 the less time and number of landings you will have.

Edited November 21, 2022 by CDNPolar
add comment

[donaldsc]

9 hours ago, CDNPolar said:

My understanding is that if you are in the 400'ish range of passengers, to get everyone on shore every day - weather permitting - then you will only get one landing per day and most state that the landing time is between 1 and 2 hours each landing.

 

We have to be aware that they are shuttling people via zodiac boats back and forth and that just takes time.

 

We understand that we will be "scheduled" each day with a time to go ashore.

 

We had friends that did a much smaller ship and they got 2 landings everyday.

 

I would go directly to Viking for this information.  We are not sailing with Viking so our information may be different.

 

I do know that ships with more than 500 passengers cannot do landings, so the closer you have to 500 the less time and number of landings you will have.

 

I would guess although I do not know that the people who have done their landing  time would be offered the opportunity of doing zodiac cruising when they are not on land.  Zodiac cruising can be as much fun and as interesting as the actual landings.

 

DON

[CDNPolar]

10 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

I would guess although I do not know that the people who have done their landing  time would be offered the opportunity of doing zodiac cruising when they are not on land.  Zodiac cruising can be as much fun and as interesting as the actual landings.

 

DON

This is interesting - the zodiac cruising.  I am not sure that our line offers that?  I have never read about that before.  There is another mention of zodiac cruising in this thread I think...

 

Going to look into this.