Alaska

[daddyslittle girl]

Puzzled and confused,do you see enough of Alaska to just take the cruise?or do you really need the land and sea,seems exhausting and very $...advice please

[Essiesmom]

The purists will tell you have to do a land tour, too.  I have not and don’t feel I need to.  You will see more of Alaska if you do a one way cruise from Vancouver, ending in Seward or Whittier because you will then have the ride to Anchorage.  (Due to the PVSA there are no one way trips from Seattle).  But for more opinions, visit the Alaska board under Ports of Call.  EM

[lenquixote66]

44 minutes ago, Essiesmom said:

The purists will tell you have to do a land tour, too.  I have not and don’t feel I need to.  You will see more of Alaska if you do a one way cruise from Vancouver, ending in Seward or Whittier because you will then have the ride to Anchorage.  (Due to the PVSA there are no one way trips from Seattle).  But for more opinions, visit the Alaska board under Ports of Call.  EM

We went to Alaska in May 2008.It was a retirement trip for my wife.

We did the trip with HAL.We flew to Fairbanks and did a 7 day tour by bus and train.Followed by a 7 day cruise.HAL provided a Tour Guide to travel with us the fist 7 days.She planned wonderful activities enabling us to see things that we would not be able to on just a cruise.

[Ashland]

No, we certainly didn't think it was necessary. We wanted an Alaska cruise (done 5 so far) and that's what we got and wanted.

 

Our first Alaska cruise we didn't even do any excursions. Just being there seeing the scenery and enjoying the ports was just fine.

[Aquahound]

I guess it depends on your travel preferences, just like with any destination cruise.  Do you want to just see manufactured cruise ports, or do you want to experience the destination better?  I highly recommend a one-way cruise with a few additional days pre or post cruise in Alaska.  I don't think the land cruise-tours are necessary, but at least renting a car and doing it on your own.  

[evandbob]

Because we figured our Alaska cruise was a one time only deal, we elected to spend the extra time and money doing a land sea adventure.  We started by flying into Fairbanks and spent 5 days exploring the land before embarking on a 7 night southern sailing to Vancouver.

 

Was it necessary?  No.  Was it worth it for us?  Our answer is definitely.  We would have hated to go that far and have only seen Alaska from the ship's ports.

[Toofarfromthesea]

I think it's the difference between seeing 1% and seeing 5%, relatively speaking.  You're not going to much of Alaska either way.

[YourWorldWithBill]

7 hours ago, daddyslittle girl said:

Puzzled and confused,do you see enough of Alaska to just take the cruise?or do you really need the land and sea,seems exhausting and very $...advice please

We did the sea/land package with the hope of seeing the Northern Lights. We spent three nights in Fairbanks, but saw the Aurora the first night. So, for us that made the land part worth it. And we loved what we saw of Alaska enough while cruising to be ready to return; we felt that we saw a lot, and got a pretty good feel for it. But we would not be interested in hiking through the frozen tundra.

[crystalspin]

@daddyslittle girlYou do not have to go inland, and you certainly do not have to take a cruiseline cruise-tour. While we did take my mom from Seward to Fairbanks, renting a car for two weeks and staying in Seward, Palmer, and Healy (for Denali), our next two trips were cruise-only and we took a total of seven other family members in addition to my mom, between those. We only went as far as Fairbanks bc there was a volcano spewing ash that was causing flights to be cancelled from Anchorage and we needed to get home after three weeks!

 

Holland America and Princess are the two lines with the longest and most history in Alaska. I recommend HAL because their cabins are much more comfortable -- you have to book at least a mini-suite to get a small sofa on Princess! If possible, choose a longer than 7-day cruise, one that visits Sitka. At Sitka do the Otters-and-Eagles-and-Bears (oh my) shore excursion. If your cruise calls in Skagway, take the train-one-way, bus-back-down excursion -- then you can get a feel for the extent of the land, as well as the history of the gold rush. I do not know if HAL is offering a cruise that does both Sitka and Skagway... And it would be hard to choose...

 

At Juneau take a whale watching boat trip. At Ketchikan, if you are not affording a pricy excursion, take one to a totem-pole sites and/or the native village one. Glacier Bay is very special, but my family that experienced both GB and Hubbard Glacier were nearly divided on which was better. Hubbard Glacier is very blue!

[AKJonesy]

The truth is NO, you don't see much of Alaska when you take a cruise only unless you do some kind of excursions you will be limited to what is at the ports.  That is, if you just pull up and get off the ship, you will be met with the usual stores catering to cruisers.  There are definitely things to do in the ports, but you have to put in a little effort to participate and I suggest you do.  Look at whats in port dot com for Alaska and you will get a decent idea of what you can do there other than just getting off the ship and walking around.  

I personally don't like the combo of the cruise and the bus tour.  You will spend a long time on the bus from either Whittier or Seward going to Denali National Park.  It is definitely convenient and you will see some nice views but you don't get out when you want to and of course there is much you will miss, but again, there are things you will see that you would not see if you just did the cruise.  But, I am speaking for myself.  I don't like bus tours.  

It's hard to know how much effort you want to put into it and there are so many things you could do.  You could do a pre or post cruise trip on your own.  Keep in mind, that is going to take effort on your part and the prices here are very high.  I mean VERY.  So, I also like to recommend an RV trip.  But, are you that kind of person that wants to camp vs hotel?.  You can really get in there in an RV where you want and when you want.  You can stop when you want, eat when you want, see what you want, etc.  But, it's going to take some effort to plan that and you have to get on the other forum for that where all of those questions are answered everyday.   

A lot of people just end up doing the cruise combo land because at the end of the day, it's convenient to let someone else do the work and all you have to do is show up.  You see a lot, but you have to endure the long bus ride.  So there are plusses and minus's to both.  

[mammajamma2013]

Taking a cruise only lets you see the coastline, with stops to explore the ports. Non-ship excursions are available, which is how we saw the coast. 

 

If you're interested in seeing the interior, book a land only trip. We're headed back to Alaska to do just that in July. I really think it's worth doing both, but probably not in the same trip. Too much to see in such a short time.

[diesel1973]

Have been coming up here in Alaska for 20+ years (summer and winter) and have never taken a cruise. I've done and seen things you could never see on a cruise. Every year before coming up here(up here now) I do a little research and find one thing  different to do every year. Snow machined along Iditarod race, car launch on 4th of july, moose-dropping drop , ferry rides to other towns, fished multiple rivers, ocean fishing charters out of multiple cities, ice fishing, camped at various campgrounds ,  attacked by a bear (unscheduled!) and on and on. This year I will be going to the state fair which I have always wanted to attend. There are endless things to do up here and I plan to find some more. So in my opinion if you want to see the real Alaska you must do land tours. I have been very fortunate and blessed.