Antarctica questions

We are considering a trip to Antarctica - and we are looking at a couple different cruise lines to get there!

I realize that there is no guarantee that you will actually be able to get onto Antarctica due to ice conditions. Do you believe that the smaller ships, such as Seaborne Line has, have a greater opportunity to make that happen? Is there an advantage based on ship size in this part of our world?

My instinct says yes, but I would like to stack the chips in favor if possible! And that said, do you have a feel for percentage of time that there is success?

Thanks much!

Seabourn is at the larger end of the most suitable ships. Anything bigger. Is too many people to access the ice. Smaller ships offer a better experience.

Interesting. I didn't realize Seaborne would be thought of as on the large end.

Clearly, I have homework to do!

Thank you

Large in terms of ships that make landings at Antartica --- some bigger ships do Antartica sail bys. Also note that the Quest reduces the number of passengers on their Antartica cruises .

Sent from my iPad using Forums

If you were considering Antarctica - who would you look at to go there?

Seabourn and.......

We have sailed several lines, however not Seabourn. We realize that this could be a one time only. We understand that this destination is an amazing, jaw dropping experience.

Holland America tried to convince us on a recent cruise that they were the line to choose, however their ships seem just too large....

Thank you!

My husband and I sailed on Seabourn's 2013 holiday voyage to Antarctica and South Georgia Island. We'd debated whether to do an expedition-type voyage, but decided that Seabourn offered an opportunity both to get ashore in Antarctica/SGI and to enjoy a level of comfort/pampering that wouldn't be available on most expedition vessels.

We absolutely loved our experience. Seabourn had an extremely experienced expedition staff onboard who, with the captain, did an outstanding job of adapting to weather conditions to ensure that passengers were able to get ashore as much as possible.

I truly cannot say enough about the expedition team -- a ship this size is indeed large by Antarctic standards, but the expedition team, working with the captain, made it possible for all passengers to board zodiacs and get ashore. I remember one day when the weather changed abruptly and ice started moving against the ship. This meant that one [perhaps two?] of the landing groups [all passengers were assigned to a color-coded landing group; the order in which the groups went ashore was determined by a nightly lottery] had their landings scrubbed for safety reasons -- the ship had to be moved to avoid being iced in. There was another day when near white-out conditions suddenly developed and the zodiacs had to return to the ship.

But, on our voyage, we enjoyed multiple landings on both Antarctica and South Georgia Island. The experience far exceeded our expectations, and we were extremely impressed by the efforts that both the expedition team and the captain made to adapt to changing weather.

That said, I urge you to :1) consider how much creature comforts matter to you, and whether you'd prefer be on a smaller expedition vessel; and 2) recognize that -- regardless of the vessel on which you sail to Antarctica -- the unpredictable weather conditions there will play a big part in how enjoyable your trip will be.

I've been eyeing Antarctica myself! As mentioned Quest (max 458) is at the top end for a ship able to do landings in Antarctica. Per IAATO:

An additional regulation placed on the large cruise ships by IAATO and more recently the Antarctic Treaty Parties is that if the vessel is carrying more than 500 passengers on board, it is not allowed to land any passengers while in Antarctic waters. This means these operators are then cruise-only.

Small is the way to go! I've heard nothing but good things about Seabourn's Antarctica. I've heard fabulous things about Lindblad and Zegrahm Expeditions too. Other small ships to check out would be those of Quark Expeditions and Hurtigruten's Fram depending on what suits you.

Also don't discount the value of seeing the Falklands and/or South Georgia Island. I loved Falklands and hope to see South Georgia some day. I read the blog of a gent who had built his own sailboat to travel the world. His section on South Georgia was full of amazing photos. I'll post the link if I can find it.

EDIT: Forgot to mention EYOS. Have heard great things and believe they have helped Crystal and other cruise lines launch their Arctic/Antartica products.

Found that South Georgia photo journal after much searching! Peter Smith also has sections for Antarctica, Patagonia, and the Falklands.

Keep in mind that Seabourn reduces the number of passengers on their Antarctica cruise by about 100. I assume this is to both maximize landings and to provide accommodations for all of the additional expedition staff.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Can anyone who has been on seaborne to Antarctica tell me the overall sea conditions for the voyage? We're considering next year but don't want a long extremely rough voyage. I've read the ocean surrounding is very rough most of the time.

Its pot luck.

We had Drakes Lake one way and a roller coaster coming home

Its pot luck.

 

We had Drakes Lake one way and a roller coaster coming home

Come on MrsWaldo it wasn't that rough coming back :D

Len2006 I don't know if you have seen the excellent trip report Roxburgh posted about our trip but it will give you a good insight of Seabourns Antarctica cruise There are about 3 or 4 pages

http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1966337

I did it on the Marco Polo 10 years ago, but things are the same today.

I have attached a file with the story and pictures on my experience.

antarctica2005.pdf

Can anyone who has been on seaborne to Antarctica tell me the overall sea conditions for the voyage? We're considering next year but don't want a long extremely rough voyage. I've read the ocean surrounding is very rough most of the time.

I am prone to seasickness and have always been fearful of the Drake Passage but finally took the plunge last Dec. We were lucky - seas were calm going down to Antarctica and relatively calm afterwards heading for South Georgia. In my case, the worst day was one of the sea days going down Chilean coast, and even that was tolerable.

As mentioned elsewhere, it's nature, and you just never know. But, the consensus is that the Drake Passage is not always rough. The expedition team members claim that on average, maybe one crossing per season (of 4 journeys, or 8 crossings) may be rough. Of course, they're selling and would tend to err on the optimistic side.

you might consider Silverseas' SILVER EXPLORER (formerly the ORION 1?) . I THINK she take 120 passengers

We were one of the fortunate to sail on Seabourn Quest this past January to Antarctica. It was the trip of a lifetime and we spent every day with big smiles. For us, it was the perfect blend of creature comfort and in depth, on land/sea exploration of Antarctica

Seabourn keeps a blog for each of the 4 Antarctica cruises. It will give you a very good idea of life on board and our daily routine:

http://my.yb.tl/seabournexpeditions/

At the top you will see a spot to choose the voyage ( 1 - 4) and then start reading the day by day blog complete with beautiful pictures.

All we can suggest is, if you truly want to experience Antarctica, do NOT do a "sail by" cruise with one of the larger cruise lines.

FYI - We had the Drake Lake both directions....but bigger swells on the way to the Falklands. The Quest and the Captain handled the rougher seas with amazing ease.

Its pot luck.

 

We had Drakes Lake one way and a roller coaster coming home

It wasn't really that bad thanks to the stabilizers. I expected worse to be honest.

I am a huge SB devotee, but I would strongly consider giving Lindblad/Narional Geographic a serious look. We went in Jan/Feb this year and it was an absolutely amazing time. I am sure SB does a good job down there (as they do everywhere!), but you just can't beat the smaller expedition-like experience of a smaller ship like in that part of the world. The National Geographic lecturers, photographers, and unique outings like kayaking alongside whales is not something that SB is going to offer.

I am a huge SB devotee, but I would strongly consider giving Lindblad/Narional Geographic a serious look. We went in Jan/Feb this year and it was an absolutely amazing time. I am sure SB does a good job down there (as they do everywhere!), but you just can't beat the smaller expedition-like experience of a smaller ship like in that part of the world. The National Geographic lecturers, photographers, and unique outings like kayaking alongside whales is not something that SB is going to offer.

I respectfully disagree - the 15 member Expedition team on Seabourn was top notch (Robin West is recognized as the premier expedition leader in Antarctica) , the many daily lectures they provided were amazing, the professional photographers on board provided multiple lectures on photography and we may not have kayaked with the whales but we definitely were on several zodiac tours with whales surfacing next to our boat, swimming under our zodiac and once even breeching next to our zodiac so he could look right into the boat! At the end of the cruise we were given a pin drive with a 17 minute compilation of the professional photographers' pictures on board and off... ( our family and friends are much appreciative to watch that instead of our over 2000 pictures):D

It wasn't really that bad thanks to the stabilizers. I expected worse to be honest.

Yep, so did I.

North Sea in 2006 :)

I am a huge SB devotee, but I would strongly consider giving Lindblad/Narional Geographic a serious look. We went in Jan/Feb this year and it was an absolutely amazing time. I am sure SB does a good job down there (as they do everywhere!), but you just can't beat the smaller expedition-like experience of a smaller ship like in that part of the world. The National Geographic lecturers, photographers, and unique outings like kayaking alongside whales is not something that SB is going to offer.

A couple of my friends are Lindblad & Zegrahm devotees and went to Antarctica with Lindblad. They're always encouraging me to check out these outfits, so while on SB Quest, I asked several of the expedition team members how the SB experience differs from that on the true expedition boats such as Lindblad and Zegrahm.

To begin with, some of the SB Expedition team have worked on those other ships. In fact, Robin was the expedition team leader on Silversea Explorer and recruited his assistant team leader and several others away to join SB. Others have worked on Lindblad, Zegrahm, The World, etc. on other expeditions including Antarctica over the years.

They basically told me that SB experience is excellent and has now raised the bar for all operators in Antarctica. While you get one zodiac landing per day on SB instead of two, you see the same things, in terms of both wildlife and scenery, and you don't really miss out on anything. (For most people, one to two hours of landing per day is enough, and there is a lot of set-up time and effort involved to bundle up clothes and other accessories before and then un-bundle everything afterwards for each outing.)

On the other hand, you get the full SB luxury treatment and logistical excellence, with a lot more staff helping out to make sure guests are looked after very well. (On Lindblad, my friends had to clean their own boots from penguin poop every day.) You also get more daily lectures and video programming (the in-room video system has a choice of over 10 Antarctica documentaries), in addition to the daily recap.

The expedition team members I spoke with on board were, of course, SB cheerleaders while on contract with SB. But on the other hand, they are seasoned professionals and have first-hand knowledge of the industry and its competitive landscape, and they did convince me that I don't need to pay almost twice (based on daily rate) on Lindblad to get the same, if not better, experience. To me, SB offers the better value proposition.

Sfvoyage,

Thanks for the very interesting comments. Maybe if I went again, I would indeed give a SB a try. I love the idea of not having to clean penguin poop from my boots!! :). Actually, Lindblad was equipped with these neat boot scrubbing devices (their version of an electric shoe polisher) - which worked very well. You bring up perhaps a very key and critical point/differentiating factor that I was not aware of: the number of landings per day. If one is active, mobile, very much into seeing/experiencing nature & the environment, and going all that way - it is worth it IMHO to see as much as possible. Sometimes on Lindblad we had 3 excursions per day: for ex, a morning hike, mid-day kayak, and afternoon hike (different location from the morning hike). There was one day where we did 4 things, all at different locations: 2 hikes, kayak, and zodiak cruise. When you say that you "see the same things" on both lines... I suppose that is somewhat true. But that's like saying you've seen one sunset, one beach, one whale, one ice-packed bay, one seal colony etc... and you've seen them all. In Antarctica (and many other places around the world), that is simply not the case.

I truly love SB and the luxury that goes along with it (I rarely cruise with anyone other than SB), but if you are an outdoor enthusiast and into moderate/active adventure - then I recommend you closely examine what Lindblad has to offer. No, you will not get a choice of watching 10 movies on Anarctica from the comfort of your cabin. Rather, you will regularly be thrust into a "live" starring role on this very special place of our planet.

Whichever company you choose, you will have an amazing time... that's for sure! I can guarantee it!

Sfvoyage,

Thanks for the very interesting comments. Maybe if I went again, I would indeed give a SB a try. I love the idea of not having to clean penguin poop from my boots!! :). Actually, Lindblad was equipped with these neat boot scrubbing devices (their version of an electric shoe polisher) - which worked very well. You bring up perhaps a very key and critical point/differentiating factor that I was not aware of: the number of landings per day. If one is active, mobile, very much into seeing/experiencing nature & the environment, and going all that way - it is worth it IMHO to see as much as possible. Sometimes on Lindblad we had 3 excursions per day: for ex, a morning hike, mid-day kayak, and afternoon hike (different location from the morning hike). There was one day where we did 4 things, all at different locations: 2 hikes, kayak, and zodiak cruise. When you say that you "see the same things" on both lines... I suppose that is somewhat true. But that's like saying you've seen one sunset, one beach, one whale, one ice-packed bay, one seal colony etc... and you've seen them all. In Antarctica (and many other places around the world), that is simply not the case.

 

I truly love SB and the luxury that goes along with it (I rarely cruise with anyone other than SB), but if you are an outdoor enthusiast and into moderate/active adventure - then I recommend you closely examine what Lindblad has to offer. No, you will not get a choice of watching 10 movies on Anarctica from the comfort of your cabin. Rather, you will regularly be thrust into a "live" starring role on this very special place of our planet. ..

Yes, of course, while in Antarctica, one has a spectacular & dynamic live show! However, it's all about offering passengers a wide-arranging choice. Plus, there are a few sea days, some without particularly interesting scenery or wildlife sightings, and on SB you are spoilt for choice during those down times (or night time, or whenever you wish) with good lectures, video programs, entertainment and activities, etc.

You're right, for active people who want to do landings as often as possible and as long as possible, a true expedition is a better choice. When I asked the expedition leaders about missing out by doing just one landing per day, they discounted my concern and said that the boat would go around and land at a different site, and guests end up seeing very similar scenery and the same wildlife essentially. Also, during the day, before and/or after their assigned landing, passengers can watch the scenery on the boat for the ever-changing scenery and live action from the penguins, seals whales, birds, etc. ashore or in the surroundings.

And that led me to my next question to the expedition team members, which was if the demographics on the expedition boats skew younger, as they should appeal more to the more active and adventurous. To my surprise, they told me that it's the same demographics, with a lot of elderly passengers on the expedition boat.

My guess is that younger people who can afford a boat like Lindblad probably can afford and may prefer a private or chartered experience. (Another friend went skiing on Antarctica recently with a private group of his friends.)

I second stines' comments. I am a huge Seabourn fan. In 80 days of sailing with Seabourn, they have exceeded my expectations every day. That said, I went to Antarctica on Lindblad and would do so again.

I travel for work & pleasure constantly and enjoy luxury accommodations & fine dining almost on a weekly basis. At the time I went to Antarctica, I assumed it would be a once in a lifetime experience in this fascinating place. (That assumption still seems to be accurate since my wife doesn’t want to cross the Drake again.)

I would not trade the opportunity to sit in the Bridge 24 hours a day (it doesn’t get dark in the Summer & Lindblad has an open Bridge policy) & watch the Captain drive the ship, the extra landing per day, the crossing of the Antarctic Circle, & the chance to do a walk-about on the ice (pic) for a larger, more luxurious suite or for fine dining. The food on Lindblad was good, but could not be compared to dining on Seabourn. The cabin on Lindblad also could not be compared to a suite on Seabourn. My goal was to eat as fast as I could, sleep as little as possible, and maximize my time experiencing the landscape from the Bridge, the deck, or the land. I recognize that normal people might not have such an extreme view.

I also agree that whichever company you choose, you will have an amazing time.

Diebroke's picture brings up perhaps the most important differentiating factor when it comes to comparing SB to Linblad's National Geographic Explorer. One hopes that the following points will NEVER be all that terribly important, but take into consideration that the National Geographic Explorer has:

A hull that has been strengthened so extensively that the forward section has received a rating of DNV ICE-1A Super, the highest possible, short of an icebreaker classification.

A Reinforced Ice Belt ensuring the ability to go further with the greatest safety in polar regions.

The IAATO Emergency Response System developed for IAATO to ensure that all IATTO ships operating in the region keep in daily touch to form the initial response for any incident.

Ice Radar - High-definition visual data from the ship’s 3 cm wavelength radar to see safest routes

An Ice Searchlight - A mast-mounted xenon light brightly reflects ice at night and in heavier seas to augment radar

A Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) - A1, A2, A3, and A4 covering polar waters, plus an Iridium OpenPort Multimedia Device relying on 66 near polar-orbiting satellites provides continuous coverage

Double weather forecasting - Lindbald subscribes to both Bon Voyage and GRIBPLOT/WRI weather services

Ship’s officers that are Polar veterans, hand-picked and trained to act without hesitation in severe conditions

Forward-scanning sonar scans several hundred feet ahead to spot uncharted obstacles and the safest way around them

SB ships may have some of these characteristics... but they cannot possibly provide the same level of safety as the Explorer in this region of the world.