Antarctica or Alas

Working on the assumption that Cunard's 2020 Alaskan cruises will be the same as 2019 we (or if I'm honest, me) are giving serious consideration to booking the Alaska to Southampton home trip. Missed out on it for next year due to circumstances beyond our control and it's something we would love to do.

But

A flyer dropped onto the mat and among the list of cruises was Holland America's South America and Antarctica cruise and DH is intrigued and more than a little interested.

Don't think we can do both so back to my question; Antarctica or Alaska? Which would you choose and why

Thanks.

HAL does not really go to Antarctica, only expedition ships do. HAL does a 'cruise by' version. However, we went from Buenos Aires to Valparaiso in Chile on a HAL ship. The highlight was the inner passage in Chile with a very close approach to a glacier. The entire area is almost uninhabited and very wild. I was sure there must be trolls living on those granite rocks. :D

Unfortunately we had bad weather which prevented us from going to Ushuaia.

Alaska has a well developed tourist infrastructure complete with jewelry shops. This is in addition to its dramatic scenery.

We have been to the Antarctic on HAL. It is true that you can't get off, but we spent several days cruising the Antarctic peninsula. It was a great trip and I highly recommend it. We have also done the Antarctic on an expedition ship where we were able to land. Interestingly, we stopped at a lot of the same places in the Antarctic on both trips. While it is nice to be able to say you have set foot on the Antarctic, the HAL trip is very worthwhile.

We have also done Alaska. The scenery is beautiful, but there are a large number of cruise ships going there now, including some of the really big ones. I would hate to do Skagway with five ships in port including one with 5000 passengers! If you do Alaska, check on what ships will be in port the same time as you.

We have done Antarctica twice as a "cruise by" and twice with Zodiac landings. Antarctica makes Alaska look small. I would go back in a minute. A review (not ours) of the Antarctica cruise on the HAL Zaandam is here. The Antarctica portion starts near the bottom of page 3 and continues to page 4. As you see, there are plentiful opportunities to walk among penguin colonies in South America and the Falklands. For many people, this is truly a trip of a lifetime.

If I had to chose one or the other - Antarctica wins, hands down. (And yes, we've cruised Alaska and also done land trips there.)

We have been to the Antarctic on HAL. It is true that you can't get off, but we spent several days cruising the Antarctic peninsula. It was a great trip and I highly recommend it. We have also done the Antarctic on an expedition ship where we were able to land. Interestingly, we stopped at a lot of the same places in the Antarctic on both trips. While it is nice to be able to say you have set foot on the Antarctic, the HAL trip is very worthwhile.

We have also done Alaska. The scenery is beautiful, but there are a large number of cruise ships going there now, including some of the really big ones. I would hate to do Skagway with five ships in port including one with 5000 passengers! If you do Alaska, check on what ships will be in port the same time as you.

I agree with what this poster said. My Antarctic experience was on the Zaandam; the days of my doing zodiac landings via an expedition ship, as desirable as they may be, are over. The 4 days that we spent in Antarctic waters, the excellent enrichment program on board, and most of the other ports we visited made for a memorable experience and worth the expense and the effort to get to/from the South American ports. (Add the usual HAL cruise experience, i.e. crew, etc., it was an excellent cruise.)

Alaska is different--totally--than Antarctica. Antarctica is pure natural nature with no Diamonds International, etc. Alaska is most enjoyable as well because of its many scenic opportunities and experiences. In some Alaskan ports, however, you will share your experience with thousands of other visitors. In Antarctica, you will share your experience with hundreds, maybe thousands, of penguins, sea birds, whales, seals, dolphins, etc.

As I said, it's different.

I'm thinking that the fact I managed to spell Alaska wrong in the heading may have been a Freudian slip!!

Definitely leaning towards Antarctica.

Antarctica is not a well served region, whereas Alaska has hundreds of sailing from multiple ports. You can go to Alaska any year, generally between May and September, but the Antarctic does not have anywhere near the same number of options.

I would opt for Antarctica, as you can sign up for Alaska anytime, being in Juneau or Skagway with 5 or 6 other ships.

We have done Antarctica twice as a "cruise by" and twice with Zodiac landings. Antarctica makes Alaska look small. I would go back in a minute. A review (not ours) of the Antarctica cruise on the HAL Zaandam is here. The Antarctica portion starts near the bottom of page 3 and continues to page 4. As you see, there are plentiful opportunities to walk among penguin colonies in South America and the Falklands. For many people, this is truly a trip of a lifetime.

 

If I had to chose one or the other - Antarctica wins, hands down. (And yes, we've cruised Alaska and also done land trips there.)

Totally agree with this and the other posts. We have been to both places and did Antarctica on X which is the cruise by option but all the wildlife is in the water next to the ship and as mentioned, you can walk among the penguins at Martilla Island, Ushaia or at Volunteer point, Falkland Islands.:D

If you decide on the Antarctica trip, don't do it in March like we did. We thought it would be a good idea to select a b2b cruise where the ship returned to Fort Lauderdale. This was too late in the year for penguins!

There are quite a few options for Antarctica. Check out this forum and the FAQs on the right: https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowForum-g1-i12337-Antarctic_Adventures.html

I'd do Antarctica, but on an expedition ship (Abercrombie and Kent does great trips there), the experience is far superior to that on a cruise line.

The good thing about the expedition trips are that you can get onto Antarctica and walk around, you get into Zodiacs and see things from the water level. The bad thing (for me) is the cost as they are often 3 or 4 times the cost of a standard cruise to Antarctica and my wife doesn't want the zodiac experience. Of course on a cruise you get all the standard benefits of the cruise ship with dining option, entertainment, many bars and such.

MicCanberra is correct in what I have learned. If one can afford the cost of an expedition cruise with zodiac landings, if one has the agility to endure such experiences, such a cruise with actual landings on the Continent would be a major travel adventure.

For me, the on board enrichment program and the 4 days sailing along the Continent with the wildlife and scenery that I viewed was quite satisfactory. And, was, in fact, a more impressionable experience than I expected.

One has to decide what is suitable for themselves.

Not a cat in hell's chance of getting me into a zodiac!!

Not a cat in hell's chance of getting me into a zodiac!!

My wife felt the same, which is why we cruised with X and would likely do the same again.:D