L'Austral vs. MS Fram

Excited to be planning a cruise to the Antarctic in early 2014.

Debating between two ships - MS Fram or L'Austral. Both ships offer similarly priced Falkland - South Georgia - Antarctic itineraries.

From what I can tell, the main advantage of L'Austral more "luxe", while with the MS Fram you get 3 more days sailing.

Anyone go on one or both ships (or go through the same though process and me) and have any insights they could share?

Much appreciated.

If South Georgia is your priority, then often La Compagnie du Ponant offers at least one more day in SG and places the other boats don't go to. On the other hand, if SG is your priority, then early 2014 (January? February?) might not be the best season (but I'm not sure).

I have sailed on the Fram and know people who have done both ships. Luxe is not of so much importance in this area (it's actually even one of the reason I'm sticking with Fram, I feel that the atmosphere on L'Austral would make me unconfortable, but that is up to everyone's feeling). What is important is the seaworthiness of the ship (both are good, but I think the Fram is better suited to polar waters, and the fact that there are no outside decks that allow to go full circle around the ship in l'Austral is also a problem for me), and the quality of the expedition team and the offered landings, and I think both ships are very serious in this area. So chose rather according to the itinerary and the price. If you get 3 more days in Antarctica on the Fram for the same price, it's definitely worth considering.

I've been on the Fram on that route, and would go again. We got hit by a Force 12 hurricane, and I never felt for a moment that the ship was having any problems.

Not sure about 'luxe', but its probably something I would avoid on such a trip. The priority is the landscapes and wildlife. Everything else should be secondary.

As said, if you get 3 more days for the same price, then take them.

I too am interested in the Fram for 2014 and am comparing to Corinthian. Any feedback comparing these two ships? Does Fram offer enough shore time?

Thanks

We are on the Bremen in Jan 2014 doing Falklands, SG and Antarctica 22 days on board. Check them out too.

We were on the 10 night in December 2011 and had a wonderful cruise. The luxury was a nice plus, but make no mistake, this was an expedition ship. One day we had the opportunity for 3 landings. A nice blend of a little larger ship (still small by main-stream standards, comfort, and adventure. Full review posted in the Member reviews.

We chose to go with the Abercombie & Kent expedition because of the team of naturalists they put together... they use Le Boreal, a sister ship to Austral. It is a wonderful small, incredibly strong ship - we were hit with a force 10 storm and felt 100% safe! Choose the people who will be guiding you.

We chose to go with the Abercombie & Kent expedition because of the team of naturalists they put together... they use Le Boreal, a sister ship to Austral. It is a wonderful small, incredibly strong ship - we were hit with a force 10 storm and felt 100% safe! Choose the people who will be guiding you.

A&K are great. I would prefer a ship with less tahn 100 passengers so you don't have to take turns on landings!

A&K are great. I would prefer a ship with less tahn 100 passengers so you don't have to take turns on landings!

Having just come back a few weeks ago from our (spectacular) expedition aboard the National Geographic Explorer, which had about 148 pax, let me offer my own perspective. Yes, the groups had to "take turns on the landings," but when it wasn't "our turn" to land, it wasn't like we were sitting on board twiddling our thumbs. We were typically off cruising in a zodiac, getting up close and personal with leopard seals on ice floes, getting great "tours' of ice bergs, seeing penguins up close from the sea (a neat perspective), having whales check us out, etc. The zodiac cruises were great, and we also had plenty of landings and plenty of time ashore.

My only point is that I wouldn't (and obviously I didn't) rule out a ship with more than 100 pax, but of course I would choose carefully (as we did!).

Having just come back a few weeks ago from our (spectacular) expedition aboard the National Geographic Explorer, which had about 148 pax, let me offer my own perspective. Yes, the groups had to "take turns on the landings," but when it wasn't "our turn" to land, it wasn't like we were sitting on board twiddling our thumbs.

that makes a big difference. We were twiddling our thumbs on board waiting for our turn :mad:.

Our experience on Fram mirrors that of Turtles06. When we had to take turns we never felt rushed or short of time ashore, and when it wasn't our turn we were fully occupied with what we could see from the ship.

Agreed with digitl. We went on Fram, and never felt that we were being rushed. The organisation of people into groups for the landings was good, and their guides/lecturers were very good.

We had a hurricane when we were heading north from the Falklands to Buenos Aries (we were on the last trip of the season, with calls in South Georgia and the Falklands - very worthwhile) and the ship took it extremely well.

It was certainly an experience not to be missed, and has given us a wealth of memories.

We went on Fram, and never felt that we were being rushed. The organisation of people into groups for the landings was good, and their guides/lecturers were very good.

A slight disagreement here: we thought the guides and lecturers were excellent! Highly regarded in their fields and able to get the message across really effectively.