Help with Reasons for a Norway vs. Alaskan Cruise

I have booked a Norwegian Fjords cruise for next August on Queen Elizabeth. It will be our second cruise with Cunard, with our first being a transatlantic on QM2. We both enjoyed our first trip very much.

To be honest I am not sure my wife is as sold on the idea as I am. She has suggested that we just take a second Alaskan cruise instead. I have searched on this topic, and it seems both involve beautiful scenery, but with Alaska having more wildlife. Given that she loves wildlife and Alaska is a lot closer for us (we live in the US), that makes sense. But of course I still favor the Norwegian cruise. My reasons (besides just wanting another voyage with Cunard) are we have never been anywhere near Norway before, and we just went to Alaska last year. Also we enjoying ballroom dancing, and the QM2 was great for that, so I assume the QE would be great as well.

Can anyone who has experience with a Norwegian cruise give me some insight on what we will be seeing on this cruise that will make it a great trip? Anything that you didn't expect, but ended up really enjoying? Any other considerations I am missing? Your help is appreciated!

...

 

Can anyone who has experience with a Norwegian cruise give me some insight on what we will be seeing on this cruise that will make it a great trip? Anything that you didn't expect, but ended up really enjoying? Any other considerations I am missing? Your help is appreciated!

We have taken two Alaska cruises and two Norway cruises. Although the cruises to Alaska were thoroughly enjoyable I have to say we preferred the cruises to Norway despite the port of embarkation in Vancouver being closer to us in the Toronto area than is Southampton.

Our more recent cruise to Alaska was on Holland America last year and the more recent cruise to Norway was three years ago on the Queen Elizabeth. The fact we prefer Cunard over Holland America is only one reason why we enjoy Norway better.

From the information on Cunard's site it appears your cruise is calling at Rotterdam, Stavanger, Flaam, Geiranger, Bergen, amongst others. We found the trip down the long fjords to be superb. The Geirangerfjord is stunning. Lengthy passage in fjords is something that we didn't experience on the Alaska cruises. The train excursion on the Flamsbana from Flaam was on par with the White Pass and Yukon from Skagway. I admit the train from Skagway has one benefit over the Flamsbana and that is open platforms on each carriage.

The cities and towns in Norway are more appealing to us than those we have visited in Alaska. The Norwegian ones are more charming and there is no hard sell from shopkeepers such as the jewellery salespeople who almost chase you down the streets of the Alaska cities.

Although I wouldn't hesitate to take another cruise to Alaska, I would prefer another one to Norway even though the flight from Toronto to England is eight hours vs five hours to Vancouver. Atlantic crossings on the QM2 are, of course, a possibility but it can be difficult to make a connection given how few crossings there are.

We did Alaska in 2005 and Norwegian fjords just this past May on Celebrity. Can not comment on the specific Cunard experience. Alaska and Norway are different environments. Personally, I felt closer to nature on the Norwegian cruise. Since you have already been to Alaska, and you enjoy the Cunard line, why not try the Norwegian cruise.

We have taken two Alaska cruises and two Norway cruises. Although the cruises to Alaska were thoroughly enjoyable I have to say we preferred the cruises to Norway despite the port of embarkation in Vancouver being closer to us in the Toronto area than is Southampton.

 

Our more recent cruise to Alaska was on Holland America last year and the more recent cruise to Norway was three years ago on the Queen Elizabeth. The fact we prefer Cunard over Holland America is only one reason why we enjoy Norway better.

 

From the information on Cunard's site it appears your cruise is calling at Rotterdam, Stavanger, Flaam, Geiranger, Bergen, amongst others. We found the trip down the long fjords to be superb. The Geirangerfjord is stunning. Lengthy passage in fjords is something that we didn't experience on the Alaska cruises. The train excursion on the Flamsbana from Flaam was on par with the White Pass and Yukon from Skagway. I admit the train from Skagway has one benefit over the Flamsbana and that is open platforms on each carriage.

 

The cities and towns in Norway are more appealing to us than those we have visited in Alaska. The Norwegian ones are more charming and there is no hard sell from shopkeepers such as the jewellery salespeople who almost chase you down the streets of the Alaska cities.

 

Although I wouldn't hesitate to take another cruise to Alaska, I would prefer another one to Norway even though the flight from Toronto to England is eight hours vs five hours to Vancouver. Atlantic crossings on the QM2 are, of course, a possibility but it can be difficult to make a connection given how few crossings there are.

I second everything in this post! Alaska (on HAL) was beautiful, but Norway (on Cunard) appealed to us more. Geiranger Fjord is probably the most beautiful place I've ever seen, even edging out Yosemite. The port towns and cities in Norway have more charm than Alaskan towns. If David has your ports right, you'll have a great itinerary with good attractions in addition to all the scenery. There's Edvard Grieg's home from Bergen, all kinds of museums in Stavanger (including one about the sardine industry--no kidding, it was great!), and the railroad in Flaam. There's also a museum about the construction of the Flaam railway, which adds to your appreciation of it as you climb up, up, up the mountain.

I vote for Norway!

There's nothing quite like eating dinner while you look out of the window at a wall of rock above you with waterfalls of water cascading down from above every few hundred yards. If you have both Gerainger and Flam on the itinerary then you've hit the sweet spot.

Add to that the completely different exprerience in Norwegian towns plus the scenery and cultural bits if you take a tour from port and it explains why Norway is the first place we look to visit yet again. I'd especially recommend one of the tours up into the mountains and the Flamsbana. The only issue is that even after a 15% fall over the last year caused by the oil price Norway is still expensive so don't plan to be bringing back loads of tourist goodies. Don't even think about buying booze.

We've never done Alaska (we keep looking but they all seem to be 7/8 days) but we've done the New Zealand fjords and although very pretty and impressive in their own way, they're no contest for Norway.

Here's a pic of Queen Victroria in Flam

I have yet to sail Cunard but can still give me input.

Norway is the most beautiful cruise I've ever taken. Alaska is awesome but Norway blows it out of the water. Alaska once docked is tacky now, not so with Norway. :)

Thanks very much for the information. I am glad to hear that our stops are good ones. Also, I don't think I appreciated how long the fjords are. After your comment, David, I googled some of the ports and they look pretty deep inland, so the fjords are much longer than I was thinking. Also, we did enjoy the train ride in Alaska, so its a plus to hear there is a similar one in Norway. And hearing such strong recommendations for a Norway cruise, and that Gerainger fjord is on par or better with Yosimite, is awesome. And that pic of the Cunard ship actually in the fjord looks great as well!

All of this information definitely makes me want to go more, and I believe these kind of details and strong recommendations from you guys will make my wife want to go as well. Thank you very much!

I have done both. Norway by a landslide!

I have done both. My opinion is that, other than latitude, they are different places.

I am a wildlife person so Alaska was great for me.

My wife, while she likes wildlife, has Norwegian heritage, so Norway was important to her...and really both of us.

We also did Oslo and the Viking Museum which were wonderful. Kon-tiki museum, too. There is a lot of really old history in Norway (7&800's).

Frankly, we want to return to both places.

Whilst there are certainly differences between Alaskan and Norwegian cruises I think that each person has to make their own mind up. Yes Alaska is "the last wilderness" and has the attraction of, and the potential to see more wildlife and can also boast the Red Dog saloon in Juneau (happy memories). The locations visited gives a sort of "pioneer" feeling coupled with nostalgia for the prospecting and mining days of the late 1880's. A really wonderful experience whatever you like.

Norway gives the impression of serenity and its own kind of beauty, not as many trees in some areas but certainly more water and waterfalls. The locations visited are very interesting, particularly some of the fascinating rows of wooden and highly painted houses. A beautiful clean and pleasant land as they say.

As for which is the "better" choice, I'm not prepared to say. I love both places, would go back to either of them tomorrow and I thank God that I have been lucky enough to have visited them both and who knows what the future might bring :) !!!!!!!

I did a short, 6 day Norwegian Fjords voyage on qm2 after she "lost" a pod years ago and they did a quick 6 day "filler" voyage after the new pod was put on.

We did Alesund, Bergen, Flam. It was extremely beautiful and I loved it all. But, the ship moves through the fjords early in the morning to arrive at the ports on time. So...we got up every morning at 5AM, and went up to the deck to view the fjords as we passed through (it was May) At around 6:30, we would go to KC, have breakfast, and then go back to bed until about 10AM, and then we would get up and go ashore. Odd schedule but the only way we could really see the fjords on that particular voyage.

In Flam, QM2 had to back out of the fjord (maybe halfway) then swing around once she was in a wide enough spot...that was interesting. I think it was either Commodore Warner or Rynd...he talked about the logistics on the noon announcement - it was interesting!

The North Sea was rough and unappealing.

Norway, hands down, if you are just comparing the two.

We took an Alaskan cruise in 2014, and we were just on a Norway cruise.

I agree with Chunky2219, there is no comparison.

However the most beautiful we have seen are in New Zealand's South Island..

I have also done both Alaska and Norway within 12 months, and in my opinion it is a close call between the two. You cannot beat the Alaska wildlife and the seaside glaciers, but the narrow norwegian fjords will take your breath away.

I have just created a blog page with photos and info on my cruise, in case you are interested in taking a look (link at my signature).

I chose HAL over Cunard for this cruise, simply because of the sailing dates. The Cunard itineraries are better IMO.