ALASKA CRUISE FIRST or TOUR FIRST

[caribill]

 

Our second cruisetour was cruise first followed by the land tour. The reason for cruise first was the difference in cost. Northbound cruises are more expensive than southbound and cost was an important criteria for one of the couples in our party of six. The cruise was relaxing; the land tour was a little tiring. The land tour ended in Anchorage one evening. Our flight out of Anchorage was at 11:30 at night to Chicago. So we had to kill a day in Anchorage while waiting for our flight. We managed to do so with a visit to the museum and some sight seeing. We thought we would sleep on the flight home and get some rest that way. We found that sleeping restfully on an overnight flight was difficult.

 

 

So you cruised first (northbound) in order to pay more?

[Thrak]

We have done both.

We enjoyed both, but the tour then the cruise would be our recommendation. However, we plan a back to back cruise only from Vancouver to Whittier to Vancouver for our next Alaska trip.

 

It's good to have the insight from someone who has done both. We have done the 10 day round trip from SF and are doing the 13 day cruisetour next June but, for the future, the B2B you are doing from Vancouver sounds pretty dang good. Essentially a 14 day round trip from Vancouver. I will have to keep that in mind for our 3rd Alaska cruise. :)

[travelplus]

I would do the tour fist for various reasons including knowing the history, doing the active part of the tour first and enjoying the relaxing cruising through the Glaciers . If you can go to the Denali Wilderness Lodge from what I have heard from friends who have stayed there its worth every penny. The train is also spectacular.

 

Whenever I have the option I like to do the tour portion first as it gives me the insight and lay of the land before the cruise. I try to schedule at least a 7-10 day cruise so its not a rush to unpack and then pack again.

 

Hope this helps.

[Dbld777]

I guess I am in the minority. We did the cruise first and save the very best for last!

 

Also in the minority, but having enjoyed a post cruise China land tour in 2013 without any problems, we also wanted to "save the best for last".

 

We've done two trips to Alaska and have always done a NB cruise first and then a land tour. We love departing Vancouver and then watching the scenery get better every day as you head North to Alaska. Although the land portion may be less "relaxing" to some, we don't necessarily take an Alaskan Cruisetour to relax. We go for the majestic beauty and don't find the land portion that tiring, especially if you've relaxed already for a week. Also, I'd rather not have a long flight(s) to Anchorage to start my trip.... Different strokes for different folks.....

[RickEk]

May be because of the difference in price between the two. Going Northbound and then tour in Nay 2016. Opposite agenda was $600/pp or more. Can do a whole lot with that kind of money. Wanted to do southbound but not for that much more.

 

Yes, Southbound is more popular and therefore is more expensive.

 

BTW, I was reading that Princess will be offering pre-paid meal packages next year for Alaskan cruisetours (non-Connoisseur)...

[JimmyVWine]

I don't think that there is a wrong answer. But her are some counterpoints to the "tour first" position. Plenty of people have pointed out that the tour portion is hectic and that it is nice to relax aftetward. And while I understand that many who post here are retired, many are not. A land tour is not nearly as hectic and stressful as my job. What some people really need to relax from is work. So the cruise first approach allows one to decompress from every day life and transition into vacation mode. Personally, I would rather do that than leave my office, fly for 10 hours, and then begin a vacation that is being described as hectic.

 

Second is the flight logistics and time differences. I wouldn't want to start my vacation immediately after a very long flight with a wide east-to-west time difference. With so much to do and see on land, I would want to make the best and most use of my time. I would rather adjust to the travel and time differences while on the ship where time is largely irrelevant.

 

Third is the cost difference. Cruising first is cheaper.

 

Fourth is the anticipation and immersion factor. Going northbound, each day takes you further and further into the depths of paradise. Going south, each day brings you closer and closer back to your home. I think it is easier to enjoy the ports on the Alaskan panhandle when they are presented first. After spending 4 or 5 days deep in Alaska, places like Skagway and Ketchikan can seem like disappointing tourist traps. So see them first while they still hold some sense of wonder and excitement instead of cynicism.

 

As I said. There are no wrong answers. But since the discussion is so one-sided, I figured I'd present a brief counter argument.

[Sheaboys]

We booked a 13 day Connoisseur Tour. Cruising first from Vancouver (5/30/15) followed by land. Price was the deciding factor. This is a first for Alaska and cruise. The cost was about $1,000+ to do land first then cruise. We are aware we will be tired, but we can catch up on sleep after we get home at some point. Lol. We are also flying from MA to Vancouver, so the time change alone will be an adjustment.

[5soccer9]

I would rather have the longer flight at the start of my trip so therefore land portion first then cruise. The flight home is a lot less from Vancouver. The excitment about the trip ahead of us I don't mind a longer flight, but coming home after it is all over I would rather have a shorter flight. We are doing the land part first then cruise. I can't wait for July. :)

[birdiebill]

We have done both. Our first Alaska cruisetour involved the land portion first and then the cruise southbound. We thought it worked well in that the luggage had to be picked up at the lodges early, meaning getting up early. That made the land portion somewhat tiring, but the seven day cruise allowed plenty of time to recover.

 

Also our first cruisetour involved our doing a land vacation by car from Indiana to Seattle/Olympia. We flew to Anchorage, did the land tour, then the cruise, then the transfer back to Seattle where we picked up our car at the hotel in Seattle where we had stayed pre-cruise and post-cruise prior to driving back to Indiana through states we had never visited.

 

Our second cruisetour was cruise first followed by the land tour. The reason for cruise first was the difference in cost. Northbound cruises are more expensive than southbound and cost was an important criteria for one of the couples in our party of six. I should have written northbound cruises are less expensive than southbound and cost was an important criteria.......The cruise was relaxing; the land tour was a little tiring. The land tour ended in Anchorage one evening. Our flight out of Anchorage was at 11:30 at night to Chicago. So we had to kill a day in Anchorage while waiting for our flight. We managed to do so with a visit to the museum and some sight seeing. We thought we would sleep on the flight home and get some rest that way. We found that sleeping restfully on an overnight flight was difficult.

 

We enjoyed both, but the tour then the cruise would be our recommendation. However, we plan a back to back cruise only from Vancouver to Whittier to Vancouver for our next Alaska trip.

 

I changed part of my original. Our first cruisetour was southbound and was chosen for convenience and the idea it would be our only Alaskan cruise/cruisetour.

[Whimsy]

We have group spacing on the Coral for next August and chose to do the tour first so we can eventually unpack and relax for 7 wonderful nights.

[jrobinso]

We did the land tour after the cruise. We were relaxed from the cruise and enjoyed the change of pace with the land tour. The only problem we had was remembering to pay for our meal on the train and at the lodges!

[RNGALNG]

We did 6 day land first but added an extra night at the beginning to get adjusted to the time differences. We also picked our tour so we had two nights at each lodge/hotel. That made the land tour part not so hectic. We were two nights in Anchorage, 2 nights Denali, and 2 nights Copper River (our favorite stop!) In all that, we got to ride the train, take a bus, travel by boat, and maybe even a taxi.

 

Sailing was second. We were with another couple and I did all the planning for us all so I knew we would have a great time. They all seemed to enjoy it as well. Said they too would do land first again and cruise second.

 

I too have issues when getting back to land with my sea legs. I have now been on 11 cruises and find it takes a little over a week to feel like I am back on land for good. I just look like an idiot when I hold onto the sides of counters and tables, walls, and people until I get my bearings!

 

I can also see how someone with a stressful job (my DH last job) would find that either way would work. You are out of the environment and getting away from the stress you live in daily.

[west coast cruiser]

Tour first and then cruise.

[Kinkacruiser]

I don't think that there is a wrong answer. But her are some counterpoints to the "tour first" position. Plenty of people have pointed out that the tour portion is hectic and that it is nice to relax aftetward. And while I understand that many who post here are retired, many are not. A land tour is not nearly as hectic and stressful as my job. What some people really need to relax from is work. So the cruise first approach allows one to decompress from every day life and transition into vacation mode. Personally, I would rather do that than leave my office, fly for 10 hours, and then begin a vacation that is being described as hectic.

 

Second is the flight logistics and time differences. I wouldn't want to start my vacation immediately after a very long flight with a wide east-to-west time difference. With so much to do and see on land, I would want to make the best and most use of my time. I would rather adjust to the travel and time differences while on the ship where time is largely irrelevant.

 

Third is the cost difference. Cruising first is cheaper.

 

Fourth is the anticipation and immersion factor. Going northbound, each day takes you further and further into the depths of paradise. Going south, each day brings you closer and closer back to your home. I think it is easier to enjoy the ports on the Alaskan panhandle when they are presented first. After spending 4 or 5 days deep in Alaska, places like Skagway and Ketchikan can seem like disappointing tourist traps. So see them first while they still hold some sense of wonder and excitement instead of cynicism.

 

As I said. There are no wrong answers. But since the discussion is so one-sided, I figured I'd present a brief counter argument.

 

You've raised some excellent points here and no doubt given more balance to the proposition. Flying from Australia to Miami, we will enjoy the relaxation of our month on board....and still have time to relax for the long flight back home.