Why I'm unlikely to ever "Cruise" (At least on a large ship)

[RooFlyer]

A ship with 200 passengers is hardly a small cruise, maybe it is dwarfed by those giant behemoth ships with 3000, but imo a small cruise has less than 50 passengers on board and can dock at any wharf, doesn't ever need a tender.

Its called a dinghy. I use them too.

Again apart from Antarctica which one can't generally fly to unless working there, any where else can be done in more depth via other means.

Actually, JustinBrett showed up-thread that you can fly their for leisure, for a day. You are welcome to go for it; I'll wave with my G&T in hand from the window of my 4* floating restaurant while you stomp about the ice for a few hours. Shame if the weather that day means the flight can't be done, though.

Those most pro cruising seem to fall into the retiree bracket, not my demographic.

Then how about having the grace to allow those who do cruise - on SMALL ships at least (per thread title) - to express their views without continually sniping at them, especially when you have never done it.

 

[Quickstatus]

This is a thread for people who don't want to cruise

Not really,

Its a thread about the reasons which might detract someone from taking a cruise, and by extension invites the cruising fan club to try and convince otherwise.

 

[justinbrett]

Not really,

Its a thread about the reasons which might detract someone from taking a cruise, and by extension invites the cruising fan club to try and convince otherwise.

I should have said about and not for, but that comment was in response to being told off for listing reasons why I don't want to cruise.

Happy if people want to try to change my mind, not happy for people trying to shut down the very topic this thread is about.

 

[Quickstatus]

Herein the problem. What is a large Cruise Ship?

 

[serfty]

Herein the problem. What is a large Cruise Ship?

One where borading/disembarking is scheduled over several hours?

 

[sanne]

A ship with 200 passengers is hardly a small cruise, maybe it is dwarfed by those giant behemoth ships with 3000, but imo a small cruise has less than 50 passengers on board and can dock at any wharf, doesn't ever need a tender.

Again apart from Antarctica which one can't generally fly to unless working there, any where else can be done in more depth via other means.

Those most pro cruising seem to fall into the retiree bracket, not my demographic.

Plenty of people 40/50 on my numerous expeditionary cruises. And if you go on a 7 day Med cruise or 7 day Alaska cruise on any size ship you’ll see plenty of younger demographics.

Pretty hard to comment about such things if you’ve never been on a cruise ship.

 

[Pushka]

I guess the definition of a pro is in the eye of the beholder.

I listed that (going on someone else's itinerary that you have no control over) as a con.

Fair enough and absolutely the key for us is itinerary. The more cruises I go on the less interest I have in many of the ports so I can see less cruises in my future unless it's a place I've never been before and it's on the bucket list. And as @RooFlyer mentioned, age is another variable. We are getting a bit too old to do the land stuff properly now.

And one thing I didn't like about Viking is that they do want to do everything for you, works for some but just makes me fight against that. We can think for ourselves.

 

[Quickstatus]

One where borading/disembarking is scheduled over several hours?

But queues are not hours long?

 

[Pushka]

Herein the problem. What is a large Cruise Ship?

One where borading/disembarking is scheduled over several hours?

Thats actually an excellent definition.

 

[Lynda2475]

Actually, JustinBrett showed up-thread that you can fly their for leisure, for a day

You conveniently as usual ignore my qualifier "generally" as you love to do. If I'm going to Antarctic it would not be a few hours to stomp on the ice which isn't even offered to many ships who cruise there, and is weather dependent for those who do.

A long way and a lot of money to cruise for what may end up being only view out the window.

Then how about having the grace to allow those who do cruise - on SMALL ships at least (per thread title) - to express their views without continually sniping at them, especially when you have never done it.

I haven't snipped at anyone, you as usual are the one snipping continually at me.

FYI I have been on a small cruise you again just choose to ignore this fact, so I am just as qualified to comment on the pros and cons; especially as they pertain to me.

There are many ways to enjoy a destination (even if you are old) without cruising. People who choose not to cruise can give their reasons, the only ones on this threads turning a discussion into a personal attack rather than a debate of the facts to date appear to be pro-cruisers like yourself.

 

[justinbrett]

Actually, JustinBrett showed up-thread that you can fly their for leisure, for a day. You are welcome to go for it; I'll wave with my G&T in hand from the window of my 4* floating restaurant while you stomp about the ice for a few hours. Shame if the weather that day means the flight can't be done, though.

Very different experiences; and from what I've seen on YouTube there's no guarantees you'll set foot on the continent on these cruises, it is all weather dependent.

If you actually want to set foot on the continent the flight option is probably a safer bet, at worst you risk a delay (not a chance they take your money and don't fly you).

I actually want to do both options now I think about it.

 

[serfty]

But queues are not hours long?

Thats 'cause they board by groups - similar to airlines, based on criteria such as class of service and status.

 

[Lynda2475]

Pretty hard to comment about such things if you’ve never been on a cruise ship.

Wondering how you came to this incorrect conclusion? Given I have provided details of cruises (7 night small cruise, over night ferries and many day cruises) on this thread; plus over night on yachts.

Better to rely on the source than incorrect assertions from a certain roo who is absolutely no authority on my travels.

Noting I have been in many destinations where I have seen the large cruise ships flood a town for a few hours, the cruisers being shuttled onto rushed tours and then back onto the boat. In fact when you check in at these locations i.e. Kona, Noumea, Dubrovnik, Helsinki the hotel reception always give a heads up to do certain activities on the days the cruise ships arent in town so you not fighting hoards.

In Kona some of the best options like night snorkeling/diving with the manta rays, sunset & stargazing at Mauna Kea unavailable to cruisers because they have to be back on board before dark.

 

[VPS]

Very different experiences; and from what I've seen on YouTube there's no guarantees you'll set foot on the continent on these cruises, it is all weather dependent.

If you actually want to set foot on the continent the flight option is probably a safer bet, at worst you risk a delay (not a chance they take your money and don't fly you).

I actually want to do both options now I think about it.

I did an Antarctic cruise where we landed on the ice at least 5 times - I'd be surprised if any of the lines that say that are going to land on the ice don't land on the ice at least a few times

 

[RooFlyer]

Very different experiences; and from what I've seen on YouTube there's no guarantees you'll set foot on the continent on these cruises, it is all weather dependent.

Agree again - of course - every experience outdoors for any type of travel is whether dependent. People want to see Mount Fuji in Japan but can’t because of the weather. Skiiers may get rained out. I won’t bother you with lots of other examples; we can disagree on the extent of this particular problem.

If you actually want to set foot on the continent the flight option is probably a safer bet, at worst you risk a delay (not a chance they take your money and don't fly you).

I don’t understand that last bit, but anyway, one thing about cruises to Antarctica and many other places is that they can dynamically change their schedule in response to weather conditions. We have four days around the Antarctic peninsula, and while there’s a itinerary, reports of this and other cruises to Antarctica, show that they can go virtually anywhere around the place with shelter and other things if the weather isn’t favourable for the scheduled stop.

Now I’ve never looked at flying to Antarctica, but it may be a problem if there’s a delay because the authorities strictly control the number of people who are authorised in advance at one time. Might be possible but again I’m not sure how you organise overnight accommodation there so it’s a day flight in and same day flight out, weather permitting, as opposed to being on a cruise liner were at the very worst you can float around, beverage in hand and admire the scenery and nearly always you just divert to where you can land somewhere.

 

[RooFlyer]

Unlike a certain roo I havent hated on anyone,

Better to rely on the source than incorrect assertions from a certain roo who is absolutely no authority on my travels.

Who is this 'certain roo' you keep going on about? . Someone 'certain' about what they are talking about, as they have done a cruise, at least?

 

[RooFlyer]

Are these [expedition cruises] are patronised by more intellectual passengers?

I would say firstly patronised by those who might have a few extra bob to spend, as they are on the small ships with a low crew to passenger ratio (can be closer to 1:1) and priced accordingly.

But definitely, by those who are more interested in the places they visit in hearing more detail about either the culture, wildlife, and the like. The entertainment facilities on board these vessels are usually nothing like the big ships; you tend to get evening lectures by the specialists or piano recitals rather than singing and dancing shows. No casinos on any I’ve looked at.

As opposed to the mega ships which are much cheaper per night by virtue of volume and probably cater more for people who want to go to A to B to C to D in comfort. Also the party ships where the cruise ( and who else is on it! ) is the experience people are after.

Obviously, cruising is just not for the oldies.

 

[justinbrett]

I did an Antarctic cruise where we landed on the ice at least 5 times - I'd be surprised if any of the lines that say that are going to land on the ice don't land on the ice at least a few times

From what I've seen (and I could be wrong), a lot of them stop on the adjacent islands, not the actual continental landmass. The latter is subject to weather, and is not guaranteed.

Agree again - of course - every experience outdoors for any type of travel is whether dependent. People want to see Mount Fuji in Japan but can’t because of the weather. Skiiers may get rained out. I won’t bother you with lots of other examples; we can disagree on the extent of this particular problem.


I don’t understand that last bit, but anyway, one thing about cruises to Antarctica and many other places is that they can dynamically change their schedule in response to weather conditions. We have four days around the Antarctic peninsula, and while there’s a itinerary, reports of this and other cruises to Antarctica, show that they can go virtually anywhere around the place with shelter and other things if the weather isn’t favourable for the scheduled stop.

Now I’ve never looked at flying to Antarctica, but it may be a problem if there’s a delay because the authorities strictly control the number of people who are authorised in advance at one time. Might be possible but again I’m not sure how you organise overnight accommodation there so it’s a day flight in and same day flight out, weather permitting, as opposed to being on a cruise liner were at the very worst you can float around, beverage in hand and admire the scenery and nearly always you just divert to where you can land somewhere.

It's CPT round trip, all organised by the same company (in fact the company owns the runway). You don't need to find overnight accommodation in Antarctica, if your flight is delayed, you just stay in CPT longer.

There is a risk your cruise will disappoint you if it doesn't get to the stop(s) you want, you can't get your time or money back.

With the flight, it either goes or it doesn't, and if it doesn't go, you don't pay - you can try again later. We're talking about a Gulfstream's worth of people, tiny numbers - this is a premium experience. There's no issue of overcrowding. In any case, the flights land in the Norwegian territory - so completely different rules to the ones you quote (Argentine).

Also being a flight to the interior of Antarctica, which is in fact a desert, I don't think there's a huge weather risk vs the coastal areas.

 

[VPS]

From what I've seen (and I could be wrong), a lot of them stop on the adjacent islands, not the actual continental landmass. The latter is subject to weather, and is not guaranteed.

This is where we landed and I think that's normal for most of the Antarctic cruises

 

[RooFlyer]

This is where we landed and I think that's normal for most of the Antarctic cruises

And this is my schedule; more the 'island experience' . Flights to/from Santiago included; open bar, vacant middle seats; Mandarin Oriental in Santiago pre and post cruise.



Skeptics can note that we cruise down the Antarctic peninsula over 4 days and can stop at many allowed places down that coast (and they do vary it, looking at 'trip reports' from those who have done this cruise before, to lessen human impact).

From what I've seen (and I could be wrong), a lot of them stop on the adjacent islands, not the actual continental landmass. The latter is subject to weather, and is not guaranteed.

Well, in 'Antarctica' many of the stops will actually be on the ice shelf around islands and ice surrounding the 'mainland'. If I get to kick a rock anywhere there I'll be thrilled.