This thing is like $850 a day per person. We love to cruise. Our next trip is 24 days on Princess in a mini-suite for just over $200 a day for both my wife and I - including air, instance, airport transfers and fees.

Been to Antarctica 2 times. Most pristine wilderness. Well worth it

No fucking way! Soon cool stops and places to sail on that cruise, but no. Would love to see that side of the Arctic and would love to see the Antarctic, but on separate trips.

Hard pass.

Roughly $920/day. Even excluding all the other reasons I wouldn't be interested. Not only no but Hell No.

The idea of being stuck on a huge ship with a bunch of other people and subject to crowds and pre-planned itineraries is nauseating to me. When we were in AK last year I watched one of those ships unload and all the people lining up getting herded to their various modes of shore transportation, and it looked miserable. It's just not for me. I like to have the freedom to go where I want when I want, and make my own adventure...a cruise is just too structured for that.

That said, that particular route looks awesome. It hits a lot of places that I'd love to visit, and it would be a great adventure. If I could afford it (never gonna happen), and had a way to do it on a smaller vessel with fewer people and a more flexible itinerary, I would absolutely enjoy doing that, even if it took longer than 87 days and I had to help work the boat.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

The idea of being stuck on a huge ship with a bunch of other people and subject to crowds and pre-planned itineraries is nauseating to me...

One of the reasons I do not do big ships. I've done multiple smaller ship cruises with Tauck and Viking, number of pax ranged from 42 (Galapagos) to about 220 (Antarctica).

While the pre-planned itineraries may not appeal to everyone, for some of us older folks it makes traveling so much easier.

quote:

Originally posted by hooch:
https://www.vikingcruises.com/...ntarctica/index.html

I might, but certainly not on that ship, the m/v Viking Polaris (or its sister ship). Not a true expedition ship, it was involved in an accident on 11/29/2022 during a cruise to Antarctica. The ship was hit by a large breaking wave, damaging seven staterooms; one person died. Link These were staterooms on the lowest passenger deck and had moveable windows, in which the top half of the window moved up/down, supported by an aluminum framework. Herein lied the problem - these low stateroom windows should have been solid windows that low to the waterline with steel reinforcement. PC6 certified ships are a dime a dozen these days, one is better off with a PC5 or above rated ship for deeper arctic or Antarctic trips, especially when involving ice.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 229DAK,

I'd go in a heartbeat.

I'd go to either, probably the Antarctic, not sure that I'd want to be on a ship that long, the trip from Vancouver up to Alaska was a week and after a few days you run out of things to do...

I want to drive a 928 to Ushuaia with a plate number "H982 FKL"

quote:

Originally posted by Jraz:
Been to Antarctica 2 times. Most pristine wilderness. Well worth it

That is not the answer to the question.

No.

We are avid cruisers, but this one is just too long. I don't think there would be enough activities on the ship to sustain interest over so many days, especially sea days.