Piredmus

When I am comparing cruise operator options amongst the various lines, my analysis shows that Seabourn has a higher (quite a bit actually) "passenger to crew" ratio than the others when analyzing either Pursuit or Venture. Based on the literature, assuming full cabin capacity, it shows a passenger count of 264 to a crew count of 120, for a ratio of 2.20. Am I correct in this math? This seems odd, as typically a smaller ship, especially an expedition ship would have a lower (better) ratio. For example, Seabourn Encore at 600 passengers to 330 crew has a ratio of 1.82, and Quest is even better. Does your crew count of 120 include the expedition team of 24, or are they to be added? If the latter, that would bring the ratio down to 1.83, but still well above the competitors. Most of the similar competitors are in the 1.30 range, with some very close to 1.10, but all are below 1.50. Why does Seabourn appear to be an outlier here in the wrong direction? Am I missing something? Does this higher passenger to crew ratio diminish the experience on Seabourn for this type of cruise where abundant crew is vital to the enjoyment of the trip? Any thoughts are welcome, especially from those that have taken Seabourn expedition cruises to Antarctica. Thanks.

Hello Ken...great report and lots of very useful information as I plan our trip to the Galapagos. A few questions if you don't mind (or anyone else that has an opinion)... 1. The Flora takes 100 passengers, as do a couple of other larger ships in the region. How would you rate the experience with this many passengers compared to Xpedition with 48 passengers or other smaller boats doing the trip? Do you still get an intimate and fulsome expedition trip and proper attention by the guides/staff? 2. A number of the itineraries have "inner or outer", "north or south", "east or west" routes when selecting a cruise. In your opinion, which is better allowing the most fulsome experience on a trip? 3. Related to the above, is a one week cruise sufficient to get a full viewing of the wildlife and islands to experience the Galapagos, or would a two week trip encompassing the various two route options noted be a better choice? 4. While I know your report primarily dealt with the Galapagos on island experience, what was the service and food like on the ship? Were the breakfasts, lunches, dinners of good quality & variety and up to Celebrity standards? How would you compare this service/food to Xpedition a few years earlier? Thanks.

Has anyone taken a Viking Arctic expedition cruise and have a report about it? I can find lots of reviews about the Antarctic and Great Lakes, but nothing in the north. If you have any feedback or know of YouTube videos, please provide links of same. What was the experience like and was it worth the cost for these trips to the Canadian north and Greenland? Would you recommend the cruises. Thanks.

OP'er here. Thank you to everyone for your feedback. As was to be expected, there is no concrete answer to the question. I concur with the sentiments offered as to why any cruise may be more desirable than others and realize that cost analysis comparison is not an exact science. That said, we were looking at Australia & SE Asian itineraries of long duration (30 days or so) wherein the Viking numbers were in the $1200 per person-day range, followed by Silversea & Seabourn in the $900 range and for comparison sake, Celebrity was around $500 albeit with an inferior itinerary. There is no doubt that the value one puts in the selection of a cruise is totally subjective and is not only based on the hard numbers, but the many intangibles that are difficult to assign a value to. As stated, the Viking offering looks very nice and I have no doubt that we will book one of their trips soon. The only reason for the initial question was to see if I was totally missing something in my analysis, which doesn't appear to be the case. Thanks and happy cruising...see you on the ships.

We are contemplating booking some Viking cruises, but I would like some input from Viking regulars to help me understand the “value proposition” of Viking cruises. When I complete apple to apple comparisons of Viking against competitors, I am trying to comprehend why Viking costs on a per passenger-day basis, are more than similar cruises on similar lines. While I fully understand that there is not an identical cruise for which to compare, I have been able to analyze trips that would appear almost the same in duration and itinerary. So this is not an exact science, but when looking at the numbers, Viking is in the range of 20 to 45% more on a per person-day basis. I have read the inclusions for each line and leveled the numbers in this analysis, but cannot make sense of the greater cost Viking is charging. I called Viking to have them justify this anomaly and the items they promote do not make sense for the difference. For example, Viking brag that they offer included beer or wine at “meal time”, where the others offer full drink service 24/7, so Viking are behind on this. Viking also tell me they include an excursion at each port, but when you read the description of the offer, their included excursion is typically a three hour or less mass bus tour. Compare that for example to Silversea and their included excursions are a wider variety of longer more in-depth options, so again Viking’s claim of this value is not driving the number analysis. And even though Viking promotes their offerings as “all included” they don’t include gratuities which most luxury or ultra luxury lines do…so another negative adjustment. The Viking product appears to be very nice, but I am having trouble understanding this discrepancy. While I have read a number of the CC articles about Viking, I was wondering what the latest is on this cost analysis from anyone that is able to offer an opinion. Your feed back is appreciated. Thank you. Tim Toronto, Canada