Alaska!

[Chairsin]

My TA just sent me the breaking news with the 2017 Alaska schedule -- June through September nine cruises from 10-14 days. Decisions, decision!

[hoosier74]

Booked this morning!

[Chairsin]

Wow. Good for you -- you certainly did not waste ant time.

[Jim Avery]

Glad to see Seabourn back in Alaska, at least for a season. Some very nice itineraries. We went to Alaska in a large aft suite on Pacific Princess (680 passenger ex- R Ship) and all that space was very nice but it was not Seabourn. One itinerary especially looks good as it really does the Inside Passage from Prince Rupert to Vancouver. It seems all the others (including our trip on the PP) skip that and go through Hecate Strait. In effect 2 sea days for a r/t Vancouver as you cannot see land except some mountains at a great distance for most of those days.

[florisdekort]

I'm booked :) Penthouse Spa Suite for the nice aft views.

[cruising kirby]

I am interested in feedback from people who have experienced Alaska - do the Seabourn ports cover the "highlights"? Is any particular Seabourn itinerary better than the others?

[galeforce9]

Would love to go but at the moment the price is reflecting the great level of demand and doesn't seem to represent such good value as other destinations with seabourn. So I'll wait on and hope they return with a settling in prices. A risk I know!

[Emperor Norton]

I'm surprised to see they don't stop in Skagway but rather Haines. At 45 - 90 minutes each way between the two towns thats a lot of potentially wasted time.

[cruisr]

Interesting, last time they did Alaska they had to give it away and that was on the small ship. IIRC it was 2002 and they wanted at least one ship out of Europe.

[Emperor Norton]

Hopefully Alaska works out well enough that next season they could do R/T San Francisco and include Victoria and perhaps Oregon and Washington ports.

[Jim Avery]

That sounds great. Maybe they will listen. I would go for just about anything on the West Coast that would eliminate or minimize flying.:eek::D

[USAFSS4Ever]

Over the years my wife and I traveled extensively both on and off the job, but we had never given cruising a thought until a friend mentioned Silversea. Until then, the only image we had of cruising was that of mammoth ships with thousands of passengers promoting a concept resembling Disney World at sea.

 

Our first cruise, in 2006, was a 4-night trip to/from Puerto Rico aboard the Silver Whisper. We thought that four nights wasn't all that long if, in the end, we didn't like. As it turned out, the port visits weren't a big attraction but we found that we liked being at sea aboard a small ship, and made plans for similar cruises in the future.

 

For the next couple of years, we alternated between Silversea and Seabourn. We enjoyed them both and thought them to be very similar but ultimately stayed with Silversea, primarily because of the itineraries. Of course, over the years, we accrued some financial benefits for remaining with Silversea, which was important as the prices for us then were not cheap, nor are they now.

 

Fast forwarding to the present, we have continued to book cruises with Silversea and have two scheduled for 2016. And, while we have always enjoyed Silversea cruises to varying degrees, I sense (perhaps more than my wife) that there may be more appealing options available.

 

So, we are going to try another Seabourn cruise (and two other cruise lines as well, when the right ships and itineraries come together). The cruise we have chosen is the 11-Day Ultimate Alaskan Sojourn in June 2017. We've been to Alaska before but never on a cruise and we've not noticed Seabourn cruises in this area in a while (if ever), so we're really looking forward to it.

[Chairsin]

As I recall Seabourn was only in Alaska in 2002 as a result of 9/11 -- they felt they needed to minimize their exposure to the Mid East. My understanding was they had not cruised Alaska prior to that time because the ships ( remember, they only had the little sisters back then) did not meet the environmental restrictions placed on ships cruising those waters so they must have gotten some sort of waiver. As to the cruises not being popular the travel industry in general was in a slump post 9/11. Now of course Seabourn has new ships that clearly meet the environmental restrictions and the travel industry is robust. I would be surprised if Seabourn does not experience success with these cruises. Time will tell.

[tv24]

Hopefully Alaska works out well enough that next season they could do R/T San Francisco and include Victoria and perhaps Oregon and Washington ports.

 

That would be lovely and great fun.

[Chairsin]

So here is what I do not understand about Seabourn's Alaska itineraries-- why so many sea days? It is not as though the distances are so far apart. As much as I am excited about the addition of Alaska to Seabourn's schedule I am not happy that they include so many sea days. When I visit Alaska I want to go ashore every day and walk and hike not just cruise by.

[hoosier74]

When I first looked at the 14 day cruise, I also thought there were too many sea days. No one loves Seabourn sea days more than I, but it seemed excessive. Then I actually mapped down the itinerary and noticed that most of the "cruising" scenic bays and glaciers were also on days when a port was listed. I'm assuming they take advantage of the long days to include a port and scenic cruising. There are only two entire sea days; the first which is Kenai Fjords. The 11 day northbound seems to work the same way.

[Emperor Norton]

So here is what I do not understand about Seabourn's Alaska itineraries-- why so many sea days? It is not as though the distances are so far apart. As much as I am excited about the addition of Alaska to Seabourn's schedule I am not happy that they include so many sea days. When I visit Alaska I want to go ashore every day and walk and hike not just cruise by.

 

It could be their marketing people said that a chunk of people sailing in Alaska want days off. Perhaps the sea days allow them to be in port when the port doesnt have 4 or more 2500+ passenger ships, and/or gives them a berth rather than a tender port. That or they have some eerily accurate weather predictions and the weather will be nasty those sea days so may as well be at sea;)

[Chairsin]

Well to my mind two sea days is still too many. This seems especially true in an area like Alaska that is attractive to active people such as my DH and me.

[Emperor Norton]

Well to my mind two sea days is still too many. This seems especially true in an area like Alaska that is attractive to active people such as my DH and me.

 

There's a lot about Seabourns plans that don't make much sense to me, especially the decision to use Haines rather than Skagway.

[Chairsin]

I am just starting my Alaska research so can you please enlighten me as to why you think Skagway is a better port?

[Emperor Norton]

The town is right there (not as right there as it used to be, but for most people a maybe 5 minute walk from the ship). The town itself has some history and interesting bars/microbreweries/sweet shops. You're also right there for the WhitePass railway and any other land based excursions (eg: self guided hikes in the Klondike Goldrush National Park). With Haines you'll probably see a number of tours in Skagway which is then a slow or fast ferry ride away, so IMO you're wasting daylight getting to/from a port you could've just started in. This is exacerbated if the towns port is filled with Disney, NCL, Princess, RCCL, etc...