7 night versus 12

[donaldsc]

What?? Waste time cruising? LOL!

 

We have 2 cruises booked a Azamara . Both are great in that they have no sea days at all.

 

DON

[crystalspin]

The only "problem" I had with the 26-day TransAtlantic + Mediterranean to Venice, was that all (but one) of the port days were in the first half and none (but one) in the second half -- which was exhausting!!!

 

The 14-day Great Alaskan Explorer has what looks like the best arrangement of Sea vs Port days:

Embark

Sea Day

Port Day

Sea Day (glacier cruising)

Port Day

Port Day

Sea Day

Port Day

Port Day

Port Day

Sea Day (glacier cruising)

Port Day

Sea Day

Port Day

Disembark

[sloopsailor]

The problem w the 12 day cruise is that is does not give you any more time in AK. You just waste time cruising up and then down the coast of California, Oregon and Washington. The whole point of an AK cruise is to get to AK as quickly as possible and not waste time with sea days getting there.

 

DON

 

No, that is not the "whole point". While visiting Alaska is great, being on the ship is worthwhile on it's own. Just being away from the routine of daily life at home is worth the extra days. That to me is nowhere close to being wasted time.

 

So, you don't speak for me. I love sea days as much as port days. I sometimes enjoy just sitting back with a good book, a view of the ocean, and a favorite drink. Visiting Alaska isn't the only worthwhile thing to do on a cruise.

 

To expand with your claim that the whole point is to get to Alaska as quickly as possible, you are using the wrong means of transportation. If getting there fast is the goal, flying is much faster than taking a cruise. That small detail completely undoes your argument.

[sloopsailor]

How do you feel about sea days? If you are looking at the same Princess Cruise that I found, the extra 5 days are all sea days. The ports are all the same as one of their Seattle round trips

 

We enjoyed our cruise out of San Francisco. It was a 10 day instead of a 7 day out of Seattle or Vancouver, so that is only three extra sea days, not five as you claim. And those extra three days went by pretty fast. Besides, living in the Bay Area as you and I do means no flying to get on and off the ship. Considering the hassle and discomfort that is flying these days, a person would end up spending much of two of those three days just dealing with airports, security lines, and crowded, uncomfortable planes.

 

That means the 10 day cruise out of SF really only takes one more day than a 7 day cruise out of Seattle or Vancouver since we don't waste all those hours at the airport or on a plane. And, if you are a smart traveler and always arrive the day before to avoid any unexpected delays en route, you have now spent 10 days to take a 7 day cruise instead of taking the 10 day cruise out of SF in the first place.

[NMLady]

No, that is not the "whole point". While visiting Alaska is great, being on the ship is worthwhile on it's own. Just being away from the routine of daily life at home is worth the extra days. That to me is nowhere close to being wasted time.

 

So, you don't speak for me. I love sea days as much as port days. I sometimes enjoy just sitting back with a good book, a view of the ocean, and a favorite drink. Visiting Alaska isn't the only worthwhile thing to do on a cruise.

 

To expand with your claim that the whole point is to get to Alaska as quickly as possible, you are using the wrong means of transportation. If getting there fast is the goal, flying is much faster than taking a cruise. ...

 

(y) (y)

[martincath]

It was a 10 day instead of a 7 day out of Seattle or Vancouver, so that is only three extra sea days, not five as you claim.

OP is cruising out of LA, so new_cruisers info is correct as that's what they were responding to, not where their own residence is - 5 extra sea days out of LA compared to Seattle/Vancouver... although heading up to SF for a short pre- & post-cruise stay and cruising out of there might be something OP would enjoy too?

[sloopsailor]

OP is cruising out of LA, so new_cruisers info is correct as that's what they were responding to, not where their own residence is - 5 extra sea days out of LA compared to Seattle/Vancouver... although heading up to SF for a short pre- & post-cruise stay and cruising out of there might be something OP would enjoy too?

 

Yep, you are right! I saw the city the poster I was replying to was from and assumed he was commenting on leaving out of San Francisco. My error. (n)

 

Still, the time wasted in airports and on planes is something people should consider when deciding which cruise to take. Being on a cruise ship is so much nicer! :ship:

 

For people who enjoy relaxing on vacations, the extra five days might not be such a bad way to spend their time. It all depends on how much time a person can afford to be away from home, and what the full purpose of the vacation is. As for me, I enjoy relaxing with nothing to do as much as being active and busy visiting ports when on vacation. A balance of the two can be a great way to take a vacation. :)

[new_cruiser]

Besides, living in the Bay Area as you and I do means...

Yep, you are right! I saw the city the poster I was replying to was from and assumed he was commenting on leaving out of San Francisco. My error. (n)

 

Still, the time wasted in airports and on planes is something people should consider when deciding which cruise to take. Being on a cruise ship is so much nicer! :ship:

I didn't assume that 5 additional sea days would be a bad thing. I know that people vary on whether they see (pun intended) that as a plus or a minus. I just pointed out the fact. (And perhaps sometimes the same person sees it differently depending on their objective for the trip - I've avoided sea days in the past but I've booked an ocean crossing with 8 sea days in a row to start my retirement.)

 

Assumptions often aren't accurate. For instance, I'm not a "he" :cool:. Also, few would consider Sacramento to be part of the Bay Area. DH and I are about 100 miles from San Francisco and our options for getting there for a cruise would be:

• Drive our car - at a non-rush hour time, Google maps says that would be about 2.5 hours because even at an off hour there are a few slow downs on the route. My experience has been that the median is more like 3 hours and rush hour traffic, construction or accidents can make it a lot longer. Parking in SF is pretty expensive.
  
• Drive one way rentals - but non-airport rental locations often have limited hours so that often still involves pick-up or drop-off of the car at the airport.
  
• Take the Capital Corridor train plus BART or the train's bus. It isn't a high speed train - about 2.5 hours. Occasionally, it has run a half hour or so late but time is more consistent than driving.
  
• Fly to SFO - the flight is about 1 hour. BART to downtown SFO adds about another half hour.
  

On the other hand, I can get a direct flight to Seattle that is < 2 hours. Or I can fly to Vancouver - which takes 2 hops and is around 4 hours (The OP could get a direct from LAX that is about 2.5 hours to either destination. Admittedly, LAX is a more painful airport in terms of traffic to it and size of the airport than SMF. I didn't look at the other LA area airports where there would be 2 hops or perhaps a direct flight.) The extra "wasted time" in airports and planes compared to that in cars and trains to go to San Franciso was maybe an hour or two some of which I slept to make up for the early flight time so not exactly wasted.

 

For our cruise last month, we flew 2 hops to Victoria, BC leaving early in the morning and arriving around 1 - leaving us plenty of time to enjoy an afternoon and evening at Buchart Gardens. The next morning we took Helijet to Vancouver (a half hour trip), went to Granville Island and to the Museum of Archeology, boarding our cruise the next day. If we'd gone directly to Vancouver, we also could have arrived early afternoon, had the afternoon and evening to enjoy Vancouver. The travel time was a small portion of our before cruise travel. Going to Vancouver allowed us to do a one way with about a week on land out of Seward.