Do not take the Quantum of the Seas to Alaska

[twangster]

I have sailed Explorer, Ovation and Quantum into Endicott Arm.  

 

When I sailed Explorer to Alaska in 2018 the ship stopped and turned in the same spot in Endicott Arm.  The only difference was the ship did two full turns before heading back out the channel.   

 

Typically Quantum class doesn't do full turns at the "turning spot" where many ships turn around.   Absent of ice flows Quantum and Ovation go just as far as Explorer did back then.

 

 

[Pandamonia]

Royal also tells everyone it has amazing food on the brochure. 

 

Its about the same distance from amazing as your glacier. 

[dunrobbin]

On 7/21/2023 at 12:03 PM, reallyitsmema said:

We did Quantum last year to Alaska and would do it again if the price was right.  We didn't get very close to the glacier because of all the ice in the fjord.  It is very common for ships not to be able to get close to the glaciers, not just Quantum.  Sorry you were disappointed but it is best to read reviews from prior sailings to see what others have experienced on the same itinerary.

It is my belief that no matter what the "Ice" situation is, (we are in a time of global warming"  the ships are cutting cost and not doing or going where they say they will  Traceys arm was a turn around for us too.  Is there any one that actually got up close to where they ship said they would go?

[LEMJMcC]

23 hours ago, BallFour4 said:

After forty-one cruises dating back to the original Carnival Mardi Gras we finally went to Alaska on the Quantum last month.
 We also took binoculars, the 300mm lens and knowledge from reading the reviews about proximity to the glaciers and what to expect. Amazing ship, amazing vacation. Just go.

 

Quite nice!  What power binoculars did you take?  My wife is looking for a pair and so far the most common are 10x42 which seem to be a good size for plane travel and toting around the neck.

Lord willing, we are sailing Quantum next July for our first, hopefully not last!, Alaskan cruise.

[jean87510]

On 7/21/2023 at 1:54 PM, pierces said:

I'm terribly sorry that my complaint offended the vast collection of knowledgeable cruisers on this particular board. Even though I studied the itinerary and it said "voyage of the glaciers", I foolishly assumed that we would actually see a glacier like we did on the last five times we've been here. I know better now. In the future I will consult this board and it's incredible group of knowledgeable travelers before even thinking of venturing onto my 7th cruise to Alaska.

 

Or not.

No you have a valid point.  People on here that responded may have sailed multiple times to AK and forget that someone new to AK or cruising in general may just read the description and think just what you did.  I have talked to a lot of friends and family who have cruised for the 1st time to Europe, Bermuda, Bahamas, Caribbean and AK and they believe the brochure descriptions.  My advice is always research videos on YouTube or do searches prior to booking either a cruise or an excursion.  I see this is your 7th cruise to AK and I'm guessing you have not been on a Quantum class there.  Any info is helpful in a google search which people need to remember.

[BallFour4]

39 minutes ago, LEMJMcC said:

Quite nice!  What power binoculars did you take? 

We took 10x50 Vortex brand. I have a lightweight pair of 7x35 and once we compared the extra power was worth it.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07V3L47LB/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1

Here are some images of the ship and ports:
Quantum of the Seas 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/9DDb9oNyvUYtfMWQ9

 

Sitka

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Xjz6YnvVEBLPrb5k6

Ketchikan
https://photos.app.goo.gl/yHD7Cmk4GMnNQers7

Victoria
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GWfQkxgDkmxH16mN8

Enjoy the trip! 

.

Edited July 24, 2023 by BallFour4

[The Fun Researcher]

2 hours ago, BallFour4 said:

We took 10x50 Vortex brand. I have a lightweight pair of 7x35 and once we compared the extra power was worth it.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07V3L47LB/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&th=1

Here are some images of the ship and ports:
Quantum of the Seas 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/9DDb9oNyvUYtfMWQ9

 

Sitka

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Xjz6YnvVEBLPrb5k6

Ketchikan
https://photos.app.goo.gl/yHD7Cmk4GMnNQers7

Victoria
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GWfQkxgDkmxH16mN8

Enjoy the trip! 

.

I second the Vortex 10x50’s.  We also purchased the Vortex 10 x 50 binoculars for our cruise on the Quantum July 10th.  They were fantastic. However, we bought the next model down, the Crossfire HD, 10 x 50 binoculars. I had my hands on both at Cabela’s, and while the Diamondbacks were slightly better, I could not justify the additional $100. It’s up to you. I thought there was maybe a 10% performance improvement with the Diamondbacks

https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Optics-Crossfire-10x50-Binoculars/dp/B07V3L3ZSX/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?crid=23XPCEZISTIXG&keywords=vortex+hd+10x50&qid=1690214242&sprefix=vortex+hd+10x50%2Caps%2C235&sr=8-4

[The Fun Researcher]

21 minutes ago, The Fun Researcher said:

I second the Vortex 10x50’s.  We also purchased the Vortex 10 x 50 binoculars for our cruise on the Quantum July 10th.  They were fantastic. However, we bought the next model down, the Crossfire HD, 10 x 50 binoculars. I had my hands on both at Cabela’s, and while the Diamondbacks were slightly better, I could not justify the additional $100. It’s up to you. I thought there was maybe a 10% performance improvement with the Diamondbacks

https://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Optics-Crossfire-10x50-Binoculars/dp/B07V3L3ZSX/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?crid=23XPCEZISTIXG&keywords=vortex+hd+10x50&qid=1690214242&sprefix=vortex+hd+10x50%2Caps%2C235&sr=8-4

ETA, I also evaluated the size you mention, the Vortex 10x42's and while the optics were sharp, they just don't let in as much light, so viewing things in lower light conditions is going to be more difficult than the 10x50's.  The 50mm outer lenses are great for letting as much light into the binocular as possible.  The tradeoff is that they are slightly bigger/heavier than the 10x42's.

[LEMJMcC]

41 minutes ago, The Fun Researcher said:

ETA, I also evaluated the size you mention, the Vortex 10x42's and while the optics were sharp, they just don't let in as much light, so viewing things in lower light conditions is going to be more difficult than the 10x50's.  The 50mm outer lenses are great for letting as much light into the binocular as possible.  The tradeoff is that they are slightly bigger/heavier than the 10x42's.

I appreciate the lead.  I found a pair of Vortex Diamondback 15X56 on sale and ordered them...Amazon is pretty easy for returns if I don't like them.  They may be a bit heavier, but for me, 35 oz. is not much of a load...my wife, on the other hand, wants something lighter, smaller, but with good optics...

[The Fun Researcher]

1 hour ago, LEMJMcC said:

I appreciate the lead.  I found a pair of Vortex Diamondback 15X56 on sale and ordered them...Amazon is pretty easy for returns if I don't like them.  They may be a bit heavier, but for me, 35 oz. is not much of a load...my wife, on the other hand, wants something lighter, smaller, but with good optics...

Sounds good!  Just be aware that the stronger the magnification the more steady you need to be to have a stable image. The view can get shaky as you go higher and higher in magnification unless you have a tripod or something.  15x might be perfectly fine though 

[LEMJMcC]

1 minute ago, The Fun Researcher said:

Sounds good!  Just be aware that the stronger the magnification the more steady you need to be to have a stable image. The view can get shaky as you go higher and higher in magnification unless you have a tripod or something.  15x might be perfectly fine though 

Yeah, I noticed that when test-driving a pair of Zeiss 10X42 here locally.  I figure I can use the railing of our balcony or one of my hiking poles for greater stability.

[coops]

On 7/21/2023 at 11:40 AM, pierces said:

After spending thousands of dollars on a cruise to Alaska to see the glaciers and all the wonderful sights, we discovered that the Quantum of the Seas does not get within a mile of any glacier. It dips its toe into the fjord, turns around and runs away. On asking why , we were told that the ship is too large to safely approach the glacier. So if you see an ad that says voyage of the glaciers keep in mind that on the Quantum of the Seas, it's the voyage to see part of a fjord. Very disappointed. Not necessarily at the crew but very disappointed at Royal Caribbean marketing that failed to mention this glaring omission. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by coops

[Pinballs83]

I'm doing two 7 day Alaska cruises next year. The princess one is way more expensive than rc quantum for reasons people have mentioned above. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Pinballs83

[pspercy]

If you're doing a one-way to Whittier, disembark and allow time for this :

  https://phillipscruises.com/26-glacier-cruise/

 

Worth every penny 🙂

[pierces]

On 7/21/2023 at 11:26 AM, BirdTravels said:

A smaller ship would not got any closer than the Quantum on that particular day. Any cruise ship is limited by the amount of ice in the water. The OP is totally inaccurate in their description of the issue. You could take a small tour boat called the Glacier Explorer shore excursion if you want to get closer. 

I feel that this amounts to flogging a dead horse, but on the day we were there, there was virtually no ice in the fjord. 

 

This is a moderate telephoto of the view we had. note the sparse bits of ice in the middle distance. The large light area in the foreground is not ice, but light reflecting off of the rippled water. 

 

This is a longer telephoto view of the glacier. Again, reflection off of the water but very little ice. 

 

I had a conversation with the Guest Relations manager who told me that the policy was to limit the approach by the Quantum to where we stopped and pivoted. He said that a Radiance-class ship would have been able to approach much closer.

 

As in the past, we would have taken the excursion on the small sightseeing boat that meets the ship in the fjord and goes on to the smaller inlets where the cruise ships can't go, but it wasn't offered until we had already booked a conflicting whale watching tour for the majority of our party.

 

I really hadn't felt the need to research the glacier proximity policy for the larger ship since the listing was for:

 

Now I know and oddly enough, Royal seems to have realized this as well. This is the listing from next year for the same itinerary:

 

 

We will be doing another Alaska itinerary in 2025 but it will be a Southbound after a cruise tour on a Radiance or Millennium-class ship.

 

On a happier note, the whale-watching tour we booked happened upon 10 or 11 humpbacks bubble-netting and that completely evaporated any annoyance I may have had with the glacier issue. 😉

 

Dave

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by pierces

[harryfat1]

On 7/21/2023 at 8:40 AM, pierces said:

After spending thousands of dollars on a cruise to Alaska to see the glaciers and all the wonderful sights, we discovered that the Quantum of the Seas does not get within a mile of any glacier. It dips its toe into the fjord, turns around and runs away. On asking why , we were told that the ship is too large to safely approach the glacier. So if you see an ad that says voyage of the glaciers keep in mind that on the Quantum of the Seas, it's the voyage to see part of a fjord. Very disappointed. Not necessarily at the crew but very disappointed at Royal Caribbean marketing that failed to mention this glaring omission. 

We were in a similar predicament last year when we were trying to decide which Alaska cruise to book. Royal has the entertainment value/newer style ship compared to Princess but Princess sails to both Glacier Bay and Hubbard Glacier on their one-way itinerary.  In the end, we chose the itinerary over the ship in going with Princess.

 

We got two great days of glacier viewing but at nighttime, we were bored to tears with not much to do as their entertainment venue doesn’t fit our demographics. The drawback of RCI/Celebrity Alaska sailings is that they don’t go to Glacier Bay.  If you go to the Alaska boards, most people will tell you that Glacier Bay and Hubbard Glacier are the top 2 Glacier places to see if seeing glaciers are high on your priority list.

 

Here are some sample pictures from both Glacier experiences for those people who are deciding between the two cruise lines for their next Alaska cruise.  I have a detailed trip report under my signature on our Princess experience if anyone needs more information:

 

Hubbard Glacier:

 

Much wider opening to allow ships to get in:

 

:

 

 

Lots of ice even in August that prevents the ship to get too much closer but the Hubbard Glacier is so massive that you don't need to be super close to see it

 

 

 

 

You can see we came very close to the edge of the ice field. I was surprised that the captain was able to bring our ship this close especially considering just a month prior to our cruise in 2022, a NCL ship hit an iceberg at the exact Hubbard Glacier area and was out of commission for a while.

 

 

If you are a really big glacier fan, you can join the excursion that transfers you to a smaller boat and they take you up much closer than a large cruise ship can.  Those were booked MONTHS out at $280/pp.

 

 

 

Glacier Bay:

 

This was an all-day event with the US park rangers coming aboard via their own boat and the park ranger took over the PA system the entire day explaining the history of the area as well as any wildlife sightings.  It was rather humourous to see all the people run from the port side to the starboard side and back every time the ranger spotted something. 

 

People out by the balcony EARLY in the morning camping out a spot for wildlife sightings

 

 

 

Every cabin gets a map of the GB area like you would get when visiting a US national park

 

 

Park Rangers set up camp on the ship after they came on board:

 

 

 

Finally few sample pics of the Margerie Glacier area

 

 

 

 

 

In summary, if viewing glaciers is important to you, look for itineraries that have more than one option in case your first one option doesn't work out

[reallyitsmema]

On 7/21/2023 at 1:18 PM, pierces said:

I am quite aware of navigatiomal hazards. I wasn't complaining that they weren't brave enough. I was complaining that they did not make it the least bit clear that we would not be actually approaching the glacier. When we asked, we were told it was her policy with the Quantum ships not to approach the glaciers. There was no ice. We just stopped over a mile short turned around and sailed out. No mention of this in any literature promoting "Voyage of the Glaciers". Now we know. If you want to visit the glaciers, book your trip on a smaller ship. The Celebrity Radiance class would be our choice in the future.

 

 

This was our closest approach. Note the significant lack of ice.

 

15 minutes ago, pierces said:

I feel that this amounts to flogging a dead horse, but on the day we were there, there was virtually no ice in the fjord. 

 

This is a moderate telephoto of the view we had. note the sparse bits of ice in the middle distance. The large light area in the foreground is not ice, but light reflecting off of the rippled water. 

 

This is a longer telephoto view of the glacier. Again, reflection off of the water but very little ice. 

 

I had a conversation with the Guest Relations manager who told me that the policy was to limit the approach by the Quantum to where we stopped and pivoted. He said that a Radiance-class ship would have been able to approach much closer.

 

As in the past, we would have taken the excursion on the small sightseeing boat that meets the ship in the fjord and goes on to the smaller inlets where the cruise ships can't go, but it wasn't offered until we had already booked a conflicting whale watching tour for the majority of our party.

 

I really hadn't felt the need to research the glacier proximity policy for the larger ship since the listing was for:

 

Now I know and oddly enough, Royal seems to have realized this as well. This is the listing from next year for the same itinerary:

 

 

We will be doing another Alaska itinerary in 2025 but it will be a Southbound after a cruise tour on a Radiance or Millennium-class ship.

 

On a happier note, the whale-watching tour we booked happened upon 10 or 11 humpbacks bubble-netting and that completely evaporated any annoyance I may have had with the glacier issue. 😉

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

Here is the other post showing the ice.

[Charles4515]

21 minutes ago, harryfat1 said:

On 7/21/2023 at 10:40 AM, pierces said:

We were in a similar predicament last year when we were trying to decide which Alaska cruise to book. Royal has the entertainment value/newer style ship compared to Princess but Princess sails to both Glacier Bay and Hubbard Glacier on their one-way itinerary.  In the end, we chose the itinerary over the ship in going with Princess.

Smart choice. I don’t get why people would choose Royal Caribbean for the ships over Princess or HAL for the itinerary for Alaska. The whole point of Alaska cruises is itinerary. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Charles4515

[A&L_Ont]

On 7/21/2023 at 5:03 PM, Seacruise said:

If you were lucky and got to sail by Alert Bay you were in for a real treat as this place the most Totem poles around. There was the young native guy that would come out along the ship with a Canadian Flag and play the trumpet.ska Cruise and it's true beauty.

 

We got to experience the trumpet player on two occasions. The first time was a total surprise and the second time we were waiting for him to boat out and serenade us. Pretty cool. 

[reallyitsmema]

10 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Smart choice. I don’t get why people would choose Royal Caribbean for the ships over Princess or HAL for the itinerary for Alaska. The whole point of Alaska cruises is itinerary. 

 

The whole point of Alaska cruises for YOU is the itinerary.  Some people cruise for the ship too.

[harryfat1]

55 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Smart choice. I don’t get why people would choose Royal Caribbean for the ships over Princess or HAL for the itinerary for Alaska. The whole point of Alaska cruises is itinerary. 

As others have pointed out, different people have different priorities. 

 

We got the glaciers as promoted by Princess since they called their one-way sailings “Voyage of the Glaciers” but we were pretty bored by the entertainment venue (or lack thereof) at night time so it was a trade-off. 

 

OP didn’t see the glaciers on Quantum as he/she would have on a Princess sailing, but he/she likely experienced better entertainment options compared to a Princess ship. For example, one comedian was a headliner in the main theater for 2 of the 7 nights.  Another 2 nights in the main theater were a really bad ventriloquist/singer that I didn't even go back on the second night he performed.

 

One more thing to point out is that in order to see both glaciers, this is only offered on a one-way itinerary in going to/from Alaska/Vancouver (or a 14-day B2B).  Quantum/Ovation sails out of Seattle and they sail to the Dawes Glacier instead. So one needs to fly to/from Anchorage/Vancouver instead of Seattle roundtrip. 

 

Again, even more compromises in flying further/more expensive routes in order to see more glaciers.

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, reallyitsmema said:

 

The whole point of Alaska cruises for YOU is the itinerary.  Some people cruise for the ship too.

Why bother? Just take a Caribbean cruise. 

[reallyitsmema]

2 minutes ago, Charles4515 said:

Why bother? Just take a Caribbean cruise. 

 

Not really our concern.  It could be the person lives on the west coast and it is cheaper to fly to Seattle than it is to fly to somewhere in Florida.  People do what works for them.  We are doing another NE/Canada cruise because the port is 15 miles away from home, so no need for flights or hotel.  We can drive to most of the ports but we want to cruise, so we are going again.  We all just have to do what works best for ourselves. 🙂 

[bradykenadee]

I totally agree with the complaint regarding the non-glacier viewing.  I was on that same ship at the same time, and there was NO reason why they had to stop a mile out.  In fact a Holland America ship passed us by and went all the way in as far as we could see.  It had nothing to do with the ice or the weather.  It should NOT have been advertised as a glacier cruise when they had no intention of getting us anywhere near the glacier.  We have been there 3 times before on Princess and Holland America, and had always been able to go at least to where you could see the calving and hear the amazing crash as it exploded into the sea.  This was a patch of white against the rock, and that was all you could see.  They had NO intention to get anywhere near that thing, and it should have been disclosed that the ship was too big to see anything at all.  False advertising!!

[Charles4515]

1 hour ago, bradykenadee said:

I was on that same ship at the same time, and there was NO reason why they had to stop a mile out.  In fact a Holland America ship passed us by and went all the way in as far as we could see.  It had nothing to do with the ice or the weather.  

Another armchair Captain. No reason LOL. I guess they didn't get closer for No reason, it was just a whim. Very logical thinking. NOT. The fact that a Holland American ship passed means nothing as ships are of different sizes and drafts and smaller ships can go where larger ships can not. 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Charles4515