Which ship would you choose?

[Lvntrvl]

We have narrowed down our choices for a South America / Antarctica cruise to 3 choices, each of which has its pros and cons. Any and all suggestions are appreciated.  Option # 1: Azamara Journey 23 nights: Great itinerary, but concerned that the ship may be too small passing through the Drake Passage (Drake Shake) and is there enough activity and space to keep us from feeling underwhelmed? It is by far the most expensive of the 3 options. Option #2: Oceania Marina 18 nights: Love the ship and have always wanted to try Oceania, free shore excursions seem to be a plus, but the itinerary does not include Ushuaia or Uraguay. Would I ultimately regret not seeing those ports as we are checking off bucket items and likely will not return to this area anytime soon? Option #3: HAL Oosterdam 22 nights: Great itinerary, older ship, but lots of add-on expenses. We love wine, but otherwise do not drink much. I love to swim every day. A balcony is a must. Stepping on land in Antarctica is not a prerequisite.

[MillyDM]

Hello @Lvntrvl
I don't have experience on the three ships you're considering, but I've just finished an Antarctica cruise on Silversea's Endeavor ship (200 guests - size), and it was fine through the Drake Passage.
I'm sure that all of the ships that are used for Antarctica cruises are special vessels built for ice and rough seas.
In our case, Silverseas's Endeavor is a state-of-the-art modern ship, and thanks to the stabilizers, the Drake shake with 6-meter waves was tolerable. 
In my opinion, picking a ship that you like is key, given you'll spend 100% of your time on it. hope this helps in your decision. Milly

[alyssamma]

On 1/11/2024 at 8:24 PM, Lvntrvl said:

We have narrowed down our choices for a South America / Antarctica cruise to 3 choices, each of which has its pros and cons. Any and all suggestions are appreciated.  Option # 1: Azamara Journey 23 nights: Great itinerary, but concerned that the ship may be too small passing through the Drake Passage (Drake Shake) and is there enough activity and space to keep us from feeling underwhelmed? It is by far the most expensive of the 3 options. Option #2: Oceania Marina 18 nights: Love the ship and have always wanted to try Oceania, free shore excursions seem to be a plus, but the itinerary does not include Ushuaia or Uraguay. Would I ultimately regret not seeing those ports as we are checking off bucket items and likely will not return to this area anytime soon? Option #3: HAL Oosterdam 22 nights: Great itinerary, older ship, but lots of add-on expenses. We love wine, but otherwise do not drink much. I love to swim every day. A balcony is a must. Stepping on land in Antarctica is not a prerequisite.

If you look at the HAL board, several people have live blogged Jan Ooseterdam trips for the 22 day Antarctica... that will 100% tell you if HAL is a good fit for you.

[Bella0714]

Just wondering why stepping on land in Antarctica is not important.

[alyssamma]

On 1/28/2024 at 9:47 PM, Bella0714 said:

Just wondering why stepping on land in Antarctica is not important.

The OP said it wasn't a prerequisite, meaning don't tell them their choices are not good because they don't allow you to step foot on the continent.

 

It may be "important" but not important enough to justify the cost/extra work/whatever for them.

 

Regardless, they just wanted opinions on those ships.

[Bella0714]

43 minutes ago, alyssamma said:

The OP said it wasn't a prerequisite, meaning don't tell them their choices are not good because they don't allow you to step foot on the continent.

 

It may be "important" but not important enough to justify the cost/extra work/whatever for them.

 

Regardless, they just wanted opinions on those ships.

I wasn’t going to tell them their choices are not good. But having never been to Antarctica, some people might not realize what not stepping on the continent or land means. That’s why I asked. If I was happy just seeing Antarctica, I’d be very happy with a drive-by. If I wanted to see wildlife and icebergs up close, I wouldn’t be happy. As for cost, the OP is considering Oceania, so that’s obviously not a major consideration.

 

Don’t assume the worst of people.

[alyssamma]

2 minutes ago, Bella0714 said:

I wasn’t going to tell them their choices are not good. But having never been to Antarctica, some people might not realize what not stepping on the continent or land means. That’s why I asked. If I was happy just seeing Antarctica, I’d be very happy with a drive-by. If I wanted to see wildlife and icebergs up close, I wouldn’t be happy. As for cost, the OP is considering Oceania, so that’s obviously not a major consideration.

 

Don’t assume the worst of people.

Not sure why you're sensitive about this. I never said you would do that - just like the OP never said it wasn't important to them.

 

What I *did* say was that the OP probably didn't want people telling him why it was a bad idea to look at those ships. Not everyone would do that - and you may or may not be in that group...I don't know and honestly don't care. But there are many who would be in the group of "you don't want to do that".

 

Don't assume people are referring to you when they speak generically.

[Bella0714]

8 minutes ago, alyssamma said:

Not sure why you're sensitive about this. I never said you would do that - just like the OP never said it wasn't important to them.

 

What I *did* say was that the OP probably didn't want people telling him why it was a bad idea to look at those ships. Not everyone would do that - and you may or may not be in that group...I don't know and honestly don't care. But there are many who would be in the group of "you don't want to do that".

 

Don't assume people are referring to you when they speak generically.

You quoted me! Who else were you referring to?

[alyssamma]

11 minutes ago, Bella0714 said:

You quoted me! Who else were you referring to?

I was *answering* why the OP said it wasn't a prerequisite. That was *your* question.

 

You asked "why" the OP said that and I gave a couple of explanations. The explanations were in no way directed to you...only the answer to your question was.

 

For example, if you ask why I don't want to go to country X and I answer that people have told me it's crime ridden, that doesn't mean *you* told me that. In the same way, my answer was in reference to how *some* people on CC (and other forums) will, instead of answering a Q, tell the OP why they shouldn't have asked that Q. In this case, the OP smartly tried to stop those types of answers by saying stepping on the continent wasn't a prerequisite.

 

In addition to that answer, I also explained to you why some people may not want to step on the continent - cost/effort/etc. These may not be the OP's reasons...just saying that for *some* people these are reasons and it *may* also be the OP's.

[Lvntrvl]

As the OP, I genuinely appreciate all of the feedback. We ultimately elected to book with Oceania as it included several other South American ports that we were anxious to visit, as well as Antarctica. If we love it, we have the option of going back on an expedition cruise at a later date.

[Woodrowst]

On 1/12/2024 at 4:24 AM, MillyDM said:

Hello @Lvntrvl

I'm sure that all of the ships that are used for Antarctica cruises are special vessels built for ice and rough seas.

 

 

The ships built specifically for ice and rough seas are generally those that do landings in Antartica.  Drive by ships are typically the same vessels used for more typical sailings in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, and elsewhere.  While these ships are usually bigger than expedition ships, they also typically have a shallow draft making them susceptible to the same physics that makes a rubber ducky bob like a cork.  Stabilizers may help offset the left to right bobbing, but the disadvantage in rough seas of a shallow draft more than offsets any advantages of a larger ship.  I would rather be in the Drake passage on a smaller purpose-built expedition ship than a larger ship that is meant for other areas of the world.

[Heidi13]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:24 AM, MillyDM said:

Hello @Lvntrvl
I don't have experience on the three ships you're considering, but I've just finished an Antarctica cruise on Silversea's Endeavor ship (200 guests - size), and it was fine through the Drake Passage.
I'm sure that all of the ships that are used for Antarctica cruises are special vessels built for ice and rough seas.
In our case, Silverseas's Endeavor is a state-of-the-art modern ship, and thanks to the stabilizers, the Drake shake with 6-meter waves was tolerable. 
In my opinion, picking a ship that you like is key, given you'll spend 100% of your time on it. hope this helps in your decision. Milly

 

All vessel operating in Antarctica are not special vessel built specifically for those waters. When designing a ship, the owner specifies a hull classification from the Classification Society that sets the design criteria and limits the operational waters.

 

The IMO sets Polar Classifications from PC-1 to PC-7, with PC-1 ships capable of operating year round in Polar waters. PC-7 ships can only operate in Summer/Autumn in thin 1st year ice and PC-6 ships can operate Summer/Autumn in medium 1st year ice. Most of the current expedition ships have a PC-6 classification, with at least 1 of the smaller ships being PC-5, if I recall correctly.

 

The larger ships, such as all 3 mentioned by the OP, I suspect are Category C ships with nothing more than Baltic ice class, or equivalent. Basically they can operate in waters with bergy bits, but cannot enter ice.

 

Ships with > 500 pax cannot send anyone ashore in Antarctica.