Cranachin

Please read the whole post before commenting. If this question has been asked recently, I did not see it.

Here is the question: How does the cost of a 7-day Inside Passage cruise, once you factor in everything, compare to the cost of a 7-day do-it-yourself trip to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula?

THIS QUESTION IS STRICTLY ABOUT COST! I know that the two experiences are totally different. Please, no comments on the relative merits of one trip over the other. That is not the purpose of this post. It is strictly about economics, apart from aesthetics.

I know that it might be hard to compare cruise ships to hotels/restaurants, but I am sure those of you who have done both types of trip can at least hazard an economic opinion. Yes, there is a wide range of options for both, but it seems like there would be a way to look at a certain cruise lines/cabin types as comparable to staying in certain types of hotels/rooms. Obviously you can't compare an inside cabin on Carnival to a suite in a deluxe hotel, but that is not the comparison I am asking about. Think in terms of apples to pears, at least, rather than oranges.

Now, the rest of the story. I am trying to help some family members plan an Alaska trip. Some want to see "Central Alaska" - Kenai, Anchorage, Denali, maybe Fairbanks. Yes, I know that would take at least 2 weeks to do! So for purposes of this comparison, just consider a one-week trip, Kenai and Anchorage.

Others feel like since a cruise is "all-inclusive" - you have your lodging, meals, and transportation all taken care of (e.g. no need to rent a car or use other transportation) - it is a better deal. By the way, these are also the ones least likely to make a return trip to Alaska, due to age and health considerations.

I am not convinced that a cruise really is a better deal than a land tour (LOOKING STRICTLY AT COST) on a per-night basis. Is it?

Again, I KNOW it is hard to compare a cruise to a land vacation, but I am trying to come up with some hard evidence to present to the two camps to make it easier for them to pick one of the two options. Arguments of "You'll see X on a cruise but Y on a land tour" are, frankly, of little use at this point in the discussion.

Also no need for anyone to say "do both", because that just boils down to a 2-week land tour versus a 1-week land tour plus a cruise - so we are back to my original question for that second week!

Again, PLEASE ignore everything except economics here. This is a very specific question. And to be honest, I don't feel like having to wade through lectures on all the non-economic factors to get to the economic answers. I'll tackle the relative merits of different sights later.

Thanks for your help!

Cranachin

FrankS

If you define 'land tour' as some company picking you up in Anchorage and busing/flying/boating you around vs a RT Vancouver Alaskan Cruise, then the Cruise is less.

If you mean a DIY land tour vs a RT Inside passage, then the DIY should be cheaper. I say 'should' because the DIY package allows the flexibility to make sound economic decisions that can easily reduce your cost below a Cruise

Example- Even w/my blowout deal including 3rd and 4th persons cruising 'free', I bet I can do a DIY land vacation for less

Cranachin

FrankS--

I meant a "do-it-yourself trip to Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula", not a packaged tour.

Thanks for the response - this is exactly the type of information I am looking for.

3Doxens

Last year we did a one-way cruise (Whittier to Vancouver) and a one week tour on the Kenai. Excluding airfare that you would need regardless, a nice balcony cost us about $3000, and we spent another $800 for ship excursions in the ports.
On the Kenai, we stayed at nice hotels, including the Kenai Princess Lodge, and spent roughly $2,500 for lodging and food, another $500 for rental car and gas, and about $600 for tours in Seward, Cooper Landing and Homer.
So yes, comparing apples to apples, we could probably do a land tour for less.

Really, it's more Gala apples versus Fuji apples because the experiences of the cruise ship versus the land tour are so different.

I know you may think this is a lecture, but it isn't. Having done Alaska five times, there really is more to what you're asking than just dollars. If your relatives are elderly, do you really want to subject them to miles and miles of driving in a rental car, changing hotels every couple days? If it's pouring rain in Ketchikan, they can always go back to the ship and lounge by the pool or play bingo or whatever. If it's pouring rain in Seward, they're stuck in a hotel with CNN and the soaps if they're lucky.

I would advise the elderly relatives who are leaning towards a cruise to do just that. They don't have to have a balcony, nor do they need to do any high priced glacier trekking. An Alaska cruise doesn't have to break the bank.

Anyway, good luck. Hope everyone gets a vacation to remember.

Cranachin

3D--

I think some of the concerns you raise about things like changing hotels plays into the thinking of the "pro-cruise" party -- just don't let them know you called them elderly!

Thanks for the input. It is very useful!

Eschew

This is like comparing apples and ornages.

If you are talking strictly about cost, the inside passage cruise is cheaper, by a large margin.

However, you won't see Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula on an inside passage cruise and it is 2 totally different travel experience.