Last week, Seabourn announced it was discontinuing its submarine program as part of its expedition experience due to stricter regulations, the high cost of operating them, guest dissatisfaction, and the failure of guests to shell out $900-$1,000 per guest for a less than one-hour experience.
Right up front: When the concept was raised, when the Seabourn product was in development (and Seabourn looked upon me as an asset rather than an issue), I was drawn into the sexiness of an Antarctic submarine experience. Later, after I experienced it on Scenic Eclipse, I was no longer a fan. Why? With a marine biology background, I found it fascinating, but for someone without any real knowledge or passion, the experience became for many, “I paid how much for that?!” And the idea of watching penguins and seals swim by is charming, but it rarely, if ever, happens.
Further, honestly, how many older folks are able, willing, and compelled to climb through a small hatch only to have very limited views of rock walls? Add to that an incredibly expensive price tag of $900 – $1,000 per guest, and the sexy concept became more like waking up next to someone who looked great after a few drinks, but not so much in reality.
Further compelling the change is the reality that Seabourn’s visions of grandeur for the expedition market really haven’t played out well. A couple of years ago, it pawned off (I mean chartered off) a good number of sailings to APT (Australia Pacific Tours) because of soft sales within Seabourn’s demographic: Classic cruiser that are older, less physically active, and looking for more of a “cruise” than an expedition. Hence, the submarines were neither a draw for new bookings or an enhancement to its current bookings.
In other words, Seabourn’s focus is more attractive to those who either just want to tick off Antarctica but are still focused more on cuisine, shows, and service levels than immersion in nature and those folks who want an immersive experience but, frankly, waited until they are not physically able to endure (or possibly just enjoy) a more true expedition experience. There is nothing wrong with either. They just severely limit Seabourn in an ever-increasing expedition market that, overall, has found the “sweet spot” is more on expedition than on being a cruise on an expedition ship with a few “expedition moments”. And that overall is a younger, more active demographic that has little interest in the Seabourn expedition-lite product. See, for example: Aurora Expeditions: An Expedition Company with Passion, Purpose, and Peacefulness – Goldring Travel
In comparison, when Silversea Cruises purchased the Silver Endeavour from Crystal Cruises’ bankruptcy, it immediately removed both the submarine and helicopter because it saw them more as a very expensive operational cost, with little return on improving an expedition experience. (It converted the helicopter hangar into two amazing Master Suites, which I had the privilege of staying in. Silversea Silver Endeavour Journeys to Antarctica). Clearly, Silversea was correct. But Silversea also found a way to balance luxury and expedition, which is diversified and includes long hikes and less active options. Example: Silversea’s Silver Endeavour Arctic Expedition – Part VI. (For those who still want a submarine experience, Scenic Eclipse offers it.)
What does this mean for Seabourn’s expedition fleet? With Seabourn offloading Seabourn Odyssey and Seabourn Sojourn and its parent Carnival Corp not mentioning any upgrades to its current classic fleet (no less new ships), it could just mean it finally made a wise economic decision to further reduce the burden of Seabourn Venture and Seabourn Pursuit, or might it be the precursor to offloading the two underperforming ships altogether?
