fti

How long are you going for and what month? You said "long weekend" so this might not work, but if you can get yourself to Gustavus/Glacier Bay, there is also excellent whale watching there. The state ferry goes there now from Juneau or you can add Gustavus to a Juneau ticket for little or no extra cost (Alaska Air was advertising this recently).

With at least a night in Gustavus, you could also go whale watching with Taz. It so happened that when I went whale watching with Taz and Harv & Marvs within a week of each other, the whale watching was better with Harv & Marvs. But generally the whale watching is even better in Gustavus (from all I have read - but time more than anything is key).

I too have never seen bubblenet feeding, though I would like to sometime. I have seen breaching, even double breaching once with Harv & Marvs. Even saw Orcas "spyhopping" on the Tracy Arm tour one time. Great photos!

FlyForFun

It may be hard for me to top the experience that I had in Baja in March 2011; I am aware of the fines and penalties for approaching endangered humpbacks; gray whales are not endangered and they are more curious - http://www.ezphotography.net/eric/We...717_large.html or http://www.ezphotography.net/eric/We...679_large.html

opus2002

fti and other frequent travellers to Alaska:

When flying into and out of Anchorage, do you get good scenic views from the plane? If so, should I be seating on the right or left side during the flight in ond flight out? We are coming from the east coast if that is pertinent.

opus2002

Thank you to all here, especially fti. It's a great forum. I'll post the result of my trip later in the year.

jackal

Yes, unless it's cloudy, which is a definite possibility in Southcentral Alaska, especially as you get into July and August.

I typically try to sit on the left flying south and the right flying north, since if the weather's clear over Southeast Alaska, that's the side you'll see the coastal ranges of Southeast as you fly over them.

If ANC is doing its normal departures on runway 32, then the right side offers a very nice view of the city of Anchorage just after takeoff, so if you can't get the left side, the right isn't a waste. (For arrivals on runway 7R, the right side works perfectly for viewing Anchorage during landing).

While the above is most true for ANC-SEA/PDX/SFO/LAX/LGB/PHX, since those flights follow the coast for the entire route to the Lower 48, it's not untrue for ANC-SLC/DEN/MSP/ORD/IAH/ATL/CVG/PHL and other midwest/east coast destinations, since those follow the coast until they're approximately over JNU before heading inland and across Canada.

In fact, I got some phenomenal pictures of the mountains and glaciers of western Canada/southeast Alaska on an MSP-ANC flight late last year (and I may have been violating my own rule and sitting on the left going north). If I were organized and could find them, I'd post them...

opus2002

Interesting, I try to seat on the left going south/east and right on the north/west flights for other reasons. The sun will be on my opposite side, so I get a better view by avoiding sun glare. Sounds like I luck out then.

For those sitting on the left going north, it doesn't sound like a bad deal either (you got great pictures there).

Thanks.

fti

It really depends on the flight path. I have had incredible views from both sides of the plane. Generally I like exit rows, but I often forgo them on flights to/from Alaska because they are usually over the wing.

One time I flew from SEA to ANC, was on the left side of the plane and had a great view of Glacier Bay. Another time from MSP to ANC I was on the left and had some incredible views of glaciers. But often the better views northbound are from the right side of the plane. Too hard to know for sure.

A week and a half ago I flew from Juneau to Yakutat, sat on the right side, flew relatively low and had incredible views of Glacier Bay.

jackal

All right, you guys persuaded me to find the pics I snapped.

In all my travels in and out of Alaska, I've never seen this kind of scenery, since it's usually cloudy over this area (either that, or I'm flying on a red-eye), so I wasn't prepared with anything other than my iPhone camera. In fact, while I normally choose window seats, this time, I was in 3D due to a last-minute seat swap (the lady in 3D wanted to sit by her husband in 1D, so I gave up 1F. Big mistake!). I took these pictures over the sleeping guy in 3F, so apologies for the window framing.

So, these were taken off the right side of the aircraft on an ORD-ANC flight. I would guess if I had been sitting on the left, I would have seen Glacier Bay, as fti indicated.







I think the pilot announced this one as Mt. Logan, the highest mountain in Canada (and in the St. Elias range) and the second-highest mountain in North America (after McKinley, of course):




Pics taken in this area (the white line was my flight path):

opus2002

I got a plan...I'll seat on the right side, wife to seat on the left side. Somehow, I think she'll think I am trying to avoid her.

Getting a good view from a commercial flight is liking flying the sightseeing flights for free. I am checking out flightaware.com. ^

jackal

Hmm, looking at those pics again...the way the seatback is showing up in those shots, it almost looks like they were taken off the left side of the aircraft.

I have no idea how I would have done so, as I was sitting in 3D.

Oh well, I think whichever side you sit on, you'll get an awesome view...that is, IF the weather holds!

fti

In reality, the commercial flights are nothing like the flightseeing flights. I took a 2 hour flight in a Cessna 206 last week from Yakutat north about an hour's flight then back again. It was not a "flightseeing" tour per se (was an EAS flight). But we flew at 2,500 feet from Yakutat and at 500 feet returning, landed twice on two different grass airstrips. The flight cost me $120. I sat in the co-pilot seat and was able to talk with the pilot almost the entire time. Nothing like a commercial flight whatsoever.

Next month I am taking a floatplane on a 90-minute glacier tour, starting in Anchorage. Purchased a Groupon, so got the flight for half price, also about $120. I am certain that will also be nothing like a commercial flight.

Sure, the commercial flights are nice if it is a clear day and you can see some things. But still, they really don't compare to flightseeing tours. If you look and book early enough, you can find deals. I have probably been on at least a half dozen flightseeing tours in Alaska (probably more) and I don't recall paying full price for any of them.

opus2002

Is there any reason why these are flying so low? The only commercial flights I have taken even on propeller planes flew 15,000+ feet.

Gardyloo

It's that pesky nuisance called breathing.

fti

It was not a commercial flight, and as Gardyloo hinted, these small aircraft are not pressurized so you can't fly as high without oxygen. Some smaller non-commercial flights do fly higher. There is a "summit flight" of Mt. McKinley from Talkeetna that flies over the Mountain, so well over 20,000 feet. But you need oxygen masks since the cabin is not pressurized.

And that is why the flightseeing tours are worth it, even when you fly to/from Alaska in a commercial aircraft. But I rarely pay full price for my flightseeing tours. There are enough coupons floating around!

alphaeagle

Who was this with, how did you book it?* True flight-seeing flights are ridiculously expensive.** I've been thinking about going to Yakutat next month and if I could do something similar I would do it in a second. I may be heading down to the Southeast and get on one of the Cessna to get around, some trips it's not that much more expensive then the ferry.

*Edit-I think I answered this myself, probably on Alsek Air Service?

**Edit 2-Meant to say they are still worth it most likely, but if there is an option to go on a scheduled flight in a small aircraft to somewhere scenic it's probably a lot cheaper and will still get some great sights.


Those commercial flights are almost all powered by turbine engines, which is still a jet engine. The propeller makes the engine more efficient, but at slower speeds. The Cessna 206 is piston powered which is more in line with a car's engine. The higher it goes, the less power it produces. Turbocharging for piston aircraft forces air into the engine, so a piston powered aircraft can climb higher without losing as much power. The 206 can be installed with such an engine. Turbine engines sort of due this automatically, meaning they can climb even higher and still develop enough thrust.

As to why those planes are flying so low, maybe it wasn't worth the fuel burn to climb higher, or maybe it was just more scenic