How to Choose Your First Med Cruise- The Most Important Post You will Read!

[Hlitner]

This post is a primer from first-time Med cruisers and should be read BEFORE you choose a cruise.  Forget what you have learned in the Caribbean or Alaska.  The Med is all about the ports, port times, and specific port days.  The cruise line and cruise ship are secondary!

 

Most go to the Med for the ports and the day of the week and port times are very important.  As a basic rule, Sundays and Mondays are problem days in many places (especially Italy) because of closures.  So check where you will be on those days (and holidays) against the opening days of places that are on your "to do list."

 

Times in the ports are vital, in the med.  In fact, they can be critical (especially to DIYers and Private Tours).  8am -5pm may be fine just about anywhere in the Caribbean, but in Europe these times can be truly awful for some ports...especially Civitavecchia (Rome), Livorno (Florence), Naples (Capri and the Amalfi Coast), Le Havre (Paris), and to a lesser degree Istanbul.   Some cruise lines have been shortening their port times to save fuel and sometimes allow them to cram in an extra port (NCL and MSC have long had this issue with some itineraries).  When you are going to Civitavecchia you want to be there Tuesday-Saturday and have at least 12 hours in port.  It is the same for Livorno.  That is because it takes over an hour (each way) to get from your port to the most popular destination.  A crusie that is in Livorno from 8-5 is a real problem!  Just consider wanting to take the train to Florence (from Livorno).  If you do not arrive until 8, it will likely mean not being able to get a train much before 9:30 which gets you to Florence about 10:45.  But you need to be back aboard by 4:30 (for a 5 departure) which means you would likely want to take a return train from Florence no later than 2pm!  So your time in fabulous Florence is only about 4 hours!  Civitavecchia (for Rome) is about the same.   Naples (a fabulous port because there are dozens of great options) needs a long port day for some of the most popular destinations (Capri and the Amalfi Coast).

 

Suppose you go to Istanbul on a Tuesday.  Topkapi (arguably one of the 2 or 3 best tourist destinations) is closed!  Go to Rome on a Sunday and you will generally find the Vatican Museums (i.e. Sistine Chapel) closed!  Go to many Italian cities on a Monday morning and you will find lots of things closed!

 

I was just helping somebody (yesterday) plan their days and noticed that their NCL cruise is in Istanbul from 4pm until 3 pm (the following day).  This is truly awful planning and the folks at NCL should be fired for scheduling these port times.  While it sounds like you have two days (plus an overnight) you really do not have any days.  You have two partial days which is not a good thing.  That 4pm arrival means you would not likely be able to get into the tourist part of town until at least 5pm.  And the 3pm departure means you would have to head back to the port by1 or 1:30 (at the latest) the following day!   Consider that Topkapi, Blue Mosque, Hagia Sofia, and the Covered (Grand Bazaar) could all be done in a single long day.  But with half days, that becomes impossible and splitting that (for two half days) becomes much more difficult.

 

Hope this gets some folks thinking, and looking at Med cruise options from a different perspective.

 

Hank

[cruisemom42]

I'll agree with Hank and say that -- after a dozen or more Med cruises -- this is STILL the way I choose a cruise. 

 

I'm sure there will be a poster or two who will show up to say the ship is important. That's true, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on your individual travel style. But even if the ship is important, itinerary is generally the trump card. I'd rather sail a fabulous itinerary on a dud ship than a dud itinerary on a fabulous ship. 

 

There are also those, generally European residents, for whom this might legitimately be the kind of jaunt that most Americans associate with the Caribbean -- fair enough. But for those contemplating the STEEP air prices to Europe from the US, it would be kind of pointless to travel to the Med just to stay on the ship (and there are much better beaches nearer the US...)

 

 

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

I'll agree with Hank and say that -- after a dozen or more Med cruises -- this is STILL the way I choose a cruise. 

 

I'm sure there will be a poster or two who will show up to say the ship is important. That's true, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on your individual travel style. But even if the ship is important, itinerary is generally the trump card. I'd rather sail a fabulous itinerary on a dud ship than a dud itinerary on a fabulous ship. 

 

There are also those, generally European residents, for whom this might legitimately be the kind of jaunt that most Americans associate with the Caribbean -- fair enough. But for those contemplating the STEEP air prices to Europe from the US, it would be kind of pointless to travel to the Med just to stay on the ship (and there are much better beaches nearer the US...)

 

 

 

"But even if the ship is important, itinerary is generally the trump card. "

 

Well put and the concepts you guys share go beyond Med cruises I think.  

 

We do have times when ports are not that important.  These would typically be family/friend group cruises where we all drive to the embark port.  Kind of just a "get-away".   But that is a different animal.  

 

 

[donaldsc]

Excellent post!!!  A lot of what you say can also apply to AK cruises although not as badly.  Half day in port itineraries where you are in port from 7:00 AM to 1:00 PM or from 2:00 PM to 9:00 PM.  Don't even get me started at half day stays in many of the AK ports while you get from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM in Skagway which in my opinion is the worse port on the AK port list.  The saving grace for AK is that you are almost never far from the ship.

 

The other thing that I wonder about is when people on an AK cruise who have done all of their cruising in the Caribbean get all up tight about what the entertainment and other features are on the ship.  I always reply that in AK the entertainment is what is outside of your window and not what is going on aboard the ship.

 

DON

[evandbob]

Good advice from the OP's personal opinion, but hardly "THE MOST IMPORTANT" post on the subject.

 

Use of hyperbole not justified.  Size of ship, number of ships in port, types of ports, and pricing are hardly mentioned in the OP's post.

[navybankerteacher]

Great suggestions on how to do a Med cruise — still, if you are primarily interested in seeing the cities mentioned and don’t care about the ship, cruising may not be the best idea.  A well-planned land trip will give you much more time  seeing the region- yes, fewer cities perhaps but not spending so much of your time on a ship you do not care about, and a lot of time getting from/to ports to/from what you you really are there for.

[ColeThornton]

Some good info there.  I would recommend posting it also in the First Time Cruiser Forum.

[Flatbush Flyer]

Hank’s post regarding port days/timing is excellent. 
That said, I will be one of the voices saying that the choice of ship is still always extremely important, even if it means additional research to marry the right itinerary to the right “home away from home” (particularly on a cruise of longer duration). 
Of course, retired geezers like us have greater flexibility in scheduling. And, thus, we can cherry pick itineraries that get you where you want/need to be on the right day(s) of the week. But, to start your day after sleeping on a lousy bed or fight hordes of fellow passengers on a ship with thousands of them or to come “home” each night to mediocre food is no small consideration. 

[sverigecruiser]

16 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Great suggestions on how to do a Med cruise — still, if you are primarily interested in seeing the cities mentioned and don’t care about the ship, cruising may not be the best idea.  A well-planned land trip will give you much more time  seeing the region- yes, fewer cities perhaps but not spending so much of your time on a ship you do not care about, and a lot of time getting from/to ports to/from what you you really are there for.

 

I really agree with this. If the ports are the most important part, why cruise?

 

When I book a cruise the "ship part" is the most important thing and interesting ports is just a bonus. When visiting places is the most important thing, I don't book a cruise. 

[pdmlynek]

Thank you, @Hlitner! Your advice is very helpful.  ... but then again, your  advice is always helpful.  

 

Keep up the good work!

 

[pdmlynek]

22 hours ago, Hlitner said:

This is truly awful planning and the folks at NCL should be fired for scheduling these port times. 

Based on our experience in Greece, NCL did a wonderful job in scheduling ports.  

 

In the case of Istanbul from 16:00 to 15:00, yes, I agree that it would be better to do something like 7:00 to 21:00, but one should be able to do lots during those two half days,

[Markanddonna]

27 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I really agree with this. If the ports are the most important part, why cruise?

 

When I book a cruise the "ship part" is the most important thing and interesting ports is just a bonus. When visiting places is the most important thing, I don't book a cruise. 

Cruising allows a person to get initial exposure to a city or site. On my first time in Athens, we visited Corinth for the first part of the day (my favorite) and then the Acropolis in Athens in the afternoon. I've been back to Athens since then but getting to see Corinth was amazing.

[pdmlynek]

36 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I really agree with this. If the ports are the most important part, why cruise?

 

When I book a cruise the "ship part" is the most important thing and interesting ports is just a bonus. When visiting places is the most important thing, I don't book a cruise. 

Because the ship is there just to get me from one place to another.  A cruise allows me to see various places quickly, even if superficially.

 

When you travel to Stockholm, Gotherburg, Malmo or Uppsala, to see friends, relatives, or to sightsee, is consider the train, bus, or car to be the most important part of your trip?

 

[ontheweb]

50 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I really agree with this. If the ports are the most important part, why cruise?

 

When I book a cruise the "ship part" is the most important thing and interesting ports is just a bonus. When visiting places is the most important thing, I don't book a cruise. 

Different strokes for different folks. We consider the ports the most important part. Once we decide where we want to go, then we look at comparative prices and different cruise lines.

[sverigecruiser]

13 minutes ago, pdmlynek said:

When you travel to Stockholm, Gotherburg, Malmo or Uppsala, to see friends, relatives, or to sightsee, is consider the train, bus, or car to be the most important part of your trip?

 

 

I don't pay cruiseprices to do that! Exactly my point, why pay for a cruise when there is better, and much cheaper, ways to get to the places?

[sverigecruiser]

4 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Different strokes for different folks. We consider the ports the most important part. Once we decide where we want to go, then we look at comparative prices and different cruise lines.

 

But you should be able to spend much more time in the places you want to go to if you didn't cruise.

[cruisemom42]

11 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I don't pay cruiseprices to do that! Exactly my point, why pay for a cruise when there is better, and much cheaper, ways to get to the places?

 

You are European; it's a different equation when coming from the US.

[ontheweb]

9 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

But you should be able to spend much more time in the places you want to go to if you didn't cruise.

But as @cruisemom42 said we are not already in Europe. Plus, we get to see more places.

[sverigecruiser]

57 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

You are European; it's a different equation when coming from the US.

 

I really don't understand.

 

You can fly to Europe and do a land trip or you can fly to Europe and go on a cruise. Isn't the equation the same?

 

You will get more time in the places you want to visit if you don't cruise.

 

[sverigecruiser]

59 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

But as @cruisemom42 said we are not already in Europe. Plus, we get to see more places.

 

In most cases it will cost less to travel by train, car or even plane between the places you want to visit and you will get more time in the places you want to visit if you don't cruise.

 

 

[evandbob]

Same with the Caribbean or Alaska, Hawaii or Tahiti - land vacays always allow more time to experience a location while a cruise port stop only gives a small sliver of local lore and custom.

 

I chuckle when someone says they've seen the entire country after a few port stops in the same place.

[cruisemom42]

1 hour ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I really don't understand.

 

You can fly to Europe and do a land trip or you can fly to Europe and go on a cruise. Isn't the equation the same?

 

You will get more time in the places you want to visit if you don't cruise.

 

 

It is not cheaper, at least not if you plan the same level of room, dining, and potentially entertainment as you will have onboard a ship.

 

I have been traveling in Europe since age 14 and cruising since age 7. They both have their merits. But I don't think I have had a land trip yet (ex-US) that has been cheaper than a cruise. Maybe we get better cruise prices than you do. 😊

 

Also -- sometimes a cruise provides just enough time in a place. After having been to Santorini twice, I struggle to find anything else worth doing there. 

[sverigecruiser]

45 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

It is not cheaper, at least not if you plan the same level of room, dining, and potentially entertainment as you will have onboard a ship.

 

I have been traveling in Europe since age 14 and cruising since age 7. They both have their merits. But I don't think I have had a land trip yet (ex-US) that has been cheaper than a cruise. Maybe we get better cruise prices than you do. 😊

 

 

Of course it depends on the price for the cruise and for the land trip but I have never paid as much for a land trip as for a cruise.

 

We normally pay around $200/night for a decent hotel in a city in Europe and the cruise we have booked for this summer, one week from Barcelona, cost around $6000. Of course we can find cheaper cruises but we can also find cheaper hotels.

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

It is not cheaper, at least not if you plan the same level of room, dining, and potentially entertainment as you will have onboard a ship.

 

 

I tend to agree with Sverigecruiser & NBT on this particular item.   I think the difference is what you say about dining, entertainment, and of course the convenience and safety, not to mention luxury, of being in an amenity-loaded cruise ship taking care of most of your needs.   Even with itinerary being the driver, those things count heavily on the enjoyment scale.  I'm always skeptical of those who claim the cruise ship doesn't matter as it is solely transportation.  

 

As far as cost, I have not really thought much about it, but don't think out land vacations are significantly different than cruises.  Hotel room is generally going to be better than the ship cabin.   But like you say, they are not the same level of dining or entertainment.  From a waistline perspective, the land trips are probably better for me!  Haha.   

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Of course it depends on the price for the cruise and for the land trip but I have never paid as much for a land trip as for a cruise.

 

We normally pay around $200/night for a decent hotel in a city in Europe and the cruise we have booked for this summer, one week from Barcelona, cost around $6000. Of course we can find cheaper cruises but we can also find cheaper hotels.

After reading your posts, I am wondering why you ever take a cruise instead of a land trip.