Is Anyone Else Like Me?

[Terry Bill]

On 3/9/2024 at 2:44 PM, Poly1979 said:

I don't cruise for the food, drink, entertainment, pools or activities.

 

I cruise strictly for the destinations. The ship is just transportation.

I'm nothing like you. If the destination is important, I don't travel by ship (they restrict you to ports and places within a reasonable travelling distance of them). Sometimes, ports are near interesting destinations, sometimes not—the excursions are a clue. The more they offer 'experiences', the less inherent interest there is in the destination.  

 

You can get a taster of an area or region - but there is too little time to explore anywhere in depth.

 

The 'onboard experience' has to suit my preferences—plain food and drink when and where I want it, access to a wide range of activities, no kids, no queues, and good but not obsequious service.

 

The main benefit is the variety of travel without the hassle of packing, unpacking, and organising transport logistics.

 

 

[crystalspin]

6 hours ago, Terry Bill said:

The main benefit is the variety of travel without the hassle of packing, unpacking, and organising transport logistics.

^^^This^^^

[clo]

6 hours ago, Terry Bill said:

I'm nothing like you. If the destination is important, I don't travel by ship (they restrict you to ports and places within a reasonable travelling distance of them). Sometimes, ports are near interesting destinations, sometimes not—the excursions are a clue. The more they offer 'experiences', the less inherent interest there is in the destination.  

 

You can get a taster of an area or region - but there is too little time to explore anywhere in depth.

 

The 'onboard experience' has to suit my preferences—plain food and drink when and where I want it, access to a wide range of activities, no kids, no queues, and good but not obsequious service.

 

The main benefit is the variety of travel without the hassle of packing, unpacking, and organising transport logistics.

 

 

I agree with you...and then I don't 🙂 I totally agree that you can barely scratch the surface with, say,eight hours somewhere. But look at this trip especially the second half. Yeah, we'll just scratch the surface but I don't see us traveling to each of those countries without lots of time and hassle.

 

https://www.oceaniacruises.com/grand-voyage-cruises/amsterdam-to-stockholm-NAU240704A/?sr=%2Fbaltic-cruises%2Fport-stockholm-STO%2F

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, clo said:

I agree with you...and then I don't 🙂 I totally agree that you can barely scratch the surface with, say,eight hours somewhere. But look at this trip especially the second half. Yeah, we'll just scratch the surface but I don't see us traveling to each of those countries without lots of time and hassle.

 

https://www.oceaniacruises.com/grand-voyage-cruises/amsterdam-to-stockholm-NAU240704A/?sr=%2Fbaltic-cruises%2Fport-stockholm-STO%2F

 

I am curious what makes the Baltics more of a hassle for you to travel to? Is it just the long flight you are trying to avoid? 

[Hlitner]

We cruise because we have been addicted to cruising for about 50 years :).  Over that time we have managed to get to most ports/itineraries on 6 continents.  But, cruising is a great way to see the sea, relax, and get a tiny snapshot of many ports.  Cruising is NOT a way to really see a country, and those who only cruise are missing out on much of the world.  

 

We do not see our long driving trips, in Europe, as a "hassle."  Driving allows us the freedom to go where we please, stay as long as we please, move on when we please, change itineraries on a whim, etc.  Since cuisine is an important part of our travel lives, spending time on land gives us the opportunity to sample lots of different cuisines.  

 

I agree with the poster who says that if the destination is important, don't travel by ship.  Those that think they can really see a country from a cruise ship are just kidding themselves.  We stand by our previous posts that the best way to travel is with a combination of cruise and land travel.

 

Hank

 

[ilikeanswers]

11 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I agree with the poster who says that if the destination is important, don't travel by ship.  Those that think they can really see a country from a cruise ship are just kidding themselves.  

 

Archipelago countries cruising can be a just as good a way to get to experience a country especially if you can get one that is culturally immersive. I have done Indonesia and French Polynesia via cruise and independent travel and while the experiences had differences I didn't find the cruise experience to be a shallow cursory glance of the countries either.

 

And of course there are the places where cruising is almost the only way to experience a destination like Antarctica or the Northwest Passage.

 

I don't think it is fair to say that someone interested in destination shouldn't cruise. There are many reasons to cruise for destination rather than ship experience. 

[ldubs]

The itinerary drives our choice of which cruise to take.  But to say the cruise is just transportation would be incredibly wrong.   Many folks claim the cruise is of little import other than transportation. I actually doubt that is really the case.  

[Joebucks]

Drawing lines in the sand about specific topics just because is all the rage on the internet. I cruise because I enjoy the overall experience at a reasonable price. 

[Fascin8ed]

We cruise for the entire experience. That being said, the first and foremost consideration is the itinerary. After that would be the cruise line itself, and finally the amenities. The cruise would lose something if the destinations were great but the food and the entertainment, especially on repositioning cruises with so many sea days, were poor. 

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, ldubs said:

Many folks claim the cruise is of little import other than transportation. I actually doubt that is really the case.  

 

In one way I would agree, there are certain things that if offered on the ship would make me think more highly of them. On the other hand those things I appreciated on the ship are becoming less common and what they are being replaced with are things I don't really care about one way or another. Which means in some ways I am leaning towards the attitude of cruises as transport just because it is becoming more difficult to find ship experiences geared towards people with my interests. 

[cruisemom42]

19 hours ago, clo said:

 I totally agree that you can barely scratch the surface with, say,eight hours somewhere. 

 

 

Well (to paraphrase you), yes and no. 

 

I've traveled all my life, and I've come to a couple of major realizations:

 

First is the realization that not all things interest me equally about places. Some things interest me very little at all. And in some places I CAN do more than scratch the surface of the things I am interested in. It doesn't matter if I spend a day or a week in a place like Mykonos, I am unlikely to learn much more about the place with an additional six days because I am just not interested in beaches, natural beauty, etc. 

 

Second is the realization that a cruise to a place is not necessarily a "one and done" either. I've taken more than a dozen Mediterranean cruises (so far!) and have visited Ephesus four times. I don't think I learned any less about it during those four visits than I did when I stayed in a lovely but somewhat isolated and very Western hotel near the beaches in Ephesus -- I spent each day being driven out of town anyway to visit nearby (and not as nearby) archaeological sites. I could have done -- and actually have done -- the same thing from a cruise ship day in port.

 

Same with Corfu, for example. While I'd welcome a fourth visit there, if I don't return I feel I've seen and experienced everything I'm interested in there in three port days.

 

I never mistake a port stop at a major city with a visit to an entire country. On the other hand, a small island is a small island and sometimes there is not much more to interest me than I can do in a day.

 

 

14 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Cruising is NOT a way to really see a country, and those who only cruise are missing out on much of the world.  

 

[snip]

 

Those that think they can really see a country from a cruise ship are just kidding themselves.  We stand by our previous posts that the best way to travel is with a combination of cruise and land travel.

 

While I fully agree with you, I feel something gets lost in translation. Yes, you cannot fully see a country from a cruise ship [in most cases, as explained above], BUT a cruise can be a valuable additional way to learn about/understand a country. 

 

I just posted a lengthy post on the Oceania forum about whether to see Great Britain by land or by sea. There's little doubt that, if I had to choose one, I'd recommend a land tour. But having said that, Great Britain is an island nation with a long maritime history and I also feel that much can be ADDED by also taking a cruise that circumnavigates the country. It gives you a sense of the naval and maritime power, the role that the sea has played in their history, etc. that you don't feel as strongly when just approaching by land. It also provides a chance to visit some remote places not included on most land tours or even independent exploration such as the Hebrides or the Channel Islands.

 

(I feel the same about Japan and Greece, and I'm sure there are other examples as well...)

 

[clo]

4 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Well (to paraphrase you), yes and no. 

 

I've traveled all my life, and I've come to a couple of major realizations:

 

First is the realization that not all things interest me equally about places. Some things interest me very little at all. And in some places I CAN do more than scratch the surface of the things I am interested in. It doesn't matter if I spend a day or a week in a place like Mykonos, I am unlikely to learn much more about the place with an additional six days because I am just not interested in beaches, natural beauty, etc. 

 

Second is the realization that a cruise to a place is not necessarily a "one and done" either. I've taken more than a dozen Mediterranean cruises (so far!) and have visited Ephesus four times. I don't think I learned any less about it during those four visits than I did when I stayed in a lovely but somewhat isolated and very Western hotel near the beaches in Ephesus -- I spent each day being driven out of town anyway to visit nearby (and not as nearby) archaeological sites. I could have done -- and actually have done -- the same thing from a cruise ship day in port.

 

Same with Corfu, for example. While I'd welcome a fourth visit there, if I don't return I feel I've seen and experienced everything I'm interested in there in three port days.

 

I never mistake a port stop at a major city with a visit to an entire country. On the other hand, a small island is a small island and sometimes there is not much more to interest me than I can do in a day.

 

 

 

While I fully agree with you, I feel something gets lost in translation. Yes, you cannot fully see a country from a cruise ship [in most cases, as explained above], BUT a cruise can be a valuable additional way to learn about/understand a country. 

 

I just posted a lengthy post on the Oceania forum about whether to see Great Britain by land or by sea. There's little doubt that, if I had to choose one, I'd recommend a land tour. But having said that, Great Britain is an island nation with a long maritime history and I also feel that much can be ADDED by also taking a cruise that circumnavigates the country. It gives you a sense of the naval and maritime power, the role that the sea has played in their history, etc. that you don't feel as strongly when just approaching by land. It also provides a chance to visit some remote places not included on most land tours or even independent exploration such as the Hebrides or the Channel Islands.

 

(I feel the same about Japan and Greece, and I'm sure there are other examples as well...)

 

I pretty much always agree with you. Thanks.

[K32682]

3 hours ago, Fascin8ed said:

We cruise for the entire experience. That being said, the first and foremost consideration is the itinerary. After that would be the cruise line itself, and finally the amenities. The cruise would lose something if the destinations were great but the food and the entertainment, especially on repositioning cruises with so many sea days, were poor. 

 

I'd accept poor food on a cruise for a desired destination where a cruise was the best way to visit as opposed the most magnificent ship with the very best food that puddled around the Caribbean visiting one dreary island port after another. 

[Terry Bill]

1 hour ago, K32682 said:

 

I'd accept poor food on a cruise for a desired destination where a cruise was the best way to visit as opposed the most magnificent ship with the very best food that puddled around the Caribbean visiting one dreary island port after another. 

I wouldn’t accept poor food or a dreary itinerary.  
 

 

[Joebucks]

22 hours ago, clo said:

I agree with you...and then I don't 🙂 I totally agree that you can barely scratch the surface with, say,eight hours somewhere. But look at this trip especially the second half. Yeah, we'll just scratch the surface but I don't see us traveling to each of those countries without lots of time and hassle.

 

https://www.oceaniacruises.com/grand-voyage-cruises/amsterdam-to-stockholm-NAU240704A/?sr=%2Fbaltic-cruises%2Fport-stockholm-STO%2F

 

I've had this discussion a bunch of times with people around what is best, land or sea trips. As with anything in life, there is rarely a "best" for every scenario. Hawaii and Mediterranean are often the topics of discussion. Everyone loves to share why their choices are the best. However, much context is often ignored.

 

As with anything, it depends on the scenario, and what you are looking for. Land trips are great if you want to explore every nook and cranny of every city you encounter. However, you will absolutely spend more of your day traveling by car, plane, train etc., if you want to visit multiple cities. As you posted with your example, no one is going to be able to accomplish as much at those ports by doing a land trip. The majority of people are going to be able to do most of what they want to do in 8 hours at a port, while traveling to the next while they sleep. Let's be real, most people aren't doing "stuff" for 10-12 hours a day on vacation. Day for day, I find it hard to believe that the average person is really getting that much more of an experience on a land trip vs those on a cruise. Now if you want to compare 14 days on land to 7 days at sea, yes, there is a bigger difference.

[clo]

3 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

 

I've had this discussion a bunch of times with people around what is best, land or sea trips. As with anything in life, there is rarely a "best" for every scenario. Hawaii and Mediterranean are often the topics of discussion. Everyone loves to share why their choices are the best. However, much context is often ignored.

 

As with anything, it depends on the scenario, and what you are looking for. Land trips are great if you want to explore every nook and cranny of every city you encounter. However, you will absolutely spend more of your day traveling by car, plane, train etc., if you want to visit multiple cities. As you posted with your example, no one is going to be able to accomplish as much at those ports by doing a land trip. The majority of people are going to be able to do most of what they want to do in 8 hours at a port, while traveling to the next while they sleep. Let's be real, most people aren't doing "stuff" for 10-12 hours a day on vacation. Day for day, I find it hard to believe that the average person is really getting that much more of an experience on a land trip vs those on a cruise. Now if you want to compare 14 days on land to 7 days at sea, yes, there is a bigger difference.

I wouldn't do a 'land trip' where I wouldn't probably spend a night or two. That's what I meant.  And we'd spend FAR less money.

[olemissreb]

I'm probably the minority here...I love cruising because someone cooks, cleans, and serves me for a week! I do look at itinerary and love getting a taste of new places. I have my preferred cruise line, but I'm not married to them. Trying a new cruiseline this next cruise because there will be 2 'virgin cruisers" with us and I wanted to make sure there was enough to keep them busy so they'll eventually fall in love with cruising like my sister and I.

 

Basically, it's mostly about relaxing for a week.

[ilikeanswers]

7 hours ago, K32682 said:

I'd accept poor food on a cruise for a desired destination where a cruise was the best way to visit as opposed the most magnificent ship with the very best food that puddled around the Caribbean visiting one dreary island port after another. 

 

While I am happy to give up lobster and wagyu beef I'd still want the food to be edible at least 😂. On the other hand if it resulted in a cut price semi circumnavigation cruise of Antarctica I would probably be happy to eat out of a can😝. 

Edited March 16 by ilikeanswers

[ldubs]

19 hours ago, Terry Bill said:

I wouldn’t accept poor food or a dreary itinerary.  
 

 

 

Same here.  Two weeks of poor food or crappy itinerary, whether land or sea, is not something to look forward to.  

Edited March 16 by ldubs

[ldubs]

On 3/14/2024 at 6:26 AM, Terry Bill said:

 

You can get a taster of an area or region - but there is too little time to explore anywhere in depth.

 

 

Good point and of course 100% true.  But the thing is, at least for me, I don't want or need an in-depth experience to enjoy most of the places I have visited.   We just got back from a 2 week driving trip through Germany.  Visited I think 10 different places.  Had a blast.   

[Nebr.cruiser]

1 hour ago, ldubs said:

 

Good point and of course 100% true.  But the thing is, at least for me, I don't want or need an in-depth experience to enjoy most of the places I have visited.   We just got back from a 2 week driving trip through Germany.  Visited I think 10 different places.  Had a blast.   

We've done both land tours, independent and organized, and cruises.  At this point in our life, cruises are just so much easier--unpack once, still get to see many wonderful areas that would be difficult or at least take lot more effort than cruises..  Also, we definitely spend more on land tours and so far have never been on a cruise where the food is 'inedible'.  

 

Some recent land trips that involved a lot of driving and hotel stays have shown us how much easier cruising is.  We will still do land trips if it's the only way to see an area, but by cruising we have been to so many places we would probably never have seen otherwise.  

[ldubs]

5 hours ago, Nebr.cruiser said:

We've done both land tours, independent and organized, and cruises.  At this point in our life, cruises are just so much easier--unpack once, still get to see many wonderful areas that would be difficult or at least take lot more effort than cruises..  Also, we definitely spend more on land tours and so far have never been on a cruise where the food is 'inedible'.  

 

Some recent land trips that involved a lot of driving and hotel stays have shown us how much easier cruising is.  We will still do land trips if it's the only way to see an area, but by cruising we have been to so many places we would probably never have seen otherwise.  

 

I sure agree with you about the cruise option being easier and more comfortable.  If we think about it, traveling by cruise ship is a pretty luxurious option.     

[ontheweb]

7 hours ago, Nebr.cruiser said:

We've done both land tours, independent and organized, and cruises.  At this point in our life, cruises are just so much easier--unpack once, still get to see many wonderful areas that would be difficult or at least take lot more effort than cruises..  Also, we definitely spend more on land tours and so far have never been on a cruise where the food is 'inedible'.  

 

Some recent land trips that involved a lot of driving and hotel stays have shown us how much easier cruising is.  We will still do land trips if it's the only way to see an area, but by cruising we have been to so many places we would probably never have seen otherwise.  

In addition to not having to pack and unpack, you do not have to find a place to eat dinner every night.

[Hlitner]

47 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

In addition to not having to pack and unpack, you do not have to find a place to eat dinner every night.

Ahhh but for those of us who live to eat, dining at various land restaurants is wonderful.  Most cruise cuisine is not in the same category although some of what we enjoyed on EJ1 was world class/

 

Hank

[clo]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

In addition to not having to pack and unpack, you do not have to find a place to eat dinner every night.

LOL. Ooooohhhhh, that's one of my major joys when traveling is planning a great dinner OUT.