Mediterranean: Cruise or Land Vacation?

[Cruise Junky]

In my experience....our 3 week Paris to Rome trip...your math is way off. We had a rental in Provence with a massive deck as well as our rental in Tuscany. Provence was 880 Euro for 7 nights and Tuscany was I think around $1,300 US. As I said unless you're addicted to 5 star hotels... that seems to be the price you're quoting me. Unless it was a sea day I never had lunch on the ship. Breakfast for us usually consisted of a cappucino and a chocolate croissant...under 5 Euro, lunch pizza or paninis with wine or a beer was about 15 Euro each and dinner..the most we spent was in Rome for an excellent, excellent dinner, cost with a bottle of wine was 100 Euro, but we certainly didn't do that every night. We really enjoyed shopping at the local markets in the morning for our ingredients for dinner.

 

Our upcoming trip to Greece, we have two nights in London booked at a top rated hotel, for just over 100 pounds per night and two nights in Paris in a room overlooking the Eiffel tower for 170 Euro a night. We also have 5 nights booked at a charming B & B in Aix en Provence for 160 Euro per night.

 

There are tons of choices of accommodation in Europe. You don't always have to stay at the $600 - $700 places.

 

And yes, I can compare the land cost to a balcony, because that's the only accommodation I will have on a ship. So that's the price I pay.

 

We cancelled a cruise to do the land trip last year, we saved about $2,000.

[Cruise Junky]

The excursions are the same - you are on land, does not mean you dont incur extra sightseeing costs - you still need to pay cable car, train, coach, or whatever means to do your daytrippers. You still need to pay the admissions to get into attractions. I dont understand why some think doing a land trip would save the excursion costs. Unless you stay put in the hotel or just the surrounding area, not going anywhere, so you dont incur any other costs. Otherwise, if you go to see the attractions, you still need to have transportation, at the minimum. Not all attractions are walkable from where you stay, even in compact cities such as Barcelona and Madrid.

 

.

 

That's such nonsense. The ships charge minimum $160 each to go from the ship to downtown Rome. If I'm staying there, it doesn't cost me $320 to get there. Same with Florence. There's tons of cities that are just not close to the ports.

[bbjap]

i find food one of the great things about travel to europe. If you eat only on the boat... one you'd miss out on the port because you're on the boat... two, you're missing out on a big part of europe.

[nho9504]

That's such nonsense. The ships charge minimum $160 each to go from the ship to downtown Rome. If I'm staying there, it doesn't cost me $320 to get there. Same with Florence. There's tons of cities that are just not close to the ports.

 

You dont need to take the ship excursion to go to downtown Rome. We took the train as many other passengers - 9 Euro BRIG ticket, good for Train, Subway, Bus, transportation at Rome and between Rome and the port.

 

You can pay just as high prices on land if you choose to take a tour and be a sucker. Let me give you an example, Montserrat, a very popular daytripper outside Barcelona, can easily be reached via train. There is a package of train/cable car/funicular tickets to buy, at 20.90 Euro per person. On the other hand, you can also buy a Tour, for 69 Euro per person - the only difference is, the 20.90 euro requires you to go to the train station and find the correct platform, get on the right train, etc etc The tour has a gathering place at Plaza Catalunya and you board a coach there. Other than that, I dont see what is different. Some people would still buy the tour and pay 3 times more because they dont want to be bothered by the logistics. Just like you would buy the 160 tour to go into Rome, instead of walking 10 min to the train station, buy the BRIG and go by yourself.

 

Even the hop-on hop-off bus at Barcelona at 20 Euro is a big rip-off, at least to us. We saw many many tourists queing in line waiting for the buses. But if you get a Barcelona map from the tourism booth, buy the T-10 tickets for 7.20 euro, you have 10 journeys on that ticket - meaning you and your partner can have 5 bus trips - you can go anywhere the hop-on hop-off goes - better yet, you can bypass the traffic jam, use subway and within 1.5 hours, you can transit on bus, free - or vice-versa.... That is 7.20 Euro for 2, versus 20 Euro x 2 = 40 Euro for 2...

 

It is a matter of doing your homework and then do the sightseeing yourselves, instead of having others arranging everything. Of course you need to pay up to have others arranging everything for you. Dont you agree?

 

You are comparing apple to orange, just by your last statement - many cities are not port cities - therefore, the transportation is a factor - however, you dont need to take ship's tour to get into town.

 

I maintain, landtrip lets you see more of Europe. Cities like Rome and Florence, cannot be fully appreciated on a cruiseship port-of-call type of visit. However, what you should compare is, the SAME COMPONENTS of SAME LEVEL - the lodging and the meals, for these 2 components, a cruise definitely is cheaper than a landtrip. As for sightseeing, if you dont use ship's tours, your costs of excursions would not be much more than what you would pay on a land trip - such as the cost to get to Rome, 9 Euro x 2 = 18 Euro - you only pay 18 Euro extra versus you are already in Rome. But if you choose to be taken care of by ship's tour, of course you need to pay up. Besides, ship transportation is by coach. Anyone would know, coach travel is always more expensive than train travel. Whether it should be that much more expensive, that is up to the passengers to decide if it is worth it.

[Cruise Junky]

It is a matter of doing your homework and then do the sightseeing yourselves, instead of having others arranging everything. Of course you need to pay up to have others arranging everything for you. Dont you agree?

 

We're very independent travellers. I agree, Rome, Florence, if you're up to it, you can do it yourself....but what about if you want to go to San Gimignano or Cortona or a wine tour through Chianti when you're in Livorno? There's no way you can tell me that ships excursions or even getting around from a ship are the same as staying in the area with a car.

 

And, I'm sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I can do a land trip hands down cheaper than a cruise IN A BALCONY. I would never ever cruise in an inside or an OV, so that's always going to be my basis of comparison.

[nho9504]

Our upcoming trip to Greece, we have two nights in London booked at a top rated hotel, for just over 100 pounds per night and two nights in Paris in a room overlooking the Eiffel tower for 170 Euro a night. We also have 5 nights booked at a charming B & B in Aix en Provence for 160 Euro per night.

 

There are tons of choices of accommodation in Europe. You don't always have to stay at the $600 - $700 places.

.

 

I would LOVE to know which top rated hotel in London you pay only 100 GBP per night and the Paris hotel you pay only 170 euro a night.

 

We stayed at Marriott's Gosvenor House in Sept 06, on points. Hotel is on Park Lane in Mayfair - you can see US Embassy from certain part of the hotel. I just checked a random weekend in June - it is 195 GBP a night before tax. This is actually CHEAPER than Sept last year when the rate was in the 200+ GBP range.

 

On our last trip to Paris, we stayed at InterContinental Le Grand, just opposite to L'Opera House. We used points on that trip as well. I picked the same random June weekend 06/13 to check, it is 800 Euro!!! There must be having some sort of special event on that weekend, for normally it is 400 to 500 Euro. Hilton Paris, overlooking Eiffel Tower, is NOT available for that weekend. The following weekend, Hilton Paris wants 339 Euro.

 

I have a friend who goes to Tuscany EVERY YEAR and he rented a villa each time. From his notes, I know his costs were quite a bit higher than yours.

 

No, you dont stay at the 600 to 700 a night places in Europe. But you also dont compare a balcony or minisuite cabin to a tiny, 2 star hotel room in Europe. If you are going to compare, you use at best, the obstructed view cabin, or more aptly, the inside cabin, to compare the type of hotel rooms you have in mind.

 

Again, to have any meaningful comparison, you have to use the SAME QUALITY / CALIBRE. Otherwise, it is misleading.

 

FWIW, when we do our land portion trip, we dont eat like we would on the ship - simply cannot afford to do so. We went to marches, or supermarkets to buy our foods. We also go to Buffet restaurants to get our veggie fixes. That is one way to keep the land portion manageable. The other way is to use our points as much as possible.

[nho9504]

And, I'm sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I can do a land trip hands down cheaper than a cruise IN A BALCONY. I would never ever cruise in an inside or an OV, so that's always going to be my basis of comparison.

 

Then your land trip quality, in terms of accommodation at least, is not the SAME QUALITY as your cruise.

 

You basically compromise the quality of certain components of your land trip, to achieve the "lower cost" outcome. It is easier to accept a lesser hotel room, than accept a lesser cabin because in general, a 4 star hotel room even is "run of the house", is still much bigger than a balcony cabin.

 

What we agree on, is, a landtrip gets you to see much more things than a cruise. There is no argument about that.

 

As for independent travel, we have driven basically the WHOLE western Europe - as up north to Sweden and as down south to Naples, Italy. The only Western Europe countries we have not covered by car, are Portugal and Greece. We have not really visited Eastern Europe, nor Russia - thought I am not sure how to tackle that since we prefer driving than taking train.

[Cruise Junky]

Hotel Muguet in Paris

 

Hilton London Bridge in London...110 Pounds a night if paid in advance

 

According to Trip advisor, both are in the top 10 - 15 hotels in their cities.

 

For Tuscany we rented through ParkerVillas and in Provence we rented at Les Olivettes.

 

We also just booked Le Meridien in Monaco for 240 Euro a night for after our Greek Island Cruise, I'm sure that won't be bringing us down a notch from our 210 sq ft cabin. It's a Starwood level 6 property.

[nho9504]

i find food one of the great things about travel to europe. If you eat only on the boat... one you'd miss out on the port because you're on the boat... two, you're missing out on a big part of europe.

 

Dont see how much more Europe you can learn, or experience, just by having lunches at the port cities. :D

 

On a port like Rome, you may not even have much time to have a sit-down lunch when you try to cover all the sites on one day...

 

Luckily, we have been in Europe several times, long before cruiselines make the Med cruises popular. So we have seen the majority of Europe when there were much fewer tourists than now. Frankly we were shocked to see how crowded the Trevi fountain was, and the Spanish steps... when we went into Rome on our Transatlantic in April. When we first visited Rome many years ago, the road surrounding Colosseum was a huge roundabout with cars darting around in chaos... Our little car was like flowing in a river... Back then, the traffic was already very maddening but there were not that many people on the streets ... We parked our car near the Hill and walked into the Colosseum - there was no gate, no controlled-access...

 

In recent years we feel Europe is getting crowdier each time we return. It is to a point that we feel all the hassles and expenses are no longer worthwhile... and yes, we may just one day cruise for the cruise shake and not even bother to go into ports any more!

[Cruise Junky]

You basically compromise the quality of certain components of your land trip, to achieve the "lower cost" outcome. It is easier to accept a lesser hotel room, than accept a lesser cabin because in general, a 4 star hotel room even is "run of the house", is still much bigger than a balcony cabin.

 

 

This I think comes down to what you want to get out of a vacation. Non of our accommodations were "less than" a cruise cabin. If we had wanted a 4 course dinner everynight being waited on, then absolutely, add at least 100 Euro to our daily total, but we're not like that. We took great joy in sitting on our balcony in Tuscany watching sunsets while enjoying our finds from the market and the local wine store..still dressed in our grubbies a lot of times. We relished not having to dress for dinner. It all comes down to what you want in a vacation.

 

And tell your friend to check this place out, it's lovely.

 

http://www.santantonio.it/

[nho9504]

Hotel Muguet in Paris

 

Hilton London Bridge in London...110 Pounds a night if paid in advance

 

According to Trip advisor, both are in the top 10 - 15 hotels in their cities.

 

For Tuscany we rented through ParkerVillas and in Provence we rented at Les Olivettes.

 

We also just booked Le Meridien in Monaco for 240 Euro a night for after our Greek Island Cruise, I'm sure that won't be bringing us down a notch from our 210 sq ft cabin. It's a Starwood level 6 property.

 

Le Meridien in Monaco at 240 Euro is a very good rate. The brandname itself at least worths some premium. ;)

 

Not familiar with Hotel Muguet. In Paris, we like the areas around L'Opera, Place Vendome, or Arc de Triumph. Some friends prefer St. Germain (Latin Quarter).

 

The Hilton London Bridge at 110 GBP is also a good rate, except London Bridge is near the Financial district, and quite far away from other London attractions. OTOH, London is a big city, you need to take metro or bus to get around any way. Try Mayfair area, you rate would go up to close to 200 GBP. IMO, either Mayfair, or Holborn, would be more desirable.

 

But I still dont see your hotels are much cheaper than your balcony cabin - for you need to SUBTRACT the meal costs from your balcony cabin, in order to compare it to the hotel costs - once you take out the meal portion of the cruise cost, your balcony cabin is not more expensive than your hotel. You cannot ignore the component of the meals if you are going to do a FAIR comparison.

[hylasgirl]

We have done the Med by cruise ship twice now... and a third next year. I highly recommend it. And right now with our dollar, you can't go wrong. Eat light in port, and then spend your money on the ship. We have had the time of our lives cruising through the Med... Sitting on our balcony watching the coast of Italy go by... and there is nothing cooler than sailing up the Grand Canal of Venice. Plus, for us, the cruising part is a whole different aspect of the vacation that we love. We would come "home" each night to friends that we had met on board... drinks before dinner, talking about our day. We have met friends of a lifetime on cruises, and I do think you miss that part on land trips.

[nho9504]

And tell your friend to check this place out, it's lovely.

 

http://www.santantonio.it/

 

Thanks for the link, I am sure he would like it. The guy goes to Austria or Germany each Spring to teach (exchange programs), and after that he would spend 2 weeks in Tuscany.

[Cruise Junky]

and there is nothing cooler than sailing up the Grand Canal of Venice. .

 

You actually don't go up the grand canal on the cruise ship, you stay on the outside. Try being in St. Marks at night once all the tourists are gone, now that's cool.

[Cruise Junky]

The Hilton London Bridge at 110 GBP is also a good rate, except London Bridge is near the Financial district, and quite far away from other London attractions. OTOH, London is a big city, you need to take metro or bus to get around any way. Try Mayfair area, you rate would go up to close to 200 GBP. IMO, either Mayfair, or Holborn, would be more desirable.

 

.

 

I am English, been to London many times and my husband lived there for a year. We're perfectly ok staying in a nicer hotel and taking the tube.

[nho9504]

This I think comes down to what you want to get out of a vacation. Non of our accommodations were "less than" a cruise cabin. If we had wanted a 4 course dinner everynight being waited on, then absolutely, add at least 100 Euro to our daily total, but we're not like that. We took great joy in sitting on our balcony in Tuscany watching sunsets while enjoying our finds from the market and the local wine store..still dressed in our grubbies a lot of times. We relished not having to dress for dinner. It all comes down to what you want in a vacation.

 

And tell your friend to check this place out, it's lovely.

 

http://www.santantonio.it/

 

I never mean a landtrip to Europe would be less enjoyable than a cruise. In fact, we always maintain one gets out more from a landtrip to Europe than a cruise - based on our own experiences in many landtrips to Europe. However, our most recent cruise kind of changing our mindset - because Barcelona was sooooo much crowdier than when we last visited it, and the scenes in Rome, Marseill, ... Even Switzerland where we spent a week driving around, has drastically changed - so many freeways have been built, that go thru so many tunnels - and the volumes of cars going thru them, are just astonishing. Yes, the small towns and villages are still very beautiful - but are they worth the hassle and the expenses, to travel all the way from US to experience them, esp we have seen the better of it years ago?

 

I dont know what really bothers us, but our latest landtrips all tend to be letdowns - We were in London, Scotland and Paris last year, and wowed we would not come back to London again other than transit. London also has become very crowded, and, so many immigrants to the point that Marble Arch, once a posh area, has turned into little Middle East... Along River Thames where you can see Parliament accross, it was shoulder to shoulder crowd. This year we spent a week in Barcelona and a week in Switzerland and felt we only needed 3 days in Barcelona at most... I think our problem is, we try to compare the current with the past, and when the current is not as good as the past, we feel disappointed. The USD being in the dump certain adds to the aggravation... It is like, you spend so much, and get back so little...

 

Australia and New Zealand, are still high on our list - were there over a month last year - our 3rd time. The places we have been in recent years, that are still not over-run by tourists, that still have lots of "breathing spaces" even in the most touristic spots. Sydney has replaced Paris to become our most favorite city now.

[hylasgirl]

You actually don't go up the grand canal on the cruise ship, you stay on the outside. Try being in St. Marks at night once all the tourists are gone, now that's cool.

 

With the overnight we had in Venice, we did just that...

[hylasgirl]

I never mean a landtrip to Europe would be less enjoyable than a cruise. In fact, we always maintain one gets out more from a landtrip to Europe than a cruise - based on our own experiences in many landtrips to Europe. However, our most recent cruise kind of changing our mindset - because Barcelona was sooooo much crowdier than when we last visited it, and the scenes in Rome, Marseill, ... Even Switzerland where we spent a week driving around, has drastically changed - so many freeways have been built, that go thru so many tunnels - and the volumes of cars going thru them, are just astonishing. Yes, the small towns and villages are still very beautiful - but are they worth the hassle and the expenses, to travel all the way from US to experience them, esp we have seen the better of it years ago?

 

I dont know what really bothers us, but our latest landtrips all tend to be letdowns - We were in London, Scotland and Paris last year, and wowed we would not come back to London again other than transit. London also has become very crowded, and, so many immigrants to the point that Marble Arch, once a posh area, has turned into little Middle East... Along River Thames where you can see Parliament accross, it was shoulder to shoulder crowd. This year we spent a week in Barcelona and a week in Switzerland and felt we only needed 3 days in Barcelona at most... I think our problem is, we try to compare the current with the past, and when the current is not as good as the past, we feel disappointed. The USD being in the dump certain adds to the aggravation... It is like, you spend so much, and get back so little...

 

Australia and New Zealand, are still high on our list - were there over a month last year - our 3rd time. The places we have been in recent years, that are still not over-run by tourists, that still have lots of "breathing spaces" even in the most touristic spots. Sydney has replaced Paris to become our most favorite city now.

 

I totally agree. Our landtrips have been disappointing also. We spent a week in London last year and I will NOT return. I guess I always thought I would like London and I was so disappointed in it. This may sound silly, but it just didn't have that foreign feel to us. The air was the dirtiest that I have ever encountered and it cost a small fortune to do anything!!!

 

Also on a cruise... I do think a day is enough in most ports. NO, it certainly isn't enough to soak up all the culture and really get off the beat'n path, but it is all personal really. I am ok with wandering around, seeing what interests me. Now there are some ports that I could spend a month in... but those are for another time.

 

To the poster that talked about shore excursions... yes, they are crazy expensive... but there are VERY many ways to see a port other than with the ship. We haven't done a shore excursion since our first Med cruise, and that was because we didn't know better. And you certainly don't need to be adventurous to take the train into Rome or Florence... just a little planning.

 

And also to the poster that pointed out my mistake... Correct, we didn't actually "sail" up the Grand Canal... but we did sail up San Marco Canal before it branched off from the Grand Canal... and boy was it a close up for San Marco Square. My point was just the amazing view of sailing into Venice... I haven't seen anything like that. It should be pretty dang cool sailing into Stockholm this July too.... You don't get that at the airport, that is for sure.

 

Cruising isn't for everyone... that's for sure... and to that I say "Thank GOD!!!":D

[LoriPhil]

I love the idea of the cruise providing a "sampler" experience. While we're not interested in the Med, we are planning a Norwegian Fjords/Iceland cruise in a few years just for the magnificent scenery, and then Australia/NZ cruise a year or two after that (after racking up mileage for a Business Class upgrade;) ). We'll tack on a few days at the beginning and end of each trip to continue the adventure but feel we'll get a wonderful taste of the various regions while having the joy of cruising as well and let's face it - we all love cruising or we wouldn't be on these boards. We've found the best way to maximize the land experience - whether it's for a single port day or a few pre/post cruise days - is to research like crazy before the trip and be ready to pounce on unexpected opportunities as they present themselves.

[Cruise Junky]

I think everyone's preference for vacation is so personal that recommending one over the other is useless. To us we prefer a land trip. However, that doesn't mean we don't love cruising. We just get more out of a land trip and prefer the freedom to come and go as you please and decide what we want to do that day rather than..Ok today is Athens, so it really doesn't matter if you feel like Siena, it's not going to happen. What I was arguing about was the cruising was cheaper, that's simply not always the case. Admittedly, you can get some great deals off season last minute which are steals and should be taken advantage of.

 

London, personally, not my favourite place either, even though I was born there. But DH doesn't get to make too many vacation choices and he wanted to do a precruise in London...two nights isn't going to kill me.

 

Now I'm off to do the happy dance as we just secured reservations at Louis XV in Monaco for our land trip portion :) :) :)

[winncruiser]

a criuise is absolutely the way to go! It is the BEST experience, especially if you dread (as I do) the unpacking and boarding airplanes to transport you from destination to destination! As far as so many "cruise people", Europe is so crowded in the summer that the locals have no idea where we're coming from...but are thankful that we're there, as tourism is their number one source of revenue for most of these places.

I highly recommend this trip. IT is the BEST! I'm leaving for my third Mediterranean cruise in three weeks....the first being two summers ago!

[iancal]

We've done both...but only a cruise once. We are going for a month to Italy and Croatia this summer. We find that you cannot get any sort of real taste of the place. Now, when we travel, we only stay at small b&B's or family run hotels. THis Sept. we are booked into a convent overlooking the ocean in Sorrento for 4 days, on a farm in Tuscany for three nights, and in a small B&B in Dubrovnik for four nights and so on if you get my drift. I do not think you can get this experience from a cruise. We never eat or shop on the main drag-always a few streets in. If we hear or see a lot of English speakers we typically leave in favor of a more local establishment.

[jwave]

Thank you all for your posts. I did make the decision to take the cruise, as I decided a "sampler" would allow us to choose which spots we MUST return to on land.

 

I do appreciate everyone's opinion, and agree that travel decisions are very personal and totally understand that one man's treasure is another man's (or woman's) torture. Considering our current economy and the dollar's decline, I think I will have a more comfortable trip (for less money) on a cruise...I will have to unpack once, a clean, comfortable room with twice daily service, and get a snipet (or more) of a variety of destinations.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with CruiseJunkie's assertion that land would be cheaper, esp. with the comparisons given. The hotels you listed did not come up as the top ten when I checked trip advisor. Comparing them to a balcony cabin is not apples to apples. I checked into hotels in London and Paris before looking at this cruise and the ones I looked at were considerably more than you are quoting (and they were also not top ten or 5 star). Also the experience is different. Staying in modest accommodations and eating items from the grocery in your grubbies, is not the same as a cruise vacation. I have no real desire to "do" formal night, and I am sure that I will be among those the most simply dressed (formally but simply) on formal night (or in buffet).

 

I can appreciate doing a land vacation as you describe and enjoying it thoroughly, but I do not think it is equivalent in accommodation quality. Of course that is why they make chocolate and vanilla (and banana) ice cream.

[turbo46032]

Depends on what you want to see. I have lived or visited extensively in a few countries in Europe, and places like Athens, or Rome, or Paris, you need a week depending on interests.

 

The cost is a killer, especially considering that driving around the Southern Med countries is quite a challenge. Mass transit may or may not work in some places.

 

Having said that, there are ways to do land trips with extensive planning. We found a quaint little place in central Germany in a 16th century city (50 euros/night incl breakfast). In the middle of nowhere (the rental car had a navigation system). You can drive to the north or south, no problem. France is not a problem either (ah, Grenoble...)

 

For inexpensive places like where we stayed, accomodations were, cough, a bit short. First hotel I've ever stayed in three continents that did not have a PHONE in each room. The bill was hand-written. TV had no English channels. But the town was awesome and the cost was too.

 

Bottom line, if you want to take a month and plan everything, and have energy enough to deal with the unexpected things, a land tour would work. On the other hand, if you want to see Santorini, Mykonos, and Venice all in two weeks' time, a cruise is the answer.

[cruisemom42]

As someone else pointed out, this is more of a personal decision or preference. If you start with the assumption that the costs would be roughly equivalent, I'd probably choose the land-based vacation over the cruise. And, yes, there are ways of making them roughly equivalent.

 

I do like to stay in hotels close to the center of things, but I'd be willing to stay in a 3-star hotel with relatively good ratings that's well-placed and forgo the 4-star. (Forget a 5-star in Rome, for instance, these days!!) I guess I've traveled in Europe enough to know that you can venture beyond the tripadvisor top 10 and still get a great hotel. I don't really want to stay in a Hilton-style hotel in Europe anyway.....

 

That being said, Travel + Leisure had an article in this month's issue on how cruising may be one of the best ways to see the Med. these days for US travelers due to the dollar issues. And I am considering a Med cruise for 2010 (with a few extra days at beginning or end) as a good way of introducing my son to some of these cities. (He's been to Rome but not any of the other cities we'd visit.)