As part of my post-cruise brain-dump, I thought I would give you my updated take on cruises versus land trips in Europe.

Since I had never done the former until recently, and since my husband and my style of doing land trips tends to focus on a few places intensively, with lots of multi-night stays, my previous opinion was that cruises in Europe would not really suit me as well as land trips, because they would be too much like organized land tours--"if it's Tuesday it must be Belgium".

So, now I'm a veteran of one trip. My opinion has mostly been confirmed, with some reservations:

- if an organized land trip is the kind of trip you want, a cruise is better because you don't have to move your darned stuff every night or two, and you get wonderful luxury every night

- a cruise can be a component of a longer trip, that includes a more relaxed, independent land adventure as well (like mine)

- a cruise can take you to places where you might not venture on a land trip. I think this is true right now of the Crimea and the other Black Sea ports. I now have a taste of those countries, and probably would not have gone otherwise. So now I know that I would gladly go back to Bulgaria and Odessa, but perhaps not Romania.

- a cruise can take you to out-of-the-way places as an adjunct to a longer stay (Greek Islands and Norwegian fjords come to mind)

- and last but not least, a cruise can be a "trip to nowhere", i.e, a repositioning cruise, a cruise to fairly mundane destinations (Key West looks pretty good to a Torontonian in February), where the cruise is the destination!

I admit we liked the "at sea" aspect of the Black Sea cruise. We felt like sailors. I can see doing something like this again, but if it's seeing Europe, with some depth, I would always choose a land trip.

So, I throw this out for comments and criticisms!

Wendy,

I concur. We have travelled extensively throughout Europe via rail and car, and the upcoming Norway sailing will be our first European cruise. We have been to Norway and "seen" the fjords, but I expect that the cruise will allow us to "experience" the fjords. Similar to how we "experienced" French Polynesia via the Paul Gauguin.

I do not really have any interest in a generic Mediterranean cruise (although I'm sure it would be enjoyable), but I am interested in "focus" cruises like the Greek Isles, St. Petersburg, and Black Sea. Other than that, I would rather concentrate time in a particular country or region via an independent land trip.

Luke
NorFjor723

Wendy~

You echo our views exactly...on every point!!! :app:

Just one...or maybe two additional thoughts. If you love, as we do, the experience of staying at terrific hotels, then obviously you miss that on a cruise. Of course the cost of those terrific hotels can be pretty terrific too! :rolleyes: (See Andi's thread on Istanbul hotels! "Need advise: Poll"). And, if you love experiencing local cuisines, then a land trip is again the answer.

While we loved our Voyager cruise in the Med, having only 6 hours in Rome..and every port.. was tough. We always preferred, like you, a long stay in one place.

We're seriously considering doing the Navigator over Christmas, mostly cause we know it will be so relaxing for us...with perfect pampering! <img border="0" alt="[12]" title="" src="graemlins/18.gif" /> The ship, not necessarily the Caribbean ports, will be our destination.

Ahhhhh....so many options....so little time! Bonnie

Hi Bonnie,

I also have one point to add to what I said: French Polynesia and the Paul Gauguin is another exception, where the destination is the cruise (or is the other way around!)

For us, an RSSC ship *is* a luxury hotel. As you've probably figured out, we prefer smaller hotels, partly because I would rather travel more and spend less money :) , and partly because I like a more "authentic" experience (which is probably just a rationale for being thrifty!).

I agree as well. Another plus for cruising is that you get to sample several places, so you can earmark those places you want to visit more extensively.

Wendy,

Your analysis of a cruise vs. a land tour makes sense. Up until this year, we have always done land tours concentrating on one area of a country at a time. But cruising gives us opportunities to see cities or islands we probably would not get to via a land trip. We will also get a good taste of new places that we can always return to later.

And cruising on RSSC makes these cruise trips all the more wonderful! Like you said, combining a cruise with a land tour is a great way to go if you have the time.

Ginny

Wendy, I agree, also. As wonderful as a cruise is (at least on RSSC), in most cases it permits you only an overview of a port. In some cases that's enough, but in others it's not, depending on a person's individual interests and tastes. Luke, I like your "focus" cruise definition, which perhaps can give a little deeper experience in a particular area.

In our limited cruising experience, we have been to wonderful places that we otherwise probably never would have visited -- the Hebrides Islands off Scotland, the Channel Islands, Bilbao, etc. So that's another great benefit of a cruise. However, when we KNOW that we want to experience somewhere in depth, I'm sure we will choose a land trip such as we have done for a two-week trip to New Zealand this coming November.

So both types of vacations have their place, and in our books both are probably equally desirable, just in different ways.

Wandra:

If one wants to go to Europe and explore a fairly limited area intensively (and London lends itself to that} land is the only way to go. One simply does not get enough time in each port on a cruise to do this. We plan to do much the same kind of land trip (to London) in the not-too -distant future.

But if one wants to go to areas and see only a limited amount of sites in each port and area, cruise is the only way to go, IMO. An example is our Nice to Rome cruise. We got to see about all we wanted to see in all the ports except Rome, where we did a two day post cruise. With the help of Claudio's Limo Service, we actually saw all the sites on our list in that time (though it's hard to believe). With our interests, we'd never try that in London in only two days. We also have a European river cruise on our long term adgenda, to see areas of interest inland.

One thing, however, is clear to us. Those bus trips in Europe are OUT for us. Even Tauck tours and some other high end bus tour companies couldn't guarantee me I'd never be rousted out of bed at 6:30 AM and that all hotels would be air conditioned!

So we see the kind of land vacation where one goes to a single location and "fans out" to explore intensively as an entirely different kind of trip than a cruise. Each have their place with us. But to get Radisson level service on land, we're preparing ourselves to pay MUCH more per deim for our London trip that on a Radisson cruise.

Thanks,
Richard :) :) :)

Both ways of traveling have pluses and minuses and a lot of it depends upon where you are traveling and how much you want to see. I totally agree with your assessment of a land based trip to London Richard. We spent eight days there in May and it certainly was more expensive per day than our upcoming Radisson Med cruise.

Sue

One thing that has happened to us after traveling via Radisson exclusively the past several years (except for flying to visit our adult children) is that we have had our standards raised!! On our recent driving trip from OK City to Durango CO and back, via Angel Fire, we first started staying in the nicest hotels available in the area we were in. There is a game to be played there. It is called "find the bellman." I lost, and had to "schlep" bags through halls and up elevators. Service, non-existant. After that, we started staying in those kind of "motels" where one can just back the car up to the room door. No service, of course, but it was easier and cheaper. And at all grades of hotels, what passed for a Continental breakfast was pitiful!

In addition to cruising, we'd like to see the good ole USA ---- and not the big cities, but the real natural sites it has to offer. Problem is, we are finding accomodations aren't only not up to Radisson standards, they aren't even up to NCL standards.

Thanks,
Richard <img border="0" alt="[bang]" title="" src="graemlins/banghead.gif" />

Traveling in the west is like that if you do it by car. I prefer Holiday Inn Express. You get a nice room with a good bed. Most have high speed internet access. Good TV's that get all the cable channels. They have a fair Continental breakfest with eggs and waffles. They seem to have the same leval of service at all locations. No bellman but I have seen them help the disabled.

Can anyone beat the time a couple years ago that on our way to Vail, we stayed in a CO motel that unbeknownst to us, was in a town hosting a motorcycle convention/rally...something. It was a small place and there wasn't a big choice of motels but it seemed the best of the lot. Well, starting about 1 a.m., they came roaring into the parking lot...one by one by one by one...well, you get the picture. That went on for at least three hours, What a night! We had to be the only customers that had driven a car. Now we can laugh!

chip:

Had also heard before that Holiday Inn Express may be just about the "best among the worst!" They were full when we tried to book them for our Durango trip. So we stayed at the higher-dollar but less convenient Doubletree.

But I'm a bit off the subject here as this thread is about land stays in Europe, not the US. I guess we are some of the few who usually book any pre or post cruise land stays through Radisson. I know, it is usually not the most cost effective way. But, when we were in Rome, it was worth something to us to have Radisson take care of all the luggage "schlepping" and to provide us with transportation to the airport at some ungodly hour, and in a Mercedes E class sedan, chip. We were happy with that situation.

In fact, I've found the most glaring lack of service and convenience when traveling to be right here is the ole USA!

Thanks,
Richard :) :) :)

Richard, it would of been better if they had let you drive the Mercedes.

My Mother took my two young girls and myself to Europe in 1990. She refused to rent a car and saved a little money by staying in cheaper places. I just remember hauling all their luggage around Paris and London. I had had it by the end of the whole trip. When I came home my Father said now you understand why he stayed home.

A car wheather you drive it or not gives me the freedom that that I so desperately need when traveling on land in Europe. Plus you get to see more.

Chip:

In 1992 we took a driving land vacation of southern Germany. After visiting several cities in the area, we settled into a condo in the Alps. We took the train (zug) to Munich for Oktoberfest, as we know nobody could drive back! Good times!

The Radisson Rome post cruise in '03 was also great. Hotel was great. We and another couple chartered Claudio's Limo Service and actually saw all we wanted to see in Rome in just two days.

What we will avoid are those damnable bus trips of Europe. Ours was more like military basic training, except the training didn't make me sick and Air Force food was better!!

Thanks,
Richard :) :) :)

Chip - LOL! :) I can sympathize with your father and you.

Masaki

I have to agree with everyone. All differing opinions are correct because there is no right answer and here is my humble opinion as to why.

I am here living in Europe so I can "experience" Europe. I ACTUALLY live here. I also travel on weekends. I take land vacations. I cruise. Sometimes they are good. Sometimes they aren't.

Let me give you some examples.

You can't do Alsace-Lorraine by cruising or by train. You must have a car. I have tried to do this by train and only get frustrated. You must have a car. It is a wonderful and beautiful area that should never be missed and you need a car to find its nooks and crannies. (This is probably true for most areas of France).

You CAN do an OVERVIEW of lovely France cities by train ..Strasbourg, Nice, St. Remy, Aix, Paris, Lyon, Avignon, Arles, Dijon all within a week or two by Eurail at great hotels. You will get a flavor of french history, different food cuisines, charm, scenery and will have a wonderful vacation..but you will be in major cities and tourist centers. Not a drawback, but for the person who has a limited time to see a lot of one place. I highly recommend this. It is a classy way to travel and, while different from RSSC, just as enjoyable as an RSSC cruise. I will be glad to share wonderful hotels with anyone who wishes to know my finds..all 4 and 5 stars.

If you want to do Provence in depth including St. Tropez, you must do a combo of car and train (you can't find parking for a car in the beach and city areas).

If you want to get a feeling for Europe, Nice to Rome is a wonderful RSSC cruise with a pre an post cruise in both cities. RSSC Venice to Rome was also lovely as a cruise with pre and post land cruise. I believe Denise and Alan really had a great time experiencing Tuscany after Rome. We got a good flavor of Italy on that cruise. We do want to get back to see Tuscany.

I can't imagine doing Switzerland any other way other than by train or by foot or bike...forget a car. I only get frustrated in a car.

We will probably never have the time to spend in the Baltics on a land trip, so we decided to do a cruise. However, we have done a land trip to Stockholm and spent a full week there and then took a train to Oslo and then to Bergen. Bergen is a two day town at best..Norway is a town that it is best to cruise around. We tried to take a land trip there and found ourselves bored and constantly hoping on boats and moving on. I bet a cruise would be the better way to go?

We'll let you all know how our Athen's to Istanbul cruise works..where it's islands, I'm sure it'll just be great.

As Bonnie said..looking at Hotel per diem vs RSSC, dollar for dollar RSSC is a great deal and is very relaxing. Less depth, but it can fit the bill, if you beef it up with some pre and post cruise experiences.

I was asking one of my friends if she thought I should stay in Intercontinental or Ritz Carlton in Istanbul and she said she'd stay in neither. She only stays in very small, non-chain, deluxe hotels in an old part of the city and cost would never enter into her equation. To each his own.

Time, money, lifestyle...There is no one solution, only a myriad of options. That is why this board is so great. We can share the options with one another! (It's a rainy day in Basel today and I'm watching TV this afternoon!!)

Forget Fieldings, Fodor and Frommer.....we could collectively put together a LUXURY CRUISE/LAND TRAVEL TIPS book that would knock your socks off!

:lct: :lct: :lct:

Wendy,

I agree with a lot of your points. I think cruising usually gives you just enough time in a port to know if you'd like to go back for a longer visit. On the other hand, I love the experience of travelling on a ship.

Todd and I have such differing ideas of "vacation". To him, a vacation means racing around seeing everything possible every second of the day. If he doesn't come back from vacation exhausted, he doesn't think it was successful. :)

To me, a vacation is a way to recharge my batteries and get ready for another six months of hell at the office. Of course, I love to tour and see things, but I want some relaxing time and pampering as well.

We meet in the middle. Some trips, like our Tauck trips, are more his type of vacation. (And Richard, having done two of them, I can tell you that getting rousted out of bed at 6:30AM might be considered a "sleep in" day. On our trips, I think the bus pulled out around 7:30AM. If you wanted breakfast, you needed to be up early.) While I very much enjoy the trips, I'm definitely ready to get home by the end. All the packing, bus time, unpacking, etc. really wears me down by the end of a two-week trip.

Other trips, like our cruises, are a good mix. Todd can race around all day on a port day and I can sightsee for a while, then come back and relax a bit. A perfect mix.

Unlike the land trips, on the cruises, I always wish they could last longer. Guess I'll always be a cruise gal at heart, really.

Kathy

Well, I find myself agreeing with what most are saying. Sedona especially hits the nail on the head, on the subject of focusing on one area and doing it in depth. That's our philosophy of travel, almost to a T, although the size of the focus might vary from, "anywhere a few hour's drive from Nafplio (recent example), to "the Eastern Highlands of Scotland", or "the Cotswolds and surrounds", or "a week on city x" (older examples.)

I am very fortunate that my husband and I agree on this. If he was one of the frenetic travellers who is intent on not missing a thing, I think I would just stay home at the cottage.

What a nice thread. I agree with Richard, since cruising wiht RSSC, the bar has definitely been raised and a Holiday Inn is hard to take.

We think a cruise is a great value way to see areas of the world and combine relaxation with touring. I love a good sea day. My first husband's only idea of a vacation was to go to a beach resort - period. He was in sales and did some travel for business so anything in a city was out of the question.

My second husband (Frank) LOVES to cruise. We get appetizers of places. Some we want to visit in detail. Because he has travelled extensively by cruise, we plan vacations that he either really enjoyed or to places he hasn't been yet. England via Land is very high on our list - maybe by Tauck.

We think that a pre and post cruise land trip is one of the best ways to do both. Montreal is next for us and then PIP.

Kathleen:

Thanks for the confirmation of what I had learned about Tauck Tours. Are there no guided tours that realize that many people have to get up early to go to work, and don't want their vacation to be like work? And don't these bus tour operators realize that some vacationers want to see the nightlife in a particular area, which is totally inconsistent with early morning wake up calls? In USAF Officer Training, we were awakened at 5:30 each morning, as part of the program to break our individual wills and make us immediately responsive to orders. But this is the Military, and has a valid purpose there. Heck, on the bus tour I took (not Tauck) I kept waiting for them to go ahead with the rest of the military thing and shave my head and issue me a uniform! The USAF does not misrepresent itself as a vacation. To the contrary, it represents itself as a place where one will be turned into a hardened fighting man or woman. Such military operations are very important. Just not on my vacation!!!

Thanks,
Richard :eek:

My grandparents always raved about Tauk Tours. Doug and I never did an organized tour because Doug had an aversion to packing and unpacking and being herded up early and I had to admit to him that this didn't sound like a vacation to me either.

So, our land trips became me becoming Tauk tours and being accused of not realizing that this was not seeming like a "Vacation." So, I then planned resort vacations. We both found these too dull. For us, cruising on RSSC seems to provide the mix of socialization, value, sightseeing, culture, relaxation. It can be a bit topline and not provide the "in-depth" feeling, but we found that the pre-and post-cruise experiences can help make up for this lack. A cruise experience will never replace the depth of a land vacation and we will always take land vacations. However, if we could only have one vacation a year, I think we would opt for a cruise. Our VOF cruise was the very best overall vacation experience we have ever had and our Paul Gauguin trip was unbelievable. Our friends we made on our second Mariner Trip over XMAS are still our friends. These are very special vacations.

sedona:

I think that one of the most overlooked benefits of a cruise vacation on Radisson is the enjoyment of the fellow guests, and the friends one makes. We can talk about convenience, food, service, inclusions, and all such things. But the friends one makes on Radisson? ---- Priceless!

Thanks,
Richard :) :) :)

one of the things we liked about our Tauck tour was that we were 24 people for a week on a bus and out and about. We got to socialize with all of them and some we liked better than others. I still email a few of them. We could have nightlife and we chose to not unpack. We used our suitcases and I used bags within them (like space bags) with a day's change of clothes; Our toiletries had their own bag. It was a non-issue. They gave us enough downtime everyday to do as we wanted. Frank tended to take a nap after lunch on the bus as did many fellow travelers and the tour guide gave us time to do that if we wanted. Even though you were with a group, dinner was often on your own in the hotel and just like Compass Rose, you ate when you wanted except for the welcome and good bye dinner. Lunch was often a group thing.

My problem is that when I have to be awakened at 6:00 AM in England or Ireland on a bus tour, to my body (still on Central time) says it's midnight or 1:00 AM. On our last (and I do mean LAST) bus tour, about half the group got sick, including me. While I can't lay all the blame on the hours and pace, it didn't help. Some folks aren't bothered by all of this, so bus trips may be for them. And one does see a lot more per day than via other means. But all should realize that bus trips are much more demanding, strenuous, structured, and physically taxing than land resort vacations or crusing.

For a multiple destination trip in Europe, I'm with chip ---- get a car. Only the "wrong side of the road" countries should be a real problem, especially if one avoids big city traffic.

Thanks,
Richard :) :) :)

Richard, as a single traveler, I would never drive in Europe or in any other country, left or right side of the road. When I was married, we went several times skiing in Switzerland, Austria etc. and always rented a car! In London, Paris, Rome, cabs!It was fun, but often brought white knuckles on in the winter if snow was on the road. I have had two good experiences in Ireland (that I especially would not drive...tiny little roads to the sights) and Italy with Perillo deluxe tours (Danielli hotel in Venice is really nice). We were only tied up with tours in the a.m. and they were never getting us up at 6:30 bags out the door. In Italy we went from city to city by first class rail, and it was just like traveling with friends, except we did not carry our bags. On our own for dinners at night, which we wanted. In Ireland, there is more riding in the bus, but I still have good memories of that trip as well. Since cuisine is not so important there, we enjoyed our a la carte dinners at our hotels which were first rate, but not world class. It was really very inexpensive for the value we received.

I have also traveled with a pack of women (6-9 of us) on 5 European trips. One of them is a small TA who arranged everything,always including more than one city and private guides or rented cars and we have had the greatest adventures! So many stories that would bore you. But I cherish these memories, we laughed so much (the joy of group travel)! Travel by whatever means you do it can be good or bad depending on how you plan it to slough out what you do not want. For me, at my present stage, cruising has just become the easy way to do what I like to do, go someplace new, and not have to worry about what hotel to pick, what restaurant is best for dinner, shall we drive or get a tour, what hotel, packing and unpacking and all the rest! Wendy has a great take on all of this, and I agree with her mostly, unless you are at a different stage of life. She's right where I would have been at her age (from the looks of her picture). Can you tell how old I am from my avatar?

Editing to say, at the "prime" of my life for flitting from place to place! Someone once said if you keep the sun in your face, the shadows will always fall behind you!

jhp,

Yes, I know I am lucky to be mobile for now. My husband and I have both experienced minor mobility impairments, but for now, we're good to go. And drive (he always insists on driving when we're on holiday, but I love driving too.)

And I fully expect that some time in the future, if we are lucky and healthy enough to travel at all, that we will find cruising very convenient and relaxing.

Oh, and I'm not ashamed of my age. I'm 56. My husband will be 61 next month. Maybe some of the pictures I will post shortly will tell the tale--my avatar picture is from 2000!

(edited: after saying the above, I realized that my signature is wrong--it was 2000 that we were first in FP--will fix.)

Olivia,

Thanks for the viewpoint of the Perillo Tours. Being accustomed to RSSC luxury and wanting the most for my travel dollar (and not wanting to rent a car) was undecided about taking a Perillo Deluxe vs. a Tauck. Some friends have taken Perillo, but, they are more budget concious and I did not feel comfortable with their recommendation.

Editing to add that I am 48 and Frank having a 65th on our next cruise. We do no want to have to hassle with the detail of getting lost, driving in a country where we do not speak the language. We just want to sit back and enjoy wit someone else handling the detail.

jhp:

Thanks for the info on Perillo tours. What time in the AM, if you recall, were you required to rise? Do you have contact info for them? I'm basically looking for tours for lazy old late-sleeping men like me!!

As far as driving in Europe, you are right that that would depend on weather, and a number of other things. I won't even drive on snow here in Okla City, and would not even consider it in another country.

Thanks,
Richard :) :) :)

Wendy, gosh, from the looks of your picure I thought you were about mid-thirties!

Richard and Kathy, now keep in mind that my Perillo Tours were before I started cruising on Radisson! Just the same, there are some trips that are just better by land, and you have to find a way to do it best at your own comfort level. For Italy, we had the very best guides I have ever had on any trip/cruise, period. In Ireland, our escort could get a little talkative on the bus (like most guides while you are in the bus, ship excursions included) I honestly can't remember what time we had to have our bags out the door for that trip. In Italy, we only went to three cities, so were not moving from place to place. But I do know that it wasn't early enough to bother me, and I do not like getting up early in the a.m.