Cruises Are NOT the Best Way to Stretch Your Dollar in Europe
I snapped this pic onboard the Silver Whisper in the port of Valencia, Spain, last summer. Cruises can be fun for sure, but your experience of Europe won't be as rich or as authentic as when you're staying on land.
by Wendy Perrin
This post will incur hate mail from cruise lines, travel agents whose livelihood is based on selling cruises, and travel publications -- from The New York Times to Travel & Leisure -- that have been serving as mouthpieces for the cruise industry lately, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't warn Conde Nast Traveler readers about a serious misperception that is now sweeping across the Internet like a house on fire.
The misperception is that, because you pay in U.S. dollars and thus lock in a dollar price well in advance, European cruises represent a particularly economical way to see Europe. As someone who has taken four Mediterranean cruises within the past eight years and was just in Europe two months ago, sightseeing in Spain, I am here to tell you that (1) even with the weak dollar, there are much cheaper ways to see Europe than on a cruise, and (2) likening the sightseeing experience you get staying in hotels to the sightseeing experience you get on a conventional large-ship seagoing cruise is like comparing apples and kumquats.
The four-bedroom villa (with private pool) that I just rented in Spain costs $2,136 for a week in May or June (the best months to go); since it sleeps eight people, that makes the cost $38 per person per night. Meanwhile, Travel & Leisure 's article on why a European cruise represents a nifty bargain recommends a cruise that costs $385 per person per night. The $385 "all-inclusive" rate includes NEITHER the cost of sightseeing NOR transportation from the pier to the place where you want to do the sightseeing (which can easily be more than an hour away and reachable only by expensive taxi or expensive ship-arranged group tour). And The New York Times claims that your dollar stretches even farther because "you can also pay for onboard purchases like spa treatments and shore excursions in dollars." But any savvy traveler who has cruised knows that shore excursions (the aforementioned ship-arranged group tours) are ridiculously overpriced; the cruise lines build in enormous mark-ups for themselves. Once you factor in the prices of shore excursions and other onboard purchases, your cruise can end up costing double what you paid in advance.
None of the cruise propagandists mention that on most European sailings your time on land is limited to about 8 hours per day (usually the ship leaves port at 5 or 6 p.m., and you must be back onboard 30 minutes to an hour before that). To figure out how much time you're actually going to have for sightseeing, you must subtract from those 8 hours the amount of time it takes to get from the pier to your sightseeing destination and back to the pier again. Your ship may be docked in Livorno, Italy, for 8 hours but, once you factor in transit time to your destination of Florence and back, you've got only about 5 hours in Florence. By comparison, if you're staying at a hotel in Florence, you have about 15 hours per day to explore the city. And the cost of getting from the pier in Livorno to the center of Florence? The cost of a roundtrip on the group bus organized by the cruise line can be $100 per person, and a ship-arranged full-day tour of Florence can be $200 per person. Yikes.
Travel & Leisure emphasizes that meals are included in
the "all-inclusive" price it quotes. But are you really going to want to
return to the ship for lunch? Say you decide to stay in Florence for
lunch and the cost of the meal is $50: You've just paid $50 on top of
the shipboard lunch you already paid for. Say you're smart enough to have chosen a cruise that spends some evenings in port (not only does this give you
more sightseeing hours, but many ports are
at their best after 5 p.m. After all, who in their right mind wants to leave Santorini before
sunset?!?). You'll probably want to eat dinner onshore, right? Dinner at a
local taverna or enoteca affords a much more authentic taste of Europe than dinner on the ship. But then you've paid twice for dinner.
As for comparing the level of accommodations on land vs. at sea, I guarantee you that every bedroom in the villa I just rented was a lot more spacious than, and just as plush as, the cruise-ship cabin that costs $385 per person per night.
It's important to understand that I have been speaking specifically about conventional large-ship cruises. A small ship--such as Windstar or Seabourn or
SeaDream Yacht Club--is a different matter entirely because they call
at ports where you are likely to dock close to where you
want to sightsee and because they spend more hours in port. As for European river cruises, I've never taken one myself, but Arthur Frommer just got back from one, and he makes a strong argument for why they're a good value for your dollar right now . . . although Gemut.com's Europe Traveler blog makes a strong argument for why a land trip can be cheaper nonetheless.
The bottom line: If your goal is to sightsee in Europe economically, there are less expensive and more authentic ways than a cruise. My Perrin Report entitled "Pain Management" tells you how to cope with the weakness of the U.S. dollar and avoid sticker shock by finding a hidden-gem three-star hotel, taking trains instead of renting cars, using public transportation instead of taxis, going light on restaurants with waiter service, and shopping where and when the locals do. My advice on renting an affordable European villa is coming up in Conde Nast Traveler's June issue.
If your goal is to get the most value for your dollar out of a cruise, see the booklet I wrote for Conde Nast Traveler entitled, "You Don't Know Cruising . . . Until You've Read This."
RSS Feeds
Couldn't agree more. Great post.
Posted by: SeanONeill | April 26, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Wendy...
As one of the cruise advocates to deride in your column, I have to agree that your $38/night villa you are sharing with 15 other people in Spain is cheaper than a cruise in Europe.
But it's an unfair comparison. The NCL Norwegian Jade (new ship) has a 12-night cruise from Barcelona to Istanbul with stops in Rome (12-hours in port of Civitavechia), Naples, Venice (overnight, 28 hour stay), Dubrovnik (Croatia) Athens, Izmir Turkey, ends in Istanbul (overnight) for $1449 US. This includes transportation and meals.
How much would you pay to travel from your crowded house to Istanbul, with lodging in Venice, etc, and meals? That is, if you cared to sample anything other than Sangria? Trains, taxis, hotels, meals? add it up.
You can see a LOT without excursions. Venice is highly walkable from the port facilities, and you would return to the ship for meals. The last time I ate in Venice I paid 30 Euroes for a disappointing meal - the Euro is now $1.60.
River cruises include shore excursions in the basic fare, btw. All sightseeing including meals on tours.
Talk about comparing apples to kumquats. I think you really missed the boat with this piece - sorry!
Editor, CruiseMates.com
Posted by: cruisemates | April 26, 2008 at 01:04 PM
Wendy...
It's true that Europe cruisers get only a glance at the places they visit, similar to tourists taking European motorcoach tours.
It's also true that you can end up spending a small fortune on shore excursions which is why I recommend using the internet before departure to plan your own time ashore.
I agree with your list of small ships, although they're too pricey for all but the very wealthy. I also add Star Clippers, which has wonderful Mediterranean and Greek Island cruises to ports where the big ships don't visit.
But it's unfair to compare the bedroom in a villa (or any house) to a cruise ship stateroom. Perhaps the owners suites are as large, but staterooms are much smaller, even on the luxury ships.
Riverboats are nice since they stay overnight in port, frequently tied up in the best part of town so it's a cinch to go out for dinner if you want to.
In the end, it's important to keep in mind that people who take cruises and tours are quite different from those who wing it in Europe on their own.
Posted by: CruiserAnne | April 26, 2008 at 03:13 PM
I agree that if youre going to Europe to visit inland cities, a cruise is probably not the best value for money.
But Ive taken four European cruises and spent very little money on transportation. In places like Corsica, Malta, Mykonos, Split, and Corfu, you can walk from the ships dock to the center of town in minutes. In Portofino, Monte Carlo, and Sorrento, the tender dock is just a few minutes from the sights. And in ports like Ravenna and Stockholm where its a fair distance from town, the cruise lines usually offer a shuttle that costs about $5.
We almost always eat lunch ashore, but its a fraction of the cost of breakfast, lunch, and dinner daily. And we usually have about seven hours ashore. To be honest, by about 4:30 were exhausted and ready to come back to the ship to hit the pool or relax on our balcony with a glass of local wine.
It is undoubtedly true that there are less expensive, more authentic ways to travel in Europe than on a cruise. But its also true that you can have a fantastic vacation without buying overpriced shore excursions or paying a lot for transportation.
The few times weve wanted to venture further afield, weve taken inexpensive public transportation or rented a car for less than the price of a shore excursion.
I am not a mouthpiece for the cruise industry. And our independent trips far outnumber our cruises. But this June, were cruising the British Isles because we can do it for a fraction of what wed pay to do the same trip independently. Our 12-night Princess Cruise runs $335 per couple per night in an outside cabin for accommodations, food, and transportation. A good hotel room in any of the cities were visiting costs more than that.
Posted by: mottersen | April 26, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Of course I need to respond to the last three comments.
RE: CRUISE MATES' COMMENT:
I did not share a 4-bedroom villa with 15 other people. As I wrote, the villa sleeps 8 people very comfortably at a rate of $38 per person per night. But the villa was cheap enough that, instead of filling it with 8 people, I filled it with just my family of four. We left an entire wing of the villa unused. It was just me, my husband, and two kids in a four-bedroom house with a private pool and several large outdoor terraces (house cost: $305/night).
The Norwegian Jade: How much does that 12-night, $2,898-per-cabin cruise cost if you want to upgrade to a room with a balcony or, at the very least, a window? And what's the total price after you add in the cost of cruise insurance, drinks (sodas, alcohol, cappuccino), mandatory gratuities ($120 per person), fees (of $10 to $25 per person) for eating in about half of the ship's restaurants, and the other onboard costs you'll incur (e.g., $20 to enter the spa) unless you're exceptionally careful and self-denying? Does that cruise price come with a caveat about the amount of precious time you'll spend standing in lines trying to get off the ship, onto the tender, into the non-fee-charging restaurant, etc. (unless you're designated a VIP by the ship because you paid FAR more than $2,898)?
I know because I just returned from a cruise on the Jade's sister ship, the Norwegian Gem. I had a fabulous time (which you can read about in Conde Nast Traveler's August issue), BUT that's because my goal was not sightseeing; my goal was a great child-care facility and water slide for my kids so that my husband and I could stare at the sea and relax; and I never ordered a cappuccino or went to the spa. Cruises can be a wonderful vacation. I just don't believe they are a good vehicle for getting the most out of Europe, mainly because you're always having to race back to the ship.
Finally, no land-based European vacationer in his right mind would include Spain, Italy, and Turkey in the same 12-night trip, so to compare the cost of a 12-night cruise to those destinations with the cost of a land trip to those destinations is, in my opinion, pointless.
RE: CRUISERANNE'S COMMENT:
I'm in total agreement with you about planning your own time ashore. Alas, I think most cruisegoers--even those whose intention when booking the cruise was to go off independently during port stops (say, by taking the train from Civitavecchia into Rome or renting a car to drive from Livorno to Lucca)--have a hard time figuring out the logistics of doing so and taking that leap of faith that they will make it back to the ship before it sails. This may be because, as you pointed out, "people who take cruises and tours are quite different from those who wing it in Europe on their own." The people who read Conde Nast Traveler tend to be people who wing it in Europe on their own, which is why my blog post was addressed to them.
And thank you for your useful input. I feel like I really ought to try a European river cruise next.
RE: MOTTERSEN'S COMMENT:
I agree that "you can have a fantastic vacation without buying overpriced shore excursions or paying a lot for transportation," but I think that's true only when the pier is within walking distance or quick taxi distance of what you want to see, or if the port has frequent, reliable public transportation.
I too have "taken inexpensive public transportation or rented a car for less than the price of a shore excursion" in any number of European ports. Unfortunately, the cost of renting a car in Europe has gone up drastically in the past couple of years, as I'm sure you will discover should you rent one in Britain, esp. if you get the collision-damage coverage and/or want a car with automatic transmission.
Yes, in Corsica, you can walk from the pier to the center of town but, having rented a car myself during a Corsican port call, I feel strongly that to stop in Corsica and not see the interior of that gorgeous country is a crying shame.
Similarly, yes, it's true, you can get to everything in Portofino on foot, but I happen to feel strongly that an able-bodied person who does not venture beyond Portofino's harbor during an eight-hour call there is missing out: Once you've spent a couple of hours walking around the harbor and up to the church and castle, you've pretty much seen it. So, after doing that, I took the train into Genoa--a fascinating city that is a baroque feast for the eyes and has pesto to die for. Back on the ship that night, passengers who had spent their day only in Portofino were lamenting that there was little to do there besides shop in exorbitantly priced boutiques.
My point is: Yes, if your ship docks in the center of town (as in Split, where it's easy to walk or grab a taxi to Diocletian's Palace) or docks at piers with frequent, reliable public transportation, then yes, you can get away with spending little on shoreside transit. But what about when a destination's highlight or off-the-beaten-path gems cannot be reached efficiently from the pier except by car? There are plenty of ports like that.
I think the larger point you and CruiserAnne might agree with is that a prospective cruisegoer should take all these factors into account when choosing an itinerary.
Have a great time on your Princess cruise, and report back to us on how you spent your time in port, would you? I'm eager to know. Thanks.
Posted by: WendyPerrin | April 27, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Wendy. I personally believe that cruisers can save money only when they plan ahead. Spend time on Google researching the sightseeing opportunities in port so you know what you're going to do before disembarking the ship.
And, you can decide to eliminate unnecessary purchases which drive up the tab: alcohol, gambling, cruise line logowear, spa treatments (over priced and below par in quality), art auctions.
A dozen years ago cruise lines made money from the price of a ticket. Today, it's almost entirely from onboard revenue so there is pressure aboard ship to spend unnecessary money.
Posted by: CruiserAnne | April 27, 2008 at 12:36 PM
The European cruise is the perfect way to go, if you have never been to Europe, and / or may not have the opportunity to go back.
For first time travelers to Europe, or those with limited vacation time, there is no better way to sample Europe than via a cruise.
In 2006, we did a twelve night Meditteranean & Greek Islands cruise for our 25th anniversary. At the time, we thought that it could be our one and only trip to Europe.
The cruise ship sailed from Rome and ended in Venice, with stops in Monaco, Livorno, Naples, Mykonos, Santorini, Ephesis Turkey, Athens, Corfu and Olympia, and only one day at sea.
Each morning we would wake up in a different port. All traveling was done at night, while we had dinner, enjoyed the entertainment on board, and a peaceful sleep. Most shore excursions were between 8 hours and 11 hours, which included lunch at local restaurants.
We didn't have to drag our luggage from town to town, spend any of our valuable daylight hours traveling via train, or check in & out of hotels each night.
It was definitely the best Value for our dollars.
Last year we toured southern and central France for 10 days, then spent a second week in Paris. What a let down after doing the cruise.
We have now booked another Meditteranean cruise, with a number of friends and family. Can't wait.
Posted by: geneva3000 | April 28, 2008 at 02:17 PM
Turns out "CruiserAnne" above is none other than Anne Campbell, a highly respected cruise expert who is co-founder and past editor-in-chief of both CruiseMates (1999-2006) and Cruise Critic (1995-1999). She has written a very useful critique of my blog post over at ShipCriticBlog.com:
http://www.shipcriticblog.com/are-cruises-the-best-way-to-stretch-your-in-europe/
If you're considering a European cruise, check out her words to the wise.
Posted by: WendyPerrin | April 29, 2008 at 07:40 AM
I agree. Of course, I'm not really the type to want to take a cruise. I can think of only two instances where I'd want to take a cruise, and that would be to see the coast of Norway and to see Easter Island.
My husband and I went to England last October for our honeymoon and rented a Self Catering apartment with the most gorgeous view of Bath, for $100 a night. That was more expensive than the cheapest one I found which wasn't available at the time. That was with a weak dollar. We shopped at the grocery store and cooked our own meals.
We bought train passes at RailEurope.com, also in US dollars and because the trains are efficient and pretty fast, we took day trips from Bath to London, Cardiff (Wales), and Bristol. The train tickets were $400 a person for unlimited travel over 15 days anywhere in England. This included transportation when we arrived, as we took the train from LGW to Bath and when we left from Bath to LHR. It was even good on the Heathrow Express.
When we didn't feel like cooking, we ate at pasty shops and a hole-in-the-wall fish n' chips place on the Upper Boro Walls where we ate for $10 for both of us, and had more food than we could finish. When we were in London, we took Wendy's advice, I think it was Wendy who suggested it...somewhere on this site, :D and ate at Cafe in the Crypt at St. Martin in the Fields.
Overall, we spent, not including airfare (which was $700rt), about $1500 per person on the trip. We were so much under budget that we were able to eat breakfast at Sally Lunn's two mornings despite the fact that it's expensive. We ate there mainly because they had unlimited refills of coffee (and the delicious buns of course). Hubby doesn't function well without his coffee ;)
Posted by: tracker1312 | April 29, 2008 at 06:42 PM
The blog http://theeuropetraveler.com agrees with you on this issue and takes Arthur Frommer to task. Frommer called a $1700 seven-day Rhine cruise the "top travel hit" of '08. It all sounds like PR spin from the cruise companies.
Posted by: travelman1938 | April 29, 2008 at 08:50 PM
You're right: The idea that a cruise is currently the best way to get value for your weak dollar in Europe is PR spin from the cruise companies.
Posted by: WendyPerrin | May 02, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I love to research my travel before going on an international trip so, before our honeymoon in '05 I left no stone unturned when planning our trip to Europe and it was after a lot of contemplation that we decided a cruise would be the best way to go (I was 26). We flew into Rome, took a train to Civitavecchia and proceeded to be taken to Mykonos, Santorini, Genoa, Sicily, Sorrento and Nice. It's true we only had about 8 hours to explore (though sometimes more), but after walking around non-stop for 8-hours straight and checking things out all day we were very happy to relax at night in the hot tub, review our pictures from the day on our TV through the digital camera plug and order room service appetizers while having some wine while getting ready to go a few floors down for a 5-course meal. Then we would go to sleep and wake up in some new wonderful place to explore. As I mentioned I love to research my trips and usually find the best budget options - but I spent about the same amount for my budget hotel in Rome with food as I did per night on my cruise and the cruise was considerably higher in star level. As for not getting an authentic experience, you have a whole day each day to get an authentic experience and you can see from our pictures that that's what we got. We took buses and trains everywhere with the locals. Took pictures with the locals, visited out-of-the-way wineries on our own in Greece, made our way to less touristy beaches - if you want to spend your time in port on your own you definitely can. From our pictures I would definitely challenge anyone to know that we were traveling via a cruise ship. From our relaxed demeanor when we returned, however, you could probably tell! Visiting the Baltic this summer on a cruise and am especially shocked when doing the exchange rate math for our land-based expenditures (we're extending the trip to 5 nights in Belgium). We will keep these costs to a minimum this year (we had originally intended to stay longer on land but not after I looked up food/hotel and transportation costs). The best way to see the value is to compare apples to apples though - don't compare a 3-star hotel to a 6-star cruise for instance.
Posted by: eriqua | May 05, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Hi- I take exception to the idea that there is a certain "type" of person who reads Conde Nast Traveler who is different from the type who "wings it" in Europe on their own. I am a charter subscriber to Conde Nast Traveler, as well as a regular reader of other travel publications. I have had the good fortune to live in Europe for a year, where I traveled extensively and independently. Yet, I am considering a cruise to Europe as well. Particularly, I would do this so as to show my teen daughter some of the sights of Europe. As a previous poster noted, cruises are a viable way to travel between various destinations in Europe. Although you contend that no one in their "right mind" would want to travel to such a range of places on the same trip, I assure you that I am quite sane. With my daughter's school schedule, and the adults' work schedules, we do not have the luxury of unlimited time to explore Europe. Last summer, we did spend a week in London on our own, but it is not practical for us to do that for every part of Europe that we would like to see. While I would not contend that a cruise is a substitute for actually living in a place, or even taking a lengthier vacation in one spot, it would be a way to see a variety of places and would serve as an introduction to Europe.
Posted by: readingtraveler21 | May 15, 2008 at 10:09 AM