I was chatting with a past passenger of mine last week who happened to be looking at a 36 night cruise. We had a bit of a laugh and a joke about how jealous of her I was as I've always wanted to book a really long cruise. Not necessarily a world cruise but something like cruising to the Caribbean and back from Southampton, about a month or so long.
I've never done it though as I just can't afford to take that long off work or spend that long away from home; but it did get me thinking about which option is better, one really long cruise a year or two or three short ones? (Obviously the best option would be two or three long cruises but you'd need a lot of money for that)!
As with all things I suppose there's pros and cons to both options and a lot of it would come down I suppose to personal preference; some people might not like the thought of cruising for that long, (as hard as it is to believe that).
I guess the upfront cost of a long cruise can put some people off, although I've heard you tend to spend a lot less onboard, (in proportion), as you don't try to cram everything into 7 or 14 days.
A lot of these long cruises are cruise only so you don't have to worry about flights, you can just sail out of Southampton.
There will obviously be a lot more sea days on a long cruise, but it's hard to tell if that's a pro or con as, again, some people like these, others don't.
A shorter cruise will certainly be a lot more 'action packed', with the cruise line themselves cramming stops, excursions and activities to your time onboard, but this can mean that you miss out on just switching off and enjoying the world sail by.
It's a tricky one this and I think, as with most things, the answer is going to come down to personal preference again.
But what do you think? Should you save up for one really long cruise a year or book two or three short ones?
Happy cruising
No comments:
Post a Comment