EUROPE - Baltic 10 day vs 14 day - Which one

I will be taking a European Baltic cruise in June 2004. I have 2 choices and
would like the opinion of cruisers on which one to take. I will briefly
describe each cruise below:
Cruise 1: 14 days out of London(Dover) on the Celebrity Constellation. 4 extra
days I have to take off from work. 2 extra days on the sea just getting up to
the Baltic area. Ports are similar. Balcony cabin at a good rate. Airfare is
lower going to London. Get to see London.
Cruise 2: 10 days out of Copenhagen on the Grand Princess. Airfare higher than
London. Cruise fare lower for an outside cabin vs Balcony above.

I would appreciate any opinions on which cruise would be more desirable. I
have to weigh the total costs independently from the other factors. The
Princess will cost a lot less because I will have 4 less days to take off from
work. The Celebrity is enticing because I can get to see London (never been
there).

Thanks, Rick

Where do you live? London is usually on sale in the winter months for some
incredible airfares (you can go now for under $300 total cost round trip
from the East Coast), so if you are near a major city of one of the airlines
that fly there, you can usually get there for not much money at all.

I'd recommend flying out of Copenhagen, it's a great city to spend time in
and catching London some other time. Save the extra four days off from work
and head back for a long weekend when you have time to enjoy a few shows,
visit a few pubs, etc. Of course, if you start shopping in Copenhagen, all
the savings of the shorter cruise will be eaten up (smiling).

London is a great city, we head over five or six times a year when the rates
are as low as they are right now. Do the 10 day, and take advantage of the
low air fares during an off season if you can.


"Stromer2" wrote in message
...
I will be taking a European Baltic cruise in June 2004. I have 2 choices
and
would like the opinion of cruisers on which one to take. I will briefly
describe each cruise below:
Cruise 1: 14 days out of London(Dover) on the Celebrity Constellation. 4
extra
days I have to take off from work. 2 extra days on the sea just getting
up to
the Baltic area. Ports are similar. Balcony cabin at a good rate.
Airfare is
lower going to London. Get to see London.
Cruise 2: 10 days out of Copenhagen on the Grand Princess. Airfare higher
than
London. Cruise fare lower for an outside cabin vs Balcony above.

I would appreciate any opinions on which cruise would be more desirable.
I
have to weigh the total costs independently from the other factors. The
Princess will cost a lot less because I will have 4 less days to take off
from
work. The Celebrity is enticing because I can get to see London (never
been
there).

Thanks, Rick

I MUCH prefer Constellation over Grand Princess personally. I found
Grand Princess to be a very smoky ship inside (poor ventilation of
cigarette smoke), and with a higher rate of smokers in Europe, I'm not
sure if that would be a downside to you like it would be for me. At
least Celebrity designates one side of the ship as non-smoking.

As far as itinerary... that's up to you. One comment... we met the
Captain on Constellation last December, and his preference was the
Norwegian Fjords itinerary. He said that was his favorite itinerary.
He showed us pictures of Connie in the Norwegian Fjords and the photos
were incredible.

Did you look at the 10 night Celebrity Galaxy sailings in the Med?
That's what we're doing. We sail out of, and back into Rome. We sail
July 23. At this point I think we have enough people to get group rates
(I think we're up to 11 cabins so far).

--Tom

Stromer2 wrote:

I will be taking a European Baltic cruise in June 2004. I have 2 choices and
would like the opinion of cruisers on which one to take. I will briefly
describe each cruise below:
Cruise 1: 14 days out of London(Dover) on the Celebrity Constellation. 4 extra
days I have to take off from work. 2 extra days on the sea just getting up to
the Baltic area. Ports are similar. Balcony cabin at a good rate. Airfare is
lower going to London. Get to see London.
Cruise 2: 10 days out of Copenhagen on the Grand Princess. Airfare higher than
London. Cruise fare lower for an outside cabin vs Balcony above.

I would appreciate any opinions on which cruise would be more desirable. I
have to weigh the total costs independently from the other factors. The
Princess will cost a lot less because I will have 4 less days to take off from
work. The Celebrity is enticing because I can get to see London (never been
there).

Thanks, Rick

On 18 Oct 2003 20:36:42 GMT, (Stromer2) wrote:

I will be taking a European Baltic cruise in June 2004. I have 2 choices and
would like the opinion of cruisers on which one to take. I will briefly
describe each cruise below:
Cruise 1: 14 days out of London(Dover) on the Celebrity Constellation. 4 extra
days I have to take off from work. 2 extra days on the sea just getting up to
the Baltic area. Ports are similar. Balcony cabin at a good rate. Airfare is
lower going to London. Get to see London.
Cruise 2: 10 days out of Copenhagen on the Grand Princess. Airfare higher than
London. Cruise fare lower for an outside cabin vs Balcony above.

I would appreciate any opinions on which cruise would be more desirable. I
have to weigh the total costs independently from the other factors. The
Princess will cost a lot less because I will have 4 less days to take off from
work. The Celebrity is enticing because I can get to see London (never been
there).

I did the Constellation cruise in May. Outstanding A+ wonderful
cruise. The Princess cruise would also be terrific I'm sure, but I
have some thoughts.

London is really a different class of tourist destination than
Copenhagen. You do HAVE to see London, but you really need at least
four days there if you are going to bother with it. Copenhagen is
very nice and we loved our two days there, but it's just not in the
same league as far as the amount of things to see and do.

So, I would consider it a plus to spend more time in London. HOWEVER,
I would consider Copenhagen as a better departure point, not so
because of the two extra sea days (see below) but simply because it's
a lot more hassle to get from a London hotel or airport to Dover, than
to get to the port in Copenhagen.

As for the sea days -- well, we were absolutely exhausted and welcomed
them. You will be spending long days walking long distances on
cobblestone streets. I wouldn't be able to handle the port intensity
of the Princess itinerary, but you may be younger and more resilient
than I or my wife. (I'm 54, she's 39.) Still, you will enjoy all of
those great cities a lot more if you have some time to relax. They
will tend to become a blur otherwise.

I much prefer Celebrity, I will say, which would make the difference
for me, but if you like Princess as well or better, I would think that
might make more sense for you. I will say one thing -- you should
plan on an extra three to four days of shore time if you are flying to
Europe, if possible. We took 18 days for the Constellation trip,
which meant four days in London, and it worked well. Our vacation
time in London was a big success. It was the first time I've been on
an overseas trip over two weeks and really was not ready to come home.

Yes it costs more in time of vacation, but when you consider that you
really waste more than two days just getting there and back, it makes
more sense to take the most days you can. In other words, a four-day
trip to Europe yields you two days, max, of vacation time, or 50%. At
six days, it's 33%, and so on. The longer the stay, the less the cost
and time of air travel becomes on a cost-per-day-of-vacation basis.

So even if you take the Princess cruise, I would suggest you plan on
12-14 days. But if you can manage 17 or 18 days, I would tend to
recommend the Celebrity cruise.


Mason Barge

"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me some coffee."
-- Abraham Lincoln

The Norengin fiords are the best

Mike:
Thanks for the response.
We live in Los Angeles. I see what you are saying. The airfares to London now
are really low - about $271 or so. I think we will pass on going to London for
a long weekend because it would take us a day to get there and a day to return.

Remember there will be another $100 in taxes and the rest on that, and the
current sale ends this monday, but another will certainly follow.

It's really sad from LA, it costs less to fly to London in the winter then
it does to New York, and some of the flights stop in new York.

Go figure.



"Stromer2" wrote in message
...
Mike:
Thanks for the response.
We live in Los Angeles. I see what you are saying. The airfares to
London now
are really low - about $271 or so. I think we will pass on going to London
for
a long weekend because it would take us a day to get there and a day to
return.

In article , Mike
Cordelli wrote:

Where do you live? London is usually on sale in the winter months for some
incredible airfares (you can go now for under $300 total cost round trip
from the East Coast), so if you are near a major city of one of the airlines
that fly there, you can usually get there for not much money at all.

I have done that. Never again. I don't like London in the winter even
if it is a cheap trip. Same for Paris. It's just not the same in the
winter.

--
Charles

London is well worth seeing,been there four times,am looking forward to
when it will be possible to go again
Surfer 2468

London In winter is cold, damp,, damp, cold

SUNNY.........best time to visit London is April- August.

S'nd I