How Much Does Airfare/Air Travel Affect Your Cruise Plans?

I'm curious as to how much "port convenience" plays in your decision making process. Would you cruise more if it was were easier to get to the port?

Not sure if you only want answers from North American cruisers but thought I would answer anyway.

We would have an extremely limited choice of itinerary if we only cruised from home ports.

We usually fly 20 - 28 hours before we cruise or tour. We just accept that we either fly or miss out.

When I lived in the US, it made little difference to me as most North American ports were easy, and relatively inexpensive, flights.

Now that I live Down Under, it makes a huge difference because the airfare is often as expensive as the cruise if not more. And the 4 days of travel to/from the US East Coast means we effectively lose 4 days of vacation time, which makes a difference to how long we can cruise.

We're lucky in the UK. It's only a 10-hour flight to get to Miami for Florida departures and Caribbean cruises, so it's not something even worth worrying about. It's a shorter flight than some that we do for weekend trips.

But if I had to fly to Australia every time I wanted to cruise, that would definitely reduce the amount of cruising that I do.

Not sure if you only want answers from North American cruisers but thought I would answer anyway.

Not at all! It doesn't matter where you hail from. :)

We're lucky in the UK. It's only a 10-hour flight to get to Miami for Florida departures and Caribbean cruises, so it's not something even worth worrying about. It's a shorter flight than some that we do for weekend trips.

 

But if I had to fly to Australia every time I wanted to cruise, that would definitely reduce the amount of cruising that I do.

I must say that I admire anyone who can say "only a ten hour flight." Sterner stuff! We Americans think that coast to coast flights are long at 5 or 6 hours.

When we used to have direct flights, we cruised 4 and 5 times a year -- and not just for 7 day cruises. We only do 14 days and longer.

All this connecting stuff has slowed us down.

We are currently planning getting to the Med. in April, 2015. We are doing two land tours and the 22 day cruise on the Zuiderdam but still haven't decided if that is all. Because we have to travel so far we try to do as much as possible.

I live about 20 miles north of Ft. Lauderdale and 45 miles north of Miami so I am lucky there. As to foreign ports, one of my daughters is a flight attendant for a major airline so I can fly fairly cheap.

We love to cruise.

We don't mind flying.

We have to fly to cruise.

We live about 3 hours from Toronto to catch a flight to wherever we want to cruise from. It's time consuming and expensive.

But, what can we do ... we love to cruise.

Like many others, we have to juggle vacation time, work, family etc. so we usually cannot take more than 2 weeks away. Maybe after retirement we could take longer trips. Or take a couple of days to drive to a port, but for now, we fly.

So air travel is just part of cruise planning. Airfare is just another thing we have to save up for so that we can cruise.

The length of flight is not the issue for us but the cost is as we have to purchase 4 tickets. It is always a consideration we have to factor in along with how to get to the airport about an hour away, getting time off work, making sure teachers are informed, etc.

I have found cruising to be truly relaxing for this mum so I will gladly fly to get to the ship.

Since air travel from the Maritimes is convoluted and expensive we rarely consider a cruise of less than two weeks in duration and prefer something over twenty days. We like to make the air expense worthwhile so tend to take fewer but longer cruises. If we had cheaper access we would most likely take more cruises but shorter ones.

When we saw the Veendam was cruising to Bermuda out of Boston on seven day cruises I was dismayed to discover that Air Canada wanted almost as much for a round trip to Boston as they did for Fort Lauderdale. Then I got creative and discovered if we drove to Freeport, Maine, which is an easy drive, then we could take the train to Boston for less than a hundred dollars for the two of us. Throw in the cost of gas and a hotel in Freeport and it is still a no brainer. That was the deciding factor in taking a seven day cruise.

When we did Alaska in May, it wasn't that we really wanted to do it in May but rather it was because we were taking the repositioning cruise from Fort Lauderdale to Vancouver so would be in Vancouver anyway. It was much cheaper to just stay aboard and do Alaska again then, than to make a second cross country flight just to take a seven day cruise. We also got to do Alaska without being jet lagged as we were the time we did fly all the way to Vancouver for a short cruise.

I guess the short answer to the OP's question is that airfares influence the length of our individual cruises, but not the decision to actually cruise.

Before HbT (hit by truck, long story), flight time and cost were just part of the calculations for a trip. Since HbT, number of and time between connecting flights, as well as dealing with foreign airports have become more important than actual costs. I cancelled a booked Med cruise in favor of the 42 day FtL to FtL on the Maasdam because of an unfortunate incident with United Airlines in Montreal; I did not feel I was ready to tackle flying solo from New Orleans to Venice.

However, Luggage Forward has solved the luggage problem for me!

Of course the cost of flying impacts choice of cruise as well as frequency, but for us the length of flights is a deal modifier, if not a deal breaker. The seven-or-so hour trans-Atlantic flight is no fun - we have decided against Med and Northern Europe cruises because of it --- so we prefer T/A's : flying over , enjoying the departure port for several days, then a few ports at the start, followed by ship home.

We'd like to try an Australia/New Zealand itinerary - hopefully one with a trans-Pacific home -- the flights both waxy would be simply too much.

I'm curious as to how much "port convenience" plays in your decision making process. Would you cruise more if it was were easier to get to the port?

I stress more about getting a short duration flight than I do picking the cruise when I fly from Florida for an overseas cruise. Luckily We live in Florida which gives us a lot of options that allow us to drive to port.

Where possible I try to find a transatlantic cruise or QM2 crossing that will fit in with my travel plans. I've done some really weird combinations to save a few hours of airline time.

I really hit the jackpot this year. My first trip to South Africa was one of my most gruesome experiences ever with a 9-hour flight to the Azores, an hour of refueling without being allowed off the plane, and another 9 hours to Johannesburg.

This year I had my dream Crystal Cruise that ended in Cape Town. I was prepared for but dreading the return flight when I found the Amsterdam stopping there 4 days later, headed for Ft. Lauderdale. I call that hitting the jackpot.

Roy

Of course the cost of flying impacts choice of cruise as well as frequency, but for us the length of flights is a deal modifier, if not a deal breaker. The seven-or-so hour trans-Atlantic flight is no fun - we have decided against Med and Northern Europe cruises because of it --- so we prefer T/A's : flying over , enjoying the departure port for several days, then a few ports at the start, followed by ship home.

 

We'd like to try an Australia/New Zealand itinerary - hopefully one with a trans-Pacific home -- the flights both waxy would be simply too much.

We also like the TA option and have done two to Europe and one from Europe. We prefer taking the TA going over because then one arrives in Europe rested and ready to go with no jet lag. Since European cruises involve a lot of long touring days that are, by themselves, tiring it is really beneficial to be rested when you start.

Of course the flight home is tiring and then there is the jet lag to contend with, but the vacation is over then so you just deal with it.

Since we've changed our focus from US originating cruises to more distant destinations like the Med airfare, and the cost of the cruises for that matter, have become a significant factor in our decision making process. Bottom line is we're cruising less in the sense we now go every other year rather than annually. We also go for longer cruises as the airfare is a "sunk" cost, we pay the same airfare if we're gone one, two, or three weeks. It certainly doesn't help that we don't live close to a major airport. For most destinations even domestically we have to fly to Dallas or Atlanta to catch a flight to our final destination and that adds to the travel time and the expense. We're were pleased as punch to "only" having to fly for 16 hours, which really meant 22 hours from the time we left our house to feet on ground, to get to Athens last cruise. It's the price I guess we pay for being destination driven cruisers, we cruise to go different and new places.

I'm curious as to how much "port convenience" plays in your decision making process. Would you cruise more if it was were easier to get to the port?

Sure would. Each year there is a number in our budget for travel. We have to make several choices to fit within that number. If we have to fly cross country, we want first class seats and at least a 14 days, preferably 21 days for that travel expenditure. We can get to one cruise port by public transportation and two others are less than two hour non stop hops.

Not at all. My DH is a plane crash survivor and hasn't flown since 1968. If we can't get to the port by car we don't go.

Several times we have taken a canal transit from SD and then taken several Caribbean cruises once in Fl. Then we rent a one way car and drive from Fl. to Az. and get to see more of this beautiful country. Or vice versa. It works for us.

Living on the "frozen tundra" we simply factor the cost of airfare into our vacation budget. We try to get the best deal possible, but sometimes we just have to go with it in order to get away from the ice and snow of winter.

Now that I'm retired (as of last Friday, woo hoo! :D), maybe we will be able to take advantage of some seat sales that will get us to a port city.

Smooth Sailing! :) :) :)

Gerry

We are currently planning getting to the Med. in April, 2015. We are doing two land tours and the 22 day cruise on the Zuiderdam but still haven't decided if that is all. Because we have to travel so far we try to do as much as possible.

Same here, I guess it does impact where we cruise. We have yet to do any Australian or New Zealand cruises due to distance. We both still work and are saving those for retirement.

We recently cruised to Mexico from San Diego. Since we live in San Diego, port convenience played a big role in that decision in a most positive manner.

For cruises to Alaska, flight costs and convenience heavily favor Seattle over Vancouver but we will override that bias if other circumstances prevail.

igraf

I'm curious as to how much "port convenience" plays in your decision making process. Would you cruise more if it was were easier to get to the port?

I must say that I admire anyone who can say "only a ten hour flight." Sterner stuff! We Americans think that coast to coast flights are long at 5 or 6 hours.

That's how it is for us.. Unfortunately, my 6'2" DH no longer wants to fly long distances & would rather cruise out of Florida.. We also take the longer cruises of 14 days or more..

I would love to fly to Seattle & take the AK cruise on the Amsterdam, but DH balks at the long flights..

Now trying to convince DH & our good Friends to consider an Oceania cruise out of NYC to Bermuda, on to the Carib. which ends up in MIA.. Flights to NYC are only 2 1/2 -3 hrs. from here.. Yesterday, my Friends DH who is also 6'2" , presented the argument about having to pay for one extra bag.. It's not that we/they can't afford it, it's the "principle" of it..;)

So it looks like we will not be cruising this year, unless they all change their minds..:(

It is a definite consideration. Since we live in the Chicago area where there is no cruising available every cruise requires flights.

The cost of air fare this past year or so has been huge! Often rivaling the cost of a quick seven day stress reliever cruise. Cost to fly to Montreal/Boston when considering an east coast cruise for this summer was as great if not greater than the cost to fly RT Seattle - so we chose another Alaska cruise (can visit family in Seattle and earn a lot more airline miles than going to the east coast). Airline miles are very important to us.

When we can we choose RT U.S. Itineraries for extended voyages to avoid the long flights (DH has a history of a pulmonary embolism so a trans Atlantic or trans pacific flight needs to be business class or better for me to feel OK with the long flight - very expensive proposition for us unless we can cover it with frequent flier miles).

Since we do play the frequent flier mile game rather well we have accumulated a chunk of miles which we dole out carefully - we have often chosen to do segments of HAL's grand cruises not only for the itinerary and perks of the grand cruise - but because we then only require a one way international flight and our miles usually support this (reference this September's trip on the Amsterdam - Seattle to Shanghai which will be followed by an 18 day Uniworld river cruise/tour in China that ends up in Hong Kong - one big flight home but covered in comfort by miles).

We would love to do many two or three week tours overseas but the flights (both cost and stress of travel) make them very unattractive to us. A couple of years ago we went Athens to Dubai on Seabourn - an exquisite itinerary and most memorable trip - we were fortunate to have sufficient miles to cover the air but the jet lag was overwhelming - took days to readjust each way (I guess we are just getting old!)

As such I will take this forum to once again emphasize how important it is to us and our cruising future that HAL continue to offer all of the RT U.S. Cruises with exotic itineraries. I fear that as the smaller HAL ships disappear into the luminiferous ether that these cruises will, as a matter of economy, have to disappear also. I have already noted that Prinsendam's Grand Med ends in Europe. This is an important issue to a segment of HAL's loyal mariners. I do not wish to see us sacrificed to the "bottom line".