girlonthego--Sea sickness does happen, but a couple of points on that. First, many of the newer ships have great stabilizers these days that minimize the ship's motion. Second, there are patches and non-sleep inducing drugs that can help with the sickness. Third, I believe the captain can change a ship's sailing to avoid rough waters if necessitated.

It's been my experience, and maybe this is just a coincidence, but Carribean cruises leaving out of Ft. Lauderdale seem to have more rocking than those that leave out of San Juan. However, choose your poison, b/c I've also noticed an increase in turbulence flying into San Juan

We've only had really bad waves on one trip, and that was from Ft. Lauderdale to LA via the Panama Canal. The worst waves were from Ft. Lauderdale through the Bahamas. After we reached Jamaica, things settled down a lot! The waves were so bad in the Bahamas we couldn't anchor and had to skip the port.

Unfortunately, I get "sea sick" by just looking at the ships Otherwise I'd love to move from place to place without having to unpack each time, moving mostly at night with my "hotel room" and not thinking of how to get to a restaurant recommended by fodorites.

Nope, not me, not ever, not on a bet, not if I won the trip!

Reasons not to cruise: I get horribly seasick. I'm a tad claustrophobic. I hate organized activities and schedules. Not to mention, being stuck with a group of people in the middle of the ocean! I want to see the places I'm visiting for more than an afternoon. No one is going to be telling me what to do on my vacation. Visitors from a cruise ship in port are taken advantage of and rarely get to interact with the locals in a positive way.

The last line of suze's is true and that is why I am not going on the tour excursions through the cruise ship. I do like to converse and relate to the native population in a positive way and not hit all the spots that have crowds of American tourists, who are there just for the day. And FainaAgain, I do get air sick & sea sick- but it is the only way, unless you are rich, retired and wealthy, or just able to travel with unlimited time- to see the kinds of places that you can see and then return to explore at depth. I have tried and with my length of vacation time away from work- it is just the truth.

Without that kind of tour experience there are many of us that would never, ever have been able to do / see so much on our own. I would never have been able to drive up and down the Amalfi coast, for instance, without a tour group and professional driver. I just could not have done it.

I'll let you know if the ginger etc. works, but regardless I know I'll have a good time. I've also made separate arrangements for native guides when I arrive at two of the spots. But I'm not giving up yet.

We've been on several cruises -- Norwegian-American, Holland-America, Princess, and others. Some have gone out of business, some have changed their names. Around S. America, the Mediterranean, Mexican Riviera, Alaska, the Caribbean, trans-Atlantic, French Polynesia, etc. In Russia from St. Petersburg to Moscow.

For food, we would rank Holland-America about the best. Not the fanciest, not the glitziest, just imaginative and served well.

For service, Holland-America was hands down best.

But I think we have taken our last cruise. Their costs have simply escalated out of our price range. Some lines are going all-out to attract those who like to gamble, smoke, party til all hours. Just not our thing. Their advertising really turns us off. Sorry about that.

To KVR....

I do think that a cruise is the way to see Alaska. You will find a more mature audience...not old people, just mature.

I would probably suggest Princess or RCCL for a cruise to Alaska

We like both cruises and land vacations. The advantage of a land based vacation is spending several days or weeks in one place and really getting to know it.

One a cruise, we love having our hotel move from spot to spot so we get to see lots of places without re-packing and unpacking or finding our way from one place to the next. We select port intensive cruises, tour the stops on our own, and have particularly enjoyed a Scandinavian cruise and a Mediterranean cruise.

Our favorite cruise line is Oceania: the ships (684 passengers) seem to be just the right size, the food is excellent, and the staff delightful.

Abram: we agree with your liking for Oceania. They are a fragment of what was once a fine company, Renaissance Cruises. We went with them on the R3 through French Polynesia, and they were excellent in all respects. Unfortunately, there was a lot of flak about this company on this web site because the company dealt with the customers direct, did not use travel agents. At least, they did not do so at first. This created a lot of ill will among T/As, and there was a lot of nasty stuff posted here and elsewhere. I think 9/11 contributed to that company's downfall. But we are glad to see they have returned, in at least in a limited way.

We took our first cruise in 1979 and loved it. We've done 7-8 since and enjoyed them, but the cruise industry has changed so much I've lost interest. The ships are too big, too glitzy and too many people. The smaller ships, more like those we were used to, are too expensive. However, I would like to go through the Panama Canal regardless of all the changes. Maybe some day.

J_Correa:

I too looked at Cruise West. Ordered the brochure and the video. Would love to do that instead of a mainstream cruise line, but agree with you it's out of our budget range.

Cruises to Alaska are much more expensive than the Caribbean. I won't do RCCL because of the forced seating. Have looked into Princess, but like the way NCL handles their dinner options better. I won't say "never", but we'll just wait and see.

Regarding having to deal with a huge number of people, keep in mind that the more guests, the larger the ship. I have never really felt crowded on any of the cruises I've been on. There seem to be enough public places to escape really large crowds.

As for "forced" dining, we went on RCCL to Alaska. On that line, as well as a few prior cruises after being seated a table we didn't particularly care for, we began asking for a table for two--in fact we did so after the very first evening and were accomodated. We've never had our table for two butted up against other tables and it's always seemed just like it was supposed to be--"a table for two". You can always order room service for dinner if you want to eat at your leisure. We mostly pick the early dinner seating, but we've never felt the need to rush back from an excursion "so we wouldn't miss dinner". We felt, if we missed dinner, big deal, because there are other options available to eat, including room service and the optional restaurant(s) were you order by menu.

Cruising IS NOT what it used to be. I agree that the ships have gotten too big.

Cruising has tried to be all things to all people. I liked cruising in the earlier days becasue it was more relaxing....it still is...just a little more hectic at times.

Our preference? Land tour rather than cruise but one where you do settle in one place for several days at a time.
Our one cruise several years ago was fine...in cold January, out of San Juan where we were in an Island Elderhostel program. Monarch of the Seas...a good way to see an island a day: St. Thomas, Barbados, Martinique, St.Maarten, Antigua, plus a day at sea for a solar eclipse!

A cruise ship is a certain lifestyle of lounging and casinos and sumptuous dining, also large tipping. We prefer being on land tours and on the go with more sightseeing, though the river barge cruising is gaining in popularity it seems.

But yes, perhaps a good way to see Alaska is aboard ship.
Bill in Missouri [email protected]

We have taken a cruise down the Po River in Italy and cruised from Vancouver to Seward Alaska. It was the right choice for us. The rate including meals for two was the same as a 2 star hotel in August. We found the library to be a good place to escape for a moment's quiet, also the deck after dinner.
There are quite good rates at vacationstogo.com.

Cruising has never really appealed to me. I'm not saying I wouldn't have a good time, it's just not my preference. I like to stay in one place for a while and try to get a good feel for it rather than move from location to location, only spending a day or two in each port. We also like to find somewhat private or secluded accomodations, which doesn't really lend itself to cruising.

Real men don't eat quiche---
Real travelers don't cruise regularly

JMO

I love cruises and my favorite line is Princess. However, I also love land based vacations. I can't imagine never taking any sort of vacation except a cruise andy more than I can imagine going to the same places for land vacations all the time. Cruises can be a valuable tool in determining which ports you like and would want to return to for a land based stay.
Before I took my first cruise I was one who thought I would dislike it (too confining, lots of people, forced activities, seatings for dinner etc.)But a friend convinced me to take one and now I love it- for me, I didn't find any of my preconceived notions to be true.

Hate cruises. They're like giant overeaters anon meetings.

I don't hate them...however, the way some people eat is gross......especially on the buffets. It is like it is their last meal...craziness.

I've been on 2 cruises and was ready to go overboard. I can't stand the environment and would rather be my own captain.

Cruises were once described to me as "for the newlywed, overfed and nearly dead".