Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So as a young 22 year old, I been reading about various places I want to see at some point and time. The question is when and which ones?
As a general rule of thumb, would you start with destinations closest to you and then move out? I'm based in Colorado for reference. For instance, if I wanted to see a huge foreign city, I'd be better to hit up Mexico City before heading over to Shanghai or Seoul. If I wanted to see history, I'd be better to go to Montreal and Quebec City over France. If I wanted to see rainforest scenery, I'd be better to see Columbia over Malaysia...
My reasoning for this is that I don't know quite what I'd like to see, and closer destinations have shorter and cheaper flights, so I wouldn't have to book as long of a trip (more trips rather than huge trips) and I wouldn't have to feel that I have to see everything in this one trip because I won't be coming back.
For instance, a 1 week trip to Mexico City would be just fine with $200 and 3 hour flights. But for Tokyo, I'd have to go for at least 2 weeks to justify the 18 hour flight path and $1200. The other thing is I don't have any hard set places that I feel I have to see. They all look interesting.
I wouldn't waste money on places you don't really want to go simply because they're closer and more affordable. Going to Mexico City is not a stepping stone to Korea or Thailand. Different countries, different cultures, languages, customs, etc.
I would research some of your preferred destinations and then select the one that most interests you and make a plan from there.
Agreed with the above. Don't "settle" for a place just because the flight is cheaper. I'd save a little longer and go to wherever it is that you really want to. You're young so going on a week+ trip is likely more of an option than later in life when kids, career, responsibilities, etc. get in the way. When you're older, that's when I'd be more open to those shorter trips to more local places.
That's something I'd do different if I could. I'm 38 now and can comfortably afford to go to many various places but due to life it's hard for me to get more than 4 or 5 days away at a time which isn't really time enough to go overseas.
Keep an eye on the 'Mileage Runs' section of Flyertalk. While many sites claim to find the cheap sale airfares, they're generally the quickest (important when it comes to getting the actual cheap price) and most comprehensive. There have been some good Asian fare sales lately including Chicago-Japan and Denver-China for less than $600. (Though for China, you need to factor visa costs into the process.)
Just jump in and start traveling now, going wherever you want to go. I traveled extensively domestically/North American beginning in my 20s, but didn't do truly international travel until I was in my 40s and I regret it so much now! It's so much more expensive now to travel the way I want, and it's harder to get off work now that I have a professional job. Looking back, I really wish I had done international au pair work after finishing my master's degree at the age of 24, just to see the world and do something exciting!
I agree with the others: figure out what you really want to see, and then go see it. Don't do something less interesting simply because it's closer or cheaper.
Im 37 and my plan for right now is to travel as far out as I can. I think when I'm in my 70s I don't know what my health will be like; traveling far when I'm older might not be an option. So I can explore closer places then.
So as a young 22 year old, I been reading about various places I want to see at some point and time. The question is when and which ones?
As a general rule of thumb, would you start with destinations closest to you and then move out? I'm based in Colorado for reference. For instance, if I wanted to see a huge foreign city, I'd be better to hit up Mexico City before heading over to Shanghai or Seoul. If I wanted to see history, I'd be better to go to Montreal and Quebec City over France. If I wanted to see rainforest scenery, I'd be better to see Columbia over Malaysia...
My reasoning for this is that I don't know quite what I'd like to see, and closer destinations have shorter and cheaper flights, so I wouldn't have to book as long of a trip (more trips rather than huge trips) and I wouldn't have to feel that I have to see everything in this one trip because I won't be coming back.
For instance, a 1 week trip to Mexico City would be just fine with $200 and 3 hour flights. But for Tokyo, I'd have to go for at least 2 weeks to justify the 18 hour flight path and $1200. The other thing is I don't have any hard set places that I feel I have to see. They all look interesting.
Thoughts or recommendations?
I'd say just go where you want to go. If you've always wanted to go to a certain place, then go! Nothing stopping you.
The problem is though I don't have anywhere I REALLY want to go. There's a lot of places on my bucket list and none that I'm really dying to see above the rest.
So do I just go to the difficult ones when I'm single and have time?
Do I just go somewhere really different to see something really different, like Tokyo say?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
