Doppy

One need not be a "backpacker" to do this, however.

If we're going to stereotype -- this is clearly the most annoying attribute of the stereotypical backpacker.

gt_croz

As far as renting a luxury car and driving around a country where only 0.01% of the population can afford to drive what you're in? Absolutely...you aren't experiencing the culture.

The comment "sitting poolside and sipping cocktails" wasn't so much targeted at the type of person who goes out and really explores a country by day and then comes home to a nice hotel. I am talking about the type of person that will travel internationally, and stay at an all-inclusive resort and not leave the whole time. Those people then go home and tell all their friends about their trip and what the locals are like. I find that type of travel to be quite peculiar & illogical.

I agree! Backpacking is just the best way for a solo person to combat the lonliness of the road and meet other like-minded individuals.

GUWonder

That's been my experience too. The "backpacker" crowd -- especially couples -- of today are a far more diverse lot than in years prior and are less "alternative" than before.

hlmem

Anyone have any sites or resources to recommend packs and tools for an amatuer backpacker?

gt_croz

Check out http://www.bootsnall.com and go to their Member's forum. It's the Flyertalk of the backpacking world

opus17

I'm getting close to 50, and I've never owned a backpack! Never realized it was a lifestyle.

Internaut

I think the closest I ever get to backpacking is Holiday Inn. It never even occured to me that I might want to go anywhere until I found myself with an employer that actively sends me places.

civicmon

What's ironic is that I rarely stay in hotels but I was stuck overnight due to a missed connection in ATL and the bed in the hotel was horrible! I usually sleep great in hostels as i'm worn out from a day hittin the streets, and typically the beds are clean and adequate.

I think for young people and longer trips, hostelling is the only way to go.

I was explaining the whole concept of hostelling to a friend last night and she was a little miffed by it never doing it before but I explained that when travelling alone, it can be an asset as you have the freedom to do what you want as opposed to with a travel buddy, but if the hostel is rather social, one can often find a "travel buddy for a day" who wants to go to the same attraction as you do, next city whatever, and after that, may never see them again.

Aside from backpacking, I swear by travelling alone. I thought it was silly at first but I got used to it and after travelling with friends, I realize that I perfer the independence, but that's the subject of a different thread.

WindFlyer

...and in that sense, no more peculiar or illogical than a lot of the "backpackers" I've run into that spend a lot of their time getting drunk, stoned and laid when in more remote areas, and when in a city-type place, holed up at some internet cafe...

BTW, I'm not defending either.

graraps

I've never done backpacking but, as a fairly young traveller, I will have to admit that I have sometimes looked into it as an option.
But I honestly can't understand the backpacker's view...You've already spent €800 to go to the other end of the world, you're staying for ten days...Suppose the cheapest hostel (shared bathroom, no other facilities, reception open 10 hours a day) is €18 a night. A two-star B&B that will give you an en-suite room with a small desk and a TV plus breakfast is €29, and a single room at mainstream three-star nonchain hotel frequented primarily by people from other parts of the country on short business trips is €41.
So, for a ten days' stay, the difference is €110 for the B&B or €230 for the hotel. The experience is more local than the hostel (since the B&B will be run by locals and the hotel will have locals both as employees and guests), and the comfort and inclusive food should provide you with a couple of extra hours a day for exploration. Even if you don't have much spare cash, €230 is a sum you can earn working for a fast-food restaurant for just a week in most parts of the developed world.
And if you have a total budget of €1000, why would you want to spend €800 on your airfare when you can spend less than half on the ticket, still find yourself in a very interesting place, and have money to stay in a four star hotel?
No offence to anyone, but I think stereotypical "backpackers" mostly travel that way because they don't know of better ones.

gt_croz

Ten days is a short vacation in backpacker land. They tend not to be the 3 weeks a year vacation, corporate mentality type. Vacations of 1-3 months are quite typical, and I regularly come across people travelling for 6-12+ months at a time.

10 Days = €230, 100 days = €2300. It adds up very fast. Not to mention, many solo travellers find the thought of staying in a B&B or a hotel quite unappealing. Where is the commons area? Where do you meet people to spend time with?

No offense, but you're completely wrong. Many backpackers are very worldly, intelligent people who if anything, shop around thoroughly before making a decision. The reasons backpackers travel that way are because it makes travelling solo easy & enjoyable, and also because it is very economical.

We are talking about two distinctly different types of travellers. I think FT caters more to a crowd that is concerned more with thread count than the backpacker crowd which is concerned with bug count. That's perfectly fine, but don't assume that backpackers are ignorant just because they stay in less luxurious facilities.

graraps

But staying somewhere for so long is a bit pointless, surely? If you cannot afford to live like the average local person by being able to visit the "in" bars and take the odd (shock, horror!) taxi for the benefit of hopefully chatting with a cabbie that knows the beat of the place, how can you get an idea of the culture? You can get a lot more done per day on a weekend visit than on one that lasts a year!

There are lots of places where you can meet lots of people, irrespective of the budget you're on. Bars, museums, local tourist attractions, public transport to name but four.



I did quite specifically refer to the stereotypical backpackers! To me it seems they aren't clued up too well; I've used STA a couple of times and they seemed less well-informed than your bog-standard TA
(Me: I want to fly via PRG because I've got status with OK...if that's not possible, search within Skyteam
Them: Aha, so you want a stopover in PRG...and could you tell me which airlines are in Skyteam?), and somehow their "well travelled consultants" had a lot of information on half a dozen destinations that incidentally are all hotspots for English-speaking backpackers! ("Sorry, we don't have suggestions for Estonia or Venezuela but how about this brochure on Sydn...why are you leaving?") It seems to me that their (stereotypical backpackers') numbers are large and mentality at least as shallow as that of the herded package tourist.
Are there exceptions to the above stereotype? I'm sure there are many; but I think they're in the minority. Also, the fact that today's backpackers may be educated, well-mannered, clean etc doesn't mean they will know everything about travel!

gt_croz

I apologize if I've offended. I seem to have sent you on the defensive.

What I should have emphasized in my previous post more boldly is that we're talking about two different types of travelers here. I can understand how people enjoy staying in nice accomidations, and spending a lot of money in one weekend. I don't quite agree that you can accomplish in a weekend what backpackers on a year-long round-the-world trip though. When I mentioned 1, 3, 6 month travellers, I don't mean people that stay in one place the whole time! I'm talking about people who are vagabonding for lack of a better term.

Your view of the stereotypical backpacker is quite inaccurate also. As a backpacker, and someone who is actually qualified to speak on their behalf, they are in fact "clued up" quite well. I'm sorry if the STA agents aren't up to date with SkyTeam or Star Alliance. That's not really what they do.

STA is also not the best representation for backpackers, they are more of a for profit airfare/hostel agency.

Again, we're talking about two different types of travellers. We aren't taxi-phobic, pothead, cheapskates. We just happen to stay in dormatory style lodging and take the cheaper forms of transportation. We favor 3 months in 4 different countries over 10 days living it up in one destination.

It's not for everyone...

chemist661

When I travel alone, I have stayed at hostels all the way up to 4*hotels. The hostels in some areas of the US are not conveniently located and since I can get a Priceline hotel for $25-50 per night, I book those. When I am overseas, I will book hostels since it is alot less than hotels. Especially in Europe/UK, etc. When I travel for longer periods of time, I will stay in hostels.

When I flew into EWR last year, I stayed in a 4* hotel for one night and a hostel for the next. I pricelined the Jersey City area & got the Hyatt for around $35/night. I couldn't get anything the next night at a decent price so I stayed in the YHA hostel in NYC for about $28. Granted, I went from a 4* hotel to a "bed" in a room, but I liked both experiences just fine. One was more luxury and a nice pad to relax in. The other place, I met lots of other travelers and had a nice time. I took public transportation to from EWR & in NYC and it was very inexpensive. I traveled lite & had the time to take public transit.

When I travel with someone, it depends on what suits them well. (obviously, I wouldn't pay $400-500/night to stay at 4 seasons/Ritz unless the travel companion is paying most of the room tab. One relative I travel with will go with me to Australia/NZ and stay in hostels. When we go in the US, we usually priceline it. Although he earns in the 6 figures/year, he prefers to go budget. He likes saving money like I do. Another friend (g/f) desires to stay at moderate hotels and when I can priceline it for decent prices, I do that.

For me, I gain different experiences from various levels of lodging, etc.

Altaflyer

That's a pretty broad statement that I think is patently false. My recent South Pacific adventure consisted of one night at the Conrad in Singapore, one night at the Fairmont Miramar in Santa Monica, 8 nights camping in NZ and the rest in hostels (trip was 30 days). My personal philosophy is that the accomodation spectrum between camping/hostels and top luxury hotels offers no value added, no experience. Hostels provide a place to learn about people from all over the world and to gain a greater understanding of different viewpoints while having a great time. The top end resort is an experience in itself. A Holiday Inn offers me nothing but a bed.

As far as spending goes I went on a number of >$100 wine tours and on a $275 helicopter/glacier hike amongst other pricey excursions. I could do so because my accom costs were reasonable.

I am a hosteller/backpacker at heart and love it. Definitely see more of what matters with this type of travel. It broke my heart to see all the Fiji freebie people staying at the Sheraton when there are so many great locally run budget accomodations on the various islands with fabulous beaches and great times!

Keep on hostelling and discover the world!