Originally Posted by
phlashba
I think it's a mostly barren, treeless wind-swept rock in the middle of nowhere populated by a handful of fisherman and sheep herders (about 2000 people and 500,000 sheep). Whereas other destination off the coast of South America such as Easter Island and The Galapagos are also complicated to get to -- they more than make up for any inconvenience with lots of unique experiences for tourists. I would have a long list of places I would want to go before the Falklands/Malvinas; but it may still be of interest to some, I guess.
There's obviously isn't A LOT of travel advice for the Falklands, but what there is has been positive. Here's the Moon guide, which should be pretty reliable:
http://www.moon.com/destinations/arg...lkland-islands
As I stated earlier, my guess is that this place is a lot like Easter Island: worthwhile IF you don't have to pay a lot to get there. And, like visiting Moscow, I suspect the place will seem more interesting to those old enough to remember its tumultuous history, and those who have some interest in it.
The nice thing about flying LAN on BA miles -- if it is permitted and you have the time -- is that you could stop off in both Santiago (wine country, beaches) and Punta Arenas (Patagonia, Torres de Paine Nat'l Park) on your way to the Falklands. That would seem to be an awesome vacation itinerary for just about anyone. As it should be only 40,000 miles in coach from the USA, the "bang for your buck" would be extraordinary (like a $3000+ coach ticket for less than a single credit card sign-up).
I am also concerned, though, about the logistics of visiting the Falklands if you can get there. Like I don't want to be on the hook for several hundred dollars in additional air service to the bush.