RustyC

Heheheh...good one.

I have to be a bit sympathetic to the gap-year kids, maybe because I never got to do that. I look at what they sometimes endure for the sake of travel and think that maybe I could have done it back in the day, but not now. I imagine that with a very tight budget the choice might come down to planting oneself with friends in a place like Khao San Road or Ko Pha Ngan and spending the money on beer, or going around on buses to places and generally having to spend more money to be mobile and see stuff.

I really got started on the big stuff in my 30s, so I was (and still am) really schizophrenic on travel styles. Will get lounge treatment and an op upgrade flying into Tahiti but be forced to stay on the cheapest place on the island with backpackers. Or do a trip to Uncle Tan's in the lower Kinabatangan in Sabah, Borneo, because it's the only one that fits the budget (the backpacker option), but fly off somewhere on an award ticket when others are taking the bus to Tawau.

I'll also go for the $20-25 midrange room (if available) over the $5 dump in places like Bangkok if that's the choice, and higher budgets also help a bit with food or with flying some runs (esp. SIN-BKK) rather than taking a bus or train. OTOH, in places like much of Europe, Japan or Australia, the backpackers' spots are often the only choice that fits the budget, and I'm glad they're there.

RustyC

Re: OP. Part of the "stigma," too, has been fabricated by national tourist boards that decide that X country needs to "upgrade" its tourist image to attract a more upscale traveler, one who spends more money quicker and then gets out. Or X country should be more family-friendly to get a more-desirable type of traveler. Backpackers are taken as a symptom you're doing something wrong.

Which is pretty shortsighted and foolish, considering that the upscale market is already way oversupplied from other countries trying to do the same. It's also a ticket to a treadmill of always having to upgrade, build new things like golf courses, and otherwise have a big footprint on the environment.

grbflyer

i dont mean to get testy on this subject, but it seems to me there is a definite line here. seems to be older vs. younger. not necessarily, experienced vs. inexperienced. i being part of the "younger" group will defend to the bitter end the importance of backpacking and the impact it has had on me. also, to defend the backpacker itself.

yes you find the "stoner, slacker" and the drunkards. but dont you get that with any group. i have noticed, like the apposing view has noticed, that the FF are painting themselves a bad picture. it has been my experience that FF are the first to push themselves ahead when deplaning, first to complain about overhead bins, upgrades, delayed/late flights. i would rather be on a plane with people like myself. taking turns, helping out, sitting back and relaxing.

i understand its not a completly equal argument, but an observation just like the OP and others have stated. i will get my elite status in august and am looking forward to it. i feel it as hard work that will pay off. maybe i will see both sides of the coin. does anyone have any kids that have backpacked? can you imagine them as the "stoner" etc.?

mcrt

A while back I saw a reference to a study in Australia. It was found that the average backpacker actually added more to the economy than the average package tourist. For example a backpacker might spend $50/day for a month vs a package at $250/day for five days.


I did my first real backpacking from June 2001-June 2002 (age 31-32). It was a mix of packpackers ghettos, overland tours, decent hotels and a couple of fancy hotels. The backpackers area were a lot of fun and I picked up great information. Also whenever I was ready for a traveling companion I just went and found one heading the same direction, that is hard to do in a fancy hotel.

Oh and in answer to the backpack question I saw in here my main bag is an Eagle Creek which has logged at least 150k air miles and many thousands more on the ground. When it needed repair it was done no charge in a couple of days. My day pack is a Trager 2nd quality with about 200k air miles, the most recent being SEA-IAD-SEA in under 12 hours today. This bag being a 2nd doesn't qualify for the lifetime replacement so it has several inches of seams held together with dental floss, the backpackers friend.

captainstubing

Agree with another poster -- Kelty backpacks are great. Lots of pockets and zippers. I got a Kelty Moraine 3300, which packs a lot but is just about small enough to be carried on a plane (it's about 24 inches long if you do not overpack it). I just broke in the bag during several days in the Greek Isles, and would now consider myself a 'backpacker' (though not one on an extreme budget, but rather a sensible one). Just hauling around that one bag made everything so effortless. I shied away from the large, unwieldy packs that most people use--a compact one like the Kelty lets you travel with unhindered ease, even on a bus. And with a small bag you have to pack smart. When I go on future adventures, never again will I take a suitcase, roller bag or duffel.

civicmon

while I'm the same age as you, i probably don't make as much money either way, I stay at hostels because... "why not?" I usually travel alone, nice to wander around a city and have someone to go grab a beer with afterwards. I have a hard time justifying spending a ton of money in hotels, maybe except for the first night, landing at 1am after 18 hrs of flying, but either way, I'm used to living a simple life and do so when I travel.

One thing I do like to do is occasionally rent cars and go 'cruising' around cities. I did that in Panama City and took some Canadians with me, racing through traffic in a city I don't know was a blast. Lucky I didn't get stopped by the police there I want to do it in Tokyo next time i'm in town.. that'll be a blast.

tom911

O.K., you're really making me and my backpack feel real old tonight

I still do hostels, and have actually kept up with a number of people I've met over the years. I'm fortunate to have a lot of time off each year (10-14 weeks...soon to turn into 52 weeks a year), and hostels (or "backpacker accomodations") make it affordable. I just can't afford to do hotels all the time when I'm out of the U.S. for several weeks each time.

Lonely Planet does a good job in identifying the party hostels, which I avoid, and the YHA hostels are generally quiet enough to get a good night's sleep. My experience overall has been pretty good.

fleur_de_lys

What a snobby attitude. Perhaps younger people,or for that matter people of any age not on expense account budgets may actually be travelling to learn about other countries and cultures. ,

alanR

Exactly, though I'd say "package tourists" rather than travelers.

grbflyer

i thought that my pack was small, but hearing the details of other peoples packs im curious to look for another one. if i could find one small enough to carry on the plane so when i land, can just go right to customs. anyone have a link for a site with good prices?

no one is ever too old to travel. we all become accustomed to certain comforts. hotels would be nice to stay when backpacking, all the comforts of home, but your secluded. i havent stayed at a hotel when ive backpacked, so i cant speak from experience.

there are different "classes" of backpackers. maybe some people are just seeing the wrong "class".

da_guy

Ahh I see. If I rent a luxury car instead of taking a filthy bus, and have a poolside cocktail in the evening instead of chugging 10 beers in a run down pub then somehow I am not experiencing the culture?

Perhaps this is a reason people want to stay away from backpackers, so they don't get the "I'm pure and you're a sell out" speech.

lmermaid

A comment on bag choice -- it is possible to travel "backpacker-style" (ie on the cheap, public transport, hostels, etc.) without having an actual backpack. (provided you're hosteling and not camping.) You're not immediately identifyable, of course, which has advantages and disadvantages. But sometimes it's easier to get around with a suitcase that rolls.

PresRDC

I'm on the young side (under 30), love to travel, but have never really "backpacked." The closest I came was a spring break trip to Madrid and Toledo in my Junior year with some friends. We stayed in (pretty nice) hostels with private rooms and baths, but that was it. I just like my creature comforts too much. When I studied in London during law school, when everyone else was figuring out where they were going to backpack during Spring Break, I was trying to figure-out the best J Class fare to Hong Kong. My idea of roughing it is a Courtyard by Marriott.

While my international travels involve First Class flights and five star hotels, once I am on the ground, I am a backpacker at heart. I wander around (with a day pack, I might add), not really following a plan, but rather going whereever looks interesting. At night, I go back to my five star hotel, but will back out on the streets the next day.

This shouldn't be surprising coming from someone who, as a kid, thought that, at Mass, we weren't signing "Glory to God in the Highest," but rather "Glory to God in the Hyatt!"

grbflyer

it would also work the other way around. backpackers staying away from the opposite group so they dont get the "your a stoner, shower, shave and stop getting laid. what are you doing with your life speach?"

SchmutzigMSP

This thread is funny.

I have a Kelty backpack that's gone with me to Europe, Australia, Asia, and Central America, among other places, and I love it. Just large enough to carry enough clothes and items for 3 weeks or so, assuming you'll wash clothes at some point (yes, I do). But the pack is just small enough that it fits in all the overhead compartments of the aircraft. I find this to be absolutely a godsend when travelling in lesser developed areas where airports could be even more of a maze then their more advanced or developed counterparts. Plus, having your entire travel "life" on your back means you can make quick decisions and change direction on a moment's notice. Hostels or cheaper local hotels/B&Bs are a must as a budget-conscious traveller. Whether a Hyatt or a hostel, all you're really paying for is a night's sleep. If you can be well rested in a nicer hostel, you've saved yourself a lot of money that you can use to try out local cuisine, travel via public transport, hire a car if you need to, gain admission to points of interest, etc.

If you travel abroad and stay in chain hotels, sipping boat drinks at poolside, I do question how much of the local culture you intend to absorb. I use this as a general rule of thumb: if you can do what you're doing abroad, in your home city, then what are you really going abroad to see/do? If you're on business, that's another story. But if you're travelling to see the country, city, culture, etc., actually see it. Ask locals where to eat, find out where they shop, where they go for entertainment. Going to the pubs that the locals frequent will get you cheaper drinks and free conversation. You just may find out about something that's not in Frommer's, Lonely Planet, Fodor's, etc. and it may end up being the highlight of your travels.

/early-20s world backpacker/traveller, doesn't think age has one bit to do with how you experience culture.