Preferences & Favorites   We all have our own travel preferences as to destinations, activities, dining, hotels, and transportation, and as a matter of fact, in upcoming essays we’ll be discussing a special airline flight and a special hotel to be included in RTW2, but first I’d like to discuss these two latter travel basics, hotels and transportation.

HOTELS I’ve been asked the unanswerable question more than once: how many stars do you like a hotel to have? To me, such a question makes even less sense than asking what my favorite color is for a hotel. It’s a non-issue.

My basic reason for choosing a hotel is the same as the real estate mantra: LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION! If I’m driving I want a hotel close to my center of activity. Examples would be almost any hotel I used when driving from Santa Fe to Los Angeles in 2007 or from San Francisco to Seattle in 2008. Even more important, if I’m taking a train, I want a hotel walkable from the station as with any hotel in Switzerland (2008) or if flying, connecting with airport transportation as in Taipei (2009). I like geographic convenience for easy walking access to where I’m going and because taxis are anathema to me and I avoid them unless there’s a special reason, like when it was raining in Nikko a few months ago.

I stay in simple, in mid-range, and occasionally, in upscale hotels. In New Iberia LA in 2008 I was in a simple roadside motel, since it was the most convenient to Avery Island and other destinations. In New Zealand I found three mid-range hotels that were excellent and well-located. I could have stayed free on points in a Sheraton in Auckland, but declined, since it was up on a hill at the edge of town. If I want to stay in Siberia, I’ll go to Siberia to do so.

Mid-range hotels tend to be the best, especially for atmosphere. I’ll mention the historic plantation houses I stayed in in the Louisiana Bayou Country, or on the US west coast, such as in the charming old hotel in Mendocino, the B&B in Port Townsend, or the new, contemporary, but well-located hotel on the pier in Astoria. I’ve chosen my RTW2 hotels according to similar criteria.

For the most part, I am less than fully comfortable in large, upscale hotels, which, to my way of thinking, usually have two defects: they tend to be far too busy, with lobbies often resembling railroad stations, and they tend to have far too much over-solicitous service that I have to shoo away. I usually stay in large, upscale hotels for only two reasons. First, if I get one free on Starwood points, which happened at the Sheraton Taipei, and will happen twice in RTW2, at the Westin Sydney and at the Sheraton Dubai Creek (I’m including Dubai in this trip). I’ll be at each for five nights, which means I’ll pay points for the first four nights only, the fifth being totally free. On that basis, I’ll put up with grandiose size and see what I can do about intrusive service.

[At the risk of seeming overly fussy, let me state that I like my privacy, and believe a room need not be invaded by “helpful” staff more than once a day--if that. When I saw in Taipei that that plague referred to as “evening service” was scheduled (as often is in those hotels fashioning themselves as upscale), I nixed it from the first day on. I don’t like drapes drawn at night, so why should I have to undo each evening the hotel’s preference for drawn drapes? And I’m perfectly capable of turning down my own bed. Even regular “service” can be intrusive. In Tokyo after the first day’s “room service”, I noticed that the maid had picked up every single one of my toiletries I’d just used, had spread out a towel next to the sink, and spread them all out again to her own liking on the towel. At that point I went to the front desk and cancelled ALL “service” to the room for the remaining days of my stay. In “green” fashion, I re-use hotel towels anyway, and if I tidy up my own bed each day at home, why can’t I do it away from home?]

Second, and this is very important, I’ll stay at an upscale hotel when the hotel is iconic, with special cachet, and a destination in itself. I stayed at the reconstructed Adlon in Berlin for this reason, and at the Brown Palace in Denver and the Empress in Victoria. These are destination hotels. This will happen also twice on RTW2. In Bangkok I’ll stay and the renowned Oriental, and in Singapore I’ll stay at one of the most famous hotels in the world, the Raffles, iconic enough so that I’ll include a special essay on it.

As to favorites, I can’t pick a favorite hotel—there are so many, each with its own advantages. I know that no large, plush hotel would be a favorite. But I have great memories of, for instance, sitting in front of fireplaces with a glass of wine in hand in the lobbies at some of the hotels along the US west coast. And then there was that beautiful convent-cum-pousada in Évora, Portugal, where the pleasant rooms facing the garden had been convent accommodations. That’s the type of hotel experience at the top of my list.

CARS Of the common types of transportation available to a traveler, driving is a great tool. I’ll refer again to the two driving trips just mentioned, but on occasion, as important as walking is to get to know a major city, I’ve found that you also learn a lot from driving. I’ve driven in London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Rome, and many others, and you get to see more spread-out places in a large city that way. Favorite drives? Down to Land’s End on the Cornish coast; along the Florida Keys to Key West; along the Nova Scotia coast; so many.

SHIPS My interest in ship travel is no secret, and both Rail ‘n’ Sail are the only way to go. I have favorites here, some of which may surprise. Of course I’m enamored with Cunard, particularly the Queen Mary 2 and Queen Victoria. Maybe the QV has a slight edge over the QM2 in my mind. But I think I have to say in all honesty that my favorite upscale ship is the Deutschland. I’ve crossed the Atlantic, cruised the Caribbean, and went to the Norwegian coast and Spitzbergen on the Deutschland. No ship does as well serving afternoon tea; no breakfast buffet is as enjoyable, with endless Prosecco, the Italian sparkling wine; no lounge is as restful as the Adlon Lounge.

This next point may be even more surprising. My favorite single ship voyage was the two nights sailing the length of the Baltic on the Finnhansa from Helsinki to Travemünde in 2006, which was a repeat of sailing on the old Finnhansa in 1972. For the peaceful calm of the trip with time for restful contemplation, nothing beats it. I won’t repeat now what I wrote in 2006, but I hope you’re curious enough to reread the “Finnhansa” essay in 2006/9. Thomas Wolfe said You Can’t Go Home Again, but the second trip on the (new) Finnhansa was at least as good as the first, if not better. Given the opportunity, I’d take the Finnhansa trip again in a heartbeat, maybe round trip.

TRAINS It’s also obvious I like train travel, and won’t dwell on why. Again, the luxury trips are great, such as on the Orient Express from London to Venice, GW Travel in Siberia, Rovos in Africa. I’m already booked on the European & Oriental from Singapore to Bangkok. But still, I see a degree of artificiality with such custom-made trips. Those are all special runs, not regular ones, while the Eurostar is a regular, daily train, as is the TGV that zips you across France—and the Shinkansen!

To choose a favorite, it would have to be chosen from one that runs regularly and offers a couple of nights of restful contemplation such as the Finnhansa does. It could be any long-distance train across the US or Canada—and probably Australia. I think I’d pick this trip: the first segment of RTW1 in 2005, when in Canada I went by train east to Halifax on The Ocean and then west to Vancouver on The Canadian. On both trips, since this website had just been set up, I spent a lot of time in my compartment both watching the views and also re-editing the earlier essays from 2001 on, which was a pleasurable and relaxing experience. When I got to Vancouver I spent most of the wee hours that night posting everything on the website that hadn’t already been posted, so when I flew to Korea the next day, the website was complete and up-to-date. It made for a memorable, relaxing train trip that also gave a feeling of accomplishment.

PLANES One might smile at this point, since I’ve usually referred negatively to plane travel as a necessary evil that’s best accomplished with gritted teeth and then forgotten. I’ve also been known to refer to Economy Class as Cattle Class, and as things worsen financially for the airlines, that’s more and more true. However, the next essays will have some interesting information about air travel in general, RTW air travel in particular, and will indicate some hope for air travel within RTW2.

Skytrax Redux   The good news is that there might be air travel that may be memorable (in the GOOD sense), and even enjoyable. But the bad news is twofold to experience it: (1) plan on flying a long distance from home, and (2) bring money.

To more properly discuss the topic of the four international flights to be used on RTW2, we have to take a fresher and deeper look at the evaluation system we’re using, and have to be sure we understand what a bell curve is (now we can say we’ve also have discussed math, specifically probability theory). A bell curve, named for its shape, measures statistical probability, and each side of a bell curve reflects the other. That is, the high and low frequencies of occurrence reflect each other around a center line, which is the average, or “mean”, represented on the diagram by a lower-case Greek mu (μ). The division lines, called standard deviations and represented by a lower-case Greek sigma (σ), fall in such a way that the two center areas around the mean, one standard deviation each, include the majority of things being measured (68.2% on the diagram). If you were measuring people’s height, the majority of people would fall in the center, closest to the average.

Fewer people would fall into the second standard deviation up and down, each only 13.6% in a random selection. This would represent rather short people on the one side, and rather tall people on the other. Extending to the third standard deviation finds fewer examples yet, only 2.1% of a population. These would be VERY short or VERY tall people. Beyond three standard deviations reaches into statistical improbability, at only 0.1%.

A privately-owned UK company since 1989 based in London, Skytrax uses a five-star system based on the bell curve. Rankings are re-classified each year, with occasional movement up or down. Delving more deeply into the system than we have in the past yields additional information for making more accurate flying decisions. As with any bell curve, the majority of airlines fall in the middle area, one standard deviation either way from the mean, and these are called Three-Star (3-S) airlines by Skytrax. Fewer fall two standard deviations below (Two-Star, 2-S) and above (Four-Star, 4-S) and fewer still fall three below (One-Star, 1-S) and above (Five-Star, 5-S).

Although it’s necessary to include 1-S and 2-S airlines in the summary, they fall out of consideration for most people for any practical purposes. They only need be referred to if you’re planning on taking an unusual airline you’ve never heard of before. Skytrax lists only one 1-S airline, Air Koryo. I looked it up, and it’s the state airline of North Korea. ‘Nuff said. This year there are 35 2-S airlines, the only one I’ve heard of being Ryanair, the Irish discount airline.

It’s convenient to refer to the Skytrax 3-S airlines as Average. I count 117 listed this year. I will just name a few here, trying to find the most recognizable names. They include most US airlines: Alaskan, American, Continental, Delta/Northwest, Frontier, Hawaiian, Midwest, Southwest, United, US Airways; also other well-known airlines such as Aer Lingus, Aeroflot, Air Canada, Air India, Alitalia, KLM, El Al, Iberia, SAS. I’m sorry to say that Air Tahiti Nui, that I just flew last year believing it was still 4-S, is now just 3-S, and probably already was when I flew it. With an Average airline you just grit your teeth, try to doze, and keep looking at your watch waiting for your prison sentence to be up. The children’s mantra from the back seat of a car “Are we there yet?” is something adults ask themselves here as well. Of the several Average airlines I’ve just named, I’ve flown some ¾ of them, so I speak from experience.

The 4-S airlines we have to consider Superior. I count 29 listed this year. Here I want to list the most recognizable names, plus a few others, as noted: Air New Zealand, Air France, Austrian, Bangkok Airways (I’ll use it this year for a domestic hop in Thailand), British Airways, Emirates, EVA Air (the Taiwanese airline I used from Japan to Taiwan last year), Finnair, Japan Airlines, JetBlue (the only US airline on this list), Korean, Lufthansa, Qantas, South African, Swiss International, Thai, Turkish, Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Blue. I have flown, or will fly this year, more than half of these. I particularly remember good experiences of a Superior nature on Korean’s business class on RTW1 and Air New Zealand’s economy class three times last year.

But I said we had to take a fresher and deeper look at these ratings, and when we do, we find out a lot more. The star ratings are in actuality an average of subratings. The first division of these subratings is long-haul versus short-haul flights, so thought should be given when contemplating an airline how long you’re going to be in the air. Generally short-haul is defined as 3 hours or less, and long-haul 6.5 hours or more, times in between falling into a gray area. The second level of subratings is by flight class, usually into first, business, economy, depending on the airline. This is where the general rating, which is an average of these ratings, might mislead, since the subcategory in which you’re traveling might differ from the general category for that airline, either for better or for worse. For instance, while 3-S/Average SAS remains just that on all of its subcategories, 3-S/Average Delta, which is indeed just that in economy, both long-haul and short-haul, turns out to be 4-S/Superior in its business class, both long-haul and short-haul. So if you’re spending the extra funds to fly business class, all other things being equal, Skytrax says you’d be happier on Delta than on SAS.

These surprises in an upward direction also work downward. 4-S/Superior Air France is only 3-S/Average in economy, both long-haul and short-haul, whereas 4-S/Superior Emirates remains consistent throughout. 4-S/Superior Lufthansa remains that on all short-haul flights, but stays 4-S only in business class long-haul. It’s just 3-S/Average for long-haul economy and also for long-haul first, of all things! So it pays to shop around.

But we still haven’t talked about the 5-S airlines. Skytrax names six in that category, the cream of the crop. I remember commenting in the past that they’re all Asian airlines, which is a comment on our times. I also remember saying I’d never get a chance to use one, since I don’t go to Asia. Well, I suppose that’s changing, which is why I say never say never. The six airlines should logically be categorized as Outstanding, but as I now see it, getting a 5-S flight out of one of them is harder than one would imagine.

The six airlines are: Asiana Airlines (South Korea; contrast airline quality between North and South Korea), Cathay Pacific (China), Kingfisher Airlines (India), Malaysia Airlines, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines. These are the airlines on which it is possible to have a 5-S/Outstanding experience, but there are strings attached, making a 5-S experience more difficult.

First: for short-haul flights, all but one of them are only 4-S, Kingfisher being the exception. This means that, if you happen to be in Asia and want a 5-S flight experience, you will not get it by flying from Singapore to Bangkok, even on vaunted Singapore Airlines. Although it would work on short flights in and out of India on Kingfisher, the possibilities of 5-S are greatly reduced. This is why I said earlier that for an outstanding flying experience you probably had to plan on flying far from home, that is, long-haul.

Second: for long-haul flights in ECONOMY, fully four of the six airlines are also only 4-S, again including vaunted Singapore Airlines. However, you do get a long-haul 5-S flight in economy on Asiana and Qatar.

You have to then fly long-haul in one of the more expensive classes, which is why the other admonition I gave was to bring money. And even this is spotty. Cathay Pacific’s business class does NOT make the cut; only their first class long-haul is 5-S. Kingfisher’s business class makes it all right, although it doesn’t offer first class at all. And this brings me to another personal prejudice. The expense of business class can be considered reasonable, but the expense for first class to me is not. The couple of times I’ve flown (a discounted) first class, it was nice, but no thanks. Thus for me the choices shrink further.

In sum, under normal circumstances, one can have either an Average (3-S) or Superior (4-S) flight, but only under very special circumstances, an Outstanding (5-S) one. To experience an outstanding flying experience you have to be going to Asia, and almost assuredly have to experience it on a long-haul business-class flight, although some economy connections are possible. I have worked it out to fly 5-S at the start of the upcoming trip out of New York/Newark to Singapore with Singapore Airlines in business and at the end from Dubai (via Doha, Qatar) to New York with Qatar in economy. In addition, I’ll be doing 4-S connections in the middle of the trip, first internally in Thailand on 4-S Bangkok Airways connecting to 4-S Qantas from Bangkok to Sydney, and then later on 4-S Emirates from Perth to Dubai.

RTW & Polar Routes   It now occurs to me to further discuss what we said in Series 3 about a trip being RTW (Round-The-World), because on reflection, more needs to be said in way of definition.

We have to distinguish between what’s usual in RTW and what’s possible but highly unusual. Since the major land masses of the world are in the northern hemisphere, RTW travel tends to be a northern hemisphere function in a somewhat tight circle above the equator, involving North America and Eurasia, the only major variation of that being a southern deviation to Australia and New Zealand(for those that don’t already live there), which occurs frequently, but not always.

RTW BY RAIL In that vein, I stand by what I said about RTW by rail, if it’s ever done at all, limiting itself to North America and Eurasia, as my trip did, since that’s as close to a continuous route as you can get. Further south, to begin with, you can’t go clear across Africa or South America by rail, so they’re out of the running, but you can go across Australia—it’s one of the things I’ll be doing this year. While it would be possible to insert a deviation to Australia and even New Zealand as well between North America and Eurasia, it’s really out of the way to include it RTW, and best left to a separate trip.

RTW BY SEA I continue to stand by what I said about RTW by sea—you can’t cheat and leave out crossing the Americas as the QM2 is now doing and still call it RTW—it’s just a nice Circle Pacific trip going under the cover-all category of World Cruise. RTW by sea usually crosses both the Panama and Suez canals to connect Europe and North America with Asia, and in practice ALWAYS includes Australia and New Zealand. However, because of the canal crossings, there is usually little contact with South America or Africa, which, in their extension to the south, are essentially out of the way of a viable route. They’re best visited on separate trips than as part of a RTW by sea (or air). However, the canal routes have been known to vary. Since the QM2 can’t transit the Panama Canal, it has in the past done its World Cruise as a truly RTW trip, by going the historic route around Cape Horn in South America. Obviously, that trip involved considerably more attention to South America, but to the detriment of other stops later on. (It is also infrequent, but not unheard of to add a stop in Antarctica when rounding South America). Also, after Nine Eleven, there was a tendency to avoid the Middle East and thereby the Suez Canal, and instead to also take the historic route around Africa at the Cape of Good Hope. That, though, had to also skip the Mediterranean, an otherwise desirable destination.

RTW BY AIR People going RTW by air east-west (most wisely westbound for the longer days) might use an airline alliance, which would channel their using as many of their members’ routes as possible. They, and also people choosing individual routes, will still tend to do much like the ships do, that is, highly favor North America and Eurasia. Many would also include Australia and New Zealand (Qantas and Air New Zealand promote that heavily, of course), but that, while advisable, isn’t necessary. My further guess is that, again given the less convenient location of South America and Africa for a circular route, in spite of South African Airways urging use of African routes, and LAN Chile and others urging South American routes, many would again leave those two continents for later trips. All in all, given the nature of world geography, I suspect a good number of RTW travelers might stick to the northern hemisphere exclusively, but with many adding in Australia and New Zealand.

But since one can tailor-make an air trip to almost anywhere with any number of destinations, it’s defining RTW by air that now becomes problematic. Let me now explain about part of my upcoming trip, which will start with a flight to Singapore, then go overland to Bangkok, from where I fly to Sydney. This appears to involve backtracking, and it would indeed if I flew from New York with a stop in Los Angeles (that IS an option) to Singapore. In that case, flying from Bangkok to Sydney would involve a sharp turn. But the nonstop flight I’ll be taking uses a polar route, north over Canada, across the North Pole, and then down over Russia, Mongolia, China, and Thailand to Singapore. Coming from the north in this way, a turn slightly east to Sydney is merely a minor variation. But how does polar travel affect RTW?

Let’s revert to what we said in Series 3, that in theory, but not in practice, you can go RTW over both poles on one trip. If a scientific or military expedition did that, it would indeed be RTW. But as I said, commercial flights don’t fly over the South Pole because of a lack of land masses to service. There certainly are commercial flights linking South America with Australia and New Zealand, but at best, these reach a mere 55° S, nowhere near the South Pole at 90° S. However, even with putting South Pole aside, it’s entirely possible--and intriguing--to do a RTW entirely in the Southern Hemisphere, even though there are large bodies of water and not too much land involved. For instance, Sydney-(Perth)-Cape Town-Buenos Aires-(Santiago)-Sydney would seem quite viable. But these southern hemisphere possibilities are anything between highly infrequent or commercially nonexistent, so let’s leave them as parenthetical.

But now how do routes over the North Pole affect our thinking as to a “pure” RTW trip from east to west over the oceans? In actuality, it’s been only in modern times that the North Pole has become a major factor in long-distance travel.

In researching this now expanded topic, I see exactly what happened on my round-trip flights between New York and Tokyo a few months ago, similar to what is shown on this diagram showing a round-trip flight between San Francisco and Tokyo. The westbound flight follows a Great Circle Route, in other words, a straight-line route that would completely encircle the Earth if taken to completion. The straight line looks curved on a flat map. However, the return flight picks up jet-stream winds instead, and rides them on a more southerly route. Now project the same situation to my flight between New York and Tokyo, and the Great Circle would necessarily be further north, above Alaska, while the return overflew Victoria/Vancouver. But absent helpful air currents, the longer the distance flown, the more that the most direct route approaches the North Pole, and my flight nonstop from New York to Singapore will pretty much overfly the North Pole, depending of course on weather conditions. Use these figures as a guide: New York is at 74°W and Singapore is at 104°E. Add those figures to see they’re 178° apart, and half the earth is 180°. Talk about a Great Circle over the top!

This issue begins to fascinate, and nothing more than this pair of maps centered on the North Pole. The point of these maps is that, during the Cold War, because of the Iron Curtain, polar flights were highly restricted, but are wide-open today, and these maps are to me very instructive.

Whatever (north) polar flying there was during the Cold War had to center over Alaska, and some still does. On the left map you can trace my westbound flight from New York over Alaska to Tokyo. But the polar flights in the right map give the deepest insight. The second route from the right starts in New York and bends slightly. If you straighten it and extend it to the equator at the top edge of the map at about the 11:30 position, you’ll have an arrival in Singapore.

Now it’s these polar flight possibilities that begin to confuse the definition of RTW by air. Avoiding the pole, and flying east-west, say, New York-Honolulu-Singapore-London-New York is clearly RTW by air, in a tight circle hugging the northern hemisphere. But as to flights crossing the pole, consider the right-hand route connecting Boston with India. If someone did this as a round-trip flight, would it be RTW? Of course not. Nor would my trip to Singapore over the pole if I also took the return flight. So logically, a circular plane trip that crosses the North Pole ONCE is still RTW, and doing so as part of a RTW trip might even be considered to add to its uniqueness. But anyone crossing the pole twice in one trip would be hard-put claiming the trip was RTW, even with a couple of destinations on the opposite side. New York-India round-trip over the pole is just a nice, long-distance trip, similar to my New York-Santiago round-trip.

It would mean that if one is going to, say, India from New York, it would seem to belie what I said earlier, since an element of choice is introduced. With the transpolar factor, it can either be done as a simple, non-RTW round trip over the pole both ways, or otherwise RTW, trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic. This latter option personally appeals to me more.

This is what makes best sense to me as a definition. A trip is RTW travel if it is a transoceanic, intercontinental, multiple-stop circular trip either by rail (as possible, across continents), by sea (reaching only coastal areas), or by air (reaching everywhere). Common practice tends to restrict it in a somewhat tight circle to the northern hemisphere (North America and Eurasia), but frequently including Australia and New Zealand, and only rarely beyond. It should cross all the meridans. Such travel can logically include only one crossing of the region of the North Pole per trip, since the pole includes all meridians, anyway. Even with multiple destinations, more than one polar crossing would reduce any possibility of a circular trip into a linear one.