where would you go first?

Re: where would you go first?

Australia definitely! you can get to London in 6.5 hours... Australia is a much longer and more expensive trip. if it were me, i would do that one now before kids, more bills, etc. etc. London is easy to get to and there are always deals and cheap flights to London. Australia is harder to book qquickly or cheaply.

London is great... but it's so much like NYC. it's a major city in Europe...besides historical things, it's much like big cities here. My cousin lives in Australia and RAVES about it!!!

Re: where would you go first?

even though its really far, Australia looks amazing!

Re: where would you go first?

Australia!!!

Re: where would you go first?

London- Only because the flight is shorter.

Re: where would you go first?

Australia hands down. I've been to London three times and its a pretty easy trip, 6 hours, direct flight etc. However, there will not be that many opportunities in your life to go to Australia. If your at a point where you can take the time, I say go for it.

Re: where would you go first?

Australia.

Without researching it to death as I normally would do, I would think there's more to do in Australia.

Although shark dives scare the bejesus out of me, I would still love to go to the Great Barrier Reef.

Re: where would you go first?

Australia

Re: where would you go first?

Australia, I have always wanted to go there

Re: where would you go first?

It depends. How much time do you have. I wouldn't go to Australia unless you have at least 2 weeks. Even two weeks is cutting it close. I think optimum time is at least a month.

There is so much to see here, and Australia is as big as the US. You have to fly in between most places, and the flights can be expensive. I've been living here for about 2 years and it is expensive. If you need more info, if you do decide to go, feel free to FM me.

It really depends what you want to see. For example, if you want to go to Sydney, Cairns (Great barrier reef), Melbourne and then the Wine region by Margaret River, then you need a lot of time and money, b/c you will be flying all over the place.

IMO, go for Australia if you have the time and money and do it right.

Re: where would you go first?

Posted by SIBride06

London- Only because the flight is shorter.

Re: where would you go first?

Australia... only b/c it's a bigger trip. Everyone always says about a place like that "oh i'll get there one day" but usually never do. If you have the time and money to do it, do it now.

Re: where would you go first?

both are on my list of places, but financially, I'll get to London long before I have the money to do Austrailia right!

Re: where would you go first?

I went to London "first" since I have not been to Australia. However, I wouldn't really put those two destinations in the same category. They are very different with regards to how long it takes to get there, financially, etc. London is a close destination which you can tackle in 4 days or lump with other western European cities. Australia is a two-week destination. I would ask which would you go first, London or Paris or Australia or Tahiti?

Re: where would you go first?

thanks guys.

i think we are proabably going to do London first.

not going to Aus is NOT an option for me, i have always wanted to there, for as long as i can remember.

i think we're gonna do Ldn first because this way we just got for like 3 or 4 days....

my bff is from Australia and she plans on moving back eventually (since she is sick and cant get medical care here for much longer) so she said to wait ti lshe moves back so we can have a place to stay while in Sydney. so we may do that. but at the same time i think that is jinxing it and her health. i dont want her to move back.

and we need 2-3 weeks to go there... finding a pet sitter wont be all that fun.


so its like we are getting Ldn "out of the way".