[quote]I was thinking Summer 2017/quote]
For some time, I am thinking to go back and try one more time to get to the summit, since the first time when we went there, we could not rich the summit due to bad weather.
That place is amazing.

I agree with what was said above. Blanca has plenty of very difficult climbs, but the ones you mentioned should be very doable for you. You may even want to tag a tougher one in there for the end of the trip, too. Let me point out one danger associated with going to the Cordillera Blanca: You will have a hard time finding other places to climb after that which would live up to how great the Blanca is. You may go to places and think, this is great, but nothing like the Blanca . That said, if you are thinking about guided, I can very warmly recommend Skyline Adventure School. Fraction of the price of US outfitters, ran by two americans who live in Huaraz. If you ask the forum here, I doubt you would get anything but very positive reviews of them.

I have been to the Cordillera Blanca twice and Cordillera Real once. I have not been to Ecuador but did quite a bit of research similar to this discussion before my last trip. I would echo previous comments that the cordillera blanca is spectacular (the Cordillera Huayhuash is nearby and also spectacular). The Ecuador volcanoes are undoubtably awesome but there is not a range of high peaks there, rather they are just isolated volcanoes. The Cordillera Real in Bolivia is also more of a traditional mountain range but is not quite as awesome as the Blanca.

If you plan to go in the summer (northern hemisphere), I think the weather is going to be more stable in Peru and Bolivia. Ecuador seems to be pretty windy in the summer months and I have seen plenty of reports of people turning back due to weather whereas the Blanca (and Cordillera Real) have pretty consistent good weather over the United States summer.

As far as acclimating, Bolivia is probably easiest- the airport is 13300ft and central La Paz around 12000ft. Huaraz in Peru is around 10300ft.

The highest peaks in the Blanca are clearly more difficult than the Ecuador volcanoes or Cordillera Real. However, there are several lower peaks (18000-19000ft) in the Blanca that are straightforward typically (Ishinca, Vallunaraju and Pisco for instance). Yanapacha is considered slightly harder. Chopicalqui is probably the most frequently climbed 6000m peak in the Blanca but conditions vary on that one. I think Pisco might be comparable difficulty wise to Cotopaxi or Cayambe (the glacier travel is similar to basic routes on Baker or Shuksan).

If your goal is to climb a 6000m (or 20000ft) peak, I think the Cordillera Real is a great option. Huayna Potosi was fun. We did not attempt Illimani but it is spectacular. It is also worth noting that La Paz is also close to several 6000m volcanoes such as Sajama. We climbed Parinacota which was fun but not nearly as impressive views as Vallunaraju in the Blanca for instance.

Thank you for all the responses. I definitely have a better idea about what I am getting myself into.

I would echo WhatdoIknow's comment above: I think you're going to end up reversing your 'payoff' - if you're targeting the West Buttress of Denali, you're in for huge crowds and a crampon and axe slog with a few spicy moments. After you stand on Chopi's summit and look at the surrounding peaks, the West Butt will hold less and less appeal from every aspect: height, technical requirement needed to summit, crowd factor, and neighboring peaks for future endeavors. That having been said, Alaska is a world class playground too, so it all depends on what you want. If you've tackled Baker and some of the other Washington volcanos, you can tackle any of the objectives noted in the thread above. Altitude is just a matter of being patient and hydrated (bad luck with physiology aside)

Whatdoiknow and sharperblue:

Do y'all suggest saving Peru for a later date so I have something to look forward to. Also, are you not recommending Denali? Denali is not the end for me, just a short term goal. Plan to head to Himalayas after I accomplish that feat. I am just trying to build up my resume in an enjoyable but logical manner. I'll be throwing in climbs in the lower 48 every year for sure. All of this advice is great, just getting me a little confused.

I don't think 'saving' is the correct term - both areas have many many many years of trips' potential, so just pick one and go; I don't think it matter which comes first, but aside from altitude, AK and Peru have very little in common; they're vastly different climbing environments, which is part of the fun of course. Re Denali, I will just couch things by saying that everyone has different goals and dream climbs, and i've never seen the same list twice. That having been said, Denali is a big mountain with a lot of lines on it. a pair of friends went up the WButtress and were so turned off by the whole scene that after summiting, they immediately climbed Rainier (not sure which route, but by a commonly done one and not particularly technical) and declared it far and away a more interesting and rewarding experience. For most people (myself included) the biggest hangup is just fear of the unknown, of course, so just choose and go get one, and then the ice will have been broken for you for that area/range and when you go back again it will be even more rewarding