Im curious if this would be enough time to not fell rushed, or if i should should cut this down to just London and Rome. Day 1 Leave Austin arrive in London the next day Day 2 London Day 3 London Day 4 Flight to Rome Day 5 Rome Day 6 Rome Day 7 Flight to Paris Day 8 Paris Day 9 Paris Day 10 Leave Paris arrive in Austin
Not enough time for Rome. Rome is amazing. You can spend a week there and still have more stuff to see. EDIT: I think I spent three days and I cannot wait to go back and see more.
Flights take 1 day from one city to another? I kid. It doesn't seem like much time... seeing as if you need probably more than 3 days in each city, from what I heard. "There's so much to see" is what I hear from most peeps going overseas. Also, if you have the chance to make it to three cities, don't "cut down." I wouldn't if I had that opportunity. Have fun.
Thanks guys thats what i was thinking. I can not extend my trip any longer, because i have 1 year old son and do not want to leave him longer then 10 days or so. I wish it was not, but i do think it would be smarter to spend time in just 2 cities.
well from checking out of a hotel, getting to the airport, arriving early enough for the flight, the actual flight, getting from the airport to the next hotel, checking in i would assume at least 6-7 hours so your day is gone. But you would still have that night to do something at least.
Pele, If you did the above itenerary, you would have 2 full days in each location, and while that is not enough, it would still be a great time. But, you are right, if you cut it down to 2 cities, you could see a lot more and cut one day of travel out. DD
I would lose one of the travel days if I were you. Turn the travel day and 2 days in Paris to 2 more days in Rome and one more day in London.
London for me was underwhelming. My friends and I did a London/Barcelona/Paris trip two summers ago all in the span of a week. I'd rank the destinations in this order: 1. Barcelona 2. Paris 3. London Our schedule was: Day 1: London Day 2: Barcelona Day 3: Barcelona Day 4: Barcelona/Paris Day 5: Paris Day 6: Paris Day 7: London
If by train you mean taking the chunnel, IIRC, the train is much more expensive than EasyJet. When we flew from London to Barcelona on EasyJet, it was about 29 Euros? The train/chunnel from Paris to London was almost $100 I believe and it was NOT worth it.
i would expect it to be quite a bit more than $100 actually.....but what should also be factored in is that you spend $100 just on taxis to the london airport and from the paris airport anyways
My memory's fuzzy on the rates but I do remember the train ticket from Paris to London was more than my tickets for LON>BAR and BAR>PAR. Then again, two years ago a lot of things were dirt cheap. The only reason why we went was because a roundtrip ticket to London from IAH was $440 after tax :grin:
depends on what you are trying to see. if you are saying something like big ben, buckingham palace, the eiffel tower notre dame, the coliseum and the pantheon then yes that is enough time. The cities are fairly small area to cover, and you can do it all in one day if need be. Each of these cities have open motorcoach tours you can take that you can purchase on site. The thing with each city is there are layers of each that you will not get to. I have spent probably 8-10 months spread over time in each paris and london doing heavy duty exploring, and there are new places I discover each time I go there. That is what makes these cities so great. You really do have to pick what you like and go from there. A couple of days in each is definitely enough to see the major things within each.
The Eurostar between Paris and London is incredibly efficient and convenient. It's quicker than flying (as it puts you right near the city centers). It is more expensive though. Depending on how far in advance you book it, it could cost around ~$250 round trip...but a recent one-way from Paris to London was ~$130. Not that you're going to Barcelona, but as steddinotayto mentioned, it's a phenomenal city. Probably my favorite in Europe. Rome is full of history. So is Paris. If you were to spend more time in one city, I guess it would depend on your interests: ancient history vs. more recent history. If you're looking for a party, Rome might be the better option. Paris, though is fantastic in the summer. Last time I was in Rome was about five years ago, and while the sites were remarkable, the vibe of the city bothered me a bit as it was not as much of a late-night place as I'd imagined (then again I was staying in the older area by the Rose Garden and Circus Maximus). I was in London last week, and agree with the said sentiments: underwhelming. I thought I would like it more, but it would definitely take some time to get acclimated to. Plus the women were dogs. I went with a buddy and the best looking girl we saw the entire weekend was a woman within minutes of being in Paris. She was blind. Seriously. Either way, you'll have a blast in Europe, but in my opinion, two says in each place is not enough time to see and absorb everything. But here's a good tool to check out: http://plnnr.com/
Was in Paris for several days this spring, and it was enough for a rough sketch of the place, but could have spent much more time there. We realized early on that we cared less about the checklist and more about spending time just being there among the people and places we found enjoyable. If you don't have unlimited time in places like this, feeling rushed to see everything can make things less fun. You have to make some time to actually be there, and not try to document the trip according to an itinerary that makes taking it all in almost impossible. If you make it to Paris (I could see spending your entire time at any one of these places and not being sorry) I have to recommend a tiny cellar of a club in the Latin Quarter called the Cavern, or "Caveau Des Oubliettes." They have an open mic blues night in the cellar of this cavern pub on Tuesday i think (though the people taking the mic are not exactly amateurs) and we had a fantastic time reveling with locals and travelers alike there. We did a lot and had a lot of fun in Paris, and while seeing the sites we realized that even though we were glad we saw as much of the sites as we did, we had the most fun just being there together and taking in the people and places. If I had to do it over again, we'd take more time to do less... but these things learned only make you want to go back.
It is, but it's also a lot more convenient. The train leaves from fairly central London (King's Cross), and arrives much closer to central Paris (Gare Du Nord). When you factor in the Taxi/tube/train to the airport in London, and the taxi/etc. in Paris, their costs can balance out pretty quicky.
