Europe travel itinerary help.

According to google maps you cover almost 3900 miles from Kayseri to Salzburg

Your profile does not indicate where you are, but I will assume the US.

Would you take a trip from LA to Houston to Atlanta to New York to Chicago and plan to visit 12 cities along that route?

That may help you answer your question of how feasible your proposal is.

You are on the move a lot

Hey Joe,

Thanks for getting back to me! I am from Australia :) (The plane from Istanbul to Budapest is around an hour) and travel times between cities are rather short (apart from a couple)

I am flying through Europe and using a train the rest of the time which may make it a bit faster, but you're probably right. Do you have any suggestions on which destinations I should change?

Thanks again :)

Have you already booked your flights?

If not, I'd say: Skip Istanbul and Kayseri, plus possibly Budapest. They may be well worth seeing, but save those for another trip. Starting in Prague will save you thousands of kilometers and give you a lot of leeway in your time schedule.

Some other parts of your route you might want to reconsider are the following:

• Prague - Krakow - Berlin: Just have a look at Google Maps where Krakow is located, and see for yourself if that route makes sense.
• Amsterdam - Belgium - Paris: You will be spending all your time on the road/ railway with only three days for each of those. The time you will need to get to these places is completely disproportionate to the time you will have at each of them.
• Family - Iceland - Family: Unless your family is located in Iceland, that does seem a bit of a stretch. No question about it, Iceland must be an absolutely beautiful place to visit, but does it all have to be on this one trip? Also, please do have a look at the weather conditions in Iceland at that time of year.

Why don't you tell us what you are interested in (museums, culture, shopping, nature, history...). That would make it a lot easier to help suggest what to leave out or what to focus on.

Knowing whereabouts your family is located would also help understand which parts of Europe are going to be essential to you, and which other parts might sensibly be combined to an itinerary with that.

Another thing to consider is that while going by plane may seem like a short trip, it is not just the pure time in the air. You will have to get to the airport in the first place; many airports are not located anywhere near the city. With security precautions at the level they are right now, you will have to be there quite early (recommendations for my most recent inter-Europe flight was two hours). Then, there may be delays. And when you arrive, you will have to retrieve your baggage, which may easily take another hour.

I think you get the idea. Add at least three hours to the pure flying time, and that may give you a more realistic estimate of your traveling time by plane.

Those are all great destinations (except "funes"--I can't decode that typo), but when you arrive in a city on Day 1 and depart on Day 3, you are giving yourself only 1 full day there plus a few odd hours. It will take you much longer than you think to relocate: packing, checking out of hotel, getting to train station or airport (those are mostly large cities, making it worse), waiting for your train or plane, actually moving to the next city, finding your way to your new lodgings, checking in and getting settled. 4 hours is about the rock-bottom minimum, and that's mostly just for short train or bus trips.

So Amsterdam and Budapest are serious problems, and though you've allocated an extra day to Berlin, it is a large city with unusually scattered sights. It has many excellent and large museums, many time-consuming WW II and Cold War sights, and an active street life that I'm sure you'll enjoy since the city's residents skew very young.

Even Paris (just 3 full days) and London (4 full days, but with family perhaps slowing you down) are problematic. I suspect this schedule would have you wishimg for more time at every destination, which is kind of an inefficent way to travel since it means you'll likely be repeating all those travel legs on a future trip.

Well, I had the ocean right, just the wrong end!

You are traveling to parts of Europe I have not been to, so I cannot speak on the pros/cons of the places themselves.

I think you should limit yourself to 7-8 destinations, which would give you 4 days each. You know why you chose the destinations on your list, so you need to prioritize which ones are the most compelling/interesting to you.

Turkey seems to be in a greater degree of upheaval than what is "normal" ( RS has cancelled the tours to Turkey)

{ While Rick Steves' Europe has been sharing the wonders of Turkey with our travelers for more than 25 years, we have made the difficult decision to suspend our Istanbul tours for 2017, in light of the continuing political instability throughout the country. We hope to offer our Turkey tour program again in the future.

If you're interested in traveling in Turkey with a guide, we recommend our long-time Turkey travel partner SRM Travel. They offer a variety of private and group tours throughout Turkey.}

You need to decide for yourself what level of risk is tolerable

Perhaps other who have traveled more extensively can offer thoughts on the destinations themselves

I think you would find your travels more enjoyable if you are not quite so much "on the run".

Happy travels!

but when you arrive in a city on Day 1 and depart on Day 3, you are
giving yourself only 1 full day there plus a few odd hours

Good point, and I have to stand corrected, having spoken of three days in those destinations. Which of course makes matters worse.

"19-21 Amsterdam" does not make three days in Amsterdam but only one day basically.