Europe Vacation Help

Your proposal really isn't doing what your hubby wants. It is very fast paced and you are loosing lots of time to moving around. It sounds like you really want to 'do' Italy. Why not skip Paris and London (they really aren't as close as it seems, and getting between them is going to cost major money and time). I'll leave it to the Italy experts to suggest a plan for that.
Or consider 'doing' the big 3. Fly into London- stay at least 5 days. Eurostar train to Paris- stay about 5 days. Fly to Rome- stay rest of time and fly home from there. Personally, I like to stay in one or two 'regions' with good bases and do day trips. From London there are LOTS of possibilities. Paris and Rome provide good options, too, I'm certain. Just keep in mind Rick's advice.... Assume you WILL go back.

Get a travel book for each place you are considering visiting. View all the possible things to see and do, pick the ones you really want to visit - then divide by two. That's how many days you should spend in that city. I plan for one major sight in the morning and one in the afternoon. If you do more than that, you will be run ragged. I also keep a list of lesser sights that are good to visit if time is available. Those are the ones I visit if we spend less time at one our must-sees than we expected. Otherwise, these are sights that I've already decided aren't must-sees so we skip them. If you plan one day, you need to stay two nights. Three days in a location means four nights with the days on either side used as travel days. Travel days are generally lost to travel (packing, checking out, getting to your transportation, making connections, getting to your lodging, checking in, unpacking). Don't plan to see sights on travel days, especially when it's a long travel leg. Also remember day one is for getting oriented and getting over jet lag somewhat. You may visit a sight, but don't expect to use it as a full touring day. So 17 days would get you an arrival day (night 1), three days (six sights) in London (nights 2, 3, 4), travel day to Venice (night 5), two days (four sights) in Venice (night 6,7), Train to Florence and Pisa (very full day to see Pisa for a few hours don't expect to see any sights in Florence) (night 8), Travel day to Rome (maybe a little time on arrival to see a sight) (night 9), 5 days (ten sights) in Rome (nights 10,11,12,13,14), travel day to Paris (night 15) one day (two sights - but not one like the Louvre, which takes a full day) in Paris (night 16). Assuming day 17 is your flight home, it will also be a travel day and not useful for touring.

I agree with Toni, you're over-programmed for 17 days. Five of those days involve moving between cities, maybe two more flying to and from Europe depending on how you figured the 17. You'll spend a lot of time in stations and airports, pack and unpack a lot, pay to move yourselves around. You can save time and money by flying open-jaw instead of round-trip: from Atlanta to London and then from Rome (or wherever your trip ends) back to Atlanta. Should cost the same or a little more than a round trip, and you save a long expensive rail journey back to London. If you haven't been to Europe before, I'd pick a couple of places like London and Paris, or Paris and Rome, or maybe all three as Toni suggests, and call it good. Spend some time in these great cities, maybe some day trips outside. There will be more than enough to see and do. It's true that "everything is so close" compared to the US, but intercity travel still takes time and costs bucks. Another way to look at it is that cities like London, Paris, Rome are so big, old, and rich with sights and atmosphere that you could spend much longer in any of them than in any comparable US city. After this trip you'll have a better feel for what you want to see and do next time you go to Europe, as hopefully you will! Congratulations on your graduation next year and have fun planning this trip!

Boy oh boy. I bet you are too young to ever seen the movie "If Its Tuesday This Must be Belgium" but that sounds like your plan. It sounds much more like your plan and much less like your husband's plan. I understand well the kid in a candy store mentality. Believe me. When you start doing more research you will find dozens if not hundreds of MUST SEE places. Your head will explode. Consider slowing down and listening to hubby. I think he has it right on this one. I don't get the go all the way south and then all the way back up again. Have you looked into open-jaws or multi-city tickets. It will save you mileage and money and most of all time. You barely have enough time to see London but will take away a whole day to go to see a bunch of old rocks in a circle which will take all day for 20 minutes at the destination. Florence (needs 3 to 4 days minimum) and Pisa all in one day? Rome needs 5 days but you will take away a day? Sorry to be harsh, but you asked and that is my honest opinion.

After years of travel. I tend to do logical swaths through an area and keep each travel day leg to under four hours of travel (as a guideline, some days that's not possible). From experience, I can attest that four hours of travel will consume your entire day and get you settled not long before "Italian dinner time" (about nine at night). I also try to eliminate one night stops (again a guideline) because those tend to wear you out (packing/unpacking every day). 17 days wouldn't be bad for just flying into Venice and flying home from Rome. A day trip to Pisa isn't bad to see the Field of Miracles - but that's about all you want to see in Pisa. Naples, unless you have some family obligation, isn't a nice place to visit - but Pompeii is worth a trip. You may have some time, after planning out your must-sees, for a little touring in Tuscany or south of Rome. I'd plan one or the other and not try for both in 17 days.

Thanks everyone for their input. I plan on using cheaper flights within Europe such as RyanAir and EasyJet, instead of more expensive multi-city flights on larger carriers. While I have been to Europe before, London, Paris and Rome have always been dreams of mine to visit. It will be my husband's first time going to Europe. I agree that I am perhaps being a little too ambitious on this trip and will start narrowing some things down to no more than 2-3 cities.
@Nigel I appreciate your opinion but I am very interested in Stonehenge and it is important for me as well as my husband to see. He and I actually discussed the places that we would BOTH like to visit. The only issue is deciding on which cities to cut out and how long to stay. Again everyone has great advice and I will be making changes to my itinerary.

Dick's advice is most important - fly open-jaw. It won't cost more and it will give you more time on the ground. I'd start in Venice, 2 full days, then an early train to Florence, leave your bags in the train station, spend the day sightseeing and get a late train into Rome. 3-4 days in Rome, then fly to Paris for a few days, then train to London for a few days and home.

Are you aware that you can not get very close to the stones at Stonehenge due to it being all fenced in - or it was when we were last there. The RS tour in that region does not even stop there - or did not when we took it and we ended up going to another site very similar to Stonehenge that we were able to walk thru and even touch all of the stones. As someone who has gone to Europe every summer for the last 10 years, I do believe that you are trying to cram way too much travel in too short of a time. Happy travels

If Italy is the emphasis, you will not be bored if you spend your entire 2-1/2 weeks there. I think you could add one other major destination, such as Paris or London (but not both), if that sounds better. If Italy is not as important as it seems from your initial description, then you could just hit some highlights. Are you traveling in the warmer part of the year? If so be sure to include some time in smaller towns or the countryside, something that is easy to lose if you are bopping about from big city to city. You can't see everything, so don't try. If you pace yourselves you can have a terrific 17 days, and I hope you do.

flying open-jaw is the key, as several have stated. If London, Paris, and Rome are the "musts" then I suggest you fly open-jaw, into London and home from Rome. Spend 3 nights in London, then take the Eurostar train to Paris (faster than flying if you count airport hang time). Spend 4 nights in Paris, then fly to Venice for 2 nights. You have seven nights left to spend in Rome and one other place---maybe Florence? Train connections Venice to florence to Rome are short, so that way you will not lose much time in transit. I would say that is doable in 17 days.

Here is my revised plan: Fly into London 4 days Fly to Rome 6 days (day trip to Pompeii) Fly to Paris 6 days (day trip to Versailles) EuroStar Train to London to fly home (train was cheaper than flying)
I think this sounds better and more relaxed that's for the advice!

I don't think you can go too slow.....if you want to drink in the local ambience. But you certainly can go too fast. Your husband is right! Cut your itinerary in half and smell the roses. Otherwise, your memories will be of you in transit!
I made the same mistake my first time over. The only way I could leave was to promise myself I'd return. And I have...a dozen times. Each time I go I repeat 2 mantras: cover less territory and pack lighter! Have fun!

Ashley, Why are you back tracking to London in your second itinerary. It's a waste of a travel day. Fly into London and out of Rome. Most of the time, it is not that more expensive as a round trip ticket out of 1 city.
Kelly

Ashley... Be sure to check the flights open jaws as others have suggested. I would fly to London, train to Paris, fly to Rome, fly home from Rome. If you fly Delta out of Atlanta you might be able to get all the flights cheaper than using a local carrier. I try every possible scenario, and while it takes a bit of time you can often get these flights at a good price. My only comment is that you have only cities, nothing of the countryside or villages, which if your husband wants to slow it down might be something he would enjoy.

Ashly be careful using lo cost intereuropeon airlines, some are great, I have used Easyjet and Veuling, but some are sneaky, they will say "Paris" but actually they fly you into Beuavais which is 100 kms away from Paris and requires 1.5 hrs of travel on train AND bus to get into or out of city. you waste time and money commuting, but think you got a better deal, you usually haven't. Also avoid 6 am flights, public transport will not get you there in time easily , so taxis $$$ .. I wonder are you pricing your flights at " multi destination " flights, not as two one ways? I would also fly into London, spend 4-5 days there, Eurostar to Paris 5-6 days there, and then fly to Rome 5-6 days, and then fly home from Rome. Have you really compared the price difference, let alone the fact that you will have to waste a whole day in travel, as you should not fly back to London for your international flight on same day as you are departing, in case your intereuropeon flight is delayed or cancelled ( and it does happen) its best to fly in day before.