Looking for a little input on our Thailand trip. Hitting Rome for 4 nights first

And this trip is when?

So US to Rome…visit….fly Rome to Bangkok?

We're going in early December.

Yes. US to Rome. Then to Bangkok. Then to Koh Samui. Then back to Bangkok. Then fly back to the US

Yes, it's a very long haul flight. And yes, you'll almost certainly need to connect to a different flight anyway. BUT. A very quick look shows NO direct flights between Rome and Bangkok. You would have at least one connection.

When we've wanted a respite, we've usually done so in a city that would get us to our destination on a direct flight. But if you can get a direct flight to Rome from your home airport, then perhaps this isn't a factor for you.

What part of the US do you live in?

(I only ask because, if you're on the US west coast, it's much faster and more efficient to cross the Pacific to get to Thailand; if you live on the east coast, going west isn't terribly more efficient, but still may be slightly so; as a west coast resident who to goes to Thailand fairly often, it seems completely crazy to me to fly to Europe first).

Overall: Personally, I would never do what you are suggesting, and it seems insane to me.

You're going all the way from the USA to Thailand and back. Exactly how long is your trip? (It's hard to tell, since you're speaking in vague terms about X nights here, Y nights there). No matter which way you go, you will burn the equivalent of at least 2-4 days just getting there and back, on planes and in transit -- and that's if you are efficient. By going via Europe, you add to even more time that you lose in transit (don't just add up the flight hours -- you need to account for all the wasted time getting to/from each airport, time lost futzing with the logistics of ground transport, hotels, etc., and the exhaustion of long flights). After you subtract all that from your usable time in SE Asia, then you lop off FOUR more days for Rome...seriously?

On a short trip (and to be honest, for a trip to Southeast Asia, your trip is quite short) with a side trip to Italy on your way, you've burned far too many days, you end up with, what, maybe a week in Thailand? Maybe less? That's insane...I mean, unless you are lucky enough to be able to travel to SE Asia very often and you can/will go back many, many times and very soon. I actually do travel to SE Asia fairly often (every year or two, in non-pandemic times). Still, it's a long, long way from home, and for me, it does not make sense to go all that way to the other side of the planet for a short amount of time there.

Unless you are able to fly between the USA and SE Asia so frequently that you can go back any time, I think it makes sense to maximize your time spent there. You get more "bang for your buck" (the monetary cost of the flights, the opportunity cost of taking weeks off away from home, both limit most people). Generally speaking, I won't cross the Pacific unless I will have an absolute minimum of 2 weeks on the ground there (not counting travel time).

Of course, only you can decide what's right for you. But for me, it would be madness to carve 4-6 days for Rome out of an already-too-short trip to Thailand. My suggestions is to look at your plan, you count your days carefully (and honestly), and see how many full days --not counting travel days -- you would have at your primary destination. There are a lot of worthwhile things to see/do in/around Thailand, and it would be painful (to me at least) to go all that way and end up with a very short time there limiting what you can do/where you can go.

Hope that helps. Good luck.

Thanks. That was kind of my initial thought as well.....it didnt seem to make sense. But I figured we would simply look at Rome as a layover to Bangkok.

Maybe

We live in the Midwest. Will probably be taking a flight to a hub US city and then over seas from there

BTW, in my OP I did indicate the # of nights in Bangkok (2) and the number of nights in Koh Samui (7). And then 4 nights in Rome.

We were originally thinking about doing a 4 or 5 day trip to Vietnam before Bangkok and Koh Samui but then I started to look at Rome/Bangkok/Koh Samui.

So, my thought of using Rome as just a extended layover may not have been the greatest idea. Mostly because we would end up going completely around the world by the time we do the trip and return home...

I would agree, maximize your time in SE Asia. It is an incredible part of the world (though i might recommend other islands before Koh Samui unless you park it in some fabulous hotel) - the other thing you need to take into account is acclimating to time zones. Moving around that much will be brutal and probably take away from your ability to enjoy the places you're visiting.

I don't think there are even direct flights from Rome to BKK. Ticking this trip sounds like it would be some kind of open-jaw/multi-city/multiple layover Frankenstein.

Maybe something would make sense visiting a different European city, one that had direct flights to Thailand. Personally, I'd just add time to my say in Bangkok—It's worth more than two days.

Thank you for the replies. Yeah I think we're definitely going to revisit this.

We don't really want to spend much more time in Bangkok we've been there. We pretty much have been all over Thailand.

We just visited Singapore a couple months ago.

So, we're just trying to find some places we haven't already been.

For us, the Asian countries are more comfortable the first time as a guided tour to get the lay of the land.

So right now we're back to looking at Vietnam. Any other suggestions would be fantastic

As an add on to Thailand, have you considered a couple of days in Cambodia to visit Angkor Wat?

Another vote for Angkor.

It's easy-as-pie: cheap, short, direct, frequent flights from BKK to Siem Reap. One of the most amazing places in the world. If you're looking for an international "add-on" side-trip for a trip to Thailand, it probably makes more sense (both logistically and culturally) than anyplace else. Works well with just a few days to dedicate. With Chinese people still stuck at home, this would be a good time to experience it without overwhelming crowds.

A third vote for Siem Reap and Angkor Wat. It's close to Thailand with easy access. The temples are beautiful and like nothing else. It would fit in nicely with the rest of your trip.

So siem reap and Angkor wat sounds great.

Where would you fly in and out of and is there enough for 4 or 5 nights or would we want to fly in to one spot and work our way into Vietnam or elsewhere and then fly from their to Bangkok?

You can fly to Siem Reap from Bangkok. You'll want 2 full days to see the temples with a private guide and driver, but there's really not enough for 4-5 nights. Vietnam is long and skinny so you'd fly between cities. When I'm planning something like this, I go to the wiki page for each airport. There's a table listing all the airlines and destinations. (I looked at Samui airport - If you're going to Vietnam, though, I'd spend all my time there and skip Angkor. if you have 5 nights, you could possibly visit both Hanoi and Saigon, but that's pushing it. There's enough in either city for 4-5 nights. Weather's warmer in Saigon than Hanoi.

Glad you decided to skip Rome. I'm sure it's nice in December but you don't want to pack lots of winter clothes you would have to shlep around Asia.

Since you’ve traveled around Southeast Asia you probably know that Air Asia is a good discount airline that can get you to many places from Bangkok.

If you’re looking for a four-day substitute for Rome, and want to go to Vietnam, Hoi An is a great smaller city near the beach. We really enjoyed our stay there. The larger cities (Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi) are exciting but chaotic. Hoi An would be more relaxed…you could fly into Da Nang and hire a car to take you to Hoi An.

If you want a relaxed stay in Thailand, Chiang Mai or Chiang Rai are great.