Only 10 days in Europe... what can't I miss? Can anyone help with my itinerary?

You effectively only have 8 days when you take out day one and ten for travel. Unless you want to spend your entire trip in trains, planes and automobiles you need to seriously narrow down your wishlist. Given your situation, and the need to get back to Stockholm, I would perhaps look at dividing your time between two cities: Paris and London perhaps. Or alternatively, Rome and Florence or Rome and Venice.

if you did Paris and London you could fly to Paris on day one, straight after arriving in Stockholm (leave plenty of time for a connection). Then spend night one, night two, night three and night four in Paris (3 full days). Then catch the TGV to London. Spend nights five, six, seven and eight in London (3 full days plus some time on the day you arrive). Fly to Stockholm on the morning of day 9. This will give you the afternoon of day nine to have a quick look around before flying out the next day.

You have eight days – actually make that seven days since you will spend a day getting to and from Stockholm. I would suggest you spend your last night in Stockholm so that transportation delays don't make you miss your flight home.

I hate to have to tell you this, but you're not going to see seven cities in seven days – unless you want to see them from inside airports and train stations.

Look at skyscanner.com for flight information, and bahn.com for train information. Enter your seven cities, and determine the trip time between cities. Then add 2 to 6 hours to each trip time to allow time for logistics with each location change – getting into and out of hotels, to and from stations or airports, wait time, travel delays, getting lost, etc. That will give you an idea of how much time you're going to spend getting from place to place. I think you'll find you won't have time to actually visit the cities.

Given the amount of time you have, I would suggest you pick two cities to visit. Ease of transportation to and from Stockholm may be something you want to consider. Beyond that, it depends on your interests. London and Paris are easy to combine with the eurostar train. Or you could do some combination of Rome, Florence, and Venice. On a first trip, I wouldn't go to Milan or Nice, unless you have a particular reason for visiting those cities.

One additional thought – since you're traveling in March, if you choose Italy, you may want to focus on Florence and Rome. Venice can be pretty chilly and damp at that time of the year, unless you luck out on the weather. Florence and Rome will give you more choices if it's cold or raining.

MPH and Sherry, it seems like you both agree on a London and Paris trip so I will definitely take that into consideration. It's sad having to reduce but I know it will make the trip more enjoyable.

Sherry, what makes you say no to Nice and Milan?

You will definitely have more fun and actually see something if you reduce your ambitions :)

I agree with Sherry re Nice - pleasant place but March is not the ideal time to be there. Milan, similarly an interesting place, but not up there with Rome etc...

To answer your question… Nice is a locale better suited for nice weather. It's probably not the best place to visit in March.

I really like Milan – for the Duomo, some wonderful museums (for example the Brera and the Ambrosian), and some really lovely very early churches. However, for first visit, it offers fewer "biggies" than the other cities. I think you'll find that most people on this forum largely dismiss it. Also, in my opinion it feels less like Italy then the other cities – that makes for easier logistics, but a different experience.

Sorry to add even more confusion to this post, but what do you all think about Spain? Do you recommend going to any cities there this time of year?

By the way, I just wanted to go to Nice because I am a French speaker and was hoping to utilize it more, so do you think there are any other French cities I could go to instead?

March 21 Land in Stockholm and spend the night there. Get an early flight out.
March 22-March 28 7 nights elsewhere
March 29 Fly to Stockholm for overnight
March 30 Fly home

While it's theoretically possible to fly out of Stockholm on the 21st, chances are it will be very expensive. If your flight is delayed, and you've bought cheap airline tickets in advance, and missed the flight, the tickets are useless,, the money's gone and now you have to hope to get places on the next flight out that evening at top fares. Your cheapest option is to stay in the Stockholm airport overnight and get an early flight out in the morning. I just found Jumbo Stay Hostel http://www.jumbostay.se/ at the airport with dorm rooms, for about $150-$200 for two people.

7 nights = 6 days on the ground, and maybe 2 half days, depending on flight times. If you decide on 2 destinations, then you'll have 2.5 days in one, 3 days in the other, with .5 day for changing locations. Since you want French-speaking, to to Paris. You could easily spend all your time there. If you want to add something different, it's a two-hour train ride to Brussels or 3 hours to Amsterdam.

aiden.. I will be blunt.. but please take what I say as I mean it.. as a kindness.

You are young.. you WILL get back to Europe.. you cannot see an entire continent "Europe" in a week, and that's pretty much what you seem to want to do.

You want to speak French.. fine.. spend 4 days in Paris. A 3-4 days in Amsterdam or London , and back you go to get your flight home.. that's pretty much all the time you have. Keep in mind places like London and Paris can easily take twice as long to even see the basics.. and there are several good side daytrips from each of those cities..

March is not summer.. many of the southern locals you mention are still going to be early spring weather.. could still be rainy or wet.. and part of those places attraction is being able to walk around outside a lot.. ( not to say there aren't amazing sites and history in many of the sites also)

What are particular interests.. art, history , food, etc.. that may help people narrow down suggestions.

Don't plan a tour of airports and train stations.. neither are very nice places no matter where you go..

I must admit that I have been thinking of the weather as beautiful and lively but the reality is apparently far from that.

Here is the itinerary I have been working with but it is clearly very flawed.

• Friday, March 20th
  • Leave Berkeley at 7:00 pm
  • Arrive at Oakland Intl Airport by 8:00 pm
  • Flight departs at 11:00 pm
• Saturday, March 21st
  • Arrive at Stockholm Arlanda at 5:00 pm local time
  • Arrive in Central Stockholm around 7:00 pm
  • Spend night in Stockholm
• Sunday, March 22nd
  • Leave hotel by 9:30 am
  • Leave Stockholm at noon
  • Arrive Paris at 2:40 pm
  • Spend night in Paris
• Monday, March 23rd
  • Spend day in Paris
  • Spend night in Paris
• Tuesday, March 24th
  • Spend day in Paris
  • Spend night in Paris
• Wednesday, March 25th
  • Get to train station by 8 am
  • Train for London leaves at 8:40 am
  • Arrive London at 10:00 am
  • Spend day in London
  • Spend night in London
• Thursday, March 26th
  • Spend day in London
  • Spend afternoon and evening in London
  • Get to airport by 5:45 pm
  • Flight to Venice leaves at 7:05 pm
  • Arrive Venice at 10:05 pm
  • Get to hotel and spend night in Venice
• Friday, March 27th
  • Spend day in Venice
  • Spend afternoon and evening in Venice
  • Get to train station by 7 pm
  • Train for Florence leaves at 7:25 pm
  • Arrive Florence at 9:30 pm
  • Get to hotel and spend night in Florence
• Saturday, March 28th
  • Spend day in Florence
  • Spend afternoon and evening in Florence
  • Get to train station by 6:20 pm
  • Train for Rome leaves at 6:48 pm
  • Arrive Rome at 8:20 pm
  • Spend night in Rome
• Sunday, March 29th
  • Spend day in Rome

I'm still trying to figure out how to get to Stockholm from Rome....

Okay, should I just eliminate Venice so I have more time for Rome? Is this still way too ambitious? Milan and Nice are out of the picture now but I am still holding on to some hope for Venice.

I'll agree with what's been said above about your planned itinerary. It's virtually not possible to take your above itinerary, and you've got to simplify your trip.. Looking at the list of flights on budget air carrier Norwegian Air out of and in to Stockholm Arlanda Airport, you can easily visit the following cities:

Fly into London-Gatwick, take the Eurostar to Paris and fly back to Stockholm out of Paris-Orly.
Fly into Rome Fuimicino, take a fast train up to Florence and fly to Stockholm from Pisa Airport, an hour west of Florence by train.
Both of these itineraries will furnish you with enough activities to take up twice the time you have allotted.

It's a shame that you're not going into Stockholm a couple of months later because it's simply a world class city. Those going there often take a night ferry over to Helsinki, visit Copenhagen and/or Oslo.

For Western Europe, the third week of March is often up and down. Weather can see the Spring thaw, or it can stay Winter. Just be prepared for any kind of weather, and you'll be okay.

You should just immediately get on a plane in Stockholm and fly to Rome. Spend your entire trip in Italy. Fly back to Rome and immediately fly on back to the US.

Your itinerary is just plain crazy. A morning and part of an afternoon in Venice? Absurd. Another morning and part of an afternoon in Florence? What a waste. An afternoon and morning in London? Seriously? You'll be spending all your time in airports. Slow down and enjoy. Personally, I would spend the entire time in Rome and do it well. As other have said, you are a college student. You will be back.

Realistically you have time for Stockholm and maximally 2 other cities. You also have to consider you won't be in your normal shape because of jet lag. The time difference is 9 hours. Everybody is affected. For first time Europe travelers I recommend Paris and London. Big advantage is connection between those two. Only 3 hours by Eurostar (fast train). In your case I could consider Rome instead of London because of weather in April. I assume you want to enjoy your vacation instead of racing through the European airports and train stations. Imagine that if you go by your unrealistic schedule and there is a cancelled flight or delay or strike (not so unusual in France or Italy or many other countries) then you are screwed, stuck somewhere at the airport or train station and losing all your following connections because you would not have enough time cushion.

95,

Im going to add my one cent in.

1. youre going to have to make some decisions as to where you want to go. As mentioned you wont be able to do/see everything on your list, so may as well face up to reality and start making those decisions now.

what i have found out is wanting to go someplace is easy. Figuring out how to get there is 2nd and actually doing it inexpensively with time & $$ isnt so easy sometimes. How this can affect where you go is that it could take you more hours and $$ than necessary if you choose a place/city to fly/train out of to the next destination. Taking more time to get to your next destination will take away time on the ground doing/seeing things. So look at how you plan to go to/from each place.

good luck and happy trails.

I agree with everyone else. There is no point in visiting a major European city like the ones you've listed unless you have the time. MINIMUM, you need 2 FULL days, which means 3 nights, for any major city. 4 nights or more is better. My husband is going to London soon for 6 nights and he is having trouble fitting in everything he'd like to do.

Nearly everyone finds that once a trip is over that they regret they didn't stay longer. Almost no one thinks they should have shortened their stay.

Well I am not going to continue to comment on your plans as you really are packing into too many places and seem set on it.. but I will give you one very helpful tidbit.

In Paris some of the major museums close EITHER Monday or Tuesday.. so be careful as those are the two days you will be there , so if you miss seeing on Monday that is open then and closed on Tuesday.. then you will have missed it for good.

Louvre is closed on Tuesdays
Orsay is closed on Mondays

Plan accordingly.

Good luck .

Kindly here as well, Aiden, but your itinerary is insane: it doesn't leave you time for anything at all but running from one type of transport to another, from hotel to hotel, and packing/unpacking. Equally important is that it doesn't leave wiggle room for anything not to go according to your too tight, overloaded plan. The unexpected has happened to us all but it's not nearly the big deal that it CAN be when there's no time to come up with a Plan B!

Getting one's bearings in a new city also takes some time, and what if your only day is the one day of the week some of the things you really wanted to see are closed? As some of the others have mentioned, it's really not worth giving any of the cities on your list less than 2 full days/three nights as you'll spend part of day 1 just figuring out where things are and best ways to reach them. Three full days is better, and I'll even say four or more for cities like Rome, Paris and London.

That said, as majority of the cities on your original list are in Italy, I'd agree with going directly there from Stockholm, and choosing only two of those. You have 8 days to split between them, and you'll lose 1/2 of one of those in transit between them so it's closer to 7.5 days of sightseeing time. I'd personally choose Rome and Florence for a first-timer in March. If you could fly home from Italy via Stockholm, that would be best.

"What can't I miss?"

Well I hate to be harsh, but if you insist on this whirlwind, what you're not going to miss is the airports and train stations and what you are going to miss is the enjoyment of these wonderful cities.

Heed the advice given and limit your visits to 2 cities plus Stockholm.

Glad to see you dropped the idea of Spain. It is a wonderful country, but it is way out of your way. It can also be a time-consuming place to go if you don't know Spanish – I found it easier to travel in the rural Middle East without Arabic, than to travel in Spain without Spanish.

You have one day each, actually less than a full day once you've dealt with transportation and hotels, to visit London, Venice, Florence, and Rome. Not doable. I would pick one, but if you want to, pick two. I would drop London because it's going in the wrong direction, and Venice because the weather may be iffy and it's a slower city for getting around (because you'd have to do it by boat, and when you're walking, sometimes the direct route is blocked by a canal and you have to double back).

Have you decided why you were going to each city – what you want to see? If not, time would be well spent with a guidebook. Deciding what you want to see will undoubtedly help you figure out what you should drop, I believe it would also show you why it's not worth it to visit all these major cities for less than a day each.

If you decide to do the ambitious route you've planned, I hope you have lots of money. All that local transportation is going to be expensive. Furthermore, trying to buy the cheaper advance purchase tickets would be a problem – if something goes wrong with an earlier part of your schedule and therefore timing changes, you miss your next schedule scheduled departure and and advanced purchase ticket becomes worthless. You would have to spring for another ticket at full price.

I second what others have said about just doing 2 cities in 8 nights. I also second the London/Paris suggestions. Both of these cities will keep you busy for 3-4 days plus you can do day trips if you want. Also, realize that you are traveling in March with unpredictable weather. You might want to plan to be back in Stockholm 2 days before you leave in case you have to delay your return to Stockholm if the weather causes transportation problems. Enjoy.

Thank you all for this reality check. I was really reluctant to narrow down my list. I know it doesn't make much of a difference, but I have been to Paris, Rome, and Florence before, so I have seen a lot of the major sights and don't feel the need to visit them again just yet, so visiting them for a short time didn't seem too unreasonable.

Obviously, though, there is so much I haven't seen and not giving the cities their full time would be a terrible idea.

I guess what we will probably do is London, Paris, and Rome at a maximum. More likely, we will just pick two of those though. Everything else has been dropped. I know most of you will still think 3 cities is too many, but what if I am just trying to get a taste of them? Like many of you have said, I am young and will be back in the future, so maybe getting to know a city intimately isn't important because I could spend a few weeks in a single city when I am much older and have the means to do so... for now, a glimpse at a few places is basically what I am interested in. I know I am still being stubborn in saying that but rest assured that at least you have all convinced me to go to no more than 3 places!

It would take months to get to know a city like Rome or Paris intimately, but I'm glad you are narrowing your list. I don't think your previous posts mentioned that you have been to some of the cities on your list, so that could make a difference - unless your boyfriend has never been there, in which case two (or a short stop in a third) cities is a good idea.

The big problem with a tight itinerary is that things go wrong, and if you are counting half-days per city, a slight delay could have a domino effect.

I personally think you should pick only 1 city in addition to Stockholm, but since you are leaning toward London, Paris and Rome, here is a place you can look for weather averages for the 4 places you are likely to be, Weatherbase -- http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/country.php3?r=EUR&refer=&regionname=Europe. Choose the country, then the city and look for the details for March on the chart provided.

Be sure to click on the F(arenheit) link unless you speak C(elsius). Some cities have more detail than others, but pay particular attention to average highs, lows, precipitation and days with precipitation. That will help you with your packing. Oddly, I was able to pack lighter for a cold April trip to the Netherlands and Belgium in 2013 than for any other trip I've planned.

For an example, I chose London since you say you have not been there: http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=67730&cityname=London-England-United-Kingdom&units=us.

Although you list plane and train options, I didn't see anywhere that you had priced or timed these out.

For train schedules and times, the DB Bahn search -- http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/en -- can't be beat, even if you aren't going to Germany. For a more general look, Rome2Rio -- http://www.rome2rio.com/ -- is a great choice for showing all kinds of transportation options. And the Man in Seat 61 -- http://www.seat61.com/ -- provides a wealth of knowledge about train travel.

According to DB Bahn, the fastest train from Paris to Rome using the example day I chose, 27 March, takes 10:12 hours using a French TGV and an Italian ES train. It departs at 10:38 at Paris Gare de Lyon and arrives at 20:50 at Roma Termini with only 1 train change. There is a transfer time of 11 minutes at Torino Porta Susa and both trains require reservations. If you check this out with your actual date and click on the Show Map link, you can see the exact route (through Lyon, Torino, Milano, Bologna, Firenze). Both earlier and later departures, even those with only 1 train change, take longer. Do you really want to use up a whole day of your very limited time on such a train trip?

I checked Rome2Rio for the same day and got these results: http://www.rome2rio.com/s/Paris/Rome?dates=2015-3-27/2015-3-27. Flying comes out at the top for time saving. Getting to and from the airports and flying between is shown as taking about 5 hours, but the timing doesn't seem to include how soon you need to get to the airport for these flights. Still, it would be less time than taking the train unless you are into the scenery along the way.

You are a little late in the planning for this March, so the sooner you figure out exactly where you are going and when, the more likely you are to get some lower fares for trains or planes.

95,

...... I was really reluctant to narrow down my list. **I know it doesn't make much of a difference, but I have been to Paris, Rome, and Florence before, so I have seen a lot of the major sights and don't feel the need to visit them again just yet, so visiting them for a short time didn't seem too unreasonable.*

I would say that yes it does make a difference and a major one in your case.

Look at it this way. Youve been to those places already. And you want to go back and add more places in a short time span?

You are diluting your trip and i would say needlessly. I would say that most of the places i have been to, i want to go back, but i dont do it at the expense of other new/undiscovered (to me) places that im going to. I see it as its better to dump a 1 or 2 day stay someplace ive been to and to add those 1 or 2 days to someplace that warrants extra days.

Its your $$$ and time, so if you want to do a whirlwind trip like that go for it.

again good luck and Happy trails

Technically, I don't think three cities in your time frame is unreasonable, that is, if you're willing to plan and research the heck out of your itinerary to make it work. We "almost" comfortably managed to see four cities in 10 days. But there are a few key differences here:

1. Our arrival and departure cities were part of our tour. Flew into Copenhagen and out of London. Open jaws is the way to go.
2. Our arrival time was late morning, which gave us enough time to check in and get out and about for around nine hours on the town and worked wonders in overcoming the effects of jet lag, at least for us it did.
3. Our departure time out of London-Gatwick was early evening giving us technically a third day in the city.

So for us it was 2 nights in Copenhagen, 2 in Munich, 3 in Paris, and 2 nights and a day in London. Was it enough time? Nope, not even close. Was it enough time to see the sights we'd identified as must sees? Yes and then some.

In my opinion, and it seems you've already heeded the much more experienced advice (than mine) already given -- pick your top two cities, and have a blast! Maybe even give Stockholm a few hours, and there's a third city! You might be surprised?

Brutal honesty about priorities and logistics = key to great trip.

London, Paris, Rome. PERIOD.

Rick, I wish we could have had that open-jaw setup but the deal we found didn't allow for that sort of thing and booking two different flights was going to be substantially more expensive. I'll make it work next time though!

Thank you everyone for the reassurance that 3 cities will work. London, Rome, Paris it is... hard to give other places up but this is the best choice!

To make it work next time, look for "multi-city" options, not 2 separate flights. The cost may be more than round-trip, but it should not be dramatically more.

Hello Aidan. You said you will fly to and from Stockholm, because the airline tickets are a low price. And you said you do not intend to see anything at Stockholm. If minimalizing your travel expense is important, why do you want to travel from Sweden to Italy and England. I think airline tickets for flying from Stockholm to Italy or to England or to France would be expensive. You will not have time for travelling in railroad trains. You said you desire to go to France because you can talk in the French language. So, I suggest : go to France, only. Fly from Stockholm to Paris. You could do day trips in France from Paris. And fly from Paris to Stockholm. If you run through Europe in several days, you would constantly feel anxiety because of a fear that you will miss an airline flight or a train. A trip to France sounds good to me. I think being at only one hotel (away from Stockholm) is a pleasant way to do this trip. Or, you could have overnight accommodations at two cities in France : such as Paris and Dijon. I know, a train ride from Paris to London can be a 2 hours and 15 minute trip. But you would not have enough time at London. Save London for another year. Save Italy for another year.

Tell me, what do you all think of this (UNFINISHED) itinerary? I am devoting 3 full days to Paris, have just about 2 full days in Rome, and am deciding what to do for the rest of the days....

• Friday, March 20th
  • Leave Berkeley at 7:00 pm
  • Arrive at Oakland Intl Airport by 8:00 pm
  • Flight departs at 11:00 pm
• Saturday, March 21st
  • Arrive at Stockholm Arlanda at 5:00 pm local time
  • Flight to Paris leaves at 7:25 pm ($160.68 - 2 people on Air France)
  • Arrive Paris 10:05 pm and spend night there
• Sunday, March 22nd
  • Spend day in Paris
  • Spend night in Paris
• Monday, March 23rd
  • Spend day in Paris
  • Spend night in Paris
• Tuesday, March 24th
  • Spend day in Paris
  • Spend night in Paris
• Wednesday, March 25th
  • Get to airport at 6 am
  • Flight for Rome leaves at 7:15 am ($114 - 2 people on Air France)
  • Arrive Rome at 9:20 am
  • Day in Rome
  • Night in Rome
• Thursday, March 26th
  • Spend day in Rome
  • Spend night in Rome
• Friday, March 27th
  • ? more Rome?
• Saturday, March 28th
  • ? Florence day trip or more Rome?
• Sunday, March 29th
  • ? Get back to Stockholm from wherever we are!
• Monday, March 30th
  • Flight from Stockholm departs at 1:45 pm

Lo,
Thanks for your very helpful post!!

Arrive at Stockholm Arlanda at 5:00 pm local time
Flight to Paris leaves at 7:25 pm ($160.68 - 2 people on Air France)
Arrive Paris 10:05 pm and spend night there

I don't know if you'll have enough time to get to the flight.
1. check the carry-on limits for both flights. If you can't carry everything with you, you will not have time to wait to collect bags and then check them in again.
2. you'll have to go through passport control, find the Air France desk and check in, get boarding passes, then go through security before getting to your gate.
3. If your flight is on time, you get to the gate at 5.00. It can take 10-20 minutes just to get off the plane. The doors to your departing flight will close 15-20 minutes before departure time. There may also be a time limit on when you can check in for the flight.

If there is any delay along the way or any long line (passport, check-in, security) that cuts into the time you have at the airport, you could miss your flight. As a no-show, you will probably lose all the money you paid for the tickets and have to buy full-price tickets for the next flight out (the next day). If you've booked your first night's lodging in Paris, you'll lose that too.

Which is why, in my previous response, I suggested staying overnight at the airport and getting the first flight out in the morning.

If I understand correctly, you have about nine days on the ground in Europe and are flying into Stockholm because that's a cheap option. Flying within Europe can vary from pretty cheap to really expensive, depending upon the route. I would urge you to investigate that, as it may well outweigh the value of flying into Stockholm. It's almost never worth it to fly into and out of a city distant from the places you really want to go for cheap flight. I would target two cities maximum.

•Arrive at Stockholm Arlanda at 5:00 pm local time
•Flight to Paris leaves at 7:25 pm ($160.68 - 2 people on Air France)
•Arrive Paris 10:05 pm and spend night there

I agree with Chani. This will not be possible. 2 hr and 25 min is not enough time to go through passport control, collect bags, customs, check-in with Air France, go through security and get to your gate. You need a later flight to Paris or you need to stay the night in Stockholm.

I have no checked baggage and my check-in for the boarding pass can be done online with my phone, no? Doesn't this make it work? Even if it takes 20 minutes to get off the plane, I still have 2 hours to get to the flight.

I have no checked baggage and my check-in for the boarding pass can be done online with my phone, no? Doesn't this make it work? Even if it takes 20 minutes to get off the plane, I still have 2 hours to get to the flight.

You have to get off the plane, go through immigration, customs, security and to your next gate. That is a lot to get done in two hours and I think you will cut it close or not make it at all. If you miss your flight, Air France owes you nothing.

You aren't allowing enough time to catch another flight. In addition to the time it can take in general, you aren't allowing for any delay in your arriving flight. Since you've been to some of these places already, why not spend your short time in new places. London and Amsterdam would be good choices. You wouldn't have as much time in transit. To return to places you've been for such a short time might not be worth the effort, time and money it takes.

You have gotten such excellent advice that I won't belabor the points already made. There's just one issue that I'll expand on , the between flights time window in Stockholm. Even if your flight lands on time, you can't count on being inside the terminal quickly. Twice, we've had very close connection times. We landed on time; but, then, we sat at a gate for a while and were then told we were waiting for a gate to become free. Sweating bullets doesn't begin to describe the anxiety I felt. By the time we disembarked and RAN through the terminal, our on-going flight was already boarding. Since it was all on one ticket, we didn't have to think about baggage; and had we missed the flight, the airline would have been responsible for rescheduling us. Since it happened to us at least twice, I have to believe it's not terribly uncommon.

I'm still stuck on why you aren't enjoying at least one day in Stockholm, it's not as if it isn't a fabulous city and you'll be there not once but twice and will just see the inside of the airport? Travel time and dollars can be used much more effectively, I think.

Rosalyn and Christa,

I am worried about missing the connection without a doubt, but am thinking about still trying to do it. Christa, would spending just Sunday in Stockholm be worth it? Is anything open that day? In which case, I would NOT try to make that risking connection and would instead leave for Paris on Sunday night instead!

I don't know what you plan to do in Paris, but most places other than museums are closed on Sunday's. Most museums are closed on either Monday or Tuesday. I believe someone already pointed that out. Since you have already been to Paris, what is it you are hoping to do there on this trip?

Hmm, in Paris I would like to see a great deal of cathedrals, go up the Eiffel Tour, go to the Musee d'Orsay, Louvre, and several others, spend a lot of time in Le Marais. I have already been to the Louvre, Notre Dame, Opera Garnier, been on a cruise on the Seine, etc, so a lot of things are out of the way I suppose. I think enough will be open in the time we're there to experience what we want.

Hi,

Reading all this I would also suggest staying the night in Stockholm. Cutting it that close makes me nervous esp in a major international airport unfamiliar to me. I'm going to assume your plane lands on time, which has been my practical experience, except one SFO- FRA , that was one hour late. Then you can't tell how long it will take to get yourself off or when exactly the plane allows you to exit after landing. You land in the afternoon, chances are immigration control will be more crowded. I time my flights from SFO to land over there (FRA, London-Heathrow, or Paris) sometime in the morning as to reduce my chances of having to stand 40 mins or more at Immigration. Maybe you'll get through that in less than 10 mins, or it'll take more than 40.

Here's a radical suggestion- what about staying within Sweden, or at most, also visiting another Scandinavian country?

in Paris I would like to see a great deal of cathedrals

Not to belittle lovely Paris at all but if it's churches you want to see - and I mean churches overflowing with priceless, gorgeous art - then it's Rome and Florence that you want. There is only one (Roman Catholic) cathedral in Paris (Notre Dame) just as there is only one in Rome (St. John Lateran). The rest are basilicas or churches. Because many of Paris' churches were plundered and vandalized during the Revolution, many that I saw had interiors that felt, well, stripped compared to those in Italy. The external architecture tended to be more impressive. Sainte-Chapelle is a jewel, though, and Saint-Sulpice, Saint-Eustache, Saint-Germain-des-Prés, St.-Étienne-du-Mont plus some others are well worth exploring.

Many Italian churches tend to be the opposite: unremarkable on the outside but all frescoes, sculpture and dazzle on the inside, and there's enough valuable art in some of them to be virtual (and free) museums. It's probably a matter of personal interest but I've probably seen over 25 of them in Rome alone, a good amount in Florence, and they never cease to amaze!

The "incredible deal" on the return flights to Stockholm seems to have become a royal pain in the you-know-what. Not too surprising, and really only useful for people actually wanting to visit Scandanavia.

To elaborate/modify a little bit of the information on churches in Paris and Rome… Both have amazing churches, but it's not totally correct to say that the churches in Rome are intact, in comparison with plundered churches in Paris. While Rome didn't have the French Revolution, both Napoleon and later the Italian government systematically seized significant amounts of art and other objects from churches and monasteries. If you doubt that, take a look at the the provenance info in the collection of the Brera gallery in Milan… that gallery was largely created as a home for seized art. A fair amount of what Napoleon seized was returned, and some ended up back in the original churches, while some ended up in museums. Rome does have the four papal basilicas, but both Paris and Rome have wonderful ancient churches.

Absolutely true, Sherry, and a very good point but for some reason they didn't feel quite as emptied of it to me as those in Paris. Maybe because so much of it was painted/carved directly onto the walls and ceilings in Italy.

No doubt that Napoleon known at the time as the mere General Bonaparte had lots of art taken from Venice, Milan, Mantua, and other places in northern Italy to be shipped to Paris when he imposed the peace on the defeated Austrians and, thus, destroyed the First Coalition aligned against Revolutionary France.

My last flight into Europe was 2 hours late...I routinely book train tickets for use immediately after landing in Europe, but NEVER for anything like 2 hours later. Also, the weather can be a problem this time of year; your outbound airplane from Oakland may not arrive from wherever it was supposed to come from due to weather conditions. Once when I arrived in Brussels around March 20th, it was sleeting...so be prepared for anything!

This "incredible deal" may not be as incredible as it first looked...when you have no desire to spend time in nor near Stockholm and you have a very limited time for travel. I suggest seeing what it would cost to change your arrival or departure city. Even with change fees and an up charge, you may not come out all that badly, considering you are now looking at flights that cost $$$ and a lot of time, time that you really don't have.

If you have time, there's a monthly Bay Area travel group meeting on February 14, NOON ( sorry, I had posted 10 a.m. which is the time of Sacramento meeting on third Saturday ) Larkspur Landing, Marin Brewing Company.

Three of those cities in 8 days would still have you scrambling. It sounds like it is your first trip to Europe. Many of us, me included, have made the mistake of overbooking on our first trip to Europe. Promise yourself you will return to see the cities you missed this time. Otherwise you will be in transit most of the time and will see little.

I have been 15 times. Each time I go I get a little smarter and cover less territory, so I can really absorb where I am and not succumb to a frenetic schedule.

You have quite an adventure planned! Personally, I would definitely skip London on this trip. Stay on the continent. Enjoy Paris, Rome and Stockholm. London is a HUGE city, tourist sights are spread out, no real "central" location to stay to be close to it all, expensive, bustling, takes a long time to get around, will be cold/wet/dreary in March, etc., etc. Go to London and then on through the UK on some other trip. As for a "day trip" to Florence, that's probably way too ambitious too, and you won't get to see much of what Florence has to offer in just a few hours (which is all you'd have, realistically). You have to reserve an entry time in advance at the Uffizi, and would be run ragged through a busy, somewhat confusing city with no "fast" transportation in and out.

Just stick to a couple places, do check the open/closed days on museums and other tourist sights. If you stay in Paris for a few days, buy a Museum Pass and a Metro Pass. If you want a relatively 'cheap' (nothing right in Paris is really cheap) hotel right in the middle of the action (Left Bank, Latin Quarter, pedestrian-only street, lots of cheap restaurants), look at the Hotel du Mont Blanc on the Rue de la Huchette. It's one block from the Seine, a couple blocks from Notre Dame, and on the corner are both the train (RER - to airport, Versailles, etc.) and Metro stations. Right there, a few steps away. It's a simple, basic, not fancy, not new, but so convenient, two star hotel. I've stayed there a few times, and the location can't be beat.

If you want more French speaking adventures, consider a day tour to the Loire chateaus out of Paris. It's not all that far, there are bus tours, and the chateaus are magical. Chambord, Chenonceau, Cheverny are the biggies, and you're done. That would give you a wonderful feel of old Europe. Don't bother with Nice that time of year. Stay close to Paris and soak in the history instead of a trendy beach city, possibly in the rain... Or take the RER to Versailles for half a day. LOTS of opportunities to get out of Paris and be in lovely areas, speaking French, but not having to get too far from Paris to pull it off.

Pare down, enjoy, go back again...

It's natural to want to see it all. Trust me, when you try to see too much you actually see, do, and enjoy yourself the least.

If you weren't starting in Stockholm, I'd suggest fly into London, spending four/five nights, train to Paris, spend the rest of your time there before flying home from Paris - no side trips, simply enjoy two great cities.

Since you're starting in Stockholm, my advice, dress warm and enjoy what Stockholm has to offer. We liked the Vasa museum a lot, but I think you will enjoy just meeting Swedish locals and enjoying what they enjoy. Visit the really old, now university town, Uppsala. Take a ferry to see Helsinki and Tallinn (triangle route) for no more than a couple of days you will sail through the really nice archipelago.

That is plenty for ten days. It will give you a great taste of that part of Europe without burning you out against ever attempting a European trip again.