Train or Plane traveling to London, Paris, Venice & Rome

Fly into London, train to Paris, fly to Venice, train to Rome, fly home. (Or vice versa if the airfare or flights are better.)

You want an "open jaw" ticket or "multi-city" ticket for London and Rome, not two one-way flights. Buy the Paris to Venice ticket one-way ticket separately.

This is a lot to do in 14 days and I probably wouldn't do it - three cities in 14 days or add more time. Too much time lost traveling between cities, and these are all enormous cities that take time to get your bearings in.

I completely agree with Andrew, on both the logistics and the inadvisability of cramming so much into this trip. You will see less, not more, by doing this, because you'll spend so much time in transit.

How many nights will you have in Europe--not counting the one you spend on the plane? Figure your arrival day isn't worth much from the sightseeing perspective because of sleep-deprivation and jetlag. Figure every day you change cities leaves you with just a few hours to sightsee. And of course the day you fly home will be dedicated to packing up, eating breakfast, and getting to the airport. How many full sightseeing days do you have left? Divide by four. Believe me, you won't have three or four days per country; it will be more like two. You could spend two weeks in London, Paris and Rome and not run out of things to do.

With the time you have, I'd just visit London and Paris. You'd have time for a day-trip or two from each city. Or I'd go to Italy, depending on the time of year.

I agree with Andrew on all points. His travel itinerary makes the most sense. But I especially agree that you have too many places for the allotted time. You have 4 travel days in that 2 week period, meaning you'll only have a few usable touring hours on those days. While Venice can easily be enjoyed in 3 days, all of your other cities deserve much more time just to scratch the surface. I'd recommend either adding extra days or cutting one city.

You are likely find it much easier to travel home from Rome, as there are direct flights to Atlanta. There are many flights Paris to Venice. Easyjet has several a day from both Orly and CDG for 50 EUR.

Agree with the above generally, but...

I would suggest you either extend your trip by at least a few days (preferably) or cut back your itinerary. Be sure when you're "counting days" that you do not count your arrival day ion Europe or your departure day (no matter what time the flights are). Also consider that when you change locations, that day is mostly consumed just by the basic mundane tasks associated with getting out of one place and into another, life, survival, etc. So, in your proposed itinerary, you would have 3 days that would be more-or-less consumed by travel - that's not counting your arrival/departure days. That doesn't leave you that many days for those 4 locations. Keep in mind you have picked the biggest, most attraction-packed cities in Europe, and I think once you get there you will want more than a couple days in each.

Personally, I think novice travelers often design themselves a trip that is just too short. Unless you get to go to Europe frequently, given the cost and work it takes to get there and back, I think it almost always makes sense to be there for at least two full weeks (which means a trip of at least 14 days) - that's a bare minimum. You will enjoy your trip a lot more if you stay a few more days.

Or, here's an alternative: Your proposed trip really has two logical groupings: London/Paris, and Venice/Rome. Each of these city pairs are easily connected by train (avoiding flights saves you part of a day). They also have plenty of attractions, enough to keep you busy for a week or more. And, they also have lots of highly worthwhile other cities/places nearby. Consider choosing one of these groups, not both: London and Paris, or Venice and Rome (plus maybe one more location that's easily connected to either of these groups - there are plenty of great choices). You can slow down, take a day trip or two to a smaller/another location, and get more out of the region, rather than just barely skimming a tiny piece of the surface. Then save the other grouping for the next trip.

I didn't see a mention of what part of the year you are planning to go. That's another factor to consider. Personally, I would not go to Italy in the summer (too crowded and way too hot for me). OTOH, if you're going in March or October, I'd skip London/Paris and head for Italy.

Hope that helps.

hey scorbin
What time of the year is this trip? You say approx 14 days, what does that mean? You want 3-4 days per city, but you haven’t counted travel days. This is too scattered for a short time. I’d pick Paris/London or Rome/Venice. Get a guide book, and check cities out, it’s my three cents worth.
Aloha

Unanimity--ain't it grand?

We had 14 days last summer and split it equally between London and Paris and loved it. We took the Eurostar and it was great! There are so many things to do in each city that 14 days would not be too much.

Thank you...Thank You everyone for your feedback.... I'm in the very early stages of planning so your insight and experienced feedback is extremely helpful. I failed to mention that we're planning this trip for July 2019. I know its not the ideal time to travel to Europe... We're taking our 14 yo (who also happens to love history) but we're on american school schedule. So it sounds like for 2 wks we should consider only traveling to 1 pair...either London/Paris or Venice/Rome. For July 2019 which pair would you choose considering culture/history things to do/see...I know back to back museums w/my 14yo may not maintain his attention span...thinking more outdoor cultural sights more enjoyable and less time spent in 4-5hr hr museum visits museums may be a more enjoyable use of his/our time. Between London/Paris or Venice/Rome. For July 2019 which pair would you choose considering culture/history things to do/see. thanks in advance!

The natural inclination of many on this site is to suggest that you should always go slower and slower. If you proposed a month stay in Rome, some would claim that was too fast. I do not seen anything wrong with what you have proposed. You only have three travel days out of 14 and that is not too bad since two of the days would be easy. EasyJet for your travel to Venice is nice discount airline to use. London to Paris and Venice to Rome are train trips of about three hours so you are not losing a whole day. The only day that is truly lost will be the flight to Venice from Paris. If you did three nights in each you would get a decent taste and make for a good excuse for a return trip. Maybe a tad faster than what we would do, but it not as unreasonable as many other trips that have been posted here.

I'd do London + Paris (plus maybe side trips). It won't be as hot at Italy. There's certainly plenty of history fun in/around both. Also, starting in London removes most of the intimidating language/cultural fears (these fears are largely unjustified, but starting in someplace where they speak English, and a place with which Americans have so many cultural connections, should remove a lot of the perceived challenges) - after that, Paris and the Continent should be less intimidating.

Fly in to London, train to Paris, and fly home from Paris. Lots of options to/from both from Atlanta.

I agree with David, because of the weather. If you find yourself thinking, "Aww, I want to go to Italy", you can do that, but I'd suggest perhaps including a few days up in the Dolomites where the altitude pretty much guarantees you won't have 90F weather, which is a risk just about anywhere else in Italy during mid-summer.

One of the advantages of reducing the geographical scope of the trip is that it makes spending a few days in smaller towns or rural areas more reasonable. I like to have that sort of variety, much as I love overdosing on big-city museums.

Another vote for London-Paris.

London is a fantastic city to explore and even though you believe the 14 year old might waver regarding museums I suspect they’ll be of interest considering. Most museums are free. Museum of London and the Museum of Transport are my favorites.

Every type of food is available because of the city’s diverse ethnic makeup. Fun pop ups, pub grub ( the 14 year old will be allowed ), and street market stalls compliment cafes and restaurants.

Great street markets; Camden Lock, Portobello, Spitafields and Brick Lane. Lots of eye candy.

Not often experienced things to consider seeing are the interior of Liberty Department Store, Tower Bridge
( https://www.towerbridge.org.uk/lift-times/), the Emirates Gondola line, the grave of Karl Marx, in the eerie Highgate cemetary ( need reservations) standing on the Greenwich Mean Line, Grant museum of zoology, any of the London Walks which meet your fancy ( www.walks.com), touring Parliament, theatre and the Ceremony of the Keys at th Tower of London.

It’s an exciting city for a family to explore. Take a gander at Ricks London guidebook. Talk with the 14 year. What are each of you truly interested in seeing?

Easy day trips from London include Brighton and Hampton Court.

I could go on and on about London, my favorite city on the planet. Suffice it to say I think for this first European sojourn for the 14 year old and your return after 20 years that starting in London, taking the Eurostar to Paris and flying home from there is your best choice.

Just remember to pre book tickets for popular sites
Westminster Abbey ( do the verges tour) , look now about tickets for Ceremony of the Keys, same with touring Parliament. Use Timeout London and Paris online. Great travel resource. Same with food blogs.

Enjoy.

I am in the 'pick two' camp. ( either London & Paris, or Italy)

Do you have ancestral ties to any of the choices? My grandparents being from Italy, predispose me to choose Italy; you may have a reason to choose differently.

As mentioned above, do 'open jaw' flights to eliminate unnecessary backtracking.

Marx is in the eastern half of Highgate Cemetery, which does not require you to join a guided tour. The western half, which is more architecturally spectacular but has fewer celebrities, requires a guided tour, but there is not usually any need to book in advance.

I was able to walk up to Highgate and take a tour leaving in about 15 minutes, but the tours are not hourly, so it's worth planning ahead if you want to take the tour.

I would pick London and Paris. I do also love Venice and Rome but it will be so hot. We were there with our kids ( 12 and 9) in July and it was great. We did rent an apartment in both cities and we loved that as it gave us the opportunity to have more space and also as we had laundry, to just bring carry on size luggage for the 2 weeks. We went to Hampton Court which my kids loved. I highly recommend. If your son was ever into Harry Potter I also highly recommend the WB studio our ( buy tickets wayyy early)
Another highlight for us in London was the Churchill war rooms. We spent 3 hours there. If your son is into history, I would look into buying tickets ahead of time as well. Tower of London is always a good one as well .

In Paris, we did Versailles and the Catacombs which were both great. Our favourite part of Versailles was renting bikes and biking the grounds. We also spent one day at Disney Paris which was great fun. We also did the Eiffel Tower and Arc de Triumph. So many things to do and see every if you are not a museum person ( We are not big museum people either)