Is it worth it to go to Italy if you only have a week?

More of a general "is anywhere in Europe worth a 12 hr flight to have only one week there?" question.

You don't have to see ALL of Italy in a week. You could do Rome and maybe Naples/Pompeii/Amalfi Coast. Or maybe Rome and Florence. Or Florence and Venice.

If you think you'll NEVER have more than week to travel soon? Then do it. But if you think you'll find 2-3 weeks of vacation time maybe a year afterward? Maybe it's better to wait.

For me, it's definitely worth the 10-12 hours. It's more the $1500 flight that would be a stumbling block. If you can afford the flight, then do it!

From my viewpoint it is always worth the experience! Go to the library and check out Ricks Italy book and pick a location that interests you. Explore that location, maybe taking a day trip someplace else within reach. Don't try to do too much. Take time to savor Italy. I don't know when you are thinking of traveling, but April/May or Sept./Oct might be more enjoyable for a week's stay. If you have to be convinced to go, maybe your heart isn't really in it.

Personally, I rarely travel anywhere for more than a week, maybe a week and a half, because that's the point when I get tired and start missing home. So my answer to "is it worth it?" is a resounding "yes!" You can see a lot in a week, but you can't see everything, so don't even try. Pick two cities - maybe three, if they're small and close together - and focus on those. Or base yourself in one city for the week and take a couple of day trips into the surrounding area. Be realistic about the amount of ground you can cover, and you'll have a great time.

Full disclosure--I love visiting Italy, so I am biased.

But, oh yes, a week in Italy is worth it!

Don't know if this is your first trip to Europe--or Italy--or not. This is assuming you haven't been to Italy before. As others have noted, pick at most 2 locations, but you could, depending on your interests, just stay in one spot and take some day-trips if you'd like. Rome could fill multiple weeks all by itself. Without further info on what your interests are, any sort of specific itinerary suggestions from us would just be guesses. And, yes, try to travel at least in shoulder season, and, better yet (IMHO) off-season.

Adding to the chorus: Always!!

Yes, Italy is worth it! The flight is long, sure, but if that's all the time you have, then work with it. I suggest staying in one place the whole time so you can use your time wisely, with perhaps a day trip. Decide which city means the most to you and go for it! You won't regret going and you will probably regret not going. Good luck!

Absolutely worth it! I used to go on vacation for 2 weeks, but found it sometimes too long and exhausting. Now my trips are usually 7 or 8 days with usually one city, sometimes two. It is a long flight, I fly from the West Coast, but it works better for me. I find it more relaxing because I’m enjoying the city I’m in at a relaxed pace. I have done Rome, Prague and Stockholm most recently for 7 days in each city and have really enjoyed it over previous trips that were longer with more ambitious itineraries. I know I’m going back, hopefully, the next year so I don’t worry too much about trying to see everything on one trip. You can have a great week in any number of amazing cities in Italy. Have a great trip!

Most of the replies above completely miss the point. Andrew H is closest to my approach.

"Is it worth it" is an impossible question to answer, especially without knowing more. Here's how I look at it...

For most of us, a trip to Europe is not something we get to do all the time. The cost of the flight alone is a significant factor. If you have unlimited money, or if you can go to Europe anytime you want, very often, then - sure, go to Rome for the weekend.

But if you can't go as often as you like, you need to "make it count". That means, for the same expensive airfare, you stay longer.

If you don't think you will ever be able to go again, then sure, go for whatever time you can. But if you can cobble together more days there by delaying the trip, then delay the trip, spend more time there, and not only do you see more, you have a better quality trip, too.

Given the fact that I can't go to Europe as often as I'd like, I've set a "personal minimum" of no less than 2 full weeks in Europe (not counting flights and travel time). If I can't squeeze that in, then I'll wait until I can. (For trips to Asia, my minimum is 3 weeks there).

Only you can decide if it's "worth it". Depends on your budget, your ability to go again/another time, and other factors ruling your life.

Absolutely!!! Italy is a magical place for me! We have been 3 times now to Italy and 5 other times to other countries , all with limited days... The first time we went, we only had 6 nights on the ground there. Each time, we have found a way to extend a few days. We are up to 9.. Maybe one day we won't be as limited. I have to keep working so I can afford my next trip!! I know, that seems so limited to most experienced travelers, but for for us , it is all we have.. I say go for it!!

Have you looked at RS tours ? He has a week of Rome tour that is 7 days. Maybe that is an option.

Hi Paige:

From previous posts, it looked like you had a much longer trip planned. Perhaps if you can share what changes need to be made, the forum can help.

There have been good posts on what to consider and weighing your options.

As much as we love Italy ... we don't like to fly to Europe for less than three to five weeks. But at 70+ we tend toward slow travel, and we HAVE the available time.

For 7 days, one location might be ideal. (No changing hotels and wrestling baggage on trains/planes.)

do whatever you want as long as you are not knowingly hurting someone or something
there are people that travel like that for their jobs that do not enjoy it but have know choice

My thinking is the same as David's. If the limiting factor is a short-term situation, I would definitely wait to travel until I could make a longer trip. If it's something like job or family responsibilities that are expected to continue for quite some time, I would go somewhere, but it might be a place that doesn't require such a long (and overnight) flight--e.g., Canada. If it's a financial,issue, I would definitely postpone the trip and save money like mad in the meantime.

I'm recently retired, but when I was working vacation time was limited. We found that leaving Friday after work and returning the following Sunday worked well for us. That would only use up 1 week of vacation time, but we'd have 7.5 days on the ground. We're in Michigan so our flights aren't quite as long, particularly since we were always willing to spend more for non-stop. And those first few days back to work were a little rough. But so what? We got to go to Europe for 9 years in a row without waiting for retirement! We planned our itineraries carefully and we're the types that like to go go anyway. Now that we're retired we'll extend to 2 weeks, but probably not longer.

If it's 7 nights, and you can handle the cost and the associated jet lag, go for it!

But...I'm of a mind that for that relatively short amount of time you should have one base only, with the ability for daytrips off that base. Some options for excursions, none more than 2 hours each way, most are less time than that, from north to south:

Venice--Verona, Modena, Bologna, the Lake Garda district, even Trieste on the Italo/Slovenia border.

Florence--Fiesole, Lucca, Siena, the Tuscan countryside, and it's only 2 hours to Venice if you want to do it.

Rome--other than Orvieto in Umbria, I'm staying put. You could spend a month here and not come close to seeing everything. My #1 choice.

Amalfi Coast--stay in Sorrento, easy access to the A.C. itself (Sorrento is on the other side of the peninsula, technically not on the A.C.), Positano, Amalfi, Salerno, Paestum, Pompei, Ercolano, Naples, Capri.

Not changing hotels or B&B's maximizes your time on the ground enjoying yourself. And it's a little place to come back to at night and call home. An apartment rental would be a perfect example of this.

Enjoy your planning!

Where do you fly from that makes it a 12 hour flight? Just curious, it is a lot shorter from the east coast for us. Since you have only five days to take off, I'm assuming you would fly out Friday night or early Saturday and fly back the following Sunday.

You could have a very nice experience in that length of time as long as you try not to cram in too much. I'd concentrate on one experience in one region. The Amalfi Coast would be one possibility, but it would depend on the time of year in my opinion.

Where could you go that would have a significantly shorter flight time? In the scheme of things, is six or so hours on each travel day the real constraining factor? You'd still just have 5 days on the ground wherever you went.

Since you are already having a long trip to Italy, if you waited 6 months or even a year, could you extend your time off to 10 days (or more) instead of 5? If so, I'd really consider waiting, if possible. I get the feeling your Italy trip in September will put things in perspective for you.

YES, it's worth going to 1-2 places in Italy for a week. I've gone to Paris for 3 nights before, and it was worth it (but the ticket was on miles so I didn't pay out of pocket, and from Chicago it's more like 9 hours). I've also gone to Rome for 6 nights and that was the entire trip. 3 nights wouldn't be worth it to everyone, but 6-7 definitely is if you are coming from the US/Canada. The key is to limit the places you see to 1-3 max (1-2 is ideal), fly open jaw if going to 2 places (into Rome, out of Venice, for example), and minimize transit time. So going to some far flung place that is a 6 hour drive from the airport may not be worth it. Staying in the city where you fly into would be.

Actually, I love week long trips where I stay in one place. Allows me to get a very good sense of a place, and getting familiar with Rome is a wonderful way to spend a week!

Paige, it looks like you've edited your original post and filled in a few more details. :O)

If I read it correctly, this is trip going to be AFTER your 3-weeker in Italy this fall, right? Do you have a specific time of the year that you're looking at? I'm asking because it sounds like you might be planning both for 2018 (if your vacation days from work are figured from Jan 1 to Jan 1) and I'm not sure the Amalfi in winter is the best idea, Depends, I guess on what you want to see/do and bow you want to get around?

Also, where are you flying from? We can't, say, fly Italy direct from our city (Minneapolis) so transport to that country adds time. Depending on where you're located, you could consider a country you could fly direct to and which didn't take as long in the air, as you'd mentioned in your opening post?

IMO, any travel is better than no travel. I used to take long weekends regularly to the UK. Granted, I'm on the east coast, but if you have a direct, 10-12 hour flight, you are more apt to be able to sleep on the flight. Night is longer than your flight so that should work well. Coming home, the time change allows you to leave later on the last day and still get home for some decent sleep before returning to work. Bottomline, your flight time does not have that much of an effect on your days on the ground if you pick a decently timed overnight flight; i.e., leaves around 9-10:00 PM and arrives around 8-9:00 AM. IMO

Now I have a question for you for further clarification: if you are only allowed to take 5 days off, are they not Mon-Fri, with weekends free? Because if they are, why wouldn't you have 9 days for the trip?

I'm looking at it from a different angle. When I read through the original post the OP indicates the shorter trip will include parents.
If this is something that is important to your parents, then I would definitely go if it was affordable.

My honest opinion is no, it isn't worth it. I think a minimum of 12 days on the ground, exclusive of arrival and departure days, is what I'd need to justify the flight to Europe. The flight expense and jet lag contribute to this. With just 7 days, I'd look at either a domestic trip or somewhere in North America, Central America, or the Caribbean.

But, that's just me. It takes me at least a day to get over jet lag. Plus, even though fares to Europe are lower than they used to be, it is still an investment. At least out of Chicago, I can usually get to Mexico, Costa Rica, or Canada for about 1/3 of the cost of a flight ticket to Europe.

It's not nearly as far as Italy, but in 2016 I went to London and environs for 7 days including flight days! My husband had a meeting and would only add 1 vacation day to his time away from work. But I had a great trip-we went to the National Gallery and tea at F&M the day we arrived(and I flew in coach). The next morning I went to Salisbury by myself, then went to Bath the next day and stored my luggage until I left for Cardiff late that afternoon, went to St. Fagan's the next day. My husband joined me in Cardiff that night and we went to Caerphilly the next day and then spent that night in London and flew home the next day. So a short trip can definitely be better than no trip at all. One advantage of a short trip is that you are fresh instead of already being tired from earlier travels (at the end of a 2 week trip).