itinerary / transportation help

The problem with buying a round-trip Chicago-Zurich-Chicago flight and then flying on to Italy is that you will have an unprotected connection in both directions. If something goes wrong on the outbound transatlantic flight (it could even be canceled completely or massively rescheduled), you will miss the hop to Italy and have to buy a new, last-minute (probably expensive) ticket. On the return you'll have to be very careful, because a delay on the return to Switzerland could cause you to miss your return transatlantic flight, and you really, really don't want to have to buy a last-minute, one-way ticket back to Chicago.

What I would do is use an airfare search website like Google Flights and see what comes up for "multi-city" flights into Venice and home from Milan. (You can also check Florence and Pisa, which is a larger airport near Florence.) You apparently are going to need some sort of connection; this will make the connecting flights part of a single ticket, so if there's a delay or a schedule change, the airline has to get you to your destination without your buying a new ticket. You may (I suspect you will) find the cheapest fares involve transfers in places other than Zurich. Some airports are easier than others for transfers. Quite a lot of people on this forum try to avoid London-Heathrow and Paris-CDG.

I'm suggesting flying into Venice and out of Milan rather than the reverse, because so many flights from Venice connecting to transatlantic flights depart at horribly early hours, requiring incredibly early wake-up calls and very expensive private transportation (water taxi) to the Venice airport.

That said, many of Europe's most beautiful rail lines are in Switzerland, so there's some lovely scenery between Zurich and Italy. However, seeing the best might entail taking a slow routing with a lot of transfers, because there's not a lot of scenery inside tunnels. Since you have another trip planned to Switzerland, I don't think it's so critical to travel between Switzerland and Italy by rail.

I understand the appeal of flying non-stop to get to Europe, and that there aren't always the best options to do so. However, would it work for you to fly to Zurich to get there, but then fly home from another city?

For example, if you do option 1 and go to Zurich, Florence, Venice, and Milan in that order, it seems to be more efficient just to fly home from Milan. Even though you'd probably have to change planes at some point to get back to Chicago, that seems more timesaving then training it all the way to Zurich just to fly non-stop back home. Good luck, sounds like a fun trip - Italy is wonderful!

(My traveling companions use credit card points to pay for hotels so bigger cities make the most sense for us.)

You may want to look at where those hotels are located and see how close they are to the tourist part of the city. The cost of a taxi or bus may not be great, but the time commuting is irreplaceable. If you want to take a midday break to rest/refresh you may not be near your hotel, leaving you with the choice to plod on in a tired state or lose even more time commuting. Just a thought.

As for flights, I would look at doing a multi-city ( 'open jaw') of into Venice and out from Milan. (Milan probably will have more choices than Florence for US bound connecting flights.) I would not fly to Zurich and then try to cobble together transportation to/from Italy.

Happy planning!

Have you thought about flying to the East coast, spend the night at a hotel near the airport and the next day fly nonstop from there? We do that since we live in the west.

I would file the whole idea of flights in a "to do later" folder and tuck it away until at least March '21. With the international flight reductions and cancellations right now, travel is much more complicated. IF, and it's still a big IF, the virus is better contained by spring, you may find many more flight options available to you. But I will agree with some of the others that you should be looking at multicity (open jaw) flights with connections rather than round trips.

We're in a similar situation flying out of Denver. Have started organizing our own trips by flying into London as our first leg (non-stop overnight). The flights typically arrive around midday which allows us to stay overnight at Heathrow in a very nice (and cheap) Premier Inn near terminal 4. After getting a good night's sleep in a real bed we push on the next morning to our final destination (seperate tickets) taking advantage of the cheap prices from London to just about anywhere on the continent.
We've found that non-stops into London are a lot more plentiful, and cheaper, than trying to do this in one gulp, plus the overnighter at Heathrow really helps us to acclimate quickly, shed our jet lag, and arrive at our destination refreshed and healthy rather than completely wasted as is usually the case at our age.
Might see if something similar would work out of Ohare.

Robert has an interesting idea above, which I haven't seen here before, but it does require a separate booking for the connecting flight to Italy. That means you're not protected if you miss that connection. However, you're much less likely to miss it if it's not till the next day. But to make economic sense you'll need cheap fares for that onward flight. Maybe simpler to do as others suggested, fly "open jaw" to and from different Italian cities, preferably on the same airline, looking for at least several hours' layover at a European hub like Heathrow, CDG, Amsterdam, or Frankfurt (those are the hubs serving Seattle, you probably have more choices).

I agree with acraven about starting in Venice and finishing in Milan, for the reasons she gave. Also, at least for me, Venice was a wonderful introduction to Italy. Getting off the bus at Piazzale Roma I encountered a world of boats and pedestrian streets, quieter and slower paced, nicely suited for getting over jet lag. A water taxi from the airport gets you into that world sooner at much higher cost.

Trains between Venice, Florence, and Milan take 2 - 2 1/2 hours, definitely the way to go whichever triangle you choose. Save Zurich for your trip to Switzerland, whenever it happens.

EDIT -- I wouldn't recommend a layover in an eastern US city. You'll lose part of the time-saving benefit of the northern transatlantic route (more help to me than to you). Also, if you miss your second flight, at least you're in Europe with a lot more options to get to Italy than if you're in NY or Boston or someplace like that. That logic also applies to your return flights -- if you can find one from Italy to a US airport you'll be in the US if you miss the connection, with more ways to get home. General principle is to cross the ocean first if possible.

I’m starting to plan for a March/April 2022 trip to Italy.

Those dates are so far distant that I'm wondering why you're even considering what's out there right now? A LOT can happen between now and then.

You ought to be able to get from Chicago to somewhere in Northern Italy in 2 flights off season. I would think you would have a choice of arriving at multiple cities. If this were my trip, I would want a protected ticket, in other words a ticket that would include both segments. With a protected ticket, the airline will have to get you on a new flight and pay for overnight accommodation, if needed, if you miss your connection.

In figuring out which city to use for your connection, I would choose a city with a lot of flight choices: we’ve used Heathrow and Frankfurt. We missed a connection at Heathrow (flight delays due to fog last January) and British Air did all the arrangements for us (so much better than what I would expect in the US). They still got us home in one day, which amazed me because we were quite late and a lot of customers needed rebooking that day.

I don’t think I would worry about the details right now. When you get closer to 2022, hopefully there will be more flight choices. When I book a trip like this, I just keep plugging in a lot of options, and see what comes out best.

I don’t see any advantage in doing the last leg by train. For a short distance, yes, but not Zurich to Italy.

I encourage everyone to buy the RS book EUROPE THROUGH THE BACK DOOR. You can get it here, or sometimes it's cheaper on Amazon. You'll learn a TON, we read it every time we go to Europe. MultiCity flights are the way to go. Always best to fly into one city and out of another, that way you don't circle back.

Fly to JFK!

Frankfurt is an excellent gateway to Europe if you can get there in one shop from Chicago.... connections to everywhere from there.

I'd suggest you figure out the date of Easter that year, then decide which area you want/don't want to be for Easter. Many things are closed Easter Sunday and Monday in Catholic countries. We were in Venice on Good Friday in 2019, [seems like a lifetime ago], and the schools must have been out, as it was extra crowded that day. However, you may want to visit a cathedral for Easter services, which can be a beautiful experience with the orchestras and choirs, even for the non-religious.
We found the March transitioning into April weather a bit unpredictable: one day spring, one day winter. If possible, I'd recommend more mid to late April. This also gives the gardens and trees more time to sprout leaves/blooms.
Have a wonderful trip, as we all dream of traveling in 2022!

Using Google Flights, it looks like non-stop round-trip flights Chicago-Rome-Chicago start on March 28, 2021. When you do a RT search, click on Dates and you will get a calendar that shows prices for different departure and return date combinations. I used March 31 and April 22. RT Rome is the shortest flying time both directions.

I tried searching for multi-city flights, into Venice (March 31) and back from Milan (April 22). The results are not so great. All are shown with stops in other cities, including Zurich, enroute. Via Munich appears to be about 2 hours shorter than via Zurich, but going back to Chicago from Milan, the flight time is about the same.

I agree that it is waaaay too early to be worrying about this now, and that things will change dramatically over the next couple of years.

Having said that, it seems to me that a RT Rome flight would be much less complicated than flying to or through Zurich. With the wonderful trains in Italy, especially the fast Freccia ones, it would take much less total time than the Zurich or Munich routes. It would also be more fun.

For your Venice hotel, make sure it is actual Venice, not in Mestre.

When I flight to America I am not focused on a specific airport, but I check different companies to find the better cost/time solution. You can fly in Zurich, but even Paris, London, Frankfurt, Brussel, Madrid... Maybe the flight itself is a little longer, but there is probably only an half of hour of difference, because the taking-off / landing procedures are the same and take the same time.

Train or airplane? Airplane is faster, but airports are located far from the center of the cities and usually connected through an expensive mean of transport. The train station is instead usually located almost in the center of a city. Think even all the procedures before and after a flight: you need to arrive two hours before, do check-in, passport control, scan control, move to the airplane, waiting for luggage, check-out. You lose at least two or three hours for each flight. For a train you can easily arrive ten minutes before and go directly on board.
In Italy the bullet train (Freccia or Italo) are usually very reliable as time, so use them between cities is in general much easier than a flight. Of course if we are talking of a travel not more than 3/4 hours longer than on a plane. Of course depends even if you are just in the airport or you are in the hotel: if you are at the airport is much easier catch a second flight than reach the train station (except the airports where an important train station is present inside, like Rome for example).

Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond!! I should have stressed more that we are really, really, really hoping to avoid connecting flights. So, an open-jaw ticket is only appealing to us if it involves nonstop flights. For our particular group of travelers, I think the less time in the air and airports the better. The trains just seem less stressful and way more comfortable.

Yes it’s still super early, but we’re early bookers so we’ll probably book this trip 10 –11 months ahead of time.

Thanks again for all the responses!! If anyone has any creative ideas involving trains I’d love to hear them. 😊

We depart from Chicago as well and also prefer non-stop flights, but if you can't get that my advice is to get on the right continent with the first leg of your trip. That way if there is a problem with the connection you have regional airlines or even trains at your disposal to get where you need to go.

Like Kathy said, the whole airline industry is in a mess for the foreseeable future, and any plan you make now is unlikely to look the same in 2022. Some if not many airlines may be bankrupt, out of business, merged or otherwise gone. No reason to assume the current or past flight schedules will still be the same.

If your group may have trouble with a plane change, I can't see how taking trains will be easier. It's all moot until the schedules get sorted out--the pandemic is so far from over--but consider how moving luggage (which will be heavier in the cool part of spring) will be a factor. But if you are going to spend time in Switzerland and not just change to train, then your proposal make sense.