spancha

Trying to plan a first time trip for family from Los Angeles to Europe - (us and our 2 boys 14 & 9) in April - and get the maximum out of it since we aren't likely to be able to do it again soon!

Would an itinerary like this make sense - 3 days in London, 3 days in Paris and 2 days in Rome? Among the questions -

- Do the number of days in each place seem right? Our interests are just sightseeing, museums, and just experiencing the places!
- Any suggestions for itineraries that will hit the high spots in each of these places for these days?
- What will the weather be like in the first 10 days of April?
- What kind of train travel options are best to consider - assuming I can fly in to London - train to Paris - train to Rome - and fly out of Rome - is that the right sequence, or should it be the other way round? Does it matter?
- I am planning to use up all my miles/ hotel points for travel and accommodation - how much should I budget for other expenses like train, food etc.?
- Any other suggestions/comments?

Thanks very much for any help - I've been browsing this forum today, and realize that other topics will probably provide many of the answers - I'll continue doing that!

Danielle811

Though I completely understanding wanting to see as much as possible in the time that you have in Europe, I would advise that you split your time between two of the cities (London and Paris would probably the easiest). Flying into London and out of Paris and taking the Eurostar train between the two gives you time to explore both cities. If you try and stretch your time to include a third city (Rome), especially for two days, you'll spend as much time in transit to the city as you would sightseeing.

Michel_Paris

Agree to the above.

First day land, need to find way to hotel, jet lag...you lose 1/2 day. Last day, you are going to airport, need to get there hours before flight...lose that day too.

A rule of thumb people here use is that you lose 1/2 day every time you change cities.

Less...is more. London Paris is a nice combo. Fly into London, Eurostar to Paris, fly home from Paris.

You will not, by any means, see all of these cities in the time you have. You could, if need be, take a trip outside of the city (e.g. Hampton Court or Versailles).

Trying to put too much into a trip means you've "seen" places, staying longer means you've "experienced" places.

It can be done as you list it...but I think you will come back here and tell us of your regrets.

jamikins

I agree...pick two places. When you move locations, you will lose approx. 1/2 a day maybe more with flights etc. Less is truely more as you will see more of Europe, and less of the inside of airports/trains etc.

janisj

Ditto. Two cities max. You would not have 3 days London, 3 days Paris, 2 days Rome. Since you lose about 1/2 a day every time you move cities - you'd have 2.5 days in either London or Paris (depending on which train you catch) and 1.5 days in Rome. And less if you took a train from Paris to Rome.

You'd barely have time to catch your breath before moving on.

"<i>get the maximum out of it since we aren't likely to be able to do it again soon! </i>"

many first timers have the same idea - but in fact the more you move around,, the <u>less</u> you get to see. All that packing/unpacking, checking in/checking out, and travel eat up a lot of your sightseeing time.

christabir

Ditto. You'll go back.

sjj

Here's one more vote in favor of two cities, not three. My wife and I would pick Paris and Rome over Paris and London, but either combination works. With three cities you're spending too much time in travel, in packing and unpacking, and in finding your way around.

I gather you're at an early stage of your planning. I suggest you pay careful attention to where you stay. Closeness to tourist attractions and to transportation hubs can save a lot of time and aggravation, particularly with kids as young as yours. I also suggest coming back to this forum for help with specific questions. Have a nice trip.

Michel_Paris

What do the boys want to see? Maybe giving them some guidebooks and letting them pick out what they are interested in would help....

There are also some good threads here about parents with kids visiting those three cities, they might help decide where to go.

Nikki

Another vote for limiting the trip to two cities. If it is Paris and London, you fly into London, take the Eurostar train to Paris, and fly home from Paris. The tickets for the Eurostar are much more expensive if you purchase them closer to the time of travel, so you should decide ahead of time and order them as soon as possible.

If it is Rome and one of the other two cities, you fly into one and home from the other. To find those schedules when searching for flights, use the multi-city option. Between the two cities in Europe, you can search for flights on budget airlines at www.whichbudget.com.

Weather in Paris and London at the beginning of April is highly variable and can be pretty chilly. Warmer in Rome.

poutine

I will echo everyone else by saying London and Paris. We spent 9 days in London then 5 in Paris and missed a lot of sites. You won't be bored!

Plus, you do you really want to hit Rome at Easter?

janisj

BTW - even cutting back to ONE city would be a decent option. 8 days (plus transatlantic travel days = 10 days) in London or Paris w/ one or two day trips out into the countryside would be a wonderful way to spend your 10 days.

Two cities is also a good choice, but still a bit rushed since you'd only have 3.5 days in one of them.

Three cities is just not reasonable.

StCirq

Nope, agree with all the others. You won't have time to see or appreciate much of anything in any of those places. Pick one, two at the most.

spancha

Thanks for helping me make up my mind - I don't think I can ignore the unanimous opinion that came back from this forum that it should be 2 cities and not 3 - maybe we will go back later! And I didn't think of Easter at all!

London and Paris it is - 4 or 5 days in each. I think I'll go ahead and book the tickets - and come back to this group with specific questions on the itinerary later. I'd like to see if I can do at least one out-of-town trip in each place - don't know where.

Thanks

azzure

Why only 10 days? If you could just stretch your vacation a bit to 2 weeks, you could probably do the itinerary you first suggested. I just think that the time and expense of flying from Los Angeles to Europe calls for more time spent overseas...don't forget a couple of days of your ten (actually nine) may be affected by jetlag issues.

Michel_Paris

As stated above, you could do all your time in one of the cities, but two will give you some variety.

I'd plan your itinerary for the full stay, pick the one out of town you'd like to do, then play it by ear. You may find that once there you want to just do nothing but an easy wander on a day, so dropping the out of town may happen and you move some plans around (or weather may happen!)

I've had trips where I woke up knowing I had planned soemthing for the day, but decided...nope, just going to go to XXX and wander a bit, have lunch, maybe a walking tour. Those can be the interesting days because you let serendipity happen.

nytraveler

You have enough time to do a little of 2 cities - preferably London and Paris - since getting to rome will involved either another flight or an overnight train trip.

IMHO 4 days each is minimum for London or Paris (I would say 6 - but know some people like to move quickly) and 3 for Rome. So that is 11 days, plus 1 from London to Paris and another from Paris to rome - so 13 days plus the day yo arrive and the day you leave.

Have done the London and Paris trip in 2 weeks with an 11 and 14 year old and it worked very well. Fewer days would have been problematic - esp given some of the places they wanted to see. (I hope you're getting your kids involved in this - so they are looking forward to certain places - not just tagging along.)

As for weather in early April likely rainy and a little chilly (perhaps a windbreaker and a light sweater - esp at night). Or - if your only reference is LA perhaps more than a little chilly.

tru_echo

I'm doing London, Paris and Venice (after deciding to cut out a couple of other cities for a better experience in the cities I do get to) and I've got 16 days (not counting my flying days). The more I look into the cities I've chosen the more I wish I had even more time. My advice would be to look into what you really want to do in each city and see how long it will take you to see those things. You'll most likely find that it's best to pick just 2 cities but if not at least you'll have 3 days per city plus a travel day between Paris and Rome. I found that I couldn't cut London to less than 7 days (and there's still so much I won't get to do) and I'll be spending 4 days each in Paris & Venice. Whatever you decide, have a great trip!

Leburta

The weather is variable from year to year. I remember one year where it snowed as we trained from Rome to Florence in late March. It was chilly in Paris on April 7 (for the Paris Marathon), and snowed in Paris the week after we left! Just be prepared for some chill and check the weather forecast before you leave the States.

jgg

We did London/Paris with our kids when they were 10 and 13. It was a fabulous trip. Here is a link to my trip report which gives a lot of details on where we stayed, what we did and where we ate. http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...ma-grandpa.cfm.

We were there the last two weeks in March and it was quite cold. The key, particularly with London, if it is cold is to try to stay fairly close to a tube stop then you can really cut down on walking in the cold.

yn0t

I'm thinking of flying into London on a early morning flight and spend the day to see a few sights in London. Then take the train from London to Paris that same night. Spend 5-6 days in Paris and then head to another city in Italy (either Florence or Venice or both) for 4 days. Just curious what you ended up doing and if it's something that can be done? If so, is it better to take the train to Florence then Venice or not?