jenblase

So I just put on hold FF tickets for next year (oneworld ticket) flying into London, then London to Amsterdam, then Paris to Chicago.

To get from Amsterdam to Paris, we plan on taking a train to Brugge, then another train from Brugge/Brussels to Paris.

We have two weeks with which to play. Right now my starting/ending dates are May 23 to June 6, but I may bump these to later in June (to take advantage of warmer weather) as the dates on AA become available.

How would you suggest I break this up? I was thinking:

May 24-May 29 - 5 days in London
May 29 would be the flight to Amsterdam
3 nights in Amsterdam? Train to Brugge on June 1.
1 night in Brugge, 1 night in Brussels. Train to Paris on June 3
3 nights in Paris - depart Paris on June 6

We were just in Paris last year, so I don't need a lot of time there - I know my husband would be happy with fewer than 3 nights. The London portion is what vexes me - what if we wanted to visit Bath and some other areas of England - would the 5 days I have scheduled now be enough to fit those in as well?

Other areas we should see in England would be appreciated as well - since theoretically we could spend more time out of the 2 weeks just in England.

janisj

I'd suggest you bite the bullet and cut a night from A'dam and Brussels (or a night from Paris if your husband REALLY doesn't enjoy the city) and add them to London.

Not because those other cities aren't great - but because you are cutting London too short if you want day trip(s) too.

Your first day will be pretty jet lagged so you won't have a full day free. Then if you spend even just one day out of the city you are down to 3 full days for all of London. If you want to take an overnight out of London - say to Bath/Stonehenge/Salisbury or the Cotswolds - then you are down to 2 days for London.

There are a hundred other places you could go in England - but even w/ 2 added days you don't have a lot of time for touring around.

You could of course spend the entire time in England and only see a tiny fraction.

So basically - decide which is more important to you -- seeing all those cities, or exploring a bit of England.

zeppole

I would pick Antwerpen over Brussels.

jenblase

Thanks, Zeppole. The reason I said Brussels is because I have been there before and actually liked it quite much. I really want to show my husband Grand Place.

jenblase

Oops, thanks JanisJ, didn't initially see your response.

The more and more I've been hunting around Fodors tonight, the more and more I'm thinking we should maybe cut out Paris entirely this time and spend a week or more in London and environs.

bettyk

I concur with spending more time in London or in England. Two weeks isn't a lot of time and I think you are trying to see too many places.

jenblase

Thanks, Betty. I'm now leaning towards flying directly out of Brussels now - direct flight into Chicago if I can get it.

zeppole

jenblase,

I'd rather spend more time in Belgium, visiting Antwerpen and Gent, not in the least because of the food, but also because of the lovely sights.

yk

If all you want to do is show your husband the Grand Place (Brussels), I would change it to 2 nights in Brugge, then just stop in Brussels for 1/2 day en route to Paris.