Reassure me on this decision -- Iceland stop for more time in Italy?
May 15th, 2007, 05:40 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reassure me on this decision -- Iceland stop for more time in Italy?
We're in the midst of trying to work out our itinerary to Paris and Italy. Icelandair has the best airfare (by several hundred dollars) for the dates we wanted to go.
Originally we got very excited about the free stopover in Iceland option, especially because we have no idea if we will ever get back to Iceland and it seemed a shame to waste the opportunity. But then our itinerary ended up
Originally we got very excited about the free stopover in Iceland option, especially because we have no idea if we will ever get back to Iceland and it seemed a shame to waste the opportunity. But then our itinerary ended up
May 15th, 2007, 05:43 PM
#2
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops! Accidentally posted too early.
In any case, our itinerary ended up seeming far too rushed with the Iceland stop -- its a 14 day trip, and we would have been visiting Paris, Rome, Florence, Venice, and Iceland. After reading this board for a few days, the advice not to travel too much so that you can really enjoy the places you visit started to sink in. So we are seriously considering ditching our Iceland stop (which would be arriving in the afternoon on Day 1, spending the entirety of Day 2, and leaving on the afternoon of Day 3 -- not super long, but enough to get a taste) in favor of more time in Florence (which we had originally scheduled only 1 1/2 days for) and Rome (originally scheduled 3 1/2 days).
I am excited for more time in Italy, but I am feeling...guilty?...for passing up the opportunity to see Iceland, given that I'm not sure I will ever make it up there again. I guess I'm just looking for some opinions from more seasoned travelers about whether this was the right call so I can calm down.
In any case, our itinerary ended up seeming far too rushed with the Iceland stop -- its a 14 day trip, and we would have been visiting Paris, Rome, Florence, Venice, and Iceland. After reading this board for a few days, the advice not to travel too much so that you can really enjoy the places you visit started to sink in. So we are seriously considering ditching our Iceland stop (which would be arriving in the afternoon on Day 1, spending the entirety of Day 2, and leaving on the afternoon of Day 3 -- not super long, but enough to get a taste) in favor of more time in Florence (which we had originally scheduled only 1 1/2 days for) and Rome (originally scheduled 3 1/2 days).
I am excited for more time in Italy, but I am feeling...guilty?...for passing up the opportunity to see Iceland, given that I'm not sure I will ever make it up there again. I guess I'm just looking for some opinions from more seasoned travelers about whether this was the right call so I can calm down.
May 15th, 2007, 06:20 PM
#3
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know what you mean, I also like to take opportunities to see/do more whenever I can. That being said-
I've never been to Iceland, but I think it is *much* better to give more time to Florence and Rome. How many more days can you add to them without the layover in Iceland?
I recently spent a week in Florence, and only got to see and do a small fraction of everything I want to see there. Also, I believe it is the sort of city that needs more than a day or two to appreciate- otherwise the dense crowds and carnival atmosphere might leave a negative impression, which is not wholly accurate. It's my understanding the same can be said of Rome. So, the more time there the better.
Don't feel guilty! Besides, if you already sense the itinerary with Iceland is too rushed for you, it probably is (and if it was on your schedule *after* Paris, Florence, Rome, and Venice, it might seem a little underwhelming at that point in the trip)
I've never been to Iceland, but I think it is *much* better to give more time to Florence and Rome. How many more days can you add to them without the layover in Iceland?
I recently spent a week in Florence, and only got to see and do a small fraction of everything I want to see there. Also, I believe it is the sort of city that needs more than a day or two to appreciate- otherwise the dense crowds and carnival atmosphere might leave a negative impression, which is not wholly accurate. It's my understanding the same can be said of Rome. So, the more time there the better.
Don't feel guilty! Besides, if you already sense the itinerary with Iceland is too rushed for you, it probably is (and if it was on your schedule *after* Paris, Florence, Rome, and Venice, it might seem a little underwhelming at that point in the trip)
May 15th, 2007, 06:24 PM
#4
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceland is an opportunity not to be missed! The natural beauty of Iceland is breathtaking and Reykjavik will be quite unlike Paris and the Italian cities you're visiting. You won't be sorry if you're able to schedule the Icelandic Take-A-Break stop into your itinerary.
May 15th, 2007, 06:25 PM
#5
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..actually, although I am of the "do less see more" school, I would suggest you consider a stop in Iceland. If you stop in Iceland you will land in Keflevik. There is a small family run hotel close by(The Northern Lights) near the Blue Lagoon. The food is superb and the landscape almost lunar. It would allow you to see a bit of Iceland but with the timing you may actually overcome a bit of jet lag and come out ahead.
May 15th, 2007, 06:28 PM
#6
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yikes, I would definitely stop in Iceland! Especially with it being several hundred dollars cheaper. I've dreamed of layovers in Iceland, even with only a few hours for a stopover you can go swim in the lagoons.
Only you can decide though. And whatever you do decide will probably work out!
Only you can decide though. And whatever you do decide will probably work out!
May 15th, 2007, 06:38 PM
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apres --
By leaving out Iceland we get 2 extra days in Italy. If we decide to go to Iceland, we would in effect only get to spend 1 full day and one evening there (if you subtract all the time going to/from the airport and whatnot).
My boyfriend, who has been to Florence, is in favor of spending more time there in lieu of Iceland, but is leaving the decision to me. I am far more unsure...and the responses here are making me even more torn!!! But I really do appreciate all the input.
My biggest concern is that visiting 5 cities in 14 days will make us so tired and stressed out (from the constant traveling) that the trip won't be as wonderful as it could be...but Iceland is so intriguing.
By leaving out Iceland we get 2 extra days in Italy. If we decide to go to Iceland, we would in effect only get to spend 1 full day and one evening there (if you subtract all the time going to/from the airport and whatnot).
My boyfriend, who has been to Florence, is in favor of spending more time there in lieu of Iceland, but is leaving the decision to me. I am far more unsure...and the responses here are making me even more torn!!! But I really do appreciate all the input.
My biggest concern is that visiting 5 cities in 14 days will make us so tired and stressed out (from the constant traveling) that the trip won't be as wonderful as it could be...but Iceland is so intriguing.
May 15th, 2007, 07:05 PM
#8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a tough call, the right answer is different for everyone. I love cities and everything that comes with them, Paris, Florence and Rome would be heaven for me, I'd want to spend as mauch time as possible in these places.
Are you a city person at heart, or do you primarily long for natural landscapes?
Is the finacial saving significant to you, or is having the bit of extra time, and a less rushed sense of pace, worth more to you?
City versus great outdoors, time versus money, museums versus natural landscapes- whatever you decide, you can't lose!
Are you a city person at heart, or do you primarily long for natural landscapes?
Is the finacial saving significant to you, or is having the bit of extra time, and a less rushed sense of pace, worth more to you?
City versus great outdoors, time versus money, museums versus natural landscapes- whatever you decide, you can't lose!
