triciatapley

My husband and I are meeting our daughter who will be studying abroad for the fall semester. She will be living in London for 3 and 1/2 months but will be in Paris for a planned school excursion when we meet her in October. What is the best way for us to get from Paris to Italy and then back to London? We will have 11 days to spend with her during her travel break. We would like to go to Rome, Venice and Florence after leaving Paris (3 days there) and then get back to London to visit a for a couple of days. Also, any chance of heading to Scotland or is that too far to travel? Our goal is to stay in Paris during her planned school excursion for 3 days, travel to Italy and spend most of our time there and then get her back to London for her classes and my husband and I may stay a couple of days longer in London. My husband would love to see Scotland (golf courses etc...) if this is possible. Thank you for any help or advice. We also would like to see as much as possible - active itinerary - not too worried about resting much.

janisj

OK -- you need to clarify a bit. Is your 11 days just for the Italy portion, or for Paris & Italy, or for Paris/Italy and the travel day back to London?

Also - After the time on the Continent, you want to stay a couple of days in London. How many additional days are you planning to tack on for the trip up to Scotland?

And -- are you flying in to Paris and home from London? If you haven't yet booked your flights - it makes more sense to fly in to Paris and home from Scotland. Otherwise you'd need to return to London.

chazzarelli

It's about a 5 hour train ride from London to Edinburgh. So keep that in mind when thinking about heading up to Scotland to visit. You'll need to spend 2 days on travel alone - 1 there, 1 back. Or you could look into flights, but even still, thats an hour at the airport, hour or so flight etc.

As for getting from Paris to Italy - you can fly on Alitalia from Paris CDG to Rome FCO and then from Rome FCO to London HTH for $177 a person. (used www.sidestep.com to find airfare)

As for a train from Paris to Rome - this should give you an idea of a 1 way fare

http://www.eurorailways.com/products...is_to_rome.htm

mpprh

If you book ahead, low cost airlines are the cheapest solution :
www.ryanair.com & www.easyjet.com are the biggest.

Easyjet flies Paris-7 Italian locations and many more from Italy to UK

Ryanair flies Paris Beauvais-9 Italian locations with flights to UK from 23 Italian airports.

You can also fly Italy - Scotland and Scotland-London.

Peter

chazzarelli

be careful with the locast airlines.. what they don't tell you is that if you have baggage, it is extra.

I booked a 1 way flight from Milan to Naples for $39 on Easyjet, however when I went through the steps, I had to check 2 bags, and because of the weight of the bag (expected or guessed weight) they offer a cheaper price to pre-pay for that at booking. All in all, my ticket with 2 bags packed at 20 kilo's total ended up costing $139.

Just throwing that info out there. If you are only going to have a carry-on, then no worries about the extra cost.

texasbookworm

Since much of the cost of a European trip is the plane tickets, if you can add a few days in the UK since you're already there, that would be great. 2 days isn't even time to scratch the surface of London, but if you had 2 days there, a day to travel to Scotland, and a couple days there at least, you'd maybe not feel so rushed and would at least get to see some of both (and as said above look into flying out of Edinburg perhaps)--course if your tickets are already purchased, as Gilda/Emily would have said--Never mind!

triciatapley

Thank you so much for the helpful information. I had eye surgery so have not been able to get on my computer until today. I think we have a better idea of where we would like to visit during our short stay. If you have any other suggestions with our clearer itinerary, I would certainly appreciate them. We will be arriving in Paris Oct 22 and would like to leave on the 24th to head to Italy. We would like to go to Florence, Rome and Venice and then get back to London on October 30th or 31st and stay 1 or 2 nights in London before returning home on November 2. We will not be going to Scotland. Our flight is Atlanta to Paris and return is London to Atlanta. What is the best way to travel from Paris to our destinations in Italy and then from Italy back to London? Also, should we consider guided tours or wing it on our own? Any suggestions on how many nights in each place in Italy and also fairly nice hotels for the 3 of us? Thank you for the advice already given!

janisj

OK - that is a lot clearer. I only have time for a quick answer right now but others will chime in . . .

My initial thoughts are: You have next to no time in Paris. Don't know if that is important to you, but Oct willbe mostly a jet lagged fog, so essentially you have 1 and a skosh days for Paris.

Then Oct 24-30 (or even 31) is not very long for three major cities plus the 1/2 days travel between them. It doesn't actually take 1/2 a day for Florence > Rome or Rome > Venice, but when you include the packing/unpacking, checking in/out, and getting to/from the train stations you willlose aminimum 1/2 a day for every transfer.

If it was me - I'd add at least 1 day to Paris and scratch one city in Italy. But that is just me . . .

janisj

Oops- sorry. That should read >>but Oct 22 will be mostly a jet lagged fog<<

Didn't mean to imply OCTOBER will be a fog

charnees

I would definitely cut out one city in Italy -- much as I love Italy! You arrive on the 22nd. Consider that day pretty much a loss. Take AT LEAST two full days (that means 3 nights) or better 3 full days (4 nights)to see what you can of Paris. Then fly to Florence on the 25 or 26 for a day or two, then train to Venice for the last couple of days and fly back to London.

I am leaving out Rome because it is too big and there is so much to see you will miss almost everything. We have been there twice, are going back for 5 full days in Sept. and can't possibly see all I want to see, even leaving out stuff we've seen before. I suggest you go back to Rome another year.

skibumette

Agree with charnees on skipping Rome -- there you have ancient, medieval, renaissance, church, and modern Rome all mixed together and piled on top of one another. It takes time, even if you only concentrate on just one these periods. Disclaimer: I personally think Florence and/or Venice are much more appealing; Rome is big, complex, and overwhelming.

chazzarelli

So Rome is too big, complex and overwhelming but Paris is not? That's a bit odd.

I'd cut out Venice just because it is further away from Florence than Rome is and is much more easy to get to.

22nd - Paris
23rd - Paris
24th - Paris - depart for florence evening if possible
25th - florence
26th - Florence
27th - Florence - tuscan day trip
28th - Rome
29th - Rome
30th - Rome
31st - Depart and arrive London

You get 3 days in each location, but in Paris, that first day is really shot. You can either leave in the Morning on the 25th for Florecne or the night before.

As others have said, deduct about a half day for check in/out procedures going to and from. Train from Florence to Rome is easy (2hrs I think).

charnees

Chaz, the Paris part is a given, from the OP. And Ido think Rome is much more daunting. I

but OP will have to make the call, after considering what we have said here.

MAP

We have been to Paris, Rome, and Florence. Really, 3 days in Paris....one jetlag, 1 full, 1 preparing to depart, is way too short. I would omit Rome, add time in Paris, and go to Florence with the day trip, possibly Sienna, a beautiful spot....easy 1 1/2 hr. bus ride. Rome is fabulous, but it deserves more time. We are spending a month in Paris for the second time, and I don't know how we will do all I have planned! Our favorite city...

janisj

"<i>So Rome is too big, complex and overwhelming but Paris is not? That's a bit odd. </i>"

Not at all IMO. 90% of the major sites in Paris are w/i walking distance of each other. Yes - Paris is big and complex -- but the tourist-centric bits are very compact and most things are in a couple of square miles.

Rome is big/complex and very spread out- and then there are the issues like pre-booking the Vatican museums/Scavi etc. . . .

Paris just seems much more on a human scale.

zeppole

Which cities individual Fodor's posters find complex and overwhelming as opposed to others doesn't mean anything to other individuals' trips! And I shudder to think what janisj's "touristic-centric bits" comprise the sum total of Paris in her mind, or what she imagines Rome is. Many people walk in Rome to everything of fame.

triciatapley,

In the very limited amount of time you have, you will need to pinpoint what you want to visit or what kind of experience you intend to have in all five cities. Surely you don't expect to cover the major sights -- least I hope you don't! You really don't have time for the typical tourist forced march of these cities -- much of which is worth skipping anyway in favor of things more meaningful to you. You've got less than a "weekend" in all of them, so unless you're selective -- or go the polar opposite, and just choose to amble , But otherwise, it would be a mistake to think you will get much out of visiting these places other than saying you went there and, yes, it was overwhelming!

Select what you most want to explore. A guidebook will tell you how long it takes to see and you can see on a map how long it will take to get there. You may not have time for more than 2 sights in Rome or London. You may decide to eliminate one or more cities once you've had time to think about what's in each one. But you needn't be overwhelmed if you visit any of the 4 and roughly know where you're going and why. But if you go with the idea of seeing "Paris" in a weekend or "London" in a day, you'll be overwhelmed trying to whiz by tourist "bits".

Some people like guided tours, others don't. You'll get no consensus on that.

zeppole

Maybe the short way to put it is:

You can't plan a trip without content. It's not for people to say "Rome Florence London" and have someone else say "No, Florence Venice Paris" -- and attach numbers to cities.

These places are not intrinsically wonderful -- as skibumette's post indicated -- nor can anyone tell you how few or many days you will enjoy visiting them.

I realize that flies in the face of all tourist packaging and tourist advice, but it's true. These places have contents. The contents either excite you or they don't. Guidebooks can give some "guidance" -- honestly -- about what to expect. Being told "Rome 3, Paris 2, Venice 1.5, Florence 1.5" is utterly meaningless. But it's your money! (Just remember that! Some people here forget that.)

janisj

z - I did NOT say everything in Paris was walking distance from each other or that only things in the center are worthwhile. I said most of the main tourist attractions that one could hope to see in a short visit -- are w/i walking distance.

That was only in response to chazzarelli wondering why someone <i>might</i> think Paris easier that Rome. Others agreed w/ me. Doesn't mean anything against Rome.

You really are not the only one who can have an opinion here (and maybe re-read the guidelines again - I noticed a couple of your attack posts were deleted recently. We are supposed to discuss travel here - not sneer at others for disagreeing)

mari5

Sounds like fun. ...your daughter will be with you for the Italian portion. right? Does SHE have any ideas? Then a couple of days in Paris and a couple in London at the end..will be great! It's a personal decision,, but I would vote (as several others have)to go on to Florence from Paris (train or flying), spend a couple of days and then take train to Venice. (You "could" rent a car for 1 day outside Florence if you are interested in the Tuscany countryside)(we did a one day rental one time and worked out very well) Otherwise you can get the flavor by walking the Florence streets OR taking a half day city tour,,,always a good overview of a city when time is short!. Then on to Venice for a couple of days...a unique city of many interests!
IF you and your family really want to visit ROME then you can just cut out one of the other cities.
I would vote for cutting out Rome on this trip...but that is strictly YOUR CALL! Have fun!

Sassafrass

Have to agree that you can't possibly visit more than two places in Italy. Which excites you the most: the art and awe-inspiring architecture of ancient Rome (Sistine chapel, Bernini sculpture, St. Peter's, Pantheon, Colosseum, etc.) or a city that appears to float on water: Venice (mystical, romantic, softly decaying grand palaces along a Grand Canal, with its glittering, Basilica di San Marco? Look at some pictures and guide books. Either choice will be wonderful! A very personal choice. An almost impossible choice.

Other posters might say differently, but there is one minor thing that would influence my decision. That would be flooding predictions for Venice. I have been there when there was a foot and a half of water in San Marco, and I don't mind being there during flooding, but if you had only a short time, and flooding happened to be intense, it could affect your visit. It is very unlikely to happen at the exact time you are there, but I would check predicted dates.