I agree with everyone that you are making a classic mistake of trying to do too much with limitations of time and budget. Janisj is absolutely correct about prices.
We are leaving for Portugal in two weeks to do a holiday we tried to do in 2021. We ended up flying from Lisbon to basque country instead of Portugal. The prices for the same Portugal hotels are up about 30% and car rentals even more. We were in London and Scandinavia last June and our hotel in London which was $180 is now $320 for the same time period this year. The hotel I like in Tokyo has been about $350 for years and now it's $675. Airfare this month to Portugal is double in comparison to 2021. Core places in Europe for me would probably start with London,Paris and Rome. This would take up most if not all of your holiday time. Switzerland as noted above is quite expensive and getting to Santorini is more difficult than most major destinations in mainland Europe.
You cannot have it all, you just have to pick the destinations you wish to explore the most in a reasonable amount of time in a reasonable amount of money.

What Janis is saying here (and others up thread) is that your itinerary is what is inflating your budget.

You want it cheaper? Move less. Maybe even plan for a different time period, the last minute planning also can inflate those costs.

I understand not being able to travel every 1 - 2 years or more. But shelling out $15k for this itinerary is also not going to give you the trip you want. You want to limit it to $10k for 2 of you - plan way less. Save that additional $5k or more for your next trip of some of the places you missed on this one.

I'm someone who can travel a bit more rushed than others on here. But your itinerary does not sound like it would be a pleasant vacation to me.

Move trip to September. Stick with Paris, Venice, Rome or Paris, Rome, Amalfi Coast. Have your wife look at pictures of the Amalfi Coast. It is stunning. If that really does not appeal, then Rome and some Greek Islands or just Greece.

Late to the topic but this needs emphasis if budget is critical. Note that people some people do fine with $100/day (with careful planning) and others spend $400, for more or less the same itineraries. So budgeting carefully food, lodging, and transportation can make a huge difference. Choose destinations where there is still cheaper lodging available, there is likely plenty to see there even if you haven't heard of it.

I know people say every beach and mountain valley is different, but there's no way I am going to Europe and spending an hour at a beach or looking at a snowy peak, when I can do those things in the US.

Airfares were bad this year, but it appears you waited till less than 4 months before buying. People flying from large international airports like JFK or LAX get away with this kind of late purchasing and still get a bargain, the rest of us have to plan ahead and buy sooner.

I'd chose countries that are relatively close together. So France (based around Paris), Belgium, Netherlands and Germany makes more sense that this pepper pot of a plan.

Or Lyon, Nice, Pisa, Florence, Milan.

Or Venice, Trieste, Pula

Or Venice, Vienna

Geography is the route to cost reduction

People who've mentioned self catering to save $$/€€ - that really isn't a feasible option when one is moving every couple of days. You'd want at least a few days in a place to make renting an apartment practical.

Totally agree. My rule is 3 nights or more for an apartment/efficiency unit.

JanisJ: I was thinking of a different itinerary than proposed, maybe 5 places in 16 days including start and end points. I have self-catered in 2 nights but more nights are better for the budget (and sanity).

OP: Unless you are taking a multi-day tour or cruise, insurance is more of a luxury now that airfares are fully voucherable. I don't book lodging that's non-refundable, or basic economy fares that are not voucherable.

Thank you all for your valuable inputs, message is really loud and clear from everyone.

tom_mn - insurance gives more flexibility and peace of mind. Vouchers makes you tied to particular airline which may or may not be best option for the future. in grand scheme of things its going to be a wash

With limited time, I won’t cook or clean a kitchen when traveling, but with so many outdoor markets, it is easy to pick up bread, cheese, fruit and some ham, or small quiches or savory and sweet tarts and there you have an instant, wonderful meal. Rotisserie chicken with roast potatoes is really good in France and Italy, another cheap, but delicious meal. Of course, the OP will want some restaurants too, but can stretch budget a bit with market food. Their big cost is not food though. As so clearly pointed out, it is the fly-by-everything itinerary.

It's not just that transportation costs are inflating your budget. The transfer logistics are fraught with potential problems.

Multiple planes, trains and ferries exponentially increase your risks for delays. (The transfer from Positano to Santorini sounds nuts. What if the Positano-Salerno ferries are cancelled that morning? What if a flight delay in Rome means you miss your connection to Santorini? And later flights are fully booked up?) In such a fast-paced itinerary, any delay (weather, strike, mechanical) can upset plans for the following day or two or three.

The flights will likely force you to travel with much less luggage than you anticipated/hoped. Because of your short stays almost everywhere, you may have to pay for laundry services a couple of times. You won't have much time to DIY.

Apparently the hotel we stayed at (not spartan, not luxurious) near the Gare d'Lyon was sold; now it's Ibis Styles Paris Gare De Lyon Bastille. Google Maps says its price for July30-31 is now $112.

While there are plenty of good itineraries where it is possible to change every day or two, this isn’t one. Too far flung. Forget everything after Rome and allocate those days among the other places, especially Paris, Venice, and Rome. Samtorini will have to wait for a different trip, sorry.

Costs can vary all over the place. My wife and I travel in Germany for 150 Euro per day for the both of us. In Italy it ran about twice as much. I have only stayed in one slightly sub-standard place in my 50 years of travel. I checked the price of a German hotel I stayed at in 1970. It now costs over $650 per night. I would rather stay in the ( now ) 50 Euro 3 room inn where will spend 6 nights this fall - 20 nights spent there already.

I agree with everyone else... however what about costing out basing in a city and doing day trips to see some of the places where you want to go.

As an example... fly into Paris..and spend 3 days..(you need one day to recover from jet lag)
take a train from Paris to Milan. (3 days) It is doable and takes about 7.5 hours.
When in Milan you can do a day trip to Venice (I know not long but it will give you a brief glimpse of the city).
thinking of something like this https://www.viator.com/tours/Milan/T.../d512-70609P61
You can also do a day trip to the Swiss Alps : https://www.viator.com/tours/Milan/T...a/d512-70609P8

then From Milan you can take the trian to Rome(3 nights).

From Rome, take a train to Naples and to Sorrento to see the Amalfi coast(3 nights)

then back to Rome to fly to Athens and maybe on to Santorini..

flights back to US from Athens.

Not sure how this sounds and what it would cost, but I am costing my trip to Europe and the most expensive is the moving around. It is not just the train costs, but then the taxi/uber rides to your accomodation and then back again to get to the next destination. Better to base yourself somewhere and do day trips to other places.

I can understand what millie2112 is trying to do, but please, please, do not consider those kinds of day trips. IMHO, they are as bad as your original plans. The goal is to spend less time in travel and more time sightseeing. When day trips involve as much time traveling as they do sightseeing, you have gained nothing. Do not under any circumstances do Venice as a day trip. It would be bad as a day trip from anywhere, but from Milan? Just no!
7&1/2 hours to Milan, time getting to a hotel, checking in and out, 4&1/2 to 5 plus hours round trip to Venice! Ouch. If you want to see Venice, go to Venice!

Then, the combo of Paris, Milan, Venice, Rome, Amalfi Coast and on to Santorini? In 16 nights? That is exactly what everyone else is telling you not to do.

Also, do not stay in any place in which you have no interest. Make every day and night count by actually staying in places with appeal to you. Where you spend each night can contribute greatly to the excitement and enjoyment of the trip. Let it be places where evening walks are lovely and the ambiance of the evening lets you soak up the sounds, smells and movement of the environment.

Sassafrass, I knew my suggestion would appall, however we need to consider what the OP is trying to do. They are not a seasoned traveller to Europe, and this is their first time. And they have stated that they do not know when they will be back. So this is a big first trip and it is also a trip where they probably want to see everything.
As and Australian I can relate because most of us do the same thing first time to Europe. Lots of train travel zooming through the countries to get a glimpse. For us in Australia, the travel time of 21 plus hours and also the expense (aud is horrible), create this type of travel style.
Those in the US are pretty lucky that you can get to Europe in 12 hours or less, and most on this board are seasoned travellers, that can afford to do Europe a couple of times a year soaking in a particluar country.

Back in 2013 I did a day trip to Venice from Bologna and a day trip to Florence (shocking!), but it was a compromise with my husband and lack of time. I loved these days trips. Train trip was 2.5 hours to Venice one way and 1 hour to Florence one way. I was so glad that I did it. I did not see enough, but it gave me miniscule taste for the cities and I was then able to return.

Tvis09, have you costed out a tour. Have a look at tours that cover the countries you want to see.

Also, if you want to cut back on expense I would cut out Switzerland. While stunning scenery, it is super expensive.

Millie2112 - Aussies generally get a lot more holiday time than most Americans so most of my friends from OZ or NZ don't go to Europe for 10 days or 2 weeks -- they visit for longer.

And - "however we need to consider what the OP is trying to do" -- as we are trying to tell them, what they are trying to do is costlier than it needs to be and is not a reasonable use of time or money. Sorry, but telling them 'sure, you can do it' is really a disservice. :(

Janisj..yes that is very true. We get 20 days leave per year. However, first time Europe trips are zooming through all the countries. I remember my first time I went for 4 weeks, and did France, Germany, switzerland, Italy, Austria and the Netherlands and London.

I am saying look at what you want to do..and see if you can do it all in a more cost efficient manner.. maybe do day trips which everyone hates but will save on train trips.

There is a lot of unrest in Paris right now, including train strikes. This is another reason to cancel your trip to Lucerne. There’s a high chance you could be delayed. Also, it’s a long train trip.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to see it all and for picking the most popular scenic sights. In the future, you might want to consider a cruise. The cost would be a lot less and the traveling occurs while you sleep. The ocean views are a plus! Celebrity Mediterranean cruises would be a good fit for you as they almost always include some combination of Villefranche, Portofino, Cinque Terre, Rome, Naples (Amalfi), Sicily, Malta, Santorini, Mykonos and Athens.

I was curious, so I just added up the cost of the 33 night trip we took to Switzerland last Sept/Oct...yes, Switzerland, which someone above referred to as the most expensive place on the planet (we spent 28 nights in Switzerland, five in Italy).

I try to include prices when I write trip reports, so I can go back and look when questions like this pop up.

On meals out, train/bus/cable car transportation (of which there was a lot), accommodation and activities we spent about $7,500....for 33 nights.

With the exception of two nights in a hotel, we stayed in apartments (which isn't always feasible on shorter trips) and spent 3-7 nights per town/village, from which we made various day trips.

We cashed in frequent flyer miles for our airfare, but airfare at current rates would run about $2-2,400 give or take.

The $7,500 does not include the money we spent on groceries, which are also expensive in Switzerland.

The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that staying in one or two countries for a longer period of time costs much less in the long run, which you've already been told by most posters above.

Sometimes less really is more.