Need help planning a surprise for my sister marking her 40th birthday. Cannot decide where to go. Here are my choices Rome, Paris Or Vienna. We will be leaving out of Boston March 2 coming back March 6th. This is all the time she can get off. Is this do able. Any suggestions on what destination. She has never been to Europe and it would just be a girls weekend. Was wondering on weather in these cities. Also we are just getting away to shop, walk, sightsee and eat. Any help with other destinations would be great.
Please help

That's what I do on my vacations. I'd say Paris, but given the month, it might be rainy there. What about London, although rainy as well? You can throw the theatre in the mix then.

Rome would be my first choice, Paris second. I've spent time with my sister in both cities, and we have had a ball.

See what direct flights are available from Boston; I would, ultimately, probably base my decision (btw. Paris or Rome) on best flight schedule. Weather will *probably* be nicer in Rome.

I say Paris. Go AIR FRANCE because it flys direct and changing flights eats up time, an important issue here.

I say Paris, as a direct flight, also the flight is shorter than Rome or Vienna, and on a short trip, every little bit helps.
Weather is likely to be pretty chilly and possibly rainy. Just pack accordingly.
for historical temps and precip, see
www.wunderground.com

for good forecasts before you go,
see accuweather.com

You want a <i>non-stop</i> flight. A <i>direct</i> flight is not necessarily the same (may involve a stop).

I'm not too familiar with flights to Europe out of Logan but there must be non-stops to places like London, Paris, Shannon, Frankfurt, Amsterdam... plus more.

Any would work for such a short getaway -- go with the least expensive one.

It is certainly do-able, but given your dates, that means you would have about 2-1/2 days in Europe, if you go to a close destination. If you go to Rome or Vienna, the day you arrive won't amount to that much time. You don't say about yourself, but she has never been to Europe, so you may not know how the jet lag will affect her the first day.

I personally wouldn't do this trip -- 2-1/2 days for a first trip to Europe in March. That is also a very expensive couple of days for a first trip in Europe.

I think Ireland or UK would be the best option as every hour counts

If I have understood you post, you would leave on Thursday evening March 2 on an overnight flight, and arrive in Europe the morning of Friday March 3. You would depart Monday March 6 on a daytitme flight most likely in the moring and arrive back in Boston on Monday afternoon. That gives you three full days in the city of your choice. IMO from Boston you could easily &quot;do&quot; any of the cities on your list and get a good taste of them in 3 days. If you can actually leave the evening of March 1 that gives you even more time.

As noted above, it is probably better to choose the city based on where you can get a non-stop flight into and out of.

I would put London on the list as that is a great intro to Europe, IMO, and has everything you are looking for in the way of activities. Dublin is also a fun place.

Good news is that you should get good hotel rates as you are going pre-Easter and not high season, and things like museums will not be crowded. Bad news is that outdoor caf&eacute; time would be quite limited, unless you luck out and get a warm patch.

Go to weatherbase.com for historical average temps and rainfall. The weather would not affect your ability to enjoy any of these cities IMO as long as you are prepared for it.

Personally I would pick Rome or Paris with Vienna last, but really any would be fine. Does your sister really want to be surprised or can you present her with a choice of the three and let her make the final choice (e.g. she might be different clothes for Vienna than she would for Rome)?

I don't think it it gives you three full days to actually do anything, although you may physically be in Europe. Assuming Monday is just a day to pack and get to the airport, you would arrive the morning of the 3rd. Even if you go to a close destination, by the time you get out of the airport and to your hotel and check in, it will be around mid-day. If you go to Rome or Vienna or other places, including an airport transfer, you probably won't get anywhere until late afternoon on March 3rd.

That's why if you did this, I would choose a nonstop flight to somewhere closer -- London would be good, or maybe Dublin, but it sounds like they don't want to go there. I'd probably choose Paris if you can get a nonstop.

Actually, if you could get a nonstop to somewhere in Spain, I'd probably choose that, but that also doesn't sound like it's of interest.

I would choose the absolute shortest non-stop flight you can find. Could you leave the evening of March 1 and fly overnight to arrive the morning of March 2? London comes to mind. Wouldn't you have to change planes to get to Rome or Vienna? Paris would be my personal pick for favorite city.

Honestly with such a terribly short time it's not a trip I'd do myself.

I would stick to the north &amp; of course Paris would be my first choice. I have done similar trips myself departing on Wed. &amp; returning on Sun. or Mon. &amp; all have worked out great.

I've taken several three-night vacations to Europe. I've been to both London and Rome this way, and will be heading to Paris in 6 weeks for a short 3-night trip as well. We will leave on a Thursday afternoon, arrive in Paris at 7:30 Friday morning and then leave Monday around noon. Its definitely doable. Sure, its hectic, but I've always had a great time and have never regretted it. I would rather visit somewhere in Europe for three nights than not visit at all.

Rome would probably be best, temperature wise. We were there in March last year and it was fairly pleasant, especially when compared to the Midwest. There is so much to do in Rome. When we went back for three nights, it was just to hit some of the things that we had missed on a previous trip. However, if you are there to just hit some of the highlights and then eat and shop, Rome would be a great city. It's my favorite city by far, and I would go back in a heartbeat.

I loved Vienna but we were there at the end of February last year and it was so very cold. Again, coming from the midwest I am used to cold weather, but this was bone-chilling. We didn't do as much strolling as I would have liked because of this. Not sure if that's the norm or not, but its something I would consider. That being said, Vienna is filled with great cafes and shops, and there are some wonderful sites. You could easily do Vienna in 3 days, in my opinion, and feel like you've seen a lot of the city.

My first trip to Paris will be the one coming up, so I can't really comment on that except that I have a couple of guidebooks filled with highlighted sections of things we would like to do when we are there. I know I won't be able to see close to everything, but I'm going to try to squeeze in a fair amount of actually doing things and then just stroling around.

Good luck!
Tracy

thank you everyone for all your help. I am looking at other destinations also. I forgot to even include london on the list thank you for that help.

Hello OBrien...I'm a former Bostonian, too...but given the extremely tight schedule, I would ask you to consider Montreal and/or Quebec City. The former is a wonderful &quot;European&quot; city to visit..a bit nippy in March but so what. Quebec is as French as you can get...and I can recommend an astounding, reasonable hotel where we just stayed this last pring..Auberge San Antoine....in the &quot;lower city&quot;...we also stayed at the Chateau Versailles in the heart of Montreal.(If you decide on this alternative, I will give you a mountain of suggestions for the four days : [email protected]
.
I know that you want Europe..but I don't see you getting three full days out of it...the schedule will wipe out most travelers.
Just my own personal suggestion. Whatever you decide to do, have fun!!
Stu Tower