5 countries 15 days, traveling by air?
 

HI!
I am looking for a little advise and insight, I am contemplating going to Europe in March of 2014 and am thinking about trying to do 5 countries in 15 days. I would be traveling by air to each country. I am hoping to do Dublin, Edinburgh, London, Paris and Rome. I would fly into Dublin and leave from Rome. If I did this it would give me almost 3 full days in each country. Any suggestions or advise?

Thanks in advance!!

Be sure to factor travel time into your itinerary. You would not have three full days in each country, because you'd lose between a half and a full day each time you traveled (check out of hotel, travel to airport, wait in airport, fly, travel to new hotel, get bearings in new city.). With fifteen days, I would suggest you pick 3 destinations to really explore and enjoy. Otherwise you will spend more time seeing train stations and airports than the actual sites of each city.

March in the British Isles is not my idea of fun.

I would do all 15 days in either Spain or Italy and save myself a ton of travel time and $$$.

Yes, don't unpack.

If you are serious, you will see nothing but security lines and the inside of airports. Choose two countries and enjoy them.

as guys above say, avoid British Isles in March, just cold and wet, go south. Do less and enjoy more, 5 in 15 days is just too much. A holiday is getting away from work and from yourself, so chill.

Rachie,

we have lots of people come here with these sorts of ideas and to be blunt, we mostly spend a lot of time trying to dissuade them. msteacher has set out some of the very good reasons for that above, but there are others. one of them is how difficult it is to absorb and retian what you're seeing on one of those sorts of trips.

much better as Big Al says to pick two or three places [that's places not countries] and just enjoy them. another idea would be to pick somewhere like sicily which will be quite warm in March - you can see a lot of sicily in 15 days.

it's also very expensive and tiring to keep moving like that. not to mention that you haven't really seen the country at all, just a few big buildings and hotels in a lot of capital cities.

Normally I would jump in with everyone else and say you're trying to do too much but I think it's time someone actually did one of these crazy trips and reported back on what a horrible idea it was.

So...go for it, OP.

I like where you are headed Sparky, let someone else chase the tornado and get back to you.

Yes, you can do this. Yes, you will spend inordinate times in airport security line, taxis/buses getting to the airports/getting to 5 different hotels,and then checking out of the hotels to get back into a taxi/bus to go to the airport.

What were you thinking of doing in these places and where are you coming from?

My biggest problem with your idea is the instability of March weather. I wouldn't much look forward to bouncing around in an airplane so much.

Also, you say you want to do "5 countries", but you are really going to 5 capital cities. Is the attraction of picking 5 places that you would like to experience some sharp contrasts in culture and get a glimpse of the variety in Europe? Or do you have specific reasons for wanting these 5 instead of Dublin, Berlin, Madrid, Lisbon. and Prague?

I have hopscotched across Europe on some occasions, using planes, but that is because I really wanted to see one thing here, and two things there, and wasn't attempting to get any real feel for the cities themselves.

With the trip you planned, if you are trying to "experience" the cities you've picked plus "taste" the tourist "highlights", what you will taste is Tourist Land, which has very little genuine local flavor that isn't canned, and be eating too much airport food, which has no flavor at all.

Why would you want to do so much in so little time? Do you think you won't have an opportunity to return?

I concur with the majority of posters on this board. You're planning too many cities in too little time. I'd plan for two cities--maybe Paris and Rome, as I assume the weather would be best in those two cities.

I'm looking into Dublin, Edinburgh, London, Paris and Rome. there are a a few things I want to see in each place. If the weather is not going to be good in Ireland and Scotland during march I am wondering if I should focus on London, Paris and Rome? if I focus on those 3 it will be 4 full days in each place

You won't see "countries" in this itinerary because a capital city does not a country make. Technically Edinburgh and London are in the same country until and unless Scotland gets its full independence.

And there is no way that a 3 days each itinerary works - these cities are not equals in size (London is larger than the other four combined) or tourist offerings.

My appologies on my typo of countries instead of capital cities.

At least if you make it London, Paris and Rome, you can travel from city center to city center from London to Paris with the Eurostar. And I guess it might even be possible to take an overnight train to Rome.
It will definitely be a "highlight" tour with, IMO, little understanding or enjoyment of the cultures and charms of these capitals/countries. Nitpicking about the use of "country" , also IMO. ;o)

No need to apologize. I was just trying figure out what the trip was about.

Focusing on London, Paris and Rome would give you more time in each place and have the makings of a grand adventure is you are very selective about what you want to see in each place. Also, do be realistic about how much time in takes to get to and from an airport -- and consider taking the train between London and Paris.

It would be nice if time were infinitely expandable, but It's not! So the more places you go, the less time you have to see a lot of things in each place. Up to you!

PS: Just because you are going to a famous tourist city doesn't mean you have to tick off the "highlights" in each place. Be selective about what you think would be the most rewarding place to spend your time in each city. If you want to skip the Vatican in favor of visiting a smaller church that interests you more, do it! Likewise don't bother with trudging over to Buckingham Palace if you'd rather be elsewhere.

Even if you had 3 or 4 months, you couldn't see everything thrilling or even important. So be realistic. And if turns out that you have 20 things you really, really want to see in Paris, or Rome or London, then think about dropping the city that interests you least so that the trip doesn't become an exercise in frustration, always packing up and leaving before you could complete your itinerary.

>>If the weather is not going to be good in Ireland and Scotland during march I am wondering if I should focus on London, Paris and Rome? if I focus on those 3 it will be 4 full days in each place<<

In March the weather isn't guaranteed in ANY of your cities. Rome stands the best chance for good weather but even that is iffy. Don't choose based on weather - Edinburgh could have worse, or better, or the same, weather as London or anywhere else on your laundry list.

I do need to see how long the trip is to and from each airport to the hotels.

I really wish time was infinitely expandable! that would be perfect!

does anyone know how easy/hard it is to get a cab from each airport?

Traveling by air will not help for most of those trips - train is as fast - if not faster. Either way to get from one city to another will take 1/2 of 3/4 of a day - Meaning you have 2 days in each place.

Not the vacation I would go for - but it's your time and money.

It is very easy to get a cab from each airport to the cener of the city - just use the official (and only the official cab line).

But for Edinburgh to London and London to Paris the train is faster and easier - since you just go center city to center city - no need for trekking out to airports, check in lines, security lines, usual airline delays, waiting for luggage and then trekking from the airport into the city again.