I am trying to plan a 14-day trip to Paris, London, Italy. Four of those days will be in Paris and the surrounding area. We have to fly into and return home from Charles De Gaulle airport.

I'm looking for feedback about the possibility of splitting the remaining days between London and Italy. I'm considering traveling by train from Paris to London, or taking a half-day tour of the Normandy beaches then heading to London. From London we'll fly to Rome.

Are two days in London sufficient to see the most popular attractions? If so, what's the most realistic itinerary to get the most out of between six and seven days in Italy?

If anyone has any experiences with a similar trip - I really appreciate your input. Thanks!

Two days will barely give you a taste of London...it's a huge city packed with things to see. If you want to see Italy London and Paris in 14 days I would pick three locations. For example Rome, London and Paris and split the time evenly. On arrival I would fly immediately to say Rome, then fly to London, the train to Paris and fly home from there to save backtracking.

Doing Paris, London and Rome in 14 days is quick - but not unreasonable - but I wold allow 5 days for London and 4 each for Paris and Rome. IMHO London has more to see than either of th eother cities - and 2 days isn;t enough to do much at al.

Separately - flying in and out of Paris is a really bad choice - since you are wasting time circling back. You should fly into London and out of Rome or vice versa. It won't cost any more and will save a lot of time.

Also, if you want to do a day trip from Paris to Normandy that's fine - but it's a VERY long day and unless you rent a car you need to organize a tour from ether Caen or Bayeux to the DDay beaches - you really can;t get there by pubic transit.

"<i>Are two days in London sufficient to see the most popular attractions?</i>"

I tried to post last night but had connection problems;

As the other say, No. London is a HUGE city and just the very VERY most popular sites would take days. If you only have 2 days, (and that would be 2 <u>full</u> days, not a half day on arrival from Paris) count on visiting about 4 or 5 major sites max.

Whether a glimpse of London is what you want to do is up to you. But no, you can't "do" London in 2 days.

and 4 day is VERY short for a first visit to Paris as well. Not sure what you mean by 'and surrounding area' since 4 days isn't even long enough for the <i>immediate</i> area. Especially when you factor in jetlag at the beginning of your trip.

If you also want to squeeze in a day trip to Normandy, you want at least 6 or 7 days in Paris.

Jamikins suggestion of heading straight on to Rome from CDG makes a LOT of sense IMO. Start out in Rome, say 3 or 4 days. Fly to London 4 or 5 days. Eurostar to Paris 6 days.

Because of all the travel, you'll have less time in each city than you might imagine.

Thanks for the helpful feedback. We won a free trip to Paris for four days with the stipulation that we can extend our trip to other countries but the airfare will only be free if we fly to and from Paris.

I was thinking maybe even flying to Venice and working our way down to Rome. Then fly from Rome to Paris to return home. But I just don't think we'll have enough time if we want more days in London.

Thanks!

To maximise your time and money arrange for a flight from CDG to your next destination and put all of your Paris time at the end of your trip - dont split up the Paris time at the beginning and the end or you will increase the time and money spent for transit. Unless you spend all your time in France you will need to likley pay for an additional flight anyways so just extend your incoming flight to your first destination.

You could do Venice, Rome, London, Paris. It will be a cursory trip to all of the cities and you increase your travel costs each time you move, but I would not add any further locations to a 14 day trip (Personally I would pick 2 locations but I like to travel quite slow and get to know an area rather than do cursory visits quickly).

The to/from Paris is fine (and lucky you!! )

What jamikins and I are talking about is booking another flight a few hours after you arrival at CDG directly on to Rome(or Venice if you prefer) That will get a major chunk of travel out of the way and eliminate having to back track later.

Either Rome (or Venice), London and Paris - OR - Venice, Rome and Paris would be a great 2 week trip.

My actual preference would be <i>just</i> London and Paris but 3 destinations would be fine. remember, you lose most of a day every time you move from one city to another. Even if it is just a short flight - there is all the airport advance check in, transfers to/from the airports, checking in to the new hotel. Short train trips (like Paris/London)are better but still eat up about 1/2 a day.

<<Are two days in London sufficient to see the most popular attractions?>>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

Based on your stated preferences: skip London this time. Go later. Like in a year when it's not hosting both the Olympics and Paralympics.

jamikins and janisj - Thanks so much for the helpful advice. I think you both have the right idea about how to maximize 14 days. I'll look further into the itineraries you suggested. This is my parent's first trip to Europe so I want them to see as much as possible, within reason. I know from my travels to Europe that if you cram into too much it can just be exhausting.

BigRuss- We're likely going spring of 2013 so we'll miss the Olympics crowds. But I can definitely see now that two days is not enough in London.

If I were you, I'd limit my trip to the Paris and London area with day trips such as Versailles and Salisbury and Bath, etc. Doing too much traveling from place to place takes away from your precious 14 days, and I think that there are enough "different" things to fill up the time that your parents won't get bored with two countries.
(I realize that this is the Italy forum, but I'm here seeking advice, and ran across your post. I have been to Paris(5 days) and London (8 days) and I could easily return to each place for the same amount of time and not get bored).


Also, you don't mention the age of your parents -- big difference in the energy level of a 50 year old and an 80 year old! An advantage to keeping "home" bases to two cities would be the ability to get an apartment instead of hotel rooms. Much more comfortable for a group.

At any rate, your parents will have a great time -- some people like quick visits to lots of places, others like to linger. Lucky you to get the plane tickets to start!

Would definitely stick to Paris and London. I love both cities and haven't even scratched the surface of either. Save Italy for another time....you will enjoy the trip more if you aren't on trains for most of it. As far as I am concerned, you could stay in Paris the entire time...there are tons of great day trips from Paris to see a bit more of France. Good luck with it.

I'd do two thirds of time in Paris, one third in Rome. London when you have more time.

Lauratg- Thanks for the feedback. I had the post in Italy, France and UK - so you were in the right place! I agree about too much traveling. It could take away from the experience. My parents are 60 so they'll be in good shape. But even when I was 19 and traveled Europe for 14 days - I was exhausted. I want my parents to enjoy themselves, not feel out of breath!

Denisea and starofthesea - You also bring up good points of picking two cities instead of three. There really is just too much to do. I think I'll let me parents pick between London and Rome.

Thanks again, everyone. Your input is really helpful.