Europe in 2 weeks??
 

I know a lot of you are probably going to respond and say "It can't be done!" but I want to try. At first my husband and I were thinking of going to Italy for 2 weeks, but he wants to see more. My friend from Amsterdam just came to visit NYC for a week, and he recommended that for my first trip overseas, I should definitely try to see more than one country. I just need some advice on where to begin. I don't want to stay in hostels and do the back-packing thing, but I don't want to stay in pricey hotels either. 2-3 stars I guess. I know it's different for everyone, but I'm trying to get an idea of how much we need to save for this trip. I heard it's cheapest to fly into Germany. We'd either fly out of Newark or JFK. I do not want to see all of Europe (of course THAT can't be done in two weeks), but I'd like to get some advice on what I might be able to see. I was thinking Rome, Paris, London and Amsterdam for sure. What else can I see? Any websites or other posts with similar questions? Thanks in advance.

If you actually want to "see" those places I would recommend stopping at those four. That's two full days in each places, plus 6 days for travel to, from, and between your destinations. Obviously your travel days won't be a complete loss, but they're also variable -- flights can get delayed, etc.

If you can get airfare to and from NYC for around $600, keep your hotels to around $100/night (USD), and take three intra-Europe flights, you can probably keep your costs for the whole trip, including food, under $5000.

Hope that helps!

If I would be flying into Germany, would I be able to see a city there? Would it be easier to get one of the Eurail passes to travel around by train?

Ah...the age old question of "how much can I do in 2 weeks". You'll get a pretty broad range of answers on that. I have planned/taken two trips to Europe and both trips involved seeing a lot in 2 weeks.

1st trip in 1999...London, Paris, Wengen (Switzerland), Florence and Rome.

2nd trip in 2006...Athens, Santorini, Venice, Dolomites, Lake Como, Milan and Barcelona.

While I had been to Europe several times in school my wife and the couple that traveled with us on both trips had never been before. We loved the first trip and were happy to see all those big cities in one trip. The second trip didn't work quite as well. We simply tried to do too much in too little time.

What you need to do is really sit down and plan day to day exactly what would be involved in getting to/from all the places you are trying to go. Do you mind spending 1/3 of your time (or more) in travel between cities? On our first trip we used the trains exclusively and so the trips between cities actually was very relaxing.

You will get many replies to this thread saying you are trying to do WAY too much which isn't necessarily true. It all depends on how you like to travel, if you'll go to Europe again, and many other personal particulars. Use train schedules and maps to understand the distance between the cities and be realistic on how much time you'll really be able to spend in each location. Persoanlly for me...I'd try to see less...but then I've been twice and am ready to slow down on the next trip.

If you have never been to Europe before and don't mind a whirlwind trip then go for it...but understand you'll be exhausted at the end and will miss some of those quiet moments you can only find if you sit still in a spot for a while.

Once again...it's all up to you. Either way I'm jealous and hope you have a great time.

if you are determined to do this, then of course it can be done.

first of all, you need to be flying open jaw into your first destination, and out of your last, so as to avoid back-tracking.

THen I would suggest train travel between cities, so that you don't waste time in airports, and can enjoy the scenery in between.

If you can bear it, I would suggest cutting out London ]make the UK a whole trip next time], fly into amsterdam, then train to Paris, followed by Munich?, Venice, Florence and Rome.

Book your accommodation in advance, so you don't waste time looking when you hit each city.

Buy/borrow a good guide book [rick steves makes a good starting point] and find out what you are interested in.

Don't try to create the perfect trip - it doesn't exist!

Have a wonderful time and post a trip report when you get back!

OK...part 2 of my reply. For some reason I thougth you had listed 6 or so destinations...but I think Rome, Paris, London and Amsterdam are very realistic. Sounds like a great trip to me.

Thanks for your advice. We would like to see as much as possible, but a reasonable amount. Rome, Paris, London and Amsterdam (to see my friend) are a must. Besides those places, I'd like to see whatever else is possible. Maybe some place in Germany since we will most likely fly there first. Maybe Vienna also. Some place in Switzerland? I would ideally like to planto sleep overnight on trains. I've heard that this can be done. I know it will be a whirlwind trip, but I don't know when we'd be able to go again. I'm 24 and my husband is 23. I'm thinking we'd get to go in 2008. Maybe sooner if we can save up? I don't know if we'd be able to for Oct. 2007.

I certainly think it's natural to want to see more than one country in your first trip, and that's easy to do in two weeks. I think your desires are a little scattered because you threw in Rome, which is far away from the others, so I wouldn't do that if I were you. Of course you can do anything like if you you really insist and want to, but what's the point -- a day or two in each place, and then on a plane to somewhere else? Just the travel will waste a lot of time, and it will be expensive, also.

I think London, and Amsterdam are definitely possible, and you could throw in Paris into that without too much logistical trouble (eg, London, Eurostar to Paris, then Thalys train to Amsterdam). Forget the idea of insisting on some particular city in Germany to fly in and out of. Unless you want to see Germany a lot, that doesn't make sense. There are cheap flights to London, it's one of the cheapest places to fly, and Amsterdam isn't that bad either.

I think London, Paris, Amsterdam in two weeks is feasible and forget Rome. Fly into London and out of Amsterdam. That gives you about four days in each city, with the extra in travel time. YOu could fit a day in Brussels into that in the middle as it's right on the way from Paris to Amsterdam, but a lot of people don't have that at the top of their wish list, but it would be another place to see.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Christina...especially since Rome is far away from the rest of your list. I'd do London, Paris, Switzerland and Amsterdam. I love the mountains so the Alps were very appealing to me. So pick one great place to see the mountains for the Switzerland leg. We chose Wengen (up the valley from Interlaken) and LOVED it. In the shoulder season it's not crowded and since no cars are allowed there it's very peaceful. The views are simply incredible from just about every hotel in the town (see http://tinyurl.com/y9v456 )That was similar to the view from our hotel balcony...incredible.

One thing to remember is day trips. You'll probably want to go to Versailles when you are in Paris. That will be most of a day in getting there, seeing it and returning. So 4 places with a few day trips thrown in will fill up 2 weeks quickly.

I can't take Rome out. That's the place I want to visit most of all!

Hm....well then fly into Rome and then see Florence, Paris and Amsterdam.

Or maybe Rome, Switzerland, Paris and Amsterdam.

The problem you have is wanting to see Rome, London and Amsterdam which are all far apart (well London and Amsterdam aren't that far apart...but one is on an island). You need to drop one of those (probably London) and fly into one and out of the other.

yeah, I didn't know that and I guess I agree with wekiva on best possibilities and to drop London. I think it will take more time this way on travel, though.

I have found the fares in to London almost always cheaper than anywhere else in Europe.

You can go/see what ever you want in two weeks. But you also need to know that
1) you lose one days flying each way to Europe.
2) your first day will probably be a jet-lagged stupor.
3) you lose between 1/2 and a full day every time you move from one city to the next (when you factor in all the packing/unpacking, checking out/in and either flying or taking the train)

so now you are looking at 14 days - 2 travel, - 1 first day exhaustion, - approx 2 days total for intra-Europe travel. Leaving a total of 9+ days free for sightseeing/visiting your friend.

So if Amsterdam and Rome are your &quot;musts&quot; - then add at most <b>one</b> other city. Either London or Paris would do. But you can see more of Paris in a short time since it is more compact.

Flying open jaw into Paris and out of Rome; train from Paris to A'dam; fly from A'dam to Rome. This would be a hectic 2 weeks but certainly doable.

For any first-timer taking such a wide ranging trip there is no better a primer than the free European Planning &amp; Rail Guide (free at www.budgeteuropetravel.com) - even if you're not going by rail. I first read about it several years ago in Frommer's Budget Travel Magazine as one of their Top 100 Travel Tips and have recommended it since as have several other Fodorites. For hotels i recommend this forum - Fodorites really know hotels - pose your itinerary and then get tried and true recommendations from folks who've actually stayed in them.

I'm trying to recap in my mind what your &quot;musts&quot; are. You say you have two weeks...does that include travel from/to the U.S.? If so, you only have 12 touring days.

And Rome/Amsterdam are musts?

Also, from NYC I wouldn't consider Germany &quot;the cheapest alternative&quot;. Aside from possible sales, London &amp; Amsterdam should be the least costly.

Have you considered that moving around from country to country adds a lot to the trip cost? At current exchange rates I agree that $5,000 is a good starting point.

PS:
If I HAD to be in Amsterdam, I would not do Rome in the same 2-wk trip. Save it for when you can do an Italy trip like you originally planned. This is a &quot;travel advice&quot; forum---listen to them. There is a <i>good reason</i> most posters discourage overly ambitious itineraries.

Signed:
ONE WHO TRIED TO DO TOO MUCH ON 1st TRIP AND REGRETTED IT.

Eurail passes aren't necessarily a good deal. If you're young enough to qualify for the discounted 2nd class pass and you plan to hop on and off the train every day or so, then maybe. (More experienced Eurailers can probably point you to a website that can assess your route and tell you if it would be cheaper to buy separate tickets for each journey.)

Depending on your itinerary, you might be able to save a night's hotel cost (as well as daylight hours that could be better used sightseeing) by travelling at night by train (e.g. Paris to Italy).

A number of airlines (including but not limited to discount airlines) now offer cheap one-way tickets. This facilitates the kind of trip you want to make, where you want to see different parts of Europe but want to visit major cities (with good air connections). But be careful with discount carriers. They sometimes use out-of-they-way airports or arrive or land at hours when public transportation isn't available. Make sure you check the cost of getting to and from the airport and confirm that you can do it on public transportation at hours that suit your flight.

Southern Spain can be relatively inexpensive; it's worth considering a trip there if you plan to go outside the brutally hot months of July and August. Barcelona (a fabulous city) is more temperate in its climate, but not as inexpensive as Andalucia.

You seem to be aiming exclusively for capital cities. These are likely to feel more &quot;internationalised&quot; and more touristy and are often more expensive than secondary cities in the countries you want to visit. Consider making one of your stops somewhere off the beaten tourist track. (And some of these secondary - or tertiary - cities are served by the discount airlines, making them a transportation bargain, too.)

Discuss and then agree with your husband on what you want to splurge on and where you're willing to cut corners. For example, you might agree to splurge on a special, higher quality than average hotel in a special place for one night - in exchange for staying in a hostel (or a zero star) hotel for 2 nights. Some cities are better bets for cheap hotels than others, and some cities are worth &quot;small splurges&quot;. For example, I don't see a great difference in hotel quality in London between the hotels I pay 70 euros a night for and those I pay 150 euros a night for. But in Bangkok, I got a spectacular room in a grand hotel (on the executive floor) for US $125. The same quality would have cost me at least US$600 in London. So I don't splurge on London hotels; I save my money for Bangkok.

Another balancing act. Scout around for good value breakfasts (inexpensive coffee, standing up at the counter in a nearby cafe, instead of overpriced hotel breakfasts), buy picnic provisions in the local market - and then went you want to splurge on a special meal, go for lunch instead of dinner.

When I'm jetlagged and am visiting a city I've never been to before, I often splurge on a cab to my hotel - but I make a bargain with my husband that we'll take public transportation back to the airport. Or, alternatively, we take cheap public transit on landing (because I'm not stressed about catching a flight) and then take a taxi to the airport.

A lot of people have told me that flying into Germany is the cheapest, but if flying into either London or Amsterdam is in a similar price range, that would be much better.

What about this?
Fly into London, then go to Amsterdam, then Paris, then down to Venice and fly out of Rome? Or London then Paris then Amsterdam followed by Venice and Rome?

I think Janis has a pretty good idea, but I'd change it a little. First, perhaps it is because I don't live there, but I wouldn't say that you can see more in Paris than in London in a few days because of city size. I think central London for first-time tourists, and what they want to see, is quite compact and you'd see just as much as Paris.

However, if I were going to do Amsterdam, Paris and Rome, which sounds okay, I wouldn't fly into Paris but Amsterdam. I don't think there are good cheap flights from Amsterdam to Rome (or vice versa), but there are cheap flights to/from Rome and Paris or London. So, I think flying into Amsterdam, train to Paris, and then flying to Rome from Paris (eg., on Easyjet) would be fine. I know there are cheap flights from London to ROme, also. Maybe KLM has some cheap flights to Rome, it's possible, but I don't think any budget airline works that route.

Your plans sound like our first trip to Europe 30 years ago when we were your age. I wanted to see everything - but I remembered almost nothing. So we returned to some of the same places a couple of years later, slowed down the pace, &amp; we fell in love with Europe. We've been back every year since then &amp; now spend 2 months there every year.

One thing you might want to consider is to reduce the number of big cities - Paris, London, Rome, Amsterdam might be too much concrete/congestion/noise all back-to-back. Throw in a little countryside to break things up. Don't know if I would do Switzerland in October. We were last there in mid-Sept a few years back, &amp; it was quite cold &amp; snowy.

I think a perfect plan to see Europe for the first time would be fly to Amsterdam &amp; visit your friend. Get aquainted with European travel/customs with some help of a &quot;local&quot;.

Then fly to Florence &amp; visit this wonderful city. Rent a car &amp; then tour the fantastic countryside of Tuscany - small villages, rolling hills, wineries, history, etc. Then drop the car off in Orvieto(stay the night, perhaps), and take the train to Rome for a visit &amp; flight home. If you want another destination - add in Venice before Florence - perhaps the most romantic &amp; unique city in Europe.

I'll go against the grain here &amp; advise you NOT to visit London or Paris. Both of those cities really need at least 4 days. We often go to them in the early spring or fall for a short &quot;get-away&quot; when the airfares are low, and there are fewer tourists. From the East Coast, London &amp; Paris are not much farther away than San Francisco (where we live).

Stu Dudley

Hey, Stu.
I agree with dropping Paris if Italy is a must. This would make a good trip:

AMSTERDAM - 2 nights
Fly to VENICE--3 nights
Train to FLORENCE--3 nights
Train to ROME --4 nights
Fly out of Rome

JeanneB's answer is the best so far. No Germany; no third country; Italy is like 10 countries in one all by itself, and Holland is no &quot;single flavor&quot; either.

My only minor tweak would be to sacrifice one day/night somewhere (Florence? - - or doesn't even have to be overnight), and get out into rural Europe (Holland or Italy), rather than stay in all major cities the whole two weeks. This will add another dimension far more worthwhile than traipsing into another country.

By the way, what season are you planning to do this?

Best wishes,

Rex

&lt;&lt;Fly into London, then go to Amsterdam, then Paris, then down to Venice and fly out of Rome?&gt;&gt; Better, but I would skip Rome. 5 major cities in 2 weeks is really a bit much imo.

Investigate plane tickets. I'm not sure who's telling you that, but there is certainly no universal rule that flying into Germany is cheapest. Especially if that isn't even on your itinerary for places to see!!

Fly into London, fly to Amsterdam, train or fly to Paris, train or overnight train to Venice. Fly home from Venice.

Even &quot;cutting back&quot; to just those 4 cities, you will barely have 2-1/2 days to see each one... by the time you figure in plane arrivals and departures, hotel check ins &amp; outs, and transportation between one to the next.

oops I meant PLANE or overnight train for the leg Paris to Venice

Rex has a good point. You haven't mentioned art or museums, so maybe from Florence you could take day trips to Siena, San Gim, or Lucca. (I wouldn't want to move to spend just one night somewhere).

Wekiva-
How'd you manage this trip?

1st trip in 1999...London, Paris, Wengen (Switzerland), Florence and Rome.

How long was this trip? Some advice?

Rex-
&quot;By the way, what season are you planning to do this?&quot;

We're hoping for end of Sept./early Oct. 2007.

We mostly want to see the touristy stuff. This is our first trip to Europe. We want it to be an exciting, whirlwind trip. We want to see as much as we can. We will go back to Europe in the future to the places we liked most, but for right now, we want to visit whatever big cities we can. I don't want to cut out destinations, because I have seen some websites where people have seen more than we are trying to see in 2 weeks time.

&gt;&gt; I don't want to cut out destinations, because I have seen some websites where people have seen more than we are trying to see in 2 weeks time.&lt;&lt;

If you want to see as much as possible, buy a Rick Steves video &amp; save yourself some money. If you really want to enjoy Europe, slow down the pace.

Like I stated earlier, the first time we went to Europe we dashed around so fast that we really didn't get to stay at any one place long enough to really enjoy it. Two years later, we returned to many of the exact same locations and stayed longer &amp; enjoyed the experience a lot more.

It took me 3 visits to Paris before I realy enjoyed it. A visitor needs to find some hidden/quiet nooks &amp; crannies in Paris to fall in love with it. On our first visits, we did Paris last. We were so exausted with the pace (we were in our 20s then) that we were &quot;brain dead&quot; &amp; didn't want to explore Paris like we should have.

Do less, enjoy more

Stu Dudley

Here is a question to help you decide:
If this were your first trip to the U.S, would you choose to see NYC, Miami, Dallas, and Chicago? If you want to visit only major cities, and don't mind long distances in between, then by all means stick to your original Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, London idea.

But if that sounds like crazy-talk, you need think about staying in a single region (like, the atlantic seaboard cities). Pick two adjacent countries: Italy/Switzerland, Germany/Holland, Holland/England, England/France, France/Italy, fly in to one major city, make a path through attractive-looking places to another major city, and fly out.

Next, what do you want to do -- eat well, visit museums, view breathtaking scenery, bike in the countryside, see old buildings? Do you know any languages? Maybe you have some special interests that can narrow your focus.

As far as airfares go, there is nothing special about German. Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam, Milan, Paris, etc., can each be cheap if you catch a good deal.

With research (and help from this board) you can probably find decent places to stay for close to $100 per night. Small cities/towns cost less than big cities. Staying in one place costs less than travelling around. My rule of thumb is to stay at least 3 nights per locale, otherwise there is too much packing/unpacking.

Sorry, didn't see your most recent post. It sounds like you have decided what you want to do.

So go north-south. Fly into London, stay 4 nights. Then go by bus/boat to Amsterdam, stay 3 nights. Then to Paris by train, stay 3 nights. Then fly to Rome on one of the European discount airlines, and stay 4 nights. Then fly home.

I rarely recommend this, but I would look into an organized tour company since the main goal seems to be to cover a lot ground in a short period of time.

I'm not sure what other websites you are basing things on, but do make sure you are reading about people who have actually done the trip, not ones who are just in the planning stages and *think* they can do the pace.

Please understand, it's not that it is not possible... but this kind of an itinerary means you are spending a good percentage of your time checking in and out of hotels, going to and from airports, riding on long train journeys, etc. That's the price you pay for the fast pace.

<i>We want to see as much as we can. We will go back to Europe in the future to the places we liked most...</i>

If you see the Colosseum and Notre Dame...how to know which you &quot;liked best&quot;: Rome or Paris? &quot;Seeing&quot; is not experiencing.

That said, there's nothing wrong with exciting whirlwinds. I just wouldn't do it again in Europe...too expensive. Pack light and have a great time!

I'm 100% w/ Suze on this one. I seldom if ever recommend guided tours. But the logistics of what you want makes a commercial tour probably the best option. Check out Globus and other mid-range tour companies.

For first-timers, trying to squeeze in as much as you plan is awfully difficult. There is a lot of acclimating and just learning your way around.

A guided tour will do what you want - whirlwind, brief stays in lots of places, but they take care of all the logistics.

(BTW - most &quot;whirlwinders&quot; see less than folks who slow down a bit since all the packing/unpacking, traveling between places REALLY cuts into your time.)

danijake
That first trip I mentioned went like this:
day
1 flew to London
2 arrived London/toured London
3 toured London
4 toured London
5 train to Paris/toured Paris
6 toured Paris
7 train to Wengen, Switz
8 toured Wengen
9 train to Innsbruck
10 toured Innsbruck - night train to Florence
11 toured Florence
12 toured Tuscany/train to Rome
13 toured Rome
14 toured Rome
15 flew home

The only problem I had with the trip above was the Innsbruck leg, but the other couple traveling with us had to see Innsbruck for family reasons so we added the leg. For you I would take out the Innsbruck leg and spend another day in Paris and in Wengen area and then take the train straight from Wengen to Florence.

I also agree that a tour sounds ideal for you and what you are looking to see and do. To assemble a whirl wind tour (and actually enjoy it) requires some skill, experience and compromise. (tour company's have all 3). Check out Rick Steves' Best of Europe in 14 Days tour. It starts in Paris and ends in Rome. This tour has a nice mix of city and country and sounds like you would get a really good taste of things without having to worry about all the logistics. You could arrive a couple of days early and visit your friend in Amsterdam (and get over jet lag) before the tour begins in Paris.

I love packing a lot into a trip. I plan by working with and around the local transportation connections. I take advantage of convienient train connections, and severely limit flights and long train rides.

There have been all sorts of suggestions here from seasoned travellers who have a great grasp on what it takes to get from A-B. If you really want to plan this trip yourself, then get out a calendar. Write in you departure and return dates, and then research all the transportation connections and fill them in. Keep in mind how long it takes to get from the city to airports, security etc. You are not going to grasp how much time moving from city to city takes until you research each connection.

Wekiva, I was interested in hearing the itinerary of the 2nd trip! I don't know how you managed it!

Planning trips takes experience and some basic know-how to be successful.

Honestly I am not sensing that you have the background to pull this off.

I say that because you don't seem to be taking in what everyone is saying about how many destinations you are trying to cover in too short a time, and the difficult logistics of moving that fast traveling independently.

Also statements like you've heard &quot;it's cheapest to fly into Germany&quot; are an absolutely ridiculous.

I mean this kindly, but I would seriously look at a few good organized tours (Globus et al.) and see if you don't see one to match your needs.

..agree with the above. If you want to see a bit of everything, get on a bus tour. For midrange, Globus, R.S., Trafalger and Insight. Otherwise, stay home, buy a good bottle of wine and watch some travel videos. If you try to do the whirlwind yourself, you will get more from watching &quot;French Kiss&quot;, S abrina, &quot;European Vacation&quot; with Edith piaff records in the background. I think given what you want to do, get on a tour bus. This is NOT derogatory. I think it will meet your needs with no lost time. Maybe after that trip, you will go again, relax, and focus your itinerary.

I spoke with my husband about the trip. He thinks that maybe we should drop Amsterdam. Fly into London, then go to Paris, and fly out of Rome. Those are the 3 places he'd most like to see. I'm wondering if we have time to see Venice before going to Rome. He says Venice isn't a top priority to him, but I'd like to see it. I would like to see my friend in Amsterdam, but I guess I'm not dying to see Amsterdam in general, and it might be difficult to figure out when to meet up with him anyway. I don't want to plan my trip around this, so if it's more convenient to leave it out, then that's what we'll do.

When might be the best time to start planning if we want to go at the end of Sept/early Oct? Would it be better to head back to London or travel back from Rome to the US? I looked around online, and prices seem good to London, but very expensive coming back from Rome.

I think London, Paris and Rome sounds great. Those are my 3 favorite cities in Europe, so far.

The train from London to Paris is pretty quick, so you don't even feel like you waste the entire day travelling. Also you travel from city center to city center, so you don't have the hassle of getting to the airport.

I have found, as a general rule, the airfares from Newark/NYC to be best to London. Paris is usually just a little more, although sometimes comparable. Rome seems to be much more, for some reason.

You can also check www.whichbudget.com to see what budget airlines fly between those cities. A quick flight might be easiest. Or maybe one overnight train ride would be fun. I don't know much about overnight train prices anymore, as we haven't done that in quite a while, but the budget flights can be cheap, cheap, cheap. Especially if you book them as soon as they are available (usually a few months ahead of time).

It might be nice to start in London. As a first time visitor, it is an easy city to get acclimated to the European culture, without any language differences.

If your travel dates will be flexible, I would sign up for all the travel newsletters that you can. Airlines frequently run special fare promotions and catching one of them can be a great saver.

We have found the best fare sales from Newark to be on Continental, so I'd definitely go to their web site and sign up to receive email alerts from them.

I have also found great airfare sales through &quot;airfare watchdog&quot;. This is a fabulous travel newsletter.