ccrosner

Our family of four has concentrated its travel thus far in the US with several fabulous trips to our national parks (as well as some Caribbean, Florida, Northeast travel). We think it's time to show the kids (now ages 10 and 12) other cultures. Leading contenders for the first trip (either April 2007 or august 2007) are: Italy, London/Scotland or Spain. Italy is the top contender.

I'm interested in some Fodorite reactions to our plans. If we do Italy in April 2007, what do you think of this itinerary:

Rome - 3 nights
Positano/Pompeii - 2 nights
Venice - 2 nights

Could add 2 nights to this itinerary. Have avoided Florence (I know you will all question this) as my husband and I don't think the kids will appreciate the art and we also don't want to do too much. Husband really wants Rome and Pompeii. I'd like Positano and the kids want Venice.

I'm a bit concerned that it will be too cool in April but I know how incredibly hot it can be in August (I've been to Rome in August).

Or would you do London/Scotland first?

wally34949

If you are concerned about it being cool in Italy, why would you want to do London?

I would recommend the first trip to Europe be where the families roots are from. Certainly, if their is some Italian in the family, Italy would be an excellent destination.

Other reasons for going to a particular area of Europe could be price, interest, weather, packaged deals.

As for Florence, there are a lot of Statutes of David in the city.

It looks like you have a great trip planned. Enjoy it!

quokka

Too rushed. You've got only one week, including travel time, and getting from Campania to Venice will take almost a whole day (especially if you are travelling by car). Italy isn't that small. Cut out either Venice or Pompeii/Positano. The decision is either one or the other. I can't imagine the kids to appreciate travelling at race-horse speed.
3 nights in Rome, i.e. two full days, one of which will be lost due to jet lag, doesn't do the city justice. Ditto for just one full day in Venice. 2 nights in the South means seeing both the Amalfi coast and Pompeii in the same day. Some tourists do that, but uf you want your kids to enjoy the trip, give them (and yourself) enough time to, for example, explore Pompeii and discover what is hidden in the ruins - one could spend a whole day there.

No, I don't question your avoiding Florence. Cramming even more destinations into such a short visit would be crazy.

April is perfect for Italy. Nice spring weather, but not too hot. My favourite season.

ira

Hi CC,

I think that you are going a long way for only 2 nights on the AC.

>Could add 2 nights to this itinerary.<

I strongly suggest adding one night to Venice and one night to Positano.

I suggest flying into Venice and out of Naples.

Thus,
Venice 3 nights Train to
Rome 3 nioghts Train to
Naples and on to Sorrento - 3 nights.

You could also fly Venice VCE to Naples (see www.whichbudget.com) or take the train (www.trenitalia.com).

From Naples airport, there is bus service to Sorrento - http://www.curreriviaggi.it/

From Naples train station, you take the Circumvesuviana commuter train to Sorrento.

From Sorrento, take the SITA bus to Positano.

If Pompeii is important, you might want to stay in Sorrento.

You could also take the train from Venice to Salerno and the ferry from Salerno to Positano. The ferry dock is about 3 blks from the train station. This is more scenic easier than going from Sorrento to Positano.

For Ferry schedules Positano – Amalfi - Salerno (P.zza della Concordia):
See http://tinyurl.com/j4ufa

Enjoy your visit.

janisj

Any country would be great. &quot;<i>Or would you do London/Scotland first?</i>&quot; London OR Scotland would be great too (Not both in a little ove one week). But why do you want to go -- besides &quot;other cultures&quot; what sorts of thing do you want to see/do.

But for your Italy plans - don't move so many times. Stay in Rome 5 days w/ Pompeii as a day trip. Then Venice 3 days.

So that would give you 4 days Rome, 1 day Pompeii, and 3 days Venice.

ccrosner

Thanks for all the good advice.

First, I knew I would get beat up for too much in nine days. But with kids' schedules these days (school still counts!) and such high airfares, you do want to get the most bang for your buck. And I realize that we won't be able to see all there is to see in each spot but know what my kids can handle (we have take three major 10 day trips out west with multiple stops).

I like Ira's suggested changes and appreciate the detail on trains and ferries. Good suggestions--thank you.

If we did London/Scotland it would be in August and for closer to two weeks. I am Scottish and my husband and I love the country so that is a must see some time (as is London).

The reason for Italy is that hubby and I have been there several times each so we are somewhat more comfortable with the idea and we love Italy. Also think the kids will love it. We'd like to do Spain someday as the children have studied Spanish. But I'd like to wait a couple of years until our youngest has more Spanish under her belt and can really try speaking it.

Keep the advice coming

janisj

&quot;<i>you do want to get the most bang for your buck. </i>&quot; Many people have that idea - Unfortunately by doing more places in less time you are getting <b>LESS</b> bang for the buck. Moving around a lot means you spend more time on trains, buses, in train stations, checking in, checking out, than you do actually enjoying teh sights.

If you do start thinking about Scotland in August, do realize Edinburgh is a special case. You will need to book accomodations and Tattoo tickets months in advance. Two weeks in Scotland would be a great trip for the kids - castles, steam trains, boat trips, and so on. But the time in Edinburgh must be arranged far ahead.

suze

If for whatever reasons you can get two full weeks in August for London/Scotland, then I would pick that trip instead.

Simply because I don't think only 7 days in Italy is worth the price of the plane ticket. Now if you can get that up to 9-10 days and follow janis' suggestions of basing in only Rome then Venice, that sounds better, and I'd consider it.

When I think of &quot;most bang for the buck&quot;... it is the plane ticket that is the single largest expense, so the longer you can stay, the better the value, to my point of view.

alyssamma

CC,

I'm not sure of your exact situation, so I'm going to give some slightly different advice.

If you think this might be your only trip to Europe (or will only take one or two others), go for it. 7 days in Italy, no matter how rushed, is better than 7 days at home

If, however, this is the start of many trips to Europe, I would agree with the other posters and say 7 days is not long enough. You can easily do 5-6 days in Rome (and surroundings/day trips).

Also, if you will be taking many trips to Europe, I would *not* start with Italy. Why? Well, as someone (I can't remember who) said, &quot;See Venice and die&quot;. Basically, once you've been to Italy, you'll be comparing everything else to it

I'd start a little further west - England, France, Spain...or maybe even Germany (I know that is North) for a first trip into Europe. Save Italy for when you've already seen a few other countries there.

Last bit of advice. Whenever you do go to Italy, start eating Gelato as soon as you get off the plane

Kevin

Lexma90

I would suggest Italy over London/Scotland or Spain, simply because I love it more! That being said, we took our son for his first European trip (after much U.S. travel) last year, when he was 10.

We visited London, Paris and the Loire Valley, over the course of 12 days. We picked those destinations because he is a big Anglophile (bigger one now that he's been), he's always wanted to see the Eiffel Tower, and because we like Paris/Loire. Do your kids have any special interests that would tie into any of your possible destinations?

We went to London first, because I thought it would be more familiar. Turns out, that didn't matter in the least to him. For kids, I think, they just &quot;know&quot; their parents will take care of them, so culture or language differences may not matter as much as they would and do to adults. In terms of food, we've eaten a variety of foods since he was little, so probably the full English breakfast was more foreign to him than any other meal!

We chose Paris and the Loire partly, too, because we've been there before. It did make it easier that we were familiar with the locations. It also made us parents feel like we only &quot;had&quot; to do whatever we wanted, which meant some of the major sites, and then some things we did because he wanted to. We didn't feel like anybody was missing out on anything they felt was important.

You've done fabulous trips in the U.S. Consider your schedules on those trips; you mentioned that your family is used to multiple stops. In the U.S., have you traveled to big cities, or more often to the national parks? For example, our son loves big cities, and that's why we visited London and Paris. But for some kids (i.e., my daughter, who stayed at home with the grandparents), big cities are less enjoyable.

I do think your original plan is way too busy. 2 days in Venice actually means 2 nights, and 1 + days, which isn't long at all. I'm assuming you'll fly open jaws. Book your plane tickets, and have the entire family read up on just what they'd want to see in each location; that may help you narrow down your destinations. I would suggest flying into Venice - what a way to enter Italy!

bobthenavigator

I would not fly 4 people that far for only 7 nites, but I am frugal.
See Italy, but wait until you have at least 10 days there. What about June?

alyssamma

To those who talk about &quot;only 7 nights&quot;, understand that more than 7 might not be an option depending on the OP's job (or spouse's job).

Also, with FF miles, etc., cost of getting there might not be an issue.

It might also *cost* more to stay longer. I'm a contractor, so don't get paid when I don't work

And with a family, the daily cost in Europe is pretty expensive (I'm taking my family - 3 kids + my mother to France and Belgium in a month).

Bottom line, go to Europe however you can. If you have &gt;7 days, great. But if not, don't let that stop you from going.

Kevin

sundowner

I have spent the money for a &quot;short&quot; trip to Italy and would certainly do it again. We (2 children and I) had only 6 nights in country and spent 3 in Sorrento (Pompeii, Herculaneum &amp; Naples) and 3 nights in Rome. We went during spring break (March) and had a fantastic time and the weather was wonderful. If I could have added 2 more days I believe I would have stayed longer in Rome. My youngest daughter (now 12) has asked if we can go to Venice and if we are able to work something out, it will be a short trip as well.

So I vote for Italy in April. Good luck planning your trip.

Cindy

bardo1

Yes, start with Italy.

April will be MUCH nicer than August - go for April if at all possible.

Go the extra two nights if you can and add a night in both Rome and Venice.

It's not too soon to reserve hotels for April. The most popular ones often fill six months out and you can always cancel (well, not at the last minute...).

JeanneB

<i>The reason for Italy is that hubby and I have been there [Italy] several times each...</i>

That somewhat mitigates the shortness of the trip. You'll be able to make more efficient use of your time than a first-timer.

I agree with Ira: add 2 nights, start in Venice, fly to Naples, end in Rome.

enzian

I'm assuming the time constraints are due to the childrens' school schedules---April would be a spring break trip. We've done this with our daughters---a 9-day spring break trip to Europe, although we chose London/Paris because at the time the air tickets were much cheaper than to Italy. But we would love to take them to Italy too, and I'm sure ccrosner's children will love it there. The weather in April should be fine, even in Venice.

Just be careful of the dates---if this coincides with Easter week, you may find Rome too crowded to be enjoyable for tourists. Otherwise, Ira's suggestion looks great to me.

Hagan

We'll be taking our 2 teen grandsons for their first trip to Europe (first plane ride, actually)next March. We're spending 5 nights in Rome, then taking the train to Venice, 3 nights there, then flying out of Venice for home. We chose these sites together, and their criteria were &quot;really old things, art and scenery&quot;. So Italy it is.

JeanneB

I have posted this several times lately. But it bears repeating here for those of you taking children to Venice.

Before we went I found a film at the library about the history of Venice and how it was built. Consider: no trees, no stone, soft marshy ground covered with several feet of water. Yet the Venetians built a masterpiece there. This film shows re-enactments of how the early foundations were laid---fascinating ---and how they maintain them to this day.


It was produced by A &amp; E or Discovery Channel. I wish I could remember the name. It will add immensely to their appreciation for this wondrous city.

noe847

Our first trip abroad with our children was 2 weeks to Scotland in August when they were 11 and 13. Probably the most perfect trip we've ever taken (and I've been back to Europe with them 6 additional times.) I'll echo janisj's sentiments - 2 weeks is not enough to combine Scotland and London. We found 6 days inadequate in London, and that was without day trips. For Scotland, you'll want to do Edinburgh and get to the Highlands (and maybe an island or two), and I think Glasgow should be in there also. Figuring in driving/transit times between the areas, and you'd fill 2 weeks in a heartbeat.

That being said, you're receiving lots of good info about Italy...

bardo1

Jeanne,

You mean &quot;Ancient Mysteries: The Miraculous Canals of Venice&quot; A&amp;E (2005)??

It's on netflix, amazon, etc.