TDS...as was just stated the term you are looking for on airline websites is Multi city. on Delta's web site you'll see ROUND-TRIP | ONE-WAY | MULTI-CITY...that's what you want. It may cost more but on a trip with tight time frame it's a great way to see more in less time.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record...but if you want to see a lot and feel up to a busy schedule and long days (as several of your previous posts seem to indicate) then give it a shot. I think your first trip is the best trip to pack full of cities to see. You've got other trips to slow down.

I don't mean any disrespect to all the knowledgeable people on this web site but most of you have been to Europe MANY times (some in the hundreds of trips it seems). I can certainly understand that for an experienced traveler who has been to most if not all of the big European cities that a slow pace is great. But for someone who has NEVER been...I just don't think being in a city for 4 days is the best choice. Just my opinion and I can understand if you disagree.

On the Multi City issue...I checked next May/June for two trips:
Orlando - London - Rome - Orlando is $1,238
Orlando - Paris - Orlando is $1,548

....wow...that's not the point I was trying to make.
OK...Orlando - Rome - Orlando is $1,482.

Well never mind...I was going to tell you it was worth paying a bit more for multi city...but apparently it's REALLY worth it since it's cheaper. Ah...the fun times of trying to understand airline pricing.

I don't think the fact that I've been to Europe a few times has much to do with my recommendation to slow things down for tds0212. My first real trip to Europe was 10 days to London and Paris. I did about half my time in each city with some day trips. I really enjoyed London, but I fell in love with Paris and if anything felt an extra day or two there would have been great. But I'm not the type who feels ready to move on from a city once I've ticked off the list of things I want to see; I want to become a bit familiar with the place (especially places I like). I've never liked feeling rushed on a trip - and it's been that way since my first trip. Everyone has a different travel style.

understand your point Wekiva, but I think most people agree, either before or unfortunately after their trip, that picking up and moving four times across hundreds of miles (or more) in 11 days is too much. It's nice to be able to keep your stuff in a hotel room for a couple of nights so you can go out at night and not have to pack and not have to wake up early to rush to a train, or worse arrive hours in advance at the airport.

This trip can be the start of many trips to Europe on just about any budget. To rush through the capitals of every major European country would be exhausting and stressful for even the most experienced traveler.

I agree with Wekiva - for those who have never been to Europe, it's not unheard of to take a multi-city tour for ex, 6, even 7 cities in 2 weeks. The point is to get a "feel" for all of it, especially when you are young, and then return in a more leisurely fashion: on a return trip you can pick the place you liked best, or felt you did not see enough of, or has you thinking of it again and again. Then yes, spend a week in a rental apt, "living the life of XXXX".

[a few years ago, my aunt, 60+ at the time, booked a tour such as that and can only thank her lucky stars she did - she has not been able to get back to Europe, but she knows what Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, London, Viena, Madrid and Barcelona look like, how the food tastes, how the language spoken by "natives" sounds, how people dress and go about, etc, etc, etc.]

Andrew is also giving you great advice: book through the airline. I'm saying this because 2 days ago, my husband was a bit too excited about booking a trip to Tuscany, but chose Rome as the R/T airport. After much thought, today we cancelled the already purchased tickets, but were able to cancel ONLY because he had booked through delta.com

(and yes, next to one way/round trip/ you find "multi city". Click that, enter your airport codes and there you go - open jaw. Which btw, was actually cheaper than R/T from JFK to Rome.)

One last comment - don't let any of us talk you out of what your dream european experience is. Take the advice that makes sense to you, but really ... trust your gut and have a fabulous trip.

I think the biggest problem with seeing lots of cities in a little time is that it takes TIME to get from one place to the next. Each move takes TIME -- time to pack up, get to a train station or airport, the trip itself, time to get from the airport to your new hotel, etc. That would be my biggest reason to recommend fewer rather than more cities in a short time period.

Thanks for the sites on airline tix....I agree that the open jaw is the best way! Although round trip from Atl to London is only $902 p/person, spending the extra $$ will give us more time at our last stop and also keep us from backtracking!! When I was looking at round trip I was having a difficult time figuring out how we were going to get BACK to London in time for a flight home w/o losing another day traveling. Thanks for all the input. This site is very helpful in planning our trip. So glad I got involved. More questions to come as the planning continues im sure!

I like the idea Michel_Paris had about flying into Amsterdam, then to Paris, then to London. Giving us a 3-4-4 stay. I have been reading a little about Amsterdam. A lot of ppl say that it is a good starting place because it is not as "hectic" as Paris or London. Not to say it is not as beautiful, fun, or exciting as the other two...but the pace is a little different(so they say). Obviously I have no idea, but it sounded like a great place to begin...See the attractions/museums, take some walks, hit up some cafes/coffeeshops, river cruise, people watch...I have some ideas in my head, but I think this will be the place that will get our trip going and give us time to get over jetlag and get in gear! Let me know how you think this sounds...i may be totally off.

Some people loooooove Amsterdam. I am not one of them. Compared to Paris and London, I found it a bit dreary and dirty (since I am not a pot smoker, I found the whiff of pot smoke coming from the hash bars on so many back streets and even in the Marriott(!) a bit off-putting). The canals were somehow not quite what I was expecting. It wasn't awful (some people would say Paris is dirty, too) but it I don't put it in the same class with Paris especially. You may like it better than I did - I hope you do! You can't like everywhere you visit equally well.

FYI, the trains are terrific in Europe; if you meant that you would fly to Paris and to London, do consider taking the train instead. You can train from Amsterdam to Paris in just over three hours by high speed train, from city center to city center. Far less hassle than dealing with airport security, etc. and less stressful! Same with taking the Eurostar train from Paris to London.

London might actually be a better place to start, actually, for several reasons: there's the obvious one (no language barrier when you first arrive in Europe for your first trip there) plus I believe it's easier to arrive at London airports than to depart from them; familiarize yourself with the most recent carry-on rules for example - I think they are more stringent than from Amsterdam. Just a personal preference. (To be fair, there's not much of a language barrier in Amsterdam - most people speak some English if not a lot.)

I'd probably base my decision (start in London or Amsterdam?) in part on the times of the arriving and departing flights as well. Surely Delta has direct flights between both cities and ATL so you are lucky in that sense!

Alternative Suggestion: I am guessing you are American, so why not skip London? It is the least exotic of your choices. Also, strongly agree with "Agree that overnights can be useful, though would recommend against more than 1 in a trip, particularly if you've got more than 1 smallish sized suitcase per person." If you are late 20's, pack light and be happier. Amsterdam, Paris, and Rome will be plenty, believe me!!

Ankhboy...Amsterdam, Paris, Rome...something to think about. Picking the place has been the hardest decision by far!!!

Andrew...you think I should skip Amsterdam?? I would hate to be dissapointed :(

Also...i forgot to add...Has anyone heard of Unique Paris? I found it on a website. It says for 60 EUR they will be avail to you 24 hrs a day for the duration of your trip. You can call for cab rides, recommendations for restaurants, they will plan your entire stay out for you and book your tours (for additional cost of museum/tour fees) if you want them to. Kind of like a "go-to" for things to do/see places to go...did't know if something like this would be worth it. I have emailed back and forth a few times w them. It sounds amazing, but I don't want to get involved in something that will be a rip off. They told me they could do private tours for me and my husband, cooking classes, book all our tours...blah blah blah. Anyway, let me know if anyone has heard of this or thinks it's worth it!

tds,
You get us for free :)

Very True...;)

I wouldnt skip amswerdam if it intersts you - I loved it and found it very charming. The canals beat my expectations, as did the food! We didnt frequent any 'cafes' so cant comment on that but the smell didnt get to me at all!!

Choose where you are interested in going and have an opened mind and you wont be disappointed!

I'd stick to your latest plan. Flying into Amsterdam, training to Paris and again via the Eurostar to London. Be sure and buy tickets for the Eurostar as soon as you can (approximately 3 months before the date of your train trip). It can make a big difference pricewise.

You're going to find people who like and people who dislike Amsterdam, people who love London and people who hate it. People who say you must go to Venice, it's fabulous. Or Istanbul. Or Provence.

Just go where you want to go and decide for yourself.

Regarding Unique Paris, it sounds good, but I don't think you're going to be in Paris long enough to take full advantage of their services. All of which will cost extra, I bet, extra over their usual cost so as to reimburse UP. And the concierge at your hotel can do a lot of that for you. (I don't recommend an apartment for first-timers. It's better to have a hotel where you can ask questions and get help.)

Yes about the Eurostar - buy as early as possible - just show up and you can pay literally $100 more than the cheap tickets, sold in limited numbers - but as the cheaper tickets are not refundable nor changeable be sure of your date and time. For the best chances of the cheaper fares try to chose a mid-week day as around weekends when demand is at a peak cheaper tickets are hard to get. Go to www.eurostar.com for prices in Euros from Paris and i also always advise checking on prices in dollars from RailEurope in the U.S. - usually eurostar.com is cheaper but not always as there seems little rhyme or reason between their fares for the same trains - and for any RailEurope product i always advise calling the helpful folks at www.budgeteuropetravel.com, whom i have bought railpasses from for years and attest to their personal service. But check both sources and if you find a cheap fare hop on it. Folks report no problem using www.eurostar.com to print out their e-tickets.

When I buy tickets from eurostar/raileurope will that cover transportation while in amsterdam/paris/london or is that just travel to paris and to london? I probably should know this but havent really studied up on the rail passes yet. Just wondering if there is something else i will need to purchase to hop on a train here and there to get around each city i am visiting. I've seen a lot of posts where ppl are talking about taking a train to get here and a train to get there...just thinking that is a lot of train tickets!!

No, eurostar/raileurope covers travel on the national railroads. You will have to deal with the local transport authorities in the cities (RATP for Paris, London Transport for London , and ? for AMS - I forgot and I was just there...)

For London public transit, I used the Oyster card and loaded it up with the amount I figured I needed (there are other options). For Paris, I bought a carnet of tickets to use on the Metro (again, there are other options).

Will depend on how much you will use transit and where yopu want to go.

I am going against the grain here, but I would skip London and Amsterdam, as said prior it is the least "exotic" of your short list. You said your husband is hot for Spain and you for Italy - why not concentrate on those two places for your first trip? You could spend five days in each, rent an apartment and get a good lay of each city and add in some day trips. While Madrid is filled with museums, there is more to it than just spending days at the museums. Late night tapas-crawls with amazing and very inexpensive food and soaking up the energy of the city is a worthwhile experience and certainly not something that would be as fun once you are hunkered down with kids. You could do some easy day trips as well. From there you could go to Rome where you surrounded with the Colosseum, Roman Forum and again, more food and wine and urban energy.

By doing the two places each of you are most intrigued by, you can decide where to go explore more of the next trip around. You will also get your slow travel experience.

Just a thought.

If you want to be able to say you've visited London, Paris, Rome, etc. by all means exhaust yourself with an expensive 11-day major city itinerary that once it's over will be a vague blur. Overnight trains will further sap your mental and physical resources as not much sleep can be gotten on them. How about visiting one big city, say, Paris or Vienna or Berlin and spending the rest of the time driving backroads visiting small villages? Devote 4 ord 5 full days to Paris and spend the next 6 or 7 in the countryside seeing France's wine regions such the Champagne country, the Alsace wine road, Burgundy, et.. For the driving portion you could opt to forgo a set itinerary, stopping at charming inns as the spirit moves. Forget the train; it's full of tourists and the car provides ultimate flexibility and probably will be cheaper. There are a lot more roads in France than railroad tracks. You could do the same thing from Florence, Vienna, Munich or Berlin. Get off the beaten track where it's cheaper, more relaxed and more authentic.

Most first-time travelers IMO should avail themselves of the fantastic train system - with trains blowing hourly at speeds of up to nearly 200 mph between zillions of cities, large and small. Just about any place a tourist wants to go is accessible by rail.

If going mainly to large cities like Amsterdam, Paris, etc cars are a liability once there - wide areas of city centers are off-limits to private vehicles - parking is hard to find a times and then like in Amsterdam costs about $30/day i think - many city hotels do not have parking - then take the train right to the city center and use the superb city transit systems to get around - and European cities are often very walkable

Cars are great for exploring rural areas without good rail service but most first-time travelers want to go to the mega tourist cities they've been dreaming about going to all their lives - so this is best done IMO by train - and you do see the countryside from the train in between the big cities.

And if just using the car to say drive between Paris and Amsterdam then it can be fatiguing as well. Do like many Europeans do if going to big cities and take the train IMO. For loads of great info on planning a European rail trip i always spotlight these info-laden sites - www.ricksteves.com; www.seat61.com and www.budgeteuropetravel.com - download the latter's free European Planning & Rail Guide as it has a chapter on each country by train - suggested itineraries, etc.

Really like both the suggestions of Cherrybomb and GuyC, and for a first trip to Europe, would give them serious, strong consideration. May is such a perfect time for the warmer climates. Both Madrid (or Barcelona) and Rome offer enough of everything for you to have a fantastic, exciting trip, and each of you get what you want most. I think you would both feel a sense of deep satisfaction from such a trip.

tds0212, no, I wouldn't skip Amsterdam, at least not based on my opinions. You may love it or at least like it. I guess what I was more trying to do is bring you down to earth to the fact that you may not love EVERY place you visit in Europe. Sometimes it's hard to keep perspective when reading all these glowing reviews of places you might visit that the writer might have entirely different tastes from yours. That's one of the biggest challenges I've had in trying to pick places to visit on my trips to Europe: who do you trust when getting recommendations for a place?

I don't regret having visited Amsterdam even though I didn't love the place (and I still may go back, though it's not at the top of my list of course). I've met more than one person who didn't care for Paris at all, even though it's one of my favorite cities in Europe. We all have different tastes, and you will find yours after your trip to Europe! And Amsterdam is the kind of place you sort of need to visit just to see what it's like.

Amsterdam is a lovely city and as you surmised, it is more relaxed. The City is very pretty and from while I haven't been there in years, from what I've heard it is slowly becoming a bit less liberal. For example, I'd love to be corrected on this point, but I read that while it is still legal to enjoy marijuana, it's no longer permissible to serve alcohol at the same venue. Now some people might not think this is a huge deal, particularly if you don't enjoy marijuana, but others who may be traveling in a group, some of whom want to drink, others who prefer to smoke, ... you get the picture. Anyway, the question remains how far to the right Amsterdam will move and how long it will take?

I can see flying into Amsterdam and then flying to Paris, but I strongly recommend taking Eurostar to London. It's more convenient in EVERY way, including the amount of time that it will take to get to where you're staying in London. As for substituting Amsterdam with Rome, a couple of points.
Rome deserves more than 3 days as it is a massive city with a lot to see. It is also much less convenient than Amsterdam.
And, also, Rome, as opposed to Amsterdam, is really better seen as part of a longer trip that includes other parts of Italy.

I don't know y, but I am extreamley intimidated by the whole train thing....I'm hoping when I get a few travel books it will ease my mind. Right now I am just thinking how in the heck am I going to know where to go, how to get there, which train is going where...should i fly, should i ride...ah! I know I will have it all figured out by the time the trip comes but right now im like WHOAH!

tds0212, you are so sweet & funny that it's a joy for everyone to help you figure this out. I'm telling you, though, you'll be like WHOAH until it happens. And then you'll be like WHOAH, I totally did that. Seriously, the whole WHOAH thing is definitely the point of travel. You're on board now -- have a ball!

here is chunnel (Eurostar b/t Paris and London)

http://www.raileurope.com/train-faq/...6318&WT.srch=1

I understand your trepidation, but it'll be easier if you plot out your major train rides ahead of time and think about the city-trains (Tube and Metro) when you're in Paris or London. Train stations usually do a good job of directing you and there's always someone to ask for help. And you're right, the guidebooks will help you. I still think Rick Steves and Frommers are the best guidebooks. I'd recommend buying guidebooks from half.com. That's where I get all of my books.

Since it seems you're sticking to large cities that aren't all that far apart the trains will be pretty simple. Surviving the flight to your first city will be much more taxing. I doubt you'll have to switch trains. An example is Amsterdam to Paris...raileurope.com says there are the following non stop trains:
7:16am
8:16am
10:16am
1:16pm
3:16pm
4:16pm
6:16pm
7:16pm

...and that they all take about 3hr 19minutes. I believe that will be a lot easier, roomier and less taxing than flying.

We LOVED the trains and can't wait to ride them again next summer with our children. They're into trains right now and will be in heaven.

tds-

Please don't be put off by the trains- they are one of the major (positive) differences between here and there. On my first "grand tour" exposure in the 70s we got a Eurailpass and spent six weeks on the trains, probably taking night trains a third of the time. It has gotten so much easier figuring out train schedules with the internet than back then when we only had published posted schedules to deal with.

Anyway, spend some time here as mentioned before:

http://www.seat61.com/Europe.htm

For the major cities you are considering, with only 2 people, you do not need or want a car. You will also spend much much more time going city center to city center with planes and probably spend more money as well (unless you use the budget carriers, maybe)

Trains are soooo easy to use please dont be intimidated. You show up at the railstation, find your platform using a huge screen (or ask the info place) and then head to the platform a few minutes before the train is due, get on and relax until you get off in the next city! A breeze. The Eurostar is fantastic between London and Paris. You do have to go through securty similar to an airport but it takes mins and then you just sit back and wait to board!

Eurostar is the exception for security ( due to the tunnel). The vast majority are just show up at the station 15 minutes ahead , find your train at the track posted on the board, hop on. Piece of cake.

By the time you do the math of getting to airport, security, flight, getting into next city...the train is almost as fast. Don;t worry about the trains, it's quite organized and easy to figure out.

Ditto on the trains. Riding the trains is one of my favorite parts of traveling in Europe. You sit in spacious comfy seats and the scenery flows by. You peek into backyards in city suburbs, catch a snapshot of life in small villages, get reminded how much of Europe is not city but farmland, fields and woods.

Buying tickets etc is not difficult. The Seat61 site will help. Also check out Rick Steves' guidebooks if available to you. And there are some books about riding the trains in Europe. If you do the Amsterdam/Paris/London itinerary, you can buy your tickets ahead of time, have reserved seats, and just need to show up.

I'm sorry I have not read all the posts. Just wanted to say we did a two week trip once, visiting London- Paris- Amsterdam. It was a great mix of different cultures to visit. We are a family of four (one late teen and one early twentys) and we all really enjoyed Amsterdam. The people there are so helpful and friendly, the town is so incredibly charming, clean, and felt very safe. Do not be put off by the pot availability. It did not concern us, even with teens in tow.

I did wish for more than 3 nights in Paris, though. If I were to choose just two of those cities in two weeks, I would recommend Paris and Amsterdam. Just my personal preference.

I have detailed trip reports from each of the three cities, if you need them.

IMO London makes some sense as a starting point as it's good for getting one's bearings in a strange land with a familiar language. Fares to London are generally cheap and museums are free (tip of the hat to our taxpaying Brits). But, for me its just not exotic enough, and just doesn't have the charm of Paris or Rome. Amsterdam seems an interesting place, but doesn't need too much time.

We all have our opinions- when you get back you will have yours, tds

One item to note on flights that include London and open jaw tickets...flying into London is a lot cheaper than flying out of London. The taxes for flying out of London are really high. On our 2011 trip I found the taxes to be $100 less per person when we flew into London and out of Rome vs the other way around.

raileurope.com's train schedules only show the trains that RE can book and thus not nearly all the zillion of trains in Europe - on mainline connections like Paris to Amsterdam they usually show them all but not always - some glitches - sometimes even showing only a few for some reason

The best schedule site for all European trains i have seen in the www.bahn.de - or German Rail site - easiest to use and always seems to show all trains - even commuter trains in places like London.

Right, I always refer to the Germain rail site for checking the schedules. I've used it for most of my Europe trips as reference - and I've never even been to Germany!!

Yeah, the trains especially in Amsterdam, Paris, and London should be extremely easy. Love, love, love using the trains in Europe. Much less stressful than flying, usually. I can't even imagine driving in any of those cities!