nbujic

a good idea to take RER to St Michel and see some sights around the area.
Be careful on the way back to the airport: the RER line in that directions branches in two - look for signs; it takes a while to change from RER to the bus to your terminal and check in.
study the maps of RER and Metro before you go, the system is huge.

LilyLace

You will find many different opinions here. Best to read everything and make your own choice of course.

Unlike some of the others, I think one week will be ok for either option as long as you mean what you say and are not inclined to see museums etc... also as long as you plan details ahead and book train tickets etc....

To me Rome will give you the most bang for your time and can be incorporated with Venice or Florence.

Personally I'd fly into Venice, book train tickets to Rome and out of Rome.

Venice 2 days, and Rome the remainder. All the big sites are within walking distance in Rome if you stay central. We just did Florence & Rome in September in 6 days and saw all the main sights (including The Sistine Chapel). Rome is really very simple to navigate by foot. And worth seeing.

nbujic

if you decide to stop in Paris, there is an Air France bus that takes you from CDG right to the Arc de Triomphe. (It took an hour in the morninig rush hour but much less during the day).
This way you avoid the Metro and RER,changigng buses etc.
if you can afford , take a few taxi rides .

Robespierre

The RER is <u>the fastest</u> way to get back and forth from the airport. All surface modes (including buses and taxis) are subject to traffic delays. With your time constraints, I would not recommend the Air France bus. (It also costs twice much as a <i>Paris Visite</i> pass.)

suze

I'm sure it could be done but only 9 hours to see Paris and need to get back to the airport for the next flight would only be anxiety producing for me. Either go to Paris for a few days, or save it for another time, would be my best advice.

janisj

I agree w/ suze. It is one thing if you <u>must</u> have a long layover in Paris. But &quot;<i>We could possibly arrange a 9 hour layover in Paris</i>&quot; sounds like this is just an option.

As it is, that travel day will be a BEAR, don't add 6 or 7 extra hours just for the fun of it.

If one is stuck at CDG for 9 hours then sure, go into the city. But don't add extra hassle when you don't need to . . . .

eric502

Being a first time traveller to Europe I would keep it simple. I would stay the whole time in Paris or Rome. My motto is the more you try to see the less you end up seeing.

I've been to both cities and my favorite is Paris but thats just a personal feeling. June would be a great month to go to Paris. But check it out and see what interest you. I think Rome has more history.

NeoPatrick

4 or 5 days in Paris is not &quot;enough&quot; and 2 or 3 days in Venice is not &quot;enough&quot;. But 2, 3, 4, or 5 days in either is WAY better than 0 days.

I say get an open jaw flight, spend 4 or five nights in Paris and 2 or 3 in Venice and have a ball.

Will you be an expert on either one when you return? NO. Will you have experienced enough of two very different cities to appreciate each and to have had a wonderful time and probably hope to return to experience more? YES.

fishee

If you're leaving from the W Coast, I agree to forget it, the flight is way too long.

But if from the E. Coast, and if I were energetic, very enthusiastic, had checked luggage, and only had a small, exceptionally light carry-on (no laptop) -- I'd be willing to do this for 4 1/2 hrs to see the Eiffel Tower, walk along the Seine, see Notre Dame, and grab a quick sandwich to eat on RER. But a heavy carry-on is a pain to lug around while site-seeing so restrain yourself when packing. And I agree you need to completely map out your route and study the metro beforehand.

suze

I'm still cheering for the Paris &amp; Venice trip. I've done exactly that. It was easy to plan and a ton of fun. I don't think you realize what you are getting into with your plan of 5 places in Italy.

If you *really* want to do Italy instead, I would go with only Venice &amp; Florence or Venice &amp; Rome so you can travel by train avoiding car rental.

I still think Paris and Venice are excellent (for a long list of reasons) for a first time European trip.

kstoby

Thank you again for all the input. Well reality has now hit. We are flying to Italy using frequent flyer miles and the great flights seem to dissapear within a second. Now, the best flights we can get are into Milan and out of Venice (with a total stay of 8 nights). What would be the best suggestions for a northern Italy experience. My husband's friend has previously done...Lake Como, Cinque Terre, cooking class in Tuscany and then the rest of the time in Venice. This sounds inviting, but just looking at the train schedule makes my knees weak. Please help.

enzian

Actually, it's not bad if you give up Cinque Terre. Milan to, say, Varenna on Lake Como is only an hour. You have to return to Milan to get to Venice, but then it's only another 3 hours. You could add a stop somewhere in between (Lago di Garda?) and have a nice trip, with enough time to really enjoy Venice.

suze

Well I'm basically a coward and like real simple travel. With the givens you have given, I would probably spend the first 3 days in Milan, then take a train to Venice (only 3 hours, it's simple) and spend 5 days there. With plenty of time to see the city, the islands, etc.

NeoPatrick

I would not go to the CT unless you are really into making the hike between the villages and then you'll need to spend two nights there to do it. Personally, I'd cross the CT off the list.
I'd opt for three nights at Bellagio upon arrival. Then train to Verona for a single night. Then on to Venice for the remaining 4 nights. Period.

But in all honesty, flying to Paris for 5 nights, then flying on to Venice for 3 nights and flying home from there would be an even more thrilling trip for 2 first-timers in my opinion -- and infinitely easier and less hassle than the itinerary I mentioned above.

kstoby

I'd never checked the cost of flying from Paris to Venice. I just checked Ryanair, and the fare was 21 Euros. Is that for real??? Does anyone know anythink about this airline or the airports (Paris Beauvais (BVA or Venice Treviso (TSF))??

NeoPatrick

That's OK, but it is much better, in my opinion to look at myair.com and book from Paris Orly to Venice Marco Polo, both much easier airports for transport. You will find fares just as cheap there. Yes, these airlines are on the level and are fine. Inter Europe budget airlines are flourishing -- and offer great value.

janisj

Just remember - the &euro;21 is before taxes and fees. But yes, that is for real.

fishee

I don't see anything wrong with landing in Milan and going straight to the Milan train station for Venice or Florence. It was really cheap, like 15 E pp and the train was much more comfortable and pleasant than flying, but we were in Milan for a few days prior. Another time we landed in Milan, immediately rented cars (4 cars for 15 people) and drove straight to a villa outside of Florence.

Madison

I agree with Suze. Venice &amp; Paris.

sunnyeve17

I suggest Venice/Florence/Rome. Though they're all in Italy, each city is completely different. You will find unique culture, shopping, food and sights in each!