enewell

Our trip to Italy next spring will begin with a stay in Florence and Chianti. We're trying to decide whether to fly to Florence, which involves an additional stop in Europe, or to fly more directly to Rome and then take the train to Florence. Which option would be easier? Thanks for your input!

Mimar

All other things being equal, flying into Florence is easier. If you fly into Rome, you have to transport yourself from the airport to the Rome train station, then catch a train to Florence, all the while lugging your luggage. The Florence airport is small and not far from the city.

bill_boy

I don't think all other things will be equal.

The additional stop in another city in ordre to get to Florence includes an additional travel time and effort, which potentially would be wait time for the connecting flight, immigration stop, and customs and baggage retrieval and check in.

dutyfree

I think that you might find that flying nonstop into Rome is alot cheaper than a connection in Europe to Florence?

mjs

The cost of flying direct to Rome or with one stop to Florence is difficult to predict. The direct route is not always the cheapest. One stop in a major hub such as Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Munich or London may take as little as 2- 3 hours and get you directly into Florence. Getting to Florence from Rome will require a train from the airport to the train station in Rome than a 2 hour Eurostar ride. This adds to your cost and will require an additional 3-4 hours of getting your luggage from the Rome airport to Florence. Flying direct does save you from one airport connection. My suspicion is that you will be able to get a decent flight with one stop in one of the above hubs with less than a 3 hour stopover to get you to/from Florence with less hassle and cost that doing the direct route but either way will work. If you do the one stop it will be important to get all your flights on one ticket.