My first time on these boards, so I was hoping to get some advice. We are looking to go to Europe for three weeks and want to highlight the following places: London, Paris, French Riviera, Venice, Crete and Prague. What order would/should I do these in...and with distance in mind is this realistic? Any suggestions, etc. would be great! Thanks, Karen

Simple mathematics: 21 days for 6 destinations equals 3 1/2 days for each, not counting travel time....and there will be a bit of travel time no matter what order to put them in. I would suggest eliminating at least one.

Hi Karen -- You can do it, but you will spend a fair amount of time and/or money getting to all those places. With 6 "destinations" in 3 weeks, and considering your travel time, that will probably average out to less than 3 days in each location. You're going to spend about 25% of your 3 weeks in transit. I think when you actually get down to figuring out your in-Europe transportation and the timing, you'll see what I mean.

If you think this is your only trip to Europe and you are set on seeing these places, then go for it. You will get a taste, but no more.

Otherwise, consider eliminating at least Crete (which I love, but it's hardly worth the trouble to get there for 3 days). Fly transatlantic in and out of London, and look for cheap flights on the smaller European airlines to Paris, Venice, Prague.

Personally, I think London, Paris, and the Riviera would make a lovely 3 week trip. If you can't find enough to occupy yourself in London or Paris for 6 days, there are plenty of lovely day trips. Again, it really depends on what sort of trip you want and how you like to travel.

I'm a believer in doing the best you can with what you've got.

You didn't mention your means of travel.

I've never been to Crete or Prague so I'll leave them out for now and see what happens.

If you Allow 3 days each for London, Paris, Venice and Nice/Cannes/Monte Carlo and take a sleeper train between Venice and Nice and then again from Nice to Paris you should be able to fill in the others with plenty of time.

Having said that, I would consider starting to plan another trip and leave out at least one location.

Thanks for your input--as I am in the initial stages of planning, I appreciate feedback from those who know the logistics of travel time, etc.! -Karen

As a rule of thumb, by the time you pack your stuff, check out, get to the airport or train station, get to your destination, get to your hotel, check in, get settled -- it's never less than a half day and usually more.

You really need to get a map of Europe and see what in actuality you are proposing - you are all over the map.

Personally, I wouldn't go to more than three of the places on your list in a 3-week period, but then, I like to "absorb" each place I travel to for at least a few hours or a day or so.

As someone else mentioned, though, if this is the only trip to Europe you're likely to make, it makes sense, and you'll just have to rush around and make the best of it.

I think it's not realistic at all. It probably CAN be done, but I doubt taht it would be enjoyable.

I agree with CMT. I don't think it's possible unless you just want to say you've been places but not enjoy them or see much. Maybe you just don't know how far apart these places are. I would think you could do London-Paris-Riviera-Venice. Or Maybe London-Paris-Prague-Venice. Crete is too far away from any of these, unless you want to omit other stuff. That kind of a trip doesn't make sense to me, as it would be better and more economical to plan another trip in southern Europe to include Crete.

Karner, to put this in perspective, imagine someone posting here saying, "I live in Europe and have never been to America. I have three weeks. I want to see New York, San Francisco, New Orleans, the Hawaiin Islands, the Utah parks, and Chicago."
Would you be able to advise him how to do that effectively?
I tend to be one here who says you can cover a lot, but I think you're going way over the limit.

Keep the first 3 & if you still have some time that is unscheduled, add on Amsterdam or expand on one of the other destinations.

When are you going? I think everyplace sounds lovely but there is too much travelling to truly enjoy any one place. Have you been to Europe before?Perhaps you could concentrate on London, Paris and someplace else in England or France. Or London, Paris and Venice. But don't try it all. I have been to the Riviera twice but don't think it is worth the effort when there are so many wonderful places to visit. Good luck and enjoy planning.

I too think it's a bit aggressive for 3 weeks, but won't presume to edit your itinerary for you. Do note that the weather can be an issue - when it's comfortable in Prague or London it's likely to be sizzling in Crete, or the opposite in winter/spring.

A couple of logistical thoughts. First, if you're traveling trans-Atlantic on an airline of one of the major alliances (OneWorld - American, British, Iberia, now Swiss, or Star Alliance - United, Lufthansa et al) you can use their "Discover Europe" or similar "airpass" programs, where you buy coupons for intra-Europe travel before you leave N. America, for set prices ranging from US$100 to US$280 or so depending on distance. Thus from, say, London to Crete you would only pay around $200 each way, possibly combining it with a flight from Crete to Italy, etc. so as to greatly reduce your travel costs. Flying to Crete will likely be your only option anyway.

Second, the zillions of budget airlines in Europe is another way to speed up travel and keep costs (waaay) down. Unfortunately it's hard to put whole itineraries together using them because travel agents don't touch them, nor do the big travel websites like Expedia et al. Go to one of these sites to start: http://www.whichbudget.com/ or http://www.flybudget.com - both of which give good links to interactive maps or lists of which el cheapo airlines go where.

The above advice still holds, though. When you add up checkout, airport transfer, security, flight, bag claim, and transport times into the deal (especially if you're on budget airlines that seldom use the main airports) you've got to scorch half a day (or a night); so an aggressive itinerary demands something of a strong constitution.

Happy planning.

This reminds me of my first trip to Umbria many, many years ago. I was in one of my "can't get enough" stages in travel. I showed my itinerary to an experienced traveler to Italy and she just looked up at me and asked, "Are you crazy?"

Departing Rome by car, I scheduled three cities per day; one city in the morning, one city for lunch, and the third for dinner and sleep over. I mapped out a strict time schedule, which included driving time (that I calculated by cross-referencing several sources), eating, and walking each city-center (with a camera and tripod). What I neglected to anticipate was Italian hill-town driving difficulties, parking problems, road navigation without good hill-town maps, and the perils of getting little quality sleep. (Adrenaline is hearty in your early 20's.)

All in all, I kept to my schedule and retained my foolish pride in doing so. But, in retrospect, I sure did miss a lot. This was the last time I ever planned such an overly saturated trip.

For me, it was something I did once and discovered it's no "real" way to travel. But, to each his own.

Hi, I do want to say that it's doable. Not all cities are created equal. Of the six places on your list, I've not yet been to French Riviera or Crete (but I'll probably be in Crete in June). I was in Prague for a few days, but that would be my least favorite, and I wouldn't spend more than two days there.

If I were planning this trip, I'd think about the things I want to see in each and allocate my time accordingly (you shouldn't think that you should spend the same amount of time in each).

My own travel style is hectic anyway, and most people think I'm crazy -- but I've done Vienna, Brussels, Barcelona, Madrid and Paris in less than two weeks (it was not my first visit to Paris), Paris and Berlin in four and a half days and Athens, Santorini, Naples and surrounding areas in a little more than a week.

I know that I could probably do your itinerary in three weeks, but I might be quite fatigued.

Sure that's doable, if you chop Crete off. Crete is an island wayyyyy out in the middle of the Med. Not all that easy to get to. You could do London > Paris > Nice > Venice > Prague in 3 weeks, 4-5 days in London and Paris, 2 in Nice, 3 in Venice, 4 in Prague (take an overnight train to Prague from Venice). And that even leaves some time left over.