junkgalore

Talk about dropping the ball. We have vacation time coming up in 1.5weeks...and don't have anything booked. We're flexible last minute travelers but this is crazy!

So I'm in massive planning mode right now and immediately thought of getting advice on this board so I hope you can help.

We enjoyed a week in Ireland so we're thinking Scotland. I found a few flights that either go through Amsterdam or London so we're thinking maybe doing a stopover on either leg.

We have a total of 15 days. I see the weather is not the most ideal but I'm 5mos pregnant (having a very healthy time so far) and we're hoping to do something we can't do for the next couple of years with an infant (thus ruling out Hawaii or a cruise).

Does anyone have any suggestions? Should we do AMS or LON? Before or after Scotland? Or scrap this and look for something else?

I wish we had our hearts set on something specific but at this point, we would be happy doing/seeing someplace interesting but not too under-developed.

My only requirement is that I just need a trip where I can easily go back to the hotel and nap if I get tired. If we did Scotland, I figure I can nap during car rides

TIA for your input!

PeaceOut

If you go to Scotland, maybe Amsterdam would be a nice contrast. We loved Amsterdam, and stayed at the Hotel Residence le Coin. It is a charming hotel, comprised of several row houses in a great central location. Each room has a kitchenettes, and all is relatively new.

suze

I have no opinion on Scotland, but as far as a stop over for a couple days, I would choose Amsterdam. My reason is that it is smaller, and it's extremely easy to get from the airport into the central part of the city. I think you could maximize your time there easier than London.

Personally I'm not big on cold climates or cold weather travel, so for me Hawaii would be WAY high on the list! I'm crazy about the islands and love warm weather, beach vacations best.

junkgalore

Suze, I'm with you. I'm an island-kinda girl but we just spent a week on Oahu last month and I figure Hawaii can be our first "family trip" with the baby. Seems easy or at least doable.

I've never been to AMS or LON. London never held a big interest for me. I'm sure I would enjoy it but I always get pulled by someplace else. But because these flights happen to go through either city, we figure taking a stopover would be fun.

I'll start looking into Amsterdam. Peaceout--thanks for the suggestion, glad to hear you enjoyed your stay.
Maximizing our time is very appealing...

janisj

I absolutely LOVE London --but for just a couple of day's stop over, I'd maybe choose Amsterdam. London is fabulous and there are literally 100's of thing to see/do.

But 2 or 3 days, and one of them likely jetlagged, is just not long enough to even start to scratch the surface. Not that A'dam doesn't have a lot to see too, just not nearly as overwhelming as Londo0n.

TheFlannerpooch

" I found a few flights that either go through Amsterdam or London"

I may be misunderstanding you. But a trip that involves changing planes at London or Amsterdam ISN'R going to allow you a free stopover.

Normally, there's a trivial, if any, difference between the cost of a journey from, say, SFO to Glasgow changing at London and a straightforward flight from SFO to London. Sometimes, bizarrely, it might even be cheaper to fly to Glasgow via AMS than just to fly to AMS. But that's only true if you get straight onto the Glasgow plane (though you might sometimes just about have time to pop into town for a pint of Fuller's or a spot of waccy baccy)

Stay in London (or AMS, or Timbuktu) long enough to see anything, though, and your fare gets calculated on a completely different basis - which can, so close to your travelling date, up the total cost dramatically.

And if your criterion really is "to do something we can't do for the next couple of years with an infant " - well the Empire was built (and the Commonwealth remains founded on) on young mothers happily travelling to and from London with infants in tow.

alihutch

There's a direct flight from New York to Glasgow, and making imigration in Glasgow is much less stressful than arriving in London.

junkgalore

Thanks to the helpful replies.

TheFlannerpooch -- it is a stopover, not a layover. Meaning, I plan to stay at that city for a few days.
And I'm guessing you're not a mother:
"And if your criterion really is "to do something we can't do for the next couple of years with an infant " - well the Empire was built (and the Commonwealth remains founded on) on young mothers happily travelling to and from London with infants in tow."
Ummm, perhaps from nearby...

Flight LAX or SFO to LON = apprx 11hrs.
Flight LAX or SFO to Hawaii= approx 5

Which flight would you like to share with us?
In this day and age, just because anything is possible doesn't necessarily mean that it's practical.

suze

I've only been to Amsterdam (once for 5 days). It's a GREAT city. Quite manageable. I've yet to go to London, except passing thru Heathrow on the way to somewhere else in Europe.

janisj

junkgalore: I'm not quite sure about that last post. Millions of folks travel w/ infants (and there are hundreds of threads on here about the subject).

It is no less 'practical' to travel transatlantic than transpacific. Don't give up traveling to great places because you have children. (in fact babies/young toddlers can be easier than 3-4 year olds)

junkgalore

Hmmm, looks like we're booking AMS on the leg back.

Janisj - it's my preference not to do a long flight with an infant as this is our first. For my own sanity, 5 hours is bearable where as 11 hours seems endless.

If all goes well on our test trip to Hawaii-- then we can make other plans but I'm not comfortable jumping into a long transatlantic flight not knowing what to expect.