I am reading this post with great interest. The hubby and I are of the mind that spending more money does not necessarily make for a better time. In fact, sometimes I think planning to spend more money can create extra stress because of expectations we tend to associate with fine dining or fancy hotels. For example, one of our friends went to Le Grand Vefour (Michelin three-star) and did not have an exceptional meal there. I think she felt a little worse than if she'd had a bad meal at Chartier, if you get my drift...

But back to your actual question: "When you are in disagreement over what budget hotel/use of taxi etc how do you usually end up deciding? do you compromise?"

My answer: We have to compromise. We don't splurge on lodging and do splurge on food. We make short, frequent trips as opposed to longer ones. We look for bang-for-your-buck experiences: fixed-price restos, B&Bs or apartments, museum passes, etc.

The hubby and I also usually choose to scrimp at home before a trip so we can have the flexibility to splurge a bit on vacation. Sometimes we'll agree to limit our dinners out before the trip in preparation for pretty much eating out every night. Or we cut back on our lunches out during the work week.

Also, my husband isn't as much of a foodie as I am and I realize that he sees fine dining as a bit of a waste to him. I can live without going to a Michelin three-star. If he won't enjoy it, we're obviously not going to do it -- particulary when we're talking about spending serious cash on restos. Plus, since we vacation mostly in France (Paris), I'm never dissatisfied with the types of meals we do eat -- I'd guess we spend maybe 60-100 Euro for the two of us for a perfectly nice dinner. We also usually only eat out for dinner on vacation and make it our main meal of the day and major source of entertainment for the evening. We get lunch on the go, usually. Plus, we like saving up our appetites for a big meal at the end of the day.

We're unified on lodging front - we wouldn't mind staying in a one star hotel. We usually rent an apartment because it's cheaper and offers a little adventure. We have stayed in a few fancy hotels in our 30-something lives, but it just didn't make enough of a difference to justify the extra expense.

In the end, as others have said, the best way to travel a matter of opinion. I'm sure you and your wife have compromised in the past and hope you will find a way to come to an agreement this time, too.

This is a case that I don't think it matters one iota what *we* think, only what you and your wife do.

That said, no WAY am I going to Europe and not eating out at least some meals in nice (but not extravagant) restaurants or schlepping my bag on public transportation from the airport.

I have no solution to offer, because I either travel solo or with a companion who has similar thoughts about finances and good value on a vacation.

Skimping on every category (food, transport, hotel) can indeed get wearisome, especially if you do it every day of the trip.

On our trips we move around enough that we can mix and match our hotels; a couple nights at an inexpensive place, then a splash out at the next place, and so on.

Ditto for the food.

Others enjoy sleeping cheap, but eating well (I'm more of the reverse persuasion) but the bottom line is: save, but don't feel pinched.

As for cabs, sometimes it makes sense (eg, for a quick look at a site without having to wait around for a bus.)

In short, compromise. Trips are supposed to be FUN.

paperbag:

The hotel we stay at a lot in Paris is the Hôtel de France in the 7ème (www.hoteldefrance.com).

I can't provide you with a list of hotels throughout Europe because I don't keep one. Also, it seems you focus on big cities - we don't, except at the beginning and/or end of our trips. Staying in rural areas allows you to keep costs down enormously, plus even with cities I love I don't want to spend more than 3-4 days. I like the peace and quiet of the countryside. And my dollars go so much farther there.

As for London, the last time we went (1999) we did stay in a place under $100, but I'm sure it's well over that now. I won't go back to London anytime soon. It's not my favorite of cities to begin with, and I though I'm hardly pecunious I do hate being in a place where my heart stops every time I'm presented with a bill.

Peronally, I would have at least one of the trips be shorter in length but heavier on the plush. Treat her (and yourself) to a little nicer surrounds and restaurants. It doesn't have to be over the top to make it very comfortable and not feel like a budget trip.

paperbag - I used to stay in 4/5 star hotels. In my recent trips I changed to lower star hotels that are clean, central, safe, and convenient, with/out charm and saved a bundle. I think the hotel you stay in is very important if you are in a resort type of travel when you spend most of your time in the hotel.
Spending time to do grocery shopping and cooking is the time that can be spent sightseeing. Visiting local supermarkets is fun but not as a chore. Trying local cuisines is part of exploring the place. You can do research and find reasonably priced restaurants with good local food.
I think looking for the correct bus in the airport and where to get off is a bit of a waste of time when you first get to the airport and sometimes inconvenient when returning.
I am with you on never ever saving money on any sightseeing opportunities, tours or shows, concerts, etc. That is the money worth spending.

In some cases you can have both a very nice hotel and a cheap price, like if you use Priceline or sometimes other agencies. In Europe, Berlin has the best cost/value ratio for nice hotels in this respect, in my opinion. Munich also looks very good. London has an excellent ratio also, but the cost of other things in London is high.

In other cases, you can get a very nice hotel for a relatively low price if you diligently scour specials for months ahead. A nice hotel with special heavily discounted rates won't make your wife feel like she's suffering, but a cheap hotel that is deservedly cheap may very well do that.

I should add that based on preliminary research, it seems Madrid is also a place where you can get reasonable hotels for a cheap price (not sure about plush ones, though).

Interesting thread. I'm not married, but among my friends who are, it seems to me that the guys are way less concerned about hotels than their wives. The women all want nicer hotels and the guys usually go along with it, but could easily stay someplace way cheaper. I'm up for mid-range places, not yet able to afford total luxury but still would insist on at least a 3 star. As someone else said, however, it's purely a personal matter. Married people who have the same ideas about traveling are so lucky.

How to compromise? As Marylin suggested, travel less often. Or maybe take turns with your wife to plan your trips. One will be luxurious, another - budget. Maybe take a river cruise?

If all this doesn't work, maybe you can take separate vacations? But this may lead to separate families.

Were I your wife... our disagreement would come because you dragged me around to way too many places with entrance fees, museums, and on organized tours (not my interests). And THEN I don't even get a nice dinner out of it -LOL.

Fortunately, Mrs. Fly and I are pretty much in tune on travel expenses and what we want to spend money on. The one difference we have is that I like to walk a lot more than she does. So we compromise--sometimes we walk a good distance, sometimes we take a cab, sometimes I walk and she takes a cab.

As to spending money on accomodations, I can't think of any nicer places we've ever stayed in than the Romantic Pension Neuschwanstein (64 euro double)in Hohenschwangau and the Hotel Haus Lipmann (85 euro double) in Beilstein that we stayed in on our trip to Germany.

They had what we were looking for--spacious rooms, modern private baths, parking and good breakfast included, great views, comfortable beds, and hosts who could (and were willing) to take time to tell you all about the area and how to get places.

As compared to multiple-starred hotels, they don't have swimming pools, valet parking, elevators (they are only two stories anyway), adult movies on the TV, huge lobbies with velvet ropes, and conference rooms.

I think the fact that you chose "paperbag" as your new screen name says it all!! Nice luggage, dude.

I read an article by Julie Burchill in the Guardian a couple years ago where she said she'd rather spend one night in a suite at a "brilliant" hotel (Four Seasons in Paris in this case) than two weeks in a mediocre one. I can't imagine thinking that way, but clearly it's a matter of taste and no right or wrong about it.

using under $100 a night hotels means we can stay 11 days instead of 9,
not using a taxi to/from airport means we can stay 12 days instead of 11,
buying food from the grocer instead of eating out means we can stay 15 days instead of 12
however i dont skimp on paying entrance fees/museums/using tour guides etc

when you are in disagreement over what budget hotel/use of taxi etc how do you usually end up deciding? do you compromise?

*********

you should try to figure out where you (or she) just can't skimp on quality over quantity. for instance, when I was in high school/college, I didn't mind youth hostels. now I wouldn't be caught dead in one - and I don't mean that in a snobby way, I mean uck - why would you want to share a room with strangers - even one stranger. if your wife is uncomfortable with the hotels you choose, she isn't having fun. I know people say "well you only sleep there" but you want to at least not dread coming back to your room at night! The hotel is a big part of the experience. Tell me you wouldn't rather spend a little bit extra to have a cute hotel with say, a nice breakfast terrace, as opposed to saving a couple hundred bucks to stay 30 minutes outside of town (for instance).

I also don't like sacrificing time for money. I'll gladly spend a lot more on a plane ticket to have it leave from the airport near my house and also for a direct, non stop flight. to me saving a few hundred bucks, only to waste 3-4 hours on a layover is silly.

so yes, you really do need to talk it out, and compromise. if one of you isn't having fun, no matter how "little" you paid for this trip, it was a waste of money.

you're on vacation, you should have fun! if you can't eat out all the time, at least budget for a few splurges. the local food is part of the reason to travel.

and if not taking a cab means wasting a lot of time waiting around, it's not worth it.

I'm helping out some friends right now who are going on a family trip (multi- generational) to Europe. Their Dad is cheap, for no other reason than that's just how he is (i.e. he can afford it all). They have 8 days exactly, and he wanted to save 400 bucks per person by flying to Heathrow, then on Ryanair (different airport) to Sicily... which would have meant they would have arrived in Sicily at 9 PM the next day, versus noon on a more direct, more expensive flight. I told them they were nuts and finally convinced them to take the more expensive flight even though as a family is 2500 bucks more.

I'm kind of amused by some of the false dichotomies I see here. So, the choice is between staying 30 minutes out of town or staying in a 4-star hotel, and the choice is between dining in a 3-star restaurant or eating prepackaged swill? That does kind of make the choice easy, doesn't it?

I could have sworn that, on my last trip to Venice I stayed in a single for 55 Euros in a perfectly pleasant little central B&B-type place (no TV, no spa, no fancy toiletries, no modem...) and got some wonderful local food at the markets. I guess I was dreaming.

We stay at inexpensive but very pleasant hotels, convents or b and b's for most of our trip. Then for a couple of nights we stay at a really lovely hotel or an agriturisimo in a vineyard. The wonderful places don't necessarily cost any more than the others because often they will be in a small town or out in the country.

For example,for a few days we'll stay in Venice for 100-130 Euros at a relatively inexpensive hotel and Rome 80 Euros for a convent. Then we stay for a couple of days at lovely places in the country or small towns - 130 Euros at La Cisterna in San Gimignano or a very nice villa in Tuscany or Umbria. It takes a certain amount of research and planning to find these places.

We do the same with meals- eat inexpensively fairly often, but we always have special meals a couple of times on each trip.

As for how we decide, we both pick a favorite area for each trip. We are going to England soon. I picked Canterbury and another small town and my husband picked Rye and two days in London.

For a trip to Italy recently, He picked Rome and I chose Assisi and Spello.

We try to do several things that each one really wants to do- that way we are both happy!

And yes, we often do use a cab or shuttle instead of bus or subway when it is lower stress , such as arriving at an airport.

I can't see spending an extra $2500 to have an extra 9 hours in a place. But that is a matter of taste again.

KT well said. There is a reason why every flight I have taken to Europe is free. The money I save by not staying in a 4* or 5* hotel pays for my plane ticket. I don't travel to Europe to sit in a hotel room. Staying at B&B's has led to friendships which resulted in free stays on subsequent visits. Let me see - do I want to spend $200 a night or stay for free? In 10 trips to Europe I have used a taxi once - in Iceland to go from my B&B to the bus station to catch the airport bus. Public transportation is fine with me. I enjoy visiting the local markets for food. This is part of the culture of Europe not to sit in a 4* restaurant.

I agree with the other posters in that the OP should work out a plan with his wife where they alternate between splurges and economizing. Vacations are suppossed to be fun and they're not when one or both aren't happy.

Make that supposed. Having too much fun planning next trip. :)