well, it's their first trip to Europe, and it was supposed to be 12 days but dwindled down to 8. my advice to at least two of them, who are not bound by the same vacation strictures, to stay on extra by themselves, didn't fly (they don't think they will have fun just the two of them?)

so to me, (and obviously to them) yes, spending 400+ bucks per person extra to have most of the day to spend on the ground (as opposed to traveling from Heathrow to Stansted, and sitting on layover there for 3 hours) is well worth it. I'd spend 400 bucks extra to get there at 9 pm that night... but on a direct flight! the hassle of all that extra schlepping just isn't a vacation to me.

I just think your problem might be that you seem inflexible. If your wife is tired take a taxi for her comfort. If she sees some nice restaurants she wants to try, go there two or three times a trip. You can skimp on lunch.

Whatever we say here does not alter the fact that it is your wife that is unhappy with your traveling style and she probably thinks you aren't hearing what she is saying about it.

Sit on the couch with her, turn off the tv, hold hands, and talk about it honestly. Then go to the dining table, still holding hands, pour two glasses of wine and go through your notes and itinerary and plan where you can compromise here and there.

I love to butt into other people's lives!

Good advice, SeaUrchin!

Flygirl, I don't think $2500 is chicken feed.

Wow paperbag I am with your wife. I work in a restaurant so the last thing I want to do while away on vacation is cook. You definitely need to sit down and compromise. My husband when I can get him to travel agrees with me. When we are on vacation we splurge a bit. Not to give ourselves credit card debt, but we definitely don't want to penny pinch the whole time. Our 2001 trip we budgeted $200 a day for food....we are major foodies and wanted that to be our area that we splurged. Now we did not spend all that everyday, but we did not worry if we did. I would feel so sad if my husband wasn't enthuiastic to travel with me because "traveling with me means we can't use cabs/nice hotels/nice dinners etc." I could not deny him that if that is how he really felt and I didn't feel that way, because I love him. Now I would not get myself into debt to do it, but then I feel that if you cannot save and afford to go, then you should not. But that is just a personal thing. People say I should get vinyl siding and fix my home up and not go on vacation. But on my death bed I am not going to be remembering with fondness my beautiful siding....I am going to remember my trips with my husband and friends and the time we had together and experiencing the world. Life is too short pamper your wife.

SeaUrchin how romantic and well said!

Flygirl, I'm glad you're not my TA. Don't use them anymore anyway. Sounds like the Dad is the smart one here. He can afford it because he was smart enough to get a sound financial leg to stand on not because he is cheap. You convinced them they were nuts and to spend and additional $2500. They're not the one who are nuts.

Ask Doctor Phil ((A))

so let me get this straight:

you'd fly to Heathrow airport - 6 people, on a first trip to Europe.

figure out how to get yourself to Stansted... (no mean feat in itself)...

sit in Stansted for 3-4 hours...

then fly to Sicily... arriving a full 24 hours after you left...

only to go straight to bed... no thanks!

or, you could fly directly to Rome, a quick (and I do mean quick) connection and get to Sicily before noon, for an extra 400 bucks each.

I'd do it in a heartbeat.

this isn't family as in Mom-Dad-kids (on Dad's dime). this is Dad/Mom... Son/Wife (separate household) and Daughter/Fiance (another household). even if it weren't - you're on vacation. if you can't afford to get yourself there, why are you going. taking one day out of 8 simply isn't worth it to me, and apparently not to any of them either.

I guess I value time/convenience more than money (up to a point, anyway).

No, I wouldn't do it that way. I would spend the night in London, then fly out of Stansted the next day. Very easy to get to Stansted. From Liverpool Street Station Stansted Express (though not cheap) will get you right to the airport. On my trip to Rome last year even with the cost of the train I saved 60% over what I would have paid on BA.

but, unfortunately, they are not interested in London, this trip anyway, and Sicily is a must-see to them because their father's family is from there.

and they insist on fitting in the Amalfi Coast before spending 3-4 days in Rome. all using public transport, start to finish.

so, unless they are going to have their (ever dwindling) vacation time go by in an even quicker rush, and likely come home and complain about being rushed - I told them had a choice - pay extra or just give lip service to each area (they already are - and they even wanted to go to Florence on top of all this).

I've done a pretty good job of reining them in - and my friends (the Son/Wife) are completely on my wavelength - and their Dad isn't poor.

getting to Sicily Saturday at lunchtime means they may be able to justify leaving on Monday for Sorrento (maybe). and spending Tuesday/Wedneday there before heading to Rome - although I don't know their day break down really.

and had they done Ryanair as their Dad wanted, they'd have a nightmarshly long trip back home as well. Sis has to be at work Monday at o-dawn thirty - which is the entire reason their vacation is being cut short - this way, they are also going open jaw home from Rome and will be able to relax a wee bit more as well.

paying extra for convenience and less hassle is worth it, especially if you are under those kind of time constraints.

If they only wanted to go to Italy, why did they book to London in the first place? One single RT from the US to Italy should cost a lot less than a RT US-London plus a RT London-Italy, unless you're getting some kind of amazing sale price on the US-London leg or flying on a budget carrier London-Italy.

Point taken flygirl. Just not my idea of a fun trip. Never been of the mindset "If it's Tuesday it must be Belgium." I prefer to spend time in a place rather than rushing around. Also, it goes to the point of too little vacation time in this country. I earn 7 weeks a year and would go nuts if I had to work at a place that only gave you 2 weeks.

SEVEN WEEKS OF VACATION A YEAR!!!!!
Oh my goodness. I am not too jealous. I am one of those that only get two weeks. I get one more in 2006........I am counting down the months until then.

We don't buy eachother birthday and Christmas presents our trip is it and each gets to choose one or two days at a posh place and the rest of the days at B&Bs that are so much prettier than any here.

Flygirl, I understand perfectly well why you suggested an alternative to your friends. It would have taken them a long time to recover from just their flights and layover time. I'm one to be quite budget conscious but time can be a precious commodity. Your friends' trip doesn't sound like my kind of trip but then it is their trip, not mine.

Also, from our local US airport (a major one at that), there are no direct flights to Italy -- one has to do a stopover somewhere. I have to admit I couldn't believe it and researched every other option before scheduling our London stopover on the way to Rome.

rj, you are SO RIGHT. believe me I've tried with these guys. I told 'em stick to Sicily. if you must, maybe add Rome. first they told me 12 days. then they said Sis had to be home so it's only 8. I told them they weren't joined at the hip, arrive earlier and stay later. nope nope nope.

I even told them for the extra money they are spending to do all this, is it really worth it to go only 8 days - extend it. nope. to each his own. (they also are incredulous that I love bopping over there by myself. the thing is, I know so many people over there now I'm rarely alone for long).

you can lead a horse to water...

but I'd still fly direct. that's me. One short layover doesn't bother me too much (especially if it's a domestic flight) but changing airports is madness.

KT, they are not going to London. that's RJ's plan. I convinced them to go as directly as possible. money be damned.

Flygirl, I rescind my previous nuts comment - I would say you're absolutely right in what you tried to do for them.
Nor do I think you're nuts for going alone - I too have built a network of friends and it's great to see them. It really adds to every trip.

I do some solo travel and some with "the ladies" (my wife and daughter). While I don't treat myself poorly, I pay more attention to the details when it comes to traveling together.

- They tend to like a cab from time to time. By myself, I invariably take public transport, but a few Euros extra to get things off to a more pleasant start isn't a bad investment.

- I can eat some pretty Spartan meals in some rather strange formats by myself. Traveling together, I know they want to sit down and the meals are a big part of the experience (not necessarily a tres cher repas, but a little time, service and presentation go a long way).

- By myself, I can be comfortable in a two-star (although I generally go a little better even meme-moi). When traveling together, I see three-star as minimum and I generally look for a good deal on a four-star. It matters a lot to them.

Regardless of whether I'm traveling solo or with the family, I schedule the most convenient schedules for air travel that I possibly can. Bad connections with long layovers waste more than just the extra time they show on the schedule. They beat people up, tire them out and diminish the experience. (I flew them home up front last time while I sat in coach. They were grateful, but I told them not to get to used to THAT! LOL!)

Our trips tend to be of shorter duration so all told, it's a few hundred Euros more vs. adhering to a strictly "budget" format. Taking care of a series of little things in a little more thoughtful way is money well-spent. Budget travel? Sure, but looking for VALUE doesn't always mean looking for the cheapest way out.

Paperbag -

What do you mean by "nice"? Is your wife asking for splurges all the time ($600 per night hotels, 3* restaurants at every meal and a chaufeur driven limousine everywhere)?

No. Well - your plan is exactly the same as that one - but on the other end of the spectrum. You are not being a litle bit thrifty - but cheap beyond belief.

Perhaps your wife is just asking for a little compromise (a cab in from the airport then public transport all the rest of the time; mostly inexpensive meals and picnics but with a couple of nice dinners - 1* - not 3* - and perhaps a hotel that is modest but still pleasant rather than bottom of the barrel - $100 no longer buys what is did a couple of years ago).

If all of that sounds like too much to you - I really think you need to give some serious thought to compromise.

This is not hyperbole- but your "vacation" sounds like sheer hell to me - you couldn;t pay me to go - and it sounds like your wife is reaching the same point.

I have to side with your wife. You are on vacation for goodness sake!

Now, I agree to groceries for every third dinner or so, but you talk about buying from the grocer VS. eating out, I assume this means EVER eating out.

Under $100 per night is a nice goal, averaged out a trip, but should not be a hard and fast rule.

I don't think your giving into paying for museum tickets actually makes up for the earlier mentioned costs.

Sorry paperbag... I think you are only a papermoon.

I do all of the planning for our vacations because I love it & last year was hubby's pick (Kauai). He wanted upgrades and our 12 perfect days were set for 7 to accommodate the expense since it was "his" year. Worked the phone and my p.c to the bone and found some deals and we got my 12 perfect days with his upgrades at a great price.

This year is my year and our first trip to Europe (Ireland). Because I will not go for less time, we are roughing it a little (okay, a bit)and will do as you said...Pub food, picnic lunches. This is not something he is super excited to do but always willing to try anything once.

Next year he wants to cruise to nowhere and just veg. out and I will accommodate even though it is so NOT me. Besides, when it's my year I ALWAYS put forth the extra effort to keep him...ahem..very happy and next year is a sure bet that I will be treated like a queen!

Saying that, I guess it's compromise. I agree with Marilyn, take one less trip, do one your way, one her way and one where you meet in the middle.

Hi P,

>...we have gone quite a few times to europe which were successes.<

For whom?

If they were so successful, why is wifie unhappy.

>... i thought we prefered to get away to europe cheaply every few months,than have to save for years to go on a all expenses included vacation.<

A. What did she think.
B. Why is it only one or the other?

>... we should do as much *travelling* as possible now as we wont be young forever.*relaxing* can be done at any age.<

I infer from this that you would prefer to see 9 cities in 7 days than 1 city in 7 days.

>..buying food from the grocer instead of eating out means we can stay 15 days instead of 12..<

Who does the shopping, the cooking, the cleaning up, taking out the garbage?

>...i dont skimp on paying entrance fees/museums/using tour guides etc <

Quite frankly, I would rather eat out than pay for a tour guide, especially after I have been dragged around to museums that I didn't want to go to all day.

>...do you compromise?<

Is the Pope Catholic?

The fact that you have asked this question is a good sign. You are beginning to understand that a successful marriage takes some work.

Good luck to both of you.

((I))

And I'll retract my first response to this question. I just read something about Hostelling in Iceland and I reacted to that one, "Jeez why go" eliciting a response from the voices in my head, "Uh-oh" Now I see what perhaps Mrs. PaperBag was thinking! I had made certain assumptions...

Has anyone noticed that "paperbag" hasn't had any comments to all your comments!!! Troll!!!

I agree with you. We always stay at less pricey hotels so we can stay longer. We stayed at a hotel in Rome with a shared bath so we could save 50E a night. Over 10 days that bought alot of food and allowed us to stay longer. We do eat in restaurants but who says they need to be expensive to be good. Over the years I have brainwashed i mean convinced my wife into thinking like I do.

i don't think one has to be uncomfortable in a $100/night hotel. using internet saavy and cross-referencing reviews it should not be a problem. being a foodie myself, part of the thrill of travelling is the local food, however, most hotels include breakfast buffets in their price so why not have an inexpensive lunch and let your wife choose where for dinner. i'd also rather hop on the bus or train with locals, but that's just me. i just realized i didn't help you at all! it really all comes down to compromise. fodorites, please don't kick me off the europe board because i'm planning a trip back next year, but just returned from thailand and had an absolutely fabulous and enlightening experience and where your wife can have everything she ever wanted AND stay within your budget :) good luck!

just because i am quietly reflecting on the advice given doesnt make me a troll.

i think i dont like cabs as i was ripped off by one and see them stereotypically as tourist trapping theives. when i have mastered public transport i feel i have achieved something and am getting the good deal, paying what the locals pay.

one suggestion amongst others which i intend to follow is to give the splurge option a go and see what kind of a holiday results.

in the end our next holiday will cost the same,be more confortable in lodging/food/transport but will be shorter.if this makes the missus happier then i should be happier too.

since when does "foodie" = not cooking? since when does "grocery store" <> local cuisine?

I enjoy a combination of cooking and eating out when travelling. When I browse a produce market or even a grocery store while travelling, I get a desire to cook. I have cooked many memorable meals from local produce that i could not get at home. I do not do this to save money, I do this because i love food and i love to cook.

Perhaps many of the negative comments about the grocery store and the assumption that this means not trying local cuisine are from those who generally stay in hotels rather than apartments/houses so "grocery store" means cold cuts and other simple things that can be prepared without a kitchen.

i do not view spending a lot as a badge of honour so conversely, i do not view "cheap" as shameful.

Some of the most comfortable and enjoy able hotels I've ever been in cost under $100. As to cooking and doing laundry on vacation--not the Fireflys.

Chacon a son gout.

I don't think anyone said that "foodie= not cooking" I simply don't want to cook whilst on vacation since I work in a restaurant. Time for someone else to pamper me. I love to cook, just don't want to on vacation. And hipvirgochick
also hit the nail on the head for me part of the thrill is experiencing the
local cuisine, the best way is by having someone cook for you. It is one of the reasons I love to travel.

I think maybe you have come around then paperbag? Which is good, because everyone knows that if "momma aint happy ain't nobody happy"

dsm...i certainly understand why some people don't want to cook while on vacation...especially people who cook for a living! However, I was just a little surprised that the generally consensus seems to be that cooking on holiday represents the ultimate in cheapness and severely comprimises the holiday. Obviously there is no right or wrong to this, I was just surprised at the negativity towards.

>..if this makes the missus happier then i should be happier too.<

An excellent philosophy, Mr P.

((I))

ttt,
because I'm hoping paperbag's alter ego will tell us what happened on their next trip. Did mrs bag enjoy it with the extras? Did he? Was the compromise a success? What happened???
((S))((*))

ttt

Thats an interesting and nice topic.
Either one has to compromise seems the solition ? It is NOT...

Personally speaking a holiday should be the time you do out of ordinary and pamper yourself and live the moment so you can have nice memories and return home with high motivation. I would go rather 4 days instead of 10 and have best of all possible. However sometimes you want to go simple. Thats fine too, but cooking on holiday is out of question.

HOW about choosing a location where you can efford more luxury than elswhere and still stay as long as you planned ? Its just another opinion I have;

In Turkey you can have a semi luxury hotel for between 100-150 Usd incl. breakfast, depending on location you can have same luxury for 75 Usd. You don't eat Deli's sandwitch in Turkey. You eat good food. Variying a meal between 5 Usd to 50 Usd. per head.
Getting a guide, driver, and a luxury veichle probably would cost as much as a taxi fare in western europe.

So planning is the key element to fit your budget to desires of your vacation.

Happy travelling

Murat