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

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.