Travel Itinerary- once in a lifetime trip
 

My family and I (Mother, Father, and two college aged sons) will be traveling around Europe for 21 days starting the last week of July. Could anyone edit this itinerary?

Day 1 Fly into Frankfurt
Night Frankfurt
Day 2 Travel to Paris (early morning)
Night Paris
Day 3 See Paris/travel to Dijon, France
Night Dijon
Day 4 Travel to Nice, France
Night Nice
Day 5 Nice
Night Nice
Day 6 Travel to Rome
Day 7,8 Rome
Night 8 Rome
Day 9 Travel to Venice (early morning)
Night Venice
Day 10 Travel to Zurich (early morning)
Night Zurich
Day 11 Travel to Munich (after lunch)
Day 12,13,14 Munich
Day 15 Travel to Regensburg, Germany (meet family)
Night 15 Regensburg
Day 16 Travel to Prague (early morning)
Night Prague
Day 17 Travel to Berlin (after lunch)
Night Berlin
Day 18 Berlin
Night 18 Berlin
Day 19 Travel to Bremen, Germany (morning)
Night Bremen
Day 20 Travel to Frankfurt
Night Frankfut
Day 21 fly from Frankfurt

We would like to see as much as possible, because we will probably never do this again, but is all of this possible????

You're going to a lot of trouble to get to Paris immediately after arrival, with jet lag and all, and not giving yourself any time at all to see it. I'd toss it from the itinerary unless you can devote at least 3-4 days there.

You have too many one nighters on your itinerary. You cannot see Paris in 1/2 a day. You will be spending all your time traveling or checking in and out of hotels which always takes more time than you think it will. I would not stay in Frankfurt the first night unless you are planning on driving instead of taking a train.

I quit reading your itinerary after the fourth day.

Let me see if I got this right. You call this a "trip of a lifetime". After spending a night in Frankfurt, the four of you are heading all the way to Paris for a single night and leaving the next day (in the afternoon at least, I hope) to go to Dijon. Then you spend a night there -- no time to really see anything -- and head half way across the country to another destination. Already I can only say this:
If you aren't really interested in seeing Dijon don't go! And if you are going all the way, out of your way to see Paris for a day or parts of two days, I think you should forget that as well. If your goal is to see how much time you can spend on trains and how many cities you can check off a list, then OK.

But I'm not reading the rest of your itinerary, because already it has no relation to any trip I can imagine doing. I did glance through the list enough to see that your goal IS apparently to see how many countries you can cover.

Having spent many weeks tramping around Europe as a young man and several returns in recent years, I think you are trying to do too much. In a word, totally unrealistic in my opinion.

You did not say how you intend to travel, so I have assumed train.

You are not allowing for the length of time you will be spending in transit and how little time you will actually be seeing something at your destinations.

As it now stands you will see a lot very superficially and very little in depth.

You are not going to see Paris to amount to anything in the amount of time you have alloted. I have spent a total of 12 days there in recent years and I still have unseen places on my list of high priority items.

The same is true of Venice. You will arrive there in time for about 6 hours of touring.

Having been to Munich regularly the last 3 years, I am not sure there enough there to occupy all the time you have designated unless you travel to one of the Nutty King's castles like Neuschwanstein.

Also you will have very little time in Prague. Your trip by train is 5 hours.
You will not get there until after 2 pm, unless you leave at 4 am in the morning and spend over 8 hours on the train. (Or are you flying to these places.)

To be sort of blunt I see no reason to take a train to a hotel in Prague on my way to Berlin. I think in the end, you will be like I was after my tour of Ireland last summer for 7 days. I don't remember a lot of it, nor do I remember where some of attractions are that we saw. I could not find my way back there without reviewing the whole itinerary.

If you rent a car and drive it, you might improve travel times a little, but not much. In Paris and Venice and Munich and Berlin, finding a place to put the car will be fairly expensive.
But, it is only money.

However, I think you will be fed up with constantly shifting and running and not having time to see what you want to see.

You cannot see it all, and at your pace what you see you will not see well.

I am sorry to say this because I just hate to put people down, but this is probably the most ridiculous itinerary I have ever seen, and most likely impossible for a family of 4 to pull off without killing each other. Why are you flying into Franfurt? You aren't going to get to see a thing. Just fly into Paris and spend 4 nights there. Skip Dijon and spend 3 nights in Nice. Then 3 nights Rome, 3 nights Venice, 2 nights Salzburg (skip Prague, it is just too far), 3 nights Munich, 2 with the family, and wrap up the rest in Frankfurt.

Since you refer to this as a once in a lifetime trip you should have memories you can treasure for years to come. The itinerary you have described, in my opinion, would leave you with a blur rather than good memories.

Having three weeks to spend in Europe is wonderful, but if I were doing your planning I would cut it down to include much less than you have planned. As was noted above, you will spend too much precious time traveling from one place to another, packing and unpacking as you go from hotel to hotel, and it seems to me spending so little time in most destinations you will see nothing.

I wish you well, but certainly don't envy the trip you have described. Too many cities/countries and too little time to enjoy most of them.

Usually when I see an itinerary such as yours, I just ignore it because it is so incredible, little can be done to fix it. But you must rethink your plans. Give some thought to the things you really want to see. Your itinerary is heavy on Germany, light on France. You don't allow enough time to really see anything of Paris, Rome or Venice - three of the must sees on your list. Paris and Rome deserve at least 4 days each and that time will allow you to see only the highlights. You have not described the trip of a lifetime but a 21-day nightmare. On the other hand, it probably is the trip of a lifetime because if you survive this, you'll never want to return!

Hi SAE

I'm sorry to say that you will remember this trip with loathing for the rest of your life.

There is just too much travel time.

Why not do just Germany?

OR

If you really want to see Venice, there is a nice train ride over the Alps from Munich. Spend 3 days there. You can then train to Vienna for a few days and go on to Prague for a few days before training back to Munich.

Paris (and Rome) are just too far for such a short trip.

In the medical field, we would call this itinerary a "train wreck". Let's see what organ systems are still functioning, and whether there is any hope for salvaging this patient.

Actually, I would liken it to having a serious infection, a grave injury, a life-threatening congenital birth defect, and a major degenerative disease.

But it IS possible to recover, even from such a terrible combination.

The infection is the mental notion of "once in a lifetime". If we cannot eradicate it, then perhaps like other infections, we'll learn to live with it, and hope to quell it at some later date. And forgive me if the medical analogy cuts too close to home - - I trust that none of the four you has an actual terminal illness, so that you mean it quite literally that this is once in a lifetime. If the constraint is financial, then presumably you mean either you have saved for years, and you cannot imagine being able to save this much up again in the foreseeable future. Or maybe you are spending both current and future income, and you know this is all you can afford to spend for a long time to come.

Either way, there would be great wisdom in paring this trip down from 21 days to 12, and thinking about how you might make a second trip in a year or two or three, with the money you saved and whatever you can add to it, through investment or additional earning/saving (not to mention the experience/wisdom gained from the first trip).

The grave injury: let's hope you have not yet purchased the airfare that takes you into and out of Frankfurt. As has already been stated, it serves no function - - other than to add to your already enormous number of INTRA-Europe miles - - for you to fly into Frankfurt. If you have, we'll just to sew up around it. Regrettably.

The congenital defect: thinking of Europe as all cities. Any trip to Europe of more than eight nights ought to contain 10-30% in smaller-town or rural destinations. Not that all-city trips are a disaster. Just like being born with one arm is still compatible with going through life. But it's a seriously incomplete experience.

And finally the degenerative disease: thinking of one single mode for intra-Europe transport. As others have already speculated, it seems that perhaps you have train (or leased car) in mind - - it almost doesn't matter; either would be a mistake. Assuing that you are really bent on seeing four or more countries including France, Italy and Germany - - you ought to combine some train, and/or some rental car and one or more low cost intra-Europe flights (France to Italy or Italy to Germany, or France to/from Germany). While Prague (and other destinations in the Czech republic) would be a fine addition to any "heart of Europe" itinerary, it really stretches your loop, which you have already defined by these boundaries: Paris, Rome and Berlin. If you must have a fourth country, I would recommend Austria, Switzerland or England (yes, I realize that stretches to yet a larger quadrilateral, but it is very close to Paris, and the air travel options to/from London are so much more abundant than Prague - - besides, if you are first-time travelers to Europe, then you might find a few days of English-speaking a nice transition-adjustment aid).

My reply, and others, will undoubtedly seem so caustic that you will probably bite your lip, or feel greatly insulted and never communicate with "us" here on the forum - - but if you are willing to re-look at any of the problems, as they appear through my "microscope", I would love to help you get this itinerary back out of "critical status".

Best wishes,

Rex

Thank you all!!! This trip will now definitly not happen. That would have been the worse mistake ever! We will not stop in Dijon and also not Zurich, and spend more time in the cities that we visit. This is obviously the first time that we have attempted to do such a thing, so any more suggestions would be wonderful! Thank you.

Did you already book air? If not, book an open-jaw, flying into Paris and ut of Frankfurt.

I agree with the others. Try to spend at least 3 nigths and 3 full days in Paris and ROme, and at least 2 nights & days in Venice. Don't wear yourself out, you'll be too tired to enjoy it by the end of the 2nd week.

Haven't checked the other posters' comments carefully -- but a question -- is there a reason why you wanted to spend so much time in Germany?

<<so any more suggestions would be wonderful!>>

If a total revamp is indeed really something you would consider - - here is how I would make the best of your original framework:

Day 1 - arrive Paris; nights 1 through 5 there, with one good day trip - - perhaps to Chartres? (but many other good choices available)
Day 6 - fly to Rome; nights 6,7 and 8 there
Day 9 - train to Orvieto (but many other choices would make sense - - or stick in a small town like Trento AFTER Venice)
Day 10 - train to Venice; nights 10 and 11 there
Day 12 - train to Salzburg; night 12 there.
Day 13 - train to Munich; nights 13 and 14 there; rent car upon departure on morning 15
Day 15-16-17 - - meandering your way towards Berlin; consider Ulm or Wurzburg or Weimar or Dresden or plenty of other choices.
Day 18 - arrive Berlin; turn in car; nights 18, 19, 20 there.
Day 21 - fly home.

I actually stay with my recommendation that you reconsider scrapping the three week idea, and save one entire country for a second trip in 2005, 2006 or 2007.

Let me know if you would like me to give it further thought.

SAE-I am really happy that you didn't take offense and that we can try to help you. A few of the reasons that you need to scale back are:
1. Luggage for 4 people is going to be a chore.
2. If you do not speak the language it takes much longer to navigate airports and such then it does in your home town.
3. The jetlag will blow away your first day and night.
4. It is going to be very, very hot in all of these places in August, also slowing you down.
You need to have 4 days in Paris, considering the jet lag. In Rome, the Vatican museum line that gets you into the Sistine chapel and the Vatican itself is a whole day by itself. You need 2 days minimum for the rest of Rome. Now you need to relax. I would skip Nice and the French Riv, and head to Cinque Terre or Tuscany for a few days to regroup after a week in cities. Pick a place with a pool if possible. Venice requires 2 nights, just because it is so much fun! Salzburg is a real little beauty. You must visit the palace outside of Salzburg with the water fountains (I will try to get the name unless another fodorite comes up with it faster). And then on to Germany.

Like most people, I think you are trying to see too much, but I understand the attraction of wanting to see everything you have read about.

My suggestion would be to agree on your interests, such as native countryside, art, food, cities, etc., and make your trip conform to those interests.

I have never been to France in August, but I have read that it virtually shuts down for the entire month, so if you want to go there, go there at the start of your trip. Since you have family in Germany, plan to spend some time there.

Look into the possibility of an open-jaw, or multiple destinations, air fare. You could, for example, fly into Paris, spend a few days, take a train to Germany, spend a few days, take a train to Venice passing through the alps (don't let anyone talk you into taking a night train; you will miss the most amazing scenery), spend a few days in Venice, and fly home from there.

Our first trip we spent a week in Florence, a week in Switzerland, and a week in Venice, and our feeling was that each visit was too short. Our next trip we spent two weeks in Paris, and even then we didn't get to see everything we wanted, but it was a far more enjoyable experience.

Warning!! You may think this will be a once-in-a-lifetime trip, but you will enjoy it so much you will find a way to go again.

Another important consideration is that the French all make their way to the south the first weekend in August when the children are out for the summer and many factories/businesses shut down for the month. This is when you hear of the notorious 300+ mile long traffic jams.

Cut Nice (for the above reasons). I think you'd be better served concentrating on Paris (IF you fly into there), Italy and Germany.

The original schedule is not a trip, it is a trek, bordering on a death march.

Dump France, Berlin, and Prague. Head south from Frankfurt through Bavaria, Switzerland, and into Italy.

You need at least 21 days for just Bavaria, Sw., and Italy.

I'd fly into Munich--3 days Munich. Then 3-5 days elsewhere in southern Germany. Then head south.

If you must fly into FRA--then I'd take a train to Bamberg for a couple of days, then train to Munich for 3 days or so. Then head south.

SAE, Good rules of thumb !

1. 21 days=7 destinations[3 per]
2. one to another=max of 4 hours
3. Spend as much time in small villages as you do large cities.

Fly into Munich and out from Zurich and pick 7 destinations between.

Rex -
I love your analogy. But I'm curious - would someone with a life-threatening congenital birth defect live long enough to develop a major degenerative disease?

SAE_1856 I agree with everyone else's posts. This itineray must be seriously trimmed if you want to avoid the trip from hell. Since Germany seems to be a given for family reasons use that as the center and add either Paris or Venice/Rome or Prague. Then review that itineray with a road map or train schedule - being realistic about times for finding and checking in/out of hotels. Post that itinerary and I'm sure people will provide lots of specific suggestions.

I don't see anything wrong with the original itinerary . . . except perhaps all that time you are spending in Munich. In 3 days you could drop down to Garmisch and go to the top of the Zugspitz, see Mittenwald, race through the little section of Austria that borders Germany near Garmisch and spin back up to Fussen and have a "leisurely" stroll back to Munich.

You also seem to be letting grass grow under your feet in Berlin. You need to add a little more punch to that part of the trip.

Having said that, I'd do this trip in a heartbeat (about the same time you've allotted) and enjoy it.

However, I'd never recommend that someone try to cover as much ground as you set out to cover unless you are sure that's what you want to do. Most people who post on this forum tend not to travel in that style. The fact that you are asking suggests that you've not travelled this way before.

To each his own, and with any luck without insulting observations or goofy analogies.

"Rex" is the only person on this forum that I'd allow to make the comments couched in the terms he makes them. He's earned the right.

Snoopy--what is the procedure for the rest of us who've only been travelling for half a century or so to clear comments through you?

RTF,

My most humble apologies. I have always found your comments to be appropriate and very informative. I like your writing style and your point of view.

I just get (newsflash!) tired of reading things like "you can't see Paris in 1/2 day". For some dopey reason I want to rewrite that line to say "SAE_1856, you cant see what kybourbon thinks you need to see in 1/2 day."

I hope SAE_1856 isn't blind, in which case both kybourbon and I need a slap.

Snoopy

Some comments from a Novice international traveller:
Do not compare travel in Europe to travel in the US. Italy is the size of Arizona. I could do Arizona in a week. I could spend more than a month in Italy!
Determine what type of activities you and your family want to do. Museums,hikes, relaxation, etc. and plan and intersperse small towns with cities. (Food and wine are a given).
We spent 2 wks in just N & Central Italy, needed at least 3 days in Venice.

FLy directly into Paris, min 3 nights there. Fly to Rome, min 3 nights.
Train to a small town (Orvieto? Siena?) for 2-3 nights (Get a car rental and explore the area & wine tastings).
Train to Venice 3 nights
Train through Lake Como (1 night) up into Zurich
for 2 nights(Rarely would I recommend only 1 night some place, a few nights in Berlin then leave from Frankfurt.

<<But I'm curious - would someone with a life-threatening congenital birth defect live long enough to develop a major degenerative disease?>>

Well, yes, sure, it happens all the time. Life-threatening means just that - - _threatening_ - - I didn't say a _fatal_ birth defect.

Of cours, this is SO off-topic that if you really want me to offer examples, this is one time that (private) communication through e-mail would be far more appropriate.

Snoopy needs a shot of bourbon!! I didn't know he had been named "post" patrol.

SAE 1856 looks like adults are doing the planning. What interests do each family member have? Did the boys study language or history that might give them a particular interest in any city or region? That is my first way of choosing where and what to see.

That said I have been a Francophile since I was 12 and didn't get to France until I was 39. Took two trips to Paris in 2 years. Spent 2 weeks the first trip (all in Paris) and 3 weeks the second trip (never went more than 100km from the city). However art architecture and design are my main interests and I spent 2 days each trip in the Louvre.

I actually planned a trip like this once (much younger and in the US) and we started it. I was still going strong by Ohio (from California), but I was the only one still having a grand time. We rested a few days in Ohio and turned around and drove home.

In other words, if you can do it and you really want to, go ahead, BUT be super sure everyone traveling with you has that kind of stamina.

Being older and more mellow, I try to stay a minimum of 3 days in each place now and much prefer a week.

You've definitely set yourself a challenge and only you know if it's possible.

I still think you need to adjust what you are trying to see. I know you are exploring, experimenting, seeking. I spent 7 weeks wandering around Europe to cover essentially the same ground.

And I spent 3 weeks later in England and Scotland, and I left that trip unfinished.

On that 7 week wander I did spend more time in Switzerland than you have budgeted, and probably I was in Salzburg longer than the average tourist, but I had a non tourist reason.

We spent almost a week in Berlin. Of course at the time I was there, the zones of occupation existed, and touring the Russian zone was a grim adventure of tremendous intrigue.

I am not totally in love with Paris, but trying to see the major sights of Paris in 3 days is really a rush job.

I think you have to look at a very definite problem with what you have.

And let's start with Paris. Would you go to Paris and not visit Versailles, Vaux-le-Vicomte, Fontainebleau, the Louvre, the Musee d'Orsay, the Rodin Museum, Napoleon's Tomb, the Arc de Triomphe, the Eiffel Tower, Place de la Concorde, Tuilleries Gardens, Notre Dame, Ste. Chapelle, Sacre Couer, perhaps Giverney, and so on and on?

Ok take the list and start cutting.
Which ones are you going to cut first?
What will you have left for a 3 day visit is going to be little.

Let me ask a blunt question: Why are you going to any of these places? What attracts you?

If you don't have a good idea of what you want to see when you get there, let me suggest that you will spend a lot of time milling about without direction and without objectives. You will end up wasting the trip, the time, and the money.

The new itinerary is an improvement, but as Dr. Rex said, it is still a train wreck, just not quite as bad a one.

Remember, you cannot see it all, ever.
So I think you need to establish a list of what types of attractions lure you the most.

For example, I made my priority decision years ago: The Alps of Switzerland and Austria are my own personal magnet. And that is where I focus my attention and my time.

Let me jump in here with this one.
Your first itinerary is too much.
Your second one leave me wondering.
Let me suggest that you take each destination and list the major attractions. Paris is a major objective. Make a list of what attracts you.

Do the same for Rome. It is huge, complex, vast, and confusing.
While you are there, what do you want to visit?

Then figure how much time you will need for each place on your list.

Then you need to look at what you cut.

I say this because the first time I went to Paris, I was not prepared. I had no real idea of what I wanted to see or do. Result: I hated Paris.
I returned many years later much better prepared and had a more interesting time of it. Without a more detailed plan of action than what you have so far, I fear that your trip dreams may go unrealized.

You have embarked on a major undertaking in a very complex environment where you may or may not know the local language.

Don't be discouraged by the reviews you have received to date, but take them as an indication that what you have in mind is in need of much detailed and critical thinking.

Tackle the why am I there aspect of each destination.

topping for SAE

Self-apppointed, though I scoff HA! at being called "post patrol". I have no control. I just make comments on stuff people say.

I sometimes forget how thin skinned people are. kybourbon, I would make my remarks to your face and grin . . . I mean what I say in good humor. There's a difference between a good natured slap fight and a boxing match to the death.

Post Critic? Post Cynic? Post Jerk? Post &^%^&*()%#@$? Call it what you will, just not post patrol!!

By the way, kybourbon, my grandfather grew up in Versailles, KY (as you know, ver-sales), what a beautiful part of the world. Probably not too many Frenchy French people wandering around in Louisville . . .

Anyway, you are the one who said "You can't see Paris in 1/2 day." Isn't that just a little strong? Perhaps it's not as good as 3 days. But are you suggesting that 0 days in Paris is better than 1/2 day?

Sno-"good natured-no-ill-intention"-opy

You might want to visit Rick Steve's web site and read the itinerary for his "Grand European Tour"...here is the link: http://tours.ricksteves.com/catalog/...125&id=654

I'm not suggesting that you sign up for the tour, but it can act as a good guide to get the most out of your trip.

I don't mean this to be snooty, but in some places - Paris, NYC, London - on a first trip - half a day is almost worse than none, unless you know exactly what you want to see or take a tour. It can be very overwhelming, and by the time you learn your way around at all, it is time to leave. It can be done, but it requires careful planning to get anything out of the time. Jim's Rick Steves reference seems like a great one given your goals. I think his trip is actually about as long as your's. You will need more time to cover the same ground, however, since a tour company has getting around down to a science.

Agree that there are places where 1/2 day (or in some cases 1 day) would be worse than none. I would submit that Venice is one of those places--especially during the high season when daytrippers are subjected to stampeding with the rest of the sweating herd down the infamous Daytrippers' Alley amid tacky souvenir shops with "Made in China" Murano glass beads and plastic gondolas, overpriced hotels, terrible tourist menu restaurants, $2 postcards and $5 cokes, agressive street vendors--well, that pretty much describes it. With 1/2 a day or even a full day, many come leave with the impression that this is Venice. They don't realize that if they had more time to explore, they could walk 5 minutes away and find an entirely different city.

Pardon my ignorance, but why would anyone fly to Frankfurt to travel to Paris ?

Hones curiosity as I am going to France through Germany too but I have to stop in Hamburg. If you don't have to stop - what is the reason hitting Frankfurt ?
Sincerelly, Z

SAE, I would pick four cities, cut out the rest. Paris-Dijon-Nice-Venice, for example. Less is more. Your present intin. leaves my head spinning. Believe me, because I've been there, packing and unpacking for 19 days will set you up for a stay in a mental institution.

Could you please tell us your interests??? That would help much.

Not only your interests, but the places you have to be for family reasons.