Hi all - we are planning a nine day (not including travel days) trip to London in mid-February. We've been kicking around ideas for a short, probably two night, side trip to another city...originally Edinburgh or Paris, but my husband has thrown in Venice as a possibility due to el cheapo RyanAir tickets.

Both of us have been to London on multiple occasions and have seen the major sights (although I still have lots of things on my London list), so we aren't concerned about taking a few days away from it to see somewhere new. We've also been to Paris in the last couple of years, and I've been to Edinburgh, quite a long time ago, he hasn't. Has anyone taken a short trip like this to Venice? Is it "worth" going for such a short time at a yucky time of year? I've always wanted to see it. Thoughts? Also open to other city suggestions...

A couple of points: Ryanair fly from Stansted airport which is a fair way from central London. Secondly, they land at Treviso rather than Marco Polo, so you need to add the cost and time of transfers into the equation.

A more direct, and sometimes reasonable alternative is BMI from Heathrow to Marco Polo.

I love Venice, and think that two days would be a very short time to appreciate Venice, but you could certainly get a taste of the city. Alternative places might be Amsterdam or Brussels or Bruges (by Eurostar)

I recently did a two-night trip to Venice from Stansted (actually flew into Bologna Forli... long story). We only had one day actually in Venice, and to me it was perfect to get the feel of the city and just wander, although I know there are many who would argue! We didn't see all the sights (just canals, San Marco, Rialto Bridge) but had a wonderful time just wandering, doing a little shopping and eating. So if you mainly just want to see the town, I'd say go for it. If we'd had a second day I would have loved to go out to Murano.

We did have someone drop us off and pick us up at Stansted, so I'm not sure what transfer times to and from each airport would be like. But I second the advice to take that into account. Not sure about the weather - we went in October and had a gorgeous day.

i would not fly out of and back to london during a nine day holiday. i would want to relax in venice...which is possible...but not under the circumstances that you describe.

i would either visit the UK or italy but not both. it is not efficient to visit both in 9 days. you will burn nearly 2 whole days in transit out of the nine....plus the days travelling to london from home (which are not part of the nine but still part of your holiday). this means you will be travelling approx 4 days out of 11. i do this for work constantly but not for pleasure.

if it were quick and easy to jump on a ryanair flight we would be flying around europe every weekend. first, you cannot rely on the advertised fares...they are almost always not available. next is the airport issue that willit raised. finally, flying anywhere for just a couple of days is not what many consider fun.

if you want to see somewhere new, why not just plan a whole trip to somewhere else. then you can really see it and at the same time feel that you've had a proper holiday.

Hi L,

>two night, side trip to another city...originally Edinburgh or Paris,<

I would go to Edinburgh.

Save Paris and Venice for their own visits.

I think it's interesting that so many say this is a bad idea, yet over and over again I see people thinking nothing of making a two night side trip to Venice from Rome.

Easy Jet gets you from London Gatwick to Venice Marco Polo in 2 hours and 10 minutes. A train from Rome to Venice takes 4 and a half hours. With the time involved in getting to the airport, there is very little difference door to door timewise between the two. You can fly Easy Jet round trip London to Venice for as little as 23 pounds. That may or may not be cheaper (but certainly not much difference) than what you can take a train roundtrip from Rome.

So what's wrong with doing a side trip that is a totally different "cultural and scenic" change from your basic destination? I think it's like getting an "extra" vacation.

Incidentally if you want to get up early, you can fly London to Venice 6:45 AM and arrive in Venice before 10 AM, have all that day and all the next day, spend two nights and fly back to London leaving Venice at 10:25AM and getting back to Gatwick by 11:35 AM. Sounds pretty great to me!

I don't see a problem with this. I agree that geography means little when budget flights are so easy and quick - who cares if the flight is 1.5 hours or 2.5? Just check when Carnival dates are so that you make sure you can book a hotel prior to booking your airfare.

My daughter and I took a trip a couple years ago in March, staying in London for three nights, flying BMI to Venice, and spending five nights in Venice, then flying from Venice back to Boston. I loved this. You could reverse the number of days in each place and still have a great time.

I think it's a great idea lenny, except I would stay three days in Venice, or Edinburgh, or Budapest, or anywhere really. It's easy and usually cheap to get out of London with the choice of airports and airlines -- if you fly early in the day you won't lose much time, or fly later and take it easy. That way you'd be doubling your vacation thrills.

I also took Easy Jet from Gatwick to Venice -- arriving in Marco Polo is much better, as mentioned above. You have several options to get into Venice proper from that airport, including the inexpensive bus. Easy Jet was cheap and a fine flight. It did leave late, however, which is just a reminder that with a short side trip, each delay along the way eats into your time in Venice.

I love Venice and although other closer cites may make more sense, I can see nothing wrong with wanting to add a little Venice into the trip.

Willtravel mentioned the Venetian Carnival. This is a major event in Venice and runs from Feb. 9 to Feb. 20. It will be difficult to get rooms during this time.

I would definitely GO if I had a room reserved. It's something not to be missed.

See: http://www.guestinvenice.com/tema.asp?anno=2007

Stansted's not materially further from most of central London than Heathrow, BUT given that nowhere's more than 2 hours' flying time from London, the time you spend on the ground at both ends matters.

And by far the quickest time from a central London hotel room to sitting inside a plane is to use London City Airport. Cabbable, on the tube, serves only airports close to their city, has checkin times as low as 10 mins and it's five minutes' walk from the car park to the plane door.

Go to its website, look at the destinations served (though Venice isn't one of them) and work out how much time you'll save over using London's bigger airports.

>I think it's interesting that so many say this is a bad idea, yet over and over again I see people thinking nothing of making a two night side trip to Venice from Rome.<

I think that that is a bad idea, too.

"Yucky" in Venice is better than sunshine in most other places. If you can do this at the end of the trip and fly home from Venice, you might get the added airfare for nothing! Try costing it out all on one ticket. You'll probably have to make a stop on the way home, but still easier I think than making it a "side trip" in the middle of your London stay.

Double check first though that you can find an affordable hotel room for the dates you plan as you might coincide with Carnival as others have said. If there's any way to avoid a weekend trip to Venice, I'd do it. The weekends there are much busier, at least that was our experience.

Friends of mine in the south of England have been to Venice on a *day* trip with Ryanair, and enjoyed it (in the winter too). So if you want to go for one night, why not.

My only reservation would be over the dodginess of Ryanair, particularly the possibility that they might get you there but not be able to get you back. There have been a lot of stories like that about Ryanair recently. It probably wouldn't happen. But I wouldn't fly with them.

Is Ryanair actually worse than any other airline, though, or does it just get worse press? Lots of people have problems with other airlines too. But travel insurance can resolve this issue in any event.

Nonetheless, I flew BMI to Venice from Heathrow. Or consider EasyJet from Gatwick to Venice.

NO Question GO FOR IT. The following link will give you every piece of info you need.

http://travel.independent.co.uk/euro...cle2095612.ece

Thanks for the replies! We're still kicking ideas around, but I'm leaning towards Venice. Our time frame would be 2/21 or 2/22 through 2/25, so we'd miss the Carnival. Thanks for the heads-up on EasyJet from Gatwick to Marco Polo, Patrick. I had thought to fly out of Stansted, as it seems easier to get to from where we are staying (in Islington, near the Angel stop). This gives us more options.

One thing I like about the Ryanair options from Stansted is that they have mid day options if you're not into that "get up at 3:30 AM to get to the airport in time for an early flight".
On the other hand, Ryanair flys in to Treviso and there's nothing better than greeting Venice for the first time (is this a first time?) by approaching it by boat from Marco Polo.

WillTravel : "Is Ryanair actually worse than any other airline, though, or does it just get worse press? Lots of people have problems with other airlines too. But travel insurance can resolve this issue in any event."

It seems so to me, yes. We frequently get stories in the papers here of people being stranded somewhere when their Ryanair flight is cancelled. Ryanair's attitude is a) you can have your money back (not much use if you paid £20 6 months ago but it's £300 for a flight today with another carrier) or b) wait an indeterminate number of days for their next flight with availability - paying your own costs in between.

Decent airlines will book you on another carrier's flight and/or put you up in a hotel.

And although I always have annual travel insurance, I'm highly doubtful as to whether it would cover paying for an alternative flight and/or hotels in this situation - I think the insurance company would say it's Ryanair's responsibility.