I don't leave for another 6 months, so still plenty of time to plan.
I am only able to take 19 days from work for it.
It'll be from the 2nd of June to the 20th. The first day is pretty shot from the flight.
My roundtrip ticket is LA - Helsinki ( Which I realize now that I should have gotten a one way for each) ... Anyways, the places I want to see in order are: Helsinki to Berlin, then to Paris to London, to Barcelona, to Rome, to Athens, to Bucharest, then back to Helsinki. I know that's a lot of place in a little time. I will be saving time by flying to each rather than a train or bus. I also plan to only spend between 1-3 days in each. My question is, which places should I spend more time, and if I have to cross one off my list, which should it be?
Hello,
It sounds like you have put a lot of thought into your trip and if it is your first time in Europe it can be really hard to know where to go because it all sounds great! I do agree with some other answers that for some of the legs you will actually save time over taking the plane. This is especially true if you are taking budget airlines (such as ever popular and ever detested Ryan Air) which sometimes fly to smaller airports far away from the city. But to cover as much ground as you are thinking flights will be the best option for some locations.
It is really hard to say where to cut time from because these are all great cities with a variety of things to see and do. You ultimately will feel that you did not have enough time anywhere- a common traveler's conundrum. It hurts me even trying to think which city I would cut if I were you. If I was in your shoes and really couldn't decide, I would cut the most expensive- London. If is your first time in Europe and everything looks amazing, making a choice based on finance is not a bad way to go. Plus then you get more time to actually enjoy yourself, not rush around quite as much, and have your money go just a little farther in the places you do visit.
I hope this helps. It's my hobby to guide fellow adventurers through their planning and budgeting, so feel free to Facebook message me at Crystal Mae Leturno if you want to talk it out any more.
Happy Travels.
Trains will be faster on many of those legs (because they go city-center-to-city-center), and less stressful, and you get to see the country as you pass through it, and you get to talk to people on the train and learn more about the country. All round, it's a much better experience than flying.
Also, I can't see the point of going to Bucharest. Prague is nearer and much more cultural.
But why would you get a flight to the far north of Europe if southern Europe is your destination? Why not just fly to southern Europe?
You will find trains are quicker bin most legs of this. esp Paris to London
