Ricoh, my Miami friends, who travel to Europe on 10-14-day trips because of time constraints, recommend that you scrap Interlaken. They suggest spending three nights in Paris, two nights in Venice, two nights in Florence and three nights in Rome.
I now extending my nights in Paris & Interlaken to 4 nights. I did some research on Florence and I think it's not for us. Maybe your friends like other activities like hiking, going out of the city border and other stuff that's why they need more time. Our trip is 100% tourist. You know, going to just the major attractions (that the world see).
You could fly from Paris to Venice. Or, alternatively, take the night train from Paris, arriving in Venice the next morning. Florence is two hours by train from Venice; Rome is 90 minutes by train from Florence.
My Miami friends don't have much time to travel, so they take short trips when they can.
I thought about that so we decided to just take the plane to cut the time of travelling. We will only take the train from Venice to Rome.
As a retiree, I have the luxury of spending more time on the road. But I also have responsibilities that I can't ignore, so I'm home during certain times of the year. Most people have time constraints; and we travel when we can. But with your tight schedule, you have to decide what you priorities are. I agree with my Miami friends that you can get a "flavor" of Venice with a couple of nights there. But you'd short change yourself with only two nights in Rome. In fact, I think it would be a darn shame!
But if Interlaken is important to you, by all means travel there. It's your choice, after all.
Yeah, we have to see Interlaken. We might drop Rome if we have to.
Thank you for the advice.
As a list ticking trip you can then go home and casually drop into conversation from time to time, 'oh yes, I've spent some time there', it sounds fine.
As an actual worthwhile doing idea it sucks. What you have planned is a trip that will not allow you to have anywhere near enough time to see and do anything in any of the locations you list. You have enough time to visit any ONE of them and expect to do some justice to the one you visit but no where near enough time for all of them. I certainly would not attempt to visit more than 2 of them.
Of course if all you want is to tick them off a list for bragging rights, then fine, go ahead.
I guess we all have different priorities. Some like to hike, drink wine, going on a spa, hang out at a bar at night, go to some remote place that no other tourist has ever visit, go swimming on a lake, take a boat trip, go skiing, go slide and zipping, etc. That's not us. We wanted to see the major sites, take pictures, shopping and eating. That's our priorities. Different races have different taste as far as having fun. The main thing is to have fun no matter what you do. To me, I think it sounds better to say "yeah, I went up the Eiffel Tower" than to say "yeah, I went skiing on the alps". Your joy could be my boredom.
[ Edit: Edited on 18-May-2016, at 21:17 by Ricoh ]
Yes, you could fly from Paris to Bern, but there are more flight choices to Zurich, a much larger city.
Flying from Bern to Venice might be more expensive than flying from Zurich. I still think the train is a viable option.
My friends aren't into much hiking. Like you, they just want to see the major sights. They loved Florence for the beauty of the city and its museums.
What you want to see in Paris probably could be accomplished in three days. If you spent four days in Interlaken, and two days in Venice, you'd have three days left for Rome.
Whatever you decide, you'll have a memorable time.
Good one Ricoh - ask for advice, weigh up what you get and then adapt what you were going to do based on some of the advice. The extra night in Paris (and in Interlaken) will certainly make a difference.
A couple of things about Paris - I thought the Musee d'Orsay was stunning and easily as good, if not better than the Louvre (the Van Goghs and the Monets trumped the Mona Lisa). Montmartre and the Sacre Coeur are unmissable too and a boat trip down the Seine (at night of you can) would really cap off your trip. But again, these are just my opinions.
Definitely do it your way - if everyone was the same and did everything the same way, the world would be a very boring place.
Tourism is one of the best experiences of my trip to Paris. I went to Paris last year and really enjoyed the beautiful scenery. I was with tour and everything was wonderful.
[ Edit: Edited on 18-May-2016, at 22:39 by atefe1992 ]
Thanks, I'm planning to purchase that Swiss Pass, but wasn't sure which one or which website cause there's different kinds. By the way, does the Swiss Pass covers the Golden Express?
I went on the four Panorama trains Golden Pass line, Wilhelm Tell Express, Bernina Express & Glacier Express & booked it all through my travel agent - I think she went through these people My Switzerland I had the Swiss pass which is now called the Swiss Travel Pass & it did cover the GoldenPass line. My trip was one day of travel & three nights in a place.
I picked up the pass & hotel vouchers at Geneva airport. The Panorama trains were all pre-booked with seat reservations. I did lots of cog railways, up mountains, through valleys - it was a wonderful trip. The pass give the impression is is only valid for trains but gets you on the ferries across the lakes too & they are a great way to travel.
Have a look at my TP blogo - it starts in Geneva but here if you are only interested in Interlaken area
The Bernina Express was my favourite