Traveling Around the World in 51 Days

[Neftren]

I was hoping to get some advice (somebody please tell me if I'm crazy). I'm nearing my vacation day cap, and I've been getting some pressure from my bosses to use some of it. If I strategically take off every single day from the week of American Thanksgiving through the first week of next year, in theory, I can get 51 calendar days off with which to travel the world. My rough outline is something along these lines ...

From 11/18/2017 through 01/07/2018:

Week 1: Los Angeles → London
Week 2: Paris
Week 3: Geneva → Milan → Rome
Week 5: Hong Kong
Week 6: Seoul
Week 7: Tokyo → Los Angeles

On a scale of 1 to crazy, where do I fall?

[factotum]

About 7.2, I'd say. :smallwink:

Seriously, if your employers will go for it--and they can hardly complain when they've been pressuring you to use your spare holiday--then it seems a fine thing to be doing.

[Aedilred]

I must admit I'm only familiar with about half the initials on that list. It might help if you listed the destinations in full rather than just the airport abbreviations :smallwink:

[Neftren]

I must admit I'm only familiar with about half the initials on that list. It might help if you listed the destinations in full rather than just the airport abbreviations :smallwink:

Ah, sure. I figured airport codes would be more precise.

I also realized I could fly red-eyes and save about $2000 if I flew east instead of west, so a revised travel plan:

Week 1: Los Angeles → London
Week 2: Paris
Week 3: Geneva → Milan → Rome
Week 5: Hong Kong
Week 6: Seoul
Week 7: Tokyo → Los Angeles

[Teddy]

As someone who did a round the globe in 40 days only to hang out with Playgrounders, I'd put you down at 4. http://i.imgur.com/FZ6yI9l.png

Really, the biggest problem I see with this plan is that you'll be flying in the autumn-winter, so several of these cities won't have the most fun weather...

Also, are you booking each flight individually, or are putting together one of those 'round the world' tickets that Star Alliance or OneWorld offer?

[Neftren]

As someone who did a round the globe in 40 days only to hang out with Playgrounders, I'd put you down at 4. http://i.imgur.com/FZ6yI9l.png

Really, the biggest problem I see with this plan is that you'll be flying in the autumn-winter, so several of these cities won't have the most fun weather...

Also, are you booking each flight individually, or are putting together one of those 'round the world' tickets that Star Alliance or OneWorld offer?

I've found it's cheaper to book individually so far.

I actually prefer travelling in the autumn/winter, since it's not hot (and crowds are hopefully smaller). I don't mind the rain and snow so much.

[factotum]

Just noticed--what happened to week 4 in your itinerary? Are you just spending that staying in Rome?

[Spacewolf]

Looks pretty easily doable to me, not sure I'd really bother with a week in London or Paris though unless you have some sort reason. In fact I'd recommend most other UK cities over London they're cheaper, the people are friendlier and they are generally better situated for getting out to the countryside (Liverpool might be my first recommendation.).

[FinnLassie]

Having London, Paris and Rome as "home bases" wouldn't be a bad idea though, and make day/overnight trips from those cities to nearby places. I personally got through the things I like in London in three days, I would have preferred four since it would have been less hectic but hey ho money.

Definitely recommend seeing a musical in London's West End.

And about the crazy levels? Having had Teddy over during his one-helluva-trip that I thought was a solid 10, you're going on at about 7. :D

[Scarlet Knight]

If you can pull it off, great! You will likely be useless when you get back to work, though.

If you could I might change the route to:

Week 1: Los Angeles → London
Week 2: Geneva → Milan → Rome
Week 3: India
Week 5: Hong Kong
Week 6: Tokyo
Week 7: Hawaii( or Tahiti) → Los Angeles

This might have you in the air less and more time zone adjustment. The Hawaiian leg give you decompression time as you just unwind in the sand or under a palm tree sipping from a coconut

[Spacewolf]

How are you planning on getting around, it might be an idea to rent a car in the UK get the ferry or tunnel across to France then drop it off in Italy. Which would probably be cheaper than public transport and give you some more freedom.

[Asmodean_]

I'd generally avoid being in particularly Christian countries during the Christmas week - everything will be closed.

(My Portugal Christmas dinner 2015 was a microwave burger)

[Knaight]

This sounds reasonable, but you might want to hit up a few cheaper countries - Thailand instead of Korea, for instance (it also lets you see Laos and Cambodia, plus a tiny fraction of Myanmar, I guess).

[FinnLassie]

Cheaper countries in Europe wouldn't be a bad choice either. Croatia is the first one that pops in my mind, for example. And Spain is surprisingly cheap too, at least I found Madrid to be so - and it's the capital. Then again everything is hella expensive in Finland.

[Aedilred]

Cheaper countries in Europe wouldn't be a bad choice either. Croatia is the first one that pops in my mind, for example. And Spain is surprisingly cheap too, at least I found Madrid to be so - and it's the capital. Then again everything is hella expensive in Finland.

It's one of those things that depends entirely on intent. If the plan is just to go round the world and see some cool stuff relatively cheaply, then yes. If this is a once-in-a-decade/lifetime trip to go to all those places that have always been on "the list" but the chance has never arisen, taking time out of London and Rome to visit Croatia and Spain is probably counterproductive.

That said, I don't think you need a full week in Paris. It's one of those cities I think you either do in a couple of days - hitting up all the museums and galleries and moving on - or over the course of months. And the area around Paris is pretty unlovely for the most part, so if you want to see something of the rest of France at its best you'd be better off heading to Lyon, Toulouse, Nice, or Geneva a little early, and exploring from there. Or taking a detour via Barcelona, perhaps. And a couple of days chilling after an ocean-hop and ten days in two busy cities could be a nice cooldown period before moving on.

Milan is, infamously, eyewateringly expensive as a place to visit. I have nothing particularly against Milan, but I'd find it hard to prioritise ahead of Venice or Florence. Not that either of those cities is any cheaper, to be fair. I don't think anywhere in Italy north of Rome is really inexpensive, but it might be worth considering what it is you want to see in Milan and whether it's worth it.

I'd be tempted to say the same about Geneva too. It's a nice enough city but unless there's something there you desperately want to see, I might suggest scrubbing it from the schedule and making time for Bruges, Salzburg, Vienna, more of France, or part of Germany.

But as I say, that's the sort of thing that's really up to you to decide, and if you have reasons for wanting to go to these places specifically, don't let me put you off.

[Knaight]

It's one of those things that depends entirely on intent. If the plan is just to go round the world and see some cool stuff relatively cheaply, then yes. If this is a once-in-a-decade/lifetime trip to go to all those places that have always been on "the list" but the chance has never arisen, taking time out of London and Rome to visit Croatia and Spain is probably counterproductive.

On the other hand, Croatia and Spain (along with Thailand) are cool places. It's not like seeing Barcelona is somehow lackluster.

[FinnLassie]

Should've probably clarified that my suggestion was more towards skipping for example Paris and switch it up to Croatia/Spain. But yeah. A week in some of the locations there are a bit too much of a stretch in my opinion.

[thorgrim29]

If you're going to eastern europe Poland is pretty fun. I used to go to Poznan 2 times a year or so for work and it's got a lot to recommend it. Parts of the town are still vintage Soviet Bloc so not so much that but the historical center of town is nice and the food/vodka is very good and cheap.

[Knaight]

If you're going to eastern europe Poland is pretty fun. I used to go to Poznan 2 times a year or so for work and it's got a lot to recommend it. Parts of the town are still vintage Soviet Bloc so not so much that but the historical center of town is nice and the food/vodka is very good and cheap.

Then there's the Wieliczka Salt Mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine), which is absolutely worth visiting.

[Neftren]

Hi everyone, sorry for the delay. Was in Vancouver for League of Legends related things.

Anyway, my chief concern really is figuring out how to save on housing. I suspect that's the most expensive part of this so far.


Just noticed--what happened to week 4 in your itinerary? Are you just spending that staying in Rome?

Ah, yeah, the idea is mostly "spend some weeks in Europe" with the exact timing left flexible. I figure if I want to spend more or less time in one country, I can, and then move on when I want to move on instead of being dictated by a schedule.


Looks pretty easily doable to me, not sure I'd really bother with a week in London or Paris though unless you have some sort reason. In fact I'd recommend most other UK cities over London they're cheaper, the people are friendlier and they are generally better situated for getting out to the countryside (Liverpool might be my first recommendation.).

I've been to London before, and did the "day trip to Stonehenge, day trip to Windsor Castle, day trip to Oxford" thing once before. I don't know how big Paris is, but I figure it's pretty similar.


If you can pull it off, great! You will likely be useless when you get back to work, though.

If you could I might change the route to:

Week 1: Los Angeles → London
Week 2: Geneva → Milan → Rome
Week 3: India
Week 5: Hong Kong
Week 6: Tokyo
Week 7: Hawaii( or Tahiti) → Los Angeles

This might have you in the air less and more time zone adjustment. The Hawaiian leg give you decompression time as you just unwind in the sand or under a palm tree sipping from a coconut

I deliberately skipped India -- for various reasons, but mainly because it doesn't interest me.

I originally included Hawaii to split the return-flight into two legs, but plane tickets for Hawaii during the last two weeks are absurdly expensive ($1k+).


How are you planning on getting around, it might be an idea to rent a car in the UK get the ferry or tunnel across to France then drop it off in Italy. Which would probably be cheaper than public transport and give you some more freedom.

I was thinking just taking public transportation everywhere. I don't particularly enjoy driving much, but I'd consider it if that's something that people commonly do in Europe (I didn't think this was the case?).


I'd generally avoid being in particularly Christian countries during the Christmas week - everything will be closed.

(My Portugal Christmas dinner 2015 was a microwave burger)

I spent Christmas in London, so that was fine. I think I'll be in Asia during Christmas though, at least, according to my rough sketch.


This sounds reasonable, but you might want to hit up a few cheaper countries - Thailand instead of Korea, for instance (it also lets you see Laos and Cambodia, plus a tiny fraction of Myanmar, I guess).

Southeast Asia doesn't really appeal to me.


Cheaper countries in Europe wouldn't be a bad choice either. Croatia is the first one that pops in my mind, for example. And Spain is surprisingly cheap too, at least I found Madrid to be so - and it's the capital. Then again everything is hella expensive in Finland.

I thought about Barcelona, but I wasn't able to find a direct flight from Barcelona to Hong Kong (within reasonable price) and the main stop is either Frankfurt or Dubai (at which point I may as well just have gone to Germany instead). I originally had Barcelona in my "fly west" approach since I can get a cheap flight from Barcelona to LAX, but I've since reversed directions.


It's one of those things that depends entirely on intent. If the plan is just to go round the world and see some cool stuff relatively cheaply, then yes. If this is a once-in-a-decade/lifetime trip to go to all those places that have always been on "the list" but the chance has never arisen, taking time out of London and Rome to visit Croatia and Spain is probably counterproductive.

I don't know about once-in-a-decade/lifetime -- I'm pretty young, but going to this many places in one trip is the main intent. If I love a place enough to want to go back, I can always go back.


That said, I don't think you need a full week in Paris. It's one of those cities I think you either do in a couple of days - hitting up all the museums and galleries and moving on - or over the course of months. And the area around Paris is pretty unlovely for the most part, so if you want to see something of the rest of France at its best you'd be better off heading to Lyon, Toulouse, Nice, or Geneva a little early, and exploring from there. Or taking a detour via Barcelona, perhaps. And a couple of days chilling after an ocean-hop and ten days in two busy cities could be a nice cooldown period before moving on.

I was estimating about four days per city, and one day of travel between cities, with two flex days to get cheaper travel arrangements (e.g. flights are almost universally cheaper on Wednesdays). The Europe leg in particular is incredibly flexible, since I can just hop on a train and go somewhere.


Milan is, infamously, eyewateringly expensive as a place to visit. I have nothing particularly against Milan, but I'd find it hard to prioritise ahead of Venice or Florence. Not that either of those cities is any cheaper, to be fair. I don't think anywhere in Italy north of Rome is really inexpensive, but it might be worth considering what it is you want to see in Milan and whether it's worth it.

I'd be tempted to say the same about Geneva too. It's a nice enough city but unless there's something there you desperately want to see, I might suggest scrubbing it from the schedule and making time for Bruges, Salzburg, Vienna, more of France, or part of Germany.

But as I say, that's the sort of thing that's really up to you to decide, and if you have reasons for wanting to go to these places specifically, don't let me put you off.

Milan is primarily motivated by "it's on the way to Rome" (without going around the Alps). I hadn't thought about Venice though. I might add that to the itinerary, now that you bring it up. Cost is more of a secondary motivating factor at this point (obviously I want to be frugal, but I'm not bound by "must be cheap!11!!1!" either).

I was debating either Vienna or Prague, but at this point my primary motivation is saving money on airfare (and time spent in the air).


If you're going to eastern europe Poland is pretty fun. I used to go to Poznan 2 times a year or so for work and it's got a lot to recommend it. Parts of the town are still vintage Soviet Bloc so not so much that but the historical center of town is nice and the food/vodka is very good and cheap.
Then there's the Wieliczka Salt Mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine), which is absolutely worth visiting.

Similarly, Eastern Europe doesn't particularly appeal to me either, sorry.

[Aedilred]

For me the two "essential cities" in Europe are Rome and London (in that order). If you've already been to London and done all the major attractions, you might be able to skip it (or some of it) on a repeat trip to gain more time elsewhere. It hasn't changed that much. Paris would be third on the list, but after a bit of a gap. It's hard to explain why, but I think that, with the exception of the Louvre, the galleries and museums in Paris are less remarkable than in London, and there are more attractions where the appeal is largely to say "I've been there".

Paris has also been less careful at preserving its legacy than London or Rome, so places like the Bastille and the Tuileries are just placards on a wall with no visual evidence. The Champs-Elysées, at the end of the day, is a big road with some shops on it. Of course there is something different about seeing (or climbing) the Eiffel Tower in person, but ultimately it looks pretty much like it does in the photos. There is something to be said for the atmosphere, but that's the sort of thing that's important on either a romantic weekend away or if you're a student there for a year or the like, not so much as a tourist. What's more, France is much bigger than England, and rather less centralised, so Paris isn't such a good base for exploring the rest of the country as London is for England. Hence why I think a week in Paris is on the long side: I'd estimate a day for the Louvre, a day for Versailles, and another day for (all of) the Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, Sacre Coeur and Notre Dame. But don't let me put you off if there is a lot of stuff there you want to see, or have a plan for filling that time.

[factotum]

For me the two "essential cities" in Europe are Rome and London (in that order). If you've already been to London and done all the major attractions, you might be able to skip it (or some of it) on a repeat trip to gain more time elsewhere.

Elsewhere in the UK, maybe? Visit the Beamish museum in County Durham, or go to Land's End...

[Neftren]

For me the two "essential cities" in Europe are Rome and London (in that order). If you've already been to London and done all the major attractions, you might be able to skip it (or some of it) on a repeat trip to gain more time elsewhere. It hasn't changed that much. Paris would be third on the list, but after a bit of a gap. It's hard to explain why, but I think that, with the exception of the Louvre, the galleries and museums in Paris are less remarkable than in London, and there are more attractions where the appeal is largely to say "I've been there".

Paris has also been less careful at preserving its legacy than London or Rome, so places like the Bastille and the Tuileries are just placards on a wall with no visual evidence. The Champs-Elysées, at the end of the day, is a big road with some shops on it. Of course there is something different about seeing (or climbing) the Eiffel Tower in person, but ultimately it looks pretty much like it does in the photos. There is something to be said for the atmosphere, but that's the sort of thing that's important on either a romantic weekend away or if you're a student there for a year or the like, not so much as a tourist. What's more, France is much bigger than England, and rather less centralised, so Paris isn't such a good base for exploring the rest of the country as London is for England. Hence why I think a week in Paris is on the long side: I'd estimate a day for the Louvre, a day for Versailles, and another day for (all of) the Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, Sacre Coeur and Notre Dame. But don't let me put you off if there is a lot of stuff there you want to see, or have a plan for filling that time.

I'm not sure what "all the major attractions" would be in London. I have a few friends there that I was going to look up mainly. Oh, and I'll probably stop by Fortnum and Mason since I've all but run out of tea.

As for Paris, I think in this case I figured I'd start with the touristy stuff. I'm not very interested in shopping, but architecture is fun (and maybe some opportunities for street photography would appeal to me as well).


Elsewhere in the UK, maybe? Visit the Beamish museum in County Durham, or go to Land's End...

I was thinking of visiting Scotland, probably Edinburgh. Not sure what else particularly appeals to me in the UK (outside of London). Open to suggestions though!

[thorgrim29]

I'm not sure what "all the major attractions" would be in London.

Go to the British Museum, take a walk in Hyde Park, and if you want tea you can go to the original Twinnings tea shop, they sell good quality loose leaf teas there too.

[Aedilred]

What I think of as major London attractions: Westminster Abbey (and Houses of Parliament if possible), St. Paul's Cathedral, the Tower of London, Natural History Museum, Science Museum, V&A Museum, British Museum, National Gallery, the Tate(s), Buckingham Palace, London Eye, and maybe the Globe and Olympic park. That's excluding things which have no real content per se but people like to go and look at and take pictures of, like Tower Bridge and a couple of famous statues, and "destination" shops (like Fortnum and Mason, Harrods, Hamleys, etc.) It also obviously excludes performance venues like the ROH, National Theatre, 02/Dome, the assorted theatres in the West End, and so on, and sporting venues like Wembley, Lord's, Twickenham, etc.