30 years is not enough to explore all of Banff, still doesn't mean that a 3 day trip isn't worth it. People who live in Calgary day trip to Banff all the time.

Some people need 3 days just to get settled after the inconvenience of travelling, personally I don't care. I will fly to Asia and put it in a full day of sightseeing after arriving on a redeye flight. There's plenty of time to sleep when you're dead.

I also hang out on the Lonely Planet forums, and you frequently have posters who have problems with scale for the American West and how, no, the Grand Canyon isn't a day trip from Los Angeles or something like that and you're probably not going to be happy with a day trip to there from Las Vegas either because you'll either see the inferior West Rim or get like an hour and a half at the South Rim.

americans arent blessed with the holiday allowances of typical europeans.
(2 weeks was the norm for most industries. though i believe tech is helping change that). the gap year is also not a thing.

whereas a belgian can hop on a train to germany, france, netherlands, at his/her whim... to a working-class american, just making it over the pond is a difficult proposition, hence the need to be opportunistic with the sightseeing.

i just hate the extreme notion that one needs to have rented an apartment and be on a first-name basis with the local baker, cobbler, and blacksmith, to qualify as having experienced a place.

I live on Vancouver Island. I see middle-aged European couples and families come here, rent a van or RV and spend 2 months cruising the Island and the coast of BC. This is normal for them; they go to a different country every year and spend 2 months. This is not even remotely imaginable for a non-retired person in North America. If someone can come out here for 2 or 3 days, they will not see everything, but they can still have a good time and appreciate a new place.

Even though we have taken weekend trips from NYC to PAR and ROM in Y before the cc game, I have to say our perspective has changed since we started flying in premium cabins.

If we are flying in C or higher, where we go and how far it is doesn't matter very much. I've lhad overnight flights from EZE and TLV, come home, showered, and went straight to work. A few weeks ago, we flew from Krueger to JNB, took a layover tour of the city (we only spent 3 hrs seeing Jo'burg and Soweto - gasp!), and then flew for 16 hrs back to JFK. I got home, showered, and spent the next 8 hrs poking people with needles and drills and blades. :cool:

I'll take a daytime Y flight, but there is a massive difference between cattle class and a flat bed on an overnight flight, as all of you are aware.
Most people have never turned left when they enter the plane, and don't understand that perspective.
Maybe that's why they feel the need to settle down after a trip, and we're ready to go.

I always think the advice of TA is just like the reviews - you need to interpret it rather than take it as the ultimate truth. Take what you need from it and ignore the fluff or non relevant bits.

I feel I am the opposite of many travellers on here too. Lots like to visit many cities on their trip staying 3 or 4 days here and there and spending lots of time travelling to their next destination.

I like to go to one city and spend 2 weeks there. I'm currently looking at Hong Kong and am getting the "2 weeks it too much" vibe. I told my travel agent who also made the comment that I don't want to be doing stuff from 9 am to 6 pm every day. I like breakfast whenever I wake up, be it 9 or 10 (I work hard so need a holiday). I then like to see stuff for 3 or 4 hours and then come back to my room to read, swim or relax. Throw in a few massages here and there and that's it. I don't want to be rushed off my feet doing a million things in a day to get them done as quickly as possible so I can move on to the next destination.

I rarely comment when they as if this time frame is doable as I know we are all different.

3 days in Banff doesn't seem *that* odd. Yeah, sure, you could spend weeks there, but 3 days isn't an abnormal trip. You've actually picked a good time to go...

During the late 90's, back when airline competition was a real thing, I'd take weekend trips to Europe fairly often. Out Thursday, back Monday. 3 solid days in whatever city it was. It actually didn't feel all that rushed...

Yep. I used to do some pretty crammed trips myself, trying to wedge SE Asia into a typical 2-week annual vacation arrangement at work. I was the only person in a department of 60 who'd try to do that. A 2-weeker to Thailand in 1995 included Bangkok, Phuket, Ko Samui and Pattaya all via Bangkok Airways, plus the usual initial fight against jet lag.

Indeed I see lots of plans in the Asia forums that try to take in too much. Like a day for Angkor Wat. Most often, though, there are too many western assumptions about travel times or things running on time or not getting canceled, when in places like Vietnam or the back routes of Indonesia or the Philippines things can easily go wrong.

You also don't want to spend too high a percentage of time in transit vs. at the destination, especially now that airlines are cutting off some of the old tricks like "baht runs" to run up the scores on UA.

Maybe the problem is that you're relying on TripAdvisor. Many people there don't travel much.

Very true - I also find it important to 'interpret' TA reviews.

Love this thread- I did 9 countries in 3 weeks back in 09' and I don't regret a minute of it-if I had a year would it have been more enjoyable-of course, but some of us actually work for a living or have other obligations - there's never enough time-just deal with it.

I have a trip in Feb, NYC-HKG-REP, CNX-ICN-NYC, with 8 or 9 nights on the ground, and I am considering at least 3 places.
Again, to the point of this thread - is that too much? Maybe.
But what is the alternative?
A 2 week trip to SE Asia will NEVER happen for us, or at least with kids.
The only times they are out for than 1 week is summer and the Christmas break. Summer is not the time to go to SE Asia, and holidays are difficult to get away (plus nearly a zero chance of 4 tickets in C). So it's either go or no.

The happy medium is unique to each person at any given time. There was a time we traveled moving every day. My wife laid down a 2-night rule - stay in one place for 2 nights, with few exceptions. Maybe because I'm the one that plans and books it, but she's the one who packs and unpacks :)

It's silly trying to impose one's own preferences on someone else.

very true. I forget that sometimes.

A little sensitive perhaps? The point I was making is that it depends what you are looking for, or perhaps even what you are able to look for. I absolutely accept that, if you have no holiday allowance, spending a week somewhere is out of the question. But if you can spend a week in a major world city, you will learn far more than if you spend a day. And, you will return with a much better understanding of that place.

For example, I recently spent a week in Buenos Aires as part of a three week itinerary (over Christmas and New Year, when business at home is closed, I might add) and I felt I got to learn a good amount about Argentina during that time. The reading made so much more sense, and it allowed me to discuss things with people in a way you simply cannot. As a result I feel a real connection with Argentina and follow it very closely.

By contrast, I spent one day in Egypt, in Cairo as it happens. I stayed in a Hilton, I went on the Nile, saw the old city and toured the Stock Exchange. Have I been to Cairo? Yes. Do I know anything about Cairo that goes beyond what I read in the news? No. Did I meet any Egyptians, or people who were not Western tourists? No.

And, as for Banff, the OP never mentioned it in the original post, or indeed any subsequent one until this. And a tourist sight is quite different from a city or a country.

I am guilty of responding a few times with the "not enough time", not here or TA but another forum.

I get that people travel differently and their time and resources are different.

When I have responded with that phrase, it is generally due to the feeling that they have not bothered to look at a map.

Example..... "I will be in Sydney for three days and I want to visit Adelaide and Perth". Really?