I don't think that is quite a valid comparison. The opportunity cost for a someone transiting Heathrow to go into London is a couple of hours on the Tube and the cost of a tube fare that they could have spent at Heathrow.

The opportunity cost for someone flying from East Coast to London could be 12+ hours in coach and a $1000 fare + the tube travel and fare. I would want a longer time in London to justify the latter than the former.

If you don't want people's advice, why do you ask for it? Or, conversely, when you ask for people's advice why do you get upset if they give their honest opinion.

If all you want is validation of your own decisions, save money on data charges and buy a mirror.

So much of this depends on where you live and how well you handle sleep disruption. For a Flyertalker that lives in NY or LA who can sleep on planes easily, they could do a 3 day trip to almost anywhere in the world. For someone who lives in a small town the long transit times from connections is going to kill them.

Even locals say that's enough time to see Jo'burg. :p

Also a quick traveller here though - usually any more than three or four days in a city and I start getting bored, with a few exceptions. As someone else said, better to leave feeling like you want more, than getting bored.

My problem is that I like to travel, usually far from home, and like to do 3-4 trips like this per year spaced throughout the year so I don't lose my mind at work. Thankfully I have more vacation time than the average American employee (I have 4-5 weeks annually to play with) and I try to travel over holidays to minimize PTO, but that still leaves me often with only 5 days, plus any weekends it coincides with.

For me Thanksgiving is the best week to travel over. Costs 3 days of PTO for a 9 day vacation. Being Canadian, my family could care less about Thanksgiving, so they're fine with the Christmas get together.

This but not only this.

I just don't like traveling enough to be removed from home/Internet/pets/resources for several days.

I like to add one half day to work trips, see one thing, maybe a day if it spectacular. I have no desire to see everything and to fully explore province/continent/large city. Perhaps once a year for two nights but then I am really over it and want to dash, no matter how gorgeous the experience.

Sure I traveled differently as a grad student but was a while ago.

I've made similar comments to people both in person and on TA. To me, it doesnt mean "youre going to have a bad vacation if you only have 3 days to spend in NYC." If 3 days is the most time off you can take, then go to NYC and have a blast.

To me, it means more of "if you're going to America for a week, i'd recommend not trying to visit NYC, Niagara Falls, DC, Miami and Vegas." It could be done, sure. But perhaps you'd have a better trip if you spent 4 nights in NYC and 3 in Miami. Of course, some people would prefer to just 'check a box that they've been to destination X' and thats their choice.

I've also suggested to friends in the Northeast USA "if you only have 3-4 days to travel, maybe Argentina/Europe/Hawaii isnt the best idea." Perhaps you'd be better off not spending 20 of your 80 hours of vacation in transit. But if you really want to get to a given destination and this is your only chance, go for it. (similarly if you're in London and only have 72 hours, maybe you'd be better off going to Spain than to New York)

Finally, i've commented on TA when people look to spend 3-4 nights at Niagara Falls. Sure, there are things to keep you busy there, but if you have a limited amount of time on vacation, i think 1 night is more than enough.

End of the day, these are people posting to TA asking for help. So i'm not sure why the OP is getting so upset when the feedback you're getting isn't exactly what you're hoping for. It's your travel, it's your life, do what makes you happy.

we sound like brothers.

I was thinking the same thing. Describes me as well.

Transit time doesn't have to be proportional to actual distance, though. From Vancouver, I can easily hop one of multiple daily nonstops to PEK, PVG, HKG, TYO, ICN, etc. and be there in ~12 hours with a nice sleep on the way (in business class). It will easily take me that long to get to many places in the southern USA or eastern Canada.

This, or head south to Latin America where jet lag isn't an issue.

Yes, absolutely. Although Vancouver has relatively poor connectivity to Latin America (usually involving long layovers at IAH or MIA waiting for evening departures), that's improving now that we can transit through MEX with AM.

I just did a weekend trip to Denver where I was on the ground in Colorado for roughly 27 hours. In that time, I rode every rail line in the RTD system at least once, I visited The Source for lunch, coffee, and beer not once, but twice, went out to Golden for several miles of scenic hiking in Apex Park, sampled beer and cider at 5 of my favorite breweries, enjoyed the lounge at the Grand Hyatt, explored Union Station, saw the state capital, etc. etc. A great trip. Not once did I think to myself "I don't have time to do all of this."

S. America is the easiest place to get to from NYC.
I'd rather spend 12 hrs on the plane and get a good night sleep than 6 hrs and have my night broken up.
Rio or BA are an easy weekend trip (Th-Sun). Three full days on the ground, 2 full nights of sleep.
Flat beds, of course.

I tend to connect through ATL, but there might also be nonstops from LAX.