We are planning a trip for about 3 1/2 weeks in January 2013 (work committments mean this is the only time we can travel).
We will be flying from Auckland, New Zealand just after Christmas.
We have our hearts set on New York, and I am trying to figure out the logistics of what else we can include. My partner and I prefer to spend a longer time in one place to really get a feel for it, rather than rushing from one place to the next just to see the sights.
At this stage I am thinking to fly from auckland straight through to New York and spend about 10 nights there. Then spend the next 9 nights divided somehow between San Fransisco and Las Vegas. Finally, I think we could depart from LA late in the evening and fly to Tahiti for the last 4 nights before flying home to Auckland.
I had orginally thought of NY > Las Vegas > LA > Tahiti, but my partner isnt keen on LA and many people we have spoken to have said that San Fransisco is much more enjoyable. However the flight out of LA to Tahiti means we would still need to get to LA without really wanting to spend any time there.
I guess my questions are -
Is this a feasable itinerary timewise -
Would it be worth it to fly from New York to San Fransisco, and then to Las Vegas, and then get to LA within 9 days or are we trying to do too much?
As we are not famililar with flights and airports in the US, I am concerned that we would be spending too much time in airports.
I have also considered driving from Las Vegas to LA as a pose to flying. Is it worth it or is flying much easier?
I hope this makes sense!