Argentina - Reciprocity fee will be 1yr/multiple entry for Australian citizens from Dec 20, 2010

According to the Argentinian consulate in Sydney:

ENTRY FEE FOR AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS - MULTIPLE ENTRIES

This Consulate General would like to inform that from next December 20th 2010 Australian citizens traveling on Australian Passports as a tourist or for business purposes, will be required to pay an entry fee to enter Argentina, as per the following information:

1 - For Australian citizens the entry fee (100 American Dollars) will be valid for multiple entries into Argentina for a period of one (1) year from the date of initial entry.

Good news for Ozzies.... :D ^

I've been told for us Canadians it'll now be US$75 for single entry, or US$150 for a 5-year multiple entry, also going into effect on December 20th.

I've been told for us Canadians it'll now be US$75 for single entry, or US$150 for a 5-year multiple entry, also going into effect on December 20th.

I wonder if they've figured out it's hurting tourism numbers from Australia/US/Canada and are starting to moderate the fees to encourage "repeat business" :rolleyes:

I've been told for us Canadians it'll now be US$75 for single entry, or US$150 for a 5-year multiple entry, also going into effect on December 20th.

That would be great news... :D ^

I wonder if they've figured out it's hurting tourism numbers from Australia/US/Canada and are starting to moderate the fees to encourage "repeat business" :rolleyes:

Nonsense. Im sorry but you make a point that is simply not true.

As much as I support the elimination of this reciprocity fee, there is no, none, zippo, factual/empirical evidence to support that the theory that these fees hurt tourism in a meaningful way. I understand that these measures create a "sour note" for most visitors, but in the end, the hard facts and statistics show that even with these fees, visitors continue to come to Argentina... this trend will continue because of the fundamental positives that this country has to offer visitors.... even if, as I say here and have posted before, the fee may create "issues" wish some. In the end, numbers dont lie and only a marginal few will not visit Argentine because of this fee.

Please note I am not entering a "judgement" of those that dont visit because of these fees, Im just saying that it is a very very small portion of those that consider coming to Argentina that will take their trip elsewhere only because of this fee.

Nonsense. Im sorry but you make a point that is simply not true.

Indeed. ^

Nonsense. Im sorry but you make a point that is simply not true.

As much as I support the elimination of this reciprocity fee, there is no, none, zippo, factual/empirical evidence to support that the theory that these fees hurt tourism in a meaningful way. I understand that these measures create a "sour note" for most visitors, but in the end, the hard facts and statistics show that even with these fees, visitors continue to come to Argentina... this trend will continue because of the fundamental positives that this country has to offer visitors.... even if, as I say here and have posted before, the fee may create "issues" wish some. In the end, numbers dont lie and only a marginal few will not visit Argentine because of this fee.

Please note I am not entering a "judgement" of those that dont visit because of these fees, Im just saying that it is a very very small portion of those that consider coming to Argentina that will take their trip elsewhere only because of this fee.


As much as I support the elimination of this reciprocity fee, there is no, none, zippo, factual/empirical evidence to support the theory that these fees do not hurt tourism in a meaningful way. :)

Im just saying that it is a very very small portion of those that consider coming to Argentina that will take their trip elsewhere only because of this fee.

Exactly what I was saying back in 2008 when this fee was first debated here on FT and everyone else was predicting a massive impact on tourist numbers and the end of the world as we know it ;)

As much as I support the elimination of this reciprocity fee, there is no, none, zippo, factual/empirical evidence to support the theory that these fees do not hurt tourism in a meaningful way. :)

Is there any empirical evidence that there has been any meaningful harm done to the tourism industry in Argentina as a result of these fees?

Despite the decline in economic conditions in the US during the past couple of years, the airfares from the US to Argentina are generally higher post-fee-implementation than they were at any point in the decade preceding the 2008 recession -- and now there are more carriers servicing the US-Argentina market than at any point in the decade preceding the 2008 recession. Of course I am not going to take that as evidence to support a theory that the fees are helping tourism in any meaningful way either, as much as I know that coincidence and causation are distinct.

Exactly what I was saying back in 2008 when this fee was first debated here on FT and everyone else was predicting a massive impact on tourist numbers and the end of the world as we know it ;)

^

The serious tourists are not being put off.

I'm pretty sure the perceived increase in crime in Buenos Aires has had more of a negative impact on tourism than this fee.

I'm pretty sure the perceived increase in crime in Buenos Aires has had more of a negative impact on tourism than this fee.

The increase in crime is directly related to the fee- its Australian backpackers trying to recoup the $100 while on their South America on $10 a day tour :D

As much as I support the elimination of this reciprocity fee, there is no, none, zippo, factual/empirical evidence to support the theory that these fees do not hurt tourism in a meaningful way. :)

NO... simply not true.

The fact is that the continued growth of the visitor numbers, even after these fees were implemented are the factual evidence that supports my original claim.

I'm pretty sure the perceived increase in crime in Buenos Aires has had more of a negative impact on tourism than this fee.

Agreed.

NO... simply not true.

The fact is that the continued growth of the visitor numbers, even after these fees were implemented are the factual evidence that supports my original claim.

Continued growth of visitor numbers is factual evidence of continued growth of visitor numbers and doesn't indicate anything about the effect of these fees on visitor numbers. The only evidence that would point to the effect of these fees on tourist numbers is how many tourists who would have visited Argentina did not because of theses fees and as far as I know those numbers are not available and any statements about them are merely opinions and not statements of fact.
So your two statements in this thread that other people's posts are simply not true have no factual basis and their opinions are equally valid as yours- opinions are neither true or untrue, they are simply opinions.
We have anecdotal evidence from this forum that some people have not traveled to Argentina because of these fees. We have no evidence anecdotal or otherwise that some people have traveled to Argentina because of these fees. Therefore the available evidence supports the opinion that these fees have harmed tourism - whether they have harmed it in a meaningful way is open to debate. But to claim the truth of your position as opposed to a different opinion is stretching it. If x number of people refrain from visiting Argentina and as a consequence y number of jobs are not created then that harm to tourism is very meaningful to those who remain unemployed.
If Argentina is blessed with full employment and has 100% hotel occupancy then my argument is moot because the loss of tourists doesn't matter but I don't believe that that is the situation in Argentina today

You have to keep in mind that Argentina does not exist in isolation. You have to pay to visit Chile too, and Canadians like me need a visa to get into Brazil and Paraguay. What this means is that if someone is coming to South America there already is an expectation that you will need to pay to get in.

The same is true of Argentines and other South Americans heading the other way. They need visas to enter the US and Canada. They know this, and it is part of the expectation of planning and booking travel to those countries. The number of people caught by surprise, either coming or going, is very, very small.

Continued growth of visitor numbers is factual evidence of continued growth of visitor numbers and doesn't indicate anything about the effect of these fees on visitor numbers.

I snipped the rest of your post because it's all cobblers to be honest.

You demand that we accept your opinion which is based on nothing but prejudicial views. Yet at the same time you aren't willing to accept the opinion of others who are far better placed to offer a more realistic view of the situation.

I wonder if they've figured out it's hurting tourism numbers from Australia/US/Canada and are starting to moderate the fees to encourage "repeat business" :rolleyes:
They will moderate fees when the Australian/US/Canadian governments moderate fees for Argentines. Easy as that...

In the case of fees for Canadians, it's an adjustment to exact cost reciprocity (that's exactly how much the Canadian government extorts charges for a visa).

Continued growth of visitor numbers is factual evidence of continued growth of visitor numbers and doesn't indicate anything about the effect of these fees on visitor numbers. The only evidence that would point to the effect of these fees on tourist numbers is how many tourists who would have visited Argentina did not because of theses fees and as far as I know those numbers are not available and any statements about them are merely opinions and not statements of fact.
So your two statements in this thread that other people's posts are simply not true have no factual basis and their opinions are equally valid as yours- opinions are neither true or untrue, they are simply opinions.
We have anecdotal evidence from this forum that some people have not traveled to Argentina because of these fees. We have no evidence anecdotal or otherwise that some people have traveled to Argentina because of these fees. Therefore the available evidence supports the opinion that these fees have harmed tourism - whether they have harmed it in a meaningful way is open to debate. But to claim the truth of your position as opposed to a different opinion is stretching it. If x number of people refrain from visiting Argentina and as a consequence y number of jobs are not created then that harm to tourism is very meaningful to those who remain unemployed.
If Argentina is blessed with full employment and has 100% hotel occupancy then my argument is moot because the loss of tourists doesn't matter but I don't believe that that is the situation in Argentina today

While I follow your conceptual argument of the lack of a statiscical correlation, I fail to understand why you deviate into the issue of full employment and hotel occupancy.....

I will come back to respond to your post in more detail later tonight... you make some interesting conceptual points and you would make a fine member of a debate team, alas, anybody that knows the tourism industry here on the ground will tell you that you are dead wrong on how you conclude certain things related to these fees.

More from me later....

They will moderate fees when the Australian/US/Canadian governments moderate fees for Argentines. Easy as that...

In the case of fees for Canadians, it's an adjustment to exact cost reciprocity (that's exactly how much the Canadian government extorts charges for a visa).

That's an entirely fair point. Australia, the US and Canada all charge exorbitant fees for the issue of visas, and generally make it a huge pain for citizens of other countries not entitled to visa free entry to get visas.

My original comment about the effects of the fee on tourism were related to the fine tuning of the fees, not the fee in general. I know that the original debate about the effect of the fees has been done to death.

It's pretty much impossible to guess the effect of the fee itself, simply because there isn't enough data. The fact that tourism numbers are up means nothing in and of itself -- could numbers have risen more except for the fee? Even if tourism numbers were down, that still wouldn't be a good metric, because they could have fallen for other reasons.

What I was pondering is whether the specific changes they have made (making it multiple entries for the two countries it previously was not multiple entries for) is a tuning of the fee to maximize reciprocity fee revenue whilst encouraging Australians and Canadians to enter more than once (perhaps as part of a multiple country South American holiday).

I snipped the rest of your post because it's all cobblers to be honest.

You demand that we accept your opinion which is based on nothing but prejudicial views. Yet at the same time you aren't willing to accept the opinion of others who are far better placed to offer a more realistic view of the situation.

Unfortunately your point is without basis because I haven't stated an opinion as to whether the fee has caused any meaningful damage to tourism so there is nothing for me to demand you accept.

My original statement was

As much as I support the elimination of this reciprocity fee, there is no, none, zippo, factual/empirical evidence to support the theory that these fees do not hurt tourism in a meaningful way.

Posted in response to Gaucho100k's statement:

Nonsense. Im sorry but you make a point that is simply not true.

As much as I support the elimination of this reciprocity fee, there is no, none, zippo, factual/empirical evidence to support that the theory that these fees hurt tourism in a meaningful way.

and up to this point in this thread no evidence has been posted to refute it.

But if you feel that I am demanding that you accept my stance on the subject of damage to the tourism industry perhaps first you should tell me what my stance is.

My only stance is against someone posting didactically that someone's opinion is simply not true when it is actually a subject open for debate that people may have different views on. If differing views are something that some people cannot accept exist - not much I can do about that.

I fail to understand why you deviate into the issue of full employment and hotel occupancy.....


If there is full employment and hotels are full then there is not the capacity to cater for more tourists and therefore there is no damage from whatever number of tourists may be put off coming because of the fee. If there is not full employment and there is spare hotel capacity then loss of potential tourists will cause some quantifiable loss/damage- meaningful or otherwise.

Unfortunately your point is without basis because I haven't stated an opinion as to whether the fee has caused any meaningful damage to tourism .

You could have fooled me. :D

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Argentina's tourist industry relies heavily on citizens from N America and Australia. Fact is the largest percentage of tourists to Argentina do not have pay to enter the country. Even a fair whack of those who arrive by plane from N America I suspect will not have to pay as they will have dual nationality anyway.

That's an entirely fair point. Australia, the US and Canada all charge exorbitant fees for the issue of visas, and generally make it a huge pain for citizens of other countries not entitled to visa free entry to get visas.

Well, to be fair most Western countries that charge for visas do so on a cost-recovery basis. In Canada, the price of a visa, or passport, or several other government services is dictated by law by the cost to produce and supply that document or service. Not a penny of that is allowed to go into general revenue or in any way result in a profit for the government.

If you want the price of a Canadian visa to come down, for example, then you'll need to either find enough support in Parliament to amend the law, or find a way to destroy the Canadian economy enough so that the costs of delivering the service and producing the document come down to third-world rates. Neither of those are going to happen. And most other Western countries operate on the same cost-recovery basis. The end result is this: fees are there to stay, and they will only go higher.

The ultimate solution, of course, is for visa requirements to be scrapped altogether. From what I've read, it seems very likely that within the next two or three years both Canada and the US may end up scraping visas for Chile and Brazil if they continue to go the way they are going, and this might include Argentina if the economic situation improves here. Given that reciprocity fees in these countries are not charged on the same cost-recovery basis, it will be interesting to see if they are willing to let go of that revenue stream should visa restrictions be lifted.

As far as Australia goes, well, they impose visas on everyone except New Zealanders, if I understand that correctly. Certainly the last time I travelled to Oz on my Canadian passport I had to pay a fee when I obtained the ETA permit online. So Aussies are likely to be out of luck.

You could have fooled me. :D

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Argentina's tourist industry relies heavily on citizens from N America and Australia. Fact is the largest percentage of tourists to Argentina do not have pay to enter the country. Even a fair whack of those who arrive by plane from N America I suspect will not have to pay as they will have dual nationality anyway.

Stating that it is valid for someone to hold a particular opinion and that they are not absolutely wrong because their opinion may differ from mine is not the same as holding that opinion. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I seem to be under the misapprehension that Argentina's tourist industry relies heavily on citizens from N America and Australia. Nowhere have I said anything to suggest that that is my belief.If you can direct me to where I have suggested otherwise ????? Or continue with an argument using style over substance

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Argentina's tourist industry relies heavily on citizens from N America and Australia. Fact is the largest percentage of tourists to Argentina do not have pay to enter the country. Even a fair whack of those who arrive by plane from N America I suspect will not have to pay as they will have dual nationality anyway.

I suspect you're making up facts from anecdotal evidence and presenting them as a done deal.

In Q1 2010, the US & Canada represent over 15% (95,542 of 613,333 total) of entries via EZE for tourism purposes in 2010. In Q1 2009, US & Canada represented 17.5% (98,671 of 561,429 total) entries. These are people who entered on US and Canadian passports as tourists.

As overall tourist numbers are climbing, US & Canadian arrivals are falling. This may be an acceptable tradeoff, or it may even be unrelated entirely to the reciprocity fee, but it's certainly a statistically significant change. Given the relatively high spending power of US, Canadian and Australian travelers, I suspect that they'd also be some of the higher spending tourists.

Data is from INDEC, so it's more accurate than anecdotal musings, though how much more accurate is an open question ;)

I suspect you're making up facts from anecdotal evidence and presenting them as a done deal.

In Q1 2010, the US & Canada represent over 15% (95,542 of 613,333 total) of entries via EZE for tourism purposes in 2010. In Q1 2009, US & Canada represented 17.5% (98,671 of 561,429 total) entries. These are people who entered on US and Canadian passports as tourists.

As overall tourist numbers are climbing, US & Canadian arrivals are falling. This may be an acceptable tradeoff, or it may even be unrelated entirely to the reciprocity fee, but it's certainly a statistically significant change. Given the relatively high spending power of US, Canadian and Australian travelers, I suspect that they'd also be some of the higher spending tourists.

Data is from INDEC, so it's more accurate than anecdotal musings, though how much more accurate is an open question ;)


Yes before you posted this I actually thought I should retract my previous post because on deeper consideration I decided that Hiddy was 100% correct when he said "You seem to be under the misapprehension that Argentina's tourist industry relies heavily on citizens from N America and Australia." And I am sure that a large number in the Argentinian tourist Industry also most likely labour under that misapprehension. Of course as the point i have been discussing is whether there is any evidence that the rec. fees have had any meaningful damage his point was once again not related to anything I had stated before.

BTW a belated thanks mooc0w for the original post with the info on the change to 1 year validity. Although I am not a serious tourist ;) in the opinions of some posters here as I have stopped visiting Argentina as a result of this fee (having spent something like 6 years in the last 20 in South America and maybe a total of 6 months in Buenos Aires), this policy change when taking into account my travel patterns makes returning to BA cost-effective once again in my eyes

How much are they charging to UAE citizens?
As an Argentine passport holder, Dubai charges $122 for the visa itself, plus a deposit of $1300 refundable on exiting the country.

How much are they charging to UAE citizens?
As an Argentine passport holder, Dubai charges $122 for the visa itself, plus a deposit of $1300 refundable on exiting the country.

The reciprocity fee only applies to holders of Australian, Canadian and US passports traveling for tourism purposes. It doesn't apply to any other passport holders.

Yes before you posted this I actually thought I should retract my previous post because on deeper consideration I decided that Hiddy was 100% correct

At a boy....^

You shouldn't be worrying about the effects of the visa cost on tourism in Argentina anyway. Concentrate instead on cheering on your cricketers in the hope they beat England to win the ashes. That is far more important. :D

At a boy....^

You shouldn't be worrying about the effects of the visa cost on tourism in Argentina anyway. Concentrate instead on cheering on your cricketers in the hope they beat England to win the ashes. That is far more important. :D


Yes though I'm not sure which qualifies as the greater debacle - the Ashes campaign or this debate which at times seems to me like a game of cricket with one side insisting on playing under rugby rules.

Brazil and its strong Real is a very important source of Tourism for Argentina. Im guessing that quite a bit more than 15% of the entries into Argentina are from Brazil.

Brazil and its strong Real is a very important source of Tourism for Argentina. Im guessing that quite a bit more than 15% of the entries into Argentina are from Brazil.I believe it's around 40%, just from the numbers of Brazilians flying into EZE.

I believe it's around 40%, just from the numbers of Brazilians flying into EZE.

Just from the numbers of Brazilians departing at the time I usually am waiting in the security and immigration line with should be a clue. Locura, I tell you. Locura.

Just from the numbers of Brazilians departing at the time I usually am waiting in the security and immigration line with should be a clue. Locura, I tell you. Locura.How do you say ¡Que barato, dame dos! in Portuguese?

Brazil and its strong Real is a very important source of Tourism for Argentina. Im guessing that quite a bit more than 15% of the entries into Argentina are from Brazil.

Of course it is, and that'd be a great argument for not imposing a fee on Brazilian arrivals. 15% of your "tourism business" is a significant amount none the less.

Of course it is, and that'd be a great argument for not imposing a fee on Brazilian arrivals. 15% of your "tourism business" is a significant amount none the less.

........?

Nobody is advocating for a fee to be imposed on Brazilians... besides, they are part of MercoSur, and in practice you dont even need a Passport to cross the borders...

........?

Nobody is advocating for a fee to be imposed on Brazilians... besides, they are part of MercoSur, and in practice you dont even need a Passport to cross the borders...

I think you missed my point.

The point I was making is the fact that a large number of tourist entries at EZE come from Brazil doesn't make 15% of foreign tourist entries any less significant a number.

Also, the number is not 40%, it's 25.6%. Part of the problem when this debate comes up is that it has a tendency to move into a slanging match of made up numbers and statistics. The statistics are freely available from INDEC's website at http://www.indec.gov.ar/ and would make for a more informed debate.

For Q1 2010, here are the numbers:

Total: 613,333
Brazil: 157,504
Chile: 35,965
USA & Canada: 95,542
Rest of the Americas: 97,542
Europe: 185,831
Rest of the World: 40,949

Ah yes the stats...

It is clear that the new visa charges has not made one iota of difference to the tourist numbers from the countries affected.

Ah yes the stats...

It is clear that the new visa charges has not made one iota of difference to the tourist numbers from the countries affected.

Clear from what? Not from the statistics -- they show a statistically significant drop in tourist numbers from the US & Canada.

Ah yes the stats...

It is clear that the new visa charges has not made one iota of difference to the tourist numbers from the countries affected.

By the way, outbound travel by US citizens originating in the United States has grown 4.5% year on year from 2009 to 2010. To South America in particular it grew 1% year on year.

I think you missed my point................

and would make for a more informed debate.



I think its pretty obvious that throughout this discussion it hasn't been a matter of missing the point its more been a matter that if something inconsistent with certain posters' views is put forward they prefer to go off on a tangent rather than perish the thought admit that things may not be as clear-cut as they try to present. We still have been presented with no evidence that the new visa charges has not made one iota of difference to the tourist numbers from the countries affected. or that you make a point that is simply not true. or that The fact is that the continued growth of the visitor numbers, even after these fees were implemented are the factual evidence that supports my original claim. but are expected to just accept that it is clear and that The serious tourists are not being put off and that You demand that we accept your opinion which is based on nothing but prejudicial views

You are hoping for reasoned and informed debate - sorry but it looks like we will continue to have debate by proclamation unfortunately. Papal infallability seems to have arrived at Flyertalk and we must at face value with no evidence accept the opinion of others who are far better placed to offer a more realistic view

Clear from what? Not from the statistics -- they show a statistically significant drop in tourist numbers from the US & Canada.

The dual nationality citizens have probably reverted to using their Argentine passports. The recession will likely have played its part as well.

Anyway, given your figures the difference is minimal no matter the reason.

The dual nationality citizens have probably reverted to using their Argentine passports. The recession will likely have played its part as well.

Anyway, given your figures the difference is minimal no matter the reason.

Dual nationality citizens are exempt from the fee. They show their DNI, or foreign passport that shows an Argentine place of birth and get 60 days with "ARGENTINO" written under the stamp. They don't pay the fee.

The differences aren't minimal, they show US & Canadian arrivals retreating at a time when overall numbers are increasing, both overall tourism arrivals to Argentina and overall citizen departures for tourism from the US & Canada. The combination of the falling numbers and the lost increase in numbers is not minimal.

The recession argument would be a strong one, but we're comparing 2009 figures to 2010 figures. The economy isn't (much) worse in Q1 2010 than it was in Q1 2009, and in any case, overall US citizen tourism departures from US airports are up between those two periods.

You are hoping for reasoned and informed debate - sorry but it looks like we will continue to have debate by proclamation unfortunately. Papal infallability seems to have arrived at Flyertalk and we must at face value with no evidence accept the opinion of others who are far better placed to offer a more realistic view

It looks like you're right. It's a shame, because I think it's a fascinating debate.

On the one hand, I strongly support the idea of the AR government charging the reciprocity fee on equity grounds, but I wonder if it's just sucking money out of the Argentinian economy.

A quick unscientific calculation. If you work on the assumption that approximately 10,000 people choose not to visit per year because (at least in part) of the fee, and assume they spend, on average, $USD2,000 during their stay, that's at least $20m in the economy, disregarding any flow-on effect of that spending. From the ~95,000 arrivals that did come, that's about $13m in reciprocity revenue, assuming every arrival only comes once.

In my opinion, they would have done better putting a higher room tax on hotel rooms. They could have raised more money, whilst charging only real tourists, rather than people visiting family and all that.

On the one hand, I strongly support the idea of the AR government charging the reciprocity fee on equity grounds, but I wonder if it's just sucking money out of the Argentinian economy.


I actually take the alternate view and find the idea of basing policies on a crude reciprocity to be a ridiculous way of conducting your public policy but as you stated earlier that debate has been done to death long ago so I won't again go over my reasons for that stance in this thread.

What astounds me in this thread is this inability to accept that there are different opinions and different ways to interpret facts and that some consider themselves the sole repository of truth.

My actual opinion on whether these Reciprocity Fees have have hurt tourism in a meaningful way is that they probably have not which made Hiddy's post :

You demand that we accept your opinion which is based on nothing but prejudicial views. Yet at the same time you aren't willing to accept the opinion of others who are far better placed to offer a more realistic view of the situation.

seem totally bizarre to me as the opinion he is referring to is obviously the same as opinion he holds.

I hadn't posted my actual opinion on the topic because in my view my opinion which is really just a gut feeling has no particular validity or value without some good evidence to back it up.

My only entrance to this debate was on the basis of various people claiming the absolute truth of their opinion (which I just happened to share) and having the (dare I say) arrogance to tell others multiple times that they are wrong as opposed to saying that "I disagree with you and these are my reasons"

My continued interest has been to confront this absolute determination by some to ignore every point that contradicts their position and avoid addressing these real contradictions solely to maintain this immutable stand.

For what it is worth the INDEC's figures you have cited now have me questioning my opinion that no meaningful loss has occurred to the Tourism industry as a result of the Reciprocity Fees. But to me that is the value of the discussion - not to prove myself right and maintain my opinion regardless of the evidence presented but to get closer to the actual truth. ;)

My continued interest has been to confront this absolute determination by some to ignore every point that contradicts their position and avoid addressing these real contradictions solely to maintain this immutable stand.

Very well said.

I say again...a paltry 3,000 drop in N American tourists cannot be blamed on the new fee.The recession is a more likely reason.

I say again...a paltry 3,000 drop in N American tourists cannot be blamed on the new fee.

Once again opinion presented as incontrovertible fact.

And in the space of 3 posts you have gone from saying

t is clear that the new visa charges has not made one iota of difference to the tourist numbers from the countries affected.

to

the difference is minimal no matter the reason

and now

a paltry 3,000 drop in N American tourists

No inconsistency there is there?

Does not one iota have a meaning or are you going to now define it as meaning a loss of up to 3000 tourists

I say again...a paltry 3,000 drop in N American tourists cannot be blamed on the new fee.The recession is a more likely reason.

You can't just pick one number out and pretend the other numbers don't exist.

3,129 drop in Q1 2010 compared to Q1 2009.

Over the same period, international (non-Canada/Mexico) travel for tourism from the US increased. Makes the recession less plausible a reason for the drop.

At the same time, international arrivals to Argentina increased.

Assuming the numbers stay the same, that's a net loss of 12,876 tourists from US/Canada for any reason. Lets assume, for the sake of the argument, that only 50% might have considered Argentina were it not for the fee. That's thousands of people, spending thousands of dollars each in the Argentinian economy, creating real jobs and supporting real businesses. This also ignores the fact that the number of tourists should be growing, not declining.

The reciprocity fee generates about $USD53m in government revenue per year, minus overheads (merchant processing fees, staffing costs, other administrative overheads). This is Argentina, you can bet on overheads being at least 10% of that number.

It doesn't take many extra tourists to generate that kind of economic activity.

The number of N American tourists to the UK in 2010 has fallen by 5%.......can't blame any reciprocity fee there.

The number of N American tourists to the UK in 2010 has fallen by 5%.......can't blame any reciprocity fee there.High UK airport taxes? Mandatory nude-o-scope at London airports?

The number of N American tourists to the UK in 2010 has fallen by 5%.......can't blame any reciprocity fee there.

There's been a 100% increase in the number of North American tourists traveling to space. Also not related to the reciprocity fee in Argentina.

Your point? :rolleyes:

Your point? :rolleyes:

If you can't figure it out for yourself then there is no point in me explaining any further.

If you can't figure it out for yourself then there is no point in me explaining any further.

What I can't figure out is why you are quoting single random statistics to suit your argument. Here is the full data, explain how this supports your argument rather than plucking out random unrelated statistics:

http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2010-O-001/index.html

What I can't figure out is why you are quoting single random statistics to suit your argument. Here is the full data, explain how this supports your argument rather than plucking out random unrelated statistics:

http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2010-O-001/index.html

As you will see from my statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ottnr1210.pdf) N American visitors to the UK fell by 5%.....a trend of similar proportions to the Argentina stats. You can argue the causes of the drop on whatever you like till the cows come home but until you show me proof that the reciprocity fee is to blame then I shall continue to believe otherwise.

As you will see from my statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ottnr1210.pdf) N American visitors to the UK fell by 5%.....a trend of similar proportions to the Argentina stats. You can argue the causes of the drop on whatever you like till the cows come home but until you show me proof that the reciprocity fee is to blame then I shall continue to believe otherwise.

Numbers to the UK fell at a time when the UK is pushing up all it's airport taxes and fees. In contrast, there was a 1% year on year increase on tourism to South America and an overall (excluding MX and CA) increase of 3.7%.

Why are US citizen tourism visits to Argentina not only failing to keep up with that growth, but actually falling against those two numbers? Economically, US dollar purchasing power for tourists in Argentina right now is excellent compared to other South American alternatives. Airfares relative to other South American destinations have been roughly the same this year.

Can you offer a plausible explanation of these numbers?

You can argue the causes of the drop on whatever you like till the cows come home but until you show me proof that the reciprocity fee is to blame then I shall continue to believe otherwise.

You are quite entitled to believe otherwise even without supporting your beliefs with reasoned logical argument. That is a concession far more generous than you give to those who hold an opinion different to yours.

I would suggest that you are doing nothing other than demanding that we accept your opinion which is based on nothing but prejudicial views. Yet at the same time you aren't willing to accept the opinion of others who present far more cogent arguments and seem to offer a more realistic view of the situation.

Can you offer a plausible explanation of these numbers?

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"....:D

You might know the statistic that shows vegetarians live longer than meat eaters. Indeed...on the face of it the numbers do show this fact. However what it doesn't tell is that it is a well known fact that vegetarians tend to not smoke, drink alcohol to excess but do take regular exercise. Bottom line is despite statistics telling us otherwise eating vegetables has absolutely nothing to do with keeping a vegetarian from kicking up the daisies longer than a meat eater...it's a fabrication of the truth.

I wouldn't take the figures too seriously to be honest. I much prefer to listen to the people on the ground who have first hand experience on what's going on.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"....:D

.....

I wouldn't take the figures too seriously to be honest. I much prefer to listen to the people on the ground who have first hand experience on what's going on.

You mean you don't trust "the lady who takes a helicopter to work" at her word?

You mean you don't trust "the lady who takes a helicopter to work" at her word?

Who CK? I don't trust her anymore.

She said eating pork would improve my sex life.......three pigs later and nothing has happened. :(

I think its pretty obvious that throughout this discussion it hasn't been a matter of missing the point its more been a matter that if something inconsistent with certain posters' views is put forward they prefer to go off on a tangent rather than perish the thought admit that things may not be as clear-cut as they try to present. We still have been presented with no evidence that the new visa charges has not made one iota of difference to the tourist numbers from the countries affected. or that you make a point that is simply not true. or that The fact is that the continued growth of the visitor numbers, even after these fees were implemented are the factual evidence that supports my original claim. but are expected to just accept that it is clear and that The serious tourists are not being put off and that You demand that we accept your opinion which is based on nothing but prejudicial views

You are hoping for reasoned and informed debate - sorry but it looks like we will continue to have debate by proclamation unfortunately. Papal infallability seems to have arrived at Flyertalk and we must at face value with no evidence accept the opinion of others who are far better placed to offer a more realistic view

Doode... you would have made a fine captain of your highschool debate team. I will give you that much credit.

So then, could you please apply your logic to the following line of thought(s).... I would love to see how you will spin this one in support of your stance... :p

While its true that we can argue ad-nauseum about the size of the sample and the quality of the data needed to mathematically conclude if this fee has hurt tourism numbers to Argentina..... in reality, this fee or no fee issue is just a small drop in the Ocean. Why...? Simply because Argentina has established itself in the International Tourist Market, its been there for almost 10 years and it will stay there, unless we have some sort of huge event like the Bali Bombings or some massive natural disaster. If you audit the major international travel publications, Argentina is a regular feature. All the large circulation newspapers have Argentina in their travel sections at least once every semester.... Google is your friend if you want "hard proof"..... :rolleyes:

Check with any proper tourism operator in any OECD Nation and Argentina will be part of the offerings. Go to all the large travel related websites and see the hits for the Argentina Forums, and check for the statistics on the posts and hits related to Argentina. In many of these internet based elements, Argentina is at least in the same league as Brazil (and in some of these sites, its bigger and more frequented than the Brazil areas). This is no minor feat considering that Brazil was placed on the International Tourism map many years before Argentina.

What does this all mean..... well that despite the fact that those pissed off because of this fee want to find a hard logical reason to question this fee by implying that it will hurt tourism..... the truth is that in the end it doesnt matter because there are much larger and more important things going on that will continue to bring the visitors down here.....

So.... those that love mathematical proof please go back to University and take a few Statistics and Calculus credits and have your tummy full of PROOF..... those of us that like wishy-washy logic will continue to sit here in EZE and in other parts of Argentina while the folks continue to come through our airports...... con o sin la querida/maldita reciprocity fee.... :D ^ :)

Who CK? I don't trust her anymore. She said eating pork would improve my sex life.......three pigs later and nothing has happened.

Doode.... I told you RSJ would come back to bite you......

:eek: :p :o :D

Doode... you would have made a fine captain of your highschool debate team. I will give you that much credit.

So then, could you please apply your logic to the following line of thought(s).... I would love to see how you will spin this one in support of your stance... :p

While its true that we can argue ad-nauseum about the size of the sample and the quality of the data needed to mathematically conclude if this fee has hurt tourism numbers to Argentina..... in reality, this fee or no fee issue is just a small drop in the Ocean. Why...? Simply because Argentina has established itself in the International Tourist Market, its been there for almost 10 years and it will stay there, unless we have some sort of huge event like the Bali Bombings or some massive natural disaster. If you audit the major international travel publications, Argentina is a regular feature. All the large circulation newspapers have Argentina in their travel sections at least once every semester.... Google is your friend if you want "hard proof"..... :rolleyes:

Check with any proper tourism operator in any OECD Nation and Argentina will be part of the offerings. Go to all the large travel related websites and see the hits for the Argentina Forums, and check for the statistics on the posts and hits related to Argentina. In many of these internet based elements, Argentina is at least in the same league as Brazil (and in some of these sites, its bigger and more frequented than the Brazil areas). This is no minor feat considering that Brazil was placed on the International Tourism map many years before Argentina.

What does this all mean..... well that despite the fact that those pissed off because of this fee want to find a hard logical reason to question this fee by implying that it will hurt tourism..... the truth is that in the end it doesnt matter because there are much larger and more important things going on that will continue to bring the visitors down here.....

So.... those that love mathematical proof please go back to University and take a few Statistics and Calculus credits and have your tummy full of PROOF..... those of us that like wishy-washy logic will continue to sit here in EZE and in other parts of Argentina while the folks continue to come through our airports...... con o sin la querida/maldita reciprocity fee.... :D ^ :)

Ok so you can provide no relevant arguments or evidence to support the statements that you originally made about the existence or not of evidence as to whether or not the reciprocity fees have caused meaningful loss to the Argentinian Tourist industry so you want to change it to a debate about whether Tourism is doing well in Argentina - quite frankly I'm not interested in debating another topic with you going by your track record from this topic.

As for -
I would love to see how you will spin this one in support of your stance.

If you didn't continue to ignore points that are inconvenient to your continued delusion about my stance you would see that I have said in this thread My actual opinion on whether these Reciprocity Fees have have hurt tourism in a meaningful way is that they probably have not

My stance was never different from your view and I never argued against your view just the blind arrogance with which it was presented

What does this all mean..... well that despite the fact that those pissed off because of this fee want to find a hard logical reason to question this fee by implying that it will hurt tourism..... the truth is that in the end it doesnt matter because there are much larger and more important things going on that will continue to bring the visitors down here.....

I'm not directly "pissed off" by the fee, I'm a permanent resident and don't have to pay it.

I think you're confused about the argument. There are millions of wonderful reasons to visit Argentina, but that's not what this is about. US arrivals to Argentina are down at the same time as overall arrivals are up and overall departures from the US, as well as departures from the US to South America are up.

Whatever ultimately is the cause of this, it's disappointing. However, your argument smacks of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling 'la la la'. There is a statistically significant change in tourism numbers closely coinciding with the introduction of a $75-$140 entry fee. Absent another explanation, it would seem reasonable to infer that this fee has something to do with it.

As I said in a previous post, I actually support the imposition of reciprocity fees in principle as a way of drawing attention to the inequity of the fees charged by wealthy nations for visas, but it doesn't change the numbers.

it would seem reasonable to infer that this fee has something to do with it..

It would also seem reasonable to say that the cost of air fares or a bife chorizo aren't as cheap as they once were so N Americans went looking for destinations where they would get better value.
I really do think you are reading far too much into these figures....and believing what you want to believe. Comparing one quarter with another can hardly be called definite proof of a long term pull out.....and so what if you're right anyway?
Tourist numbers keep rising....does it really matter whether they come from N America or the Far East of course not. In fact just the opposite judging by what you read on here,it would seem the folks from the USA have become a bit stingy over the last few years. :D

It would also seem reasonable to say that the cost of air fares or a bife chorizo aren't as cheap as they once were so N Americans went looking for destinations where they would get better value.


If you had data suggesting that airfares from the US to Argentina had increased significantly more than airfares to the other international destinations which are getting these increasing numbers of tourists from the US or that a bife chorizo had increased in price more than a Doner Kebab in Turkey then it might seem reasonable to argue that but unfortunately you provide no such evidence, just continue with statements with no substantiation.
Perhaps your reliable source on the ground has told you that his 3rd cousin went to Istanbul and that the 4th stand from the left facing away from the Topkapi Palace has lowered its price on Kebabs this year and that report is sufficient evidence for you? Does Las Lilas have a $131 beef chorizo? It would seem more likely that someone who makes their travel decisions based on a 5 peso increase in their meal price would have already discarded Argentina as a possible destination based on a much higher level Reciprocity Fee

unfortunately you provide no such evidence, just continue with statements with no substantiation.


Plenty of posts on here from tourists (especially N Americans) moaning about the cost of holidaying here compared to before. Air fares,taxis,hotels,food,you name it they've moaned about it. ;)

But when I passed Cristina Kirchner at EZE last week as she was walking away from the Reciprocity Fee booth with a briefcase stuffed with dollars she assured me that inflation was only 8%.

And I haven't seen any posts saying that the increases in prices in BA mean I will cancel my next trip to Argentina and go to Sweden instead where I hear the pickled herring is a bargain.

Data data..... where is the data...???? :D

Felices Fiestas to all !!!! ^

Ok so you can provide no relevant arguments or evidence to support the statements that you originally made about the existence or not of evidence as to whether or not the reciprocity fees have caused meaningful loss to the Argentinian Tourist industry so you want to change it to a debate about whether Tourism is doing well in Argentina - quite frankly I'm not interested in debating another topic with you going by your track record from this topic.


Yup.. I cannot provide any proof and you are too good a debater for me to even compete in the same league as you. Im 100% wishy-washy with statistics and usually talk about things I know nothing about..... I just like to post on the internet. Thanks for your understanding.

Seasons Greetings !!!!!!!!!!!!! :D ^

Are they going to change the price / time period for USA passports ?

RB

Are they going to change the price / time period for USA passports ?

RB

They usually "do to us" what we "do to them" and the US Visa price recently went up to $140, and so that is the current fee.

Those US passport holders with already issued visa reciprocity stickers should do just fine -- or at least I'm counting on there being no add/collect at the airport on arrival for those whose 10-years stickers have been issued at the $130 whatever level.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"....:D

You might know the statistic that shows vegetarians live longer than meat eaters. Indeed...on the face of it the numbers do show this fact. However what it doesn't tell is that it is a well known fact that vegetarians tend to not smoke, drink alcohol to excess but do take regular exercise. Bottom line is despite statistics telling us otherwise eating vegetables has absolutely nothing to do with keeping a vegetarian from kicking up the daisies longer than a meat eater...it's a fabrication of the truth.

I wouldn't take the figures too seriously to be honest. I much prefer to listen to the people on the ground who have first hand experience on what's going on.

Isn't it the case that vegetarians -- particularly males -- are less likely to die from one of the more common cancers than meat-eaters? I get your point that there's no absolute clarity about what is coincidence vs causation, but I'm just not sure your example makes the case. :D

... I say that as a glutton for red meat. :eek:

Actually, if Argentina is to match the costs of a US Visa for its citizens, it should charge at least 10 dollars more as aside from the Visa cost per se, you need to schedule for an appointment and this costs a further USD10 if you do it online, and USD20 if you use the telephone....... so I guess this reciprocity fee is still a bargain....

:p

Actually, if Argentina is to match the costs of a US Visa for its citizens, it should charge at least 10 dollars more as aside from the Visa cost per se, you need to schedule for an appointment and this costs a further USD10 if you do it online, and USD20 if you use the telephone....... so I guess this reciprocity fee is still a bargain....

:p

Plus, they also charge you for an express-mail service to send your passport back to you. On the other hand, we are forced to hand-deliver our passports to EZE :D

Isn't it the case that vegetarians -- particularly males -- are less likely to die from one of the more common cancers than meat-eaters? I get your point that there's no absolute clarity about what is coincidence vs causation, but I'm just not sure your example makes the case. :D

... I say that as a glutton for red meat. :eek:

No it's just that vegetarians tend to lead a healthier lifestyle than meat eaters.
Like those thin anaemic looking joggers one sees huffing and puffing and looking as if a good asado would do them a world of good.

Like those thin anaemic looking joggers one sees huffing and puffing and looking as if a good asado would do them a world of good.

Is that what they now call it out in the campo? :o This is a family-friendly website!

They usually "do to us" what we "do to them" and the US Visa price recently went up to $140, and so that is the current fee.The Golden Rule in action!

Isn't it the case that vegetarians -- particularly males -- are less likely to die from one of the more common cancers than meat-eaters? I get your point that there's no absolute clarity about what is coincidence vs causation, but I'm just not sure your example makes the case. :D

... I say that as a glutton for red meat. :eek:No. It's that correlation vs. causation thingy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#Longevity

Plus, they also charge you for an express-mail service to send your passport back to you. On the other hand, we are forced to hand-deliver our passports to EZE :D

Correct... I had forgotten abou the additional Courier charge..... :p

Correct... I had forgotten abou the additional Courier charge..... :p

The "courier charge" to get your passport to EZE is pretty steep too! :p

The "courier charge" to get your passport to EZE is pretty steep too! :p

...?? are you talking about airfares...????? :confused:

...?? are you talking about airfares...????? :confused:

Haha, yes! :p

Wirelessly posted (Nokia N97 / Palm TX: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.4; Series60/5.0 NokiaN97-3/22.2.110; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1) AppleWebKit/525 (KHTML, like Gecko) BrowserNG/7.1.4)

ah... in that department the ones to blame will have to be the airlines.... :D

Wirelessly posted (Nokia N97 / Palm TX: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.4; Series60/5.0 NokiaN97-3/22.2.110; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1) AppleWebKit/525 (KHTML, like Gecko) BrowserNG/7.1.4)

So who will tell the no. 1 Ozzie FTer about this new development.... cant wait to hear his reaction... :p

ah... in that department the ones to blame will have to be the airlines.... :D

Probably about the only thing that can't be blamed on CFK! :D

Probably about the only thing that can't be blamed on CFK! :D

Amen !!!!! ^

OK, after paging though this thread (with its interesting tangents) and the Argentina forum, I would like to confirm what I think I understand about my upcoming trip to BsAs:

1. As a US citizen that hasn't been to Argentina since 2007 I will be charged a US$140 reciprocity fee valid for 10 years when I arrive at AEP on 4 Feb 2011.

2. The departure tax is included in the price of the plane ticket as it has been in all of my experience since 1999.

My travel is SCL-AEP and EZE-SCL on LAN, if that impacts the inclusion of the departure tax.

Thanks...just trying to distill all of this info into the useful bit for me right now.

I can confirm 1. is a YES.

Cannot comment with a degree of certainty on 2. - will let others opine....

I can confirm 1. is a YES.

Cannot comment with a degree of certainty on 2. - will let others opine....

¡Gracias!

2. The departure tax is included in the price of the plane ticket as it has been in all of my experience since 1999.

My travel is SCL-AEP and EZE-SCL on LAN, if that impacts the inclusion of the departure tax.


The departure tax for several years was a separate fee collected at a booth until approximately 1+ year ago. The tax is lower on short trips, but BUE/SCL is far enough that it is the maximum fee. (The only trip I have had with a lower tax was MDZ/SCL).

The serious tourists are not being put off.

Indeed.... ^

2. The departure tax is included in the price of the plane ticket as it has been in all of my experience since 1999.


Depends on the airline and ticket, it would seem. Wife and I bought AM BC tickets for $900 a/i each (after losing $200 in YQ) YYZ-EZE-YYZ 2 years ago and the check in agent at EZE looked at it and concluded the departure tax was paid.

The departure tax for several years was a separate fee collected at a booth until approximately 1+ year ago. .

Correct..
The last time we paid it separately on departure was at the end of May 2009 flying with Qantas. The tickets had been booked several months earlier and it was not long after we booked them that it started being incorporated into the ticket price.

The departure tax for several years was a separate fee collected at a booth until approximately 1+ year ago. The tax is lower on short trips, but BUE/SCL is far enough that it is the maximum fee. (The only trip I have had with a lower tax was MDZ/SCL).

All of my trips were 1999-2004, about 4x/year. Never had to pay the fee separately flying DL or AA, but as someone else mentioned (and I have seen on the Peru boards) it seems that it can vary based on airline.