Travel News - Declining Tourism to the US

Not sure if this is the correct Forum (I considered TravelBuzz vs Security vs Travel News):

NYT article mentions that "United States’ share of the total travel market is down, to 11.2 percent in 2010 from 17.3 percent in 2000" and so the US Travel Association lobbied for the the "Travel Promotion Act", a 2010 law that is being implemented now to promote tourism to the US.

Everybody knows the real reasons of this decline, which can be summarized by one word: hostility.

Does anyone really believe that it would be possible, only with advertising, to revert this decline without correcting the real causes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/business/with-brand-usa-us-in-big-drive-to-attract-foreign-tourists.html?

I don't deny that US policies keep a lot of people away. However, without knowing more, I am skeptical of the figures - not as in raw numbers, but as in "total travel market" and how it has changed since 2000. I would imagine that there are a large number of people from emerging markets that are now part of the total travel market that may still be in the "regional travel market" (i.e, staying within South America, East Asia, etc.) that aren't yet part of the target US market.

Please follow this thread in the Travel News Forum.
Thanks...
Obscure2k
TravelBuzz Moderator

I don't deny that US policies keep a lot of people away. However, without knowing more, I am skeptical of the figures - not as in raw numbers, but as in "total travel market" and how it has changed since 2000. I would imagine that there are a large number of people from emerging markets that are now part of the total travel market that may still be in the "regional travel market" (i.e, staying within South America, East Asia, etc.) that aren't yet part of the target US market.

Yes, we don't know how these numbers were calculated, but:
i) they came from the US Travel Association, not from competitors trying to woo tourists from the US
ii) most of the money to be used is private
iii) and the public money to be used came from a tax on VISA waiver visitors which, on the short run, only aggravates the problem.
For the Association to agree to this scheme, they must have had valid concerns

It's a silly statistic

The number of tourists are up, but because more people around the world are traveling the percentage overall is down. I'm sure it's down in most cases as a percentage as more people traveling is diluting the entire pool.

In the year 2000, the US issued something like seven million passports. Now they issue about twice that in a year. Twice as many americans possibly leaving the country is going to significantly drop the percentage of tourists in the US.

New York City for example set an all time record for tourists last year (2011). I don't think anybody cares what the percentage of tourists visiting New York was compared to the percentage visiting Rio or Sydney, etc.

The US is trying to address this real loss in market share by easing up on visa requirements and increasing the speed/ease with which visas are issued. It is slow-going. The biggest spenders per visitor to the US are now Brazilians as the Japanese and Europeans have been displaced in that regard. That kind of fact is making more people realize that the US needs to be competitive in ease of access to our tourism market -- including from countries in the developing world -- and we just aren't there to the degree the Europeans are even as regional international tourism has skyrocketed.

A larger part of the marketshare means a lot more jobs than we already have that benefit from international tourism, so clawing back marketshare is important even when the rising tide is lifting all boats to some degree.

This is a very real problem. My wife and I currently live in Switzerland, but
maintain our condo in SFO. We have offered the use of our condo to Brazillian family, but it can take them 3-4 months to receive a visa. These are
MD's, MBA's, JD's not people who are coming to drive a yellow cab. Several have
been interrogated and received a secondary at immigration. This happened to my brother in law who is a Stanford JD grad, and works for a well known Sao
Paulo firm. Most family have now soured on the US and just visit us in the Canton of Zug. Maybe the US could get some help from Swiss Tourism. I am
never at Swiss immigration for more than 20-30 seconds. Over Christmas the
immigration agent in SFO orderded me to pull my ears forward to make sure
my profile matched my passport photo. I am a citizen, retired air force officer.
I am afraid we are losing money that this country can ill afford. (sorry for formatting
posted on a phone)

While I do believe that much should be done to make the US more friendly to foreign tourists, the use of market share is a bit misleading/stupid.

How much of the decline in "market share" can be explained by the easier access and improved tourist conditions in various parts of Asia? Tourism has soared in China and Thailand in the 2000-2011 time frame. Many countries on the tourist track today, like Vietnam and Cambodia are growing from a very low base, so of course the share of established markets are declining.

How much of the decline can also be explained by the growth of the consumer class in countries far away from the US? Much cheaper/faster for Chinese/Indian etc package tours to travel to a place like Thailand vs the US. Same reason so many Americans go to Mexico/Caribbean destinations vs similar destinations further afield.

The fact is that the number of foreign tourists in the US hit an all time record in 2011, as did tourist spending. While I do hope that the US eases up on the visa process etc, the conclusions being pushed by this US Travel Association are rather simplistic and very self serving.

Simple: the stupid $14 ESTA fee that is nothing but a hidden tourist tax.

The fact is that the number of foreign tourists in the US hit an all time record in 2011, as did tourist spending.Canada was by far the No. 1 source for foreign visitors at 21 million, followed by Mexico at 13.4 million.How many of those 34 million came by road I wonder ?

I have to agree with everyone saying that market share percentage is down probably mainly due to the rising middle class in the developing world. Lots of Chinese tourists hitting SE Asia, for example.

But for sure our hostile system doesn't help as noted as well. Not sure you can compare Switzeralnd to the US though when it comes to immigration processing times. I would imagine that the US is a bigger target than Switzerland.

It's a silly statistic[...]

In the year 2000, the US issued something like seven million passports. Now they issue about twice that in a year. Twice as many americans possibly leaving the country is going to significantly drop the percentage of tourists in the US.

Speaking of silly, in 2000, Americans could return from trips to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America with nothing more than photo ID and birth certificate. Now they cannot. Do you think that might account most of the 100% increase in issued passports?

I used to refuse to go to the USA because of the "hostility" and worry about being treated like a criminal just for the misdemeanour of spending my pesos in their country.

But I have internally reframed it now and have been to the USA 15 times in the last 3 years. It is all part of the experience, you have to view the USA as a giant theme park where stupid questions [removed inappropriate/TOS-violating characterization] are all part of the experience. One of the attractions you might say.

Now as seasoned visitor, I look forward to them trying to "catch me out" with one of their intelligent questions like "Hmmmm Colombia, what's the skiing like there this time of year?"

I love America, I know some stellar Americans, intellectuals, some of them geniuses, athletes too. So I don't buy into the stereotype [removed inappropriate/TOS-violating characterization]

I love it! And will personally be doing my bit to prop up the visitor figures for the foreseeable future.

What is extremely frustrating is that, once you are inside the US, it is usually a delight.

I can not say the same while interacting with the "official" US. And this is from someone who has had zero real problems in these interactions. But there is always some tension in the air . . .

I have had probably over 95% good experiences with CBP and even TSA has not bothered me too much but, above all, it is the drama, the theatricality of everything, the climate of suspicion that is irritating.

Also, for people that needed a post-9/11 visa, everyone hears horror stories / knows someone that has had the visa (apparently) arbitrarily denied, be them true or not.

The US has become known as a hostile place, which is a shame, because it is very friendly once you are inside, much more so than some other countries were their inhabitants are far more rude than americans.

Speaking of silly, in 2000, Americans could return from trips to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America with nothing more than photo ID and birth certificate. Now they cannot. Do you think that might account most of the 100% increase in issued passports?

Maybe a portion of it, but certainly not most of it. The increase uptrend started was well on it's way before Americans needed passports to return from Canada and Mexico (2007 air, 2009 land)

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/9156/passports.jpg

And the number of valid passports has been rising for decades

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/9156/passports.jpg

While I do believe that much should be done to make the US more friendly to foreign tourists, the use of market share is a bit misleading/stupid.


The use of marketshare as a target is actually very intelligent if the objective is to create even more job opportunities for one's own compatriots and increase the profitability of firms in industries that feed off tourism than would ordinarily be the case.

Yes, it will indeed require more than marketing - here are some FAQs on the marketing aspect: http://www.thebrandusa.com/faqs/

But they are also working on policy as well...

The President recently unveiled an ambitious plan to make the United States the #1 tourist destination in the world. Each year, tens of millions of people from around the world visit the U.S. In 2010, the travel and tourism industry generated over $134 billion dollars for the American economy and tourism supported 7.5 million jobs.

The President wants to build upon this success, and recently announced steps to ease the international arrival and admissions process for tourists to visit the United States. Frequent travelers who pass an extensive background check will be able to scan their passports and fingerprints and skip long lines at immigration at more airports through the Global Entry Program. As a result of the President’s action, the U.S. will expand the number of countries where visitors can get pre-cleared by Homeland Security so they don’t need a tourist visa. And we’re going to speed up visa processing for countries with growing middle classes that can afford to visit America – countries like China and Brazil.

More at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/16/life-highway-rural-tourism-and-prospects-economic-opportunity


"... the travel and tourism industry is one of the most important engines of our economy—in fact, it is our number-one service export. That is why President Obama recently announced the creation of a Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness, which charged us with leading efforts to develop recommendations for a National Travel and Tourism Strategy to promote travel throughout the United States..." More at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/21/making-america-top-tourist-destination-commerce-and-interior-keep-efforts-increase-v


Whatever views one might hold relating to statistics and so forth, it is hard to disagree that promoting and easing travel to the USA, while maintaining appropriate security measures, has an enormously positive economic and social impact on our society and world.





Not sure if this is the correct Forum (I considered TravelBuzz vs Security vs Travel News):

NYT article mentions that "United States’ share of the total travel market is down, to 11.2 percent in 2010 from 17.3 percent in 2000" and so the US Travel Association lobbied for the the "Travel Promotion Act", a 2010 law that is being implemented now to promote tourism to the US.

Everybody knows the real reasons of this decline, which can be summarized by one word: hostility.

Does anyone really believe that it would be possible, only with advertising, to revert this decline without correcting the real causes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/business/with-brand-usa-us-in-big-drive-to-attract-foreign-tourists.html?

Maybe a portion of it, but certainly not most of it. The increase uptrend started was well on it's way before Americans needed passports to return from Canada and Mexico (2007 air, 2009 land)

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/9156/passports.jpg

And the number of valid passports has been rising for decades

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/9156/passports.jpg

I am rather confident that the bulk of the passport-issuance increase are due to: US citizens being told -- for some years before 2007 -- that a passport was going to be necessary and/or make things a lot easier for crossing into the US even for intra-North America+Caribbean travel; and the rapidly growing proportion of US citizens with at least one foreign-born parent (many of which got US passports as evidence of citizenship as a response to anxiety that their origins or that of their children would be questioned).

In the context of a serious global recession many people can't afford to travel to the US anymore. The flight alone is pricey, especially when traveling with a family. With unemployment soaring, Europeans are more likely to travel within Europe, Asians within Asia, and so on.

Yes, the general attitude towards foreigners (the visa process, immigration upon entry, TSA...) is annoying, but I think the economy has much more to do with it....

In the context of a serious global recession many people can't afford to travel to the US anymore. The flight alone is pricey, especially when traveling with a family. With unemployment soaring, Europeans are more likely to travel within Europe, Asians within Asia, and so on.

Yes, the general attitude towards foreigners (the visa process, immigration upon entry, TSA...) is annoying, but I think the economy has much more to do with it....

Perhaps, but that's perhaps why the focus on marketshare may make even more sense.

The US loss of marketshare has been occurring for years now, even before an official declaration of recession in the US or much of Europe was in the situation it is in now. Apparently even a US dollar that has lost substantial value relative to the EUR and other major market currencies has come contemporary with a US loss in marketshare.

In the context of a serious global recession many people can't afford to travel to the US anymore. The flight alone is pricey, especially when traveling with a family. With unemployment soaring, Europeans are more likely to travel within Europe, Asians within Asia, and so on.

Today's weak dollar helps a lot when travelling to the US; the US is one of the cheapest (first world) destinations avaiable now.

Today's weak dollar helps a lot when travelling to the US; the US is one of the cheapest (first world) destinations avaiable now.

... and the US is a shoppers' paradise for those who have a free baggage allowance of at least two 70-lbs/32-kg bags, as is the allotment for those flying on flights to/from Brazil, and thus can visit, shop and return home after having stimulated the US economy.

Now only if the US Government allowed Brazilians to once again come to the US without a visa, that would be more money directly stimulating the US economy rather than directly ending up in the US Government's pocket and only then trickling into the US economy.

US ski resorts in Colorado have a lot to be thankful for that some Brazilians are willing to jump through the hurdles of dealing with getting a US visa when Brazilians can enter into richer countries than the US without the visa hassles/costs.

I don't deny that US policies keep a lot of people away. However, without knowing more, I am skeptical of the figures - not as in raw numbers, but as in "total travel market" and how it has changed since 2000. I would imagine that there are a large number of people from emerging markets that are now part of the total travel market that may still be in the "regional travel market" (i.e, staying within South America, East Asia, etc.) that aren't yet part of the target US market.

You're totally onto something here. Just in the past few years I know there's been an explosion of domestic travel in, for example, Brazil, as the country has for the first time ever developed a mass middle class. I've also seen reports that similar things have happened in China and India, and I'm sure elsewhere in the world with similar macroeconomic trends, things are much the same.

On an anecdotal basis (mostly on FT!) I've heard people say they refuse to fly to the US anymore because of our inane security theater. But somehow I don't quite see that being the start of a global trend. I think most casual international travelers who want to come see NY or Vegas frankly don't know anything at all about US security rules anyway.

And judging by how difficult it is to walk around Manhattan at any hour of the day or night without running into gaggles of French or Spanish tourists, I'm guessing the absolute tourist numbers are doing just fine.

The use of marketshare as a target is actually very intelligent if the objective is to create even more job opportunities for one's own compatriots and increase the profitability of firms in industries that feed off tourism than would ordinarily be the case.

I would have to disagree very strongly with this. Using the change in US tourism marketshare from 2000 - 2011 in isolation and without any acknowledgement of anything which might have changed in the world in that time period is foolish.

China's GDP went from $1T to $7T from 2000-2011. India's GDP more than doubled. Regional tourism in Asia has boomed, which has decreased the US' marketshare.

So on a percentage basis we are getting a smaller piece of a larger global pie, and indeed the US set new records for tourist arrivals and spending in 2011. Where is the crisis?

To ignore the changes which have occurred globally since 2000 and the effects on the global tourism market is silly.

I would have to disagree very strongly with this. Using the change in US tourism marketshare from 2000 - 2011 in isolation and without any acknowledgement of anything which might have changed in the world in that time period is foolish.

China's GDP went from $1T to $7T from 2000-2011. India's GDP more than doubled. Regional tourism in Asia has boomed, which has decreased the US' marketshare.

So on a percentage basis we are getting a smaller piece of a larger global pie, and indeed the US set new records for tourist arrivals and spending in 2011. Where is the crisis?

To ignore the changes which have occurred globally since 2000 and the effects on the global tourism market is silly.

Who is ignoring the changes which have occurred globally since 2000? I am intimately familiar with the changes, particularly those that have occurred in and around BRICs, with India and China in particular way more than most. For a while I was the most frequent foreigner entering India from long-haul flights. ;)

The problem is that the US has had approaches which have undermined growing the market share and/or otherwise maximizing the employment rolls that would have occurred if tourism numbers to the US were even higher and we had maintained marketshare.

You're totally onto something here. Just in the past few years I know there's been an explosion of domestic travel in, for example, Brazil, as the country has for the first time ever developed a mass middle class. I've also seen reports that similar things have happened in China and India, and I'm sure elsewhere in the world with similar macroeconomic trends, things are much the same.

On an anecdotal basis (mostly on FT!) I've heard people say they refuse to fly to the US anymore because of our inane security theater. But somehow I don't quite see that being the start of a global trend. I think most casual international travelers who want to come see NY or Vegas frankly don't know anything at all about US security rules anyway.


Most people from the fastest growing parts of the world in recent years who can afford to travel to the US are well aware of the "security" hassles of the US, with the initial "security" requirement in the way being visa acquisition.

Even looking at just the international long-haul travel marketshare, the US has lost out.

... and the US is a shoppers' paradise for those who have a free baggage allowance of at least two 70-lbs/32-kg bags, as is the allotment for those flying on flights to/from Brazil, and thus can visit, shop and return home after having stimulated the US economy.

Now only if the US Government allowed Brazilians to once again come to the US without a visa, that would be more money directly stimulating the US economy rather than directly ending up in the US Government's pocket and only then trickling into the US economy.

US ski resorts in Colorado have a lot to be thankful for that some Brazilians are willing to jump through the hurdles of dealing with getting a US visa when Brazilians can enter into richer countries than the US without the visa hassles/costs.

I'm Brazilian, and it is indeed incredible the amount of luggage people bring home from the US. Everything is much cheaper / there are much more choices in the US than in Brazil and to shop in the US is one of the motivations for the leisure traveler.

As for VISA free travel to the US for Brazilians, I understand the reticence of American government. I'm not sure about the long term prospects for the Brazilian economy and, in case it sours, there would be the risk of economic migration, as happened in the past even with a VISA requirement, but would be much intense in a VISA-free environment.

One also must not forget the example of Argentine, which had a VISA-free agreement with the US not long ago, negotiated during the dollar/peso parity and how it developed after the Argentinian currency collapse.

It would be extremely naive not to look at the market share numbers. The US are a mass-market tourism destination; lose too much market share and you are destined to oblivion.

American's belief in American exceptionalism must be tempered with a bit of realism. People travel to the US because it is good / lucrative for them. Increase the hassle factor for it and you need an increase in the benefits; otherwise people will go to other places.

I'm Brazilian, and it is indeed incredible the amount of luggage people bring home from the US. Everything is much cheaper / there are much more choices in the US than in Brazil and to shop in the US is one of the motivations for the leisure traveler.

As for VISA free travel to the US for Brazilians, I understand the reticence of American government. I'm not sure about the long term prospects for the Brazilian economy and, in case it sours, there would be the risk of economic migration, as happened in the past even with a VISA requirement, but would be much intense in a VISA-free environment.

One also must not forget the example of Argentine, which had a VISA-free agreement with the US not long ago, negotiated during the dollar/peso parity and how it developed after the Argentinian currency collapse.

Indeed, and what the US has done to eliminate VWP allowances for some countries (which were previously granted visa free access to the US), it could also do with Brazil whenever the Brazilian economy drops off the cliff.

Brazilians get visa-free travel to countries which have higher per capita income figures than the US and have been getting such access for years now. The US wouldn't be the only country to have economic migration concerns.

This is certainly not the case for Florida where tourism numbers are up 4.4% over last year. With the fall off in housing prices the numbers of Latino's coming in doing cash deals for vacation and rental properties has picked up significantly.

If you go to the largest outlet mall (Sawgrass) in the are you will hear more Portuguese than Spanish these days and English is down to #3. A trip to Disney land and you will see predominetly Asians and Brazilians.

Who is ignoring the changes which have occurred globally since 2000? .

The US Travel Association is ignoring it and blindly using marketshare numbers as it seems to suit their agenda.

Here are some other non-sensical marketshare statistics from the USTA as quoted in the NY Times article:

"There were also big declines in the same period in travel from France (down 23.2 percent), Brazil (down 20.3 percent), Germany (down 19.2 percent) and Japan (down 5.8 percent). "

The number of US visas issued to Brazilians has at least tripled since 2000 and spending has surged to record levels. I live in Miami and can certainly attest to this. Presenting what is has been an absolute, unprecedented boom in Brazilian tourism as a decline is inaccurate at best.

The 20% "decline" in marketshare being presented by the USTA without any context is completely meaningless. Lies, damn lies and statistics...

This is certainly not the case for Florida where tourism numbers are up 4.4% over last year. With the fall off in housing prices the numbers of Latino's coming in doing cash deals for vacation and rental properties has picked up significantly.

If you go to the largest outlet mall (Sawgrass) in the are you will hear more Portuguese than Spanish these days and English is down to #3. A trip to Disney land and you will see predominetly Asians and Brazilians.

So has Florida's marketshare of international long-haul tourism traffic increased relative to other big tourism-drawing countries over what it was pre-9/11? If so, great news. If not, even good news is not as great as it could be if perceptions of the US -- primarily about the visa-related headaches -- were more improved. There are more jobs and better paying jobs in the US that would be part of the picture if the US were to be even more receptive to foreign tourists than is currently the case.

The US Travel Association is ignoring it and blindly using marketshare numbers as it seems to suit their agenda.

Here are some other non-sensical marketshare statistics from the USTA as quoted in the NY Times article:

"There were also big declines in the same period in travel from France (down 23.2 percent), Brazil (down 20.3 percent), Germany (down 19.2 percent) and Japan (down 5.8 percent). "

The number of US visas issued to Brazilians has at least tripled since 2000 and spending has surged to record levels. I live in Miami and can certainly attest to this. Presenting what is has been an absolute, unprecedented boom in Brazilian tourism as a decline is inaccurate at best.

The 20% "decline" in marketshare being presented by the USTA without any context is completely meaningless. Lies, damn lies and statistics...

The USTA is not ignoring it, but they do have an agenda which only benefits from not playing down the loss of marketshare. And their agenda would enrich the US.

Brazil has had visa on arrival in most of Europe since 1996, yet the US seems to have not got around to it during the period to present starting with when the US started requiring Brazilians to have a visa issued prior to travel to the US.

Brazil has had visa on arrival in most of Europe since 1996, yet the US seems to have not got around to it during the period to present starting with when the US started requiring Brazilians to have a visa issued prior to travel to the US.

Actually, it's no visa at all.

Actually, it's no visa at all.

That is indeed one way of putting it, as it has been the same for Brazilian citizens as for US citizens since 1996; but some call an immigration entry stamp on arrival in a foreign passport a visa on arrival even as it is free and an ink stamp rather than a paper one.

That is indeed one way of putting it, as it has been the same for Brazilian citizens as for US citizens since 1996; but some call an immigration entry stamp on arrival in a foreign passport a visa on arrival even as it is free and an ink stamp rather than a paper one.

There's definitely a difference. If it were visa, Brazil would require a visa as well because of reciprocity mandated by law. The problem is that "visa on arrival" doesn't exist in Brazil. Every country that offers that option does it unilaterally, since Brazil cannot reciprocate.

There's definitely a difference. If it were visa, Brazil would require a visa as well because of reciprocity mandated by law. The problem is that "visa on arrival" doesn't exist in Brazil. Every country that offers that option does it unilaterally, since Brazil cannot reciprocate.

My apologies for being less clear than I should have been when saying "visa on arrival". I did that because some consider "visa on arrival" to perhaps include all circumstances of legitimate cross-border travel meeting both of the following conditions:

1. not required to send a passport in to a foreign country's embassy/consulate/other government-retained facility (in a place other than the receiving country) for permission to travel and/or enter the foreign country that is not that of one's own nationality/citizenship; but

2. requirement, applied or not, to satisfy the visit-purpose-related demands/purpose-verification requirements of the border control authorities in order to be granted permission to enter.

As in all of my posts in this thread where I mentioned 1996 in conjunction with Brazil, I was commenting in relation to entering much of Europe without having to get a visa in advance of travel to the other country/travel area.

EU Schengen Zone nationals in the main have reciprocity with Brazilian nationals in entering each others' area without needing to send their passport to an embassy/consulate or other government-retained facility to get a stickered visa in the passport for tourism and some other purposes. The visa-acquisition inconvenience (i.e. of having to send their passport to an embassy/consulate or other government-retained facility to get a stickered visa in the passport even for tourism visits) when it comes to Brazilians visiting the US is why some leisure and business meetings end up in the EU which could otherwise have taken place in the US.

This is super interesting and I like the fact that people are sticking to the big picture rather than individual experiences. I'd just like to add that the US is a much bigger place then most other tourist countries. I've had my share of visa requirements and question answering sessions, some of which seemed like a fishing expedition to put me in jail and throw away the key and some unexpected ease of procedures such as in Vietnam.
Some of it is safety, some is political tit for tat, and having a good friend who was an immigration supervisor at Heathrow for some years, some for the craziest eventualities.
I live in NY and tourism is alive and well.

I live in NY and tourism is alive and well.

If USTA had its way, tourism to NYC would be even stronger than it already is and the Manhattan hotel rates and the income of those employed in relevant sectors in the area would be higher than what is currently the situation.

Does anybody know where the raw numbers are coming from?

I would love to know what 17.3% of the total travel market in 2011 would be, and if the US could even begin to sustain that number of tourists.

Does anybody know where the raw numbers are coming from?

I would love to know what 17.3% of the total travel market in 2011 would be, and if the US could even begin to sustain that number of tourists.

International tourism arrivals and international tourism receipts are kept track of by countries.

The UN's World Tourism Organization gets numbers reported up by UN member states. And most such countries keep track of tourism traffic and foreign tourism revenue because that figures out in the national financial accounts that countries report out to their own domestic audiences and to international audiences.

Perhaps, but that's perhaps why the focus on marketshare may make even more sense.
How so?

Besides the unemployment and lay offs, in Europe, where unemployment has been soaring, there are plenty of people who would have gone on vacation to the US but who, due to the economic downturn, instead go somewhere closer to home. US thus loses market share, while the same number of tourists travel.

With everyone in Europe getting the austerity bandwagon, many state employees have seen their income decrease (as well as those with income indirectly coming from the state), and with taxes going up (e.g. VAT rates), the purchasing power has overall decreased significantly.

I dislike the US entry and security hassles just like everyone else, but it's silly to ignore the economic aspect.

I would also like to point out that the US is far away from most countries, and those in Europe and Asia have plenty of alternatives that are cheaper and closer to home. (I guess Brazil is the exception here, because Europe and Asia are also very far away.)

Apparently even a US dollar that has lost substantial value relative to the EUR and other major market currencies has come contemporary with a US loss in marketshare.
Today's weak dollar helps a lot when travelling to the US; the US is one of the cheapest (first world) destinations avaiable now.
Quite the opposite is true. With the worries surrounding the Euro, the 1 EUR is ~1.33 USD, while a few years ago it was ~1.55 USD. The US just got more expensive.

Quite the opposite is true. With the worries surrounding the Euro, the 1 EUR is ~1.33 USD, while a few years ago it was ~1.55 USD. The US just got more expensive.

You're considering only the Euro; for most other currencies in the world, the dollar has weakened lately.

While the sheer number of visitors to the United States has risen over the last 10 years, the number of travelers worldwide has grown even more in that time. As a result, the United States’ share of the total travel market is down, to 11.2 percent in 2010 from 17.3 percent in 2000.

It is no coincidence that Britain is one of the first targets of the marketing efforts. Over the last 10 years, the proportion of travelers coming to the United States “fell most dramatically in the U.K.,” said Geoff Freeman, the chief operations officer of the U.S. Travel Association. There were also big declines in the same period in travel from France (down 23.2 percent), Brazil (down 20.3 percent), Germany (down 19.2 percent) and Japan (down 5.8 percent).

I still found this bit the most interesting. I love returning to the USA btw

Regarding the Brazilians, if their citizens only stopped overstaying and violating their US visas in large numbers, then they would be in the VWP (as Argentina once was) however as they have not even come close, it won't happen. Truth be told, something like, 30% of the Brazilian middle class is ALWAYS in possession of a US visa of one sort or another and with the new mandate which will pretty much let anyone with a heartbeat and a bank account and no felonies get a US visa. When you consider that over 90% of Brazilians who apply for visas currently get them, the issue will be null and void within 2 years. If the Brazilians only dropped their fee - Their reciprocity narrative is not fully truthful as while the US required visas of their citizens first, it was they that introduced such fees IIRC in 1994 or so, and while certain rises were instigated by the US, and events like 9/11 changes some things, they in fact started the fee thing.

The funny thing is that Greece only got into VWP a few years ago, and most probably will be ejected by 2015 if things do not change.

Brazil is under consideration to be accepted into the VWP and seems to be getting much closer to getting accepted.

You're considering only the Euro; for most other currencies in the world, the dollar has weakened lately.

For most of the most recent ten year period where the US has lost marketshare, the US has lost out even on the segment that is just long-haul marketshare; and the USD has actually weakened substantially against the EUR during the same period.

When the EUR became a retail currency for daily street use -- on January 1, 2002 -- less than $0.90 bought 1 EUR; yet for the better part of the period in which the US has lost out even on the EU long-haul market segment the EUR has jumped in value such that for the better part of the last decade, more than $1.25 has been required to buy 1EUR. In other words, the US has lost marketshare despite the world's second largest reserve currency having gained substantial value against the USD, as have many the currencies of various other countries that send lots of tourists our way. The US has become a cheaper destination in the main and yet lost marketshare.

... and this loss of US marketshare has occurred even for travel sourced from markets where unemployment has fallen from its peak in the the last decade.

I have learned when I get interogated by CBP to just smile and be polite. This is relevant because those people are the front line to tourists.

Apparently, Sen. Harry Reid's solution to declining international visitors in LAS is to have TSA employees say "Hello" (http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-to-tsa-smile-146181975.html)...

I guess especially for European travelers there are many reasons not to go to the US no more. 10 to 15 years ago when planning a vacation there was always
Florida, Hawaii or New York very high on my priority list. But due to ridiculous "safety procedures" like no more than 4 people waiting in front of a bathroom in an airplane to the US, dumb interrogation before boarding a flight, having to wait up to 90 minutes at immigration and being asked by officers who seem to have had no school education or who are outright rude, like the one in SFO who asked me how Europeans can afford to go to Hawaii while he can´t. Nude scanners while passing through US airports, uncivilized TSA-employees. On top of that George W. Bush and his policies on "homeland" security haven´t helped in bringing in more tourists either, unfortunately there was no real change since Obama is in office. I was actually checking out hotel rates for New York city (for May, July or September) the other day and 300€ plus per night for a mediocre hotel room made the decision not to go there very easy, as for the same price I will get 2 nights at a deluxe hotel anywhere in Asia.

But you will not get much, and possibly much less in many European capitals, go get me the rates for Paris, London or Rome for similar dates and hotels and get back to me. Yes you can get an absolutely palatial hotel suite in Kuala Lumpur for much less, and when I actually have to go there I enjoy it..........but one must get there in the first place. Nude scanners? You mean the same type that i have seen in at least 20 other countries around the World, the difference being that most of them have had no debate and there are no safeguards on what happens to the data or how it is viewed? Have you not gone through security in many a European airport where it is roughly the same as the US?

I guess especially for European travelers there are many reasons not to go to the US no more. 10 to 15 years ago when planning a vacation there was always

Not only for European travelers.

Asia and Europe get my dollars these days when I take a vacation, and that of most of my friends. This despite the decline of the US dollar which makes it a very cheap destination for me.

I used to visit the US quite regularly, but I won't even consider it again until the security theatre there stops. Security is not like that in most other countries despite what the occasional apologist might try to say to the contrary.

Simple: the stupid $14 ESTA fee that is nothing but a hidden tourist tax.

:confused:

My informal and unscientific survey: I asked a my coworkers that have not been to the U.S. on vacation why they have not gone. Their answer: it's too expensive. They'd rather go to destinations where their Euro goes much further.

While the TSA annoys me, I've learnt to deal with them but still opt out.

It's the Immigration staff that have started to annoy me.

Why do you travel to the US so often? What do you plan to do while you are here? How much money do you have on you? Do you know anyone in the US?

Who do work for? Which is followed up with, So where is the meeting you are attending? What meeting? I told you I'm here on Tourism.

Then there are the random and false misleading replys to the answers trying to trick you out.

Shez, yes my passport is littered with US stamps, yes I always leave the country on time and it's really none of your business how I can afford the ticket.

Last trip I had to do the full 10 fingers again, loooooong time since I had to do that.

So it seems, if you travel the first time, get harassed. Travel too often get harassed.

Seems like there is a no win to the USA.

I get somewhat similar treatment when I return to the U.S. to visit family, and I'm a U.S. citizen. And I'm not suspicious looking.

Where did you come from? What do you do? Why are you there and not here? How long will you be here? Why do you hate America? Etc.

My wife gets it even worse when she travels back alone and she has to explain what she is doing living in Europe with no job, why am I not with her, what do I do, etc.

:td:

US citizens abroad seem to get a lot more hassle from passport control types in the US than most citizens of OECD countries get if returning to their respective (OECD) country of citizenship. When US citizens justifiably feel unnecessarily hassled, foreign citizens have no more reason to be confident in being treated any better at a US port of entry than returning US citizens. Fortunately, most people don't face much hassle whatsoever other than the long waste of time that is too often part of the US arrival picture.

:confused:

My informal and unscientific survey: I asked a my coworkers that have not been to the U.S. on vacation why they have not gone. Their answer: it's too expensive. They'd rather go to destinations where their Euro goes much further.

Are most of those individuals people who take charter tour/tour packages? I am not a fan of them (and have never taken one) although the prices do seem to be very cheap if heading to most of the kinds of places being marketed by European charter operators/package tour companies.

Those packages are rather poor value when it comes to heading to the US or other developed countries. Generally the US is a bargain value relative to comparable places in other developed countries and even some major cities and prime destinations in developing countries.

The US has (often deservedly so) been getting some negative PR -- including by word of mouth, tabloid tales, news articles, etc. -- about how passengers/visitors are handled in the US and other things, and it is such that the negative PR -- in conjunction with increased global awareness of alternatives to the US -- leads to people who could travel to the US (or elsewhere) not traveling to the US. It's not enough to stop the growth in visitor counts to the US, but it's not generally helping the US to reclaim lost marketshare either.

Are most of those individuals people who take charter tour/tour packages?

No. But I know what you mean.

I have had probably over 95% good experiences with CBP and even TSA has not bothered me too much but, above all, it is the drama, the theatricality of everything, the climate of suspicion that is irritating.

One of my personal "favorite" elements of drama is the fact that all the customs and immigration officers at the airport pack sidearms.

It's as if they expect the "teeming hordes" of foreigners to attempt to storm their way out of the airport at any moment... lol...

One of my personal "favorite" elements of drama is the fact that all the customs and immigration officers at the airport pack sidearms.

It's as if they expect the "teeming hordes" of foreigners to attempt to storm their way out of the airport at any moment... lol...

Very good point, HKG_Flyer. It is beyond ridiculous AND contibutes enormously to boost the power trip mentality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/arts/us-visa-rules-frustrate-foreign-performers.html?

For some categories, it can be even worse.

Of particular irrationality, is the clause that you can only apply for this VISA after a contract was signed - but fulfillment of such contract is subject to the obtainement of a VISA.

Also note:
i) the costs of such an application
ii) the "union" fee
iii) the role of the (secret) no-fly list

How can a country with such founding principles as the US also have secret laws? For us who have grown-up with the US in the role of a bastion of liberty it is beyond belief . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/arts/us-visa-rules-frustrate-foreign-performers.html?

For some categories, it can be even worse.

Of particular irrationality, is the clause that you can only apply for this VISA after a contract was signed - but fulfillment of such contract is subject to the obtainement of a VISA.

Also note:
i) the costs of such an application
ii) the "union" fee
iii) the role of the (secret) no-fly list

How can a country with such founding principles as the US also have secret laws? For us who have grown-up with the US in the role of a bastion of liberty it is beyond belief . . .

Also note the indication of racist/tribalist profiling in that article.

We have some European (ethnic majority) attorneys who no longer travel to the US for vacation as they used to in prior decades because now they have significant others who are ethnic and/or religious minorities (in their European country of residence and/or citizenship). They have concerns that they (and/or their significant others) would end up with a problem on arrival in the US even if their significant others get a US visa and/or ESTA approved. Given what has happened to some of them on arrival in the US, it is a well-justified concern.

HKG FLYER, worse, fly through Canadian airports and not only do they all pack sidearms but they are all wearing large and obvious external bullet proof vests!

The Canadian equivalent of CBP chose to make wearing bulletproof vests part of the uniform and they pushed for years for the Canadian government to fund the purchases of such vests; they got funded starting around 12-14 years ago IIRC.

The Canadian version of the CBP wanted to be even more like their US colleagues and also got handguns around 5 years ago, part of the excuse being that US surface border crossings are "dangerous" because of the high prevalence of guns in the US.

I find the whole bulletproof vest and handgun show at the airport passport control desks to be: (a) interesting theater; and (b) a sign of governmental lack of confidence even in those also in charge of domestic "security" screening (of planes, of cargo & cabin baggage, of passengers and flight crew members).

I have plenty of anecdotal evidence from people from MidEast and Pakistan who used to visit US almost every year but no longer do so. At one conference in Malaysia one Saudi delegate told me he had come earlier to Malaysia for his honeymoon. Previously he used to visit the Us regularly. His words were "if we go the US now we are treated as criminals, but when we come to Malaysia we are welcomed".

Perhaps these are the types of tourists that teh US authorities no longer wish to entertain, but they are high spending and more than welcomed in many places in the far east. In places like Malaysia and Singapore they can enjoy the same comforts as the US (and cheap shopping).

Yeah, having spent a lot of time in Malaysia I can assure you that the feelings for Saudi visitors is neither as warm as it once was and far cooler in the first place than the Saudis ever imagined.

Yeah, having spent a lot of time in Malaysia I can assure you that the feelings for Saudi visitors is neither as warm as it once was and far cooler in the first place than the Saudis ever imagined.

Yet the welcome there is still infinitely warmer than in the US.

Really, how so? Have any Malaysian friends and speak to them about how they feel about the "invasion" of Gulf tourists over the last decade or so? At first it was a boon, but as the original waves of Saudi honeymooners and the like were much replaced by hoardes of young (and not so young) Saudi and Kuwaiti men looking for hookers and drugs and being much worse acting than many of their western counterparts ever were, their opinion has changed. Are they treated better now in general? Sure. Were they treated better even before 9/11? Yes in general they were. However it should be noted that the Malaysians can be far more unfriendly to Saudis at immigration especially single men after 9/11 as it was discovered that many of the 9/11 conspirators had met in Malaysia.

In any case this conversation is a bit silly, Saudis never went to the US for Honeymoons or quick jaunts, they did and do so in Southeast Asia. For 99% of Saudis these are NOT interchangable destinations.

Really, how so? Have any Malaysian friends and speak to them about how they feel about the "invasion" of Gulf tourists over the last decade or so? At first it was a boon, but as the original waves of Saudi honeymooners and the like were much replaced by hoardes of young (and not so young) Saudi and Kuwaiti men looking for hookers and drugs and being much worse acting than many of their western counterparts ever were, their opinion has changed. Are they treated better now in general? Sure. Were they treated better even before 9/11? Yes in general they were. However it should be noted that the Malaysians can be far more unfriendly to Saudis at immigration especially single men after 9/11 as it was discovered that many of the 9/11 conspirators had met in Malaysia.

In any case this conversation is a bit silly, Saudis never went to the US for Honeymoons or quick jaunts, they did and do so in Southeast Asia. For 99% of Saudis these are NOT interchangable destinations.

None of which changes the fact that Saudis are more welcome in Malaysia than they are in the US. I've spent much, much time in Malaysia over the years and am quite familiar with the quirks of the place and its various peoples.

The "welcome" US citizens get when dealing with the US CBP types has gotten worse over the course of the last ten years, and it certainly hasn't improved for foreigners who may have the US as an option.

As a US citizen, I find that I am less likely to be poorly received when visiting Malaysia and having to deal with passport control at KUL or when going from SIN to J.B. than when returning to the US and having to deal with CBP. I doubt that GCC nationals are going to be generally better received by the CBP than I.

I am not sure how much Malaysians ordinarily appreciate Saudis (other than for the money brought in), but I do know that I'm more likely to get a warmer reception from my GCC friends if I suggest meeting up in Europe or Asia or Africa than meeting up with them in the US. It's rather unfortunate as a substantial chunk of them have lived in the US in prior years. [I would most probably not know many of them if they had not been living in the US previously.]

The GCC nationals who now live in the US (whether for school, work or permanently) seem to have far fewer siblings, cousins or friends from their home country visiting them in the US now than used to be the case even when oil prices were less than a third of what they have been at during the last five years.

That kind of suppression of tourism is a result of visas becoming harder to get and/or increased chances of getting a visa declined for reasons that have nothing to do with the individual visa applicants' actual likelihood to violate the terms of entry associated with the visas.

Bad news spreads in a way that good news rarely does. And the bad news covers the in-person dealing with US embassy/consulate facilities for visa-acquisition purposes; and it also covers having to put up with US DHS -- CBP and TSA (if connecting onward or when flying out of the US) -- and perhaps even ending up hassled on the basis of nationality if not also on the basis of ethnic and/or religious identity.

As Saudis haven't even been very popular in Pakistan -- the South Asian line often being that Saudis are (monied) hypocrites (as if any country is without hypocrites :D ) -- I would be surprised if they are very popular in Malaysia either. .... and yet I would be surprised if the average Saudi visitor to Malaysia would be asked as many questions by Malaysian passport control as CBP asks even some US citizens who are as free and innocent as can be.

As Saudis haven't even been very popular in Pakistan -- the South Asian line often being that Saudis are (monied) hypocrites (as if any country is without hypocrites :D ) -- I would be surprised if they are very popular in Malaysia either. .... and yet I would be surprised if the average Saudi visitor to Malaysia would be asked as many questions by Malaysian passport control as CBP asks even some US citizens who are as free and innocent as can be.

They're not particularly popular anywhere - visit a resort town such as Phuket and watch the way that they treat servers in restaurants - I've watched them click fingers to gain attention, shout at waiters for absolutely no reason. None of which, of course, alters the opinion that I expressed in my earlier post.

We are talking about 3 things here really:

1) Need for visa.
2) Questioning by border control officials.
3) Treatment in country.

These are often different things, and to different nationalities, but let's stick with the Saudis as that has now come up.

Item 1. Saudis have ALWAYS needed a visa for the US, they have not needed them in living memory for Malaysia, neither pre nor post 9/11. Pre 9/11 it was pretty easy and pain free for Saudis to get get visas to the US, interviews often were not even necessary. Post 9/11 for quite awhile it was still relatively easy, but the questioning and interview process was much more intense, then again most of the 9/11 hijackers WERE from KSA, so this was understandable. truth be told, unless a Saudi national has some link to "bad people" they get their US visa, as they always have.

Item 2. For the vast majority of travellers to much of the developing World, border control officers ask little if anything. The higher up the chain you go incomewise, the more border control officers are likely to ask questions, that is just the way it is. I have found German border control officers to be quite questioning of foreigners and Germans when coming back from certain parts of the World for example. The Dutch can be the same, as the British and much of Europe, although it does seem that Northern European countries in general are more questioning than Southern, i often attribute this to language and culture more than anything else. I do concur however that US CBP agents are more likely to question their own citizens than other OECD countries.

Item 3, treatment. Rich Saudis are tolerated wherever they go and often when acting typical engender little love from the people that serve them, whether Malaysia, Bahrain, the US, Pakistan or London. Taxi driving Saudis (or whoever) less so.

We are talking about 3 things here really:

1) Need for visa.
2) Questioning by border control officials.
3) Treatment in country.

These are often different things, and to different nationalities, but let's stick with the Saudis as that has now come up.

Item 1. Saudis have ALWAYS needed a visa for the US, they have not needed them in living memory for Malaysia, neither pre nor post 9/11. Pre 9/11 it was pretty easy and pain free for Saudis to get get visas to the US, interviews often were not even necessary. Post 9/11 for quite awhile it was still relatively easy, but the questioning and interview process was much more intense, then again most of the 9/11 hijackers WERE from KSA, so this was understandable. truth be told, unless a Saudi national has some link to "bad people" they get their US visa, as they always have.

Item 2. For the vast majority of travellers to much of the developing World, border control officers ask little if anything. The higher up the chain you go incomewise, the more border control officers are likely to ask questions, that is just the way it is. I have found German border control officers to be quite questioning of foreigners and Germans when coming back from certain parts of the World for example. The Dutch can be the same, as the British and much of Europe, although it does seem that Northern European countries in general are more questioning than Southern, i often attribute this to language and culture more than anything else. I do concur however that US CBP agents are more likely to question their own citizens than other OECD countries.

Item 3, treatment. Rich Saudis are tolerated wherever they go and often when acting typical engender little love from the people that serve them, whether Malaysia, Bahrain, the US, Pakistan or London. Taxi driving Saudis (or whoever) less so.

It's not clear the point that you're trying to make here, but, um, ok...

Post 9/11 for quite awhile it was still relatively easy, but the questioning and interview process was much more intense, then again most of the 9/11 hijackers WERE from KSA, so this was understandable.

No, it's not understandable, unless one supports collective punishment. I don't.

No, it's not understandable, unless one supports collective punishment. I don't.

^

I do holiday in the USA every year- twice this year but short breaks not main holiday. We go to Asia for 2-3 weeks a year plus a couple of Europe trips.

I find that service in the USA is very weak compared to Asia and recently most European destinations who now have lots of great enthusiastic staff from the former eastern bloc countries.

Plus the endless tipping in the USA is a total put off. Just charge one price to include service. I spend 700 usd a night on a room and it costs at least 50 usd to get in and out of the hotel. It's a pain.

The rate of US visa denials and the amount of visa delays increased for Saudi Arabia in the most recent ten calendar year period over what they were in the prior ten calendar year period. And that's with people being dissuaded from applying, including for reasons related to the US increasing the costs in time and money to apply for a visa. [For example, at this time in 2001, people in Saudi Arabia were able to routinely get US visas issued without the passport bearer having to personally spend time and money to visit a US embassy/consulate facility to get a US visa themselves; and the chances of being asked to return with more information has increased substantially too.]

With regard to Saudi Arabia and where things are headed, things are now such that Turkey is more likely to get approved sooner for the US VWP than Saudi Arabia. At this time in 2000 or 2001, the idea of Turkey getting into the VWP before Saudi Arabia would have been considered a joke by many -- its consideration is not that kind of joke any longer (in part due to Turkey's economic growth rates in recent years).

The US and Canada are far worse in pestering "dark-skinned" ethnic minority foreigners with questions on arrival (questions that often have nothing to do with the contents of their belongings) than any OECD country (English-speaking or not) or any English-speaking non-OECD country. [The UK, Australia and New Zealand try, but the US and Canada "lead" the way in being worse.] The runner up for harassment of such foreigners: Poland. Poland even as it's poorer per capita than the countries whose minorities Poland passport control types hassle rather often (even when exiting the EU Schengen zone from there to go directly to richer or poorer countries than Poland).

Trying to measure the (un)civilized nature of a state? Then try to figure out how badly the state's agents treats the targets of popular hatred. One place to look: at embassies/consulates and airports that are ports of entry, both being places where some people get (mis)treated by agents of the state.

You're considering only the Euro; for most other currencies in the world, the dollar has weakened lately.
Most of the time between 2000 and 2011, the AUD was in the 0.70-0.80 USD range, with the odd drop to 0.50.
The AUD recently reached 1.07USD and is currently ~1.04.

I do holiday in the USA every year- twice this year but short breaks not main holiday.The only reason I visit the US for any length of time is because my friends are there and dealing with the crap DHS thinks of is the only chance I have to see them offline.

Theere is no indication if the data represents just tourists.
The U.S. Travel Association, the industry trade group, had noted that the United States’ share of global travel had declined from 2000 to 2010....
While the sheer number of visitors to the United States has risen over the last 10 years, the number of travelers worldwide has grown even more in that time. As a result, the United States’ share of the total travel market is down, to 11.2 percent in 2010 from 17.3 percent in 2000.


The argument that disses the concern of decline in travel by citing the number of absolute visitors misses the point that other things remaining equal, the percentage of travelelrs to the U.S. would not show such a drastic decline of 35%.

Following are the main factors at play--those responsible for +ve change are in black and those leading to a -ve change are in red.

Increasing numbers of Americans with foreign born spouses leads to increased travel.
A large number of IT workers imported from abroad.
Behaviour of our immigration and customs, as well as TSA. The (mis) treatment is meted out to not just foreigners, but even to returning U.S. citizens perceived to be of targeted nationaliy/ethnicity.
Declining share of U.S. economy as a percentage of world GDP. IN 2001, U.S. GDP accounted for 32.24% of world GDP and 20.78% in 2011-- a 35% decline in the share.
As a corollary of the share of GDP, there has been an increase in share of world trade conducted by BRIC countries. I haven' got the data on how much the U.S. share has declined as a percentage of world trade.

The number of passports issued is pretty useless data that gives us no clear indication except that more people have applied for passports.

Here is some timely news fresh off the press in support of item # 3 above.
Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan 'detained' in US (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17699074)

Here is some timely news fresh off the press in support of item # 3 above.
Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan 'detained' in US (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17699074)

Just imagine what the reaction from the US would be if Brad Pitt or Al Pacino or someone like that (sorry, not really up on American celebs but you get the idea) was detained by immigration in Mumbai. The whining would go on from now until the turn of the century.

You mean like when Sylvester Stallone was detained in Australia by customs and immigration..............and no one cared. I can go on. Hell I had to deal with a certain celebrity getting hassled and detained in Dubai not so long ago and quite frankly no one cared to make anything of it.

Or maybe it was because the last time SRK had "customs trouble" in the US he intentionally brought it upon himself as part of a PR plot aimed at promoting his soon upcoming film 'My name is Khan" maybe just maybe after that the CBP did in fact put him in the computer due to the hassle and bad publicity that he caused the agency.

You mean like when Sylvester Stallone was detained in Australia by customs and immigration..............and no one cared.

And yet here we are five years later and I find someone still whining on FT about Sylvester Stallone being busted for importing drugs into Australia :D

I think the point is that US is free to hassle anyone it wants at border control, to implement the strictest measures and impose as much collective punishment as it thinks necessary. Just like any other country.

The question is whether this is hurting their tourist industry. My anecdotal evidence (not just from Saudis) is that yes it is. I know very many people who used to travel to the US regularly for vacation and now they don't. at the same time destinations such as Malaysia and Vietnam have upped their game.

I am not judging whether the current measures by the US are right or wrong. It's up to the US authorities and more widely through pressure from the US public to determine the best balance for them.

It's up to the US authorities and more widely through pressure from the US public to determine the best balance for them.

That will not cause change, we are talking about the USA.

DHS sets the rules and doesn't care what the public think.

I love coming home to Australia, insert passport get a ticket, relocate & look at a camera, accepted, gates open, walk to customs, Welcome back, out the side door.

Some of US immigration staff are ok, but when you get one that just bugs on, it's like Whatever, and I've said that to one guy, was stamped & out.

I can do SYD-LAX on United and be outside in 15mins from aircraft door opening

Still think my best run was back to back weekends, MEL-LAX, same guy, he remembered me, was stamped and done in 60seconds. Mileage run I told him on my first trip.

If customs wants to search my bag, feel free to do, most times they ask, Why were you sent here? NFI, they walk away with my passport, come back with a clear to go. The TSA searches my bag more than customs.

You mean like when Sylvester Stallone was detained in Australia by customs and immigration..............and no one cared. I can go on. Hell I had to deal with a certain celebrity getting hassled and detained in Dubai not so long ago and quite frankly no one cared to make anything of it.

Or maybe it was because the last time SRK had "customs trouble" in the US he intentionally brought it upon himself as part of a PR plot aimed at promoting his soon upcoming film 'My name is Khan" maybe just maybe after that the CBP did in fact put him in the computer due to the hassle and bad publicity that he caused the agency.

He was not blacklisted after that movie was released. Nor was he even blacklisted even after that movie went into production.

Just imagine what the reaction from the US would be if Brad Pitt or Al Pacino or someone like that (sorry, not really up on American celebs but you get the idea) was detained by immigration in Mumbai. The whining would go on from now until the turn of the century.
People can whine all they want. No one really cares if a star is arrested. The incident would not be newsworthy if he were caught bringing drugs or contraband. The report is relevant not because he was a star, but because he was singled out because of his name.
You mean like when Sylvester Stallone was detained in Australia by customs and immigration..............and no one cared. I can go on. Hell I had to deal with a certain celebrity getting hassled and detained in Dubai not so long ago and quite frankly no one cared to make anything of it.

Or maybe it was because the last time SRK had "customs trouble" in the US he intentionally brought it upon himself as part of a PR plot aimed at promoting his soon upcoming film 'My name is Khan" maybe just maybe after that the CBP did in fact put him in the computer due to the hassle and bad publicity that he caused the agency.

That he is a celebrity, or one of the biggest stars in some part of the world is not the issue. A celebrity being detained makes no difference to travellers. But who he is, his name and that he happens to have a certain religion is.
Are you saying it's retaliation? Government retaliating against? Why would people travel to a country where they expect massive retaliation from the most powerful Govt machinery in the world?
Back to the point, which is---harassment of travellers, famous and ordinary, middle eastern or not, in various ways is a major contributor to declining share of U.S. travel, but sluggish economy and globalisation have also left our country out of travelling plans of many.

No what I am saying, and I know this to be a fact, is that he intentionally caused problems at immigration upon his arrival, specifically so that he could be detained and questioned more solely for the purpose of promoting his upcoming movie, my Name Is Khan, which "coincidentally" dealt with some of the exact same issues. So if after he and his people arranged this publicity stunt two years ago DHS might have now put something in their computer that is IS in fact a troublemaker (not Muslim, not terrorist, not Indian, but just an a88hole) it might be understandable, Much like how Snoop can now travel to the Uk again, but undergoes at least an hour of scrutiny each time (and not based on what charges he may have had filed against him, but because he and his possee acted as such troublesome a88holes once upon a time).

As for Saudis traveling to the US, the upper middle class and above Saudis that traveled to the US pre 9/11 still travel to the US in the same numbers and percentages (although I am sure that many of the Bin laden clan now avoid it). Malaysia has gotten a huge number of cheap Saudi package tourists, witness the hoards of them descending on Langkawi over the last ten years..........these people never were travelers to the US in the first place. Furthermore among the slightly more wealthy packs of male Saudi youth looking for hookers and drugs, their destination was rarely if ever the US.

When you've bought your ESTA, had your eye scanned, fingerprints checked
you begin to wonder if you're really welcome anyway.

When you've bought your ESTA, had your eye scanned, fingerprints checked
you begin to wonder if you're really welcome anyway.

Actually I have no problem with any of this. I am mildly annoyed with the $10 tourism tax included with the ESTA fee.

I would be more annoyed if I were detained for further questioning and then no one turned up to question me for some time.

I don't mind how many questions officials ask as long as they can get through the process as quickly as possible. Not detain me for long periods, just because they can.

No what I am saying, and I know this to be a fact, is that he intentionally caused problems at immigration upon his arrival, specifically so that he could be detained and questioned more solely for the purpose of promoting his upcoming movie, my Name Is Khan, which "coincidentally" dealt with some of the exact same issues. So if after he and his people arranged this publicity stunt two years ago DHS might have now put something in their computer that is IS in fact a troublemaker (not Muslim, not terrorist, not Indian, but just an a88hole) it might be understandable, Much like how Snoop can now travel to the Uk again, but undergoes at least an hour of scrutiny each time (and not based on what charges he may have had filed against him, but because he and his possee acted as such troublesome a88holes once upon a time).

As for Saudis traveling to the US, the upper middle class and above Saudis that traveled to the US pre 9/11 still travel to the US in the same numbers and percentages (although I am sure that many of the Bin laden clan now avoid it). Malaysia has gotten a huge number of cheap Saudi package tourists, witness the hoards of them descending on Langkawi over the last ten years..........these people never were travelers to the US in the first place. Furthermore among the slightly more wealthy packs of male Saudi youth looking for hookers and drugs, their destination was rarely if ever the US.
I don't know if SRK stage managed his troubles for publicity, but given that publicity is good for him, it's not without the realm of possibility that he did. The point is the perception people have, which is not based on SRK's stunt or reality, but on a large number of similar incidents involving ordinary citizens, both American and foreign and dignitaries, scientists and prominent businessmen. By focusing on large segment of population who could be or look like a Muslim or a terrorist, is alienating a large segment of travellers around the world. All of South Asia, Muslim South East Asia, all of Middle East, Central Asia/Former (stans) make up a25-30% of world population. This perception based largely on reality is a major contributing factor in decline of travel to the U.S., SRK's appetite for publicity notwithstanding.

No what I am saying, and I know this to be a fact, is that he intentionally caused problems at immigration upon his arrival, specifically so that he could be detained and questioned more solely for the purpose of promoting his upcoming movie, my Name Is Khan, which "coincidentally" dealt with some of the exact same issues.

I presume he had an interest in promotion of his movies and still does have such an interest, so it's certainly within the realm of possibility that he played up the CBP encounter at EWR. But what problems did he cause at immigration upon his arrival then or more recently?

I've met him repeatedly in the presence of past PMs and Presidents of India and in the the presence of the current Prime Minister and President of India; and from what I have seen he has not made a fuss when he and/or his wife are being screened the way I am. ... and that is in India where he is far more used to people -- officials and otherwise -- fawning over him.

His fingerprints were in our systems when he came -- even before his movie was released -- and so his identity then and more recently shouldn't have been an issue, if the expensive systems work and if the CBP employees aren't harassing individuals.

So if after he and his people arranged this publicity stunt two years ago DHS might have now put something in their computer that is IS in fact a troublemaker (not Muslim, not terrorist, not Indian, but just an a88hole) it might be understandable, Much like how Snoop can now travel to the Uk again, but undergoes at least an hour of scrutiny each time (and not based on what charges he may have had filed against him, but because he and his possee acted as such troublesome a88holes once upon a time).

The "if" above isn't applicable here, as the "if" is not representative of reality.

As for Saudis traveling to the US, the upper middle class and above Saudis that traveled to the US pre 9/11 still travel to the US in the same numbers and percentages (although I am sure that many of the Bin laden clan now avoid it). Malaysia has gotten a huge number of cheap Saudi package tourists, witness the hoards of them descending on Langkawi over the last ten years..........these people never were travelers to the US in the first place. Furthermore among the slightly more wealthy packs of male Saudi youth looking for hookers and drugs, their destination was rarely if ever the US.

For GCC citizens seeking prostitutes, Nevada and Florida was indeed not as popular with them as Morocco, Turkey, Lebanon, the UAE, parts of Europe, South Asia and Southeast Asia.

The upper middle class from the GCC countries haven't come to the US as frequently as they used to come to the US. Even many of those (non-Bin Ladens) who used to come before 9/11 either no longer came or no longer came as frequently during the past ten years.

I don't believe the decline in "market share" has ANYTHING to do with "hostility," whatever that means. It is simply a fact that the world is getting smaller, and it is cheaper and easier to travel to destinations that would once be truly expensive or difficult to reach. Many travelers seek the new, and so they seek out these newly open destinations. There's nothing you can do about that. We have to share the market with everybody else. The more tourist infrastructure there is throughout the world, the more people feel confident about traveling to a destination they might have once feared. Also, there's a "me too" mentality that probably dilutes market share for non unique destinations. Do you really need to go to California to visit Disneyland, if you can go to the one in Paris? Does anyone care that you went to Vegas like everybody else, or should you consider Macau? Not to mention all the little countries with no $ who figure they'll just make their fortune having all inclusive beach resorts. That kind of tourist doesn't care where they go as long as it's cheap. Should the USA compete with them on price? I don't think so!

I don't believe the decline in "market share" has ANYTHING to do with "hostility," whatever that means. It is simply a fact that the world is getting smaller, and it is cheaper and easier to travel to destinations that would once be truly expensive or difficult to reach.

The US is cheaper and easier to fly to now than it was twenty, thirty or forty years ago, and we still lost marketshare since then. "Hostility" is part of the marketshare decline picture, but it is indeed not the whole picture.

I don't believe the decline in "market share" has ANYTHING to do with "hostility," whatever that means. It is simply a fact that the world is getting smaller, and it is cheaper and easier to travel to destinations that would once be truly expensive or difficult to reach. Many travelers seek the new, and so they seek out these newly open destinations. There's nothing you can do about that. We have to share the market with everybody else. The more tourist infrastructure there is throughout the world, the more people feel confident about traveling to a destination they might have once feared. Also, there's a "me too" mentality that probably dilutes market share for non unique destinations. Do you really need to go to California to visit Disneyland, if you can go to the one in Paris? Does anyone care that you went to Vegas like everybody else, or should you consider Macau? Not to mention all the little countries with no $ who figure they'll just make their fortune having all inclusive beach resorts. That kind of tourist doesn't care where they go as long as it's cheap. Should the USA compete with them on price? I don't think so!
It's a lot cheaper to travel to the U.S. than it is to many so called exotic destinations. Travel tot he U.S. is cheaper now than it was 30 years ago.
I think your comments make an assumption that the pool of travellers is static. Newer destinations are new only for existing pool of travellers. More travellers enter the pool every year, for whom every destination is "new". What's exotic for you, is ordinary for some and what's next door for you would be exotic for others. Some of the "reasons" you mention are at play I am sure, but a 35% drop has more than such minor reasons as basis.
Whether we should do anything to increase travel to the U.S. is matter of economic necessity. If our travel industry, as well as economy were doing well, we would not be reading articles such as the one this thread is based on. It's not just tourists who travel. There are students, businessmen, diplomats, dignitaries, scientists, artists and performers who travel around the world. There has been a decline in some of these prominent categories which is directly traceable to border harassment. Students now go to Australia, and New Zealand, instead coming to the U.S. Some of these travellers would be repeat travellers that we have lost.

No what I am saying, and I know this to be a fact, is that he intentionally caused problems at immigration upon his arrival, specifically so that he could be detained and questioned more solely for the purpose of promoting his upcoming movie, my Name Is Khan, which "coincidentally" dealt with some of the exact same issues. So if after he and his people arranged this publicity stunt two years ago DHS might have now put something in their computer that is IS in fact a troublemaker (not Muslim, not terrorist, not Indian, but just an a88hole) it might be understandable, Much like how Snoop can now travel to the Uk again, but undergoes at least an hour of scrutiny each time (and not based on what charges he may have had filed against him, but because he and his possee acted as such troublesome a88holes once upon a time).

As for Saudis traveling to the US, the upper middle class and above Saudis that traveled to the US pre 9/11 still travel to the US in the same numbers and percentages (although I am sure that many of the Bin laden clan now avoid it). Malaysia has gotten a huge number of cheap Saudi package tourists, witness the hoards of them descending on Langkawi over the last ten years..........these people never were travelers to the US in the first place. Furthermore among the slightly more wealthy packs of male Saudi youth looking for hookers and drugs, their destination was rarely if ever the US.

I'd really enjoy seeing anything to back up these assertions. Thanks in advance.

No, as I said, i know what I am talking about, but sorry, I am not going to explain further on a public bulletin board, just because you challenge me. My integrity and the veracity of my statements are pretty well respected on FT and have been for about 13 years. So no, I will not further elaborate on the SRK thing for you.

Regarding Saudi numbers there are a host of numbers that you can go search and review if it bothers you so much. The big difference in Saudi tourism since 9/11 is essentially that Saudi taxi drivers now go on honeymoons, and that they do so abroad, mostly to SE Asia these days, and mostly on cheap packages, this was not much of a market 15 or even 10 years ago.

I get somewhat similar treatment when I return to the U.S. to visit family, and I'm a U.S. citizen. And I'm not suspicious looking.

I get the most unpleasant treatment I get anywhere in the world, when entering the US, and I am also a US citizen. (FWIW, I am a European pretty much every else in the world.) I don't know whether I am suspicious looking or not.

No, as I said, i know what I am talking about, but sorry, I am not going to explain further on a public bulletin board, just because you challenge me. My integrity and the veracity of my statements are pretty well respected on FT and have been for about 13 years. So no, I will not further elaborate on the SRK thing for you.

NP, I just like to have an indication of how seriously I should take things that people might say on various IBB. Your answer has confirmed my suspicions.

Regarding Saudi numbers there are a host of numbers that you can go search and review if it bothers you so much.

Nah, doesn't bother me in the least; it was something that you brought up, I merely assumed that you'd have the data to hand since it appears to be one of your areas of expertise.

In 2000, the year BEFORE 9/11 and with "visa express" in existence, whereby most Saudis had no interview for their visas, less than 69,000 Saudis applied for visas and their approval rating for visas was above 90%, it took on average about a week for them to get visas.

In 2003, the number was something like 20,000 for the year as that was a particular low point, and there was a much higher refusal rate (I cannot find it).

But in 2005 the number increased to around 50,000 issued.

By the end of 2007 the numbers EXCEEDED the 2000 pre-9/11 numbers ad went above 70,000 for the year.

And guess what? In 2011 slightly more that 102,000 visas were issued to Saudis, the approval rate was over 93% and over 75% received them within a week.

This is a number about 40% HIGHER than pre-9/11, the refusal rate is in line with and better than many countries which are not Muslim nor Arab, and the timing is overall than many other places around the World.

Furthermore there are more Saudis studying in the US than at anytime EVER in the past, more Saudis visiting for business and in fact more coming for touristic purposes. What may have been true for a few years 2002-2007 is not at all any longer true.

Time out.

cblaisd, Moderator, Travel News