And one can see what the US treatment of visitors has done for our tourism industry.

Even as an American I can attest to the stupidity of US visa/entry procedures (like making a tourist visa difficult for a family member that could easily qualify for a Green Card ) Intelligent we are not, but please do emulate US.

Don't worry - I wasn't suggesting the Argentine government should implement fingerprinting and photographing US tourists as a tit for tat measure. That would definitely be a wrong move but I don't have any problems at all with the reciprocity fee.

Interesting debate..... still, while this reciprocal treatment is both fair and justified... I still think it is not smart to levy such a fee at this time.... actually, this stupid K regime could at least have been a little smart and put a simbolic fee of -say- USD30 or 35 that would have still hit home in terms of reciprocity but still not have nearly as much impact on budget minded visitors.

Argentina will be hit with reduced fiscal earnings from the downturn in commodity prices.... we need as much tourism revenue as we can get, and with folks in G8 / OECD nations facing economic uncertainty, spending on leisure/travel will already be hurt... all this does is add fuel to the fire... it just makes no friggen sense at all...

I have to agree with Gaucho . . . I wasn't going to enter this discussion, since I certainly understand the "fairness" of reciprocity; but, based on my own behavior, I believe that it will have some overall negative impact (just as our visa fees are having on travel to the U.S.).

My wife and I will be coming to Argentina in January; that decision was reached months ago. However, here's a bit of my own response regarding visa fees.

We thought, since we're flying as far as Argentina, why not spent a bit of time in Chile and/or Rio? When I discovered Chile's $100 fee per person, I nearly cancelled that side trip; I also played around with flying to Mendoza for a few days and taking a "luxury" bus over the Andes, since the $100 visa applies only to those flying into Chile, but ultimately discarded that idea due to aging and tender backs (smile).

I then looked at Rio. I can obtain very good hotels at excellent prices, so that's not a problem. However, when I looked at the $100 pp visa costs, coupled with what seemed like high airfares (c. $600 US rt pp from BsAs), we ultimately discarded that idea. In other words, the $200 for visas was the straw, or at least one of the straws, that broke the camel's back. Maybe we'll come back in another lifetime.

If I were traveling on essential business, and/or had an employer who would pay the cost, the visa fee would be no problem. However, I'm sensing a world economy where nonessential travel is about to shrink significantly; and the visa fee will become one more negative factor in that equation.

As Gaucho says, a fee of $30 or $35 (US) wouldn't seem like a significant barrier. Alternatively, if the "ABC" countries (Argentina, Brazil and Chile) could reach an agreement where a person flying between/among these countries is not required to pay a visa fee (i.e., only a fee for entrance into the first country for citizens from outside those three countries), that might even become a tool to use as an incentive to encourage more tourism.

Just my thoughts . . . . I think tourism is going to feel a need for more incentives, and fewer disincentives, in the 24 or so months immediately ahead of us.

The tri-nation agreement is actually a great idea, but Im afraid its this type of outside the box thinking that is completely foreign to this crappy K regime/administration.

Yes. If you'll want to do the 3 countries by air, there will be nearly (1) $400 in reciprocity and visa fees, (2) time and additional expense in obtaining Brazil visas, (3) departure airport fees in both Argentina and Brazil. An extra US$1000 per couple certainly makes the trip less palatable.

Turkey reduced the fee collected on arrival from Americans from something like $100 to something like $20 and the result has been that I've been more willing to route through Istanbul and stay over there than back when an overnight layover came with a $100 fee on top of everything else. The $80 reduction in government's front-end take encouraged me to spend a lot more time and -- consequently -- money there than $80.

Planning for a family vacation, a few hundred dollars more can make a difference.

I think the problem here is timing. This should have been implemented ages ago, just when Brazil did it, in response to the US imposing a fee for the visa.
Right now, it doesn't make much sense.

Exactly... had this been done back then... we would have shared the blame/spotlight with Brazil..... doing this now, apart from the current market situation just has Argentina take in 100% of the blame. Just plain stupid...

Maybe they will reduce the cost to $20 when the US reduce the cost for an Argentine to apply for a US visa! If the Argentine government want REAL reciprocity, they should calculate what percentage of the average Argentine monthly salary the US$131 represents and then charge the same percentage of the US average monthly salary. It would be a hell of a lot more than $131.

I still think that the $131 represents a small percentage of the cost of any visit to Argentina and consequently only a small proportion of visitors will change their travel plans as a result. Despite rising costs, Argentina is still a relatively cheap destination for anyone arriving with USD or GBP.

Please don't give the K regime any ideas.... this is bad enough as it is.

Sounds fine in theory but works out poorly in practice.

The idea is to get Argentina to attract the maximum amount of tourists it can rather than to encourage ideas to turn away tourists, right? Family vacations that involve an additional US$393-$655 in expenses can be a deal breaker. Vacations are generally done on budgets, which are getting tighter. Increasing the costs of vacationing when the idea is to attract vacationers whose disposable income is getting nailed makes no sense.

I agree with Gaucho and others; certainly this fee isn't because La Senora suddenly realized that things weren't "fair" as far as reciprocity. That disconnect has been a reality for years. Its a transparent effort to tax those who don't vote, and raise money that way.

Truth be told, most Americans are not accustomed to paying Visa fees, and one of $131 is a steep fee, no matter how long it is valid for. And, while it may indeed be a small component of the total price of a trip to Argentina, for many it is not negligible. And, more importantly, it is a fee the visitor sees right up front, before he/she decides to make the trip, as compared to more hidden fees once you arrive, like hotel taxes and rising food costs and the like. Combined with increased airfares from the US, way more than last year, I do think this will keep many Americans from choosing Argentina, particularly since prices there too have been rising steadily. Certainly, reciprocity is fair - but the question is if it makes sense. To me, I assume the goal is to increase tourism and increase tourist revenue, this approach will do neither.

A little more information became available today from the Interior Minister Florencio Randazzo. The draft regulation will become Immigration Act #25,871, and will come into force on January 1, 2009. Randazzo said that no tourists would stop coming because of the tax ... and that the government hoped to reap 40 million pesos in revenue.

Apparently tourism officials and embassies were caught completely off guard when these proposed regulations were leaked on Monday.

It was specifically mentioned that US citizens would pay US$131, and Australians US$100 per person. For Canadians, the fees would be $245 for a single person, $485 for multiple entry, and $1295 for a family group.

La Nacion raises the issue that since this is not technically a visa, some tourists might have to pay every time they enter Argentina.

In 2007, 286,240 Americans (ranked 2nd), 32,925 Canadians (ranked 14th), and 24,428 Australians (ranked 18th) entered Argentina via EZE.

http://www.infobae.com/contenidos/40...-exijan-visado
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1057264

The visa requirements for Argentines travelling to some countries is completely spurious to the discussion. It's solely a concern whether tourism will be negatively affected by these regulations, which I believe it will. It seems inevitable that tourism from other countries (even those not subject to the new tax), will be decreased given the global economic problems. Specifically I would suspect that Brazilians who rank #1 will be much less likely to visit given the economic turmoil in that country, and the devaluation of the real, making it a more expensive destination for them.

John

Is the amount listed for Canadians above the US$ or CAN$ amount or the AR$ amount? If it's in US$ or CAN$, I suspect that AC's service from Canada to Argentina is going to see a drop in demand in the economy class section.

.... and this will be yet another line to line up in at EZE.