Visa/reciprocity fee likely
 

This morning the media are reporting that the Presidenta is about to sign a decree that will require tourists to pay a fee upon arrival equal to that charged by some 116 countries for Argentine tourists (similar to Chile and Brazil).

Exempt will be those countries that allow Argentines visa-free travel (including other SA countries, EU members, Japan, Israel, South Africa, New Zealand, Morocco, Algeria, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.

In the case of the US, the fee will be US$131.

According to official statistics that are published on the website of the Ministry of Tourism, in 2007 there were 4,474,454 tourists, of whom 442,704 (nearly 10 per cent) were from the United States or Canada.

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/el...008-10-06.html

John

While this measure is easy to justify, I still think that it is a stupid measure that ends up hurting tourism.

:td: :td: :td: :td: :td:

I am with Gaucho100k on this -- reciprocity fee is easy to justify but still doesn't make sense when the objective is to attract as many tourists as possible.

When the North American and European economic situation is on a rough road -- and is only going to get rougher in the near term -- this approach doesn't help to attract tourists (who are already inclined to cut back on leisure activities due to declining real incomes) or even conference planners / conference attendees (when the business travellers are also trying to reduce costs tremendously in whatever ways they can).

I agree.

I wonder if Global Exchange will get to set up a cambio before immigration for tourists that don't have dollars/pesos ... Otherwise they will have to set up ATMs that can deliver enough cash ... but what about the network limitations for withdrawals? ... and the changing exchange rates ...

Yikes! We're flying down on Thursday and landing early Friday morning, hopefully it's not setup that quickly

It certainly would have made Mrs. ralfp & I think twice about our last minute weekend trip to BA (from IAH) last year. Given that we used miles and stayed 1 night (two on the airplane) the fee would have significantly altered the cost equation.

However, most trips aren't like that; the $131 fee would be a pretty small increase in cost. The real issue would probably be the distasteful feeling that the fee would give tourists, something that could easily alter perceptions of the experience (and chances of returning or recommending Argentina to friends).

I agree with you on this one - for most people, the extra cost is minimal when one considers the total trip cost and I think only a small percentage of tourists will let it affect their choice of destination.

As for the distasteful feeling, I get that often when entering the US and have to have my fingerprints and photo taken while the CBP officer is asking me in a (usually) brusque manner "What are you here for?"

Ouch !
 

Ouch ! This is not good news.

While I can certainly appreciate the sentiment of a "reciprocity" fee, I agree completely with previous posters that this has the potential to hurt the tourism industry. Actually I am surprised that only 10 % of Argentine visitors are from USA / Canada.

Am I safe in assuming that we do NOT pass through Argentine immigration if connecting in EZE ? Flying AA in November from DFW - EZE, then EZE - MVD.

Am I also safe assuming that this fee won't be collected for land / sea arrivals ( ala Chile ) ?

If anyone can provide an English translation to the key points in the article that would be much appreciated. I can pick out bits and pieces, but my Spanish is not good.

I would imagine the highest % is from Brasil.

There's really not much else than can be gleaned from the news media accounts.

We don't know, when, where, or how it will be implemented. Or whether multiple entries will be permitted with a single payment/passport notation.

John

Yes, you can stay airside and do not have to pass through Argentine immigration.

John

Correct - there is no need to leave the secure area or pass through immigration at EZE when connecting onto another international flight so no problems there.

Apart from that, it's not safe to assume anything until the law has been signed and implemented. According to the article that could be as early as this week but we'll have to wait and see.

According to the article, the Interior Ministry have based the plan on the norms applying in Brasil and Chile which would suggest that if Chile don't charge for an entry via land, Argentina won't either.

It goes on to say "Initially, the tax will be charged at airports which is where almost all tourists enter the country and where the infrastructure is already in place to be able to implement the system without difficulties. The immigration authorities will be able to designate the places where the tax will be charged, taking into account the ability to operate the system, the volume of passengers passing through and the available infrastructure"

I doubt it will be implemented at the land crossings (at least initially). Some of these are little more than a hut with a couple of officers monitoring the border so it would be difficult to implement the system there.

The article continues: "The money raised from the tax will go towards the maintenance and modernization of the infrastructure, resources and technology of the border points at air, land, sea and river borders"

Hope this quick translation helps clarify a little more.

Although I would reluctantly pay the fee on future visits, I've avoided visiting Brazil and Chile (by air) in the past due to the reciprocity fee. At least getting a visa from the Argentine embassy will not be required unlike Brazil.

If it has to be done, the fee should be good for the life of the passport like Chile.

I'll counter and support Argentine on this one though it'll hurt my pocketbook when I go there on future trips. Canada charges Argentinean citizens ARS 245 for single-entry visa, ARS 485 for a multiple-entry.

On my last few trips to Argentina, the bulk of tourists seem to be from Europe (lots of Italians, Spaniards, Brits and Germans - including a group that had brought their M-B geladewagens with them, and a smattering of New Zealanders. Maybe Argentina thinks it can forgo N. American (-Mexico) tourists, and I certainly hope they can.

Agree. I'm 100% in favor of visa fee reciprocity in those cases where a country believes that to be in its best interests.

It's worth pointing out that in such cases, Americans are completely in control of how much they pay for a visa. I see lots of complaints on FT about visa reciprocity fees, yet few efforts by those complainers to get the U.S. government to reduce visa fees imposed on foreign tourists.

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 :confused:) 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... :mad:

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... :mad:

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.

It's pesos (since it's a reciprocal fee that Argentines would pay to the Canadian Embassy in BsAs):

La embajada de Canadá tiene otro sistema: se pagan 245 pesos argentinos por una sola entrada en ese país, $ 485 por entradas múltiples y $ 1295 por ingreso de un grupo familiar. Australia cobra 100 dólares la visa.

John

I agree
 

As an Argentinean I agree with the reciprocity fee.

If USA citizens would like to pay less, they can easily write to their house and senate representatives.

Cheap tourists do not really count towards the economy and if you consider $131 a show-stopper, it's because you fall in this category.

On the other side, if we want to atract more tourism, we must invest in infrastructure, hotels, security and in a gang to incinerate Global Exchange and every other company that robes visitors.

LR

"Cheap tourists" do really count towards economic contribution. First they do spend money. Second they encourage others to visit too and to spend money there. The Bhutan approach to tourism is inappropriate for Argentina.

Perhaps Argentine tourists in the US would also be happy to pay twice the price for internal flights compared to US residents?

Tit-for-tat is a poor way to encourage tourism.

John

If this is technically "not a visa" what is it. For example if like some of us we have the resident visa but are U.S. citizens do we pay an entry fee each time we enter or continue with the visa we have... TO make it more complicated what if you are dual citizen of U.S. and european country but your Argentina visa is in your U.S. passport. THe easy answer is that you can enter with euro passport but will not have stamp or entry on Argentine visa so you will have hard time renewing it and proving that you were there for renewal and other reasons

Assuming that Argentina implements the fee as Chile has done, then this is a reciprocity fee, pure and simple: the Argentine authorities charge citizens of countries that require Argentines to obtain visas to visit, the same amount that Argentines are charged for those visas. This is NOT a visa; that is granted on entry, independently of the reciprocity fee. End of story.

If you have two passports one of which is from a country whose citizens are not charged the reciprocity fee and who are granted a visa on entry to Argentina, then use that passport to avoid paying the reciprocity fee.

There has been strong internal criticism following yesterday's official announcement of the impending tax. Leaders in the tourist industry are strongly condemning the proposed legislation as harmful to the tourist industry.

An Interior Ministry spokesperson also said that all the details hadn't been decided yet (referencing the US in particular):

Sin embargo, hay países que otorgan la visa a discreción, esto es, en función de los requisitos que reúne el solicitante, como los Estados Unidos. "Aún no se decidió cómo será el procedimiento en esos casos", dijeron voceros del Ministerio del Interior.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1057553

John

I'm glad I will miss this (I head to Argentina in two weeks). Obviously I'm not in dire straits, since I'm taking a vacation in Argentina, but I used miles because ticket prices are so high and I've had to keep planned activities within a budget. The fee would probably not prevent me from going to Argentina, but it definitely would leave me with $131 less to spend on a trip to an estancia, or shoes at Comme il Faut, or a few pricier meals, or wine at Gaucho100K's store.

I agree that Argentina has every right to institute a reciprocal fee and I wish the U.S. would eliminate the one it charges Argentines, but the timing of this seems utterly bizarre.

I don't agree with the differential price policy, however that specific policy is not directed only to US residents, but to every visitor. So that's a different story.

Even more, I cannot get how we can charge USD600 for a flight that in Europe would be EUR100 at most. We cannot be that inneficient; or some companies are making a lot of money.

LR

Tit for tat is a reasonable response: I approve. If you don't like it, I suggest you contact your representatives in Congress.