Second, we have a LOT of international visitors to our Inn, German, UK, Italian, and this year more Spaniards than ever. This traffic is on the upswing. It was on the downswing, during the last administration when so many US policies were frowned upon (to use a nice word) by the rest of the world, when after 9/11 restrictions to get in to the US were seen as over the top (my guest’s impressions, not necessarily my own). We have a lot to offer our international visitors (have you seen the latest PBS series on our National Parks) and we are one of the few countries that does not market ourselves abroad to other countries. Guests are coming now, I would like to see the US invest a bit in marketing ourselves and I know my numbers will go up and not down.

FYI, I took 2 lengthy bookings today for summer 2010 from Europeans planning their 30 day trips to the US this summer. Remember these countries have lots more vacation time than we do and I for one am thankful that many of them choose to use it coming here.

This is a bill that should pass. It is a win for the travel industry and I believe for my Inn.

I don’t believe anti-American sentiment, as Larry mentions, will rise due to a new $10 fee that covers two years’ of travel to the US. I think any assertion that “Oh boy, here we go with fees…this is just the beginning of the end,” is hyperbolic. What, Larry, do you mean by “Once again…” we are imposing fees on travelers and “do as I say, not as I do”? Americans certainly pay fees to foreign countries when we travel. They’re just baked into airline fees every time we fly (according to my sources at the US Travel Association who have done an extensive analysis of what other countries do).

What essentially is a $5/year fee is miniscule compared to what most EU countries charge visitors every single time they fly out of a European country. An American flying out of London has to pay nearly $70 in a coach seat and $130 in a premium seat every time he or she flies. These fees are turned over to the government, part of which is spent on tourism promotion for the UK. The US is just being more transparent about what our fee is to fund. We’re not hiding it in excessive airline taxes.

These travelers paying the $10 every two years would be citizens of countries that are currently exempt from the $131 visa fee. I don’t think anyone is going to bag their plans to travel to the US because of a $10 bi-annual fee. OK, so let’s suppose 1% of inbound travelers decide to bag their plans specifically because of the new “prohibitive” fee. The question is, will funds received from the 99% of others paying the $10 fee and the resulting marketing efforts to get more travelers to the US help make up for that 1% loss and then some? Well, about 80% of the members of the US Senate think so. The travel industry leadership seem to think so too. I don’t think the travel industry would be pressing for this if they thought it would ultimately hurt inbound travel. Seems counterintuitive to me.

Larry is encouraging me to think of my own situation, and if I would be hesitant to travel to a place of primary interest if there was a fee like this $5/year fee. If my wife and I were interested in traveling to India, and I had to pay $10 per person, I wouldn’t balk at it, and I think most people who travel beyond our borders wouldn’t change their plans either. There is a difference between what Bill is calling “excessive fees” and what I believe is a nominal fee. Bill indicates that there are places to which people are not traveling due to excessive fees, and that it would happen in the US too. What places are you referring to? What countries are suffering from a drop in international visitors due specifically to excessive fees on travelers?

International visitors are very important to the American economy, and more specifically to the travel and hospitality industry, which I happen to represent. When the needle starts moving in the wrong direction, I’m a supporter of doing something about it. I believe the Travel Promotion Act is a sound solution that does not place any burden on travelers that would cause them to stop coming to the US. And as I’ve challenged Bill in previous emails – if you believe this is a bad idea, what would be your SPECIFIC alternative ideas to get the needle moving in the right direction? It’s certainly more helpful to provide ideas than just criticism.

The US Travel Association passed this along:

(1) The legislation establishes a Travel Promotion Fund at the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury will transfer not more than $100 million into the Fund collected from a $10 user fee paid by foreign travelers (every two years) entering the U.S. from Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries. These are the travelers that do not have to spend the time and $131 to receive a visa. The fee will be paid through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, which was authorized by the Department of Homeland Security in 2007 to determine the eligibility of VWP visitors to travel to the U.S.
(2) The legislation gives the Corporation of Travel Promotion the authority to conduct a referendum to determine if the travel industry is interested in imposing an annual assessment on itself to help collect private sector funds. There is a $20m limit on assessment. The Senate bill calls for a referendum, as represented by the Board; the House bill allows the Corporation to determine which industry segments will be included in the initial referendum, what the target assessment level will be, the percent of funds to be levied against each industry category and segment (based on the benefits they bring in), and the assessment methodology and rate of assessment. This language will need to be reconciled in the final bill.

If vast numbers of people stay away from those locales which presently charge excessive fees and charges, one can only imagine why our number of visitors shall decrease.

As formally expressed to Jay, we need better development of our base, before we seek to expand at the International level.

My thought is still focused on the little guy who uses his ” own
dollars ” and not on some Nationalistic approach where legislatively
our ” gold rush ” of dollars will be because in order to get off of the airplane, boat, taxi, et al, visitors must pay the Golden Goose this additional one ten spot tomorrow, and on and on, and on and on ……………….!

Think back a bit with me and I firmly believe that my great-grandparents may have chosen a different location to seek their fortune in this chaotic world of ours.
to improve things

They are fed up with the approach taken by the Americans that continues to be “do what I say, not what I do!”.

The best prescription for a reduction in travel to the US by those living abroad will be to impose this “tax” on them. They will cease considering the US as a destination and the number of travelers will decline, not increase.

Once the tax is in place it will never go away, it will only increase (remember the 1900’s telephone tax?). The law of economics is at work in the world and it is not a necessity for those living abroad to visit the US.

Think about your own personal situation and your attitude if a tax/fee were instituted at the location of your primary travel interest. What would you do? Think about it twice? Most likely – and when you add up the number of foreign visitors, it will have an impact on the industry.

By the way, if the number of foreign based tourists traveling in the US has declined since prior to 9/11, who is the idiot that thinks adding a $10/person tax/fee to their travel will suddenly change their economic behavior and cause them to increase their travel to the US?