The End Is Near

[Guest]

% high end Tourists? Havent' you read, that they want to sell the 1Mio Baht member card a 1Mio times? I didn't know, that these rich guys are standing in line for that card.

[Guest]

[color:"blue"]Nana would love to have a day where revenues top the million baht (again).

 

[/color]

---

 

They do.

 

Everyday. (At least in high season)

 

 

Other than that I agree with all you said.

[sfinkz]

"Unfortunately there seems to be a lack of genuinelly unique or interesting tourist locations."

__________________________________________________

I would agree with other posters here that nothing in Thailand is truly world class but rather it is the sum of her parts. As far as Issarn is concerned, then, a trip would mean tracking down the national parks scattered about and historic sites of Phanom Rung (Buriram) and Phimai (Korat) and following the rivers for fresh air, enlightment and exercise during the day and retreating to the city centers of NR, KK, UT, UR, NP, NK in the evening for food, drink, atmosphere and people-watching. Staying on the move, an easy diversion for a week minimum, without crossing borders, particularly enjoyable by motorbike, sure to arouse the senses and remind yourself you are on the other side of the world, unlike the beach resorts. And with all due respect, IMO, best done without the baggage of a daughter of the soil (unless encountered enroute).

[sfinkz]

"The group wasn't that big (80 people on average) but they spend a million baht a day just in the hotel...Nana would love to have a day where revenues top the million baht..."

_________________________________________________

 

This is the type of visitor--the business traveller--TAT seems to yearn for but this sector is still sluggish all over the globe whereas Joe-average-tourist is on the rebound. It is the anticipated business market which was instrumental in the rehabilitation of Pattaya, the classic case study of the effects of mass tourism as Thailand's first destination and being in close proximity to Bangkok, which also has the only large convention facility outside the capital.

 

Any number of hotels, however, could easily accomodate a relatively small group of 80 people for the perfunctory meeting and meals--turning the boys loose on the golf course during the day and the bars at night and everyone is happy---and be delighted with the million baht. This equates to US$300/day, not all that much for a 5-star property. TAT, now that they have reached 10 million visitors, has long sought an average daily outlay of US$100 and never quite reached this ($98 most recent figures). Dealing in round numbers, I'm sure they would also like to increase average stay to 10 days from the present eight (and thus US$10 billion a year).

 

Since business travellers stay for short periods that $300 a day for a long-weekend or short-week in a 5-star property--with a lot of profits returning overseas--does not equal a scruffy backpacker seeking escape and/or inspiration exhausting his 30-day visa on a US$15-20 a day budget in local guesthouses and noodle shops.

 

Other figures (of the 10 million arrivals):

 

60% Asian (who stay the shortest at 5 days and spend the most per day at US$115.)

 

28% European (who, conversely, stay the longest, 13.5 days, and spend the least per day @ $70.) (Scandanavians the current hot market).

 

7% Americas (11.2 days and $90 a day.)

 

3% Oceania (10 days at $80 a day.)

 

2% Mid-East and 1% African.

 

It is the Asians (34% East (Japanese the most, Chinese fastest-growing), 22% ASEAN and 3% South of the aggregate total) invisible perhaps to most farangs, who push their expenditures up with shopping as the No. 1 activity (as is true of Thais travelling abroad). And it may be that the long-nosers are shopping instead for services, not goods, which may not be either documented or admitted to.

 

[pattaya127]

(unless encountered enroute).

-----------------------

goes without saying ... And it will happen!

[Falang]

personally, i don't see any way those so called "high end" tourists would come for here other than sex.

---

[color:"blue"] [/color]

 

I have to desagree on that, I come every year in Thailand and every year I go to the Andaman region and in high season almost all high end hotel are fully book.

Now that the Phuket airport is really a international airport some people are coming from Asian and European countries directly to Phuket and they never go to Bangkok or other destination in Thailand and one of the growing business for Phuket travel agency is selling 2 or 3 day trip to Bangkok or Chiang Mai from Phuket.

 

I have a friend in Phuket who have a travel agency and a real estate agency and business is booming for high end condos and high end houses around the island.

 

Since a few year, most of the new hotel on Phuket are medium and high end hotels.

 

Now you can see big groups from Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong visiting the island and they are all staying in medium and high end places.

 

In Patong Beach big cruising ship throw the anchor in the bay for a few days and thousand of high end tourists are pourring from these boats to buy everything on Beach Road and they are flooding every restaurants on Beach Road every night. I saw a Thai women who sell coconut selling all her coconuts from her big cart to these tourists in about 20 minutes and none have try to negociate the prices.

 

Money is pourring like rain between October and the end of March in the region and the sex tourists is a minority in Phuket.

[pattaya127]

I must admit that a lot of the new investments in hotels and resorts is gearing up to high-end tourists. Just reading a book with one chapter on that. A lot of tycoons, and provincial rich politicos (often the same) have managed to get the titles on some real good land over the last decade or so, and now are into "eco-tourism", an excuse which means, in their mind: "Charge!!! ($$)".

[Guest]

 

really. I was there in April and the place was dead. I even

kicked a couple sleeping dogs to insure I was not transplanted some othe planet. Last time I seen it that dead was in July 95.

Then again I did not go to any high end places

and with Songkran just a few days away before I pulled anchor.

[Guest]

The tourism industry constitutes only about 5-6 percent of GDP. A drop in tourists (for instance because of the social order campaign) has only a small effect on the overall economy.

---

" only about 5-6 percent of GDP" When something is "only" 5-6% in an economy the size of Thailand's, it is significant.

 

Actually the figures I have seen range from 6-9%, but lets assume for the sake of argument it is on the low side. First, 5-6% is quite substantial for any country, but it is particularly significant when an economy has the size and profile of Thailand's economy.

 

Second, every figure I have seen refers only to money spent in legitimate venues such as hotels, airfare, etc. where figures are readily available. None of the figures include money spent in bars and other unofficial venues. Now the people on this board are in the best position to compare how much they spend on hotels and airfare vs how much they spend in NEP bars, MPs and other unofficial venues. Is it 50%, 100%, 200% of what you spend on hotels and airfare - the only categories that the offical tourism statistics pick up? Be honest with yourself when figuring out the percentages, and that will start to give you some sense of how much the official statistics understate tourism's contribution to the Thai economy. Single men make up a large bulk of the tourist profile here, and there is a reason.

 

Third, consider where much of the tourism money, particularly the unofficial spending, goes. It goes to a segment of the population that would otherwise be making and spending substantially less money but for the tourism and nightlife industries. The people working in these industries would not otherwise be working in banks and insurance firms and pulling down big salaries but for Thailan's purient nightlife. In other words, the tourism industry makes an otherwise unproductive segment of the population very productive. It provides substantial incomes to people who would otherwise have very low incomes.

 

Fourth, if tourism is insignificant, why has every Thai government for the last 15+ years fretted so much about the tourism industry? You'll here all sorts of nonsense about why tourists do or don't come here ("for the temples/not the nightlife!"), but no one ever claims the industry is insignificant to the Thai economy. Every Thai government for at least the past 15 years has agreed that tourism is extremely important to the economy.

[Guest]

If Thailand is such an under achiver why are they having all these problems with people who say they are so beneficial to

the country that will not make the limit on income to continue to stay in Thailand. When they can get all these highly educated teachers and professionals for next to nothing what is their problem. What other country can do this that is putting higher requirements to limit getting all these beneficial high spending long time professionals and toursit that stay for years on end.

 

Just maybe Thailand does see that these long stay people who think they continue to be so valueable because of the buffalo they help support are crying on their way out. What about the 90 day tourist visa people who have been their for years and the ones that will not be allowed to stay because not enough income are doing the same who is

doing the crying.

 

Could it just be that the government is right and see better value and long term prosperity by doing so. To many low income long stay tourist and foreigners just may in fact cost more in the long run.

Would it not make better sense to maximize the amount of people allowed to the resources needed for the income produced be adjusted to long term prosperity outlook and goals.

 

How many places this year was having problems with water and sewage that could not support the growth of population in some areas. They might as well fine tune and get as much as they can with what they have. How many people that are forced to leave will not sell what they leave behind and will continue to come back time after time again.

How many will send money to whoever they leave behind.

How many will take someone with them when they leave.

Short term loss may be for long term gains.

 

Could you imagine if your own countries never up graded their cities and towns for future growth, how they would be.

Most of you are telling Thailand not to do so. Why? Can anyone explain this why should they not move into the future if the past is so screwed up. Makes you wonder doesn't it.

Well one thing it makes you know who not to listen to.

 

Thailand needs to move into the future to preserve the past.

Do not sell out your citizens for short sighted gains and convience. Laws must be upgraded and changed if you are ever to have a future. Save Thailand it is yours to do so.

You are a rampant wreck of a foreign invasion that treat you

as a cheap undignified country.