http://www.aruba-bb.com/viewtopic.php?t=32323&sid=46cc57352d80bffe1c0af40f3b168ba4
Posted by Eddy: Fri Jun 16, 2006
Stay-over Tourism Down, Room Rates Up And Occupancy Rate Still At High Level
ORANJESTAD-
The amount of stay-over arrivals fell by 15.8 percent in January 2006 in comparison to January 2005, to a total amount of 55.590 visitors. The number of visitor nights spent declined by 10 percent to 559,554 nights in January 2006 in comparison to the same month last year. The average hotel occupancy rate registered a decline of 2.7 percentage points to 83.1 percent in January 2006 in comparison to 85.8 percent in January 2005.
Different factors contributed to the decline in stay-over arrivals in January 2006 according to the Aruba Tourism Authority (ATA). One of the main factors is that there was approximately 3 percent less room inventory attributed to the closure of the Occidental Grand for renovations. The closure represented approximately 3,000+ stay-over visitors that had occupied these rooms the year before.
In addition to a temporary loss in room inventory other factors were mentioned that include high room rates that resulted in higher revenues for January 2006. Then there is the cancellation of numerous charter flights due to fierce competition of scheduled airlift offering attractive fares. Aruba received 4,090 less charter seats in January 2006 compared to January 2005.
The aftermath of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway was also mentioned in addition to the increase of aggressive competition amongst other destinations in the Caribbean region.
North America
Aruba's main generating market
the U.S. fell by 20.1 percent to 40,190 American arrivals in January 2006 in comparison to 50,292 Americans that visited the island in January 2005. The U.S. market-share is of 72.3 percent of the total amount of visitors that arrived in Aruba in January 2006.
Arrivals from the Northeast region of the U.S. fell by 16 percent to a total of 10,102 Americans, arrivals from the Midwest region fell by 36 percent. The fall in arrivals from the U.S. Northeast and Midwest regions is attributed to the cancellation of charters (Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis) and the reduction of seats from Boston.
The Western region is the only U.S. region that grew. Arrivals from the West coast grew by 16.6 percent, representing a total of 2,575 American arrivals and a market-share of 6.4 percent from the total amount of U.S. arrivals that visited the island in January 2006.
The U.S. West coast was less affected by the Natalee Holloway disappearance and Americans from the West Coast had the tendency to stay at other branded high-rise hotels. The Occidental renovations did not play a factor in the decision making of visitors from that region according to ATA. Increase air connection from the West coast mainly from Houston contributed positively to the growth.
Arrivals from Canada grew by 5.3 percent in January 2006 in comparison to January 2005. Aruba welcomed 3,258 Canadians in January 2006 in comparison to 3,094 Canadians in January 2005.
To continue reading the article:
Aurba Bulletin Board
There is a discrepancy in the figures in the above article, when compared with the figures posted last fall by the Central Bank of Aruba.
According to Central Bank of Aruba, Oct 2005 - Table 10, last fall:
For January, 2005 the "Average hotel occupancy rate" was 86.3%, not 85.8% as posted in this article. Therefore, the actual decline is 3.2%, not the 2.7%, as listed in this article.
The other discrepancy with the figures in this article is:
"...in comparison to 50,292 Americans that visited the island in January 2005.
From the Oct, 2005 bank Table 10, the actual figure of "Americans that visited the island in January, 2005" was 50,481, not 50,292 as stated in this article.
But, there is something even more disturbing going on here.
When I compare the Oct, 2005 Table 10 that comes up now at:
Central Bank of Aruba
one column of figures has changed from the table that I copied last fall.
It is Column #11 "Average hotel occup rate". Almost every figure has been changed from last fall.
The figures for Jan turu Oct, 2005, Column #11, "Average hotel occup rate", when first posted last fall were:
2005:
Jan 86.3
Feb 89.8
Mar 88.9
Apr 85.0
May 79.0
Jun 78.3
Jul 85.9
Aug 83.0
Sep 69.3
Oct 77.8
Now the website for Table 10 Column #11 shows these figures:
2005:
Jan 85.8
Feb 89.4
Mar 88.8
Apr 86.1
May 78.0
Jun 78.1
Jul 86.3
Aug 83.5
Sep 69.1
Oct 77.8
As far as I can tell, all the other figures for Jan thru Oct, 2005 remain the same in both instances of Table 10.
The changes are small, but when all the other figures in the chart remain the same, how can the "Average hotel occup rate" percentages" possibly change? Why would someone go to all the trouble to make these changes?
I don't have time now to try to puzzle it out, but for sure something smells fishy in these revised figures.