Bangkok Ranks 3rd In Global Top 20 Destination Cities

[webfact]

TOP CITIES

Bangkok ranks 3rd in global top 20 destination cities

By The Nation

Bangkok is on the list of global top 20 destination cities in terms of visitor arrivals and spending, according to MasterCard Worldwide survey.

Yet, reflected through the growth rate in 2011 against 2010, the ranking is likely to slip soon.

In the visitor arrivals category, European cities dominate with 10 out of the 20, and with London and Paris in first and second position, respectively, attracting 20.1 million and 18.1 million, respectively.

Cities in Asia/Pacific come second, accounting for eight of the top 20. Bangkok occupies the third position with the number of 11.5 million visitors, testifying to its attraction as a popular tourist destination. Dubai, in the Middle East, is ranked ninth. Only one city in North America is in the top 20, New York, which is ranked twelfth.

The survey covered 132 destination cities.

Global top 20 destination cities by international visitors (2011)

1. London 20.1m

2. Paris 18.1m

3. Bangkok 11.5m

4. Singapore 11.4m

5. Hong Kong 10.9m

6. Madrid 10.1m

7. Istanbul 9.4m

8. Frankfurt 8.4m

9. Dubai 7.9m

10. Rome 7.9m

11. Seoul 7.9m

12. New York 7.6m

13. Amsterdam 7.4m

14. Kuala Lumpur 6.9m

15. Milan 6.7m

16. Barcelona 6.7m

17. Vienna 6.2m

18. Shanghai 5.5m

19. Taipei 5.4m

20. Tokyo 5.0m

Bangkok's ranking seems at risk, though. Based on the annualised growth rate, Barcelona is outstanding with the 24.3 per cent rate, followed by Malaysia (21.8 per cent). Bangkok is not on the top 10 list with the highest growth rates.

Destination Cities Growth Rate

Barcelona 24.3%

Kuala Lumpur 21.8%

Istanbul 20.4%

Shanghai 18.6%

Hong Kong 17.4%

Dubai 17.3%

Taipei 16.9%

Singapore 14.5%

Tokyo 13.5%

New York 11.7%

"Instead, from the perspective of growth, six of the top 10 are in Asia, one in the Middle East and one in North America. This kind of growth pattern strongly suggests that destination cities in emerging markets in Asia will continue to grow in importance," MasterCard said.

In the spending category, Bangkok ranked the fourth, with the spending of US$14.4 billion compared to $25.6 billion in London, $20.3 million in New York and $14.6 million in Paris. Compared to 2010, Bangkok's visitor spending showed a growth rate of 18.6 per cent.

Global Top 20 destination cities by international visitor spending (2011)

1. London $25.6bn

2. New York $20.3bn

3. Paris $14.6bn

4. Bangkok $14.4bn

5. Frankfurt $14.0bn

6. Sydney $13.8bn

7. Los Angeles $12.5bn

8. Madrid $11.8bn

9. Singapore $10.8bn

10. Hong Kong $10.4bn

-- The Nation 2011-06-30

[Thai at Heart]

They must have counted all the Red shirts from outside Bangkok for all the cumulative days that they spent in town.

50k x 40 days.

[geovalin]

They must have counted all the Red shirts from outside Bangkok for all the cumulative days that they spent in town.

50k x 40 days.

I'm sorry but to mention the Red shirts in any post even if the topic has nothing to do is kinda boring, and, by the way, your joke (if it was a joke) was not so funny.

Topic: Rain is coming.

Your post: Well, it will cool the Red Shirt mind.

Topic: Vaccine against malaria.

Your post: No need, if a mosquito bite a Red Shirt, it will die immediately.

Topic: Red Cross fair

Your post: Red shirt fair is at Rajaprasong.

[ginjag]

They must have counted all the Red shirts from outside Bangkok for all the cumulative days that they spent in town.

50k x 40 days.

:lol::lol: Would be interesting reading if I hadn't read about Thai In Airlines being 5th in world. And everyone says international visitors are way down, crying out for tourists, but these figures would have made them No 1, hadn't it been for the domestic disruption But I am repeatedly told I have to believe in stats, not what I think, or do or see, just treat them as gospel so I present the bronze medal to BKK.

It would be nice if totally true. (survey by Mastercard, if you have one !!!!

[Thai at Heart]

They must have counted all the Red shirts from outside Bangkok for all the cumulative days that they spent in town.

50k x 40 days.

I'm sorry but to mention the Red shirts in any post even if the topic has nothing to do is kinda boring, and, by the way, your joke (if it was a joke) was not so funny.

Topic: Rain is coming.

Your post: Well, it will cool the Red Shirt mind.

Topic: Vaccine against malaria.

Your post: No need, if a mosquito bite a Red Shirt, it will die immediately.

Topic: Red Cross fair

Your post: Red shirt fair is at Rajaprasong.

I am not dissing the red shirts in any way. Loosen up. Maybe they counted the army who came from out of town also. Maybe all the overseas reporters are in the stats too.

If you look a the logic of saying that Bangkok was the 3rd most visited city in the world with 11mn visitors last year, but that the total tourism arrivals for the whole country were 17mn (including all the day trippers crossing by land), you would arrive at the fact that the total amount of visitors who actually entered Bangkok was nowhere near 11mn. Hence, wondering where they got hold of such a grossly inflated number, one can only assume that since there was a large influx of people (who normally wouldn't stay in Bangkok) maybe they counted the protesters, and possibly the army, and the BBC and CNN.

As for another strange stat, claiming that Bangkok alone made up 14bn USD of revenue, of a total GDP of 520bn, and yet the government claims that tourism only makes up 6% of GDP, shows that the entire statistical analysis of tourism in this country is complete bunkum.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Thai at Heart

[ginjag]

They must have counted all the Red shirts from outside Bangkok for all the cumulative days that they spent in town.

50k x 40 days.

I'm sorry but to mention the Red shirts in any post even if the topic has nothing to do is kinda boring, and, by the way, your joke (if it was a joke) was not so funny.

Topic: Rain is coming.

Your post: Well, it will cool the Red Shirt mind.

Topic: Vaccine against malaria.

Your post: No need, if a mosquito bite a Red Shirt, it will die immediately.

Topic: Red Cross fair

Your post: Red shirt fair is at Rajaprasong.

I am not dissing the red shirts in any way. Loosen up. Maybe they counted the army who came from out of town also. Maybe all the overseas reporters are in the stats too.

If you look a the logic of saying that Bangkok was the 3rd most visited city in the world with 11mn visitors last year, but that the total tourism arrivals for the whole country were 17mn (including all the day trippers crossing by land), you would arrive at the fact that the total amount of visitors who actually entered Bangkok was nowhere near 11mn. Hence, wondering where they got hold of such a grossly inflated number, one can only assume that since there was a large influx of people (who normally wouldn't stay in Bangkok) maybe they counted the protesters, and possibly the army, and the BBC and CNN.

As for another strange stat, claiming that Bangkok alone made up 14bn USD of revenue, of a total GDP of 520bn, and yet the government claims that tourism only makes up 6% of GDP, shows that the entire statistical analysis of tourism in this country is complete bunkum.

Good post my man!----my point from an earlier post about the 6% crap, but was shouted at for not believing stats by the google/stats posters..........................something smells about these worldwide stats. Airline ==BKK==TAT==AOT-----please.

[wolf5370]

Well, I wonder how BKK will fare in next year's list if things go badly after the election (which is likely) - and BKK hits the international destination warning lists again. I'm sure that the $14.4 Bn would help the parties (almost all of them) attain their pipe-dream election promises!

[noahvail]

(snipped)

As for another strange stat, claiming that Bangkok alone made up 14bn USD of revenue, of a total GDP of 520bn, and yet the government claims that tourism only makes up 6% of GDP, shows that the entire statistical analysis of tourism in this country is complete bunkum.

Let's see... using the numbers you provided, 14bn divided by 520bn equals 2.69%. So, a little less than half of tourism revenue fell to BKK, the balance to the rest of the country. Sounds plausible to me.

[Beechboy]

Bangkok apart, it beats me why London remains so popular. magnificent and lively city that it admittedly is, it is Incredibly expensive, congested, over-crowded and, in IMHO not particularly friendly. I was born there (Greenwich) by the way, but would never want to live there again and visit it rarely these days.

Any fellow Englishmen wish to support our great capital city?

Edited June 30, 2011 by Beechboy

[wolf5370]

They must have counted all the Red shirts from outside Bangkok for all the cumulative days that they spent in town.

50k x 40 days.

I'm sorry but to mention the Red shirts in any post even if the topic has nothing to do is kinda boring, and, by the way, your joke (if it was a joke) was not so funny.

Topic: Rain is coming.

Your post: Well, it will cool the Red Shirt mind.

Topic: Vaccine against malaria.

Your post: No need, if a mosquito bite a Red Shirt, it will die immediately.

Topic: Red Cross fair

Your post: Red shirt fair is at Rajaprasong.

I am not dissing the red shirts in any way. Loosen up. Maybe they counted the army who came from out of town also. Maybe all the overseas reporters are in the stats too.

If you look a the logic of saying that Bangkok was the 3rd most visited city in the world with 11mn visitors last year, but that the total tourism arrivals for the whole country were 17mn (including all the day trippers crossing by land), you would arrive at the fact that the total amount of visitors who actually entered Bangkok was nowhere near 11mn. Hence, wondering where they got hold of such a grossly inflated number, one can only assume that since there was a large influx of people (who normally wouldn't stay in Bangkok) maybe they counted the protesters, and possibly the army, and the BBC and CNN.

As for another strange stat, claiming that Bangkok alone made up 14bn USD of revenue, of a total GDP of 520bn, and yet the government claims that tourism only makes up 6% of GDP, shows that the entire statistical analysis of tourism in this country is complete bunkum.

Well I guess we must consider that almost all international visitors to Thailand go through BKK (if at least as transit) - also most expats are visitors (many make trips every 2 weeks if they use border crossings and tourist waver entry stamps - though as BKK does not border any foreign country other than by the Pacific, that only arivals cards stating BKK as destination/address in country could include this). The 6% always seemed rubbish - seemed to me it only included hotels and airport taxes - as practically no one pays tax in this country, it would be difficult to capture value of tourism to the general ecconomy in country outside of this.

[Thai at Heart]

(snipped)

As for another strange stat, claiming that Bangkok alone made up 14bn USD of revenue, of a total GDP of 520bn, and yet the government claims that tourism only makes up 6% of GDP, shows that the entire statistical analysis of tourism in this country is complete bunkum.

Let's see... using the numbers you provided, 14bn divided by 520bn equals 2.69%. So, a little less than half of tourism revenue fell to BKK, the balance to the rest of the country. Sounds plausible to me.

Do you believe that the majority of time spent by a tourist is in Bangkok itself? Of course, these possible numbers include visitors for conferences, but at least from all of the people that I have ever recommended to come over here, they stay a few days in Bangkok and then flit out to the islands or elsewhere. I have to revise my numbers a bit, i have found a link to show total for last year was 15.8mn tourist arrivals.

http://www.thaiwebsites.com/tourism.asp

This then is Phuket alone. Of course, some could have gone to both Bangkok and Phuket, but if so,does this mean that an average arrival goes to Bangkok, Phuket, Samui, then Chiangmai and a little bit somewhere else on their holiday? Some, but not many.

Figures tabulated by the Ministry of Tourism and Sports in January-June 2010, showed total arrivals by nationality of 7,515,025 up from 6,609,313 or up 13.70% over the same period of 2009.

Of course, we won't wonder why, when the protests were going on, all the hotel members bleated and got various breaks from the government. Yet lo and behold, despite all the disruption last year, the global financial crisis, Bangkok had a bumper year?

[ginjag]

Bangkok apart, it beats me why London remains so popular. magnificent and lively city that it admittedly is, it is Incredibly expensive, congested, over-crowded and, in IMHO not particularly friendly. I was born there (Greenwich) by the way, but would never want to live there again and visit it rarely these days.

Any fellow Englishmen wish to support our great capital city?

Ex Soho dweller was I, These are stats we have to remember, now we have all these sites to get them from, posters are becoming more crazed with them, problem being they are not from 1 major reliable source.

Just to add did you leave the U.K. at the same time the Cutty Sark was torched ?? :lol:

[Thai at Heart]

They must have counted all the Red shirts from outside Bangkok for all the cumulative days that they spent in town.

50k x 40 days.

I'm sorry but to mention the Red shirts in any post even if the topic has nothing to do is kinda boring, and, by the way, your joke (if it was a joke) was not so funny.

Topic: Rain is coming.

Your post: Well, it will cool the Red Shirt mind.

Topic: Vaccine against malaria.

Your post: No need, if a mosquito bite a Red Shirt, it will die immediately.

Topic: Red Cross fair

Your post: Red shirt fair is at Rajaprasong.

I am not dissing the red shirts in any way. Loosen up. Maybe they counted the army who came from out of town also. Maybe all the overseas reporters are in the stats too.

If you look a the logic of saying that Bangkok was the 3rd most visited city in the world with 11mn visitors last year, but that the total tourism arrivals for the whole country were 17mn (including all the day trippers crossing by land), you would arrive at the fact that the total amount of visitors who actually entered Bangkok was nowhere near 11mn. Hence, wondering where they got hold of such a grossly inflated number, one can only assume that since there was a large influx of people (who normally wouldn't stay in Bangkok) maybe they counted the protesters, and possibly the army, and the BBC and CNN.

As for another strange stat, claiming that Bangkok alone made up 14bn USD of revenue, of a total GDP of 520bn, and yet the government claims that tourism only makes up 6% of GDP, shows that the entire statistical analysis of tourism in this country is complete bunkum.

Well I guess we must consider that almost all international visitors to Thailand go through BKK (if at least as transit) - also most expats are visitors (many make trips every 2 weeks if they use border crossings and tourist waver entry stamps - though as BKK does not border any foreign country other than by the Pacific, that only arivals cards stating BKK as destination/address in country could include this). The 6% always seemed rubbish - seemed to me it only included hotels and airport taxes - as practically no one pays tax in this country, it would be difficult to capture value of tourism to the general ecconomy in country outside of this.

Well, I agree with everything you say. But the TAT numbers are double counted, count all arrivals including border hoppers, the regional tourism numbers don't tally with the national numbers, the GDP numbers don't count half of an average sex tourist's daily spend.

So to conclude, the statistical analysis of tourism in Thailand is bunkum. I will start taking it seriously when they attempt to separate all the daily arrivals across the borders for business and genuine foreign holidaymakers coming for a holiday. Until then, then numbers are bunkum.

The mandarins in Bangkok come up with numbers to show growth to get a new Merc and their bonus, meanwhile, the hotels on the beach are pleading poverty.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Thai at Heart

[DP25]

The $15 billion dollar estimate for tourism I've always seen has been for the entire country, not just Bangkok. They fly in to Bangkok, but of course you don't know exactly where they spend it. You only estimate how long they stay and how much they spend per day.

As for tourism being 6%, it is probably much less. If I remember right they estimate the average person spends like $250 per day which seems a lot to me. Plus much of the domestic economy isn't recorded, so you have tourism probably being over estimated and the economy under estimated.

[wolf5370]

Bangkok apart, it beats me why London remains so popular. magnificent and lively city that it admittedly is, it is Incredibly expensive, congested, over-crowded and, in IMHO not particularly friendly. I was born there (Greenwich) by the way, but would never want to live there again and visit it rarely these days.

Any fellow Englishmen wish to support our great capital city?

Many American's and Australian's visit London - its the "old country" and "sense of history" that's everywhere in London IMO - remember, other than Greenwhich park, the Int. Date Line and the museaums (once the Cutty Sark too - has it been rebuilt yet????) visitors will not generally see the Old Kent Road, or the back roads of Greenwhich. London has building that are far older than some modern civilisations (Tower of London 900 years old - wall at Tower Hill running to the Tower under the road is over 2,000 years old - crown jewels including Star of India) - Tower Bridge, Houses of Parliament (and clocktower - 'Big Ben' is the bell inside it btw), Lizzie's place (Buckingham Palace), Traffalgar Square/Nelson's Column, London Zoo, Westminster Abbey, the parks and so on - and more modern places like the Eye, O2, Madame Tousaurdes (spelling?), London Dungeons, Tate/Tate Modern, Carnaby Street, Oxford Street, Harrod's, Hamley's, Freemason's Hall, so on. In such a small area (city of London is just 1 square mile and cvontains many many very old buildings and churches). We Brits do not realise just how much history we lent to the world and how alluring it is for these future generations to glance back at their roots. The attraction of a real life Monarch (and the ability to nose around Buck House too) is also a good one.

Paris has far fewer attractions IMHO (Louvre, Eiffel Tower, disappointing Euro-disney), but has the allure of being 'Paris' - city of Love. I am surprised Rome does not get more visitors though.

Edited June 30, 2011 by wolf5370

[noahvail]

(snipped)

As for another strange stat, claiming that Bangkok alone made up 14bn USD of revenue, of a total GDP of 520bn, and yet the government claims that tourism only makes up 6% of GDP, shows that the entire statistical analysis of tourism in this country is complete bunkum.

Let's see... using the numbers you provided, 14bn divided by 520bn equals 2.69%. So, a little less than half of tourism revenue fell to BKK, the balance to the rest of the country. Sounds plausible to me.

Do you believe that the majority of time spent by a tourist is in Bangkok itself? Of course, these possible numbers include visitors for conferences, but at least from all of the people that I have ever recommended to come over here, they stay a few days in Bangkok and then flit out to the islands or elsewhere. I have to revise my numbers a bit, i have found a link to show total for last year was 15.8mn tourist arrivals.

http://www.thaiwebsi...com/tourism.asp

This then is Phuket alone. Of course, some could have gone to both Bangkok and Phuket, but if so,does this mean that an average arrival goes to Bangkok, Phuket, Samui, then Chiangmai and a little bit somewhere else on their holiday? Some, but not many.

Figures tabulated by the Ministry of Tourism and Sports in January-June 2010, showed total arrivals by nationality of 7,515,025 up from 6,609,313 or up 13.70% over the same period of 2009.

Of course, we won't wonder why, when the protests were going on, all the hotel members bleated and got various breaks from the government. Yet lo and behold, despite all the disruption last year, the global financial crisis, Bangkok had a bumper year?

What I said was a little less than half of **revenue** fell to BKK. A tourist in BKK will spend a lot more per diem than one visiting a village in Issan. When I visited BKK, I was spending close to 10k baht/day. A trip to Pattaya Song in Issan costs maybe 500 baht, add another 600 for a room. My logic may be flawed, of course. But it does seem logical that BKK is expensive, more expensive than the rest of the country.

[Nisa]

Impressive

[Soutpeel]

<br />

<br />Bangkok apart, it beats me why London remains so popular. magnificent and lively city that it admittedly is, it is <b><u>Incredibly expensive</u></b>, congested, over-crowded and, in IMHO not particularly friendly. I was born there (Greenwich) by the way, but would never want to live there again and visit it rarely these days. <br /><br /><br /><br />Any fellow Englishmen wish to support our great capital city?<br />

<br /><br />Many American's and Australian's visit London - its the "old country" and "sense of history" that's everywhere in London IMO - remember, other than Greenwhich park, the Int. Date Line and the museaums (once the Cutty Sark too - has it been rebuilt yet????) visitors will not generally see the Old Kent Road, or the back roads of Greenwhich. London has building that are far older than some modern civilisations (Tower of London 900 years old - wall at Tower Hill running to the Tower under the road is over 2,000 years old - crown jewels including Star of India) - Tower Bridge, Houses of Parliament (and clocktower - 'Big Ben' is the bell inside it btw), Lizzie's place (Buckingham Palace), Traffalgar Square/Nelson's Column, London Zoo, Westminster Abbey, the parks and so on - and more modern places like the Eye, O2, Madame Tousaurdes (spelling?), London Dungeons, Tate/Tate Modern, Carnaby Street, Oxford Street, Harrod's, Hamley's, Freemason's Hall, so on. In such a small area (city of London is just 1 square mile and cvontains many many very old buildings and churches). We Brits do not realise just how much history we lent to the world and how alluring it is for these future generations to glance back at their roots. The attraction of a real life Monarch (and the ability to nose around Buck House too) is also a good one.<br /><br />Paris has far fewer attractions IMHO (Louvre, Eiffel Tower, disappointing Euro-disney), but has the allure of being 'Paris' - city of Love. I am surprised Rome does not get more visitors though.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

You sound like a monopoly board....LOL

ps....thought it was the star of Africa not India ?

[Thai at Heart]

The $15 billion dollar estimate for tourism I've always seen has been for the entire country, not just Bangkok. They fly in to Bangkok, but of course you don't know exactly where they spend it. You only estimate how long they stay and how much they spend per day.

As for tourism being 6%, it is probably much less. If I remember right they estimate the average person spends like $250 per day which seems a lot to me. Plus much of the domestic economy isn't recorded, so you have tourism probably being over estimated and the economy under estimated.

And all of the bars in the tourist areas keep true sets of accounts don't they. Tourism in this country is a black hole of cash transactions.

Meanwhile, the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) also forecasts an increase in the number of tourists to a total of 15 million within the next year, generating revenues of about 1.05 trillion baht.

30bn USD give or take a bit?

GDP PPP: $584.768 billion (2010 est.)

This tallies with the 6%ish number, but neither number takes into account the unaccounted cash transactions associated with either. So agree to split the differrence, probably accurate enough. But either way, until the black economy is pulled into the numbers for both, I go by the idea that the total "value" of tourism in pure cash terms is undervalued.

[hellodolly]

They must have counted all the Red shirts from outside Bangkok for all the cumulative days that they spent in town.

50k x 40 days.

I'm sorry but to mention the Red shirts in any post even if the topic has nothing to do is kinda boring, and, by the way, your joke (if it was a joke) was not so funny.

Topic: Rain is coming.

Your post: Well, it will cool the Red Shirt mind.

Topic: Vaccine against malaria.

Your post: No need, if a mosquito bite a Red Shirt, it will die immediately.

Topic: Red Cross fair

Your post: Red shirt fair is at Rajaprasong.

I am not dissing the red shirts in any way. Loosen up. Maybe they counted the army who came from out of town also. Maybe all the overseas reporters are in the stats too.

If you look a the logic of saying that Bangkok was the 3rd most visited city in the world with 11mn visitors last year, but that the total tourism arrivals for the whole country were 17mn (including all the day trippers crossing by land), you would arrive at the fact that the total amount of visitors who actually entered Bangkok was nowhere near 11mn. Hence, wondering where they got hold of such a grossly inflated number, one can only assume that since there was a large influx of people (who normally wouldn't stay in Bangkok) maybe they counted the protesters, and possibly the army, and the BBC and CNN.

As for another strange stat, claiming that Bangkok alone made up 14bn USD of revenue, of a total GDP of 520bn, and yet the government claims that tourism only makes up 6% of GDP, shows that the entire statistical analysis of tourism in this country is complete bunkum.

Well when I saw your first post my thought was what a insightful Man.

How ever you have now questioned stats and you have none to back up your statements.

All that being said we must remember the survey was done using figures put forth by Master Card. If Visa and other cards had been involved it might have been quite different.

[DP25]

And all of the bars in the tourist areas keep true sets of accounts don't they. Tourism in this country is a black hole of cash transactions.

They're not basing the number on receipts, because they don't have them. They're basing it on how many people come which they know, how long they stay, and how much they think they spend per day. If anything they probably overestimate how much people spend per day

[Beechboy]

Bangkok apart, it beats me why London remains so popular. magnificent and lively city that it admittedly is, it is Incredibly expensive, congested, over-crowded and, in IMHO not particularly friendly. I was born there (Greenwich) by the way, but would never want to live there again and visit it rarely these days.

Any fellow Englishmen wish to support our great capital city?

Many American's and Australian's visit London - its the "old country" and "sense of history" that's everywhere in London IMO - remember, other than Greenwhich park, the Int. Date Line and the museaums (once the Cutty Sark too - has it been rebuilt yet????) visitors will not generally see the Old Kent Road, or the back roads of Greenwhich. London has building that are far older than some modern civilisations (Tower of London 900 years old - wall at Tower Hill running to the Tower under the road is over 2,000 years old - crown jewels including Star of India) - Tower Bridge, Houses of Parliament (and clocktower - 'Big Ben' is the bell inside it btw), Lizzie's place (Buckingham Palace), Traffalgar Square/Nelson's Column, London Zoo, Westminster Abbey, the parks and so on - and more modern places like the Eye, O2, Madame Tousaurdes (spelling?), London Dungeons, Tate/Tate Modern, Carnaby Street, Oxford Street, Harrod's, Hamley's, Freemason's Hall, so on. In such a small area (city of London is just 1 square mile and cvontains many many very old buildings and churches). We Brits do not realise just how much history we lent to the world and how alluring it is for these future generations to glance back at their roots. The attraction of a real life Monarch (and the ability to nose around Buck House too) is also a good one.

Paris has far fewer attractions IMHO (Louvre, Eiffel Tower, disappointing Euro-disney), but has the allure of being 'Paris' - city of Love. I am surprised Rome does not get more visitors though.

Yes, well put and I cannot disagree with any of that. London has it all, history, modern and innovation. A visitor would certainly need more than just one week to do the place justice. I can understand why the Cty will always be up there.

My point was really a comment upon London's total invincibilty in all such surveys. It is streets ahead of virtually all of the "opposition" in both visitors and visitor spending. This fact surprises me, especially as it is most certainly one of the most expensive places in the World.

P.S. Greenwich aint so bad really. My birthplace and I occasionally visit relatives who remain there and like it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Beechboy

[DP25]

Meanwhile, the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) also forecasts an increase in the number of tourists to a total of 15 million within the next year, generating revenues of about 1.05 trillion baht.

30bn USD give or take a bit?

GDP PPP: $584.768 billion (2010 est.)

This tallies with the 6%ish number, but neither number takes into account the unaccounted cash transactions associated with either. So agree to split the differrence, probably accurate enough. But either way, until the black economy is pulled into the numbers for both, I go by the idea that the total "value" of tourism in pure cash terms is undervalued.

1.05 trillion includes tourism by Thai people too. International tourism was estimated at 560 billion baht, or $18 billion dollars. With 15 million people that would mean the average person spends $1200 in Thailand. But most of these people are only spending a handful of days in Thailand.

[Thaddeus]

Bangkok apart, it beats me why London remains so popular. magnificent and lively city that it admittedly is, it is Incredibly expensive, congested, over-crowded and, in IMHO not particularly friendly. I was born there (Greenwich) by the way, but would never want to live there again and visit it rarely these days.

Any fellow Englishmen wish to support our great capital city?

Many American's and Australian's visit London - its the "old country" and "sense of history" that's everywhere in London IMO - remember, other than Greenwhich park, the Int. Date Line and the museaums (once the Cutty Sark too - has it been rebuilt yet????) visitors will not generally see the Old Kent Road, or the back roads of Greenwhich. London has building that are far older than some modern civilisations (Tower of London 900 years old - wall at Tower Hill running to the Tower under the road is over 2,000 years old - crown jewels including Star of India) - Tower Bridge, Houses of Parliament (and clocktower - 'Big Ben' is the bell inside it btw), Lizzie's place (Buckingham Palace), Traffalgar Square/Nelson's Column, London Zoo, Westminster Abbey, the parks and so on - and more modern places like the Eye, O2, Madame Tousaurdes (spelling?), London Dungeons, Tate/Tate Modern, Carnaby Street, Oxford Street, Harrod's, Hamley's, Freemason's Hall, so on. In such a small area (city of London is just 1 square mile and cvontains many many very old buildings and churches). We Brits do not realise just how much history we lent to the world and how alluring it is for these future generations to glance back at their roots. The attraction of a real life Monarch (and the ability to nose around Buck House too) is also a good one.

Paris has far fewer attractions IMHO (Louvre, Eiffel Tower, disappointing Euro-disney), but has the allure of being 'Paris' - city of Love. I am surprised Rome does not get more visitors though.

Engerland swings like a pendulum do.

(but without the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors of the song)

[housepainter]

I just don't know who makes this crap up.

My mind considered Paris, Rome, New York and then I'm told that grubby, dirty Bangkok is third.

Really?

A city with no architecture, features, museums,art galleries ................zilch. You can't get round the place other than by rail and then it's impossible to move when you get out. The pavements are unwalkable, the pollution unbreathable and the heat unbearable.

Then there's Sydney, Milan, Munich, Barcelona, Madrid, Amsterdam, Prague ...........................

Mastercard? Master Bollux.

[lazygourmet]

Bangkok apart, it beats me why London remains so popular. magnificent and lively city that it admittedly is, it is Incredibly expensive, congested, over-crowded and, in IMHO not particularly friendly. I was born there (Greenwich) by the way, but would never want to live there again and visit it rarely these days.

Any fellow Englishmen wish to support our great capital city?

I am not a Brit but I have the privilege to own a property in London (South Kensington)

From the cozy rental benefits of it, I can afford a comfortable life in Bangkok....

So, I would never dream to live there anymore, unless I stop procrastinating

[relidiousenut]

Visitors does not equal tourist alone

Look at some of the destinations, they are not tourist destinations but are both tourist and high ranking business destinations

[Card]

Bangkok apart, it beats me why London remains so popular. magnificent and lively city that it admittedly is, it is Incredibly expensive, congested, over-crowded and, in IMHO not particularly friendly. I was born there (Greenwich) by the way, but would never want to live there again and visit it rarely these days.

Any fellow Englishmen wish to support our great capital city?

I agree - as a well-travelled Yorkshireman who unfortunately ended up living for 18 years in London, I found it one of the most expensive and unfriendly places on earth - eventually hating the place and seldom revisit unless I have to. Bangkok is a much better place and much warmer in more ways than one.

[Card]

They must have counted all the Red shirts from outside Bangkok for all the cumulative days that they spent in town.

50k x 40 days.

I'm sorry but to mention the Red shirts in any post even if the topic has nothing to do is kinda boring, and, by the way, your joke (if it was a joke) was not so funny.

Topic: Rain is coming.

Your post: Well, it will cool the Red Shirt mind.

Topic: Vaccine against malaria.

Your post: No need, if a mosquito bite a Red Shirt, it will die immediately.

Topic: Red Cross fair

Your post: Red shirt fair is at Rajaprasong.

I am not dissing the red shirts in any way. Loosen up. Maybe they counted the army who came from out of town also. Maybe all the overseas reporters are in the stats too.

If you look a the logic of saying that Bangkok was the 3rd most visited city in the world with 11mn visitors last year, but that the total tourism arrivals for the whole country were 17mn (including all the day trippers crossing by land), you would arrive at the fact that the total amount of visitors who actually entered Bangkok was nowhere near 11mn. Hence, wondering where they got hold of such a grossly inflated number, one can only assume that since there was a large influx of people (who normally wouldn't stay in Bangkok) maybe they counted the protesters, and possibly the army, and the BBC and CNN.

As for another strange stat, claiming that Bangkok alone made up 14bn USD of revenue, of a total GDP of 520bn, and yet the government claims that tourism only makes up 6% of GDP, shows that the entire statistical analysis of tourism in this country is complete bunkum.

This is hogwash. If u read the stats, they refer to International visitors - so how can it be red shirts? They measure only the measurable - ie. international arrivals through the borders and most likley through the main airport. How do u figure they count internal visitors to Bangkok, if that's the nonsense stat u believe they use? The rest of this post is unintelligible.

[Nisa]

The VAST majority of people traveling to Thailand spend time in Bangkok regardless if it is where they will spend their entire vacation and/or business trip.