A P RIP ROUND 1 OVERVIEW June 15, 2015 THIS SECTION PROVIDES THE READER WITH THE RESULTS OF THE INITIAL REVIEW OF ALL APRIP TEAM REPORTS. ONE OF THE APRIP TEAM REPORTS FOLLOWS THIS SECTION. The purpose of this report is to provide a high-level overview of Round 1 of the UMS Program Integration portion of the Academic Portfolio Review and Integration Process (APRIP). Nine discipline-based teams met from January-May, 2015 to discuss strategies to increase quality, access, and fiscal sustainability through inter-institutional collaboration. Teams represented business, criminal justice, education, engineering, history, languages, marine science, nursing, and recreation/tourism. Each provided a detailed report containing recommendations for further development. On June 11, the Chief Academic Officers reviewed all nine team reports and determined which action items would be pursued at this time. They presented and discussed their recommendations with the APRIP Oversight Committee on June 12. They especially noted the following: 1. The team reports represent extraordinary levels of time, thought, and effort on the part of over 100 individuals. The teams were working under very difficult conditions, both in terms of time available and because so many of the factors required to implement One University were and remain undecided. CAOs and the Oversight Committee are deeply grateful to these academic pioneers for their good work. 2. The CAOs are recommending follow-up on many but not all of the team recommendations, based on a variety of factors. They will return to the reports in the future as the system is able to lay more groundwork for additional action steps. 3. The CAOs will assign follow-up responsibility for recommended actions to individuals or groups that have the appropriate responsibility and authority to bring them to life in most cases to administrators or official groups. Team input will continue to have value as needed, but they have fulfilled the responsibilities requested of them. 1. Business ACTION ITEMS FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION a. Support the development of a single MBA for UMaine and USM. Increase recruitment efforts and expand pipelines into that MBA from business programs at the other five campuses. Develop opportunities for students in undergraduate majors other than business, as well, to move into this MBA. b. Further develop a vision and plan for the business programs at the five smaller campuses. This plan should further integrate, with intentionality, these programs to support them with more efficient operations, while also encouraging campus differentiation where appropriate.. Criminal Justice and Criminology a. Establish a common community / professional advisory board. b. Develop a common associate s degree with common course numbering, descriptions, and learning outcomes.
c. Pursue ACJS certification / accreditation of the common associate s degree. 3. Education a. Re-institute System-wide Education Deans and Directors meetings to coordinate the work already being done across the System, and to explore, plan, and implement other collaborative efforts going forward. b. Continue work on the common Master of Education in Instructional Technology currently in development between UMaine, USM, and UMF. c. Continue work on the 3+2 program in Rehabilitation and Counselor Education currently in development between USM and UMF, and the suspension of UM s Counselor Education program. d. Collaboratively deliver secondary education methods courses for all secondary candidates across the System. e. Build pathways from all seven campuses into graduate work in Education. f. Collaborate on course / program delivery across the seven campuses using the cohort model to the greatest extent possible, to achieve the greatest possible access and efficiency. 4. Engineering a. Develop a uniform curriculum for students in their first two years of mechanical engineering and electrical engineering. Courses will be primarily delivered on site, but will be fully transferable to facilitate student transfer between UM and USM. b. Move a selection of upper-level courses toward more online pedagogy to facilitate sharing those courses between the two campuses. c. Establish curricular committees in mechanical engineering and electrical engineering to meet each semester to ensure that first-two year curricula remain aligned and to ensure that the coordination is operating effectively and efficiently. d. Develop curricula at the five smaller campuses to allow those students, after one or two years, to transfer into the engineering programs at UM and/or USM. e. Develop uniform course numbering in the core areas mathematics, physics, and chemistry to facilitate transfer and ensure consistency. 5. History a. Develop a stronger pathway from the various undergraduate programs into the graduate program at UMaine, and invite all UMS history faculty to apply for admission into UMaine s graduate faculty. b. Explore the possibility of merging the four current undergraduate programs into a single program that would be available on all seven campuses, in order to sustain and build the availability of history curriculum. Encourage differentiation in areas of expertise at various campuses, to further build the diversity of history education. 6. Languages a. Continue the existing French and Spanish degree programs, with access at all seven campuses, initially with a focus on language acquisition. b. Expand language acquisition opportunities in other languages such as Japanese, Chinese, and Arabic. For example, Chinese could be offered through USM s Confucius Institute.
c. Continue the M.A. in Applied Teaching in French and Spanish. d. Coordinate and integrate all UMS study abroad offices to expand and support study abroad on all seven campuses. 7. Marine Sciences a. Develop joint, blended, team-taught, etc. courses in a variety of ways, such as distance courses with field-based components. Take advantage of short course opportunities, such as one day per week, summers, weekends, etc. that allow rich use of off-site facilities. b. Articulate the curricula, particularly with learning outcomes at upper levels, to facilitate students moving from undergraduate into graduate programs. c. Explore further opportunities to collaborate on use of facilities, both on campus and off site. d. Develop a 4+1 Professional Science master s degree, with dual 400/500 level courses as appropriate. e. Develop a common Web presence, particularly for purposes of marketing and student recruitment. 8. Nursing a. Develop a plan for the full alignment of nursing curriculum within the UMS, including a detailed articulation of the challenges and a plan for addressing them. b. Given the critical importance of expanding nursing programs to meet the current and future needs of Maine, consult with appropriate external group(s) to help us better understand the challenges and identify strategies for expanding our capacity, particularly in clinical placements. Also explore strategies currently being used at nursing programs in other rural states. c. Develop a report on the current nursing education partnership between UMA and UMFK. Include an analysis of the challenges and successes experienced in this collaboration thus far, as well as suggestions for improvements. This report should be delivered to the UMS CAOs for their review by the end of the fall 2015 semester. 9. Recreation and Tourism a. Strengthen communication across the campuses with the development of a central Web site, designed to serve students and faculty, but also to serve as a marketing and student recruitment tool. b. Seek opportunities for semester-long residencies, to allow students at any campus to take full advantage of the differentiated areas of expertise and opportunity at other campuses. c. Further expand the range of short courses available, taking advantage of the range of specializations already available on the various campuses. Consider a full range of possibilities summers, weekends, January and May terms, semester breaks, etc. d. Develop pathways to take further advantage of articulated 4+1 opportunities for student progression into graduate work. e. Consider the development of hybrid team-taught courses, employing point persons in the field to work with the primary on site (or online) instructor. f. Collaborate on market-based certificate programs, expanding access across multiple campuses.
Essential Next Steps The APRIP Teams were engaged in high-level planning. All of the disciplines require additional work to bring the recommendations to reality, some more than others. The existing teams or successor designees must do some additional planning, and most will need funding. Leaders and professional staff must do considerable work to enable the plans to become reality. This work will be costly and requires a capital budget. External funding would significantly advance the time frame for implementation. In a May 2015 meeting, Team Leaders recommended that UMS support their recommendations as follows: 1. Build capacity for extensive distance-delivery and blended instruction, including a. Significant increases in interactive video instructional sites that are absolutely reliable and facultyfriendly. b. Significant increases in faculty professional and instructional development capacity (time, access to expertise and resources), ease of access, and expectations. c. Common academic calendar system-wide d. System-wide academic information system for course planning, advising, program marketing e. System-wide marketing 2. Establish capacities and systems for students to enroll simultaneously in multiple institutions capacities that are seamless and impact-neutral for students, faculty, and institutions. a. Students: Advising, registration, tuition rates, fees, billing, payment, reliable planning for transfer, financial aid, grade transfer, online comprehensive catalog and pathways, etc. b. Faculty: Workload and P&T recognition c. Institutions: Revenues and enrollment credit, non-competitive funding model Additional Achievements, Round 1: Emerging culture: help each other better serve students, whether on the giving or receiving end; interinstitutional respect for faculty expertise; expanded professional colleagueship Transferability enhancements, certificate and associate programs Increased awareness of benefits from greater comparability/standardization of general education Extraordinary voluntary service to UMS despite heavy workloads, contrary administrative systems, fear, and sometimes-difficult interpersonal issues Important lessons to apply to the Round 2 process and beyond
University of Maine System APRIP Language Team Report May 31, 2015 "KNOWING another language enriches your personal life, expands the range of professional opportunities open to you, and increases your power to act as a citizen of the world." (MLA 1 ) Executive Summary The Language Team held two face-to-face meetings of six and four hours, respectively, and four virtual meetings on Google Hangouts. Our report includes a preamble which states the value of and need for language proficiency within the State of Maine. The next section provides background on the importance of face-to-face classes in learning language and culture, a brief overview of current degree and course offerings and existing collaboration at the graduate level in French and Spanish. Our recommendations include retention of all existing undergraduate and graduate programs in languages, including degree programs in French and Spanish, international affairs with concentrations in language, language for education, minors, and course offerings in other languages. We recommend further the creation of system-wide B.A.s in French and Spanish to be available at campuses that have no degree programs in foreign languages. Our plan calls for shared delivery of courses to support both the new and existing degree programs using distance technologies. The primary challenge to language programs across the University of Maine System is one of enrollment. The Language Team recommends, therefore, that language and culture study be made a priority across the UMS campuses and supported by a marketing campaign to encourage students to pursue a double major, minor, or certificate of proficiency, and to take advantage of learning abroad opportunities. Furthermore, we call for the UMS to seek private funding for scholarships and other financial incentives to encourage the study of language and culture, both at UMS campuses and in immersion abroad. At the campus level, we recommend the exploration of a language requirement at institutions that do not currently have one in place and suggest the development of certificate-of-proficiency opportunities, which require fewer courses than a minor yet provide documentation of language ability (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages proficiency testing). Our report includes a set of challenges to shared delivery, in particular, including quality of video-conferencing equipment, availability of technical support, and scheduling problems. We also call for professional development workshops with instructional designers for the development of online courses. A second set of challenges includes a number of topics already 1 Language Study in the Age of Globalization The College Level Experience, brochure published by the Modern Language Association, available at-http://www.mla.org/kol_brochure.
brought to light through APRIP, such as faculty load and compensation, and transfer of credit. What is new to our list is the suggestion that the definition of teaching in load be reviewed to include teaching outside the box in P&T criteria, as would be needed for offering on-site language courses to business and heritage communities. Another complication is the increased demand on international student advisors and immigration specialists that will result if our recommendations are accepted and fully implemented. We recognize the complexity of program integration across multiple campuses and call for APRIP Phase II, during which the specific details of the collaboration will be worked out: requirements for the proposed, multi-campus B.A. programs, revision and possible alignment of curricula, and the feasibility of shared course delivery for languages other than the major languages, French and Spanish. In order to sustain collaborative efforts, we recommend the formation of a collaborative of language faculty, regular, system-wide meetings of all language faculty members, and the creation of a faculty liaison position to maintain communication and keep the collaboration on track. Team Membership Travis Bent UMF (Student) Brian Berger UM (Undergraduate Student) Stacy (Piper) Black UM (Graduate Student) Nicole Boudreau UMFK Scott Brickman UMFK Linda Britt UMF Ann Delaney UCC Brooke Dupuy Community Marisela Funes UMF Deborah Hodgkins UMPI Susan Pinette UM Chelsea Ray UMA Anna Rein USM Jane Smith UM Adam Tuchinski USM Yue Zhao - USM Preamble The Association of American Colleges and Universities and its Liberal Education and America s Promise initiative, in particular, recognize the importance of knowledge of human cultures [ ] through study in the [ ] humanities [ ] and languages in the 21 st century through its inclusion in the Essential Learner Outcomes. Under Personal and Social Responsibility, the 2
ELOs also include civic knowledge and engagement, both local and global, as well as intercultural knowledge and competence. 2 In the business sector, Forbes also highlights the need for Americans who speak more than one language by pointing out that only 18% of Americans speak a second language as compared to 53% of Europeans. The authors of the article indicate further that the number of American colleges and universities requiring foreign language study has dropped from 67.5% in 1994-95 to 50.7% in 2009-10 3. With the implementation of proficiency-based education in Maine s prek-12 schools, which requires all Maine graduates to demonstrate proficiency in a world language by 2017, the state is facing a critical shortage of qualified language teachers. Moreover, the need for economic development across the state calls for a workforce with both linguistic skills and cross-cultural understanding. Maine s top ten partners for export of goods are Canada, Malaysia, China, the Republic of Korea, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and Germany. Eight of these countries are also among our top ten partners for the importation of goods, Canada, China, Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, Mexico, and Malaysia, with the addition of Russia and Vietnam. A number of Maine companies are owned by parent companies in Canada, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Japan, Norway, Spain, Italy, or the United Kingdom 4. In the area of tourism, the largest groups of overseas visitors to Maine come from France, Germany, and Scandinavia 5. Expanding the number of Maine citizens proficient in a foreign language expands opportunities for economic growth. A point of comparison is Maine s ranking as 49 th for economic climate 6 as compared to Utah, which is ranked first among states, thanks in part to its workforce, one third of which can carry on a conversation in another language 7. Languages, together with internationalization of Maine s students, must be made a real priority at the level of the University of Maine System and across its seven universities. Expanding the number of Mainers who can speak more than one language produces a citizenry with more employment opportunities and that can engage in an informed manner in local and global issues. Successful collaboration in the area of world languages has been a part of UMS for nearly a decade, particularly with respect to French, and that collaboration is already expanding to 2 Retrieved 5/21/15 from https://www.aacu.org/leap/essential-learning-outcomes. 3 America s Foreign Language Deficit, David Skorten & Glenn Altschuler, Forbes online published 8/27/12, retrieved 5/21/15. See also Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed World, published by the Modern Language Association, http://www.mla.org/flreport. 4 Import, export and foreign direct investment information provided by Maine International Trade Center; documents provided in Appendices A and B. 5 Overseas Visitors to New England; document provided by Maine Office of Tourism, Appendix C 6 Portland Press Herald, 11/12/14 7 Forbes 11/12/14 3
include Spanish. Likewise, language courses in French and Spanish have been available through distance education. The current program integration process is about increasing collaboration among campuses and providing greater access to programs through distance delivery; yet, throughout our discussions in the past few months, it has been clear to team members that the primary challenge facing language programs is one of enrollment: How do we encourage more students to study language and culture, thereby meeting State needs for language teachers and a well-prepared workforce for the 21 st century? The recommendations below outline a plan to increase collaboration across the campuses for the sharing of two system-wide degree programs and language courses. In addition, it requests support in the form of scholarships from UMS or private funding sources for the study of languages at UMS campuses and for learning abroad in support of language and cultural immersion. Background Languages are a complex area for review and integration. Among the languages offered within UMS are French, Spanish, German, Latin, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Russian, Wabanaki 8, Korean, and Irish Gaelic. Degree programs in French and Spanish, international affairs and global studies, and language education are centered on French and Spanish, each of which can be divided further to focus on Continental and North or Latin American areas of study. Some languages are offered for the minor, while others are offered only for the development of conversational skills. Because of the complexity of language programming across the System, the Language Team has decided to make initial, overarching recommendations in the current Phase I of APRIP and to leave detailed recommendations to Phase II, to be undertaken in AY 2015-16. In the past, knowing a language often meant knowing how to fill in a paragraph with the correct forms of verbs or adjectives. Today, knowing a language means being able to use the language 9 in a linguistically and culturally appropriate manner; that is, developing socio-linguistic competence for both speaking and writing. This means understanding language structure and extra-linguistic communication. In order to develop this type of socio-linguistic competence, exposure to and use of the language through interaction in real time, preferably face-to-face, is the best means for learning. At the same time, distance education technologies allow for delivery of language courses to students across the System who would not otherwise have access to language study. In the absence of adequate tenure-stream faculty coverage on each campus, distance delivery through video-conferencing and online courses will play a key role in providing access to language study for students across the University of Maine System, but they cannot replace face-to-face classes. 8 American Sign Language is offered at several campuses but not in language departments. Therefore, it is not included in the Language Team report. Wabanaki at UM is also outside the language department; however, the Native American Studies Program has indicated a willingness to explore sharing of courses. 9 21 st Century Skills Map for World Languages, American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 4
Current Collaboration Since 2007, the M.A.T. in French at UM has included a summer institute offered through collaboration with faculty at various UMS campuses. USM has been the primary collaborator, offering an online graduate course as part of the summer institute for the last eight years. At various times, faculty from UMPI, UMFK, Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby have also provided summer courses through this UM program. Collaboration has allowed us to deepen the curricular offerings to our graduate (and upper level undergraduate) students through the inclusion of courses on Francophone Africa, theme-based courses on culture, identity, film, and literary studies based on France, all of which complement UM s expertise, which emphasizes North American French literature, culture, and linguistics in addition to the study of France. Moreover, collaboration in the summer institute added online course delivery to the on-site and video-conference delivery already in use, thereby increasing access to courses for more students. UM s M.A.T. in Spanish, which had been suspended in the mid 1990s, was remodeled on the French M.A.T. and approved for reinstatement only a few years ago. Collaborative delivery of the Spanish M.A.T. will begin this summer, when a faculty member from UMF will be offering an on-site graduate course in Spanish, enriching UM s curriculum of Peninsular and Latin American literature and culture with a transatlantic, theme-based course that examines a particular cultural phenomenon. Recommendations for Expansion of Collaboration 1) The APRIP Language Team recommends retention of all existing language curricula across the System. The hemorrhagic loss of various degree programs in French, German, Latin, Russian, and Spanish from UMF, UMPI, UM, and USM over the last decade and a half must be stopped if Maine s public universities are to meet the needs of the state: the shortage of language teachers, a globally prepared workforce, and well educated citizenry able to interact in international and domestic arenas. Instead, the study of languages should be made a priority for teacher education, international affairs and global studies, business, engineering, music, art, history, philosophy, and, of course, for the study of languages and cultures for their own sake. 2) We recommend the establishment of multi-campus B.A. programs in French and Spanish, which will be available to students at UMA, UMF, UMM, UMPI, and USM. Courses for these two new programs will include collaboration among faculty from across the system. In the case of French, faculty from UM, UMA, UMF, UMFK, and UMPI will participate. In the case of Spanish, collaboration will include faculty from UM and UMF, Existing B.A. programs in French, Spanish, Global & International Affairs (French, Spanish), International Affairs Language, Culture & the Humanities (French & Spanish), and French for Education will remain in place at their respective campuses. 5
3) Collaboration for delivery of courses for the M.A.T. degree programs in French and Spanish at UM will be maintained and strengthened. 4) With a view to expanding the number of courses offered online, the Language Team requests professional development workshops with instructional designers geared specifically for foreign language instruction. 5) Collaboration for the sharing courses in Chinese, German, Japanese, Italian, Arabic, and Wabanaki will be explored. 6) With projected retirements of Baby-Boom Generation teachers, combined with the implementation of Proficiency-Based Education in Maine s public schools, the need for language teachers remains steady. The Language Team recommends collaboration with the Education Team for the purposes of increasing the number of students majoring in foreign language education in order to help the State meet this demand. 7) Make an undergraduate Certificate of Language Proficiency in French or Spanish similar to the one offered at UM (9 lg. credits + ACTFL proficiency test) available to students at other campuses. 8) In order to allow for meaningful interaction between students and teacher, and student to student, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) recommends a cap on enrollment of 15 students for courses that focus on the development of all four linguistic skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The Language Team recommends, therefore, that enrollment in language courses within UMS be similarly capped. Where that is not possible, enrollment should not exceed the maximum of 20 students endorsed by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. 9) In making internationalization and language study a priority for the System, students across the disciplines should be encouraged in the advising process and through various means of publicity to study another language. Recommendations for Learning Abroad 1) The Language Team recommends expanded and improved communication about opportunities for learning abroad (faculty-led travel study, and study, internship, and research opportunities abroad) across the System, starting with a centralized web page and support for further collaboration. 2) Study abroad is a highly motivating experience for students studying language and culture. In addition, interaction with students from target language countries provides cross-cultural experience and enriches the experience of the greater student body. Administration and support for learning abroad in general and exchange programs, in particular, is currently a 6
challenge at smaller campuses without professional and administrative staff in international programs. Support from international programs offices at the larger campuses is requested. 3) Financial aid for study abroad should be available to students in the form of scholarships and other means of financial support. 4) All students in all disciplines should be encouraged to participate in a learning abroad experience. 5) Incentives for faculty and development money for short-term, faculty-led immersion courses should be made available to faculty on all campuses through a competitive process. In addition to facilitating student participation across the System, collaboration for shared delivery and co-teaching of travel study courses should be explored. Challenges to Shared Delivery: Upper level courses in language have been delivered using video-conferencing for a number of years. This method of delivery provides a context that more closely resembles face-to-face learning contexts, though it does require some adaptation for small group work and assessing learner progress. With both the old ATM and the current Polycom/Tandberg systems, technical problems have caused the loss of valuable class time. Delivery of language classes via videoconferencing requires high quality audio microphones and speakers with as little time delay as possible. These are necessary so as not to exacerbate the challenges inherent to listening comprehension in a second language. In addition, classrooms should have multiple cameras and a projector/screen arrangement that allows the instructor and students at the originating site to see all students at remote sites at all times, not just by voice-activated camera display. Visual images should be large enough to see facial features and expressions. Classrooms equipped for video-conference delivery should be dedicated classrooms so as to avoid unnecessary unplugging and disconnecting of equipment by others who do not use the equipment. Reconnecting and having to wait for a technician to resolve problems causes lost class time. In online, asynchronous language instruction, certain student learning outcomes prove difficult to achieve, especially those related to interpersonal communication. Using e-learning tools such as Google Hangouts on Air and VoiceThread in online language courses, together with resources available from book publishers, can increase both instructor and student presence, resulting in higher student engagement, satisfaction and learning outcome achievement. UMS faculty currently teaching online have been successful in developing high quality online language courses. In order to increase the number of online courses in language, literature, culture, and linguistics, faculty will need assistance in transitioning courses designed for on-site or video-conference delivery to online. Thanks to the APRIP process, team members are (now) aware of the presence of instructional designers within UMS; however, development of online and hybrid 7
courses would be facilitated immensely if the instructional designers were more readily accessible; that is to say, if there were a series of workshops designed specifically to assist language faculty in the development of student-centered activities that are most conducive to developing the four skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, and knowledge of the target culture in an appropriate cultural context 10. Recommendations for Sustainability 1) A second phase of APRIP in 2015-16 is necessary in order to move to the next, more detailed level of planning, and the APRIP II Language Team should have a heavy concentration of language faculty, both full and part-time, in order to maximize the time and effort put into discussion of curricular alignment and development of the systemwide degree programs in French and Spanish if they are approved for development. 2) Phase II should include a meeting with a consultant from the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages whose expertise will provide new insight and ideas for expanding collaboration and suggestions for revising and/or aligning curricula within UMS campuses. 3) The Language Team recommends the establishment of a collaborative of faculty in all languages, both full and part-time, starting with the initial target date of 2016-17 that was set for the implementation of APRIP recommendations. The collaborative will meet periodically, at least once each year, to discuss curricular issues and sharing of courses. The Language Team also recommends periodic meetings that are language specific. 4) The collaborative will include a faculty liaison. The liaison position will provide continuity of communication and help to sustain collaborative efforts in behalf of language and cultural studies. In the light of current workload demands in the areas of teaching, research, and service, this position must be compensated and the duties and responsibilities of the position recognized by and included in the tenure and promotion process. The position should rotate periodically among the faculty and from campus to campus. 5) Further support for administrative needs of the collaborative, such as maintenance of a web site and publicity materials, organization of meetings, and grant writing, will have to be provided by an administrative support specialist funded, presumably, at the system level. Promotion and Financial Sustainability In the Language Team s discussions it has become apparent that the primary issue facing us as language faculty is declining enrollment. While this is part of a nationwide trend in recent 10 See the Modern Language Association s statement on distance education for a detailed perspective: http://www.mla.org/statement_aaup_distance_ed 8
decades, the enrollment problem can be attributed in part to the notion that learning a foreign language is difficult. As a result, language requirements, where they exist, are kept at a low level so as to be achievable (and at the same time, a level so low that students never get into the more intellectually interesting areas of language and culture study that come at the intermediate and advanced levels). In other instances, some disciplines that once had language requirements have eliminated or reduced them with a view to being more competitive with programs at competitor institutions, or, more recently, to reduce overall requirements in an effort to retain students and assure degree completion within four years. More broadly speaking, the study of language and culture is under valued. This state of affairs must be changed if we are to see an increase in the number of students enrolling in language and culture classes. The Language Team offers the following recommendations for promotion and marketing of language programs within UMS. 1) UMS should seek private funding to support students who major, double major, or minor in a language. Such funding could be in the form of scholarships, tuition waivers or reductions, or some other financial incentive for students. One potential benefit is that this will no doubt draw more students to the field of foreign language education, thereby helping UMS campuses to meet the need for more language teachers in Maine s public schools. In turn, this will help schools to meet proficiency standards for graduation. 2) The concept of teaching load and venues for course delivery should be reviewed and reconsidered by peer committees, administrators, and the unions to allow for courses taught outside the usual venue, whether on site or via distance education, to be counted as part of load. This would include courses geared for heritage language communities and businesses for example. A mechanism for revenue generation, if not tuition per se, will need to be determined. 3) UMS and development offices should assist language departments and faculty in partnering with Maine s employers with a view to exploring alternative types of language and culture courses, as well as classroom venues that lie outside the traditional classroom or distance delivery mechanisms. Employers involved in tourism, retail, and health care, for example, as well as foreign direct investment companies (see Appendix C), may be interested in a workforce that is conversant in more than one language. The connection with the private sector would also be used to explore the development of field experience and internship opportunities for UMS students of language and culture. 4) Campuses with regular language faculty should be encouraged to explore collaboration with high schools for delivery of college-in-the-high-school language courses (not AP) that align with UMS curricula, thereby facilitating the transition to college after high school and making further study of language and culture more likely. 5) Some UMS campuses have a language requirement while others do not. Institutions that do not currently have a language requirement should be encouraged to explore the possibility of the addition such a requirement at the university or college level. Not only 9
will this bring more students to our classes, it will align requirements system wide, thereby easing transfer between campuses. 6) Honor societies can be a source of scholarships. Departments/faculty should seek to establish language honor societies as appropriate to their respective campuses. 7) UMS should sponsor a joint marketing campaign of all opportunities to study languages and cultures across the system and to promote combining a double major, a minor, or a language certificate program with other disciplines. 8) A survey of Maine employers and school districts for a needs assessment with respect to languages other than English will be extremely informative in future planning. APRIP Phase II in AY 2015-16: The list below includes some of the action items for APRIP Phase II. 1) System-wide retreat for full- and part-time language faculty with a consultant from the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages early in fall semester 2015. 2) Development of an inventory of courses for shared, distance delivery and an accompanying course rotation, allowing for equitable distribution of responsibility for distance delivery: Fall 2015. 3) Plan the system-wide B.A. programs in French and Spanish. 4) Creation of the language collaborative and selection of a faculty liaison: Fall 2015 or Spring 2016. 5) Collaboration with the Education Team to increase the number of students preparing to be foreign language teachers and for exploration of shared delivery of foreign language methods courses. 6) Exploration and development of various promotion and recruitment/outreach efforts such as, but not limited to, the following: Outreach through 4-H or similar organizations to promote language learning and cultural understanding; School recruitment visits; Opportunities for secondary school students to use world languages in immersion settings such as World Languages Days; 10
Residential academy (summer camp) for languages aimed at middle and high school students. Work with community members to develop after-school and other language programs to support heritage languages. Somali, Spanish, Arabic, French, Chinese, Passamaquoddy, Khmer, and Vietnamese are the eight most widely spoken languages among Maine s English Language Learners in PreK-12 classrooms. Italian is also an important heritage language in the Portland area. Complicating Factors Discussions among the Language Team members revealed a number of complicating factors that need to be addressed in order for some recommendations to be implemented. Development of alternative (outside the box) teaching responsibilities, such as for private companies and heritage communities, will require a review and modification of tenure and promotion guidelines in order for them to be counted as part of the contractual teaching load. If our recommendations for increasing participation in learning abroad are successful, and if support for these and other exchange opportunities are provided by the larger campuses to the smaller campuses, there will be a need for additional international program staffing to support the demand. Funding must be sought from a variety of sources to support the proposed scholarship and tuition waiver incentives for students. This will require administrative support. Faculty are already spread very thin and additional outreach, course development, and grant writing activities that result from program integration take time away from teaching, research and service. Additional demands on faculty time must be compensated. Transferability of financial aid in general and with respect to study abroad and travel study, in particular, is an issue. Lack of resources prevents students from taking advantage of these valuable immersion opportunities. With respect to language programs, in particular, credit transfer (three credits at some institutions vs. four credits at others) must be sorted out. Video-conferencing infrastructure must be improved. For teaching language and culture, audio and video equipment must be of the highest quality and allow for pairing students and small group work for remote students as well as on-site students. Classrooms should be dedicated to video-conferenced classes and scheduling (as in whom to contact, what paperwork to complete) must be simplified. Scheduling must allow for multiple, i.e. three or four, class meetings a week. Technical support for videoconferencing must be available on every campus. 11
Our relationship to community colleges must be explored and sorted out, particularly with respect to transferability of courses and the possibility of shared delivery. Institutional Perspectives The University of Maine advances learning and discovery through excellence and innovation in undergraduate and graduate academic programs. In the case of French, the Department of Modern Languages and Classics (MLC) is part of the National Resource Center for the Study of Canada and the federally funded (Foreign Language and Area Studies) Canadian Studies program. In offering courses in French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Arabic, we provide language study for several communities of heritage language speakers, both long standing ones and others who have arrived more recently. The teaching of language, literature, culture, and linguistics in MLC honors the heritage and diversity of our state. Expanded collaboration with our sister campuses will allow MLC to deepen its curricula in French and Spanish, in particular, and support the Critical Languages program by providing a greater diversity of perspectives on these important languages in today s global society and those who speak them. By learning another language and developing an understanding of the products, perspectives and practices that are part of the target culture, students can develop their creative abilities, communication and critical thinking skills. By expanding distance learning opportunities for language students across the state through collaborative delivery of degree programs and elective courses, MLC contributes to UM s mission of excellence and innovation in undergraduate and graduate academic programs, while providing access to a variety of cultural contexts in which students can develop their creative abilities, communication and critical thinking skills. The University of Maine at Augusta transforms the lives of students of every age and background across the State of Maine and beyond through access to high-quality distance and on-site education, excellent student support and civic engagement, and innovative professional and liberal arts. UMA offers a French minor and includes substantive civic engagement in the French courses, as well as connections to Franco-American heritage speakers. The APRIP recommendations would help support language at UMA by allowing students an easier pathway to major in French. The University of Maine Farmington is committed to internationalizing its curriculum, as is apparent in its Mission Statement and Strategic Plan: UMF will broaden students educational experience and assure that they are well prepared for employment and citizenship in contexts that are richly diverse and increasingly global, and that students will develop an integrated understanding of global issues. In addition, UMF has reaffirmed its mission as a public liberal arts institution that supports multiple modes of teaching and learning, but prioritizes face-toface instruction with highly qualified faculty. Finally, UMF will strengthen and more broadly promote its historic and continuing strength in teacher education, making it an ideal candidate to help address the critical shortage of Foreign Language teachers in the State of Maine. The University of Maine at Fort Kent s Mission Statement reads as follows: UMFK will nurture and engage a diversity of learners and aspiring professionals in Maine s rural communities and 12
beyond through affordable, technologically-enhanced, and professionally-focused educational programs. Our APRIP Language Recommendations are in line with UMFK s institutional mission as encouraging and supporting the study of languages through on-campus and online course helps better prepare aspiring professionals to be successful in an increasingly globalized society. Language programs at the University of Maine at Presque Isle offer students the opportunity to discover their own language and culture while developing proficiency in another, thereby allowing them to better themselves [and] their community. Online language courses, in particular, are able to serve a different population than the traditional student population. They allow students who live too far from campus, have a daytime job, or have young children at home, to pursue the study of the world beyond their horizons. Some become French teachers, thereby contributing the improvement of the community and the economic development of rural northern Maine. The availability of online language courses ties in well with UMPI s mission of proficiency-based education, as these courses are learner-centered, with the teacher serving as cognitive guide. In using formative and summative measures of student proficiency in language and cultural knowledge, we encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning. Our language program nurtures the intellectual and personal development of students who want to own their learning and embraces technological innovation while preserving the power of personal mentoring. 13
APPENDICES Appendix A: Maine Trade Partners: Exports and Imports, prepared by the Maine International Trade Center Appendix B: Foreign Direct Investment Company List (2014), prepared by the Maine International Trade Center Appendix C: Overseas Visitors to New England, Discover New England Research Report for 2012, provided by Maine Office of Tourism 14
2012 OVERSEAS VISITORS To New England December 2013
Produced by: Travel Market Insights 3213 State Route 9L Lake George NY 12845 Phone: 518-668-2559 Web: www.travelmi.com Prepared For: Discover New England 100 International Drive, Suite 352 Portsmouth, NH 03801 USA T: 603 766 0606 F: 603 766 0607
Table of Contents Introduction Methodology page i page ii Section I. 2012 Summary of Overseas Visitors to New England page 1 New England 2012 Overseas Arrivals page 1 Total Direct Spending page 5 New England 2012 Total Direct Spending by Country page 6 Boston Visitor Arrivals by World Region page 5 Arrivals and Total Direct Spending for New England Destinations page 8 2012 Selected Highlights for Overseas Travelers to Boston page 10 2011 Selected Highlights for Overseas Travelers to Boston page 11 Section II. 2012 Overseas Visitors to Boston In-depth Characteristics page 12 Main State Destination page 13 Top Destinations Visited page 16 Number of States Visited page 19 Number of Destinations Visited page 20 First Trip by Air to the U.S. page 23 Trips to the U.S. in Past 12 Months page 24 Purpose of U.S. Trip page 26 Main Purpose of U.S. Trip page 27 Leisure-Recreation Activities page 30 Travel Information Sources page 35 Advance Trip Decision page 37 Advance Time for Purchase of Airline Tickets page 39 Advance Airline Decision page 40 How Airline Reservations Were Made page 43 Means of Booking Air Trip and Pre-booked Lodging page 44 Type of Airline Ticket page 47 Aircraft Seating page 48 Prepaid Inclusive Tour Package page 49 Top Three Reasons for Airline Choice page 52 Most Important Reason for Airline Choice page 53 Travel Party Size page 56 Travel Party Composition page 57 Gender of Overseas Visitors page 60 Average Annual Household Income page 62 Occupation page 64 Total Nights in the U.S. page 66 Port of Entry page 70 Accommodations page 73
Transportation in the U.S. page 75 Trip Expenses Payment Method page 78 Share of Expenditures by Method of Payment page 79 Trip Expenditures page 82 Itemized Trip Expenditures page 83 Travel Insurance Purchased page 86
Introduction The following report sets out to understand the depth and impact of international visitors to New England. The primary goal for this report is to provide Discover New England (DNE) and the New England states with the research confidence to clearly identify the most productive travel markets and focus their international visitor promotional efforts over the next five years as a regional promotion entity. In order to meet this goal the report is broken down into the following sections: Section I. 2012 Summary of Overseas Visitors to DNE [page 1] Section II. 2012 Overseas Visitors to DNE In-depth Characteristics [page 12] Key Definitions A. DNE is the official tourism organization representing the New England census region, and is a non-profit cooperative marketing entity funded by the participating states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. For the purposes of this report New England (NE) is deifined as the six states that make up the New England Census region. Therefore all references to Discover New England and DNE are the same as referring to New England. DNE = New England = NE B. Overseas: Overseas is defined as all visitors from all countries except Canada and Mexico. C. Visitor Arrivals and Travelers to New England are defined as: one person indicating they visited overnight in one or more of the six New England states during their U.S. visit. D. Scandinavia is a marketing region that includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. i
Methodology This report on overseas visitors to New England was developed by Travel Market Insights. It is based on data compiled from the USDOC Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI) "Survey of International Air Travelers (SIAT)." The survey is conducted in cooperation with over 80 major airlines on a sample of their international flights departing from U.S. airports and at airport boarding areas. The survey information is collected from passengers through questionnaires covering traveler demographics, trip activities, places visited, and travel expenditures. This survey program was initiated in response to a growing need for information on the volume, characteristics, and travel patterns of international air travelers to and from the United States. The data from the survey are used by the public and private sectors to guide strategic planning and marketing to international air travelers. Approximately 2,280 survey respondents reported a New England visit in 2012. This is an adequate sample size for overseas visitors, providing an opportunity to evaluate the characteristics of the overseas visitor market. However, sampling levels are statistically low for some of the visitor markets to New England. Below are sample tables that should be reviewed before making decisions using this report. There are two data collection methods. The legacy method involves the direct participation of the airlines, which arrange for their flight crews to distribute and collect surveys on-board. The reduction of air carrier participation has created some gaps in the data sets, thus it should be used with caution. To improve the program the USDOC also now collects the questionnaires in the airport departure gate area ( airport intercept ). The airport-intercept method accounted for approximately 75% of all collections in 2011, while the in-flight method accounted for approximately 25%. Due to the logistical challenges in administering the survey, certain airlines and airports are not able to produce completed surveys in proportion to their traffic numbers. The aim of this program is to develop a public/private partnership to survey additional international flights on a monthly basis to improve airport specific and destination collections. Currently, OTTI is orchestrating this effort in Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, Dallas/Ft Worth, Honolulu, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Juan, and Washington Dulles. Each program is slightly different, but the supplemental collections are being conducted to improve the quality of the data collections at each airport. In all cases the airport authority works in cooperation with its convention and visitors bureau (destination marketing organization). With the exception of the number of respondents, all the data in the tables are statistical estimates, based on responses to the survey and supplemented with data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Passengers on most charter flights and passengers traveling by air between the U.S. and Canada are excluded. For additional information on the methodology and questionnaire please contact Travel Market Insights. Survey Questionnaire and Methodology Changes for 2012 In 2012 the DOC, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries implemented a new questionnaire. For some portions of the questionnaire there was a break in series. Questions regarding arrivals had no changes. Key question changes that should be noted include: Spending per person per trip spending per person per night Trip Planning Information (information sources) Airline Reservations Airline Advance Payments Package Tour Travel Insurance ii
Main Purpose of Trip and Purpose of Trip (multiple response) Total Nights Away From Home Transportation Used Leisure Activities: - Added: Experience Fine Dining, Historical Locations, National Parks/Monuments, Sightseeing, Small towns/countryside, Water Sports, Other Specify. - Pulled: Dining in Restaurants, Visit Historical Places, Visit National Parks, Sightseeing in Cities, Visiting Small Towns, Touring Countryside, Water Sports/Sunbathing, Ranch Vacations, N/A. Spending Outside of Respondents Country Itemized Trip Expenses in U.S. Expense Payments Methods/Usage Expense Share Seat in Aircraft Airline Ticket Type Occupation Annual Household Income Sample Table for New England by Country and State Overseas New England Sample New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- 2011 and 2012 England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia (Number of Respondents) (4,739) (720) (424) (359) (228) (150) (120) (150) (559) (271) (98)* (149) New England States Overseas Overseas Overseas Overseas Overseas Overseas 2011 and 2012 To CT To ME To MA To NH To RI To VT (Number of Respondents) (947) (246) (3,578) (209) (231) (183) All sample is based on 2011 and 2012 visitor data. In 2011 the metrics were based on the 2010 and 2011 visitor data. The multi-year sample is recommended given some of the country level sample fall below the recommended level. Historically the USDOC sample cut off was 100 respondents for characteristic data and 380 for visitor estimates. The overseas sample for New England far exceeds the minimums. Sample for the UK, UK leisure, and Japan are above the recommended sample minimums. Sample for all other countries are strong enough for comparative analysis. However, it is recommended that results be reported with the understanding that visitation estimates are based on a sample below the recommended threshold. Italy is, in particular, below the 100 minimum. Sample far exceeds the minimums for Massachusetts and Connecticut. Two years of sample were used to keep the metrics consistent and comparable. Sample for Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont are strong enough for comparative analysis. However, it is recommended that results be reported with the understanding that visitation estimates are based on a sample below the recommended threshold. Note: Sample improvements will be implemented in 2014. Starting in 2014 Logan International Airport, the Boston Convention and Visitors Bureau and the USDOC, National Travel and Tourism Office (formerly OTTI) are partnering to improve sample at Logan International Airport. This effort should provide New England and the individual destinations with stronger sample and additional confidence in the metrics. iii
(this page was intentionally left blank) iv
1,136 1,300 1,260 1,257 1,637 1,473 1,505 1,723 1,615 1,714 1,785 New England Overseas Visitors 2012 Report Section I. 2012 Summary of Overseas Visitors to New England 2012 Overseas Arrivals to New England Market Share 2011 2012 Arrivals in (000) Market Share Arrivals in (000) Percent Change Total Overseas 6.4 1,785 5.5 1,637-8.3% Note: Percent change is based on rounded arrivals. Total U.S. Overseas Market: In 2012 a record 29.8 million overseas visitors traveled to the United States. Overseas arrivals grew by 6.7% over 2011 arrivals. Arrivals growth was predominantly from emerging markets. In contrast, most Western European countries registered a decline. New England was visited by 1.6 million visitors (excluding Canada and Mexico) that indicated they stayed in the region during their visit to the U.S. in 2012. New England arrivals in 2012 decreased 8 percent. The decline in visitors was primarily from Western Europe, South America, and Oceania. New England Overseas Arrivals and Market Share Arrivals (000) Market Share 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Arrivals Mkt. Share 1
New England 2011 and 2012 Overseas Visitor Arrivals USA 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012/2011 2012/2011 Visitor** DNE Visitor** DNE Visitor Visitor Estimate Market Estimate Market Estimate Estimate (IN 000s) Share (IN 000s) Share Percent Percent (ranked by 2012) Change Change ALL OVERSEAS 1,785 6.4% 1,637 5.5% -8.3% 6.4% WESTERN EUROPE 863 7.2% 811 6.9% -6.0% -2.2% ASIA 377 5.2% 407 4.9% 8.0% 22.6% SOUTH AMERICA 203 5.4% 141 3.2% -30.5% 18.0% CARIBBEAN 67 6.1% 83 7.3% 23.9% 15.2% OCEANIA 88 7.1% 61 4.6% -30.7% 2.7% MIDDLE EAST 62 7.7% 58 6.3% -6.5% 18.5% EASTERN EUROPE 47 7.0% 52 7.2% 10.6% 10.5% AFRICA 22 6.8% 18 4.7% -18.2% 18.8% CENTRAL AMERICA* 58 7.7% 15 1.9% -74.1% 9.6% * Excludes Mexico ** See background and methodology for sample varibility In 2012 New England s share of total overseas visitors to the U.S. contracted 0.9 percentage points to 5.5%, down from 6.4% in 2011. Comparably, the 2012 market share is below the average for the past 11 years (6.5%). Market share has declined for three straight years. Why did market share contract in the past three years? Market penetration for the region is strongest in Western Europe and weaker in Asia and South America. In other words, New England s market mix has not adjusted at the same pace as overall U.S. arrival trends. The region needs to consider expanding their market mix into emerging markets and at the same time compete for a stronger share of the traditional visitor markets in Western Europe. On the positive side, arrivals increased from Asia, the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe. In 2012 30,000 more visitors resided in Asia, primarily from China and Japan. In contrast, in 2012 there were 52,000 fewer visitors to the region from Western Europe, primarily a downturn from the UK, France, and the Scandinavian countries. There was some positive growth to the region from Germany and France. The largest drop in visitor volume was from South America (62,000 fewer visitors than in 2011). Arrivals from Oceania contracted by 27,000 visits to New England primarily from Australia. 2
New England 2011 and 2012 Overseas Visitor Arrivals USA 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012/2011 2012/2011 Visitor** DNE Visitor** DNE Visitor Visitor Estimate Market Estimate Market Estimate Estimate (IN 000s) Share (IN 000s) Share Percent Percent (ranked by 2012) Change Change 1 United Kingdom 280 7.3% 275 7.3% -1.8% -1.9% 2 China 153 14.0% 175 11.9% 14.4% 25.0% 3 Germany 146 8.0% 152 8.1% 4.1% 2.9% 4 France 95 6.3% 87 6.0% -8.4% -3.2% 5 Japan 58 1.8% 78 2.1% 34.5% 13.8% 6 Italy 63 7.1% 65 7.8% 3.2% -6.2% 7 India 72 10.8% 62 8.5% -13.9% 9.2% 8 Brazil 81 5.4% 61 3.4% -24.7% 18.8% 9 Australia 78 7.5% 58 5.2% -25.6% 8.1% 10 Korea, South 60 5.2% 55 4.4% -8.3% 9.3% Scandinavia*** 81 7.1% 56 5.6% -30.9% 5.5% ** See background and methodology for sample varibility ***Scandinavia is a marketing region that includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden In 2012 275,000 British residents visited New England. The UK is the region s largest visitor market. Arrivals declined 1.8%, the same rate of decline as the U.S. overall. The region s market penetration remained strong; 7.3% of all British traveling to the U.S. visited New England at some point during their visit. China remained the region s second largest visitor market in 2012, ahead of Germany. In 2012 175,000 Chinese visited New England, up 14% compared to 2011. Just over one in ten Chinese (11.9%) to the U.S. visited New England in 2012. However, it should be noted that New England arrivals from China grew at a slower rate than the U.S. overall (up 25%). Due to this, the region registered a decline in market share from China (down from 14% in 2011). Germany, the third largest overseas visitor market for New England, grew 4% to register 152,000 visits. Market penetration for Germany was up slightly (8.1% in 2012, up from 8.0% in 2011). In 2012 87,000 French residents traveled to New England. Visitation contracted 8.4% reflecting the weak economic conditions in France. By comparison, total U.S. arrivals from France dropped 3% compared to 2011. 3
Japan rounded out the top five overseas visitor markets for New England. In 2012 78,000 Japanese residents explored New England. Arrivals grew 35% over last year and market share grew 0.3 points. However, overall the region s market penetration in Japan was only 2.1% of all Japanese visitors to the United States the smallest market penetration of the top visitor markets. In 2012 65,000 Italian residents traveled to New England, despite the economic concerns in Italy. New England registered a 3.2% increase in Italian visits. By comparison, total visits to the U.S. declined 6 percent. The end result is only a few thousand additional visitors traveled to New England from Italy. The remainder of the top overseas visitor market to New England all registered a decline in 2012, while the U.S. overall registered growth. This impacted the region s market share and overall decline significantly. India (ranked 7 th ) contracted 14%, while the U.S. registered solid growth (up 9%). Brazilian arrivals dropped 25% to the region, while the U.S. registered double-digit growth (up 19%). Australian visitation was down 26%, while the U.S. grew 8 percent. Arrivals from South Korea to New England contracted 8%, while U.S. arrivals grew 9 percent. It is worth noting that some of the declines in visitation to New England impacted other top destinations on the East Coast. Brazilian arrivals contracted significantly for New York City and Washington DC, as well as most East Coast destinations above Washington DC. The primary reason for the decline was the Brazilian economy. The anemic economy in Brazil caused a downward shift in the number of Brazilians traveling for business and to visit with friends and family. There were also fewer first-time visitors to the U.S. from Brazil in 2012 compared to the past few years. One of the biggest shifts was an increase in visitation to Florida. Not only did more Brazilians go to Florida, but most only went to Florida. Seven in ten Brazilian travelers to the U.S. went to only one state in 2012. To a degree, combined with the economy, strong promotion from Orlando based attraction impacted the shift. 4
Total Direct Spending New England Overseas Total Direct Spending 2011 2012 Percent Change Ave. Nights in NE 10.5 11.9 13% Ave. Spending Per Night $93 $77-17% Spending Per Stay $977 $916-6% Arrivals 1,785,000 1,637,000-8% Visitor Nights 18,742,500 19,480,300 4% Total Direct Spending $1,743,053,000 $1,499,983,000-14% Note: All spending estimates are an average of direct spending only. In 2012 1.6 million overseas visitors to New England spent nearly $1.5 Billion in total direct spending during their stay in the region. Overseas visitors spent $243 million less in 2012, compared to 2011. Spending was down due to a decrease in the average spending per night per visitor and the decline in overall arrivals. In 2012 overseas visitors spent sixteen dollars less per visitor per night, which impacted the total direct spending significantly. The primary reasons for the drop in nightly spending included a decrease in business travel to the U.S. and the region; and an overall decrease in spending due to the global economy. By comparison, overseas spending to the U.S. was down $8.00 per visitor per night on average in the U.S. On the positive side, overseas visitors to New England spent nearly 12 nights traveling throughout the region in 2012, up from 10.5 nights in 2011. This was a positive shift for New England as more leisure visitors influenced the length of stay. Visitor nights spent in New England by overseas visitors grew by nearly 738,000 nights, to register nearly 19.5 million visitor nights. 5
New England 2012 Total Direct Spending by Country New England 2012 Total Direct Spending by Country* Overseas UK UK Leisure Germany Germany Leisure Australia France Brazil Japan China Italy Scandinavia Estimated Travelers 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 Total Spend $1,499,983,100 $210,540,000 $135,166,200 $105,548,800 $47,432,000 $56,115,000 $44,370,000 $98,380,800 $46,410,000 $422,730,000 $36,400,000 $34,428,400 Spend/stay $916 $766 $800 $694 $484 $968 $510 $1,613 $595 $2,416 $560 $1,013 Spend/night $77 $88 $86 $62 $44 $129 $85 $144 $85 $99 $70 $122 Nights in New England 11.9 8.7 9.3 11.2 11.0 7.5 6.0 11.2 7.0 24.4 8.0 8.3 Data presented as a percentage in table unless indicated otherwise. *Spending results by country should be used for internal review given the survey questionnaire changed in 2012. Note: Due to a change in SIAT methodology the 2012 total direct spending should be used for internal review and not compared to previous years directly. In 2012 the UK was the top visitor market for New England. However, China ranked as the top spender for New England. In 2012 175,000 Chinese visitors spent an estimated $423 million US dollars traveling in New England. The high spending was a result of a 24 night stay on average, and spending $99 per visitor per night compared to only $77 for the overseas average. An estimated 275,000 British visitors spent approximately $211 million in New England. British leisure travelers spent $135 million in New England. British visitors spent less per night per visitor than the Chinese travelers, but more than the overseas average. British visitors stayed in the region approximately 9 nights - which was strong, however, slightly below the overseas average and much lower than the Chinese visitors. Germany ranked third for visitor arrivals and spending. In 2012 152,000 German visitors spent nearly $106 million while traveling in New England. German leisure visitors spent an estimated $47 million in 2012. 6
Brazilian visitors spent the most on a per visitor per day basis ($144 on average), followed by Australian visitors ($129 on average), and the Scandinavian countries ($122 on average). If spending was ranked for the region by total spending per stay (the combination of nights in New England and average spending per visitor per night), then China would be the top market, followed by Brazil, and then the Scandinavian countries ahead of Australia and UK leisure visitors. The shortest stay, on average, among the select countries was six nights by visitors from France. Japanese visitors stayed one week on average and visitors from Australia stayed 7.5 nights on average. Adding just one night s stay will have a significant impact. Strategies to expand visitor nights should be key in both the traditional markets and the emerging markets. 7
Arrivals and Total Direct Spending for New England Destinations Visitor Arrivals and Total Direct Spending for New England Destinations* 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Overseas Overseas Overseas Overseas Overseas Overseas To CT To ME To MA To NH To RI To VT Visitors 268,000 119,000 1,339,000 89,000 89,000 60,000 Percent Change -13% 6% -6% -21% 6% 7% Visitor Nights 3,564,400 2,487,100 13,256,100 774,300 649,700 714,000 Total Spend $270,894,400 $124,355,000 $1,060,488,000 $38,715,000 $57,823,300 $45,696,000 Percent Change -10% 83% -12% -62% -46% 15% Spend/stay $1,011 $1,045 $792 $435 $650 $762 Spend/night $76 $50 $80 $50 $89 $64 Nights in Destination 13.3 20.9 9.9 8.7 7.3 11.9 *Characteristics data are based on a two year combined sample. Arrivals are estimated on a single year sample. Sample validity varies by state and should be reviewed. Note: All spending estimates are an average of direct spending only. The state level arrivals are based on a single year sample. Sample for arrivals varies by state and should be reviewed by each state to discern the level of validity. In 2014 Logan International Airport along with the Boston Convention and Visitors Bureau will be implementing a program in partnership with the U.S. Department of Commerce to enhance the sampling. This investment should help all of New England. Please see the methodology section for more information. In 2012 268,000 overseas visitors traveled to Connecticut, down from 307,000 in 2011. Overseas visitors to Connecticut traveled throughout the state for approximately 13.3 nights, up from nearly 12 nights (11.9) on average in 2011. That is the equivalent of nearly 3.6 million visitor nights spent in the state in 2012. The overseas visitors traveling within Connecticut spent nearly $271 million in total direct spending in 2012, down from $300 million in 2011. 8
In 2012 119,000 overseas visitors traveled to Maine, up from 112,000 in 2011. Overseas visitors to Maine traveled throughout the state nearly three weeks on average, up considerably from one week in 2011. That is the equivalent of nearly 2.5 million visitor nights, a sizable jump from 818,000 visitor nights spent in the state in 2011. The overseas visitors to Maine spent nearly $124 million in total direct spending, up from only $68 million in 2011. Massachusetts was visited by just over 1.3 million overseas visitors in 2012, down from nearly 1.4 million in 2011. Overseas visitors to Massachusetts traveled throughout the state for a week and four days (9.9 nights) on average, up from 8.7 nights on average in 2011. That is the equivalent of nearly 13.3 million visitor nights spent in Massachusetts in 2012, up from 12.4 million visitor nights in 2011. The overseas visitors spent nearly $1.1 Billion in the state in 2012, down from just over $1.2 billion in total direct spending in 2011. New Hampshire was visited by 89,000 overseas visitors in 2012, down from 112,000 in 2011. Overseas visitors traveled throughout New Hampshire for more than a week (8.7 nights) on average in the state, up from 8.2 nights in 2011. That is the equivalent of just over 774,000 visitor nights spent in the state in 2012, down from 918,000 visitor nights in 2011. The overseas visitors spent nearly $39 million in total direct spending in the state of New Hampshire during their 2012, down considerably from $102 million on 2011. In 2012 89,000 overseas visitors traveled to Rhode Island, up from 84,000 in 2011. Overseas visitors traveled throughout the state for just over one week (7.3 nights), down from over nine nights (9.4 nights) in 2011, on average. That is the equivalent of nearly 650,000 visitor nights spent in the state in 2012, down from 790,000 in 2011. The overseas visitors spent nearly $58 million in total direct spending in Rhode Island during 2012, down from $107 million in 2011. Vermont was visited by 60,000 overseas visitors in 2012, up from 56,000 in 2011. Overseas visitors traveled throughout Vermont for nearly 12 nights on average in 2012, up from 9.7 nights in 2011. That is the equivalent of 714,000 visitor nights spent in Vermont in 2012, up from 543,000 visitor nights in 2011. The overseas visitors spent nearly $46 million in total direct spending in the state of Vermont during their 2012 visit, up from $40 million in 2011. 9
2012 Selected Highlights for Overseas Travelers to New England Overseas UK UK Leisure Germany Germany Leisure Australia France Brazil Japan China Italy Scandinavia Estimated Travelers 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 Market Share 5.5% 7.3% 61.5% 8.1% 64.8% 5.2% 6.0% 3.4% 2.1% 11.9% 7.8% 3.1% Total Spend $1,499,983,100 $210,540,000 $135,166,200 $105,548,800 $47,432,000 $56,115,000 $44,370,000 $98,380,800 $46,410,000 $422,730,000 $36,400,000 $34,428,400 Spend/stay $916 $766 $800 $694 $484 $968 $510 $1,613 $595 $2,416 $560 $1,013 Spend/night $77 $88 $86 $62 $44 $129 $85 $144 $85 $99 $70 $122 Nights in New England 11.9 8.7 9.3 11.2 11.0 7.5 6.0 11.2 7.0 24.4 8.0 8.3 Hotel use 62.6 71.4 73.6 72.3 70.0 73.5 56.8 58.3 82.9 60.3 75.5 63.3 Nights in hotel 6.3 6.0 6.2 5.5 6.0 6.5 5.1 5.4 4.5 5.7 4.6 5.4 Share nights in hotel 52.9 69.0 66.7 49.1 54.5 86.7 85.0 48.2 64.3 23.4 57.5 65.1 Leisure 60.7 61.5 100.0 64.8 100.0 86.3 63.0 59.6 45.2 53.6 78.8 61.3 Visit Friends & Rel. 41.7 41.1 36.0 40.4 43.8 36.6 40.8 34.9 32.8 36.9 27.5 49.0 Business 21.6 23.8 5.1 24.2 7.2 11.3 24.9 26.5 32.9 20.2 5.4 28.9 Convention 8.9 7.8 3.2 8.7 3.1 12.2 6.3 9.5 20.4 8.2 10.8 11.9 Historical places 21.7 26.6 33.0 26.9 34.0 32.0 15.3 17.1 25.2 17.6 29.6 23.9 Shopping 87.0 82.5 89.9 86.1 89.8 93.9 72.5 94.8 84.1 88.0 89.0 93.0 Small towns 24.6 29.8 34.7 28.5 35.9 24.8 24.4 9.6 20.9 28.6 39.8 24.4 Art Galleries/Museums 41.6 36.1 42.1 42.3 53.9 59.6 54.9 40.0 47.4 48.6 50.5 36.1 Car rental 33.6 36.6 44.9 56.4 62.0 26.3 42.7 39.4 16.0 29.5 46.9 36.6 Boston port of entry 28.1 55.7 55.3 43.1 36.9 5.2 52.9 0.5 15.3 0.9 44.2 34.1 NYC port of entry 26.4 16.9 17.9 21.7 23.2 9.0 23.5 26.2 18.2 21.2 31.5 19.7 States visited 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.6 2.6 2.4 2.5 3.1 2.9 2.5 Nights in U.S. 27.1 18.1 19.3 27.2 30.4 26.2 18.3 23.1 17.8 53.7 15 20.8 NE share of nights 43.9 48.1 48.2 41.2 36.2 28.6 32.8 48.5 39.3 45.4 53.3 39.9 Data presented as a percentage in table unless indicated otherwise. 10
2011 Selected Highlights for Overseas Travelers to New England Overseas UK UK Leisure Germany Germany Leisure Australia France Brazil Japan China Italy Scandinavia Estimated Travelers 1,785,000 280,000 172,000 146,000 94,000 78,000 95,000 81,000 58,000 153,000 63,000 81,000 Market Share 6.4% 7.3% 11.6% 8.0% 5.3% 7.5% 6.3% 5.4% 1.8% 14.0% 7.1% 7.1% Total Spend $1,759,653,000 $234,080,000 $131,683,200 $87,600,000 $44,161,200 $63,882,000 $70,300,000 $118,195,200 $60,134,400 $295,886,700 $44,774,100 $120,997,800 Spend/stay $986 $836 $766 $600 $470 $819 $740 $1,459 $1,037 $1,934 $711 $1,494 Spend/night $93 $95 $87 $80 $81 $105 $100 $128 $144 $83 $103 $154 Nights in New England 10.6 8.8 8.8 7.5 5.8 7.8 7.4 11.4 7.2 23.3 6.9 9.7 Hotel use 64.1 68.5 70.3 70.1 71.5 67.2 58.4 60.2 84.7 67.0 62.5 70.5 Nights in hotel 5.7 5.6 5.0 4.6 4.3 5.8 4.2 4.8 4.8 7.1 3.8 5.5 Share nights in hotel 53.8 63.6 56.8 61.3 74.1 74.4 56.8 42.1 66.7 30.5 55.1 56.7 Leisure 61.1 61.4 100.0 64.5 100.0 84.4 71.9 68.1 48.5 54.8 77.4 53.6 Visit Friends & Rel. 44.2 44.5 42.5 42.8 44.0 42.2 47.5 34.4 26.3 39.0 35.1 46.3 Business 25.9 27.9 7.8 26.4 6.8 14.4 29.3 27.4 38.9 23.7 8.2 41.7 Convention 8.1 4.5 1.6 9.0 9.6 7.8 1.1 14.3 17.1 4.9 8.5 9.9 Historical places 59.4 57.3 74.8 63.7 76.9 75.6 71.9 69.6 25.7 70.4 75.7 46.5 City 53.9 53.6 71.3 48.1 59.0 77.4 59.6 44.7 51.4 60.3 63.8 47.5 Small towns 41.0 45.2 57.7 49.5 62.8 51.1 49.7 34.7 30.2 27.5 49.4 44.3 Comb. City/Sm. Town 94.9 98.8 129.0 97.6 121.8 128.5 109.3 79.4 81.6 87.8 113.2 91.8 Car rental 32.7 34.0 41.6 54.2 60.6 22.3 49.3 20.9 21.7 27.9 41.4 37.8 Boston port of entry 26.4 54.6 54.1 42.0 39.4 1.6 51.7 0.3 1.3 0.6 44.6 45.4 NYC port of entry 25.9 18.2 18.7 24.8 24.1 4.5 24.9 20.2 22.6 25.7 32.7 19.6 States visited 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.9 2.9 2.4 2.3 3.1 2.8 2.2 Nights in U.S. 24.6 17.0 18.2 23.2 24.8 32.4 21.8 24.0 14.6 52.5 14.9 14.8 NE share of nights 43.1 51.8 48.4 32.3 23.4 24.1 33.9 47.5 49.3 44.4 46.3 65.5 Data presented as a percentage in table unless indicated otherwise. 11
Section II. 2012 Overseas Visitors to New England In-depth Characteristics 12
Percent 45.0 41.7 MAIN STATE DESTINATION OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 24.1 20.0 15.0 10.0 8.7 5.0 3.2 2.5 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.0 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 13
MAIN DESTINATION BY STATE OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 The majority (58%) of the overseas visitors to New England indicated that New England was their main destination; up slightly from 2011 (New England is the sum of the destinations). Massachusetts was listed as the main destination by just over two fifths (42%) of the 2012 visitors to New England, up slightly from 2011 (41%). New York was listed as the main destination in 2012 by just under one quarter (24%) of the visitors to New England, down slightly from 2011 (26%). Nearly one in ten (9%) visitors indicated Connecticut was their main destination during their 2012 visit to the region, unchanged from 2011. All of the New England states were listed as being a main destination for overseas visitors. Travelers from Japan had the highest share (68%) of visitors indicating New England was their main destination. Scandinavian visitors ranked second in listing New England as their main destination (65% in 2012, down from 75% in 2011). Brazil rounded out the top three listing New England as their main destination (63%, down from 68% in 2011). UK visitors (62%) were the only other visitors that listed New England as the main destination in 2012 above the average. In contrast, Australian visitors were least likely to list New England as their main destination (34%, up from 21% in 2011). The other visitors that listed New England as the main destination in 2012 below the average included: travelers from Germany (52%, down from 54%), German leisure visitors (39%, down slightly from 40%), France (54%, up from 44%), China (56%, down from 63%), and Italy (40%, up from 34%). The strongest share of visitors for Massachusetts resided in Japan, Scandinavia, and Brazil. Connecticut's strongest share of visitors resided in Germany, France, and China. For Maine the strongest share of visitors were France, Scandinavia, and German leisure visitors. New Hampshire s strongest share of visitors were UK leisure and Scandinavia visitors. Rhode Island's strongest share of visitors resided in France and Germany. Vermont's strongest share of visitors were UK leisure and Scandinavia visitors. 14
All to Main Destination (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 3102 521 290 249 144 73* 87* 112 312 144 68* 107 NEW ENGLAND 57.5 62.4 56.2 51.5 38.6 34.3 54.4 63.2 68.1 55.9 39.5 64.8 Massachusetts 41.7 45.7 40.3 34.9 25.8 24.8 33.2 46.2 56.0 41.2 35.4 49.4 New York 24.1 17.4 23.1 29.9 43.3 40.5 22.8 13.2 18.2 18.7 50.4 17.1 Connecticut 8.7 8.2 5.8 11.1 6.4 4.3 11.2 15.0 9.1 10.3 3.1 3.6 Florida 3.2 6.7 8.2 2.9 3.3-0.6-0.4 2.2 2.6 1.5 Maine 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.2 3.6 1.9 6.4-0.6 0.6 1.0 3.9 California 2.0 1.1 1.1 2.2 2.5 10.2 3.9-4.9 9.1 3.3 0.6 New Hampshire 1.9 2.6 3.6 0.2-2.0 0.4 0.7 0.5 2.0-3.2 Dist. of Columbia 1.6 1.0 0.5 1.6 1.4-3.7 4.4 4.7 - - - Rhode Island 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.8 0.6 1.3 3.2-1.6 1.3-2.2 New Jersey 1.3 1.0 0.3 1.3 0.7 - - - 0.5 6.4-0.4 * caution small sample size - not reported 15
Boston New York City DC Metro Area Los Angeles-Long Cape Cod-Barnstable San Francisco Philadelphia Chicago Buffalo-Niagara Falls Stamford Las Vegas Miami Providence Cambridge New Haven 5.3 5.1 4.7 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.5 6.6 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.6 TOP DESTINATIONS VISITED* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 18.9 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 52.4 74.0 Percent Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 *=multiple response 16
TOP DESTINATIONS (MSAs) VISITED OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 In 2012 nearly three quarters (74%) of the visitors to New England visited Boston at some point during their visit. New York City was visited by more than half (52%) of the visitors traveling to New England. The Washington DC Metro Area ranked third (19%, unchanged from 19% in 2011). Other destinations in New England that fall into the top 15 destinations visited include Stamford, Providence, Cambridge, and New Haven. The majority of visitors travel the east coast, with some traveling to the mid-west (primarily travelers from Italy). Others travelers spent some of their U.S. visit in western states (primarily travelers from Australia and China). Chinese travelers The strongest share of visitors for Cape Cod were UK Leisure. Cape Cod also registered a strong share of Italian visitors and German leisure visitors. San Francisco and Los Angeles are visited most by visitors from Australia and China, tied to their port of entry. 17
All to U.S. Destinations Visited** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4739 720 424 359 228 150 120 150 559 271 98* 149 Boston*** 74.0 72.2 77.9 71.7 77.9 81.4 74.9 69.7 83.3 85.8 83.6 60.7 New York City*** 52.4 39.1 46.3 53.5 67.0 72.4 60.1 43.6 49.9 55.8 74.8 44.2 DC Metro Area*** 18.9 12.6 16.8 21.0 28.4 30.6 16.4 11.3 18.7 41.1 23.8 12.0 Los Angeles-Long Beach*** 6.6 2.8 2.9 3.5 3.4 26.8 4.6 1.0 5.1 23.8 1.0 1.7 Cape Cod-Barnstable 6.3 13.1 18.6 7.8 10.7 6.2 4.7 0.6 0.6-14.3 5.3 San Francisco*** 6.1 2.3 2.6 4.6 5.0 29.5 9.3 6.7 5.3 14.9 5.3 3.9 Philadelphia*** 5.9 3.9 3.4 9.5 11.5 3.9 11.7 4.4 7.8 6.0 10.9 3.8 Chicago*** 5.6 3.5 3.4 7.9 7.5 8.4 8.1 2.7 7.3 3.7 10.2 1.5 Buffalo-Niagara Falls 5.3 2.4 2.6 8.4 11.4 5.8 1.3 1.6 1.5 8.0 17.1 4.6 Stamford 5.1 6.3 4.8 4.0 3.1 5.5 3.9 8.6 2.9 0.9 10.0 7.6 Las Vegas 4.7 2.1 3.1 3.3 4.0 21.9 4.1 7.7 0.1 17.9 1.8 0.5 Providence 4.1 5.3 6.9 5.7 5.4 1.5 4.5 2.7 2.5 1.8 6.7 8.8 Miami*** 4.1 2.4 1.6 3.6 4.1 5.8 0.5 4.1 0.4 1.3 11.0 6.2 Cambridge*** 3.8 6.8 4.5 6.8 4.3-3.1 6.0 1.7 1.4 1.1 4.5 New Haven 3.5 2.8 3.1 4.5 2.9-5.3 2.4 2.2 2.9 12.4 2.5 ** Multiple Response. City names correspond to U.S. Bureau of Census, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or Metropolitan Division (MD). Full MSA and MD definitions may be found at: http://www.census.gov/populations/metro/files/lists/2009/list1.txt. *** Cities defined by the Metropolitan Division (MD). All other cities defined as the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). 18
Ave. # of States Visited 3.0 NUMBER OF STATES VISITED OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Percent of visitors visiting only ONE STATE: U.S. Visitors = 71% New England Visitors = 25% 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 19
NUMBER OF DESTINATIONS VISITED OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Ave. Number of Destinations Visited 3.5 3.0 Percent of visitors visiting only ONE DESTINATION: U.S. Visitors = 55% New England Visitors = 22% 3.1 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 20
NUMBER OF STATES/DESTINATIONS VISITED OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 On average, visitors to New England visited 2.6 states while on their visit. Those visitors who visited less than the average included visitors from the UK, Japan, Brazil, and Scandinavia. UK leisure visitors and those from France were on par with the average. Australian visitors visited the most states, on average, while Chinese, German, German leisure and Italian visitors also visited more states than the average overseas visitor. Visitors from the UK were likely to visit less destinations than the average, however, UK leisure visitors were likely to visit more destinations than average. Similarly, German leisure visitors were likely to visit more destinations than the average German visitor, although German visitors visited more destinations than the average visitor to New England. All to # of States Visited** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4739 720 424 359 228 150 120 150 559 271 98* 149 1 State 25.3 31.9 25.3 23.0 12.7 5.8 19.4 31.2 19.7 24.7 16.5 30.4 2 States 28.0 30.9 27.1 23.7 20.6 19.4 36.3 24.4 41.4 11.8 32.3 27.1 3 States 21.7 20.4 26.4 18.5 22.6 24.1 21.4 25.8 20.4 21.7 14.3 12.6 4 States 12.9 8.6 10.4 18.5 22.6 20.7 13.4 7.5 8.4 17.0 20.6 18.2 5 or More States 12.1 8.2 10.7 16.3 21.6 29.9 9.5 11.2 10.2 24.9 16.3 11.6 Mean No. of States 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.6 2.6 2.4 2.5 3.1 2.9 2.5 Median No. of States 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 ** Multiple Response. Maximum number is eight states. 21
All to # of Destinations Visited** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4739 720 424 359 228 150 120 150 559 271 98* 149 1 Destination 21.7 23.7 18.3 20.6 12.0 5.5 19.4 24.3 17.1 23.0 16.5 22.5 2 Destinations 22.0 23.8 17.1 16.2 12.0 13.8 23.3 23.4 35.0 9.9 21.0 29.5 3 Destinations 19.3 19.3 22.9 16.1 16.8 22.6 22.7 25.0 21.7 12.0 17.8 12.2 4 Destinations 15.6 12.8 14.7 16.4 18.8 14.5 19.2 12.6 12.2 22.5 7.5 12.1 5 Destinations 8.3 8.1 8.8 9.4 11.6 14.7 3.2 3.4 5.9 16.3 9.0 9.3 6 Destinations 5.0 2.8 4.0 7.5 10.9 14.7 5.0 7.7 5.7 8.1 1.8 6.0 7 Destinations 6.9 5.9 8.5 13.1 16.8 13.3 6.6 3.5 2.0 7.3 26.3 5.1 8 Destinations 1.2 3.5 5.7 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.6-0.4 0.9-3.2 Mean No. of Destinations 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.5 4.1 4.2 3.0 2.8 2.8 3.5 3.8 3.1 Median No. of Destinations 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 ** Multiple Response. Maximum number is eight destinations. 22
FIRST TRIP BY AIR TO THE U.S. OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Percent 80 76.8 77.7 70 60 50 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors 40 30 20 23.2 22.3 10 0 Yes No Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 23
TRIPS TO THE U.S. IN PAST 12 MONTHS OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Ave. Number of TRIPS 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 24
AIR TRIPS TO THE U.S. OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Visitors from China were the most likely to be on their first trip to the U.S., followed by Australia and France. German leisure and Italian visitors round out the top five. UK and German visitors have taken the most trips to the U.S. in the past year. Australian and Chinese visitors have taken the fewest trips to the U.S. in the past year. All to First Air Trip (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 3987 650 381 300 194 132 106 132 482 220 74* 128 Yes 22.3 8.2 10.1 18.7 25.7 35.8 28.6 22.2 12.9 56.0 24.9 7.4 No 77.7 91.8 89.9 81.3 74.3 64.2 71.4 77.8 87.1 44.0 75.1 92.6 All to Air Trips in Last 12 Months (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 3860 631 372 292 190 126 106 129 468 213 72* 125 1 Trip 58.8 47.2 54.9 56.2 66.6 85.2 58.5 54.6 55.9 74.6 63.0 51.7 2-3 Trips 31.8 38.7 38.8 30.2 27.8 12.9 32.6 35.0 31.3 22.6 32.4 35.9 4-5 Trips 5.8 9.2 4.7 9.3 4.1 0.9 6.6 7.0 7.1 1.4 2.1 8.1 6-10 Trips 3.0 3.8 1.7 2.3 0.9 1.1 1.1 3.4 5.1 1.4 2.5 4.2 11 or More Trips 0.6 1.1-2.0 0.5-1.1-0.6 - - 0.1 Mean No. of Trips 1.8 2.1 1.7 2.1 1.6 1.2 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.3 1.5 2.0 Median No. of Trips 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 25
Percent 70 67.1 60.7 PURPOSE OF U.S. TRIP* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 60 50 41.7 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors 40 28.8 30 21.6 20 10 15.7 6.6 12.0 9.9 8.9 1.8 2.7 0 Vacation Friend/Relative Business Study Convention Other Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response 26
Percent 56.7 60 MAIN PURPOSE OF U.S. TRIP OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 50 40 40.0 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors 30 23.6 20 10 16.6 12.7 18.7 4.4 9.0 7.7 6.0 1.3 2.4 0 Vacation Friend/Relative Business Study Convention Other Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 27
PURPOSE OF TRIP OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Four in ten (40%) of the region's visitors main purpose of trip was for vacation/holiday. By comparison, nearly six out of ten (57%) of the overseas visitors to the U.S. were primarily visiting for vacation/holiday. Overall, New England is more reliant on travelers visiting friends and relatives, traveling for business, and to study than the average overseas visitor to the United States. However, it does not mean that those travelers are not also spending some leisure time in New England. In 2012 six in ten (61%) visitors to New England were traveling for leisure (as a multiple response purpose of trip) - unchanged from 2011. By comparison, 67% of overseas visitors to the U.S. were traveling for vacation/holiday (as a multiple purpose of trip). As a multiple purpose of trip, over two fifths (42%) of the region's visitors visited with friends and family, compared to nearly three in ten (29%) for the U.S. on average. Just under one quarter (22%) of the region's visitors were visiting for business, compared to only one sixth (16%) for the U.S. Student travel was nearly double for the region compared to the U.S. (12% vs. 7% respectively). Vacation/holiday travel is strongest for Australia and Italy and weakest for visitors from Japan, unchanged from 2011. However, it is also clear that travelers from Scandinavia come for a multiple purpose of trip, along with travelers from the UK, Germany, France, and Brazil. Business travel is strongest from Japan and weakest from Italy and Australia. China stands out for student travel. 28
All to Main Purpose of Trip (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4339 679 396 329 205 145 112 135 534 241 92* 139 Vacation/Holiday 40.0 44.1 72.9 44.4 70.1 63.3 31.9 36.7 27.9 31.4 60.0 28.8 Visit Friends/Relatives 23.6 25.8 17.5 21.8 17.3 19.0 28.8 19.4 18.0 19.6 21.1 30.2 Business** 18.7 21.2 3.4 21.7 4.2 5.2 25.1 22.5 29.6 15.2 5.0 21.6 Education 9.0 2.6 2.1 4.3 3.4 3.0 7.5 11.9 8.9 22.8 11.8 7.7 Convention/Conference/Trade Show 6.0 4.3 1.9 6.1 3.5 8.3 4.3 8.5 14.7 7.0-10.8 Other 2.4 1.7 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.2 2.5-0.9 4.0 1.0 1.0 Religion/Pilgrimage 0.2 0.2-0.1 - - - 0.8 - - - - Health Treatment 0.1 - - - - - - - - - 1.0 - ** Includes: Visit customer, Visit supplier, Sales/marketing, and/or Internal company meeting. All to Purpose of Trip - All*** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4655 715 424 357 228 148 119 146 546 266 97* 147 Vacation/Holiday 60.7 61.5 100.0 64.8 100.0 86.3 63.0 59.6 45.2 53.6 78.8 61.3 Visit Friends/Relatives 41.7 41.1 36.0 40.4 43.8 36.6 40.8 34.9 32.8 36.9 27.5 49.0 Business** 21.6 23.8 5.1 24.2 7.2 11.3 24.9 26.5 32.9 20.2 5.4 28.9 Education 12.0 4.2 3.9 7.7 6.4 4.7 14.3 13.2 13.6 25.2 12.5 8.1 Convention/Conference/Trade Show 8.9 7.8 3.2 8.7 3.1 12.2 6.3 9.5 20.4 8.2 10.8 11.9 Other 2.7 2.4 2.3 1.7 1.7 3.4 4.0 0.4 1.6 4.1 1.0 0.9 Religion/Pilgrimage 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 - - - 1.9 0.1 - - - Health Treatment 0.3 0.1 - - - 0.6 1.0 - - - 1.0 - ** Includes: Visit customer, Visit supplier, Sales/marketing, and/or Internal company meeting. *** Multiple Response. 29
LEISURE-RECREATION ACTIVITIES* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Shopping 87.0 Art Sightseeing 38.7 41.6 Cultural/Ethnic 30.3 Small Concert/Play/Musical 24.6 23.2 Sporting Event 13.5 Camping/Hiking Environmental/Eco. Hunting/Fishing 2.7 4.5 6.9 Snow Sports 2.4 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response Percent 30
LEISURE-RECREATION ACTIVITIES* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Shopping Art Galleries/Museums Sightseeing Cultural/Ethnic Heritage Sights Small Towns/Countryside Concert/Play/Musical Sporting Event Camping/Hiking Environmental/Eco. Excursions Hunting/Fishing Snow Sports 6.9 4.4 4.5 3.4 2.7 1.8 2.4 1.4 15.6 23.2 18.4 13.5 11.8 28.4 24.6 26.9 30.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response 38.7 41.6 76.9 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors Percent 87.0 87.8 31
LEISURE-RECREATION ACTIVITIES OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Shopping and visiting art galleries/museums, followed by sightseeing and cultural/ethnic heritage sights were the most common leisure and recreation activities for overseas visitors to New England. The travelers to New England are clearly seeking out multiple destinations and experiences - they are regional travelers. Visitors are seeking both city-oriented experiences and seeking experiences throughout the region's countryside and small towns. Compared to the overseas visitor to the U.S., New England's product demand is much stronger for about one quarter of the 22 activities in the survey. Interestingly, sightseeing was significantly below the U.S. average (39% for New England and 77% for U.S.). Leisure product standouts include visiting art galleries/museums (42% for New England and 28% for U.S.) and visiting cultural/ethnic heritage sights (30% for New England and 16% for U.S.). Each of the following activities were also stand outs for New England compared to the U.S. average: concert/play musical (23% for New England and 18% for U.S.); sporting events (14% for New England and 12% for U.S.); camping/hiking (7% for New England and 4% for U.S.); environmental/eco excursions (5% for New England and 3% for U.S.). Product demand was on par with the U.S. average for the following activities: shopping (87% for New England and 88% for U.S.); guided tours (24% for New England and 24% for U.S.); nightclubbing/dancing (16% for New England and 16% for U.S.); American Indian communities (5% for New England and 5% for U.S.); golfing/tennis (5% for New England and 4% for U.S.); hunting/fishing (3% for New England and 2% for U.S.); and snow skiing (2% for New England and 1% for U.S.) In contrast, product demand was lower for New England compared to the U.S. for the following leisure activities: sightseeing (39% for New England and 77% for the U.S.); small towns/countryside (25% for New England and 27% for the U.S.); amusement/theme parks (23% for New England and 27% for U.S.); historical locations (22% for New England and 26% for U.S.); national parks/monuments (21% for New England and 33% for U.S.); fine dining (20% for New England and 38% for U.S.); casinos/gambling (8% for New England and 10% for U.S.); and water sports/sunbathing (4% for New England and 11% for U.S.). German leisure travelers had the highest proportion visiting historical places, followed by UK leisure visitors, Australia, and Italian visitors, compared to the other key visitor markets. In contrast, travelers from France reported the smallest proportion for visiting historical places. It is clear that both the German and UK visitors traveling specifically for leisure are much more active and participate in more leisure activities than the average German and British visitor to the region. The top three activities of shopping, visiting art galleries/museums, and sightseeing were the same across all visitor markets, with the exception of Australian visitors who replace sightseeing with guided tours. 32
Scandinavian, UK, and UK leisure visitors round out their top five activities with cultural/ethnic heritage sights and visiting small towns/countryside. German and German leisure visitors round out their top five activities with cultural/ethnic heritage sights and guided tours. Australia and France round out their top five activities with cultural/ethnic heritage sights and concerts/plays. Brazil rounds out their top five with concerts/plays and amusement parks. Japan rounds out their top five with experiencing fine dining and visiting historical locations. China rounds out their top five with cultural/ethnic heritage sights and amusement parks. Italy rounds out their top five with small towns/countryside and amusement parks. Visitors from Australia (23%) are as likely as visitors from China (23%) to have gambled/visited a casino on their most recent trip to the U.S. 33
All to Leisure Activities** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4136 662 405 315 211 143 103 130 484 229 85* 131 Shopping 87.0 82.5 89.9 86.1 89.8 93.9 72.5 94.8 84.1 88.0 89.0 93.0 Art Galleries/Museums 41.6 36.1 42.1 42.3 53.9 59.6 54.9 40.0 47.4 48.6 50.5 36.1 +Sightseeing 38.7 40.9 47.0 42.9 48.0 39.9 35.5 36.7 44.9 44.2 34.6 29.4 Cultural/Ethnic Heritage Sights 30.3 29.4 36.4 42.1 54.7 47.2 40.0 25.7 21.3 38.6 30.7 26.8 +Small Towns/Countryside 24.6 29.8 34.7 28.5 35.9 24.8 24.4 9.6 20.9 28.6 39.8 24.4 Guided Tour(s) 23.9 24.7 34.7 29.1 36.1 51.7 15.6 11.8 22.4 31.9 18.4 20.2 Concert/Play/Musical 23.2 15.8 19.7 27.3 34.3 46.8 34.3 31.6 23.2 22.4 15.4 17.8 Amusement/Theme Parks 22.7 11.3 14.6 18.9 23.3 28.8 12.9 36.2 11.3 42.1 38.0 16.6 +Historical Locations 21.7 26.6 33.0 26.9 34.0 32.0 15.3 17.1 25.2 17.6 29.6 23.9 +National Parks/Monuments 21.3 21.2 27.8 25.7 32.3 33.5 21.9 26.2 8.8 18.6 27.4 16.5 +Experience Fine Dining 20.3 24.6 24.0 20.4 18.2 26.4 9.8 8.4 30.0 30.1 3.5 13.6 Nightclubbing/Dancing 15.5 11.4 11.5 12.3 13.1 17.8 16.4 25.0 9.4 11.0 4.9 19.4 Sporting Event 13.5 14.1 15.2 14.6 17.6 25.5 9.9 17.1 14.5 14.1 2.7 11.6 Casino/Gamble 7.9 5.3 6.2 4.3 5.3 22.5 6.4 6.0 2.9 23.1 9.2 0.5 Camping/Hiking 6.9 4.9 6.6 14.6 19.3 3.1 10.2 3.9 1.6 9.2 2.4 8.2 American Indian Communities 5.3 2.8 4.2 5.8 8.3 5.4 7.4 1.3 5.0 15.0 2.1 7.0 Golfing/Tennis 4.8 4.2 3.5 2.7 3.9 3.4 6.1 1.6 2.9 11.1-1.2 Environmental/Eco. Excursions 4.5 2.3 2.5 5.2 6.9 2.5 10.7 4.9 0.6 12.0 0.6 3.5 +Water Sports 4.3 5.8 7.5 4.6 4.3 0.7 1.7 0.3 1.3 12.4 3.7 1.0 Hunting/Fishing 2.7 1.8 2.0 1.5 2.2 0.4 1.5-0.1 18.1-3.0 Snow Sports 2.4 2.8 3.6 0.8 0.7 1.3 1.6 1.9 0.3 3.1 0.7 2.5 +Other 0.7 1.6 1.4 0.8 0.9-0.5-0.1 0.4 0.8 0.9 + 2012 Sample Only. ** Multiple Response 34
Airline Travel Agency Office Personal Recommendation Online Travel Agency Travel Guide Corporate Travel Department Nat'l/State/City Travel Ofc. Other Tour Operator/Travel Club 5.1 5.2 4.9 6.6 8.4 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response TRAVEL INFORMATION SOURCES* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 11.2 12.8 9.9 12.4 9.9 17.4 21.1 23.9 25.4 27.7 29.4 36.8 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors 42.6 Percent 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 35
U.S. TRIP INFORMATION SOURCES OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Overseas visitors to New England are more likely to use a travel agency office to gather trip information compared to the average overseas visitor to the U.S. In contrast, overseas visitors to New England are less likely to use all other sources to gather travel information compared to the average overseas visitor to the U.S. Australian and German leisure visitors were most likely to use an online travel agency to gather trip information, compared with other visitor markets. In contrast, Italian travelers to New England were least likely to use an online travel agency to gather travel information. Airlines were the most used of all information sources in 2012. Just over one third (37%) of overseas visitors used airlines to gather travel information, up from 27% in 2011. UK, UK leisure, and Scandinavian travelers were the most likely to use an airline to gather travel information. Just over one quarter (28%) of the region's overseas visitors used a travel agent, clearly still an important information source. However, in 2012 use was down from 34% in 2011. Consistent with 2011, Australian visitors to New England are most likely to use a travel agent to gather trip information. In contrast, UK leisure visitors were least likely to use a travel agent. All to Information Sources** % New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 Number of Respondents 4648 712 418 356 227 149 117 146 548 263 95* 146 Airline 36.8 47.1 50.7 35.4 38.7 33.9 25.8 37.0 30.0 33.1 29.2 40.4 Travel Agency Office 27.7 16.2 15.7 30.4 33.2 59.9 25.8 28.6 39.2 23.8 40.4 23.8 Personal Recommendation 21.1 18.6 23.5 19.2 24.8 19.8 15.5 16.2 13.1 26.9 18.8 22.7 +Online Travel Agency 17.4 17.1 22.5 19.1 22.9 23.9 18.0 18.8 14.9 17.7 13.6 15.4 Travel Guide 11.2 9.7 15.4 21.4 31.6 11.3 4.5 7.9 15.4 12.7 16.5 8.7 Corporate Travel Department 9.9 12.8 3.8 11.2 2.4 4.6 6.6 15.4 9.9 9.4 10.4 15.5 National/State/City Travel Office 6.6 3.2 5.0 14.6 16.5 7.2 2.5 12.5 2.3 3.7 8.7 3.5 +Other 5.1 2.5 3.7 6.6 8.8 1.0 5.7 4.0 3.7 5.1 0.7 12.9 Tour Operator/Travel Club 4.9 4.8 7.1 6.4 8.2 6.4 3.8 5.2 7.6 4.5 5.6 0.4 ** Multiple Response + 2012 Sample Only 36
Percent New England Overseas Visitors 2012 Report 25 20 ADVANCE TRIP DECISION OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 21.9 21.4 20.5 19.6 23.3 23.2 U.S. Visitors Ave. = 91 Days Median = 60 Days New England Visitors Ave. = 99 Days Median = 60 Days 15 11.9 11.2 12.9 10.8 10.6 12.6 10 5 0 0-14 15-30 31-60 61-120 121-180 181 + Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 Days 37
ADVANCE TRIP DECISION OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 The average time period for overseas visitors to decide to travel to New England was 99 days before the actual trip, a bit longer than in 2011 (97 days) and the average for the U.S. (91 days on average). German leisure travelers and those from Australia decided to visit with the longest lead time, around 60 days earlier than the average overseas visitor to New England, and nearly five and a half months prior to visiting the region. In contrast, travelers from Japan decided to visit the region just over two months (63 days) prior to visiting. The longer trip decision time for Australians reflects the higher percent of leisure visitors and in contrast the shorter decision time line for Japanese travelers reflects the higher percent of business travelers. All to Advance Trip Decision (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4463 697 409 342 221 146 115 144 544 251 94* 142 Same Day 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - 0.4 - - - - - - 1-3 Days 1.8 2.1 1.0 0.5 - - 6.3 1.5 1.6 0.4-1.2 4-7 Days 2.9 4.0 2.0 2.6 1.3-3.5 0.8 4.7 0.7 2.4 6.2 8-14 Days 6.3 8.0 3.5 7.1 1.1 3.8 2.0 1.4 11.0 4.2 2.6 13.2 15-30 Days 20.5 14.9 9.5 15.8 9.6 9.7 11.6 33.3 27.7 21.2 23.2 16.6 31-60 Days 19.6 16.6 14.2 14.6 13.3 12.4 16.4 20.3 27.9 29.4 7.5 16.5 61-90 Days 14.0 16.7 19.1 9.3 10.6 11.0 8.2 11.7 13.6 19.7 26.8 6.4 91-120 Days 9.2 9.4 12.4 9.3 8.7 11.8 9.0 8.4 5.2 13.9 4.6 12.7 121-180 Days 12.9 11.6 15.0 19.8 26.2 20.8 23.1 10.8 4.1 5.0 29.8 15.4 181 or More Days 12.6 16.6 23.1 21.1 29.2 30.1 20.0 11.7 4.2 5.5 3.0 11.8 Mean No. of Days 98.9 108.6 136.2 128.6 161.2 158.7 126.8 94.2 62.7 77.0 97.7 95.0 Median No. of Days 60.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 150.0 135.0 100.0 60.0 45.0 60.0 90.0 60.0 38
ADVANCE TIME FOR PURCHASE OF AIRLINE TICKETS OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Ave. Number of Days 61.3 61.3 61.2 61.1 61.0 60.9 60.8 60.7 60.7 60.6 60.5 60.4 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 39
Percent New England Overseas Visitors 2012 Report ADVANCE AIRLINE DECISION OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 30 28.2 27.0 U.S. Visitors Ave. = 66 Days Median = 40 Days New England Visitors Ave. = 65 Days Median = 45 25 20 19 19.0 20.1 21.1 19.2 18.9 15 10 8.1 9.5 5 5.4 5.0 0 0-14 15-30 31-60 61-120 121-180 181 + Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 Days 40
ADVANCE TICKET PURCHASE OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 On average, visitors to New England committed to an airline reservation 65 days prior to the actual trip, the same as in 2011. It is worth noting that the time between the trip decision and booking a flight was one month on average for overseas visitors to New England. Again, German leisure and Australian visitors had the longest lead time prior to visiting the region. All to Advance Airline Reservation (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4317 680 397 335 218 142 113 139 513 244 90* 142 Same Day 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.1 0.4-0.3 0.1 - - - 1-3 Days 3.8 3.9 2.3 2.2 1.5 0.6 6.5 1.9 3.8 4.9 0.6 2.0 4-7 Days 5.7 4.6 2.4 3.5-0.4 4.5 3.9 11.7 4.2 4.2 7.6 8-14 Days 9.1 9.7 5.5 8.1 3.2 4.6 6.6 4.1 15.6 10.6 8.0 14.6 15-30 Days 27.0 19.8 12.6 19.9 12.4 18.4 26.9 39.8 28.7 34.9 21.0 21.9 31-60 Days 21.1 20.0 21.8 15.8 18.7 18.3 14.4 20.4 22.9 33.9 15.1 23.0 61-90 Days 11.5 12.6 15.3 12.6 12.4 14.4 12.8 9.8 11.2 9.0 20.8 11.0 91-120 Days 7.4 9.7 11.8 10.1 12.7 16.5 8.2 3.8 4.8-17.8 5.2 121-180 Days 9.0 10.2 13.5 17.6 25.0 11.5 19.7 8.0 0.8 2.6 11.5 11.5 181 or More Days 5.0 9.2 14.5 9.1 13.1 14.7 0.5 8.0 0.4-1.1 3.2 Mean No. of Days 65.3 79.6 102.5 87.9 111.4 103.1 70.2 68.3 39.8 40.2 76.0 63.6 Median No. of Days 45.0 56.0 90.0 60.0 100.0 90.0 45.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 90.0 40.0 41
All to +Advance Flight Purchase**(%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 2026 303 185 170 117 58* 62* 75* 249 117 51* 49* Same Day 0.5 - - - - - 4.3 0.7 - - - 0.1 1-3 Days 4.0 3.9 1.1 2.3 0.4-3.7 8.1 4.9 10.3-1.2 4-7 Days 7.6 6.9 4.5 3.4-0.1 6.2 2.5 22.1 2.3-11.7 8-14 Days 11.0 9.8 7.4 7.1 4.0 7.1 8.8 13.3 14.8 11.1 17.8 13.2 15-30 Days 23.9 16.5 12.9 23.9 15.6 22.6 18.3 19.8 28.0 32.0 12.2 18.8 31-60 Days 22.5 27.5 29.9 19.7 24.2 24.6 20.6 19.4 19.8 36.5 16.8 17.0 61-90 Days 13.7 11.2 12.1 15.6 20.0 19.9 16.6 8.8 8.7 4.6 40.2 17.6 91-120 Days 4.9 8.2 8.1 7.2 7.7 4.0 9.2 6.5 1.7 2.0 4.1 1.3 121-180 Days 8.4 7.8 11.2 16.5 22.3 9.4 11.4 20.8 0.1 1.2 8.9 19.0 181 or More Days 3.6 8.2 12.7 4.4 5.8 12.4 0.8 - - - - - Mean No. of Days 61.3 74.7 93.7 78.0 96.2 91.3 63.9 70.0 31.7 40.3 70.4 66.8 Median No. of Days 42.0 45.0 60.0 60.0 90.0 60.0 42.0 45.0 28.0 30.0 80.0 60.0 + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. ** Multiple Response. 42
HOW AIRLINE RESERVATIONS WERE MADE* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Directly with the Airline Travel Agency Office Internet Booking Service 28.8 27.5 26.1 25.2 31.1 32.7 Corporate Travel Department 12.8 11.2 New England Visitors Tour Operator/Travel Club 6.3 9.2 U.S. Visitors Other 1.6 1.5 Percent 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response 43
WERE LODGING RESERVATIONS MADE BEFORE LEAVING HOME, IF SO HOW?* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 No 32.7 39.1 The Lodging Establish. Directly Travel Agency Office Internet Booking Service 17.6 17.7 14.4 16.1 12.3 23.1 Other 2.0 10.1 Corporate Travel Department Tour Operator/Travel Club 4.3 6.0 7.1 9.4 New England Visitors Yes = 61% No = 39% U.S. Visitors Yes = 67% No = 33% Percent 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response 44
AIR TRIP MEANS OF BOOKING AIR TRIP AND LODGING OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 In 2012 one third (33%) of the overseas visitors to New England booked their air travel directly with the airline. UK travelers are influencing this number since they provide the largest number of visitors of any other visitor market and are the only market to book directly with the airline more than the average overseas visitor to the region. All other visitor markets book directly with an airline less than the average overseas visitor. Nearly three out of ten (28%) overseas visitors used a travel agency office and one quarter (26%) used an online travel agency, rounding out the top three means of booking air travel. Travelers from Australia, Japan, Germany, Italy, and Brazil were most likely to book their air travel through a travel agent. British travelers and British leisure travelers were least likely to use a travel agent. Travelers from France, Scandinavia, and China were most likely to book their travel through an internet booking service. In contrast, travelers from Brazil and Australia were least likely to use an internet booking service to book their air travel. Travelers from Brazil were the most likely to book air travel with a tour operator. PRE-BOOKED LODGING Directly with the lodging establishment was the top means for pre-booking lodging, replacing travel agency as the top means of prebooking lodging. Booking directly with the lodging establishment increased from 13% in 2011 to 18% in 2012. UK leisure, UK, and German leisure travelers are the most likely to book directly with the lodging establishment. In contrast, Italy and China were the least likely to book directly to the establishment. Use of a travel agency declined from 19% in 2011 to 14% in 2012 and ranks second as a mean for pre-booking lodging. Travelers from Italy and Australia were most likely to use a travel agent to pre-book their lodging. In contrast, travelers from Scandinavia and British travelers were least likely to pre-book lodging through a travel agent. Internet booking service, a new category in 2012, was the third most popular means of pre-booking lodging. Interestingly, nearly four out of ten (39%) of the overseas visitors to the region did not pre-book their lodging, on par with 2011. 45
All to +Means of Booking Air Trip**(%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 2260 323 195 185 124 60* 63* 82* 271 129 55* 56* Directly with the Airline 32.7 57.6 63.1 20.8 21.3 34.3 14.4 28.1 21.2 27.2 16.0 19.8 Travel Agency Office 27.5 10.0 11.2 39.5 42.5 60.5 30.5 30.2 49.6 22.9 45.1 21.4 Internet Booking Service 26.1 16.3 16.6 21.2 23.4 16.4 46.1 12.9 18.9 37.8 21.8 42.3 Corporate Travel Department 12.8 13.3 4.2 15.6 4.9 1.2 8.6 26.2 9.9 13.2 12.7 16.5 Tour Operator/Travel Club 6.3 7.0 9.8 2.5 3.9-0.7 17.6 3.1 13.7 10.7 - Other 1.6 1.1 1.7 5.0 7.3-1.4-0.4 1.8-1.2 + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. ** Multiple Response. All to Pre-Booked Lodging** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4559 713 420 350 224 148 112 139 542 260 95* 144 Yes, Booked Through*** 60.9 65.1 68.2 70.1 74.7 76.6 48.6 74.5 79.1 51.6 64.1 70.5 The Lodging Establish. Directly 17.6 28.8 33.6 21.8 25.7 22.5 11.6 18.1 19.0 9.0 2.3 21.4 Travel Agency Office 14.4 8.2 9.4 18.3 25.4 31.9 11.9 19.5 21.2 13.6 31.9 7.0 +Internet Booking Service 12.3 12.1 18.0 11.8 13.0 17.9 11.3 15.6 15.1 11.0 16.6 15.8 Other 10.1 7.8 10.2 7.6 9.6 13.3 3.1 8.2 10.1 8.5 10.9 20.4 Corporate Travel Department 9.4 13.1 3.2 12.7 3.4 1.3 8.9 9.3 14.6 9.9 8.9 9.2 Tour Operator/Travel Club 4.3 3.5 5.7 5.7 8.8 7.7 10.7 8.4 3.8 5.2 6.0 5.5 The Airline 0.9 1.7 2.4 0.8 0.8 1.2-1.0 1.9 0.2 0.6 - No 39.1 34.9 31.8 29.9 25.3 23.4 51.4 25.5 20.9 48.4 35.9 29.5 ** Percentages based on total number of respondents. *** Multiple Response. 46
TYPE OF AIRLINE TICKET OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Paid Ticket 77.7 76.6 Don't Know 12.1 12.7 Frequent Flyer Award Ticket Discount/Group Fare Paid Upgrade Non-revenue Frequent Flyer Upgrade 3.9 4.3 3.2 3.7 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.1 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response 47
AIRCRAFT SEATING OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Economy/Tourist/Coach 76.9 79.8 Executive/Business Class 8.9 12.2 Premium Economy 8.7 9.7 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors First Class 2.2 1.6 Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 48
PREPAID, INCLUSIVE TOUR PACKAGE OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Percent 100.0 90.0 81.0 91.1 80.0 70.0 60.0 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 19.0 8.9 0.0 Yes, Airfare and Accommodation No Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 49
AIRLINE TICKET CLASS AND PREPAID TRIP PACKAGE OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 The majority of overseas visitors to the region used a paid ticket (78%) and flew economy class (77%). Only one in eight used an executive/business ticket. Japanese visitors to New England were most likely to use executive/business class tickets. Japanese travelers were most likely to have used a paid upgrade as well as to have used a discount/group fare. In 2012 only one in ten (9%) of the overseas travelers to New England traveled with an inclusive prepaid tour package, on par with 2011. Visitors from Italy had the highest proportion of inclusive packages. It should be noted that in today's dynamic package market the estimate of travelers using a package is possibly understated. This is primarily due to the complexity of packaging today. All to +Airline Ticket Type** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 2061 308 186 168 111 55* 59* 75* 259 115 51* 50* Paid Ticket 77.7 75.4 74.1 86.6 86.5 94.8 76.8 90.6 61.4 86.7 81.4 76.9 Frequent Flyer Award Ticket 3.9 7.4 8.4 6.5 4.0 - - 2.3 1.0 0.4 2.2 - Discount/Group Fare 3.2 3.0 4.4 2.5 2.5-2.8-15.8 6.4-3.4 Paid Upgrade 2.3 5.4 5.0 - - 1.2 3.2-13.4 0.3 - - Non-revenue 1.7 2.0 1.4 - - - 2.9-0.6 1.5-11.8 Frequent Flyer Upgrade 1.2 3.0 1.7 1.3 - - - - 1.8-6.6 - Don't Know 12.1 5.9 5.5 5.3 7.0 3.9 14.2 7.2 16.0 7.1 16.4 9.2 + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. ** Multiple Response. 50
All to +Airline Seating (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 2088 312 188 172 115 55* 60* 77* 262 118 50* 49* First Class 2.2 6.2 5.1 0.8 0.8 - - - 1.5 0.6-2.6 Executive/Business Class 12.2 19.6 15.5 11.1 3.0 2.5 10.3 2.9 24.2 15.9 13.5 7.3 Premium Economy 8.7 17.4 12.3 3.5 1.4 9.4 8.6 4.6 18.7 2.5 7.5 1.4 Economy/Tourist/Coach 76.9 56.8 67.2 84.6 94.7 88.1 81.1 92.5 55.6 81.0 79.0 88.7 All to +Prepaid Package** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 2204 320 194 183 124 60* 62* 80* 271 119 55* 54* Yes, Airfare and Accommodation*** 8.9 6.0 9.6 11.0 13.6 16.8 10.4 8.0 15.9 17.3 23.6 9.4 Bus/Coach 3.3 2.9 4.7 3.0 4.7 13.1 3.8 2.9 4.2 8.3 1.4 2.5 Guided Tours 3.3 3.1 4.9 2.8 4.3 11.7 3.8-5.2 9.1 1.4 3.8 Meals 3.0 2.1 3.4 2.1 3.2 7.7 4.5 2.4 4.9 9.8-3.9 Attractions/Events/Entertainment 2.9 2.0 3.2 3.9 6.0 7.7-1.0 2.7 12.2-3.8 Rental Car 2.8 0.9 1.5 6.1 7.7 2.5 6.5 - - 5.9 16.6 1.5 Tour Guide for Entire Trip 2.3 2.6 4.2 1.1 1.7 6.3 3.8-1.5 7.7 1.4 1.2 Airfare and Accommodation Only 1.9 1.3 2.0 2.3 3.0 - - 2.6 9.9 2.2 3.5 4.1 Cruise 1.0 1.2 1.9 - - 6.2 - - 0.8 3.9-2.5 Rail Tickets 0.8 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.6 6.4 - - 2.8 0.8 2.1 1.2 Recreation 0.3 0.4 0.6 - - 1.2 - - 0.4 0.9 - - No 91.1 94.0 90.4 89.0 86.4 83.2 89.6 92.0 84.1 82.7 76.4 90.6 + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. ** Percentages based on total number of respondents. *** Multiple Response. Must include airfare and accommodation and may include others. 51
Airfare Convenient Schedule Non-stop Flights Previous Good Experience Mileage Bonus/Freq. Flyer Program Safety Reputation Loyalty to Carrier In-flight Service Reputation On-time Reputation Not Involved in Choice Employer Policy THREE MAIN REASONS FOR CHOOSING AIRLINE* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Other 6.4 6.4 5.5 4.2 4.0 5.2 11.6 10.0 11.2 11.9 10.0 10.7 23.7 22.5 20.0 17.4 16.6 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 28.5 29.8 37.5 43.3 40.3 45.0 48.0 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors Percent Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response 52
MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR CHOOSING AIRLINE OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Airfare Convenient Schedule Non-stop Flights Mileage Bonus/Freq. Flyer Program Previous Good Experience Safety Reputation Loyalty to Carrier Other Employer Policy In-flight Service Reputation On-time Reputation 5.0 5.0 4.1 3.4 4.0 4.1 3.6 2.5 2.6 2.4 1.5 2.1 9.5 8.0 9.1 7.9 17.1 14.9 13.0 16.5 30.5 33.1 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors Percent 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 53
AIRLINE CHOICE OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Nearly all overseas visitors to the region (94%) were involved in their choice of airline. The top three reasons for selecting an airline, in a multiple choice question, were airfare, convenient schedule, and non-stop flights. The same rank held true for the main reason for choosing an airline. French and Italian travelers were more likely than all overseas visitors to not have been involved with the choice of an airline. All to Airline Choice Top 3 Reasons** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4167 678 403 315 200 132 109 129 526 230 83* 130 Not Involved in Choice 6.4 5.9 7.6 4.3 5.7 1.1 9.0 8.3 5.2 7.7 9.5 6.1 Involved in Choice*** 93.6 94.1 92.4 95.7 94.3 98.9 91.0 91.7 94.8 92.3 90.5 93.9 Airfare 45.0 43.3 47.0 41.8 43.7 56.7 53.7 46.2 31.1 47.1 45.3 58.9 Convenient Schedule 43.3 51.4 50.6 40.2 42.6 39.3 36.8 32.5 27.0 42.6 47.1 63.3 Non-stop Flights 29.8 32.9 33.6 39.1 44.2 31.1 19.9 24.4 28.8 36.9 20.8 17.1 Previous Good Experience 28.5 35.6 32.3 31.5 35.5 29.9 23.0 19.1 26.2 18.2 36.0 29.8 Mileage Bonus/Freq. Flyer Program 22.5 28.9 24.7 18.1 11.7 31.3 13.7 22.4 49.9 9.1 12.7 19.8 Safety Reputation 17.4 9.6 10.4 32.2 36.0 25.5 24.8 25.4 21.7 14.7 17.1 11.4 Loyalty to Carrier 11.6 22.7 20.6 7.2 5.5 22.4 6.9 5.0 18.2 2.7 5.1 4.9 In-flight Service Reputation 11.2 10.9 10.5 11.9 13.3 15.0 12.2 2.2 25.3 16.8 10.8 4.0 On-time Reputation 10.0 4.6 5.1 11.0 8.0 7.1 14.4 21.6 8.2 8.7 17.4 3.6 Employer Policy 5.5 4.8 1.9 7.8 2.6 1.2 10.7 8.0 5.4 5.5 8.1 0.3 Other 4.0 4.9 6.4 1.9 1.3 2.4 0.8 6.3 6.3 5.8 3.8 8.8 * Caution - Small sample size. ** Percentages based on total number of respondents. *** Multiple Response. Based on top three choices in aggregate. 54
All to Airline Choice Main Reason (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 3158 531 310 243 153 121 91* 90* 413 167 65* 100 Airfare 30.5 24.5 28.1 24.5 25.4 39.1 52.9 33.7 13.6 33.0 33.3 31.9 Convenient Schedule 17.1 16.8 14.6 18.2 15.5 13.4 8.6 15.5 8.4 21.4 17.4 32.6 Non-stop Flights 13.0 13.2 13.2 20.3 26.0 5.4 6.3 8.7 17.0 17.6 13.6 10.4 Mileage Bonus/Freq. Flyer Program 9.5 13.6 13.5 4.5 5.4 12.5 6.2 11.3 20.4 3.3 1.4 8.3 Previous Good Experience 9.1 13.2 14.0 10.8 8.1 6.3 3.9 7.6 7.8 3.3 10.3 4.9 Safety Reputation 5.0 1.1 1.0 10.2 12.5 8.7 1.8 0.4 9.7 6.3 11.0 1.8 Loyalty to Carrier 4.1 7.8 5.7 2.2 2.5 8.7 2.9 1.0 6.4 0.6 2.9 - Employer Policy 3.6 3.4 1.6 5.5 2.4 0.7 6.7 6.4 2.5 3.4 0.9 0.3 In-flight Service Reputation 2.6 1.5 1.7 1.1 0.4 1.9 6.4 1.2 8.5 2.2 6.5 2.9 On-time Reputation 1.5 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.7 3.7 5.6 0.5 2.0-0.2 Other 4.0 4.4 5.9 2.4 1.5 2.6 0.7 8.5 5.1 6.9 2.6 6.7 * Caution - Small sample size. 55
TRAVEL PARTY SIZE OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Percent 100 90 90.5 92.3 80 70 60 50 U.S. Visitors Ave. Party Size: 1.6 New England Visitors Ave. Party size: 1.5 40 30 20 10 9.5 7.7 0 Adults Only Adults and Children Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 56
TRAVEL PARTY COMPOSITION* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Traveling Alone 58.3 67.0 Spouse/Partner 17.2 23.2 Family/Relatives Friend(s) Business Associate(s) 4.7 6.2 3.5 3.0 11.6 14.7 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors Tour Group 0.4 0.4 Percent 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response 57
TRAVEL PARTY SIZE OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 The average total party size for all overseas travelers to New England was 1.5 persons, the same as in 2011. Overall, 92% of overseas travelers were adults and only 8% were adults traveling with children. China, Italy, and German leisure travelers were most likely to travel with children; however, the share was still a small minority. Nearly three quarters (74%) of adult only travel parties consisted of only one adult. Adult only travelers from Brazil and France were the most likely to be traveling alone. All to Travel Party Size (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4706 719 424 357 227 150 119 149 558 270 96* 148 Adults Only 92.3 93.2 90.4 91.9 87.4 96.6 92.0 94.4 91.1 82.5 85.6 94.7 Adults and Children 7.7 6.8 9.6 8.1 12.6 3.4 8.0 5.6 8.9 17.5 14.4 5.3 Mean Total Party Size 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.5 Median Total Party Size 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 Adults Only (Number of Respondents) 4244 655 372 313 188 141 105 135 518 223 85 131 One 74.0 63.8 46.6 71.9 55.6 65.7 85.8 86.3 74.7 70.9 57.6 72.0 Two 22.1 32.0 47.6 24.3 39.8 32.1 12.1 10.4 19.9 21.9 33.6 26.1 Three 2.3 2.2 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.0 0.3 2.6 2.9 5.6 4.2 1.1 Four or More 1.6 1.9 3.0 1.8 2.5 0.2 1.7 0.8 2.5 1.6 4.6 0.8 Mean Adult Party Size 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 Median Adult Party Size 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Adults and Children (Number of Respondents) 462 64 52 44 39 9 14 14 40 47 11 17 Mean Party Size 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.9 3.6 3.5 2.9 3.9 3.5 4.8 Median Party Size 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 * Caution - Small sample size. 58
All to Travel Companion** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4657 712 422 354 226 150 117 149 555 261 96* 146 Traveling Alone 67.0 58.9 42.3 62.0 46.1 62.9 77.9 81.4 66.2 57.7 45.9 67.0 Spouse/Partner 17.2 26.5 40.7 16.9 25.9 26.5 13.7 11.5 11.6 17.0 30.3 13.5 Family/Relatives 11.6 10.7 16.1 12.8 20.3 8.8 8.0 8.5 10.6 17.0 22.0 14.6 Friend(s) 4.7 4.4 7.2 8.3 14.4 4.4 2.7 3.8 3.6 8.0 11.4 1.9 Business Associate(s) 3.5 3.5 0.4 5.4 2.3-1.5 1.2 10.5 6.1-6.2 Tour Group 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.9 0.7 0.1 1.1 1.1-0.2 ** Multiple Response 59
GENDER OF OVERSEAS VISITORS OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Percent 60 50 55.4 52.9 44.6 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors 47.1 40 30 20 10 0 Male Adults Female Adults Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 60
GENDER AND AGE OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 A slight majority (53%) of the overseas visitors to New England were male in 2012, down from 54% in 2011. The share of women traveling to the region in 2012 was up slightly (47% in 2012, up from 46% in 2011). New England mirrored overall trends to the U.S. over the past two years. Travelers from Japan had the highest proportion of male visitors - tied to business. In contrast, a slight majority of the travelers from Scandinavia, German leisure, and Italy were women. The average age was 41 years for male visitors and 39 years for female visitors. UK leisure travelers are the oldest of any visitor market, at 47 and 46 years respectively. All to Age and Gender (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 3341 394 240 266 174 79* 98* 132 501 216 74* 79* Male Adults 52.9 57.9 54.0 54.1 48.6 51.5 53.0 50.8 69.1 51.5 49.9 48.8 18-24 Years 6.8 6.5 7.0 4.3 7.6 2.6 7.7 10.7 7.6 14.8-6.9 25-34 Years 13.3 6.8 6.9 16.8 18.8 21.7 19.5 14.1 10.5 12.9 18.5 4.8 35-54 Years 22.9 25.1 17.7 23.8 17.7 12.6 20.8 22.4 37.5 19.5 14.4 23.3 55 Years + 10.0 19.4 22.5 9.1 4.5 14.7 5.1 3.6 13.6 4.2 16.8 13.7 Mean Male Age (Years) 40.6 46.2 47.0 41.0 37.3 43.6 36.2 35.8 43.8 34.3 43.6 43.1 Median Male Age (Years) 39.0 47.0 51.0 41.0 32.0 43.0 34.0 35.0 45.0 30.0 37.0 45.0 Female Adults 47.1 42.1 46.0 45.9 51.4 48.5 47.0 49.2 30.9 48.5 50.1 51.2 18-24 Years 10.6 5.5 7.0 9.5 10.8 13.0 10.9 9.6 3.9 12.3 2.7 8.3 25-34 Years 12.9 9.5 11.1 15.1 20.5 12.1 10.9 14.0 4.0 16.6 16.6 19.8 35-54 Years 14.6 10.3 8.5 14.6 14.1 6.0 19.8 11.8 15.8 17.5 28.8 13.1 55 Years + 8.9 16.9 19.2 6.6 6.1 17.5 5.3 13.9 7.2 2.0 2.0 10.0 Mean Female Age (Years) 38.5 46.1 45.8 37.6 35.3 42.3 38.2 41.5 44.1 32.8 40.0 38.6 Median Female Age (Years) 35.0 45.0 45.0 32.0 31.0 33.0 40.0 40.0 44.0 31.0 45.0 34.0 * Caution - Small sample size. 61
AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Percent $115,000 $112,028 $110,000 $105,000 $99,800 $100,000 $95,000 $90,000 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 62
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 The average household income for overseas visitors to New England was $112,000, up from $97,000 in 2011. By comparison, visitors to New England had a higher average household income compared to the U.S. average, at $99,800. During 2012, visitors from China and Japan reported the highest annual average income, replacing the UK as the highest earners of any of the visitor markets. In 2012 China moved up substantially from having the lowest annual average income to having the highest. All to +Household Income (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 1366 195 112 96* 62* 37* 36* 56* 187 85* 21* 34* Under $20,000 14.9 5.3 7.1 14.3 19.4-12.9 22.6 2.5 15.1-4.4 $20,000 - $59,999 26.8 26.6 36.8 17.6 18.0 15.2 47.2 35.9 9.0 34.6 37.6 17.6 $60,000 - $99,999 20.3 22.7 17.8 20.1 24.1 35.3 25.6 22.9 24.1 7.2 30.7 23.1 $100,000 - $139,999 13.8 13.9 10.6 19.2 17.4 28.4 6.9 5.6 20.6 10.0 10.4 14.0 $140,000 - $179,999 7.3 10.3 10.6 10.5 4.8 8.7 1.3 6.3 11.2 6.7 0.0 12.1 $180,000 and over 16.7 21.0 16.9 18.2 16.4 12.5 6.1 6.9 32.5 26.5 21.3 28.8 Mean Annual Income $112,028 $130,027 $111,867 $108,785 $97,559 $114,670 $67,524 $78,445 $158,472 $164,019 $106,310 $121,971 Median Annual Income $76,929 $95,623 $64,463 $78,870 $73,283 $99,592 $56,524 $55,641 $126,000 $63,251 $67,884 $130,223 + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. 63
OCCUPATION OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Mgmt., Business, Science, & Arts Student Service Occupations Retired Sales and Office Homemaker Military/Government Prod., Trans., & Material Moving Nat. Res., Const., & Maintenance Other 14.7 10.2 10.0 12.6 9.1 7.0 7.2 10.6 3.6 5.2 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.9 2.0 2.6 1.3 1.6 46.4 43.3 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors Percent 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 64
OCCUPATION OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 The average household income for overseas visitors to New England was $112,000, up from $97,000 in 2011. By comparison, visitors to New England had a substantially higher average household income compared to the U.S. average. During 2012, visitors from China and Japan reported the highest annual average income, replacing the UK as the highest earners of any of the visitor markets. China moved up substantially from having the lowest annual average income to having the highest however the sample is low. All to +Occupation (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 2133 312 187 175 119 56* 62* 78* 270 121 51* 48* Mgmt., Business, Science, & Arts 46.4 42.6 29.0 43.4 34.7 50.1 45.0 43.1 37.9 49.4 31.6 63.8 Student 14.7 8.2 9.7 15.2 17.2 11.0 14.4 13.1 9.7 17.8 5.4 12.4 Service Occupations 10.0 8.2 10.2 15.5 21.8 5.2 8.7 13.7 5.0 7.5 30.2 2.1 Retired 9.1 27.7 35.0 3.6 1.3 18.1 10.5 0.1 3.5 1.7 3.6 3.4 Sales and Office 7.2 2.0 2.5 7.2 8.4 8.4 16.0 3.8 14.5 7.5 21.8 14.1 Homemaker 3.6 4.2 4.7 4.7 4.2 - - 2.1 15.6 1.5-0.1 Military/Government 2.9 3.9 4.4 - - 2.9-18.6 0.4-1.5 1.3 Prod., Trans., & Material Moving 2.8 1.5 2.3 3.1 2.6-4.3 1.3 9.2 7.0 2.3 - Nat. Res., Const., & Maintenance 2.0 0.8 0.9 5.3 6.8 4.3 0.5 1.5 0.3 5.2 1.1 2.9 Other 1.3 1.0 1.2 2.0 3.1-0.6 2.8 3.9 2.2 2.5 - + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. 65
TOTAL NIGHTS IN THE U.S. OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Ave. 30.0 27.1 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 17.0 Overseas travelers spent 11.9 nights (on average) of their total U.S. trip in New England. 5.0 0.0 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 66
NIGHTS AWAY FROM HOME OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Overseas visitors to New England stayed an average of 27 nights in the U.S., on par with 2011. Just under one half (11.9 nights) of the visitors' total U.S. visit was spent in New England. The length of stay in New England increased in 2012, up from 10.6 in 2011. This is a positive step toward increasing nights in the region. China spent the most nights in the region, while visitors from France spent the fewest nights. As a share of total nights in the U.S., visitors from Italy spent the highest percentage of their nights in the region. Visitors from Australia spent the lowest percentage of total nights in the U.S. in the region. UK, UK leisure, Brazil, and Chinese travelers also spent more nights, on average, in the region than all overseas visitors. German, French, Japanese, and Scandinavian travelers spent a lower than average percentage of their nights in the region. 67
All to Nights in New England** New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4059 666 398 303 187 145 106 123 516 212 91* 127 Mean No. of Nights in Dest. 11.9 8.7 9.3 11.2 11.0 7.5 6.0 11.2 7.0 24.4 8.0 8.3 Median No. of Nights in Dest. 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 Note: Some respondents reported an accommodation type(s) for the destination, but did not report the number of nights stayed in each accommodation type. All to Nights in the U.S. (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4687 714 423 357 226 150 119 149 558 265 97* 149 1-3 Nights 4.6 8.7 5.5 6.0 1.7-2.5 6.3 8.1 2.1 1.8 6.9 4-7 Nights 18.8 25.2 16.2 16.3 7.9 8.1 20.6 7.5 45.9 11.1 25.3 27.2 8-10 Nights 15.3 17.5 18.8 17.7 19.5 7.3 18.8 15.6 19.1 7.2 12.9 16.4 11-14 Nights 17.8 18.6 23.1 19.0 20.4 7.3 23.2 13.8 10.0 24.8 27.6 10.5 15-21 Nights 17.8 15.6 22.0 18.3 23.7 28.5 21.1 20.5 6.4 11.1 27.3 20.0 22-28 Nights 6.3 3.6 4.4 9.2 12.6 15.7 3.7 8.8 2.2 11.5 1.8 7.0 29-35 Nights 4.6 3.3 2.9 2.8 3.0 17.8 0.3 4.3 1.5 7.4 0.5 3.0 36 or More Nights 14.8 7.6 7.1 10.7 11.3 15.1 9.8 23.3 6.7 24.7 2.7 8.9 Mean No. of Nights 27.1 18.1 19.3 27.2 30.4 26.2 18.3 23.1 17.8 53.7 15.0 20.8 Median No. of Nights 13.0 10.0 12.0 13.0 15.0 21.0 13.0 15.0 7.0 16.0 12.0 10.0 * Caution - Small sample size. 68
All to +Total Nights Away From Home New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 2127 311 189 180 123 58* 62* 77* 264 116 51* 55* Mean No. of Nights 30.8 21.0 23.2 31.7 37.9 34.0 20.7 20.1 20.7 60.0 15.5 33.3 Median No. of Nights 15.0 11.0 14.0 15.0 18.0 29.0 15.0 15.0 8.0 22.0 12.0 14.0 + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. 69
PORT OF ENTRY OF OVERSEAS VISITORS OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Boston, MA 28.1 New York, NY 26.4 Newark, NJ 8.3 Miami, FL 7.6 Los Angeles, CA 5.9 Chicago, IL Washington, DC 3.6 4.2 San Francisco, CA 2.0 Percent 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 70
PORT OF ENTRY OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Nearly three out of ten (28%) of the region's visitors entered the U.S. (as a port of entry) in Boston, up from 26% in 2011. Over one third (35%) of the region's overseas visitors entered the country in the Gateway Region (NYC and NJ), up slightly from 34% in 2011. Australian travelers were much more likely to enter through Los Angeles. Brazilian visitors were more likely to enter through Miami. The top port of entry for Japanese and Chinese visitors was through New York City. Travelers to New England from the UK, UK leisure, and France were the most likely to enter the country through Boston. In contrast, travelers from Brazil, China, and Australia were least likely to enter the U.S. through Boston. Expanding air capacity (especially non-stop flights from these emerging markets) should be considered as part of the overall growth plan. 71
All to Port of Entry** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4739 720 424 359 228 150 120 150 559 271 98* 149 Boston, MA 28.1 55.7 55.3 43.1 36.9 5.2 52.9 0.5 15.3 0.9 44.2 34.1 New York, NY 26.4 16.9 17.9 21.7 23.2 9.0 23.5 26.2 18.2 21.2 31.5 19.7 Newark, NJ 8.3 8.2 9.1 13.4 16.1 0.6 8.5 2.4 1.9 14.1 12.6 25.2 Miami, FL 7.6 0.8 0.6 1.2 1.2 - - 34.1 - - 7.0 0.3 Los Angeles, CA 5.9 1.4 1.1 0.3-65.6-6.7 4.9 10.5 - - All Other Airports/Cities 4.4 5.9 6.2 2.3 2.8 3.8 1.9 0.5 15.6 5.1 0.8 2.2 Chicago, IL 4.2 1.6 1.5 3.4 3.9 - - 2.4 15.6 13.7 0.8 10.0 Washington, DC 3.6 3.0 2.4 1.9 1.7 0.9 2.8 4.8 7.7 8.8 2.3 6.7 San Francisco, CA 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 6.0 1.3-5.6 7.3-1.1 Atlanta, GA 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.6 1.4-0.4 15.8-0.3 - - Philadelphia, PA 1.6 2.5 2.3 4.6 3.4-3.8 - - 0.1 0.1 - Seattle, WA 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 - - - 13.8-0.5 Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX 1.2 0.3 0.5 - - 5.8 0.3 4.6 4.7 0.2 - - Detroit, MI 1.0 0.2-1.7 2.6 - - 1.2 6.6 3.0 - - Houston, TX 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.9 1.3 0.5 0.8 0.8-0.1 - - Charlotte, NC 0.3 - - 0.9 0.6-2.6 - - - 0.6 - Minn./St. Paul, MN 0.3 0.2 - - - - 0.9-3.2 - - - San Juan, PR 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - Honolulu, HI 0.2 - - 0.3 0.5 2.3 - - 0.6 0.9 - - Las Vegas, NV 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.7 2.6-0.3 - - - - - Orlando, FL 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 - - - - - - - Denver, CO 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 Sanford, FL - - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 * Caution - Small sample size ** Data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security I-94 air arrival records were used to realign missing responses by country of residence and U.S. airport of arrival. Please refer to page x in the introduction for additional information. 72
ACCOMMODATIONS* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Percent 78.7 80.0 70.0 60.0 62.6 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors 50.0 38.3 40.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 4.6 4.3 0.0 Hotel / Motel Private Home Other Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response 73
ACCOMMODATIONS OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Just under two thirds (63%) of the New England overseas visitors chose to stay in a hotel/motel during their stay in 2012, down slightly from 64% in 2011. The high VFR for New England is evident through the length of stay in destination for visitors staying in private homes, at 19 nights on average. Australian visitors spent the most nights in a hotel (6.5 nights), while Japanese visitors spent the least nights, on average, in a hotel (4.5 nights). Nearly two fifths (38%) of the overseas visitors to New England spent nights in a private home. Of those who did, their length of stay in the destination is substantially greater than those staying in a hotel. This segment should not be overlooked as they are likely to still be spending money on shopping, attractions, and dining. All to Type of Accommodation** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 3769 633 377 278 172 127 94* 123 489 181 74* 120 Hotel or Motel, etc. 62.6 71.4 73.6 72.3 70.0 73.5 56.8 58.3 82.9 60.3 75.5 63.3 Mean No. of Nights in Dest. 6.3 6.0 6.2 5.5 6.0 6.5 5.1 5.4 4.5 5.7 4.6 5.4 Median No. of Nights in Dest. 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Private Home 38.3 34.5 31.9 29.7 33.6 25.4 39.1 41.7 17.7 36.4 27.5 35.4 Mean No. of Nights in Dest. 18.8 10.4 11.0 20.7 21.6 9.6 8.3 18.9 16.4 56.4 18.4 13.8 Median No. of Nights in Dest. 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 14.0 11.0 14.0 7.0 6.0 Other 4.3 3.2 4.5 5.6 6.2 4.9 6.8 1.4 2.4 5.6 2.3 6.3 Mean No. of Nights in Dest. 14.1 20.3 18.7 4.5 3.9 12.2 2.8 12.2 14.5 14.5 7.2 5.2 Median No. of Nights in Dest. 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 7.0 3.0 2.0 9.0 1.0 * Caution - Small sample size. ** Multiple Response. 74
TRANSPORTATION IN THE U.S.* OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 City Subway/Bus Taxi Airlines in U.S. Rented Auto Company or Private Auto Inter-City Train Inter-City Bus Ferry/River Taxi Rented Bicycle/Motorcycle Cruise ship/riverboat Motor Home / Camper 2.4 2.6 1.7 3.9 0.9 1.0 6.9 7.1 10.2 17.8 21.5 20.8 33.4 33.6 32.4 32.5 31.8 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 * = multiple response 32.1 34.7 39.6 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors 41.8 Percent 43.3 75
TRANSPORTATION IN THE U.S. OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Visitors to New England are mobile! In all transportation modes visitors to the region had a higher percent of use compared to the U.S. overall. In particular, public transportation and use of airlines were strong for the region. One third of the overseas visitors to New England rented a car, basically on par with 2011. Over six in ten (62%) German leisure visitors to New England rented a car, as well as over half (56%) of the total German visitors. Travelers from Japan were least likely to rent a car, however, over one sixth did in 2012. Use of Amtrak is very strong across the board, as nearly one in five traveled using this form of transportation. Travelers from Australia and France were most likely to take Amtrak to visit the region. Travelers from Scandinavia and Italy were least likely to take Amtrak. The strong use of air travel is two-fold. Travelers from Australia, Japan, China, and Brazil are using other ports of entry and need to fly once in the country to reach the region. Second, strong business travel and Boston as a strong hub allows for travelers to the region to access other destinations after visiting New England. 76
All to Transportation** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 4194 673 394 325 211 134 109 129 527 234 89* 133 City Subway/Tram/Bus 43.3 35.2 45.1 47.5 56.6 59.7 58.8 41.2 57.9 38.6 48.5 44.0 Taxicab/Limousine 41.8 48.9 44.5 34.1 32.6 60.0 24.5 35.6 62.0 39.2 44.2 39.5 Air Travel between U.S. Cities 39.6 26.6 26.7 27.0 23.0 75.9 23.0 49.5 66.2 63.2 36.3 23.3 Rented Auto 33.6 36.6 44.9 56.4 62.0 26.3 42.7 39.4 16.0 29.5 46.9 36.6 Auto, Private or Company 32.5 32.6 30.1 25.0 22.0 25.8 17.4 23.6 26.8 53.4 17.3 31.3 Railroad between Cities 21.5 21.4 21.9 16.5 18.3 39.0 31.6 20.1 26.9 19.5 12.6 12.1 Bus between Cities 20.8 12.0 14.3 18.3 20.5 29.6 29.6 11.5 22.3 20.8 13.0 16.3 +Ferry/River Taxi/Srt Scenic Cruise 7.1 5.1 7.8 10.7 15.7 19.8 9.8 2.9 6.4 5.1 10.2 6.0 +Rented Bicycle/Motorcycle/Moped 2.4 1.6 2.3 2.5 3.3 7.6 8.4 0.3 0.9 1.2 2.2 2.4 +Cruise Ship/River Boat 1+ Nights 1.7 1.4 2.3 1.3 1.2 2.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 5.5 2.8 0.5 Motor Home/Camper 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.3 3.1 - - 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.5 + 2012 Sample Only. ** Multiple Response. 77
TRIP EXPENSES PAYMENT METHOD OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 44.8 Credit Cards 40.7 Cash from Home/Travelers Checks 25.6 32.5 Cash Advance Using Credit Card 15.2 15.9 New England Visitors Cash Advance Using Debit Card 6.8 5.6 U.S. Visitors Debit Cards 5.3 7.6 Percent 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 78
SHARE OF EXPENDITURES BY METHOD OF PAYMENT OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Purchases Using Credit Card 44.3 50.5 Cash from Home/Travelers Checks Cash Adv./Wdrawal Using Credit Card 12.5 13.9 22.5 28.9 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors Purchases Using Debit Card 8.5 6.5 Cash Adv./Wdrawal Using Debit Card 5.9 6.5 Percent 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 79
TRIP EXPENSES PAYMENT METHOD OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 The trip expenses payment method predominately used by visitors to New England was a credit card (45%), followed by cash/travelers checks (26%). Debit cards were used by less than 8%. New England travelers were slightly more likely than overseas visitors to the U.S. to use a credit card and debit card. Italian travelers were most likely to use a credit card while visiting New England, followed by travelers from China, Germany, and German leisure travelers. In contrast, visitors from France, Australia, Brazil, and UK leisure visitors were least likely to use a credit card. Cash/travelers checks was most popular with UK leisure visitors and travelers from Japan. Travelers from Australia and France were most likely to use a debit card to pay for expenses during their visit. Visitors are using their credit cards for over one half of their total expenditures. Visitors from Scandinavia are using their credit cards for the largest percentage of their total trip expenditures. All to +Payment Methods** (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 1646 249 150 131 89* 45* 51* 57* 234 91* 44* 43* Purchases Using Credit Card 44.8 41.7 32.8 53.1 52.5 35.0 30.6 39.3 47.0 54.0 58.1 50.3 Cash from Home/Travelers Checks 25.6 28.2 35.4 12.9 13.6 19.5 13.5 30.7 31.1 30.6 16.7 18.7 Cash Adv./Wdrawal Using Credit Card 15.2 11.2 11.4 24.0 27.5 13.8 30.4 12.8 19.9 6.8 20.2 15.0 Purchases Using Debit Card 7.6 7.6 7.1 5.0 1.8 17.1 16.4 12.4 0.8 7.7 3.4 5.6 Cash Adv./Wdrawal Using Debit Card 6.8 11.3 13.3 5.0 4.6 14.6 9.0 4.8 1.2 0.9 1.7 10.3 ** Average reported in each category. 80
All to +Share of Total Trip Expenditures New UK Germany Austra- Scandiby Payment Methods***(%) England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 1215 202 124 99* 67* 40* 34* 40* 170 62* 29* 31* Purchases Using Credit Card 50.5 52.8 43.1 48.8 53.5 29.3 43.3 26.1 59.8 63.7 61.2 66.3 Cash from Home/Travelers Checks 22.5 19.6 24.1 11.7 17.6 21.1 13.0 39.0 27.0 21.1 19.6 6.5 Cash Adv./Wdrawal Using Credit Card 12.5 7.5 8.6 21.6 21.2 15.5 22.1 16.9 10.6 11.5 10.3 12.9 Purchases Using Debit Card 8.5 9.4 9.9 13.0 0.8 21.0 3.1 16.8 1.3 3.4 7.8 4.2 Cash Adv./Wdrawal Using Debit Card 5.9 10.7 14.2 4.8 6.9 13.1 18.5 1.2 1.3 0.4 1.2 10.2 + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. **** Average reported in each category weighted by total trip expenditures. 81
TRIP EXPENDITURES OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 $3,802 Total Trip $3,259 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors $2,900 $3,000 $3,100 $3,200 $3,300 $3,400 $3,500 $3,600 $3,700 $3,800 $3,900 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 82
ITEMIZED TRIP EXPENDITURES OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Accommodations/Lodging in the U.S. Shopping, Gifts, and other Purchases in the U.S. $459 $416 $449 $664 Food and Beverages in the U.S. Entertainment and Recreation in the U.S. $232 $198 $315 $409 Ground Transportation in the U.S. Additional Air Transportation in the U.S. Other Spending in the U.S. Medical Services in the U.S. $132 $94 $105 $80 $101 $50 $10 $5 New England Visitors U.S. Visitors Ave. $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 83
TRIP EXPENDITURES OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Overseas visitors to New England reported spending approximately $3,802 on their entire trip away from home, down considerably from $3,947 in 2011. Visitors from China and Australia spent the most during their stay. In contrast, travelers from Italy and German leisure travelers spent considerably less than the average - tied to lower air travel costs. Overseas visitors spent the most on lodging when compared to the other itemized trip expenditures. Chinese visitors spent the most on lodging while in the U.S. due to their long stay. Travelers from China and Brazil spent the most on shopping comparably. For those who purchased a package, the average cost was $3,396. Visitors from Japan spent the most on their package while visitors from Scandinavia spent the least. Travelers from China and Australia spent the most on additional air transportation, again tied to the further ports of entry that they are using to enter the U.S. Food and beverage accounts for nearly one fifth of the total spending in the U.S. Visitors from Scandinavia and Italy spend almost one third on food and beverages. 84
All to +Average Per Visitor New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- Trip Expenditures England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 Total Trip Expenditure** $3,802 $2,870 $2,632 $2,941 $2,392 $6,135 $2,599 $4,793 $3,917 $9,609 $2,138 $4,237 (Number of Respondents) 1382 229 141 120 79* 44* 37* 50* 179 74* 30* 34* Package Price $3,396 $4,036 $4,036 $2,928 $2,405 $3,873 $4,938 $4,471 $5,052 $2,866 $2,649 $2,173 (Number of Respondents) 166 25* 25* 17* 14* 7* 3* 9* 35* 25* 6* 5* International Airfare $1,703 $1,268 $975 $1,258 $1,042 $2,756 $1,036 $1,462 $2,402 $4,270 $1,078 $1,695 (Number of Respondents) 923 159 92* 82* 55* 28* 27* 33* 110 33* 18* 22* Expenditure in U.S. Airport $30 $25 $28 $26 $26 $38 $19 $21 $55 $32 $10 $14 (Number of Respondents) 939 159 95* 85* 56* 29* 31* 31* 118 37* 26* 24* Expenditure in U.S.*** $2,099 $1,602 $1,657 $1,682 $1,350 $3,379 $1,562 $3,331 $1,515 $5,339 $1,060 $2,542 Per Day $77 $88 $86 $62 $44 $129 $85 $144 $85 $99 $70 $122 (Number of Respondents) 939 159 95* 85* 56* 29* 31* 31* $118 37* 26* 24* + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. ** Total trip expenditure includes Expenditures in U.S., plus a weighted proportion of Package Price and International Airfare. *** Expenditure in U.S. includes Expenditure in U.S. Airport. +Average Itemized Expenditures All to in U.S. New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- (per visitor per trip) England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 939 159 95* 85* 56* 29* 31* 31* 118 37* 26* 24* Accommodations/Lodging $664 $673 $635 $598 $446 $1,386 $595 $763 $523 $1,274 $317 $1,098 Additional Air Transportation $105 $59 $65 $30 $17 $218 $164 $126 $29 $295 $27 $28 Entertainment and Recreation $232 $146 $180 $201 $152 $352 $65 $661 $118 $441 $150 $178 Food and Beverages $409 $350 $387 $434 $356 $673 $352 $563 $335 $784 $341 $815 Ground Transportation $132 $124 $117 $87 $93 $114 $120 $374 $96 $166 $72 $110 Shopping/Gifts/Other Purchases $416 $213 $235 $199 $222 $585 $229 $818 $334 $1,447 $134 $272 Medical Services $10 $2 $2 $2 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $75 $4 $2 Other Spending $101 $10 $9 $107 $37 $11 19 5 25 825 7 23 + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. 85
TRAVEL INSURANCE PURCHASED OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND / U.S. 2012 Percent 60 50 56.4 53.9 43.6 46.1 40 30 U.S. Visitors New England Visitors 20 10 0 Yes No Source: Travel Market Insights, Survey of International Air Travelers to the United States - 2012 86
TRAVEL INSURANCE PURCHASED OVERSEAS VISITORS TO NEW ENGLAND 2012 Slightly over one half (54%) of overseas visitors to New England purchased travel insurance, slightly less than the average U.S. visitor at 56%. Australian visitors are the most likely to have purchased travel insurance while visitors from France were the least likely. While not universal, visitors from longer-haul origins are more likely to purchase travel insurance. All to +Travel Insurance (%) New UK Germany Austra- Scandi- England UK Leisure Germany Leisure lia France Brazil Japan China Italy navia ESTIMATED TRAVELERS 1,637,000 275,000 169,000 152,000 98,000 58,000 87,000 61,000 78,000 175,000 65,000 34,000 (Number of Respondents) 2042 308 188 175 117 60* 56* 74* 262 99* 51* 49* Yes 53.9 48.1 57.4 43.0 55.4 92.8 30.1 75.3 51.1 61.7 80.3 39.8 No 46.1 51.9 42.6 57.0 44.6 7.2 69.9 24.7 48.9 38.3 19.7 60.2 + 2012 Sample Only. * Caution - Small sample size. 87
Maine Exports by Partner Country YTD Feb 2015 Rank Code Description ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL FEB 2014 FEB 2015 2012 2013 2014 YTD YTD %2012-2013 %2013-2014 %2014-2015 TOTAL ALL 3,047,901,866 2,686,653,205 2,751,872,296 397,299,509 395,151,166-11.85 2.43-0.54 PARTNER COUNTRIES 1 CAN Canada 1,323,982,807 1,370,217,250 1,495,866,921 199,812,132 168,806,055 3.49 9.17-15.52 2 MYS Malaysia 467,592,386 103,227,408 105,435,520 15,857,151 38,689,155-77.92 2.14 143.99 3 CHN China 247,438,602 222,994,195 183,882,726 34,010,575 38,005,456-9.88-17.54 11.75 4 KOR Korea, Republic Of 60,886,612 77,371,453 61,120,047 11,823,264 13,978,054 27.07-21.00 18.23 5 JPN Japan 126,210,225 121,207,899 97,840,498 19,523,003 13,411,938-3.96-19.28-31.30 6 NLD Netherlands 56,964,568 56,623,062 63,753,441 11,732,707 10,414,349-0.60 12.59-11.24 7 ITA Italy 33,137,141 59,957,549 52,092,587 8,123,422 9,921,605 80.94-13.12 22.14 8 GBR United Kingdom 57,796,878 56,223,955 58,829,019 9,096,734 9,436,601-2.72 4.63 3.74 9 MEX Mexico 34,804,533 42,668,563 53,505,266 9,750,469 9,308,821 22.59 25.40-4.53 10 DEU Germany 50,371,219 56,906,924 54,981,522 6,019,785 8,069,844 12.98-3.38 34.06 11 BEL Belgium 64,652,681 46,625,413 41,249,072 6,365,053 7,262,901-27.88-11.53 14.11 12 AUS Australia 41,428,596 36,850,086 36,242,013 6,354,637 5,309,516-11.05-1.65-16.45 13 SGP Singapore 47,624,948 34,493,284 25,077,586 3,715,918 4,827,820-27.57-27.30 29.92 14 HKG Hong Kong 26,678,228 33,593,377 38,256,201 4,324,864 4,327,386 25.92 13.88 0.06 15 TWN Taiwan 19,166,864 18,296,932 19,004,619 2,217,362 4,261,507-4.54 3.87 92.19 16 ARE United Arab Emirates 22,074,592 3,196,682 3,399,049 284,773 3,623,355-85.52 6.33 1,172.37 17 KEN Kenya 1,572,044 1,951,565 1,846,770 39,744 2,807,691 24.14-5.37 6,964.44 18 FIN Finland 19,249,153 16,697,454 20,959,457 2,656,156 2,659,619-13.26 25.52 0.13 19 ISR Israel 11,627,444 10,057,766 10,049,818 1,744,867 2,538,628-13.50-0.08 45.49 20 PAK Pakistan 4,237,485 4,159,326 9,752,161 935,481 2,349,633-1.84 134.46 151.17 21 BRA Brazil 24,134,000 25,665,935 30,118,615 5,135,279 2,292,675 6.35 17.35-55.35 22 FRA France 18,003,588 13,649,219 10,222,284 1,968,159 1,985,000-24.19-25.11 0.86 23 IRL Ireland 30,706,185 13,518,760 13,116,375 2,058,931 1,969,162-55.97-2.98-4.36 24 COL Colombia 8,140,377 6,277,950 13,864,528 1,132,223 1,918,952-22.88 120.84 69.49 25 CHE Switzerland 13,065,499 3,645,071 5,644,575 878,396 1,636,981-72.10 54.86 86.36 WISERTrade: State HS Database Source: http://www.wisertrade.org, data from U.S. Census Bureau Foreign, Trade Division. Note: The State Exports by HS data series does not contain imputations for missing states and industries. Maine Imports by Partner Country YTD Feb 2015 Rank Code Description ANNUAL 2012 ANNUAL 2013 ANNUAL 2014 %2012-2013 %2013-2014 TOTAL ALL PARTNER COUNTRIES 3,775,864,119 3,541,029,328 3,871,675,499-6.22 9.34 1 CAN Canada 1,920,974,812 2,197,055,608 2,066,719,824 14.37-5.93 2 CHN China 330,917,326 352,625,892 356,990,335 6.56 1.24 3 NLD Netherlands 86,674,910 30,543,591 154,143,269-64.76 404.67 4 DEU Germany 426,759,057 115,077,294 106,678,420-73.03-7.30 5 RUS Russia 34,677,890 36,607,284 84,394,844 5.56 130.54 6 GBR United Kingdom 121,880,952 84,621,678 84,273,696-30.57-0.41 7 MEX Mexico 61,920,978 56,682,240 72,045,069-8.46 27.10 8 JPN Japan 54,407,119 47,367,152 65,175,214-12.94 37.60 9 VNM Vietnam 46,619,777 42,221,931 61,687,062-9.43 46.10 10 MYS Malaysia 42,247,670 41,709,299 56,507,774-1.27 35.48 11 BEL Belgium 16,074,529 8,744,719 56,279,727-45.60 543.59 12 ITA Italy 34,302,098 42,203,463 49,494,780 23.03 17.28 13 DNK Denmark 7,376,915 5,985,477 46,497,442-18.86 676.84 14 THA Thailand 54,958,927 46,029,147 45,490,839-16.25-1.17 15 ISR Israel 4,572,252 2,014,338 40,912,580-55.94 1,931.07 16 BGD Bangladesh 35,447,708 22,269,601 40,224,266-37.18 80.62 17 PER Peru 18,606,878 38,105,053 39,706,729 104.79 4.20 18 NOR Norway 35,737,233 30,861,956 38,367,663-13.64 24.32
19 FRA France 52,090,848 36,089,564 34,095,491-30.72-5.53 20 IND India 19,886,910 25,440,965 30,429,332 27.93 19.61 21 LTU Lithuania 263,291 389,816 25,206,452 48.06 6,366.24 22 PHL Philippines 40,354,217 40,280,114 22,378,178-0.18-44.44 23 TWN Taiwan 22,308,432 23,595,719 21,725,071 5.77-7.93 24 BRA Brazil 4,697,833 6,862,024 21,543,220 46.07 213.95 25 KOR Korea, Republic Of 20,611,608 18,764,639 20,965,859-8.96 11.73
Name City County Bachmann Industries Inc. Auburn Androscoggin Hannaford Brothers Scarborough Cumberland Abilis NE Portland Cumberland Albarrie Environmental Services Lewiston Androscoggin American Iron and Metal (subsidiary) Bucksport Hancock American Steel and Aluminum Corporation South Portland Cumberland Boralex Fort Fairfield Aroostook Cascades Auburn Fiber, Inc. Auburn Androscoggin Cavendish Agri Services Ltd. Wales Androscoggin Cavendish Farms Presque Isle Aroostook Chadwick-BaRoss Inc. Westbrook Cumberland Cherryfield Foods Inc. Cherryfield Washington Domtar Paper Corporation, LLC Augusta Kennebec Cooke Aquaculture Machiasport Washington Douglas Brothers Stainless Steel Portland Cumberland Emera Maine Bangor Penobscot Federal Marine Terminals Eastport Washington Fraser Sawmills (aka Ashland Lumbermill) Masardis Aroostook Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC Millinocket Penobscot Heritage Memorials Ltd. Sanford York Highland Lumber Company Dixfield Oxford Irving Forest Products Fort Kent Aroostook Irving Lumber Company Strong Franklin Irving Oil Corporation Statewide Irving Woodlands LLC Ashland Aroostook Katahdin Forest Management, LLC Millinocket Penobscot Katahdin Timberlands, LLC Millinocket Penobscot McCain Fertilizers Ltd. Presque Isle Aroostook McCain Foods USA Inc. Easton Aroostook Moose River Lumber Company Jackman Somerset Nautel Bangor Penobscot Orion Rope Works Winslow Kennebec Oxford Networks Lewiston Androscoggin Padinox Inc., DBA Chaudier Freeport Cumberland Pepin Lumber Company Coburn Gore Franklin Portbec D&G Forest Products Bangor Penobscot Portland Natural Gas Transmission Windham Cumberland St. Croix Courier Calais Washington Stantec Portland Cumberland Stratton Lumber Inc. Stratton Franklin Sun Life Financial (subsidiary) Scarborough Cumberland T4G Limited Saco Saco Cumberland
TD Bank Statewide Thomas Equipment Inc. USA Presque Isle Aroostook Timber Resource Group Stratton Franklin Metso Paper USA Inc. Biddeford York UPM-Madison Madison Somerset Huhtamaki Food Service Waterville Kennebec Greentech Yarmouth Cumberland Poland Spring Bottling Co. Poland Androscoggin CYRO Sanford York Lufthansa Technik Auburn Androscoggin Airco Industrial Gases Kittery York Bachmann Industries Inc. Auburn Androscoggin Creative Mold Company Auburn Androscoggin Kässbohrer All Terrain Vehicles, Inc. Lewiston Androscoggin Lohmann Animal Health Winslow Kennebec T-Mobile USA Oakland Kennebec Tuchenhagen North America LLC Portland Cumberland Weber Machine USA Bangor Penobscot Woodland Pulp, LLC Baileyville Washington Eimskip Portland Cumberland Pike Industries Lewiston Androscoggin Albatrans, Inc. Portland Cumberland Maine Manufacturing, LLC Sanford York System Logistics Lewiston Androscoggin AVX Tantalum Corporation Biddeford York Plasmine Technology Inc. Portland Cumberland Somic America Brewer Penobscot World Harbors Auburn Androscoggin Ducktrap River Fish Farm Belfast Waldo Jotul North America Portland Cumberland MariCal Portland Cumberland Rubb Inc. Sanford York Vingtech Biddeford York Laserwords Lewiston Androscoggin SAPPI Fine Paper North America Westbrook Cumberland Central Maine Power Co. Augusta Kennebec Dragon Products Company Inc. Thomaston Knox Rynel Wiscasset Lincoln Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. Portland Cumberland SF Marina USA Portland Cumberland
Sprague Energy South Portland Cumberland ABB Yarmouth Cumberland Clariant Corporation Lewiston Androscoggin Eldur Corporation Bangor Penobscot Lanco Assembly Systems Westbrook Cumberland Lindt Chocolate Store South Portland Cumberland Lonza Rockland Rockland Knox Poland Spring Water Corporation Poland Spring Androscoggin Remstar International Inc. Westbrook Cumberland Schlumpf Inc. Windham Cumberland AMEC Portland Cumberland Chand Eisenmann Metallurgical Caribou Aroostook Citizens Bank Portland Cumberland Holiday Inn South Portland Cumberland H I L Technology Portland Cumberland Hunting Dearborn, Inc. Fryeburg Oxford Quantrix Portland Cumberland Tate & Lyle Houlton Aroostook WahlcoMetroflex Lewiston Androscoggin Willis North America Portland Cumberland Bucksport Energy LLC Bucksport Hancock
Parent Company RHI Engineering Delhaize Abilis Solutions Albarrie Canada Limited American Iron and Metal Novamerican Steel Inc. Boralex Cascades Cavendish Agri Services Ltd. Cavendish Farms Strongco Corp. Oxford Frozen Foods Domtar Corporation Cooke Aquaculture Robert Mitchell, Inc. Emera FedNav Maibec, inc Brookfield Heritage Memorials Ltd. J.D. Irving Ltd. J.D. Irving Ltd. J.D. Irving, Limited Irving Oil Limited J.D. Irving Ltd. Acadian Timber Acadian Timber McCain Foods McCain Foods Sly-Crete Inc. Nautel Canada Cordage Inc. Novacap Padinox Inc. Maurice Pepin Portbec Forest Products Ltd. TransCanada Pipelines St. Croix Publishing Stantec, Inc. Fontaine Inc. Sun Life Financial T4G Limited Headquarters Austria Belgium Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada
Toronto Dominion Canada Thomas Equipment Inc. Canada Fontaine Inc. Canada Metso Corporation Finland UPM Finland Huhtamaki Inc. Finland Greentech France France Evonik Industries AG Germany Lufthansa Technik Germany The Linde Group Germany Clyde Bergemann Power Germany Group DESMA Germany Käsbohrer Geländefahrzeug Germany AG PHW Group Germany Deutsche Telekom Germany GEA Group Germany Weber Germany International Grand Hong Kong Investment Corp Eimskip Iceland CRH Ireland Albatrans SpA Italy GVS Italy System Logistics; div. of Italy System Group S.p.A. Kyocera Corporation Japan Harima Chemicals Inc. Japan Somic Ishikawa Japan Mizkan Group Japan Fjord Seafood ASA Norway Jotul ASA Norway Teknoinvest Management AS Norway Rubb Motor A/S RheinMetall SPi Global SAPPI Limited Iberdrola Portland Valderrivas (and Cementos Lemona) Molnlycke Health Care AB Securitas AB SF Marina Systems Norway Norway Philippines South Africa Spain Spain Sweden Sweden Sweden
Axel Johnson Inc./Axel Johnson AB ABB Clariant Eldur AG Lanco AG Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Spruengli International AG Lonza Nestle Kardex-Remstar International Group Schulmpf AG AMEC Porvair Royal Bank of Scotland Intercontinental Hotels Group Hydro International Hunting PLC IDBS Tate & Lyle Senior PLC Willis Group Holdings Hydro-Quebec (Canada) & GDF Suez (Fr) Sweden Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom
Products/Service Civil engineering Food Retail IT/Financial services Dust collection services & supplies Metals: iron, steel, aluminum, etc. aluminum and metal products Biomass power generation Pulp Chemical manufacturers and distributors Frozen potato products Heavy equipment distributor Retail food products Paper Manufacturing Aquaculture Fabricated stainless steel piping Utility (power distribution) Marine freight handling Wholesale lumber Hydroelectric power generation Monuments and markers Timber Pulp, tissue, paper Timber Fuel, oil, gas, heating contractors Sawmill Pulp, paper Timber Fertilizers Potato products, french fries Lumber Transmitters Rope Telecommunications/Fiber Optics Stainless steel cookware, utensils Lumber Forest products Power Distribution Services Newspapers Consulting services civil engineering Lumber Financial services IT project services
Financial services Skid steer loaders, mini excavators, potato handling equipment Logging services Paper Paper Food service, consumer packaging, tableware products Biotech, research, seaweed Beverage Product Manufacturing Industrial plastic sheeting FAA certified repair station Industrial gases Industrial Bypass and Exhaust Systems Molds Suppliers snow grooming vehicles Poultry biologics Mobile Phone Service Provider (call center) Centrifugal pumps Contractor's equipment Wood pulp Shipping/Logistics Construction Freight forwarders Filtration devices Material handling systems Electronic capacitors Chemicals dealers (rosin) Automotive components Sauces, marinades, drink mixes Smoked seafood Cast iron stoves Aquaculture Tension membrane structures Mechanical & electro optical engineering Publishing Paper Utility (Power Distribution) Cement manufacturing Medical foam/wound care components Security Services Concrete floating structures
Materials handling services (oil, petroleum etc.) Power Generation Equip. Manufacturing Speciality chemicals Leadwire manufacturers Turnkey automated assembly & test systems Chocolate Agar - molecular biology industry products Bottled Spring water Automated storage and retrieval systems Unwinding and winding machinery components Engineering consultancy Metal products for filtration and flow control Financial services Hotel Services Waste and storm water treatment technology Deep hole drilling Database/info systems; business analysis Potato starch Expansion joints/industrial metal fabricator Insurance Services Power generation (gas)