[?]espite PIM!)

Fiji tourirm will continue to flourish' [?]espite PIM!)

From a Suva correspondent Fiji hotel operators don’t share e apparent apprehension of the M writer who asked questions

April (p. 41) about Fiji’s

•tel occupancy figures. PI M’s

see suggested that recent

ures might be a warning for

/estors that the Fiji’s hotel om was about to burst.

There is, as PlM’s article said, ne caution here in predicting re irements for the future, and this ,s worth pointing out. But the jsent position is not as serious as 5 PIM article makes it appear. On : contrary.

PlM’s argument was based on a jposed Fiji hotel occupancy rate of per cent. But this figure, quoted un official statistics, is for bed :upancy, and not room occupancy, is may not have been obvious, as ; two sets of figures can be con iing.

President of the Fiji Hotels Asso tion, Mr. D. H. P. Ragg, says: he occupany figures quoted in PIM ■ the larger hotels are based on bed basis, and this figure is con erably lower than the room :upancy figure.

“Taking into consideration the tels concerned, I should say the 3m occupancy was in excess of 66 r cent. Not a bad annual figure anybody’s language!

“It is the opinion of most ex rienced folk that Fiji’s visitor lustry will continue to flourish. The ures and estimates quoted in past •veys have, in the main, all been :eeded.

“We all love PIM, but I think the le of PlM’s articles desires a little isure on this occasion.”

New figures

The Fiji Bureau of Statistics will future publish, in addition to bed ures, room occupancy figures like ictically every other tourist coun- Meanwhile, the Harris, Kerr, rster report (they are a Californian, t a British firm) has been super led by the march of tourist ures.

In 1967 there was a total of 52,021 tying visitors in Fiji, and the aver

ge intended length of their stay was ic same as for 1966—that is, 8.2 ays. The number of beds sold to >cal and overseas visitors (i.e., bed ights) was 314,114 in 1967.

The overall figure for the year was 6 per cent., but it is obviously ifficult to fix an average figure with le present building boom, because le number of beds available changes yery month.

Look at these figures for 1967: At the beginning of the year there ere 1,253 beds available and the ed occupancy rate for January 23,847 bed nights) was 61 per ;nt.

In August there were 1,485 beds nd 33,239 bed nights for a bed ccupancy rate of 72 per cent, (note lat there were 232 more beds than i January).

By December there were 1,655 eds and 26,905 bed nights, for a ite of 53 per cent. But there were 70 more beds on the market in Dec mber than there were in August, nd 402 more than in January.

What of this year?

What now of 1968? Fiji will ave about 700 new beds on the larket during this calendar year, lat is, 361 new rooms.

If every hotel got the same amount f business, and if visitors all stayed Kactly eight days, Fiji would need n increase of about 19,150 visitors lis year, to give the hotels a level ed occupancy of 60 per cent, for ic year.

In fact, Fiji expects an increase of nly 13,000 visitors, but again, this pparent short-fall of 5,850 visitors ; misleading because not all 700 eds will be on the market from ic beginning of the year.

Probably the 361 rooms due to ecome available this year will thus ill not make any appreciable change i the bed occupany rate, which robably will be between 53-57 per ent.

This is equivalent to a room occu ancy rate of between 63-69 per ent., which is well above the mini um figure recommended by the [arris, Kerr, Forster report.

As PIM indicates, there can be no uarantee that the big yearly increase i visitors will continue at the resent rate, especially if US tourism j cut back, as President Johnson lans. Nevertheless, most Fiji opera tes agree with Mr. Ragg that the idustry will “continue to flourish”.