The Weird Classification of Dr. Myrna S. Austria of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Passenger Routes From Manila and Cebu

In 2003, Dr. Myrna S. Austria published a paper on domestic shipping competition in the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) with a base data in the year 1998. I find her paper very erroneous starting from the data which misses a lot of shipping companies because simply put some shipping companies never bother to report to government agencies. Aside from that her classification of shipping routes, both passenger and cargo is also far from reality.

Dr. Myrna S. Austria’s paper:

https://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/rps/pidsrp0302.pdf

In that paper, Dr. Myrna S. Austria have the following classification of passenger routes from Manila:

Primary routes: Batangas, Cagayan de Oro, Cebu, Dadiangas, Davao, Dipolog, Dumaguete, Estancia, General Santos, Iligan, Iloilo, Masbate, Nasipit, Palawan/Puerto Princesa, San Carlos, Tagbilaran, Zambales and Zamboanga.

Secondary routes: Bacolod, Coron, Cotabato, Leyte, Mindoro, Ormoc, Ozamis, Palompon, Roxas, Surigao and Tacloban.

Tertiary routes: Butuan, Calubian, Corregidor, Dumaguit, El Nido-Liminangcong and Zambales.

Comments:

  1. She did not know Dadiangas and General Santos are just one port. Sulpicio Lines use the old name Dadiangas while the rest use the name General Santos. She also did not know there are no more ships to Butuan from Manila but some shipping companies like WG&A still use the name Butuan instead of Nasipit, the port where they actually dock. And there were no more ships then to Dipolog then and all use Dapitan port already. Hence, the separate entries which affected the port classification.

  2. Since there are many shipping companies not reporting, she completely missed some ports that have ships from Manila. a) In her list there are no ships to Romblon from Manila because MBRS Lines have no report. That company even tried a to San Jose (or Caraingan) in Northern Samar during that time and this is not reflected in her paper. b) There is a “port” named Mindoro but we will not know if that is San Jose in Occ. Mindoro or Lubang (Tilik port) which were both served then by Moreta Shipping Lines. That clearly shows lack of shipping knowledge. c) There is a port named “Leyte”. That could be Baybay and Maasin served with one ship of Sulpicio Lines. But then how about Palompon and Isabel served by WG&A? Did she just lump up all the figures of the four ports? There is a town named Leyte in Leyte province but it does not have a port with ships calling from Manila d) And how about Cuyo which was served by batels then? If the batels of El Nido and Liminangcong are counted then why not Cuyo? Anyone familiar with Isla Puting Bato or the ports by the Pasig River know that there are ships there to Cuyo. e) El Nido and Liminangcong ports are lumped together when those are two different ports in two different towns in Palawan. f) Catbalogan was also missing when this was both served by WG&A and Sulpicio Lines then.

  3. I wonder how Zambales and Batangas were listed. Those two are not regular calls of ships from Manila. If she were counting trucks then those two deserve to be primary ports. And why two listings for Zambales both in the primary and tertiary. Which two ports are that? Again, a glaring lack of shipping knowledge.

  4. Now, I wonder how come Estancia, San Carlos and Masbate can be classified as primary ports when Bacolod, Cotabato, Ozamis, Roxas and Surigao were just considered as secondary ports. There is no way a shipping company will assign their liners to the five secondary ports to those three classified as primary ports. And the size and quality of the liners assigned are clear evidences on how the shipping companies themselves rate the ports. But it seems Myrna S. Austria is not familiar with our liners and their port assignments.

  5. San Carlos is just a sometimes route which happened to have liners again after a short time in the 1980’s when Negros Navigation had no more routes for their old cruisers. They attached Estancia to that so there will be more passengers and cargo and so the rank of Estancia increased because Sulpicio Lines also calls on that.

  6. No way Dumaguit will be that low and lower than Estancia and San Carlos as before the intermodal it will always have a liner since that is the primary port of entry of Aklan.

  7. Corregidor is a special case since it is a plain tourist destination with daily sailings and even more than once. The listed secondary ports of Myrna S. Austria can’t even claim daily departures.

And Dr. Myrna S. Austria has the following classification of passenger routes from Cebu:

Primary routes: Bohol, Dadiangas, Davao, Dumaguete, Estancia, General Santos, Iloilo, Jagna, Masbate, Nasipit, Palawan/Puerto Princesa, Tagbilaran, Tubigon and Zamboanga.

Secondary routes: Bacolod, Butuan, Calbayog, Catanduanes, Dapitan, Dipolog, Leyte, Ormoc, Ozamis, Palompon, Surigao, Tacloban and Talibon.

Tertiary routes: Camiguin, Camotes, Dawahon, Hiligaynon, Iligan, Jetafe, Lapu-lapu, Larena, Lazi, Naval and Sta. Fe.

  1. The lump sum Bohol, Leyte and Camotes betrays ignorance of ports and routes. What ports are those? Probably those are not just one route but she simply can’t parse the data. Hiligaynon is a language and not a port. Is she talking of Hilongos in Leyte?

  2. Davao, Dadiangas/General Santos are not a primary routes from Cebu. Those are just extensions of the routes from Manila where the ship pass by Cebu. Neither is Palawan/Puerto Princesa and Estancia. The two routes from cannot even be sustained over time and historically the two don’t have a route from Cebu.

  3. Butuan is classified low because it was wrongly separated from Nasipit. Dipolog and Dapitan sank to secondary route because they were also wrong separated when every Cebuano knows Nasipit and Dapitan, the true ports are strong routes from Cebu.

  4. I wonder how Ormoc, Ozamis, Surigao and Talibon fell to secondary routes. Ormoc? She must be joking. There are day and night departures to Ormoc multiple times and even by High Speed Crafts (HSCs). Ditto for Talibon which became the primary port of entry of Bohol. The Cebuanos will be falling from their seats laughing when they read that.

  5. Ozamis and Surigao are very strong routes from Cebu and stronger than Estancia, Jagna, Masbate and Zamboanga. And Iligan is almost as strong as Ozamis. Why didn’t Myrna S. Austria just made an interview in Cebu port so she can get her classifications right? Even the lowly porter of Cebu port can make a better classification than what she did.

  6. There is no regular Cebu-Catanduanes route except by tankers.

  7. If she will will count the motor bancas then she will find that there are many trips to Jetafe in a day. And if she will count motor bancas she will also find that there is a Cebu-Pitogo route. That town is now known as Pres. Carlos P. Garcia. Is this her “Bohol port”? Or is that the motor bancas from Pasil and Carbon to the islets and other destinations in Bohol?

  8. Is what she listed as “Camotes” Poro?

  9. Lapu-lapu should not be counted there as that is a special route and a substitute and alternative for jeeps with a very high passenger volume. Unless she is counting the motor bancas to the Hilutungan Channel destinations.

  10.  There are missing routes from Cebu in her paper and these are many and I will group it by direction: a) Plaridel in Misamis Occidental, b) Sogod, Liloan and Cabalian, all in Leyte and San Jose in Dinagat island, c) Cataingan in Masbate (I just wonder if there was still a ship to Placer, Masbate and Bulan, Sorsogon in the year 1998), d) Baybay and Bato which are strong routes and Hindang maybe if Socor Shipping is counted, d) Sindangan or Liloy, too in Zamboanga del Norte.

It seems the paper missed about a third of the routes from Cebu and that is a blatant mistake.

The ignorance of Dr. Myrna S. Austria of ports, routes and shipping companies simply amazes me (if she knew all the shipping companies then she will not miss the routes). Since her paper is on the net it is only a disservice to shipping as it misleads a lot of people including the government. I will discuss that in greater detail when I discuss what shipping companies she missed. Did she think we are like the USA, Europe, the British Commonwealth and other Highly Industrialized Countries where records are complete? We cannot even sanction here companies that does not submit reports nor of companies who do not pay taxes or remit the SSS contributions of their employees.

I wonder why did she not consult people that are really knowledgeable in shipping like the senior mariners or even executives of shipping companies. Well, even simply interviewing the stevedores in Manila and Cebu would have improved her paper a lot. They cannot miss the shipping companies and the routes. The way I analyze her paper she simply depended on what MARINA (Maritime Industry Authority) and the PPA (Philippine Ports Authority) can serve her. And the two government agencies her that the reports and figures are not complete.

The unknowing public might have been treating her paper as “expert analysis”. The truth is it is full of holes and wrong conclusions. And this is the problem in the Philippines where researchers and scholars do paper on fields that they have no knowledge of. If her paper is analyzed by those who really know shipping it will simply be laughed at.

Advertisements