We all know what GIGO or “Garbage In, Garbage Out” means. The paper of Myrna S. Austria on domestic shipping competition is one such example and I will show the GIGO of her paper in the port of Batangas. [I will also show how it applied later in her analyses on the routes from Cebu and other routes; to tackle all in one article will simply be too long.] Her paper:
In that paper the figures that were used were for 1998 and 1999 but the paper could have been published in 2003. So for consistency I will use data especially vessel data for 1998, primarily and for 1999, secondarily.
Batangas port in 1998-1999 was one of our busiest port in terms of passenger traffic. In those years Batangas port was behind Cebu port and Manila port (in total passengers but not in vessel departures) but it is well ahead of the other Philippine ports.
The number one route from Batangas is the Calapan route and that route will account for about 80% of the passenger departures from Batangas. Other routes then from Batangas were to the following ports : Abra de Ilog, Sablayan and San Jose (all in Occidental Mindoro); Puerto Galera (in Oriental Mindoro); Coron and Puerto Princesa (both in Palawan); Odiongan, Romblon, Banton and Simara (all in Romblon province) and Masbate.
Actually there might have been a few other routes from Batangas that I might have missed because the creation and deletion of routes was very fast in those days as competition in Batangas was really heated up. This was the era of the entry of many shipping companies which was the result of the deregulation policy and shipping incentives laid down by the Fidel V. Ramos administration. In fact, because of the dog-eat-dog competition in Batangas and the simple excess of bottoms, in a few years after 1998 a lot of shipping companies plying routes from Batangas routes will have collapsed including the biggest, the Viva Shipping Lines/Sto. Domingo Shipping/DR Shipping combine of the controversial Don Domingo Reyes.
If the paper of Myrna S. Austria is to be believed there were only three routes from Batangas served by sea vessels bigger than motor bancas in 1998 — the Batangas-Calapan route (and that is served only by SuperCat according to her paper), the Batangas-Puerto Galera route (according to her that is served only by Si-Kat, the small Cavite-built fiberglass-hulled catamaran) and the Batangas-Romblon route (which according to her is only served by Shipshape Ferry Inc.). Of course that is very, very far from the truth and actual situation and if you tell that to porters in Batangas port they will probably whistle in disbelief.
Now if her paper is correct (and it is definitely erroneous) then Batangas will only be a minor port as least as far as passenger shipping is concerned (it is another matter in cargo because Batangas hosts refineries and lot of tankers dock there).
If the paper of Myrna S. Austria is to be believed then there is only one RORO ship docking in Batangas in 1998 was the Princess Camille. And there were only three passenger shipping companies – SuperCat (or Philippine Fast Ferry Corp.), Si-Kat (which was misspelled to Sicat Ferries) and Shipshape Ferry (which owns the Princess Camille). And she says Si-Kat goes to Puerto Princesa, Palawan and not Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro which is wrong again. I just wonder how a small catamaran can reach Puerto Princesa from Batangas. Maybe tankers met her along the way?
So in Myrna S. Austria’s paper, Viva Shipping Lines and her legal-fiction companies Sto. Domingo Shipping and DR Shipping simply did not exist when actually it was the biggest in Southern Tagalog during that time with 33 passenger vessels from ROROs to fastcrafts and wooden motor boats (the batels). Most of its ships were based in Batangas with a few in Lucena.
In Myrna S. Austria’s paper, the Montenegro Shipping Lines Inc. (MSLI) also did not exist in 1998 together with its six ROROs and three motor boats. Starlite Ferries and its one RORO also did not exist like MSLI (Starlite added ships in 1999 like MSLI). In the paper, two Atienza clan ROROs also did not exist. That goes true for the motor boats and big motor bancas that go to Banton and Simara (when the paper of Myrna S. Austria lists motor boats and motor bancas in other places including those that just cross the narrow Davao
Why was this so? That happened because the shipping companies mentioned did not bother to report to the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and it seems she did not consult the MARINA Database and so she did not see the list of ferries in the Philippines and its routes). I just wonder about ivory tower researchers. All they know is go to government offices when government data has a lot of leaks. They won’t bother going to the ports and see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears.
In her paper I noticed a lot of ports missing and a lot of shipping companies not listed both in passenger and cargo shipping, nationally. Once, I read that the PPA themselves admitted that only about 55% of the companies report to them. I even wonder if that is not a rose-tinted estimate especially in cargo. One of the major reason for this is they are not the maritime regulatory agency (that is the MARINA or Maritime Industry Authority) and maybe the shipping companies felt that reporting to them is not mandatory. Another major reason is there are more private ports than PPA ports and a lot of ports that are under the local government units (LGUs). There are even ports that are not registered or authorized to operate (it is the PPA themselves that pointed that out).
The PPA will also not know the passenger and cargo ships existing since they don’t maintain a shipping database. There are even unregistered ships and there are motor bancas and fishing bancas taking passengers and cargo although they are not authorized by the maritime regulatory agency. So why would they report to the PPA? The so-many Moro boats of Zamboanga, Sulu and Tawi-tawi are in the main unregistered and they number over 200.
In Myrna S. Austria’s paper, the average age of passenger ferries in 1999 was 9.98 years and these were mainly the High Speed Crafts and Medium Speed Crafts. The average age for passenger-cargo ships in 1999 was just 9.27 years (gasp!). Who can believe that!? That only happened because she missed a lot of shipping companies in her research. The true average age of our passenger-cargo ships then was over 20 years. Otherwise Senator Richard Gordon and former MARIA Administrator Maria Elena Bautista won’t be railing against the age of our ships. And I have the database to prove that our ships are really much older than Myrna S. Austria’s data.
The centerpiece of the study of Myrna S. Austria is the use of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index or HHI to measure shipping competition.
But what is the use of that measurement when a lot of companies do not bother to report? Almost all the computations will then be go awry and concentration will seem to be very high. There is no sense to that that index if the data is highly incomplete which was really the case.
In Myrna S. Austria’s paper, there were a lot of routes reported to be with “no competition” or only with “mild competition”. Because most shipping companies were not in the data. [I a future article I will list all the shipping companies and ships she was able to list and I will list all the shipping companies and ships she missed.]
In Batangas when Myrna S. Austria’s paper was published in 2003 a host of shipping companies there were already toppling including the biggest (the Viva-Sto. Domingo-DR combine). Others that toppled were Aquajet Maritime, Sto. Nino Maritime Services and Atienza Shipping (not the current one of Silverio Atienza). Some others left Batangas for thereafter for greener pastures(like the Atienza Shipping Lines of Silverio Atienza and ACG Express Liner) and some sold out (like the Shipshape and Safeship combine and Alexis Shipping). Except for one, all of these were not on the list of Myrna S. Austria.
The competition then in Batangas was “dog-eat-dog” or in Tagalog, “matira ang matibay”. There was rampant undercutting and underpricing and route schedules are not followed. I personally saw how that went on in Batangas when the rolling cargo rate for AUVs went down from P300 to P75 in 1995. When Viva Shipping Line implemented that nobody can follow suit to P75 because all will simply lose. P75 was just ¾ of the aircon bus fare then from Cubao to Batangas port! That was just like charging P120 in today’s (2016) money, less than a tenth of what they charge now. That was how fierce was competition in Batangas then.
Myrna S. Austria never knew that because maybe she never went to Batangas port (I believe in that otherwise she would have known the other shipping companies existing there) and for sure she is not a Batangas shipping passenger. Because of her was paper laden with great incompleteness in data, the conclusions can only be wrong — at least as far as Batangas, the coverage of this article.
The Shipping Companies in Batangas in 1998 and Its Passenger Ships Existing By That Year That Myrna S. Austria Missed In Her Paper:
Viva Shipping Lines:
Marian Queen (IMO 7534402)
Viva Sta. Maria (IMO 6814611)
St. Kristopher (IMO 7036292)
Viva Sto. Nino (IMO 6811528)
Viva Penafrancia (IMO 7331410)
Viva Penafrancia 2 (IMO 7908639)
Viva Penafrancia 3 (IMO 7126009)
Viva Penafrancia 4 (IMO 7104025)
Viva Penafrancia 5 (IMO 6908254)
Viva Penafrancia 8 (IMO 6829197)
Viva Penafrancia 9 (IMO 8426250)
Immaculate Conception (IMO 7607974)
Viva San Jose (IMO 7225398)
San Agustin Reyes (IMO 7020774)
Viva Sta. Ana (wooden motor boat; no IMO Number)
Viva Sta. Ana 2 (woodenmotor boat; no IMO Number)
Viva Maria Socorro (wooden motor boat; no IMO Number)
Our Lady of Lourdes (wooden motor boat; no IMO Number)
Socorro II (wooden motor boat; no IMO Number)
Our Lady of the Holy Rosary (fastcraft; IMO 7914731)
Viva Lady of Lourdes (fastcraft; IMO 8895149)
Sto. Domingo Shipping Lines:
Sto. Domingo (IMO 7314266)
San Lorenzo Ruiz (IMO 7119862)
San Fernando (IMO 7852634)
Sta. Penafrancia 6 (IMO 8426224)
Sta. Penafrancia 7 (IMO 7740099)
St. Lawrence (IMO 7405273)
Our Lady of Guadalupe-Reyes (fastcraft; no IMO Number)
Our Lady of Fatima 7828947 (fastcraft; IMO 7828947)
Penafrancia 10 (local-built fastcraft; no IMO Number)
Penafrancia 11 (local-built fastcraft; no IMO Number)
Penafrancia 12 (local-built fastcraft; no IMO Number)
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel (fastcraft; IMO 7828047)
Montenegro Shipping Lines Inc.:
Maria Angela (IMO 7852919)
Maria Gloria (IMO 6726668)
Maria Isabel (IMO 6720509)
Marie Kristina (IMO 6817962)
Maria Sophia (IMO 8948519)
Marie Teresa (IMO 8021969)
Don Vicente (wooden motor boat; no IMO Number)
Don Francisco (wooden motor boat; no IMO Number)
Dona Matilde (wooden motor boat; no IMO Number)
Starlite Ferries Inc.:
Starlite Ferry 5 (IMO 6829484)
Sto. Nino Maritime Services:
STO. 1 Ferry (IMO 9171709)
Source: Philippine Ship Spotters Society (PSSS) Database
Anybody can go to MarineTraffic or Vessel Finder and verify such ships with IMO Numbers existed.
Myrna S. Austria missed a lot, didn’t she?
Photo Credit: Edison Sy