stipulated in the collective labor agreements). Psaraftis et al (1994a)
provides details on how such wage data was obtained.
The wage data was grouped into nine (9) databases: One for the German
flag, one for the Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish flags, one for the Dutch,
French, Belgian, and Luxembourg flags, one for the British and Irish flags, one for the
American flag, one for the Japanese flag, one for the Portuguese and Spanish flags, one
for the Italian flag, and one for the Greek flag. A separate wage database for the cheap-
crew ship was formed. This was called the "Russian database" because it contains
salary levels for officers and ratings that are of Russian nationality. The reason this
nationality was selected is that it constituted the cheapest wage level found from all
wage data that was collected.
All these wage databases were connected with the Lloyds ship database.
Crew composition for each ship was estimated using the Official Manning Regulations of the
flag of the ship. Hotel crew was not part of the manning cost equation for passengers and
ferries.
The first question in the Level III analysis was for which, among all
these 1,487 ships, the NPV of the time stream of manning cost differentials between the
parent ship and the equivalent ATOMOS-10 ship, taken over 25 years, exceeded the
additional capital cost of the ATOMOS technologies. For those ships, the ATOMOS ship is
more competitive than the parent ship.
The answer to this question depends on two factors: (a) the additional
capital cost of the ATOMOS technologies, and (b) the real cost of capital i (or discount
rate), defined as the difference between the nominal interest rate and inflation. We
examined capital costs ranging from $1 million to $5 million, and i ranging from 0% to
10%. The complete picture for the $2 million, 10% case for every type/flag combination is
as follows.
1) Taken by flag/register, the percentages among the 1,487 ships in
which an ATOMOS ship is more competitive than its parent ship are: Belgium: 100% (1 ship
out of 1); Denmark: 100%; USA: 100%; NIS: 98%; Greece: 94%; Japan: 94%; Finland: 93%;
Norway: 87%; Germany: 87%; France: 86%; Sweden: 85%; Italy: 83%; Luxembourg: 82%; UK: 82%;
Spain: 81%; Portugal: 80%; DIS: 79%; Ireland: 43%; Netherlands: 42%.
