Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush Admin To File Lawsuit Against Airbus Aid.  
User currently offlineImonti From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5774 times:


U.S. `Won't Wait Long' to File WTO Lawsuit Against Airbus Aid
December 7, 2004 05:54 EST -- The Bush administration ``won't wait long'' before asking the World Trade Organization to rule on the legality of European subsidies used to develop Airbus SAS aircraft, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conews&tkr=BA:US

[Edited 2004-12-07 23:32:34]

71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAZjetgeek From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 235 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5597 times:

Yeah. That ought to really improve US-EU relations - NOT!!!!

Bush brought this topic up during the campaign and I was flabbergasted when I heard his comments. For his administration to file a lawsuit trying to tell the EU it is NOT allowed to subsidize an aircraft manufacturing concern that employs thousands goes beyond ludicrous.

Here's my take on this: If Bush is unhappy about the Airbus subsidies, perhaps he should consider doing what former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich stated more than a year ago - GET OUT of the WTO. Otherwise, stop trying to dictate to the EU how it should do business. The EU understands the impact Airbus has on the economy of its member nations. Fighting over these subsidies is childish and foolish. We won't win by filing a lawsuit. We'll only further alienate our European allies. The WTO isn't about to order the subsidies stopped.

Are the Airbus subsidies fair to the U.S.? Probably not, but that isn't for me to say. Should our government subsidize Boeing? It's been tried in the past (Boeing SST project, for example) and proven to be too risky an investment. As it stands, Congress has attempted to find ways to eliminate the EAS subsidies that provide scheduled air service to rural communities. It's amazing how Congress continues to subsidize farmers but won't do the same for other industries that have a greater impact on our economy.

The hypocracy of the situation is truly infuriating.



Long live the RJ!
User currently offlineN754PR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5582 times:

Very good reply.

Thats a point, if the USA is so unhappy that Europe can help Airbus why does Bush not spend some money on Boeing?

Oh yeah... he has none left after using it all in the middle East..


User currently offlineEta unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2089 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5569 times:

On a similar topic, I've heard a rumor the EU is going to make life difficult for Emirates in 2006 and possibnly revoke some of their landing rights- unfair competition as EK doesn't pay for fuel in DXB.

As for USA and tje EU- this is a pandora's box- the USA subsidizes so many other industries as Azjetgeek says above- it's hypocritical.


User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5305 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5553 times:

Airbus aid?????? Since when does Airbus gets more aid then Boeing? Boeing : Tanker deal etc...defence ..space ..

The only thing Airbus gets is loans which it always pays back on time. problem with that?

KL911


User currently offlineDan2002 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 2055 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5543 times:

KL911, then explain to me how Airbus, is launching the A380, and the A350 all in a relatively short period of time, dont answer it, ill tell you, launch aid.


-Dan



A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5538 times:

Why are they in a hurry ?


Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5305 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5529 times:

Dan, it's money investors puts into it, since it's a private company. They also have a huge cash reserve of many billions of euros. And if that isn't enough they can always go get a loan....

KL911


User currently offlineDan2002 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 2055 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5497 times:

Well, I know that for the A380 government aid was given, in the billions, and almost the same for the A350." Europe has provided some $15 billion in launch aid to Airbus over the years, which would amount to a $35 billion debt on the company's books today if it had borrowed that money commercially, as Boeing does. Such aid shields Airbus from risk, allowing it to price its airplanes more aggressively and putting Boeing at a big competitive disadvantage." -HeraldNet

-Dan



A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
User currently offlineStargoldlhr From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Feb 2004, 1529 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5484 times:

Here we go.

Next we will be told the A380 is banned from US airspace for carrying too many passengers  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
User currently offlineCO737800 From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5451 times:

EU dont worry just dont listen to the WTO just like USA is doing to Canada on softwood.

User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4062 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5427 times:

What are they going to sue ? The provisions of the treaty the US signed ten years ago regarding subsidies ? Airbus certainly is not in violation of the rules of this treaty. Obviously Dubiya is wetting his pants that he might be forced to order a couple of hundred A330 tankers for the USAF and is now looking for a lame excuse.... Wink/being sarcastic

User currently offlineYVR99 From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5424 times:

My two cents,

I just think it is awfully ironic and hypocritical that the Bush administration should seek recourse to the WTO when they simply ignore the rulings of the WTO with regard to levies they have imposed on softwood lumber from Canada and other imports (EU steel, etc) which have been ruled illegal. These function as subsidies to US producers, along with the many other industries that are directly subsidised as mentioned above. Clearly the Bush administration thinks there is one set of rules for them and one set of rules for everybody else....



DH8,146,319,320,321,332,333,343,732,733,735,737,738,752,762,763,741,742,744,MD80,DC10
User currently offlineBIGBlack From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5408 times:

Arguing, ignorance, anti American sentiment. It is coming indeed.


Someone special in the air
User currently offlineCO737800 From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5410 times:

YVR99, you hit it right on the button

User currently offlinePilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2539 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5397 times:

i am not much versed in economics and WTO issues, but it seems that Boeing and Bush are threatened of becoing #2 in the world of aviation injstead on #1..... because if they were guranteed and satisfied of being #1....why would they try and get Airbus singled out....

didn't the US gov award Boeing the 707 contract as a pretty uch gurantee when boeing first rolled out...how is this not subsidizing, with different techniques?



The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5379 times:

Heh, you can't tell me that the non-Airbus (eurocopter/Astrium/etc...) business at EADS is not in exactly the same vein as the IDS division at Boeing. It's the same sort of "subsidy" (sneer quotes intentional.)


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9826 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5340 times:

Taken from an economic point of view, this is a logical step by governments in the EU Monetary Union. Since the creation of the monetary union, countries have lost their central banks and currency controls. This causes them to lose partial control of the specific economies. The EU as a whole is a strong economy, but Airbus is directly related with certain members of it that may be affected in different ways. It makes sense for specific countries to inject cash into corporations since that is one of the only things that specific country's economy. If Germany is experiencing asymmetric shock and going into a recession, then one of the best ways for Germany to pull out of it is to increase government spending, lower taxes, or inject cash directly into the economy with low or no interest loans to spur economic development. The EU Monetary Union doesn't do much for Germany in this case, because it is country specific, and monetary policy only works for the whole union.

You cannot use ideas that work in the United States, and just insert them to other parts of the world. The WTO does have a say as to what countries can do, and the EU as a whole has similar regulations. Subsidizing industries is an economic tool, and not just a popularity contest of who can build the most planes. The government of France probably does not care what the fuel burn rate of a A340-600 is compared to a 777-300ER, but rather they care that about it because it has a huge role in the economy.

The US government does certain things to help companies in the US as well. Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection is a huge example of something that the US does to help its own corporations. Also tax breaks are huge. For example any new company that will employ more then 25 people in Central Oregon is eligible to get a write off on all state taxes for 5 years. Boeing experienced some huge tax breaks from the state of Washington as well in a move to keep the economy strong. All of these are subsidizing industry in some way or another. The United States government does not want Boeing to become not competitive since it has been the number one exporter from the United States based on sales in the past. Many people see the word "subsidize" and immediately have bad connotations in their heads, but in reality it is something that all countries need to do in a way to provide strong and healthy economies.

This constant banter against one another is not a good thing at all unless it is founded on solid information and a good knowledge of the overall situation. I admit I don't know everything about this, but lets have people bring up sensible arguments rather then one line provocative statements that don't mean anything at all.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBjg231 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5339 times:

"didn't the US gov award Boeing the 707 contract as a pretty uch gurantee when boeing first rolled out...how is this not subsidizing, with different techniques?"


This point is ridiculous. I honestly don't know why it's brought up time and time again. Just because a government chooses to buy its own products doesn't mean that it's subsidizing the industry.

According to dictionary.com, a subsidy is, "A grant from the government, from a municipal corporation, or the like, to a private person or company to assist the establishment or support of an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public; a subvention; as, a subsidy to the owners of a line of ocean steamships."

It's a grant!

To help you guys understand, I'll give you an example. Let's say that I want to buy a stereo that costs a 100 bucks. However, I only have $66.66. That's ok, because I can ask my friends the taxpayers to give me the other 1/3 as long as I promise to pay it back. That is a subsidy.

Here's an opposing example of government aid. Let's say that I want to buy the same stereo and once again, I only have $66.66. How do I get the other 1/3? I sell something of mine to the government for the other 1/3. This is a government aiding a business without directly subsidizing anything.

Now I'm not arguing that Boeing is completely free of subsidies. The state of Washington bestows tax breaks, infrastructure, etc. But to argue that the government buying Boeing products is a subsidization of the company is ludicrous.



If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
User currently offlineOzglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5308 times:

BIGBlack "Arguing, ignorance, anti American sentiment. It is coming indeed."

Well, Dubya may be ignorant, but "anti-American" is harsh.

As for the last bit, I'm going to leave that alone.

Ozglobal



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1374 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

Well, if the end result is the elimination of subsidies to both Boeing and Airbus, let's go for it, even if both sides are embarrassed!

But, I think, there will be intractable sticking points on indirect aid. If jurisdiction X has higher taxes or other drags on business than jurisdiction Y, then company Q in X is disadvantaged relative to company R in Y. Now, if X by special dispensation reduces the burdens on Q to the level R enjoys in Y, then that is a subsidy, is it not? Yes, says company P in X. Yes! says company R. No way, says company Q, it's just evening the playing field.

The tax laws, labor laws, and probably a whole bunch of other stuff differ between the US and EU. This argument will go on for a long time.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5278 times:

didn't the US gov award Boeing the 707 contract as a pretty uch gurantee when boeing first rolled out...how is this not subsidizing, with different techniques?

Yeah, and the US got a product that it needed for defense of itself and its allies. That included Europe. Europe benefited from US defense spending because it allowed them to spend on less on defense and more on their welfare states and rebuilding their economies. Not to mention it saved them from having to worry about defending against a rearming Germany.

It's amazing how Congress continues to subsidize farmers but won't do the same for other industries that have a greater impact on our economy.

Well this partly Boeing's fault. It didn't spread its manufacturing across the country to increase its lobbying power. Regardless, most industrialized countries subsidize their agriculture industry for food security reasons. Its harder to justify the commercial plane sector for security reasons, especially as defense and commercial aviation requirements diverge.

Maybe the US goverment should give loans to Boeing. I find it abhorrent that the US would fund the direct development of a commercial product by a specific company that the government will have no current use for. Precompetitive and fundamental research is fine by book, as well as technologies applicable to defense. I'll tell you this though, if the US government gives loans to Boeing on the same terms as Airbus, then we are going to see overinvestment in the commercial aviation sector as the both Airbus and Boeing will feel the need to continuously one up each others government funded aircraft programs whenever they see their marketshare is being encroached upon. No program will ever be commercially successful enough to payoff its loans and fund the development of the next program.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineBIGBlack From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5249 times:

BIGBlack "Arguing, ignorance, anti American sentiment. It is coming indeed."

Well, Dubya may be ignorant, but "anti-American" is harsh.

As for the last bit, I'm going to leave that alone.

Ozglobal


Sorry to be so negative. I am going by what I have seen lately. It actually saddens me. As far as the US is concerned, not everyone supports our leader and everything he does.

http://www.sorryeveryone.com

HA!

I believe this administration is not doing much at all for US aviation or the economy in general.



Someone special in the air
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5227 times:

AirbusDriver:

Why are you blaming Bush for things that are the fault of your union and management?



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5210 times:

I believe this administration is not doing much at all for US aviation or the economy in general.

On the contrary, this administration is undoing the damage the previous administration did when they allowed the dollar to become extremely overvalued, which destroyed the competitiveness of US manufacturers and their employees. The US's share of the world wide manufacturing output drops whenever the dollar strengthens, and that's what happened when the dollar started appreciating as a result of the Clinton administrations handling of the Asian finanicial crisis in 1997-1998.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
25 AirbusDriver : Our fault that bush prefer supporting Iraq Airways instead of US-Airways??? What are you smoking??? Since I pay taxes I have the right not to be happy
26 N328KF : AirbusDriver There should be zero support for a misshapen airline. Let it collapse under its own weight and eliminate deadwood from the industry&mdash
27 Mtnmanmakalu : Well, there is no problem with the dollar being overvalued NOW is there??~!!! Quit blaming EVERY administration- Start blaming some of this sh*#@y Air
28 Post contains images Mtnmanmakalu : I got a better idea. Why didn't your company show a bit of loyalty to American aircraft manufacturers? Maybe then I'd think you deserve a little bit o
29 N328KF : Well, I am not taking issue with US buying Airbuses, EMBRAERs, or Bombardiers. My issue is that this guy here is blaming Bush for not saving his debt-
30 Bjg231 : "Our fault that bush prefer supporting Iraq Airways instead of US-Airways???" No, he's saying that it's your management's fault for driving the airlin
31 AirbusDriver : Yeah the price of oil is the fault of US-Airways management!!! Did you know that Mrs Rice ( New secretary of state) has an oil tanker named after her?
32 Atmx2000 : Well, I am not taking issue with US buying Airbuses, EMBRAERs, or Bombardiers. My issue is that this guy here is blaming Bush for not saving his debt-
33 N328KF : Big231: Precisely. There are simply not enough passengers to allow airlines to be profitable currently at current utilization levels. So let the marke
34 Mtnmanmakalu : I'm not being particularly serious about that issue either. But his bitter whining and cursing is irritating me. And his complaints about where his ta
35 N328KF : Too late. I didn't get the fuel prices comment in, in time. Like I said, see: WN. Also, the oil tanker bit is a falsehood. Stop drinking the kool-aid.
36 AirbusDriver : FYI the A319-A320-A321-A330 are cheaper to buy and operate than the 737-757-767 and better too... Also the 737 got CFM engine, half French...
37 STT757 : "We won't win by filing a lawsuit. We'll only further alienate our European allies" Has not stopped the EU from filing lawsuits against the US, my fav
38 AirbusDriver : No the oil tanker is real...
39 Atmx2000 : And the war with Iraq did not push the oil price up either??? Sure, it has. But so has Venezuelan and Nigeria political unstability, Putin's strong ar
40 N328KF : AirbusDriver: Cheaper to buy, perhaps. Being cheaper to operate is up for debate. And the "better" part is completely subjective. Let it be known that
41 Bjg231 : "Yeah the price of oil is the fault of US-Airways management!!! Did you know that Mrs Rice ( New secretary of state) has an oil tanker named after her
42 Mtnmanmakalu : FYI the A319-A320-A321-A330 are cheaper to buy and operate than the 737-757-767 and better too... Thats ONLY your opinion that they are better..... Li
43 N328KF : AirbusDriver: No the oil tanker is real... No, it never occurred. Chevron planned to when she served on the board of directors. She resigned, and they
44 Atmx2000 : The name was real. Ms. Rice was on the board of Chevron during the 90s, and they named a ship after her. However, a name does not denote a conflict of
45 N328KF : Bjg231: US Air was never truly in good shape. Call it the product of a stillborn merger.
46 Trex8 : >my favorite was when they announced they would ban or put large levies on imports of citrus products from the State of Florida in hopes of hurting Bu
47 Atmx2000 : I forget if it was the steel tariffs Bush had put in place to, even Carl Rove admits, buy votes in the rust belt, or it was related to the corporate (
48 Stealthpilot : sorry..... this was mentioned earlier "......as EK doesn't pay for fuel in DXB." is that true???? -nikhil
49 Miamix707 : FYI the A319-A320-A321-A330 are cheaper to buy and operate than the 737-757-767 and better too... Cheaper yes. Cheaper to operate?, I've always heard
50 Leskova : Bjr231: To help you guys understand, I'll give you an example. Let's say that I want to buy a stereo that costs a 100 bucks. However, I only have $66.
51 777ER : Oh no, here we go again.
52 Post contains images Pilotaydin : personally id like to see a new Tristar model i wish.... oh wait this has nothing to do with this thread...well neither to many of the replies above..
53 Aerosol : If EU should stop loans to Airbus, the US should sign the Kyoto agreement. Though I like the idea of having a beach in DUS.
54 Bjg231 : "Nope - that's a loan. A subsidy is when you get the 1/3 but don't have to pay it back." If only I could go to the bank and claim that I'm not going t
55 Post contains images Udo : Amen, Lockheed1011! Just in the moment when I thought I have already seen the dumbest posts, you scored 100 points! New versions of the B777? B777-400
56 Post contains images Miamix707 : personally id like to see a new Tristar model i wish.... Maybe if they had chosen American engines, the program would've been on schedule and delivere
57 Post contains images Miamix707 : Just in the moment when I thought I have already seen the dumbest posts, you scored 100 points! Udo, relax, that was just a satiric post, as to the fi
58 Widebody : The possibility of re-negociating the 1992 agreement was always open to Boeing, Airbus even offered an review in 1997. Clearly re-negociation isn't on
59 Sabenapilot : Ever thought what might happen if the WTO rules in favour of the EU and against the US? If I read all your posts, it sounds as if most Americans A.net
60 Atmx2000 : 'These "loans" as they call them, and which are thus allowed, aren't really loans, because they aren't FULLY repaid YET'. But they are still market d
61 Sevenair : UM OK, so does t hat mean that we Europeans can take action over the govt. sibsidies and bailouts that the US govt gives its airlines? God, America is
62 Scotron11 : Maybe this turn of events are because Boeing lost the USAF tanker refueling deal. Some of the articles about the way the tanker deal was pushed throug
63 Sabenapilot : The WTO is not a kind of international economic development institute like the IMF, which often takes the pragmatic approach for the common good, the
64 N328KF : Sabenapilot: In English, we usually say "follow the letter but not the spirit of the law."
65 Atmx2000 : besides, overinvestment??? Maybe as seen from your side, but all Airbus is doing is putting a competitor in place for every model of Boeing planes, so
66 Trex8 : >Most of the aid was one time aid for stabilization and security upgrades necessary for boosting public confidence gee, I thought it was mostly just m
67 Atmx2000 : That's a nice statistic. Most of those deaths are suicide of course. It's still rather irrelevent because 11,000 gun homicides sprinkled over the cour
68 N79969 : It's about time for the reckoning to arrive. The crux of the problem is that the EU ignored the intent of the 1992 agreement and cowers behind the ter
69 HlywdCatft : I don't remember Bush bringing anything up about Airbus aid in the debates. Kerry criticized Bush for NOT doing anything while Boeing workers lost the
70 Atmx2000 : gee, I thought it was mostly just money to keep bloated, inefficient airlines with high overheads from going under due to lack of customer demand afte
71 Post contains images Sebolino : Airbus lovers, it is OK to be afraid of Boeing. New versions of 777 coming out soon, followed by the 7E7. Airbus will be history. A380, a huge ugly mi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
USA Mulling Trade Lawsuit Against Airbus posted Tue Apr 8 2003 23:43:33 by ConcordeBoy
US Revives WTO Case Against European Aid To Airbus posted Tue May 31 2005 00:32:51 by Longhaulheavy
Airbus Aid: A New Complaint To WTO posted Wed May 10 2006 08:51:12 by Leelaw
Boeing Attacks Airbus Aid To Protect 7E7 posted Wed Sep 1 2004 00:01:10 by MidnightMike
Boeing To Act Against Airbus 'unfair' Subsidies posted Thu Jul 15 2004 01:04:12 by AvObserver
DL Employees To Stage Rally Against US Airways posted Sun Dec 10 2006 03:17:17 by Zsx81
Pax File Complaints Against A380 China Test Flight posted Tue Nov 28 2006 05:06:25 by Jimyvr
Eads In Talks To Sell Part Of Airbus posted Thu Nov 16 2006 07:41:00 by N1786b
Eads In Talks To Sell Part Of Airbus posted Thu Nov 16 2006 07:39:44 by N1786b
Boeing Sees Vindication In Strategy Against Airbus posted Sun Sep 17 2006 13:15:15 by Columba