Good morning. It's my pleasure to welcome Norfolk Southern to the conference today. Thank you guys for being here. I'm Fitz Middleton. I'm on the BofA Specialist Sales team. I look at industrials. Given the peding transaction, I'll be sitting in and hosting the Q&A instead of Ken Hoexter this year. BofA has the privilege of welcoming Norfolk to our conference for the 22nd year out of the 25 years that Ken has hosted the event. Pleased to have Jason Zampi, CFO, Michael Barr, VP, Treasurer and IR, are both here for their second time, and Luke Nichols, IR, is here for the fourth time. There we go. We appreciate the partnership and your participation in the conference over the years.
Jason, let me turn it over to you maybe for an update on some of the key takeaways you want us to learn from today.
Yeah. Fitz, thanks for having us here. You know, as you mentioned, we've got a long, long and, you know, great history with Bank of America and coming to this conference. We're pleased to be here again this year. You know, I'd say we've really got a, you know, situation here where we're working very well with our customers to help them grow, and we're obviously right in the middle of, you know, this very transformative merger to unlock additional value. It's an exciting time for us as a company. I think, you know, three key takeaways I would say is, you know, first, we're executing on the plan we've laid out. That's really focused on safety, service, and cost discipline. You saw that play out during the first quarter.
You know, we had, I'd say, kind of a mixed demand environment in the first quarter. We had some challenges operationally due to weather and some other things. It's, you know, it's how we performed during that, you know, during those things. It's, it really shows our ability to, again, to execute on that plan. I think, you know, very strong execution there, whether it be safety, service, and obviously cost. Happy with that. I think the second thing, obviously, is the, is the merger and, you know, where we stand on that. We've, we've resubmitted our application. We think we have a materially stronger application, with the STB addressed all of the concerns out there.
You know, we're anxious to get them looking through to the merits of this and, you know, feel like the point of this all along throughout this application process has been to have a fact-based, data-driven approach, and we feel like we've done that. We think we're in a really good place with the application. Third, I think just from a value creation standpoint, you know, it's kind of what we call our operating flywheel with safety, service, and again, cost. You know, you have to have a really good service product, and that earns us the ability to grow. You take safety and reliability, and that enhances the trust and confidence that our customers and regulators have with us. On top of that, you add in productivity.
It really just generates this kind of self-reinforcing flywheel that we're seeing. You know, again, executing on the plan, making strong progress on the merger, and then that operational flywheel is what really drives kind of long-term value creation.
Great. Maybe if we, if we follow up and talk about the deal and the recent refiling with the Surface Transportation Board of the merger application with UNP. Can you talk about some of the changes versus the first application, particularly some of the CapEx downshifts, maybe decreasing of the revenue synergy target? Thoughts on any of the more obvious changes that were in there?
Yeah, sure. You know, obviously, the big change or, you know, was implementing the three key areas that the STB called out. That was, you know, forward-looking market share data, the TRRA ownership railroad there in St. Louis, as well as some of the merger appendices. We feel like we've addressed all of those. Another piece, though, is, you know, we've now used 100% of traffic data from Class I railroads. That's kind of a, you know, above and beyond what normally happens in these things. When we put in the initial application, we had some sample data in there. Now we have 100% of the traffic data. What that resulted in is some changes, as you might imagine, in traffic flows.
The diversion model shows, you know, maybe a little bit more on the intermodal growth side, a little bit less on the, on the carload side. You know, the combination of that is really what impacted the revenue synergy side. Then, you know, on a CapEx side, again, from when you look at where that traffic's gonna be flowing, you see that, you know, you have different needs from an infrastructure perspective. So, you know, maybe a little bit less CapEx spending on things like sidings and stuff like that. You know, all in, even going from that sample of data to the 100% data set, you know, it really did not change the overall thesis for the merger, and in fact, just reinforced what we knew to be true.
Right. One of the things that you guys kept the same and committed to was the Gateway Pricing Commitments as they were. Can you talk about some of the benefits of the CGP and why it should be viewed as enough to get the merger through?
Sure. You know, at its core, the Committed Gateway Pricing is really it extends the enhanced benefits to local interline lanes, right? You take BNSF or CSX, and it allows them the ability to offer an end-to-end rate to a customer. That, you know, obviously, increases optionality for the customers and ease of doing business. That's, that's a great outcome here. You know, what I would say, too, there's a whole host of, you know, pricing and rate mechanisms that exist today. This is incremental to that. This is additive to what currently exists. Then I think the other benefit from this is it's, you know, kind of in line with the STB, you know, themes and policies.
It's a practical, you know, solution on the front end versus a, you know, after the fact try to remedy, you know, some potential issues. We think that you put all that together, it's a pretty powerful provision that we have in the merger agreement here. What I'd say is also, you know, the Committed Gateway Pricing is just one aspect of how we, you know, how we view the benefits from this transaction. You know, it's really about providing, you know, better service, better route options for our customers, you know, really ease of doing business with this combined coast-to-coast, you know, railroad. Those are what the real values are and, you know, being able to unlock this watershed market that we've talked about.
You know, all of those things are really what, you know, enhances optionality and competitiveness for our customers.
Right. Same topic. You and Jim Vena have both talked directly about no need for concessions of any major scale, given the commitments that you're making and that this is an end-to-end merger. What do you think the pushback is to that, why are you guys confident that no major concessions after all the discussions you've had?
Yeah, sure. You know, I mean, I think it's, you know, it's understandable. You, you know, you see all the maybe the pushback and noise from some of our competitors out there. You know, not unexpected. Even before we filed the application, there was, you know, positions people were taking out there. Again, not unexpected. I think what we're really excited about is moving to this next phase where the STB can focus on the merits of the deal, and we can really get into, you know, looking at that. Again, reviewing the data, the fact-based set that's on the record here and, you know, moving past some of the noise that's out there.
Again, you know, from a concession perspective, we think that, you know, this deal on its own provides, you know, a ton of value, enhances competition, is in the public interest, and, you know, that's kind of where we came out from a concession perspective.
Great. Thanks for that.
Sure.
If we kind of talk about the system and trends that you guys are seeing, I think volumes quarter to date are trending up about 2.8%. It kind of trails CSX at 4.6%. Is this indication of some share loss but still positive carloads? Is it a good run rate number for the quarter? How would that lead you to, you know, to adjust above break-even volume for the year? Any thoughts there?
Yeah. you know, if you think about first quarter, we were, you know, down a little bit from a volume perspective, but it was really lumpy, I would say. January, we started off pretty strong from a volume perspective. February had a lot of, you know, winter weather, you saw volume kind of crater during that period. Then a pretty significant rebound in March, we're seeing that, you know, saw that really through April here. We're kind of in that 140,000 carloads per week range. I think we've been there now nine or 10 weeks in a row, you know, really strong performance on the volume side. you know, again, speaking to kind of the resiliency of the railroad, we're able to handle that.
You know, I think we're in a really good shape there. You know, we kinda see that probably continuing for the remainder of the quarter, and we'll see, you know, where the rest of the year shakes out.
Great. You guys have noticed some enhanced competitive environment given the merger announcement will have an adverse impact on volumes in the short and maybe medium term. Is that quantifiable at this point?
Yeah. We'd put that right around, you know, 1% of our total 2026 revenue. It's primarily within our, obviously our domestic intermodal business, but we kind of quantify it in that 1% range. I will say we've seen, you know, outside of that, we have seen some pretty strong performance in our domestic intermodal.
franchise that we're, you know, really pleased with here and, you know, coming out of the first quarter and into April. International remains weak, but, pretty good progress on the domestic side.
Awesome. Kind of from an economic backdrop, you guys have talked about that improving. Something like eight of nine commodity areas have had green circles or kind of half green. Where do you think the economy is in that backdrop?
Yeah. Maybe not surprisingly, we take a lot of time thinking about the colors of those circles. You know, I would say where we are right now is probably, you know, cautiously optimistic. You know, I think it's still a little bit mixed bag out there, I think we're starting to feel, you know I'm for sure feeling better than I did, you know, a handful of months ago. If you look at a couple of things, I mean, I think, you know, from what you're seeing from a energy price perspective, we think there's some opportunities for modal shift. You know, probably not surprising to anybody. We've seen that, you know, in prior cycles when fuel prices, you know, become elevated.
We see those modal shifts, we're ready to handle that. I think the second thing, you know, utility coal has really been a, you know, a outperformer for us, running well ahead of where we expected. You know, utility coal was up from a tonnage perspective over 25% in the first quarter, you know, attribute that to the, you know, energy demand that exists out there. I think, you know, two bright spots for us there. You know, we're looking at all the same economic indicators, you know, as you guys are. I think two things for us to watch out for is, one, you know, what's the break point for the consumer?
You know, as the fuel prices hit a magnitude and a duration that, you know, that impacts consumer spending. I mean, the consumer's been very resilient, so we'll see how that shakes out, but that's something to watch. You know, our business is obviously highly tied to the housing market and, you know, unfortunately, we don't see a big turnaround there in the near future, but, you know, with what's happening with rates, but definitely something we're looking out for.
Makes sense. If we think kind of about spending, I think you've set adjusted OpEx to be in the range of $8.2 billion-$8.4 billion for the year.
Right.
Could you just walk us through some of the highs and lows within that target? Is it holding employees flat? Do you need to add back with carload growth? Kind of how do you think about cost per employee, fuel exposure, any lag benefits? Just kind of what are the puts and takes within that?
Yeah.
Within that range?
Sure. If you think about it from a year-over-year perspective, we kind of talked about this at year-end, you know, the 8.2%-8.4% is really informed by a couple of things. One, we've got some pretty significant inflation coming into this year, more in the 4% range, which is, you know, higher than maybe you'd think in the 2%-3%, that's wage inflation, health and welfare benefits, insurance premiums, things like that. That's a significant headwind for us. You know, the other thing we're experiencing on the cost side, again, just year-over-year compare is, you know, fewer land sales than we had last year. Fortunately, we've got a lot of productivity initiatives in the hopper.
We're, you know, targeting another $150 million in productivity savings this year, and that's on the back of $500 million over the last two years. That's kinda how we got to that 8.2%-8.4%. You take those three things, then you know, you kind of slide that based on what we think volume's gonna be. Now, the uncertainty and the kind of the wild card that's, you know, presented itself obviously is fuel.
Yep.
You know, we'll see how that shakes out but, you know, very significant increase in our fuel price. If you think about kind of our, you know, price per at the gallon, excuse me, price we pay at the pump, that's up 45% in March, and it was up another 80% in April year-over-year. Very significant increases there. You know, that's something we're watching. I think when we get to the end of the second quarter and report earnings, we'll be able to provide a little bit better range and where we think that's gonna come out. Sorry, just thinking about some of the other components.
I think from a headcount perspective, you know, we're down about 1% in the first quarter from where we finished 2025. I think that's a pretty good run rate for the rest of the year, kind of staying flat from that point. You know, we're hiring for attrition in some of our key areas and making sure we have a good conductor trainee pipeline. You know, kind of holding that flat. I think the last part of the question there, just, you know, cost per employee, comp per employee, we think about that in the $38,000 per quarter range. That's, you know, has puts and takes. First quarter's usually higher.
Move into the second half of the year, you've got, you know, wage inflation that takes effect July 1. We've got some productivity initiatives. I think that 38,000 is a good range to think about.
Great. Maybe we think of a little bit about the quarterly cadence. I think historically, you guys improved the operating ratio about 250 basis points from 1Q to 2Q. You did 68.7% in 1Q. Kind of what would lead to underperformance or outperformance versus a normal target? You know, and would it be a fuel lag benefit, you know, weather in 1Q? Just kind of, you know, what are your thoughts on that?
Yeah. Yeah, sure. You know, we think about historical sequential, OR improvement from first quarter to second quarter more in the 200 basis point range.
Thank you.
Again, it depends, you know, what period of time you look at and everything, but kind of recent history, we're thinking about 200 basis points. You know, we flagged that we will achieve that or, you know, are on track to achieve that going from first quarter to second quarter this year. You know, you always have weather in first quarter, you always have, you know, step-ups and incentive comp and things like that. This year's no different. What I will say is, even with those fuel headwinds that I talked about, we still feel like we can hit that 200 basis point improvement. That's a pretty big deal, and we're able to do that, you know, through the productivity initiatives that we have in place.
Right. On those, I think you've delivered $30 million in productivity in Q1 of this year and reiterated the $150+ million of efficiencies for 2026.
Yeah.
Which is on top of $500 million over the last two years. Kind of thoughts on how much of that remaining cost opportunity is structural, how much is volume dependent, how should we think about that?
Yeah. You know, I think, we're really proud of what we've accomplished over the last two years. Like you said, you know, over $500 million of productivity savings. I would tell you know, it's really the initiatives that we have in place are really structural versus volume dependent, and you saw that in 2025. We had flat volume basically in 2025, yet we still achieved over $200 million that year. This year is no different.
The $150 million in productivity initiatives that we have in place this year really, you know, you think about labor productivity, not just T&E, but on the mechanical and engineering side, fuel efficiency, and then, you know, the work we're doing in purchased services, materials, and on the G&A side as well. Really, you know, kinda agnostic to the volume profile. Now, that volume comes through, we've got capacity to move it and, you know, should have good incrementals.
Great. As you think about how that productivity compounds and kind of matures with PSR 2.0, how do you think about NS's long-term operating ratio potential, kind of maybe on a standalone basis and then a combined basis, if you can talk about both of them?
Yeah, sure. You know, I think, you know, the PSR journey's never done.
Yeah.
Right? It's something that we're continued to focus on. I laid out, kind of focusing on safety, service, and productivity, those things together will generate growth and cost savings, and that will improve your operating ratio. Now, I will say, the focus right now is truly on getting the merger across the finish line here, that's what our investors have Clearly signaled that is important to them. That is our focus. I think when you think about the combined entity from an operating ratio perspective, I mean, we've laid out significant revenue synergies.
Right.
Of this combined entity. You know, you asked earlier a couple small tweaks to those estimates, but you know, really strong revenue growth, and that's what this merger is about. It's about growth. On top of that, there's, you know, $1 billion in cost synergies as well, as we combine these two entities and gain more efficiency. You know, I think all in, you put that together, it's a pretty powerful full financial benefit, but also an operating ratio story as well.
Right. Then if we think about kind of volume and carload growth, lately, chemicals have been robust, I think kind of up single digits.
Is that sustainable? You know, do you need an industrial turnaround? Is there new partnerships? Kind of is, you know, is this a U.S. versus the rest of world when it comes to pet chems? How do you think about those volumes?
Yeah. You're right. You know, chemicals was a kind of bright spot for us in the first quarter within our merchandise business. We're really seeing that growth in kinda energy-related markets. You know, sand, frac sand, NGLs, petroleum products, things like that. Those have really picked up since the conflict in, you know, in Ukraine have started. We'll see how that plays out. I think just, you know, as the impacts of those higher energy prices, you know, flow through the global economy, those, you know, will probably be sustained for us. I think overall though, just taking a step back, putting the macro aside, what makes growth sustainable is really a strong service product and a reliable service product that we can provide to our customers.
You know, making good progress there, and we feel like, you know, that'll allow us to gain share in any macro background. The other thing that I'd point out, just kind of in this merchandise space, you know, when you think about our industrial development pipeline, have a really strong pipeline. In 2025, you really saw that kind of stagnate from a standpoint of starting projects. There's a lot of things in the hopper, but people kind of sitting on the sidelines from a standpoint of starting projects. In 2026, kinda towards the end of 2025 and now into 2026, we're seeing a lot of those projects actually start.
Okay.
That's a really good sign for us and, you know, something we're pleased about. That pipeline will provide a lot of volume growth for us kind of moving into the future.
Nice. Curious your thoughts on coal. We get asked this question a lot at.
Yeah.
at B of A. You know, it's kind of up single digits in 1 Q, I think trending double digits in 2 Q. kind of how do you think about the drivers of this, and how should we? Is it pushing out retirements? Is this growth increasing, you know, sustainable? Do you think it should flip to declines later in 2026, domestic versus export?
Yeah.
Kind of same on pricing. You know, how do we think about revenue per carload?
Sure.
Sequentially and through the year?
Yeah. I'd say, you know, I think it's easier to kind of break out the components. I think, you know, like I talked about earlier from a utility coal perspective.
Right.
Up significantly in the first quarter. We're seeing that continue here into April, it's really, you know, energy demand from whether it's, you know, AI or, you know, just kind of what's happening from an inventory rebuild perspective. Expect that to continue on. You know, we are hearing from some of our customers that their plants are, you know, staying open longer than planned, so, you know, that's a good sign there. I think on the export side it's a little bit more mixed. We saw that kind of in first quarter flat, you know, flat performance overall year-over-year. We're kind of watching the export side as well. I think, you know, really good, strong progress on the utility side.
I will say, you know, anyone that's followed us, you've seen, you know, coal can be pretty volatile quarter- to- quarter.
Yep.
I don't wanna call it, you know, for the full year, but at least for second quarter, things are looking, you know, pretty strong. From an RPU perspective, I'd look at it, you know, we've seen now, you know, four to five quarters in a row of kind of sequential degradation in price, and that's really, you know, the utility and export benchmarks. What I think we're finally seeing is some stability there.
Okay.
I'm not ready to call, you know, kind of a steep inflection point there, but I think we've found some stability and, you know, that's a good sign for us as well.
Great. Then you mentioned intermodal in the beginning. Can we just talk on that one for a little bit? There's increased competitive environment, but there's also elevated fuel prices. Kind of are you seeing any of the secular growth opportunities return in intermodal? Kind of, you know, how do you think about competition, whether it's some of the stuff going on in Baltimore and I-95 traffic and kind of maybe some of the Meridian Bigbee traffic. What do you think about intermodal?
Yeah. Again, I think intermodal is kind of a, you know, tale of two cities, if you will. You know, on the domestic side-
Okay.
Even with those competitive pressures that we talked about, you know, I think the domestic market is really performing well, and we see potential upside from some modal conversion due to, you know, due to higher fuel prices, and we're seeing that, we're hearing that from customers. On the international side, you know, still a depressed market and really, I think more of a, you know, trade tariff kind of impact there. See that probably continuing, but just as a reminder, we kinda started to see that last year in the June to July timeframe. Back half of this year you'll see some easier comps on the international side.
I think from a, you know, competitive standpoint, you know, our approach is, right, we want to provide the best service product that's out there. I also think, you know, our advantage, we have a great intermodal franchise. You know, fantastic routes really, you know, hitting a lot of the key markets, and it's really capitalizing on that. That, that's kinda how we think about it from a competitive perspective.
Great. Does anyone in the room have a question? Pause. Nope. Okay, I'll keep going.
All right.
I think last week you guys did 145,000 carloads. Peak, I think, is 147,000. Kind of what's capacity look like? What are you built to handle? How do you think about it?
Yeah, I mean, we've, you know, in the past have moved, you know, well in excess of that 147,000. I think what's important for us is, you know, sustaining a level over time. Like I talked about first quarter, it was kind of lumpy from a volume perspective, and that's tough to manage through, right? It's easier when it's obviously more stable. From a capacity perspective, and you think about that in different fronts, whether it's, you know, people having, you know, conductors and engineers out there, whether it's infrastructure, whether it's, you know, locomotives and equipment, I think we're good on all fronts.
Okay.
You know, like I said, we're continuing to hire in key markets to balance that attrition and make sure we're able to serve growth. From an infrastructure perspective, we've done a lot of work over the last several years, specifically a lot down in kind of our Bigbee Corridor down in Alabama. We're now reaping the benefits of those things. You know, from an equipment perspective, we've got, you know, we still have locomotives and certain freight cars in storage, so we're poised for that growth. The capacity is there to move quite a bit more. Again, like I mentioned, that's, you know, all comes through at strong incrementals.
Great. maybe a little bit on pricing. It's probably the biggest theme we get asked about.
Sure.
Across all of industrials over the last two months. Average revenue per car load sequentially, kind of considering fuel increases and mix, how should we think about it? Up sequentially for 2Q and 3Q? Is that a okay framework?
Yeah. Again, maybe, like, let me separate this a little bit. First, on the fuel side, you know, a good chunk of our business, merchandise and coal, is on a two-month lag.
Right.
From a fuel perspective. You know, the prices that you saw in kinda March and April are what come through in May and June. You know, those elevated prices. Now, intermodal is more real-time-ish on a two-week basis. Yeah, I think just if you looked at fuel, I think you'll see an uptick there from an RPU perspective. Now, if you strip out fuel and just think about kind of core pricing, maybe again splitting this into different components, from a merchandise perspective, we've done really well, you know, from a kind of, you know, pricing to the service product we're out there and are, you know, getting, I would say, kind of inflation plus type pricing. Really proud of what we've done there on a core price perspective.
Intermodal, and coal kind of based on more underlying benchmarks, if you will. Intermodal kind of more tied to the truck market. What we're seeing there is, you know, maybe some uptick there finally after, you know, 4+ years of a freight recession. Hopefully we see that come back a little bit. I mentioned, you know, on the coal RPU side, maybe not a, you know, quick recovery, but at least maybe a, you know, past the bottom and now a little bit more stability from a, from a price perspective. It kinda helps me to think about it, you know.
Yep.
With fuel, without fuel, and then amongst those three categories.
It's helpful. Thank you.
Yep.
Maybe a little bit on metrics like velocity and dwell. Maybe a little shy versus last year's.
Yeah
numbers. You know, does that indicate anything? Is there a cost story there? How should we look at that?
I think, you know, again, we talked a little bit about the weather we had.
Yep
in February. We obviously have, you know, weather every year. Last year we talked about we had, I don't know, 17, 18 named storms that hit us, but I think those were more, you know, they were more discrete impacts. The storms that hit us in February were really broad-based and impact our entire network. We kinda had that as the first hit, if you will. As we were coming out of that, we actually had a derailment in a pretty key corridor for us in Pennsylvania. While, you know, fortunately no injuries and, you know, the damage related to that was not that significant from a cost perspective, it did, you know, kinda delay things on that corridor.
You know, trying to come back from the storms, with that on the, on the back of that, caused some of the degradation that you call out in speed and dwell. You know, I'm not expecting any, you know, significant impact to cost. You know, there'll be things like you'll see, you know, maybe some increased overtime and some recrew expense that we have, you know, to get that back on track to where we need it to be. No sustained structural increase in cost.
Great. Then if we focus on CapEx, maybe for one. You've targeted $1.9 billion. I think it's down 14% year-over-year. There's also maybe a new locomotive order and some refurbs. Can you talk about those decisions? Is the right spending level as a percentage of revenue 16%?
Yeah. you know, like you said, we're at $1.9 billion.
Right.
Around $1.9 billion for this year. A significant chunk of what we do from a CapEx perspective is really, you know, focused on the safety and reliability of the network. You know, like I said, a very large piece. We put in 500 miles of rail last year, 2 million crossties. We're gonna do the same this year, right? It's we have to do that every year, and it's important for the safety and reliability of the network. Those things don't change. The way we've been able to bring down the capital spend a little bit is through two things. One, like I mentioned earlier, we're able to now kind of reap the benefits from some of the growth projects that we've had in the past.
Right.
We don't have the need for as many of those this year. Two, you know, with when the network running really well and the kinda operations flywheel that I talked about, you know, you've got better asset utilization and higher velocity. You just don't need as many locomotives and freight cars and that type of thing. That's kind of how we've got to that $1.9 billion envelope. From a locomotive perspective, just mentioned the not needing as many locomotives, but what we're doing with the DC to AC conversion refurbs that you call them, we are not adding to the fleet. We're just replacing.
Okay.
You know, kind of maintaining that same locomotive count and able to get rid of older, you know, less efficient locomotives. The modernizations that we've done really, you know, very fuel efficient, highly reliable, more tractive effort, and they're less expensive than, you know, buying a brand new locomotive. Really good, you know, story for us there on that front. Again, it's about, you know, having a more reliable fleet versus adding to the fleet.
Okay, great. Helpful. Thanks. We have a couple of minutes left, maybe close it out with.
Yeah.
On the pending transaction.
Sure.
Can you just remind us on the process with the STB from here? I think 30 days to decide if the application's complete and then 250 days for hearings, comments, environmental reviews, 90 days for ruling, that pushes us to mid 2027. Is that a right timeline? Any pushback to that?
Yeah. I think, you know, obviously, the focus right now is, you know, getting this application approved through the process. You know, I think from a longer timeline perspective, you know, the STB has been pretty clear about, you know, they've got rules in place, and they're gonna follow those rules. We saw that very clearly with the first application that we put in and hitting the deadlines that they laid out there. You know, this application's gone in. They offered people to respond to the application that's happened, and now the combined NS-UP response will go back in today to those comments. Hopefully by the end of the month, we'll know here one way or the other on the acceptance of the application.
I think the good thing is when the application is accepted, what we'll get is a definitive timeline.
Right.
Right. Again, that the STB has, you know, kind of laid out that they will commit to follow. I think that's important for a lot of, you know, a lot of different stakeholders, you know, most importantly our employees to kind of know what to expect over the next, you know, year and a half. I think, you know, kind of that first half of the year is a good target, but we'll see kind of when we get this final timeline how it exactly looks.
Great. Maybe lastly, how should we think about any of some of the public pushback or comments that are out there, whether it's from, you know, peers or labor.
Sure.
How would you guide us to think about that?
Yeah. You know, I think on the, on the labor front, you know, you see probably two camps there. We've got, you know, some folks that are maybe not yet supporting the merger and other unions that see the value.
Right.
You know, see what we're doing. You know, different schools of thoughts there. I think you've got, you know, some coalitions that have come together to, you know, to speak out against this. Again, not unexpected, and, you know, it's all of these voices out there. We obviously listen to all these things and take them seriously. At the end of the day, what's important is for the STB to look at the merger application. I think when they, you know, see the fact-based, data-driven approach that we have out on the record and the benefits that this brings, it's clear that this is really, you know, it's good for our customers and good for the country. We feel pretty confident about the benefits of this.
Great. Appreciate it. Anyone in the room before we wrap up? Once? Please? Okay.
We're great.
Yeah.
Thanks very much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for having us.
We appreciate you guys being here.
Thank you.