Our organization has said from the beginning that we have to define the service expectation. We're well below what our members feel is reasonable. You have to define the level of service that railways are going to deliver. You cost that service. You measure it. So you cannot, in our view, take a look at costing a service that's underperforming. We need to define the performance level, and then the costs have to be appropriate, given the kind of structure we have with railways. It's in that order.
As Greg pointed out, this is not a difference of opinion. We all agree that we have to enhance the profitability. What we're talking about is the strategy to get there. We're saying to define service and then you can look at the costs to consistently deliver that level of service you've committed to.