and the revenues for the last couple of years. It sounds like you're bullish on that pipeline. Going into 2027, can you frame what type of opportunity you see kind of idiosyncratic to some of these commercial efforts you're working on. Can we assume that this will continue to kind of play out in a similar fashion that it has done in the last couple of years going into 2027? And a quick follow-up to Nadeem, just you mentioned several notable expense items. I'm just wondering if you can kind of elaborate a little bit what these are and how should we think about the expense bridge as we go into the second half of the year?

Yeah, so I'll start there, Patty. Thanks for the question. I do see a really good run rate to get to that, let's call it 1.4, 1.5 billion in synergies as we close out this year. And you're right, that's about a 300, actually more than a $300 million run. Step up in that area. I would call out that it's really coming from all the lines of business, but as I particularly look, let's say, specifically to the next six to 18 months, we've just seen tremendous growth in our intermodal synergies. We really didn't scratch the surface and I'm going to say the early days in terms of leveraging this franchise in our grain network. And I think what we've seen with the strong crop in Canada, actually a strong crop in our upper U.S. network, As we've got deeper, deeper into the shipping season, we've seen more and more markets across our network materialize. So that's been strong. I want to say we're up 60, 70% if you look at grain out of our northern territory down into Mexico or the southern U.S. markets. and again I can tell you we're I'm proud of where we've moved that needle this year but I still think we're kind of in the early innings of really kind of figuring out those flows and and what those cycle times need to be to compete and and frankly I think I talked about it this previously I just spent some time in Mexico looking at these facilities and the capability to enhance their throughput capabilities that'll drive volume growth is still out there. As much as I'm proud of that we've taken the MMX service site to about 70% capacity levels, You know, I'm still challenging the team, particularly in this great environment right now, of how we begin to push the envelope to what a second train pair could look like on the MMX. And that's really without not a whole lot of reefer growth. that we're still working on that we're just seeing ramp up in that space. So I'm optimistic about that. And then maybe I'd also point out is as much as I think Keith mentioned it, as much as I'm pleased about our closed loop automotive program, there's still some outliers out there. that I expect to make headway in over the next six to 12 months in contracts that I think will also look to leverage the benefits we can provide with that. So those are kind of the call-out areas.

I'll just point out a couple things. Casualty stock comp and incentive comp were about a five-cent headwind versus a year ago, maybe around close to about 150 base points. So I think about with those headwinds, if they weren't there, probably closer to a 60 OR. And I just leave it at that. Thank you.

Next slide. Your next question comes from Jonathan Chappell with Evercore ISI. Your line is now open.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Mark, John just laid out a pretty broad-based growth plan. I know a lot of it's unique to CP, but it feels like for the first time since the merger, you've had some real strong macro tailwinds that are building as well. I know you're going to add a little headcount in the second half of the year, but lower than the volume growth expectations. When you think about the next couple of years and the resources, You've created a lot of productivity thus far the last couple years, but how do you think about aligning resources with the type of growth profile that John's laying out over a two to three year period?

Well, I think it's just the value of how we do business with PSR. You know, John's talking about what he's doing in the coming months. We're in the background understanding what kind of crews we need, what kind of locomotives we need to put in front of it, containers, boxcars, whatever it may be. So we're steadily looking at the demand of equipment, people. On top of that, I'm looking at synergies of the agreement that we just signed. We talked about an hourly agreement, it's a day-day agreement. and that would take care of some of the headcount that we need. We'll get some synergies plus headcount out of that and then we can use that headcount for the future business that John wants to do with grain. We still have opportunities with doubling up trains. We've got some opportunities with drain length. that we'll continue to work through. And that's just the southern part. Obviously, we have the Iowa agreement just on the north end of North Dakota, Minneapolis, all those locations. So we have workday schedules we could change with those to add people quickly or at least time of day quickly. So that's what I would say. We would stay right out in front of John, and we'll communicate constantly to understand what's next, what's the opportunity. Good news is that just don't come on board tomorrow. I mean, we've got plenty of time to plan, and we have locomotives that's coming on board as well.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from Brian Olsenbeck of J.P. Morgan. Your line is open. Thanks for taking the question. John, can you just give a little bit of commentary on yields here? I know the headline number is a bit noisy with fuel and FX, so maybe some near-term commentary to help set the stage for the third quarter. Thank you for joining us.

We're still seeing a pretty good length of haul, Brian, in enhancement. I think this quarter, year over year, about 3%. And, you know, I talked about some Other land bridge opportunities and where I see some synergy growth yet to come, those are pretty big length of haul opportunities that are needle movers. So there's some of that noise, I think good noise, still at play that sometimes can impact our mix a little bit on that longer length of haul business. Pricing, I'm super pleased. We haven't taken our foot off the gas for decades. I don't know, it's been a couple years now that we've been on sort of what I would consider right at or the higher end of our guidance. I think at our investor day, we'd be guided to 3% to 4% over that multi-year plan. And I would say we've been at the top end, exceeded. Right now, we're probably right in that exact range. And we're not taking our foot off the gas there. I expect that to even potentially accelerate as we see what's kind of going on in the trucking space and as we all watch inflation over the coming years. So, you know, when I look at it, I think about the sense for RTM like this. I mentioned where renewals came in. You know, mix was a little bit, let's call it a point or two of a headwind and kind of you back into the balance was fuel and FX. Brian.

Thank you, John. Appreciate it.

Yep.

All good.

Your next question comes from Steve Hansen with Raymond James. Please go ahead. Yeah, I haven't even got a sense of the time. Keith, I think you might have referenced it earlier indirectly, but I'm just curious how you think the deals or the concessions extracted by CN change your view of any potential concessions you might pursue. Does it put you in a stronger position, a weaker position, or is it sort of nil or not really that relevant in how you think about it?

Yeah, I don't think anything that CN's done with UP is relevant to the things that we, the last four, hasn't changed our math at all and

Thank you for taking the question.

And Keith, I guess, sorry to stick on that topic, but I guess more broadly though, do you believe that what UP&C has done is, you know, put this deal on any better competitive platform and I guess I heard a little bit of contention there on the expanded competitive gateway pricing. So I don't know if you maybe want to elaborate on that.

Listen, I'm going to wait and let the regulator get into the weeds, but I'll stay at a high level as best as I possibly can. I think the simple answer is no, I don't think it changes the math. I think that I'm going to give credit where credit is due. I think it's a few steps forward. in a positive direction versus where they were. I think it at least signals a bit of a realization that kind of their railroad empire building plans are going to have to bring more to the table to even be considered as a prima facie case. I think that's important. I think they did address, and kind of back to what Steve said, I missed this point, they did address our concerns relative to undue control in the KCT terminal as well as The TRRA, so I thank them for taking that seriously and addressing that. But outside of that, the problems that were there before, and I kind of look at it this way. You know, I look at it in a lens, some would say I'm biased. I would say I'm biased by experience. I have navigated and I was shaped by the experience that we went through in our own merger application and process. The knowledge that we gain navigating the merger process of the rules, the regulations, the statutes, the old rules, the new rules, coupled with the knowledge of how, in our experience, how I read the rules and interpret the rules, which has been truly shaped and impacted by how the STD members have done the same. And going back and reading the context of why the rules were written, Going back and reading the hearings, going back and listening and thinking and reflecting on Linda Morgan's words, you know, it's the lens that matters when you interpret these facts. And then finally, the last lens I look at is kind of the applicants, the behavior, past, present, future, integration history, day-to-day, anti-competitive behavior or not. Is this an entity that when they present their facts to the customer, present their facts to the railroads, present their facts or their counterarguments to the regulator, is it as they say or is it as they believe? There's often a difference in that. Your truth, my truth, and the truth. And I think this regulatory body is going to get to the truth. And the truth says these facts are problematic. What was true before their supplemental submission is significant reduction in competitive options. Their enhancement to CGP is some movement. I'll give them that, but it's temporary, and it's not inclusive. So if it's needed at all, is it not needed forever? If it's needed to solve a formula that says you must enhance competition, just Stating your long-term solution to enhance competition, defining it as single-line service, if you go back and read the regulations in the hearings, that is not enough. Those aren't my words, that's Linda Morgan's words. It's important, but it's not the only solution, and it will not solve enhanced competition in and of itself. Again, her words, not my words. Still creates significant monopolistic like, those are my words, market concentration. Still, and now even more significant operational risk, because now we've got the JN play. Still significant concerns about anti-competitive behavior, past and present. And I don't think any of us would argue the ball about eventual consolidation, if this merger gets approved, that voter is rolling. It's undeniable. If you read the application, the supplemental, read Jim's letter, I mean, if I've ever read a letter that said, not only is this one good, the second one's better, it's great for America. We need to go to and serve the public's interest in America. We need to be a two-rail network operation. That's it. And I kind of shudder thinking about that as a human and as a consumer. I was reminded of the weight of this decision yesterday afternoon when I went home. And I looked at my phone, and it's kind of topical because, you know, I give Jim credit. He uses a lot of analogies about flying through Chicago in airlines and direct flights. And when I read American Airlines grounded, system-wide, regional airlines, mainline airlines, nobody can move. What about a world when only an American or United exists? and one of the two is grounded. What happens? That's mass chaos in airlines. Now apply that same solution to railroads. You've got one railroad that handles 40% of every move. Now forget about the misleading comments about GTMs and what they're saying. No, come on. A heavily weighted railroad that moves a lot of grain and coal, their GTMs are going to be naturally more than a railroad weighted more at the intermole. NewsAlert, a coal car and a grain car weighs a whole lot more than, say, 10 or 11 intermodal cars. So that's misleading. It's 43 states. In Jim's perfect world or UP's perfect world, it's two railroads. One of the two or both of the two, because if a computer glitch gets grounded, that is too big to fail. And I can talk to each of you all day long, and perhaps some of you, you know, Ask and answer. I'm not going to convince you. But that's okay. I don't need to convince the STB. This STB body, and I know from experience, they understand the gravity of this decision. They understand those regulations better than any of us do. They understand the intent, and they understand their mandate. And they have the authority to make the right decision. They have the independence to weigh the facts. So again, I'll say this. If you're a shipper, If you're a concerned party that's going to comment, pay attention to what's going on. Don't get led down a false narrative. Do your math, do your own homework, form your own opinions, and file your comments. State your facts, because that's ultimately what the record is going to be decided upon. And if those facts are known and understood, nothing that you just submitted changes it. The problematic facts They lead us to a place that is not in the best interest of the public, not in the best interest of this network. That's the way I feel. That's what I believe based on my lens.

Thank you, Keith. Thank you.

Your next question comes from Ken Hexter with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hey, great. Good afternoon. Hey, Keith, you actually started out almost complimentary of the deal of what Jim was doing. I would have said almost supportive, but I think your last answer suggests perhaps still not. But he did toss in there mixing up CPKC in the mix with DN and CSX. I'd love to hear your thoughts there. And then, Nadeem, did you just end your answer there with the 60% OR? Was that you're suggesting your launching point as to what we should look for into the second half, so maybe a sub-60 in the second half? Is that what you were throwing out there?

Yeah, that's fair. I think we're going to see sequential improvement in cents per RTM. We're going to see significant Thanks, Sandy. Your question, I mean,

Bottom line up front, I'm adamantly opposed to additional rail consolidation for all those reasons I've talked about. But if it's forced, we're not going to stand still. We can't stand still and compete to our best. So I'm not going to tell you what partner. I can make a value proposition case with a host of partners. But rest assured this industry won't sit still. If UPNS come together, it's a matter of time. There's going to be additional consolidation. There has to be. to be able to compete against that Goliath that would be created. And in any of those scenarios, this team, this network offers pretty compelling value.

Thanks, Keith. Thanks, Nadeem.

Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Your next question comes from Walter Sprechlin with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks very much, Prater. Good afternoon, everyone. Keith, you and BN have both argued that progress can be made, agreements can be signed without the need for mergers, and certainly this deal between CN and Union Pacific is not contingent on the merger. It happens immediately. I'm referring to the Eugenie and the Eagles Pass through Memphis deal. Does this prompt you now or maybe you've already been doing it but couldn't you now or will you look to cement your own deals, your own agreements with either the BN or like you have with FMX through CSX is there opportunity to add on to that with CSX and is there any opportunities that you see when you look at your routing where track swapping or track right swapping with the BN might make sense as well?

Yeah Walter undeniably in either case when you've got two willing parties you can do a lot of things You know, I've looked at our network. There's a menu of options. There's things we can do at the end. There's things we can do with CSX outside of a merger that, quite frankly, we could put a pretty compelling product in the marketplace to go head to head. Is it going to be single line service? No. Is there going to be some advantages to that? Yes. But, yeah, it's, again, if this thing becomes a foregoing conclusion, then you're going to see motivation increase to be able to do those things. I think right now people are waiting to see this industry outside of UP and NS and maybe now CN. They didn't want to merge it. Our customers, you know, if you talk to the customers, I don't care what CN agreed to with UP, what UP is agreeing to with CN, what enhancements they made to CGP, put it all in the same basket. I don't think you're going to have a run to the bank or run to the SDB saying, gosh, this is the best thing since sliced bread. We're going to support. We're going to support. Because this is a forever decision. You don't unwind this thing. But again, if it gets wound up, we've got a responsibility to respond, and we will. And as a result of this, we've never been closer to BNSF. We've never been closer to CSX. We've never developed the market intelligence that we're developing now in the motivation and the route options to present some pretty compelling value propositions on the table. So again, we won't sit still in a merger environment. We won't sit still short of a merger. Good can come out of this. The best outcome is no merger. The best outcome is perhaps in the absence of a merger, UP and CN can do some good things together to create some value for the industry and to create some value for their customers. There's a lot of traffic out there to move. And in turn, you're going to see CP do things with CSX, with VN, VM with CSX, They can create a whole lot of different parties because people are thinking a whole lot different than they ever have. But those outcomes can occur, and UP just showed us they could, not that they didn't already know already or haven't done so already, in the absence of a merger, which is exactly what the regulations require you to do before they will approve a merger. Side note. Emphasis added. Mine.

Appreciate the color, Keith. Thank you.

Thank you, Walter.

Your next question comes from Ravi Shankar with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Madison on for Ravi. Thanks for taking my question. We're just wondering how you guys are thinking about capacity in your network as the upcycle comes?

Yeah, I think I'll be quick with that answer, Mark, if you want to add. We, you know, if you keep in mind that our merger application required we made Some pretty significant investments to prepare for growth. We've done exactly that over the last three years, and what we did not anticipate when we put the railroads together was an economic recession. So we're kind of built ahead for future growth. We're in a very good position relative to locomotives, relative to car capacity, relative to track capacity. The only thing we need to flex up on when the business and the growth comes is add incremental headcount.

Yeah, I would say incremental headcount from the agreement that we put together. We've unlocked Shreveport, Louisiana, where we can go in all directions with one agreement. Again, we've got $275 million from the STB promises that we put together for them. We've got the connection toward CSX, where we spent a lot of money, 49-mile-an-hour track that unlocks a lot of capacity going east. Again, we've said down in Mexico we'd spend $75 million on top of the bridge that we just built. that KCS built that we finished. So, yeah, capacity is not going to be an issue. And, again, in different areas, John and I will stay in front of that regardless of where we go with the business. We're committed to do that.

Yeah, so what position for good? At low incremental cost. Got it.

Thank you, guys.

Your next question comes from Scott Group with Wolf Research. Please go ahead.

Hey, thanks. Maybe just like a bigger picture version of that question. You know, I think back to the analyst day, like, we were supposed to get a lot of revenue growth with, you know, a lot of operating leverage and margin improvement and, you know, mid-teens, high-teens type earnings growth. And, you know, John, I thought your slide about, like, the compounding volume growth was helpful, but, like, you know, and it's been good, but it probably, like, hasn't been as good as you thought at the analyst day. And I think to your point of that last question, Keith, like, the macro environment's just been more challenging. Like, I guess ultimately what I'm trying to ask is do you think we're at an inflection point where you still have some of the synergy opportunity plus now maybe a more supportive macro where it's all going to, and now the buyback is kicking in where it's all going to start coming together and we're going to see more of a meaningful acceleration earnings growth back to what you thought it was going to be? Is that kind of where you think we are now?

I'd say it's undeniable since April of 23 that the freight environment is about as bad as we thought it could be, or we never thought it could be as bad as it was. Despite that, and that was really the point of that slide, was to say despite that, we've been able to stack pretty impressive growth up with not a supportive environment. So now looking ahead, I do believe, although all of our growth and a lot of our growth was supported by synergies in the new products we put in place, as I said, we're still in the mid-innings of a lot of those opportunities. So I think your point is really spot on. You continue at the pace of product development, filling in the capacity that keeps in place, and Mark just spoke about. And we start to get a little bit of a tailwind in some of these areas. I think that becomes very compelling.

And Nadeem, do you think like the operating leverage accelerates with that?

Yeah, absolutely. I think, Scott, I mean, as you know, the last few years, I think the industry as a whole has been I think we've learned that you can't hope for that macro to recover, and we've taken a more conservative approach, and we've talked a lot about resources and capital investment, et cetera. We were on the front end of that at the beginning of the integration, beginning of our day one three years ago. And if you look at where we are this year, I think it counts down 500 people. and volumes are up 3-4% and accelerating and we're going to be able to accommodate that growth. So when I look at 2027 and next few years, we can accommodate it with that capital envelope that we talked about of 2.6, 2.7 billion and that's with a weaker Canadian dollar that has an impact on capital growth. So overall, we can accommodate this growth, and with the capital plan that we have, it's going to generate a significant amount of free cash, as we've seen so far this year, and that's going to help accelerate earnings. And so, to me, the operating leverage story is just beginning, and you're going to see it in the back half of this year, and you've seen it so far in Q2 as well.

Thank you, guys.

Your next question comes from Konark Gupta with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Thanks, good afternoon. Keith, when you sit down with your customers and stakeholders, do you feel that they are quite distracted by the ongoing industry developments? And I'm listening to everything from the UPS merger to the CN UPD as well as the potential downstream effects that everyone's talking about.

I think probably the way we all feel about this thing. We've been dealing with this for a while. It requires a lot of attention. All these what-if scenarios, you know, whatever it is, just getting on with it and getting to a point where we can kind of lock and focus on what we can control, and there's not all these variables, I think is going to be well received. The customers, quite frankly, John, you can provide a bit more color here, but everyone that I've engaged with, I've again not had one that said we want more consolidation. They've said we want to protect competitive options. We want optionality. We like the ability to create competitive tension between two railroads when it comes to pricing and capacity and our capital decisions and our shipping decisions. And I think that's been a common theme that's resonated with us.

Yeah, without a doubt, you know, since really COVID, Where we've experienced sort of the increased fragileness of some of these supply chains, our customers are looking for more options. And frankly, that is why we garnered so much support in putting CP and KCS together on our journey, because we truly did enhance competition and open new markets. and I just think to your question, it is a distraction. I think there's a lot of narratives out there and our customers are trying to figure out what is right and what is the correct source of the truth and frankly they've seen the benefits we've been able to create but I also think our questioning, are they really going to get enhanced competition out of what UP&NS are proposing.

And that's a key difference, John, which you just said. Our merger brought additional options to the table, which included a never-before-available additional single-line opportunity, for instance, from Chicago to Mexico, and in our case, beyond. So it was all additive, too. Nothing was diluted. There were no options taken off the table. That's completely different than the beast that we're dealing with now. It's a substitution for, and according to the applicants, it's better than, but if you're the shipper, it still means less options. Do you have the same options tomorrow that you have today? In post-forma, if it gets approved, the answer is unequivocally no. You don't. And customers by and large, after all the years of consolidation in this industry, That does not resonate with the customer when you tell them they have fewer options. I don't care what therapy you give them, they have the memories and the trauma of the prior consolidations in this industry. And some of the worst trauma, I'm sorry, UP, you caused it. And the thought of giving them more power and being exposed to that again requires a therapist in some cases. And I say that in jest, but I'm not kidding. The transportation decision makers that suffered through that 30 years ago, I've been here 35, I've been railroading 35, Jim's been railroading 45. A lot of those decision makers are in senior positions and they still lose sleep at night thinking about those integrations. So operationally or commercially, customer you have fewer options, it doesn't resonate. but with a very small population that might be uniquely advantaged. But it's a small population. So it's single line service at what cost? And we never tipped the scale in our combination. We never threatened that. We just added one to the table. We didn't take anything away.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Tom Wadowitz with UBS. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. So John just had, I guess, maybe a couple for you on the market. So how do you think about coal? I guess it gets less worse through the quarter. Is there a point where you say, okay, this is the new run rate for coal, that it's like, hey, the mines just can't do what they used to? Or are you optimistic that Thanks, Tom. So yeah, definitely Q2 was

What we are looking at is the worst of the worst in terms of impact to our revenue and our volumes related to the coal. I think Q3 feels like maybe Q1 and progressively it gets a little better to close out the year. We're staying really close with the customer there. I can tell you they are optimistic around increasing volumes. I would say we've definitely seen an improvement in their production. And our expectation is, and I think their view to the mining capability as they look to 2027, is to get back to those type of levels you would have seen last year. And I know they want to even grow beyond that. So I think your characterization of less worse is probably right as we move into the second half of the year. You know, ECP, you're right. It's sort of the one area that keeps me up at night is the refined fuels into Mexico. It's a really good And I guess supply chain solution that we've developed. It really has been pretty well non-existent here for the last six, eight months. We start to see as things sort of improve relative to the situation in the Gulf. We begin to see that open back up a little bit, but as soon as things turn again, it closes right back up. I think the good news on that front is we're ready. That supply chain is solid. We've got the customs processes and that in place. So as the market shifts and those ARBs open back up, I think we'll benefit from that business again. I just can't tell you exactly when that's going to happen.

Yeah, okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks.

Your next question comes from Benoit Poirier with Desjardins Bank. Please go ahead.

Yep, thank you very much and good afternoon everyone. Just in terms of assumption given the movement that we've seen in the SX and fuel, I was wondering if there was any change in your assumption for the year and maybe specifically for the grain, John. You mentioned, are you counting on a stronger grain crop in the second half to kind of offset the coal weakness or are you still baking a three to five year average? Thank you.

Yeah. I'll let maybe Nadeem comment on some of the macro assumptions. But on the grain front, you know, I think we're pretty optimistic that we're going to close out Q3 on this sort of continued strength. I think the question will be sort of when exactly the grain harvest comes on. I'll tell you right now, I've seen maybe more bullishness relative to CPKC-specific growing territory, so southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan. Thank you for joining us. But I'll tell you, last year, our volumes did not move at a record pace. We were a little bit slower out of our southern territory, and then that kind of picked up, maybe a little bit different than what CN experienced in the fall. So even at that sort of average run rate, we see some uptick in terms of grain helping be supportive in that. And again, we also believe our U.S. franchise has a pretty good outlook. On top of that, Benoit.

Benoit, our assumption hasn't changed much of where we're at the beginning of the year. We're closer to $1.38 on currency. We're closer to $1.40, $1.41 recently. Obviously, fuel is very volatile, and there's timing issues related to fuel surcharge. and the lag of what comes with the expenses that we hit directly. So overall, our fuel assumption has increased for at least for the next 30 to 60 days, and we'll see what plays out the rest of the year. But we're effectively covered. I would just say that it may impact our operating ratio to an extent. just in terms of taking on those fuel surcharge revenues at a 100% operating ratio and the lag impact, which hopefully will become positive by the end of the year.

Very good caller. Thank you very much, Ken.

Thanks. Your next question comes from David Vernon with Bernstein. Your line is open.

Hey, good afternoon and thanks for putting me in here. So, John, maybe as you think about how the business has grown over the last couple of years, can you help us frame what the cross-border Mexico revenue is on a total shipment basis and how much of that is actually going western Canada or western Chicago versus eastern Canada or the points in the U.S.? Just trying to get a sense for the revenue that's had today on the cross-border Mexico stuff because you guys have delivered a lot on the synergy side with KC Mexico. Thanks.

Well, I can frame it up this way, David. Specific to what I consider our land bridge business, I think I, you know, guided towards a continuous run rate to get to $600 million on that business this year. And you should think about As Keith said earlier, 65% of that is between Western Canada and Mexico in the balance of Eastern Canadian business. And I would tell you it's pretty equally spread between whether that's intermodal business, ECP business, automotive business, and grain business. Those are kind of the big four. Super helpful, thank you.

Thanks, David.

Thank you. This does conclude our question and answer session. I'd be happy to return the call to Mr. Keith Creel.

Thanks, operator, and listen, thanks again for everyone's time. It's a nice, fulsome, robust discussion this afternoon. There's a lot of noise in our industry. There's a lot of noise in the economy, but we think the noise From an economic standpoint, it's providing a very supportive backdrop that we control what we control. We're set up for a strong second half, operationally, commercially, with a bit of strength in the freight market demand at our back. We're focused on executing and meeting or exceeding not only our 26 scouts, but carrying a whole lot of momentum into 27. Thank you, and we look forward to sharing our third quarter results in October.

This concludes today's conference call you may now disconnect.