The case you're referring to goes back to 2016, when Mr. Rose wanted to go to Cleveland, and we couldn't fit his wheelchair in the small plane we had at that time. We wanted to accommodate Mr. Rose. We actually worked with him to see if we could put him in a limo to another airport. We looked at another flight, and we looked at alternatives for him to get there with his wheelchair, so when the CTA came out with their ruling, we disagreed with it. It's nothing about Mr. Rose or about our commitment to getting customers with disabilities to their intended destinations. It's that we didn't agree with the CTA's ruling, so the only option we had was to go to court and appeal that ruling.
Again, you need to separate those two issues: our commitment to getting customers with disabilities to their intended—