Fredrik Eliasson
So the estimate is about $50 million for the overall program which labor is the largest part of that but there’s also some other MS&O savings. And to the question around anything was realized on the fourth quarter, no, none was realized really in the fourth quarter.
Rob Salmon
Perfect. Thanks so much for the time, guys.
Operator
Thank you. The next question is from Thomas Kim with Goldman Sachs.
Michael Ward
Good morning, Thomas.
Thomas Kim
Good morning. I just wanted to ask about the fuel surcharges. If we go back through history, the last time oil prices collapsed the way that they did, your recovery was quite effective in capturing the fuel cost savings. As we look forward to this year, with obviously the precipitous drop, do you think that your fuel surcharges are well placed to ensure that you’re able to fully neutralize the impact of lower surcharges with the drop in fuel?
Fredrik Eliasson
This is Fredrik. Yes, we do think we have a fuel surcharge mechanism that is effective. It’s not a profit driver but it makes us neutral to fuel price volatility. There are periods such as when the prices decline that we get the lag benefit which we saw here in the fourth quarter and likewise, when fuel rises, our fuel surcharge mechanism lags a little bit, so we have a little bit of a detriment there. But overall, the fuel surcharge is working well and we think that we are neutral to any sort of price volatility with the exception of the lag effect.
Thomas Kim
That’s great. That’s very helpful. And I guess just in terms of this decrease, obviously certainly beneficial for customers, how do you think that this helps you in terms of your ability to push through higher GRIs during the course of the year where you’re seeing general pricing?
Clarence Gooden
Well, Thomas, this is Clarence. I think that it’s a positive for us. It’s less cost, obviously, overall in the package to the customer. So as we push for our price increases it makes it more powerful as we go to the customer and the overall package.
Thomas Kim
Great. Thanks very much.
Operator
Thank you. The next question is from Bill Greene with Morgan Stanley.
Michael Ward
Good morning, Bill.
Bill Greene, Morgan Stanley
Hello. Good morning. Clarence, can I ask you to follow-up a little bit on that pricing comment? So I would guess that we’re going to start lapping some of the big export coal price declines, so that’s going to make our comps I would think a bit easier in ’15. And of course, the overall market is a lot stronger, particularly on the truck side, so I think that would be helpful to your pricing dynamic. So is there any flaw in the logic to think that pricing for CSX in ’15 should be stronger than it was in ’14?
Clarence Gooden
No, I think you’re absolutely correct. I think you’ll see much stronger pricing in ’15 than you did in ’14, absolutely.
Bill Greene
Okay. And then maybe for Fredrik or for Oscar, as we think about the cost structure insofar as volumes disappoint us this year — so they’re unexpectedly weak — how much of your cost structure is variable? How much can you sort of tweak that $200 million higher, if you had to, and how much is more fixed such that, as you dedicate these resources, locomotives, employees, to move the current volume, we run the risk that we create a higher cost structure in the second half, let’s say?
Fredrik Eliasson
Well, I think if you go back to 2008, 2009 time frame, you can see what we did there which was pretty remarkable in terms of variablizing the cost structure. In the scenario that we don’t think you’re going to be your corrected predicting or forecasting but if volume would be softer than we are currently anticipating, we do have the opportunity to take cost out more than what we have in the current plan and we’ve proven that in the past our cost structure is more variable than perhaps some people might think.
