The short answer: It isn't workable. I am a very strong advocate of 50/50. However, I do not believe it is workable long distance for school-age children, especially teens. I firmly believe that children need, love and deserve both parents, even though divorced parents and steps often downplay and belittle the child's need for the other parent, as sally is clearly doing.
As strongly as I believe that, even I have to admit that reality and idealism are excluding each other in long-distance timeshare. There is a point where 50/50 is just not going to work.
From 1000 miles away, the best you can hope for is most of summer, Christmas and Easter break, plus a shorter term opportunity or two here and there. Even that carries with it some severe consequences for the children, but I think it is the best that can be made of a bad situation.
From 100 miles away, such as sally, there are more opportunities, but I still think 50/50 is out of reach. Most shared parenting models, such as Karl Denninger's, make the cut-off at "the school district or metropolitan area". Some say 30 minutes and some an hour's drive is about the maximum. 100 miles doesn't quite fit any of these criteria. It is just too far to maintain weekly schoolnight dinners and it is too far to have friends that you can visit from both homes.
I am not a fan of the "standard" EOW, but from 100 miles away, it is difficult but appropriate, in my opinion. But your plan ties up far too much of the free time. You ask what I would want if I were the NCP 98 miles away. I do not think that is what the standard should be (what the NCP wants) any more than that it should be what the CP wants. A good plan makes both parents wince. My standpoint is whatever is better for the kids, even if a parent gets shortchanged.
Wherever the kids go to school they are going to have lots of friends. They are going to want to be in activities where the main event is on the weekends. They do not want to be separated from all of this for long periods of time.
Yes, I believe your plan is a poor one, but don't take offense... They are ALL lousy. Every pro has a con. Time with each parent isn't the ONLY consideration. When it comes down to it, you have already destroyed the kids' lives when you move long distances apart. All plans at that point are varying degrees of terrible. That is why I feel the best thing is to oppose moving.
"If you are certain my suggestion is so poor.. make another."
Fair enough, but I will approach it from my end, not yours, which quickly conceded the worse case scenario. I would recommend a compromise: Find a home 30 to 45 minutes away. The father would commute over an hour, but many people (including myself) do that anyway. Then the mother would still be close enough for midweek visits and trips to the school. The kids could still jump in the car to head to a birthday party or to cheer on their girlfriend at the soccer game.
Someone once said that if I had to choose between living close to work or living close to everything else, choose everything else. You only go to work and back 5 times a week.
Shared parenting would be workable from 30 minutes away, although I am realist enough to question a sincere desire on her part to agree to 50/50. She sees it is a trivial thing that the kids could lose out on time with their mother. The only thing that will prevent her from moving is the distinct possibility of losing custody.
Still, if sally is just going 20 or 30 miles further than the current 10-mile separation, she could honestly state that the current parenting time plan could remain intact. She would be as certain to win the right to separate a mother from her children as you say she already is. But the kids would still be far worse off than if she does not move at all.
I realize sally isn't getting the answers she wanted to hear. When someone comes here wanting to do something that is extremely harmful to the children in their care, I have three choices: support it, oppose it or ignore it. I do not regret my choice.
There is a possibilty that she will not be allowed to move. My hope is that this is one of those times where idealism and reality meet.