I really think that it's a personal decision as to which regional is "best", based on a number of variables. I firmly believe that not having to commute makes ALL the difference in the job.
For instance, I met up with a Captain from Air Wisconsin on a crew van in PHL, and he had been based in Denver for practically the entirety of his career at AWAC. Being from Seattle, he still had to commute, but it was, in his own words, "tolerable". Now, Denver has closed (or greatly reduced?) and he's in Philly, and has literally a cross-country commute. He mentioned he had put in his notice 4 days prior due to this unfortunate change.
Another example...I average around 13-14 days off a bi period, yet at least 4 of those days are spent doing the commuting "process". So, in essence, I average 8-10 days off (max) at "home". If I were to live in base, ALL of my days off would be at "home". As well, I average 4-5 nights spent in hotels on my own dime when I have to commute in the night before a trip, or can't get out in time when released on the final day of a trip. For those living in base, not only do they have more time at home, but get to avoid the expense of hotel stays or a crashpad. $200+ a month in housing for your commute adds up as well.
Give a few bucks an hour difference, all pay at the regional level is consistent (and low at that). Most have block-or-better, and somewhat similiar work rules. To me, it's a comparison of "apples to apples". Obviously, upgrade time is factored in as well, yet that's extremely subjective and fluctuates often. Therefore, it's usually not a wise move to base one's decision strictly on upgrade potential.
And just when you think you're sitting pretty, living in base, you're displaced or your base is reduced, and suddenly you have to commute. So your decision to go to such-and-such regional backfires.
...what was my point again??
