The rules do not address commuting, which is the NTSB's objection to them as the article states. At least one Board member I've spoken to thinks the rules need to address commuting in some manner. NOT specifying how, just that the industry needs to consider fatigue as a result of commuting.
After 29 years in, I understand the compensation differences, civil vs military, however military members do move every three years, so the pay and support programs are there to ease the moves. Airlines do not require moves, pilots do when they want to change seats or upgrade or want to live two connecting flights away from base. When airlines want to close domiciles, close down fleets they should pay for the moves completely.
How big a portion of an airline's pilots actually commute? Half? Quarter? How does the non-commuting portion manage to live at their domiciles? I agree the industry has become captive to the idea of commuting, saves the company loads of money, gives them lots of flexibility and gives crews a chance to live where they want to. BUT, fatigue IS a safety issue, not just in the Colgan accident. The regulators and management must address it even if it means touching the commuting issue. Heck, Colgan knew they had a commuting fatigue issue when there company policy stated that sleeping in crew lounges was not allowed, specifically mentioning commuters.
Again, either the crewmember lives in reasonable ground transport of their domicile or commutes in 10 hours prior to duty for the purpose of adequate rest.
GF