I don't know if I could say it that eloquently, or with the attitude, but I agree with Bacon on this point. If you want the holy grail of rotation building to be the creation of commuteable trips, by definition, you're creating trips that aren't optimal in other ways, for those who could start fairly early and end fairly late. I can show up at 7:30 AM every time, and wrap up at 10:00 PM, every time, but I want to drive as infrequently as I can. I'd rather have a very high time trip that's not commuteable, than a lower-time trip that returns in the middle of peak traffic, and causes me to drive more often.

You could say that in a base with a variety of trips, there is a trip that fits everyone's needs. Which brings me to another point: the process of "improving" rotations cannot be a winner-takes-all proposition. It must be a proportional proposition.

If you actually were to manage to make all rotations just like 65% of the pilots want them, you'd still hose 35%. The best outcome would be to have 65% of rotations just like the 65% want them, and 35% just like the 35% want them.