When trying to think the commuting "problem" through, it seems obvious to me that there are few outcomes that work well for commuting as we know it. If we have to account for commuting time, and insert a rest period, then either commuters will need to show up much earlier (i.e. a day early), at their expense, or the trips would have to be built with a commute (presumably paid). There is a clear loser to either outcome.

Which makes me think the key will be to remove the commute altogether. If companies want to hire only pilots that live "in base", then they'll have less pilots to chose from. Furthermore, what do you do with the pilots currently commuting (about 50% of us)?

Which in turn makes me think one of the only possible solutions to removing commuting is via more satellite basing, where pilots are offered many more bases to chose from, with the stipulation that they must live within X distance from any such base.

Which in turn makes me think there is even a more ambitious way to solve the problem(s): a NSL. Open up the entire country. Let people bid across airlines, and get to the nearest airport. This would also address the regional/major training/pay differential issue nicely. Here is how...

ALPA takes on training, and becomes an exclusive crew-leasing company. We own and operate our own training center, the costs of which are passed along to airlines in leasing contracts. Training would be strict, and new pilots would be very, very thoroughly scrutinized. Porbation would be lengthy, and evaluations frequent. But we provide pilots that are standardized, and trained to a single FAA standard, following the best practices available. Costs are fixed for aircraft types and longevity, leveling crew costs acorss the industry. Enough bases are available for pilots to bid something close to them, especially if using a stalelite base logic (crews are based where planes overnight, not a hub).

You can also set it up so that ALPA is insured against liability for pilot error, the cost of which insurance is borne by the customer.

The net positive result of such a scheme, form an airline perspective, would be:
a) Liability for accidents or errors is partly transferred, since the comapny doesn't train pilots. There is no longer an incentive to have lesser-trianed/lower cost pilots on regional aircraft. Mechanical problems are still a company problem, unless they contract for manufacturer-provided maintenance.
b) Crew costs are fixed, and no longer represent a competitive issue.
c) Scope issues go away entirely, since all aircraft are flown by ALPA pilots (again, assuming we have exclusive contracts with each airline). We would need to have a way to ensure proper representation/right to strike issues. I think you could handle this by having pilots bid for positions at each airline, in seniority order, with a modest seat lock. They could be nominal employees of that airline for that purpose druing such lock, for the prupose of maintaining legal rights. Or, if this creates a solution the airlines also like, perhaps we can jointly lobby to have the RLA modified to allow for such a structure while preserving basic labor rights.

From our perspective, it would remove several huge problems, and offer a path to better pay:
a) We're no longer getting whipsawed, and we're no longer "married" to an individual carrier. Your airline can't manage its' business? No problem: it goes under. You bid something else.
b) As stated earlier, the scope issue is solved.
c) We no longer commute: we bid the right place, and we drive to work. Nobody I know commutes for fun: they commute because they can't get trips that start where they live.

Before you tell me what a fool I am for even thinking such thoughts, or why "they will never go for it", please tell me how you think the commuting "issue" as potrayed by the media and FAA can be managed better, and tell me why we shouldn't aspire to the outcome I describe. I'm trying to see an opportunity in the challenges presented by such new rules.

Thanks.