Here's a pipe dream(but not unreasonable)
If safety is really the goal our our gov't and our airlines, here's one possible solution, in a perfect world.
1) On day 1 of a trip, duty day is limited below the 16 hour duty day limitation, to say 10-12 hours, unless a crew is augmented by an IRO equivalent (who could even be a reserve pilot called in for duty if the day stretches out longer than originally scheduled). This will require a good duty rig in each airline's contract to ensure they still get paid a good wage for a day's work. In addition, it requires more reserves, thus more pilot staffing, which is also a good thing. The IRO requirement would allow guys flying long-haul to still commute in the morning of their trip since they will normally have plenty of time to rest before their flight leaves in the afternoon and they have an IRO on board anyways.
2) If an airline does not want to be limited to the 10-12 hour duty day on day 1, they must do two things:
a) Provide POSITIVE SPACE to the pilot on a flight of their choosing
which will allow for 8 hours of rest in base prior to their first flight. Time to and from the hotel should not count as rest time. (half of the fatigue from commuting is due to the stress created by sitting in the terminal wondering if you will get on board)
b) Provide a hotel that is free of charge for the pilot to rest prior to his/her flight.
A few notes:
- Airlines wouldn't bear this entire cost of these hotels. They would have the hotel cost for these rooms for commuters subsidized by giving tax breaks to the hotels which provide low cost room fares for these airlines.
- Airlines would bear the cost of getting their own pilots POSITIVE SPACE flights into their domicile. (They're paying it anyway when the pilots jumpseat, so really this is mostly a cost neutral thing anyway)
- If a pilot normally commutes from an airport where their airline does not serve, they will obviously not be given positive space on another airline. However, if they choose to do so, they must arrive at their hotel to provide a minimum of 8 hours rest. If they don't they must coordinate with scheduling regarding crew rest issues, which may be subject to disciplinary issues if it becomes habitual.
- Pilots that live within, say 2.5 hours driving distance of the airport can work out a deal with their specific airline where they would get paid a bonus of 2-3 hours pay per month (or a minimum of $250), whichever is greater to live closer to the domicile.
Yes, this will increase costs at airlines. But if the regulations are mandated by the FAA, the costs will increase across the board to all airlines. Those airlines with more commuters might get hit harder than those without, but also mandating a certain bonus to those that live within a certain driving distance will make the difference negligible.
Ticket prices will go up a few bucks a ticket, but at what price? Would you pay 5 or 10 extra bucks on a flight to ensure your pilots are given a mandated amount of rest? I know I would.
I'm sure there are some flaws to this idea, but we can modify it as necessary to make it better. What does everyone else think?