Celeste

If I was already planning to make a lateral move, an airline with home basing might be towards the top of the list of places to go. Home-basing itself wouldn't be enough for me to want to give up seniority, pay, etc, right now. I think it would still be better to be based in a city I want to live in than have ride in the back to and from work. And if the work rules and/or pay sucked, I'd rather be a commuter at a place with a decent contract. I'm sure I'd feel differently if I was commuting from a small town with only a couple flights per day or a double or even triple leg commute. That would get old fast.

Home basing works better in the charter, 135 and 91K world because there aren't regular routes, and those planes fly all over the country/world. Unlike 121 airlines, it's not like the planes are flying through ORD several times a week (or even several times a day), as to where you could schedule crews to meet the plane. Even without home-basing, places like NetJets, Flexjet, etc, would still be deadheading crews all over the country to get them to the aircraft. It doesn't really cost the company extra to deadhead crews from their own home than to figure out how to get them from VNY, TEB, etc, to wherever the plane is each week.

pete2800

It would (in theory) be great.

The trick would be this: Get them to include your re-position flight as a work segment that cannot occur on one of your minimum days off, and to be included as a flight segment and FDP time as per 117.

chrisreedrules

This ^^^

I think it would be huge for QOL. It would totally take away a lot of the pressure with this job. It would mean more time at home, more rest, and less stress overall. However I don't think it will ever happen. Management looks at it like we have the "privilege" to be able to live where we want and commute. They don't see it as their responsibility to get us into base (nor are they obligated to). I think home basing would be a big recruiting bump for the first regional to offer it.

eschukos

I don't know. If you would have told me two years ago the company would provide commuter hotels, I would have called you crazy. Now company provided commuter hotels are becoming industry standard. I don't see full on home basing at 121 carriers. However commuters being provided a monthly allowance of positive space seats to get to work? I don't think that would be too far fetched considering at PDT, when I can't get to base (At this point at least once a month) they must ride me anyway.

msprj2

I don't think the airlines would want to do that nor do I think the non commuters. I think if that were the case we would all move to Hawaii and bid 3 day trips DH to NY, 117 rest day, DH back to Hawaii on the third day.

Outof410

I would jump from 135 to 121 in a heartbeat if this was the case.

Fly21

[QUOTE=chrisreedrules;2084705]This ^^^

Management looks at it like we have the "privilege" to be able to live where we want and commute. They don't see it as their responsibility to get us into base (nor are they obligated to). QUOTE]

Sadly, this is a true statement but an old way of thinking for management. Back when the airlines were first starting I could see being able to live anywhere a "Privilege." Especially when flights were going out half full and there were no small RJs. Now, commuting is almost a necessity because living in the bigger cities is darn near impossible if you even want to think about retiring. I almost wish the Big 3 or any airline for that matter, would offer incentives for living in base such as mortgage, down payment assistance, or 100% moving reimbursement to offset the ridiculous COL. Management needs to start realizing this but I doubt they ever will unless they have cold hard numbers showing that they will benefit from this.

Lvlng4Spd

Who says it has to involve the 117 rest rules? They have never dealt with the subject of commuting, for a reason. No one is checking on the company-provided commuter hotels whether I have had required rest or not before a trip. Frequently I am on the last flight into domicile at close to 0000 in for a 0430-0600 show time. Sometimes I ride a cargo flight all night with hardly any rest and go right to work. Again, very happy to do what I do, but the idea of company involvement has its merits.

I'd be willing to waive any 117 implications for a pre-organized ride to work, you better believe it. It is no less safe then what a lot of people are already doing. The program would have its limitations, such as lower 48 resident only, no international, etc..

pete2800

Yeah, no. For a variety of reasons.

1) I don't want to be forced to commute on a red-eye and then do a full day of flying.

2) The company wouldn't accept the liability of the above situation. Imagine the hell that would rain down upon them the moment a pilot bent an airplane, and it was discovered that the company-arranged commute was unreasonable from a rest/fatigue standpoint, and exempt from the laws in place to prevent that very thing.

3) Therefore, the only way to make home-basing work is to arrange the commute like any other leg with regards to duty time and rest.

4) With the current trend of airline schedules, this wouldn't work. 4 day trips with a 4-7 hour DH on either end? So every 2 day trip would become a 4-day? The company would need 50% more pilots to make it work. The only way to do this would be like we've seen others do it. 14-17 day trips, with a block of time off after that. With the way regionals pay per-diem and hotels, they wouldn't want to do that either.


Lastly, openly admitting that you routinely arrange your commute such that you get between 0 and 4 hours of sleep before a full duty day is pretty dang stupid.

flyingagain

I think some variation of this idea could work. For instance if you're based in XYZ you try to jumpseat on a flight and get denied. As long as there's another flight on your own airline, they positive space you even if it results in a denied boarding for a paying pax.

A lot of guys work who work 135 now would probably consider 121 employment if the commuting stress was removed.