The topic is being overshadowed by the word 'commuting'. I have BA friends who 'commute' from GVA to LHR/LGW. They use common sense and are expected to be professional in every aspect. They choose to work in A & live in B and accept any risks for their employment should they screw up.
The same can be said of contractors (if they indeed really exist) who end up being based in X and decide to remain living in Y. I would assume that they'd prefer to be based as close as possible to Y as possible, but sometimes, for reasons beyond the wit of man, they are based at the most inconvenient place possible; often a place where there is no direct flight any day of the week, or places without daily flights. It is their professional responsibility to arrange their travel to be a fit state to do their job.
The lucky ones are those who live & work within normal travelling distance.
Where the gripe is bordering on an abuse is where the contractor(?) is then rostered at a couple of days notice to report at a non-normal base way across the network. They start with an early so need to make convoluted A-Z travel arrangements the day before, which is rostered as a day off and no duty. No duty time, no pay, no costs. Is that honest & correct? This to me is the real issue: can this travelling really be non-duty and not accounted for in collective duty time?