This paper has a dual aim: (1) to outline the legal evolution of the ‘home base’ concept and (2) to map the role of this concept in determining the law applicable (both employment law and social security law) to employment contracts of European aircrew members. An in-depth analysis of the relevant portions of (1) Reg. (EEC) No 3922/91, (2) Reg. (EU) No 465/2012, (3) Reg. (EU) No 83/2014, (4) EASA's 2014 Certification Specifications, and (5) the European Court of Justice's preliminary ruling on joined cases C-168/16 and C-169/16 is conducted.

What emerges is that (1) the ‘home base’ definition, due to its subjectivity, has traditionally been susceptible to multiple interpretations and (2) due to regulatory ambiguity, the use of ‘home base’ to identify the labour laws applicable to airline workers has for a long time been inconsistent, ranging from one extreme (being considered a key element for this purpose) to the other (being assigned a secondary role). It was only in the last few years that some improvements were made, with Reg. (EU) No 465/2012 first and the European Court of Justice's 2017 preliminary ruling then, clarifying that the ‘home base’ concept must be assigned a central role in the determination of the law (both social security law and employment law) applicable to employment contracts in the aviation industry.

本文具有双重目的：（1）概述“本国”概念的法律演变；（2）绘制此概念在确定适用于雇佣合同的法律（劳动法和社会保障法）中的作用欧洲机组人员的数量。对（1）节的相关部分进行深入分析。（EEC）3922/91号，（2）第 （EU）第465/2012号，（3）第 （EU）第83/2014号，（4）EASA的2014年认证规范，以及（5）欧洲法院对合并案C-168 / 16和C-169 / 16的初步裁定。

结果是：（1）由于“主基地”定义的主观性，传统上容易受到多种解释的影响；（2）由于监管不明确，使用“主基地”来确定适用于航空公司的劳动法长期以来，工人一直前后矛盾，范围从一个极端（被认为是为此目的的关键要素）到另一个极端（被分配为次要角色）。直到最近几年，Reg。才有了一些改进。（EU）第465/2012号，然后是欧洲法院2017年的初步裁定，阐明在确定适用于以下方面的法律（社会保障法和就业法）时，必须将“本国”概念指定为核心角色航空业的劳动合同。