Oh yes - of course lol

The most you took was a British Eagle or a BEA shoulder bag ( remember them? ) and your duty frees if you had bought at the airport
Hat racks only for hats and coats - and on the way home you could usually put your donkey and sombrero up there and duty free fags (they were light)
On the Tenerife flights everyone had bunches of Bird of Paradise to bring home so they went in the hat racks OK

We still had hat racks only when I was at BMA with our Viscounts and DC-9's and 707's this was until the 707 jets got a new wide look cabin and the DC9's got overhead lockers fitted - about 1982? BUT this was nothing to do with fares or what you could take on board it was to keep the stuff secure behind a closed locker or bin door

I recall Britannia's early model 737's had hat racks until the late 80's

It's a bit ironic, isn't it, that Flybe is the carrier that started charging for hold baggage in Europe. I recall the chap who had that brainstorm (he's currently at Aer Lingus I believe) being pilloried by his peers during an industry conference a couple of years ago.

It rather begs the question: what do you suppose the reaction of joe public would be if 'old fashioned' all-in (hold baggage and on-board refreshments) fares were charged, by Flybe or any other carrier, instead of the current disjointed affairs which have become de rigueur? Would that be considered the actions of an industry disruptor or of a fool? Certainly it would go a long way toward solving many of the baggage problems being experienced today.

flybmi and Loganair do just that....not sure if that gives them any sort of edge or not. You could argue that it helped LM see off BE when BE decided to go head-to-head post-franchise but the issue is that the massive expansion in overall airline traffic has been driven by low headline fares and you can't have those without unbundling the product into bite-size chunks! Unfortunately Mr O'Leary is correct in his assumption that lowest cost and lowest fare will win. Most people like choice if that means that a lower fare comes with it. Some people say that they would pay more for the all-in bag/meal but unfortunately not everyone thinks the same or places the same value on that service. The way it has evolved seems equitable to me. If I want a cheap fare I need to book early and travel light and/or travel at "inconvenient" times. If I need to book late and take the family I'm going to get stung. It's called market economics.

flybmi and Loganair probably do it because their aircraft you can't cope with large carry-on's

To show how low the whole low fares thing has stooped to is that fact that Joe P pax will happily buy the lowest fare you can get say on a LGW-JFK Norwegian flight - sometimes not much more than £100 one way
Take a cabin bag onboard free, not buy any food (This is a 7 hour plus duration flight) and be quite happy to buy a Boots ready meal in the terminal or a home made sandwich to eat plus ask for a glass of water.
This is what long haul let alone short haul travel has become - quite vile if you ask me

Yes I know Laker did it almost 40 years ago too for £59

I guess it's personal preference. In my average work day I'll get up, have breakfast about 0730, eat a sandwich and crisps for lunch then have food about 1800. No different to having breakfast before leaving for the airport, lunch in the airport then food on arrival in destination.

Glad it's not just me who thinks cabin baggage and all the controversy/issues that go with it is self-inflicted by the airlines. And to be honest, when the application of the rules is inconsistent depending what airport you use or who is on duty, it's not hard to understand why there are passengers who take the piss or will continue to "try it on" for as long as they can get away with it.

All that said, I do have sympathy for crew. They didn't write the luggage policies and regularly have to deal with the issue of lack of space on board for luggage and particularly if ground colleagues in the airport aren't helping by waiving the policy rules (be it intentionally or improperly/inconsistently enforcing the policy) when they have other things to worry about to ensure an on time departure. Having been on Flybe aircraft, I can fully understand why the sizes are what they are, even if it's confusing/frustrating because it's different to other airlines.

Norwegian offer a premium cabin with these things included, should you wish to pay. On short-haul the LCC's offer an all-in fare of some description. Catering is not usually included, people don't seem to want it. Veiling used to offer a fare with a blocked middle seat and free choice from the trolley. They have dropped it now. Other airlines offer premium Economy/Business Class on European routes, but the cabins are rather smaller than Economy, suggesting what people are prepared to pay for. Of course we all want something for nothing!

Yet that gives people who can only afford the lower fares the chance to travel when before they couldn't afford it. Nothing vile about that.

Let me assure you; there are some truly vile people we have to put up with, especially to certain European destinations during the summer months, and if they couldn't afford to fly they would be no great loss to the decent, law-abiding passengers on board.

I have long advocated a return to a flat, inclusive fare. Catering could be an optional extra but a bag in the hold (it costs no more for the handlers to go out for one bag or 50) and a fixed, median fare would be fare for all.

Remember, if you've paid £35, some poor devil has paid £250; an aircraft costs a fixed amount to operate.

Someone above mentioned the root cause of the so-called Low Cost Carrier - corporate greed. And it was accepted hook, line and sinker mainly by the 'vile' newcomers to air transport. The rest of us had no choice but to grin and bear it.

Sounds like a crazy idea to me, just doesn't sound like something which could work.

Why not? VS need more regional feed, it could also be tied in with feeding AF/KL and DL. Stobart want to be a big regional player. Best case scenario, the majority of regional flying is retained so the regions don't lose out. VS/AF/KL/DL get feed, MAN will grow, using BE will free up AF/KL to utilise slots elsewhere at CDG and AMS.
It also stops BA....

How much feed can BE provide?

Isn't there a slightly more fundamental problem here - by far the largest part of Stobart Air's operation is as an Aer Lingus Regional franchise. Will Aer Lingus and IAG really tolerate their largest feed partner at Dublin being majority-owned by Virgin Atlantic? The Flybe SAS ATR operation is a sideshow as Nordica could take that on, but the EI - Stobart - Virgin - Flybe dynamic is strange. I don't get that angle at all.

Surely, the Flybe business - however it's branded - can succeed provided its performance starts going in the right direction, that is to say there's enough that is worth saving and managing and investing in.

Of course, if you don't believe in regional air..........