DOnt know about EZY although it would make sense for them, much of the Lancs and Cumbria market travells from Manchester.
However, the comment surely the NW can not support another low cost base prompted me to respond.
The point about BLK which sets it miles apart from either MAN or LPL is that it is a resort airport. It serves the UK biggest tourist attraction, and the third largest Theme park in Europe - Blackpool. Blackpool alone attracts an estimated 21 million visitors each year. Add to that the Golf on Fylde and even just around 20 minutes from the airport you have a potential inbound market of 22 million pax. It doesnt stop there, the airport is the gateway to the Lakes. I know Manchester would claim this, but like it or not, their is no denying that bLK is the closest airport to the Lakes (although surface access needs improving - this is easily solved with a coach, and would happen when the services are there).
The lakes attracts 17 million people a year.
So, can BLK support a based operator, well look at like this, the BLK catchment has around 40 million tourist visits each year. If BLK could attract just 1% (one) then that is 400,000 passenger a year - enough for 1 and a half aircraft. Get 2% and you have 3 aircraft. This would not have ANY EFFECT AT ALL on the incumbents from MAN or LPL. Now, if BLK could stimulate 10% of the traffic currently originating in Lancashire and Cumbria, they have another 300,000 passenegrs - another aircraft ... Stimulate more international tourist traffic and you have another 2 or 3 aircraft ...
If you think 10% stimukation is high, EZY stimulated markets by between 50% and 300% at LPL.
So, the point .... well, BLK could attract significant inbound volumes of tourists, stimulate the existing markets by a very modest 10%, plus a little element of dilution and you have enough traffic for 4 or 5 aircraft ... then you have the government forecasts of a doubling of traffic in the next 15 years.
Can BLK support a base? I would say 3 aircraft is not totally unreasonable.
GK