turboprop: Why not do some research before you post.
Well that was a bit bizarre!
None the less, I agree with all of your points while at the same time you have managed to refute nothing that I said!
Ah well, a bit more clarification maybe, first passenger...
Some years ago, EMA threw its hat into the low-cost ring. Undoubtedly an exciting sector at the time, and one which has grown steadily since, it may well have been the right decision at the time. However, the embracing of firstly Go, then later Ryanair etc cast the full service offer at the airport to the wolves. What full service network EMA had went down the drain as the incumbent carrier was forced to respond. Many of the business passengers - particularly those flew to Europe to connect to further afield - transferred their travel to Birmingham, got used to the drive down the M42, and have never come back. The net result is that EMA now has a network of low-cost routes that would have been undreamed of before the LCCs came along, but it has virtually no full service network. And it is the passengers using the full service carriers, connecting in places like AMS, CDG and FRA that come back through good times and bad - such business passengers are not as fickle as those on low-cost and charter carriers who might one year go to Prague, the next to Malaga, and the year after no where at all.
The airport is therefore now very dependent on the low-cost carriers it already has. Imagine what the airport would look like without the two big LCCs that shore up the numbers day in day out. The problem is that these carriers will terminate routes at the drop of a hat, unlike the full service carriers who tend to stick with things through thick and thin (at least as far as they can). It is therefore vital that EMA does not upset its LCCs.
BHX has recently added Norwegian, Vueling, Wizz Air and Iberia Express to its portfolio. A year or two ago, these carriers might have been seen to be a shoe-in for EMA rather than BHX, but it became very obvious a while ago that BHX had decided to chase the low-cost market. BHX previously shunned the sector as it didn't want to clog up or dilute their offer, which was providing a good experience for the scheduled business passenger. But the airport's management realised that if they could get the LCCs into the shoulders or low periods of the day (rather than the peaks like slot one) they could accommodate them without adversely impacting their full service market.
The end result is that BHX can be fairly aggressive when courting LCCs, whilst EMA has to tread a little more carefully so as to not upset those airlines it already has. Add to that the catchment area advantage BHX has in comparison to EMA (especially for Wizz which is already embedded at Doncaster and Luton, both of which can fairly easily be reached from the East Midlands), and EMA is a little bit stuck in the middle. It lacks the facilities and network to attract full service carriers, it does not have the global connectivity network to woo the business traveler, and the low-cost carriers have mopped up the leisure travel that used to contribute a little something to the back of the bus on the full service airlines.
Secondly cargo...
As far as DHL / UPS / TNT / Royal Mail are concerned, EMA has undoubtedly done extremely well. However, Royal Mail is slowly declining, and the growth in express logistics is hampered by the airport's location. EMA lost one of its original transatlantic UPS flights, which was transferred to STN because the cut-off times for collections down south were too early given that the cargo had to be trucked 120 miles up the M1.
In terms of DHL, its a great ongoing success story and a credit to the airport, but EMA has undoubtedly been helped by the problems DHL encountered with its hub in Brussels. Had that hub been able to grow or even continue at past volumes, I suggest DHL EMA would not be as big as it is now and the network would be more restricted. Unfortunately, the UK is too far west to be a true European hub for express, so as far as DHL is concerned EMA has to share the role with Leipzig. Leipzig, Cologne and Liege are all bigger than EMA for express logistics, primarily because of the geographical advantage being situated in mainland Europe provides.
Still, its a good story and despite the geographical constraints that no one can solve I'm sure it will continue to thrive.
ATNotts: I would say that, contrary to what Eastmids wrote, EMA has a thriving adhoc business, whether it be AN124 carrying RR engines, the F1 business, with 747 freighters, during the season, or relief flights.
Lucrative maybe, but hardly something the airport can depend on. Bread and butter is scheduled cargo, and as I said before, with the exception of express logistics and mail (the definition turborprop dismally failed to appreciate), EMA has practically none. As far as I am aware, the only regular operation that falls outside of express and mail is the fish from Iceland, and even that aircraft is turned into the express market each night after it arrives at EMA. The only other regular scheduled bulk cargo operation EMA has had in recent years was the twice-weekly Kalitta 747 which stopped when the airline found it could get better rates from flying for Uncle Sam than it could from operating an independent cargo service. And unsurprisingly EMA's figures for cargo carried on passenger services is hardly stellar - 8 tonnes in 2014 according to the CAA!
And there is another important point I made earlier - attracting a regular scheduled bulk cargo service in the middle of the day is a little problematic because few of the handling agents want the work. DHL and Aviation Solutions do handle the adhoc cargo demand very well, but they do not seem want to bring staff in for a single regular two hour turnround outside of their normal shifts, and they are not keen on the business at night because they already have a lot to handle.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely appreciate EMA has done very well over the years to build the express and mail business to the point where it is the biggest pure-freighter airport in the UK, and the DHL extension being constructed right now underpins further expansion of the business.
Finally, I reiterate my point that the impression I get (and I'm not just trying to pluck ideas out of the air) is that MAG is at the moment prepared to let EMA just tick over, doing what it does fairly well but not driving for major growth in any sector. A number of management resources were transferred to group level, and most of the thinking and investment is going into STN and MAN - STN to rebuild the market at MAN with its huge development programme. I'm not suggesting staff at EMA are idle or trying to run down the business, just that the main focus of the MAG group at the moment isn't EMA. I am really not trying to be negative either in what I originally wrote or this response, just trying to explain a few things and maybe put a bit of realism into the equation.