FRAatSTN - the question I was answering was "what is it that prevents the East Midlands being able to hold on to services other than those offered by leisure and low cost carriers?"
To that end, I stick by my answer - it was the way they let in those low-fare carriers that destroyed the long term business market. I also admitted that the arrival of those LCCs helped the numbers - which it did at the time - but quite a few of the markets haven't survived or have subsequently declined, primarily because LCCs don't invest or take a long term view, but take the opportunity when its available and then quickly scarper when things don't look quite so rosy. The low-fare market is simply too fickle for an airport to depend on it alone, but that's pretty where EMA is now (I'm taking passengers, not cargo).
Again I say there was an opportunity for both LCC and full service, but the way EMA let the LCCs in wrecked the full service offer. The payback is now pretty obvious - one of the worst performing airports over the last year or so in terms of passenger numbers (mostly decline or stagnation at EMA whereas most others have seen pretty sustained growth), and an inability to cut new deals - or at least other airports can offer better deals - because EMA dare not upset its incumbents. Just look at Ryanair at EMA - not exactly scintillating performance but EMA is stuck with it, and is in no position to lure the new breed of LCCs that Birmingham is now managing to do. An airport absolutely can be selective - it can offer incentives or rebates on new routes, but not on existing routes. Being rather choosey about what airlines were they let in and from/to where worked extremely well at Birmingham by protecting the full service market, and has more recently allowed the LCCs to come in on other routes off peak - look at its figures and growth. But the LCCs never encroached on BHX-GLA, or -EDI, or -AMS or -CDG, which EMA let happen and which destroyed the long-term business market on those routes.