Well, things have settled down at home enabling me to post a bit more freely again (and for any commentators out there, I never said my withdrawal was permanent). Anyway, time to catch up with some posts.
To answer some queries about STN vs MAN for KU, and the reasons for what's going on.
1) SNN is voluntarily downgrading it's fire cover, from Cat 9 to Cat 7, which means aircraft such as the B77W cannot be handled so readily. This has caused Kuwait to look elsewhere, and MAN for the bill for a multitude of reasons already discussed.
2) During the discussions, STN was put on the table, more as a vanity project for STN. As this flight doesn't have 5th freedoms, it was deemed no detriment to MAN to have the flight route via STN instead, and in return STN finally got a legacy carrier on the ground.
3) there have been snippets that any 'denied pax' or 'new crew' can get from STN to LHR VV better than MAN, when in fact, it could be argued the same situation could be handled better via MAN. What I mean by that is:
-any pax on the flight that fail the screening at MAN would be better put on the LHR shuttle than via a STN-LHR minibus. The reason being that the 'failed' pax can be held securely airside, flown on a secure shuttle, held securely airside at LHR and then put on the KU flight home. The minibus from STN to LHR isn't as secure. The U.K. Border Has to accept the pax walk the bad to the veichle, insecure bus ride and then walk the pax to check in. Not as great is it.
-one could argue a crew needed at MAN could fly LHR-MAN much faster than ground transport to STN. Despite both being London airports, they are not exactly close, and they don't call the M25 'the UKs largest car park' for nothing.
4) The problem with STN is that, as far as I'm aware, it isn't set up to handle this sort of operation, there isn't much need for a transfer facility at STN given it has no need for it based on current carriers, and such, the situation may not quite be as clear cut. Watch this space.
But anyway, I'm back!