It terrifies me how much many current pilots think that a BA pilot wouldn't know that going to Stansted involves less time traveling over a population centre. It's open countryside there. Or that it would be 'challenging'. I'm not flying BA anymore after all these proclamations of how hard they find diverting to a world class airport in their own city bounds.
It is clearly not easy to convey to the flying public how we pilots manage emergencies, but I will have another go.
Firstly, an Airbus A319 has:
2 Pilots,
3/4 Cabin crew, (trained for aircraft emergencies such as smoke, fire, evacuations, and a wide range of medical emergencies, such as CPR and defibrillator use)
2 Engines,
3 separate hydraulic systems,
4 Hydraulic pumps, 2 main engine driven, 1 main electrical, 1 standby electrical,
4 Electrical generators, 2 main, 1 standby and 1 emergency,
5 separate fly-by-wire computers,
2 Flight augmentation computers,
1 emergency hydraulic generator "Ram Air Turbine" (RAT), which can be deployed into the slipstream to provide back-up hydraulic power for the flight controls and/or the emergency generator.
2 Batteries,
2 Autopilots,
2 Flight management and guidance computers (some have 3),
6 flight display screens,
3 Display and management computers (which drive the display screens),
3 "artificial horizons"; 2 main plus 1 back-up,
3 Altimeters; 2 main plus 1 back-up,
3 LASER gyro Inertial reference systems
2 GPS receivers
3 main fuel tanks including 2 'collector' tanks which feed the fuel pumps,
6 electrical fuel pumps,
2 engine driven low pressure fuel pumps,
2 engine driven high pressure fuel pumps,
2 Air conditioning packs,
1 Auxiliary Power Unit, (APU), which can provide electrical power and high pressure air to run the air conditioning and pressurisation systems, and for starting the main engines, (and restarting them in the air if necessary),
2 Separate and independent wheel braking systems, plus one emergency wheel braking system.
2 Fire extinguishers per engine,
1 Fire extinguisher for the APU,
2 Fire extinguisher systems for the cargo holds,
Each main flying control surface has 2 separate sources of hydraulic power, the rudder has 3, and each hydraulic system powers 1 or 2 pairs of spoilers.
In addition, every control system for all of this has 2 channels or more, providing automatic back-up.
Now; An Airbus A319 can continue flying straight and level, and land with just ONE each of ALL the things I've listed above, (including the pilots).
For example, either one of the engines can continue a take off with a fully laden plane if one of the engines fails DURING THE TAKE-OFF ROLL. The remaining engine is designed and certified to continue the take-off, climb to a safe altitude (safe in this context being clear above any high ground), and fly to a suitable runway or holding pattern so the pilots can deal with the consequences of the engine problem. These may be for example the loss of an engine driven hydraulic pump which might lead to the loss of one hydraulic system, leaving 2 working ones left.
In such a (totally unlikely) eventuality of all except one of each system failing, the flight won't be as comfortable or refined as you are used to, (and you won't be continuing to Oslo), but IT WON'T fall out of the sky. Any one who thinks it will has been watching too many films, (where the slightest engine 'cough' has both pilots wrestling with the controls as the aircraft inexplicably dives to towards the ground???? Why would it do that??).
{Even Captain Sullenberger (spelling?) who suffered a once in a billion chance of a major bird strike taking out both engines (and by the way, airports have ways of keeping birds away), continued flying under full control. Obviously, he could not fly level, and although he initially tried to reach another runway, ran out of height and used the Hudson - a completely brilliant tactic and landing, Sir}.
It may need a longer than normal runway to land on. Luton's runway is quite short, and is on a hill with a steep drop at one end onto a dual carriageway. If an aircraft had reduced stopping ability, pilots would obviously elect to use a longer runway.
So an aircraft with both "bonnets" missing, (is that the "hood" in America?) may look awful but apart from having lost one or two systems from the list above, and probably needing a longer runway, is going to be able to fly perfectly safely. So no reason to make a drama out of a situation by landing at a non-company airfield if there is no need to. At one's home base, there will probably be a spare airplane and crew who can take the passengers on their way. (THIS IS NOT THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION, OF COURSE).
None of this is arrogance at all, but a crew calmly and professionally assessing the situation and taking the appropriate actions to ensure a safe flight.
Why the cowls were not checked is another argument.
(I am not a BA pilot by the way).