What an interesting thread.
Having been flying for over 30 years AND having taught Performance AND Flight Safety there are some interesting conundrums.
A captain is in charge of the aircraft, in charge of the diplomacy, commercial aspects and safety of THAT aircraft at THAT time.
Each TIME will be different.
411 - for once I must disagree with you. When we started, engines were not as reliable as they are now.
We KNOW how 'accurate' the Press are reporting incidents such as this.
A 'routine' Engine Shut down (with or without flames - classic signs of a surge - albeit frightening for the pax whose imaginations are fed by Discovery Channel and armchair 'experts'), does NOT sell newspapers - DRAMA does.
Personally, if the 'facts' are as reported I consider the decisions made by this crew as 'highly professional' and they are to be commended.
Having flown 'ultra' long range with in-flight recalculations of fuel, reserves and endurance, the 'Nice' diversion is completely understandable and NOT fuel for more DRAMA.
It is a real shame that crews that act within the interests of the Company, passengers and other aircraft in the vicinity so well are pilloried by people who don't know the facts (I confess I don't in this particular case), don't know the rationale behind large FOUR engined aircraft.
Why did Boeing fit it with 4 when it can fly safely and adequately with 3?
For just a circumstance such as this.
When teaching the 146 and RJ Performance for BAe, we used to detail THIS VERY ABILITY as one of the advantages for a FOUR engined aircraft over a two engined one (or three come to that although the facility exists) .
So, on balance, WELL DONE the crew, I would feel that I'd earned my money had I been on that flight deck and (given the above reports of the 'facts' to be true) I would be proud that the years of training resulted in being able to competently and safely handle an ABNORMAL situation, not an EMERGENCY.