In yet another attempt to try and bring back to this thread some sense of perspective, I would like to suggest that anyone making comments without 'obviously' having read the whole thread (never mind admitting to not having done so) please refrain from doing so. Also, aside from the enthusiasts who claim an interest in this debate, there appear to be a number of professional pilots who have never flown 4 engine LR ops and keep postulating about differences between ETOPS which is not quite the same thing.
Perhaps you should just leave it to the professionals who do have experience in 4 engined ops, particularly those with B744 experience. The level of 'hand wringing' and obvious emotional distress that this thread is causing some of you only goes to show that arguing the toss with someone who has experience in B744 ops and those who don't, only leads to long threads with much hype, uninformed speculation and comments by a few so called professionals that would be worthy of the gutter press.
It is obvious that continuing after an engine 'failure' (as opposed to a catastrophic failure) on a B744 does not require an immediate land at the nearest suitable airport. The crew will base their decisions on all the information available which includes the indications in front of them, other parameters that are accessible through various on-board systems and advice from their maintrol. Shutting down an engine and continuing on 3 on a B744 is not the dire emergency that some of you think it is. The decision to continue to cross the Atlantic will also have been based on many other parameters including wx and other commercial reasons.
Can we now please leave the debate to those with experience in B744 ops as the signal to noise ratio on this thread is getting uncomfortable with the sensationalist remarks from enthusiasts and a few professionals alike.