I'm sorry to post twice, but I posted this in Tech Log and it seems more relevant here:
<<<It's really strange, isn't it? Some operators have been known to despatch, and fly over the ocean with just two engines to start with!!!! (the exclamation marks are added for extra drama). Is this an adequate safety margin? Can you imagine being west of Greenland on one?!! How do they get away with it?- perhaps the FAA should be informed! I mean- they only have two engines, up in the Arctic wastes- with hundreds of children and sweet innocent old ladies doing their knitting on board!
Funny me, I thought the whole point of having FOUR to start with was that if you lost one, you still had THREE. You could do the near statistically impossible and lose another and still be better off than a twin, because there ain't no way you gonna lose ANOTHER (well if you do, the odds are so unfair to you you should never enter another lottery in your life!).
So what would you rather fly in? A 4 engine 747 or a twin 777? And they're going to send that thing half way around the world?
Let's face it, the 747 has passed. Boeing is only interested in selling as many big twins as it can, so taking away the advantage of 4 engines and making it play on the same playing field to the same rules as the twin Boeings is to their advantage. They want to licence that thing with ETOPS endurance that seems to be going up exponentially- is the latest figure 3 hours on one engine? Can you imagine 350 people on a 777 on one engine for 3 hours or so? (whatever the figure is). Don't you think that merits closer examination by the FAA than a 747 on THREE engines? What an extraordinary issue this has become!>>>