Wino
Not strictly true. Fuel planning would require 5% contingency. If an en-route alternate is used, you only require 5% from that alternate or an additional 15 mins holding fuel, which ever is the greater. The en-route alternate would more than likely be the UK side of the pond, so the contingency carried would not necessarily be that great. I for one would side with the CAA. If we are that worried about a 4 engined aircraft crossing the pond on 3, which it is after all certified to do, should the FAA not be taking a closer look at the 3 hours & 9 minute single engine ETOPS diversion on the Pacific. I know which aircraft I would rather be on!