Lompaseo,
Check PM's
411A
"However, from my perspective (a very long time in heavy 3/4 engine jet transports), the idea of continuing a very long intercontinental flight with one engine shut down/failed, when that shut down/failure had occured very close to the departure airport is, in my opinion, unwise.
Even though the regulations under which I was operating might allow me to continue in the above scenario, I would decline to do so in the interests of passenger safety."
In many respects I would agree with you but a 744 is a different beast compared with a 747 Classic. I have operated both. Remember that the week after the LAX incident the same aircraft had a totally different (in othe words totally unrelated) engine shut down problem ex SIN and the decision to continue was made and the flight operated successfully on 3 engines to LHR.
It is an approved company procedure that works and has worked with no (that is zero) problems for many years. It is not a new policy and BA have completed many continue towards destination flights after an engine failure on their 744\'s.
BUT and a big BUT, on the day it is the responsibility (and this is in the BA procedures) of the Captain and his Flight Crew to be satisfied that the flight may be continued safely bearing in mind all possibilities.
On this occasion the crew did this.
They did have a fuel problem very late in flight (I gather it was a cross feed problem) and dealt with that quite properly by diverting into MAN. It was a problem that was not a issue early in the flight abd only manifested itself virtually within minutes of TOD for LHR. They reacted quite properly.