Sorry TA I was actually having a go at South Shore for once again raising the (irrelevant) subject of ETOPS and including an incorrect suggestion that the CAA (sic) had taken some sort of punitive action.
Before anyone raises this subject again, I submit the following:
ETOPS is used for operational reasons in order to more economically serve specific routes. Indeed, some routes can only be flown using ETOPS. Choosing to operate to any particular ETOPS rating is a thus financial decision, not an airworthiness decision. Without an operational need for the rating, an operator may voluntarily forego ETOPS altogether in order to avoid the expense of maintaining the required system reliability levels. This would be no reflection whatsoever upon that operator's airworthiness standards.
ETOPS is a reliability matter, managed through compliance with specific service bulletins and airworthiness directives. ETOPS is not restricted to engines but involves a comprehensive assessment of all relevant on-board systems. The process is monitored through a reliability programme overseen by a reliability committee, has little to do with 'airworthiness' as a concept and nothing at all to do with pilots' working conditions. An ETOPS rating is reduced to a lower rating by the reliability committee reporting to the regulator that the reliability of any relevant on-board system, including but not limited to the engines, has fallen below the predictor figure. The regulator will approve restoration of the rating to its former level once satisfied that the relevant reliability level has been restored.
As BlueEagle already warned, please be sure of your facts before posting specific allegations.