Aims I was once on a B747 operated by a well known U.S. carrier which, over Greenland, en route to the West Coast had an engine failure. Interestingly, we did not divert to the nearest available airfield. Nor did we continue to the destination. Nope, we went ORD, which happens to be just what the captain told us - a "suitable" maintenance base for the operator in question. (I trust you will concede that this was quite a distance and that many suitable airfields were passed en route).
I did not then, nor do I now consider that the captain or operator did anything strange or unreasonable. However, it seems to me that this falls neatly into the area that you criticise thus:
The available redundancy should not be used for commercial reasons.
It seems to me that - apart from the utterly circular nature of the dialogue of the deaf which this particular topic seems to generate - that there is a fundamental and fatal logical flaw at work in this type of argument. This is the one that people try to bring out when they start to talk about ETOPs and loss of an engine on a two engined aircraft - in order to make key points about redundancy and levels of safety.
While redundancy and reliability statistics suggest that flights of some time and distance can be achieved within acceptable safety levels on one engine, it is agreed that getting on the ground ASAP is essential. However, were you to add multiple levels of statistical and practical safety and redundancy as in the B747 some people, such as yourself, seem to think that the additional safety margins in the B747 should be ignored in any decision-making. Some even seem keen to consider the B747 on 3 engines to be equivalent - for decision-making purposes - to being on one engine in a twin-engined aircraft. A typical argument is that both are in a state of greater risk (which is a truism, but tells us nothing about comparative risk).
As many B747 pilots have repeatedly pointed out, those who make such arguments rarely show any grasp of either the decision-making process which this crew followed or the level of redundancy in the B747. To repeat, on three engines the B747 has greater redundancy than a twin jet. Dreaming up complex scenarios in which a second engine is lost, etc. is the next response ... which I will not go into, because it has been done to death already.