in recent posts much hsa been made about the FAA and two engine planes...let me tell you the FAA has a long way to go to actually have my respect.
have any of you looked at the airport at Midway Island? (not to be confused with Chicago Midway, though both are a tiny bit too small for my tastes).
Can you imagine flying a heavy 777 on one engine to Midway Island, at night and actually having a need for major crash fire rescue equipment and hospital?
Rotsa Ruck.
Would I rather cross a major ocean with 4 engines instead of 2? YES.
When are two engine planes better than 4 engine planes? Sometimes the power to weight ratio a takeoff is better in the twins and there might be a small edge in windshear/microburst recovery.
Why is the FAA picking on BA? Let me just put it this way, I don't know...but I do know that if you asked every passenger on that plane what makes more sense, flying to england with 25% of your engines dead or returning to LAX, I would wager that returning to LAX would be the winner amongst passengers.
I guess you can't regulate or teach good judgement (though one study suggested that it could be taught).
by the way, many fines are never paid and the FAA doesn't do squat.
I think this thread has run its course. Good luck to us all.
jon