I am also glad you are all so experienced in long haul operations. It also seems great that the same plane had another engine problem just 3 weeks later.
British Airways must be quite proud.
Bit difficult to comment when you don't know the details, but the proximity of two failures like that leads to suspicion of a minor faulty installation problem. Why must BA be 'quite proud'? Airlines do occasionally have engine installation problems- didn't AA have a ORD crash with an engine that flew off with 'installation problems'? Should I have said AA must be 'quite proud'? What are you talking about man?
Yes a VC10 may have continued. As pointed out, it
was more economical on three. We even had a periscope to stick out through the fuselage in front of the fin to inspect the engines. I recall it was great fun (and rather sobering) to look at the fin and tailplane waggling about during training dutch rolls (that used to reach 90 degrees- we were real men then!).
Sure BA may have 'lost your respect'. That's because you don't understand the problem and how to handle it in a plane like the Jumbo. Avoid them. They will not miss you. You still haven't answered the question- a 747 LAX-LHR on three, or a 777 across the Pacific on one for 3 hours 8 minutes.....which one cowboy? Is the second really acceptable? Ask the FAA why they are creating so much bluster on the first when they authorise the second.