Avionique,
It is clear from my previous post that as a frequent flyer, I have a strong preference in the 4 engine vs. 2 engine argument over say, the pacific.
It is also interesting, that in the past I've also watched from afar the same point debated by professional pilots on the same subject, looking at the statistical arguments, such as, if one engine fails, is it more or less probable the other will fail, bearing in mind that all such aircraft must be able to take off AND climb after a single engine failure with a full load.
But in reality, aside from the opinion of a frequent flyer who tends to take an unhealthy interest (like many ff's) in the best seat in club, and is 12A as good as 12F etc... I do believe most of the general flying public do not understand the implications when flying on a twin jet over large stretches of water. If they did, would things be different?
ETOPS can (and does) mean that following a single engine failure on a twin jet, it may be two and a half hours before a pilot can reach his nearest alternate airport. Imagine being on such a jet, with a known engine problem, and only one engine working, and having to fly for a further two and a half hours (up to 180/207 minutes) to reach an airport. Many people say it's no more dangerous than being on say a 4engine jet, with one engine out, and as I'm not an expert, I am just giving a pax opinion. In reality, whenever I can, even going LHR to JFK, I do actually seek out 4 engine operated flights. I used to like Virgin because of this, but now it looks like they are going to eventually shift to 2 engine dreamliners on east coast flights. For very long flights, I would do everything in my power to get a 4 engined jet, even choosing to change airline or date of travel.
I'm actually surprised more people do not think it is important.