zerozero,
But I don't take that as carte blanc to perform overweight landings.
What is carte blanche to perform an overweight landing is having a planeload of people depending for their lives on one engine. In larger airline ops, we just don't do that. The instruction is 'land at the nearest suitable runway'. you can add to that 'without delay' in brackets. Just remember you are thrashing that remaining engine
As an example- one of my colleagues was flying down to Madrid. Over northern Spain, he shut one down approaching top of descent. In view of his position at TOD, he elected to continue to MAD. Unfortunately he was over 'a suitable airport' (something beginning with 'V'). He was chewed out for it- he should have gone for the airport he was over. Another example- 767 out of Glasgow loses an engine- continues to Manchester. Another black mark in the record.
The problem is some people refuse to acknowledge the danger of a twin with one out, just as others don't recognise the safety built in to a 4 engine jet with one out. I would quite happily have flown the 747 from LAX to LHR with one out (I have flown a 747 from the Newfoundland coast to Chicago like that), but were I to lose one in my current 737, that thing would be on the ground so quick the cabin crew would still be serving coffee!