OK, I admit it. I'm a passenger, and I for one strongly prefer 4 engine aircraft over two engine aircraft when given the choice. I'm afraid I may be one of the morons Richard Branson is talking about.
For example, on the LHR-JFK run there is a good mix of twins and quads to choose from - but it's notable that I have never, ever, flown a twin to JFK or indeed anywhere else across the pond where there was the choice of a quad. Why?
Partly because larger aircraft are, entirely subjectively. more comfortable from a passenger perspective: the cavernous interior of a 747 simply feels better than being in a 767, even if the seating is identical.
Partly because (superstitously or not) I probably compare planes with cars, and expect a larger plane to be somehow 'safer', or more surviveable, in an accident. A VW Polo and a Mercedes 500 SEL may both be 'safe' cars - but I know which I'd rather hit a brick wall at 40 mph in. Can this analogy be carried over to aerospace? Maybe not rationally - but who said that consumer purchase decisions were supposed to be entirely rational?
Partly because I know that a single engine failure on a quad is less of an issue than on a twin. And even though the twin aircraft is not operating outside its design limits by using one engine, some of the immediate effects of an engine outage - e.g. unexpected yaw - are surely going to be magnified in a twin. In an extreme circumstance, my addled mind reasons, that might make all the difference.
And finally, partly because ETOPS routes simply take longer. The time difference on the LHR-JFK route can be 20 minutes or half an hour (although looking at the schedules today the average scheduled difference is about 15 minutes). Not a big deal perhaps, but if I can reduce the amount of time I spend cooped up in a metal tube, I will.
I suspect someone will now respond, letting me know how inadequate and irrational my reasons for preferring quads are. And it's true, some of my reasons, particularly on safety issues, amount to little more than gut feel, and probably are indefensible on rational grounds. But before you flame me too hard, remember I'm one of the credit-card carrying clowns who keeps the pilots among you in jobs. It's hard, in my view, to criticise Richard Branson for listening to his customers prejudices, even if they are little more than that.
Edited for flame-out of grammar engine.
[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: J-Class ]