I knew this thread would go this way. Idiotic armchair amateurs second guessing the professionals who have worked at this job for years, with thousands of hours of experience, and deciding they know better! Can't some fools understand this is a 4 engine jet, designed to fly happily on 3, and even on 2. On 2, it is in an equivalent situation to a twin on one- in some ways better because it even has the option to end up on one engine- not so happy, but better than being a glider.
I have flown 747s for 18 years, and 4 engine jets for 24. In that time, I lost many engines- mainly during 747 early days. Losing one across the Atlantic did not normally cause a turnback, though sometimes it would. Mainly for maintenance reasons, NOT for the bizarre safety some advocate!
Get over it and stop boring people to death. It was a perfectly safe and sensible decision, and far more practical than any of you geniuses have come up with. You're banging it to death, and this is an airline pilots forum. I don't think most airline pilots can read threads like this for their blood pressure! And the LAX-LHR on 3 was bang on to rights, has been justified and the pilots acknowledged as doing their jobs. Exactly what I would have done. Try and find another cause to champion!