I think the overall event was handled well enough.Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing & perhaps QF as well as the rest of us here can learn from the way this was handled. It's obvious that the engine failure caught the crew out somewhat would do for all of us hence their initial R/T that was a little disjointed but effective enough at the time.
I would have thought though that a pan call would have been appropriate upon first contact with ATC as any engine failure regardless of it's cause (vibs must have been going thru the roof!)or effects is an abnormal event therefore creating an abnormal operation. IE: fuel dumping & a 3 eng ldg etc, all considered 'not normal'. Such a call makes it B&W with regards to further R/T's meaning that there is now a level of urgency about the matter. Not declaring a Pan call in the first instance could (it didn't in this case too much as the Yanks are fairly casual) have added to ATC's decisions for processing the A/C back to Frisko.
I was also surprised to see that the A/C was allowed to cross any rwy unescorted as such a failure(eng) could easily have led to debris falling from the now severely damaged engine onto any part of both rwy's where other A/C would have been Ldg & Taking off.
Hypothetically if that event had turned out horribly wrong by way of the airframe breaking up in flight due sever damage to wing for Eg then the first thing that we would be reading might very well have been was the failure conveyed to ATC with any level of urgency IE was a "PAN" call made straight up? As I said hypothetically but we often read these stories where ATC wasn't offered any direction as to the level of urgency at first.
The amusing stuff here is the media's attempt at describing these events.
Heard on the ABC wireless news comments from a whom pax was sitting on top of the effected engine (or words to that effect)......man that must have been one hell of a ride !
Still all's well that ends well
Wmk2