Wasn't BA the same airline that flew a 747 across the pond on three engines
I see that the rude comment about Dinosaurs responding to the above, has been "modified " ! Well done.
Nevertheless - there is a difference between an aircraft commander making decisions that may be regarded as 'against accepted practice' at the end of a flight, when his options might be seriously restricted, and one making such a decision at the start of a flight, when there was no reason to take a chance.
I once lost an engine on a 747 on take-off but the departure airfield was situated in what might be described as a distinctly user-unfriendly environment from many angles, passenger immigration requirements and accom., lack of engineering spares, lack of immediate engineering support etc.
As I required nearly an hour to dump fuel to landing weight, I continued on until I had dumped sufficient fuel, then landed 'at the nearest suitable airport' (suitable being significant) where passengers could be housed ( hotelled if you prefer ) and the company had relatively easy engineeing arrangements. I'm on the ground mate, fix it, I didn't even have a Mighty Ocean to cross.
On a subsequent occasion I didn't need to dump fuel, and was back on the ground as soon as we could complete the checks and get the gear down again. When the F/O pointed out that we had sufficient fuel to continue to destination on 3, I also pointed out that we also had to cross a lot of shark infested ocean. Chicken ? you bet.
There was absolutely no excuse for the subject 747 to continue across the pond - as it was described. If Boeing had wanted a 3 -eng 747 - they would have built one.
I'd have indicted that Captain for gross mis-management at the very least.
If that makes me a Dinosaur - tough. I can live with it.