On the 2 occasions I have had catastrophic failure of an engine I did not consider the aircraft to be in danger of crashing so I would call the procedure and subsequent landing abnormal. On occasions this abnormal condition has been turned into an emergency by crew (in)action.
As for the 3 engined BA guy, fantastic, he weighed up the various criteria for landing at the most suitable airport and made the correct decision.
The very fact that modern ETOPS regulations put twin engined aircraft many hours from a suitable landing (is it 5 hours for ANZ's 777?) demonstates my point. I do not think the regulatory authorities would agree to putting an aircraft in an emergency situation for 5 hours (abnormal yes) in the event of an engine failure. If it is deemed an emergency situation then the travelling public should be made aware of it and me for one will be only travelling on 4 engined aircraft in the future.