Originally Posted by Jenbel
However, a 747 with one engine lost can continue onto its destination safely (depending on cause of loss - if it's one of the events where engine loss is independent of having already lost an engine ) - so it's statistically more likely that you'll have to divert in a 777 if you lose an engine, since if they lose an engine, unless they are close to home, they're looking for someplace to land for a diversion to get the problem fixed. So the OP may be irrational from a safety case point of view, but not from an inconvenience point of view
Case in point was the BA 747 that blew an engine on take off from LAX to LHR. The pilot decided to keep on going. With just 3 engines, they flew at under 30,000 feet and it took a bit longer. The pilots decided to make a emergency landing at Manchester becuase they were unsure as to how much fuel they had left. After the plane landing, it was determined that there was enough fuel on board to have gone to LHR. If this had been a 777, the plane would have turned around and landed back at LAX with a high probability the passengers would face a much longer delay.
Most long haul flights are never cleared to their final destination becuase they would not have enough fuel reserves to do so. Throughout the flight they are constantly updating their distance/fuel reserve ratio and most of the time they evenntualy get clearance to their scheduled destination.
The 2/4 engine debate is not logical but emotional. Ask yourself this question. If you are 1/2 way across the Pacific and one engine goes out, would your rather be on a 777 or 747?