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
I think your argument is flawed. For an inconvenience point of view only, a 4-engine aircraft would be MORE inconvenient, not less, than a 777. I say this for a couple of reasons:
1. Aside from the infamous BA situation a few years ago, I would think that in most cases, 4-engine aircraft would divert if they lost an engine early on in a long-haul flight.
2. More importantly, one of the selling points of the 777 to the airlines is that they have a higher dispatch ratio than 4-engine aircraft. The engines are of a newer, more reliable design, and were made with ETOPS in mind from the very beginning. Also, even setting aside the engines being more reliable, there are only 2 of them rather than 4, so there's half as many that can have a problem that would cause a flight to be canceled.
So, in the very unusual situation of being on a 4-engine aircraft where the captain decides to continue on to the destination upon loss of 1 engine, the passenger would be less inconvenienced as compared to a 2-engine aircraft. But this is going to be offset many times over by times when their flight is canceled before departure because of an engine problem.