Yes, there are planes that can't dump fuel. A320s are among them. The requirements are spelled out in the FARs and airlines are not going to add the expensive of havnig them of it's not required. Here are the relevant FARs:

Sec. 25.1001 Fuel jettisoning system.

(a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed on each airplane unless it is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of Secs. 25.119 and 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, go-around, and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane configuration, speed, power, and thrust the same as that used in meeting the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance requirements of this part.

(b) If a fuel jettisoning system is required it must be capable of jettisoning enough fuel within 15 minutes, starting with the weight given in paragraph (a) of this section, to enable the airplane to meet the climb requirements of Secs. 25.119 and 25.121(d), assuming that the fuel is jettisoned under the conditions, except weight, found least favorable during the flight tests prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) Fuel jettisoning must be demonstrated beginning at maximum takeoff weight with flaps and landing gear up "

Referenced FARs:

25.119, "landing climb" (all engines operating)
"In the landing configuration, the steady gradient of climb may not be less than 3.2 percent, with--

(a) The engines at the power or thrust that is available eight seconds after initiation of movement of the power or thrust controls from the minimum flight idle to the go-around power or thrust setting; and

(b) A climb speed of not more than 1.3 VS."

25.121,"Approach climb" (one engine out)
" In the approach configuration corresponding to the normal all-engines-operating procedure in which VS for this configuration does not exceed 110 percent of the VS for the related landing configuration, the steady gradient of climb may not be less than 2.1 percent for two-engine airplanes, 2.4 percent for three-engine airplanes, and 2.7 percent for four engine airplanes, with--

(1) The critical engine inoperative, the remaining engines at the go-around power or thrust setting;

(2) The maximum landing weight; and

(3) A climb speed established in connection with normal landing procedures, but not exceeding 1.5 VS."

Absolutely agree. Loosing an engine on a 4 engine aircraft is not a big deal at all.

BA lost an engine under the exact same circumstances as here right after take off at LAX, they flew to LHR on 3 engines...

http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=2420&comm=0

There most certainly are. I can attest to that from personal experience. The 737NGs can't "dump" fuel, either.

A couple years ago, I was flying Copa out of Panama City to the States. On takeoff, a bird hit the cockpit window. The pilots didn't think there was any damage, but they weren't 100% sure. So they wanted to land. But the fully loaded plane was too heavy, and there was no way to dump fuel. So, I bet you can guess what we did: fly circles around Panama City for about an hour and a half! We finally landed, the mechanics looked at the plane, saw no damage and we refueled and took off! Talk about a frustrating delay. It almost seemed like the best thing to do would have been to just fly to our destination. But I guess they didn't want to take any chances.

Around 1990, I was on a Continental 727 flight out of Miami and somebody didn't properly close the rear stairs door. The 727s could dump fuel, and we did. It looked like "misters" coming off the wings. Strange. The pilot assured us we were in no danger, so nobody seemed really scared (concerned, yes; scared no). This was just before cell phones became widespread, so I don't remember anyone trying to call loved ones or news crews.

Hopefully, these will remain my only "fuel dump" stories. :)

Most airliners do not have fuel dump. Mostly, it's just the larger widebodies that have that option.

Wow...

Is there any advantage to not offer the "fuel dump option" on an aircraft?

My one fuel dump story was when a warning light came on just after take off on a AS 737 several years ago. We dumped fuel over Puget Sound then came back to land. I just kept reading my book.

The prize line was "Don't worry about the emergency equipment. It's normal procedure in a situation like this" I was impressed with how many firetrucks and ambulances they have at SeaTac.

They tried to reach LHR on three engines. They ran out of gas and had to land at Manchester.

The advantage is that the aircraft will be cheaper, lighter and have fewer components to inspect and maintain, kind of like buying a car without power windows.

I could be all wrong, but it seems like making airbags optional versus power windows?

I recall the JetBlue A320 incident at LAX...those people had to fly around for what -- 2 hours -- before being able to land?

Less weight, less complexity.

Actually, they didn't run out of fuel. There was some confusion about how much of the fuel that they had on board was usable so they landed short. They had enough to reach LHR with reserves but weren't sure if they'd be able to access all of it.

Sounds like a great time to hit the lav and do a little dumping of my own! :D

Airplanes are certified to land at up to a 600fpm rate of descent at touchdown up to their maximum certified landing weight. They are also certified to land at up to 360fpm rate of descent at the maximum certified takeoff weight. If you land above your max landing weight then the airplane will need a heavy landing inspection but as long as you didn't exceed 360fpm at touchdown there will be no damage. 360fpm is a fairly hard landing.

If there is no immediate danger, such as in the case of a contained engine shutdown, you will usually burn down to landing weight. If there are other problems, fire, uncontained engine failure, etc. the Captain may decide that it's safer to land immediately regardless of weight. At the heavier weight they will need a longer runway for landing but if they took off from the runway at that weight then they can almost always land on it at that weight. Considerations will be the possibility of hot brakes, tire failure (from the hot brakes) and the need for a heavy landing inspection.

The larger wide bodies have fuel dump because when departing on very long international legs they may be several hundred thousand pounds above their max landing weight. It would take many hours to burn down to landing weight in those situations.

The JetBlue airplane wasn't burning fuel down to landing weight, they were burning down to well below landing weight. They burned down to a point where they had only enough fuel on board to land safely with a small reserve. They wanted the airplane to be as light as possible at landing due to their issue being with a faulty landing gear.

Typically, the airport authority will have every available piece of equipment out beside the runway. This is for liability reasons and also because it affords a training opportunity. The exception to this is very large airports that have more than one firehall in which case the number vehicles out beside the runway is determined by a plan based on the size of the aircraft and the orientation, and distance to, the other operating runways.

It's interesting to note that once the pilot declares an emergency situation, and usually even if ATC becomes aware of something unusual, it's impossible to prevent the trucks from coming out or to get them to go back before the flight lands.