Sooner or later, the bottom line is, we are going to lose nearly four
hundred people in one whack in a 777. No one, myself included, wants
this, but there has never been a commercially marketed airliner made
in any quantity that hasn't eventually had a catastrophic total loss.
IF that crash was in any way perceivable as a consequence of its being
a twin rather than four engine crash, heads are going to roll. Boeing
will likely have a judgment on their hands that will make them wish
they'd built piston singles instead, the operator will be in big
trouble and there will be regulatory changes and possibly a new
Administrator.

I beg to differ... the 737, 757, and 767 are all twins. Some of them
have crashed. Some of the 767's are ETOPS qualified. No one has
blamed any of the crashes so far on ETOPS or the fact that they were
twins vs. tri or quad jets.

There have been plenty of four engine jetliners that have crashed as
well. An Israeli 747 crashed in the Netherlands when it lost two
engines on one side of the plane at the same time (both separated from
the wing, so the were REALLY lost).

ETOPS isn't an exotic or inherently risky concept. In fact, I believe
that the additional rigors of ETOPS certification actually make ETOPS
planes safer. If you lose two engines in a 747, you are going
swimming just the same as if you lose two engines in a 777. There was
a case of fuel-mismanagement on a 747 operated by [not to be name U.S.
carrier] on its way to Narita that ran two engines dry, and barely was
able to stretch its glide to reach the airport with the two remaining
engines. If they hadn't been as close to their destination as they
were, they would have ditched in the Pacific.

Dean