Capt.Doug wrote:
... Proceding as they did is no more inherently
dangerous provided they had alternates available if an additional problem
developed.

(I wonder if they took off from Manchester on three engines?)

Why not? I've done 2 engine ferry flights in B-727 numerous times overwater.

So what? The question was "is it SOP to take off with passengers and a
dead engine?"

The B-747 will fly on 2 engines as evidenced by a requirement for a
type-rating candidate to successfully demonstrate a precision approach with
2 engines failed on the same wing.

No doubt. But do you argue that going missed on two engines is as safe
as with four?


Early on I suggested IMHO that BA was "as dumb as a bag of rocks" if
their SOP approved this operation; there were (and are) two reasons for
this:

First, From a technical perspective I remain unconvinced that crossing
the Atlantic with a known dead and un-inspected engine is, per Part 121
"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

Second, From a business perspective keep in mind that there is a lot of
competition for business class ticket revenue.

If BA routinely crosses oceans with a dead un-inspected engine and other
carriers do not then BA will start losing customers as the word gets
around the frequent flyer crowd. I'll probably make six or eight more
trips to Europe this year; BA is no longer on my list of options until
the rest of the story comes out on this.