Now there are only 2....in the name of cost savings and profit. The risk is on passengers not.
Tells you a lot about the airplane manufacturers and what they think of public safety.
Among the many unanswered questions is how the 787 battery problems will affect Boeing's effort to win FAA permission for the planes to make flights that venture further from the nearest airport, such as those that travel over wide expanses of ocean. The FAA has tighter requirements for such flights in twin-engine planes because it wants to make sure the plane can keep flying if it loses an engine or encounters other problems far away from a safe landing.
There was 2 reasons they had 4, 1 for big planes they did not have engines powerfull enought to fly a large plane on 1 engine, today that is not an issue, 2 engine reliablity has increased drasticly, and failures one reaching cruse level are few and far between. Highest reason for engine failure these days is bird strikes, and if you hit a big flock of birds 2 or 4 engines you are in deep trouble, but I think a bigger engine will likely hold up better than a smaller 1 for the same size bird ingested, as that is logical.
Perhaps. But more is better in my eyes, as you at last have a backup.
Very difficult to maneuver a plane to the ground with one engine.
But you're missing the point...... it's all done for cost savings...at your expense.
Remember a few years back, when the airlines tried to get on one pilot to fly the big birds?
They said a co-pilot wasn't necessary.
This goes to the same point.....cost savings at your expense.
Yes, you may be right.........dead right.