Isn't that because the twins are designed to a higher standard, due to regulations such as ETOPS? It's not something inherent in two vs four engine designs?

I remember when the US Navy was rejecting single engine aircraft, and the F135 had be be proven literally bulletproof before they would even look at the F-35.

Engine designs get better and better over time, and tend to become new minimums in safety standards.

My understanding is that the 747 has the highest safety record of any commercial plane. Is that not true?

Hard to beat other planes that have not had fatal crashes or hull losses, especially when you consider the Tenerife crash.

The Tenerife crash was due to pilot error, not any problem with the 747.

While true, aircraft fatality statistics generally are not split that way.

The 747 is a safe aircraft, but there have been a lot of fatalities associated with it, due to pilot error, terrorism, improper repair/maintenance, etc.

Can you link to the source?

My time working on Flight Controls at Boeing.

Not sure if you ever make it over to HKG but there are quite a few cargo 747s that still seem to be making the rounds. CX and others have them on the GA / cargo side, and when on Lantau you often see (and hear!) them on final or takeoff.

I think CX would hate to retire them because from what I understand their load capacity is unparalleled. And you can load horses in them! There'll always be money from that for HAECO to keep them aloft.

It's even better when you're at the bus terminal at HKIA and watching them fly overhead...

My dad took me to Frankfurt AM to watch the first 747 to land there. Wow!

Can you at least explain the reasoning then?

there's a book on this, "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge: An Insider's Account"

I don't know if it lays out the safety math but it goes very deep on twin engine safety and some of the fights over the a340 vs. 777 regulations