>

Well, at least it wasn't like the old joke.     
"How far can we make it on a single engine?"
"All the way to the crash site!"
"Qantas, definitely Qantas".  Ray was right. >

As an Australian we were so proud of that line lol. >

Worked like it was supposed to. >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot)


Sydney - A Qantas flight traveling from New Zealand to Sydney landed safely on a single engine after it issued a mayday call over the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday.
"While inflight engine shutdowns are rare, and would naturally be concerning for passengers, our pilots are trained to manage them safely and aircraft are designed to fly for an extended period on one engine," Qantas said.
Neil Hanford, chairman of Strategic Aviation Solutions, a Sydney-based industry consultancy, said 737s can fly quickly and land safely on a single engine.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: engine^#1 Sydney^#2 land^#3 flight^#4 Qantas^#5 >


"I turned on my phone and my wife had called me 18 times, 'Have you landed, have you landed?'" an unnamed passenger told reporters at the airport, according to Reuters.

Meanwhile the passengers had no clue until the pilot made an announcement because single-engine flight in modern aircraft is manageable. This is why I hate modern scoop-it-first journalism. They caused family undue stress and worry over nothing because they couldn’t wait for an outcome before pushing the story. >

There was an emergency response on the ground.
You'd prefer to let social media run wild with speculation?
Also likely the most danger to the plane at the moment would be panicking passengers. >

Emergency vehicles on the ground is a standard precaution... it doesn't mean the pilots are expecting anything to go wrong. It's just "this is a non-normal landing, let's have the fire trucks ready just in case something happens." >

Yah, people would see it and speculate.