I too find ETOPS an amazing subject.
ETOPS doesn't require "no engine failures", but a prescribed rate of engine failures being below a certain level. For 180 minutes ETOPS this is 0.02 failures per 1,000 hours - or one failure per 50,000 flight hours fleetwide. This equates to each individual B777 having one or two engine failures during its entire useful life. What people can't fathom is that the random chance that those two engine failures will happen within 180 minutes of each other is so extremely remote as to say that it is statistically negligible.
I am not suggesting for a moment that dual-engine failure isn't possible. I'm saying that the reliability figures chosen make dual-engine failure so remote that it is statistically possible to derive that there is MORE chance of a 4-engine failure on a quadjet than a dual-engine mechanical failure on a twinjet. And yet, certain people still don't seem to understand that four engines doesn't make them any safer whatsoever, and proclaim ETOPS (a system of CRM and human factors requirements as well as redundancy and reliability features) to be something that is bad. ETOPS is terrific. It is, IMO, the best aviation system of operation yet developed, and I hope that the FAA applies it to other long-haul airplanes.
http://fly.to/avia3710 is a link to an ETOPS report.
Any airline flying to the USA must abide by FAA regulations. Therefore the A330 has been granted ETOPS by the FAA - to 180 minutes, infact, and this occurred several years ago.
And you're right - QF has the necessary ETOPS experience, having now flown 180 minutes ETOPS with its B767-300ERs for a decade, and -200ERs on 138 minutes for a few years longer than that. QF does not have issues flying a twin over the Pacific, I can assure you of that, and you can know that anyone who broadcasts otherwise on this particular messageboard either (i) is lying; or (ii) has no idea. :-)