B777-300 Captain reported the refusal of an aircraft due to a single pack ETOPS operations during pre-flight. Aircraft was taken out of service.

Narrative

Our Flight Operations Manual or FOM; contains pages and pages of information detailing our company's commitment and dedication to safety and the extraordinary role our Captains play in upholding that safety commitment.I exhibited my commitment to our airline's safety by rightfully and justifiably refusing Aircraft X operating from ZZZZ to ZZZ. Dispatch duty pilot and ZZZ Chief Pilot became involved after the refusal- and I believe their actions; tone and approach were inconsistent with the duties and responsibilities set forth for their respective positions as stated in the FOM; and were inconsistent with our airline's stated commitment to safety and respect for the leadership Captain's are asked to provide repeatedly by our company and the FOM.Furthermore; I believe the actions; tone and approach by these two management pilots were inconsistent with our corporate safety culture; our Safety Management System (SMS) and the goals; philosophy and commitments to safety as set forth in our FOM.In addition; I believe their behaviors amounted to pilot pushing" which also attempted to violate or usurp Captain's Authority; leadership and decision making as set forth in FOM with special emphasis on operational control in 14 CFR 121.533 and 121.535.I refused an aircraft because it was unsafe for an ETOPs flight at night in Winter. I do not take this decision lightly or without completing extensive due diligence using all relevant resources available; including my FO and Relief Pilot; Dispatch; Maintenance Control; and Local Maintenance. Aircraft X (777-300) had a long history of problems with its air system and arrived in ZZZZ with additional air faults involving the left flow control valve and left pack. ZZZZ MTX (Maintenance) thought they had fixed the problem but during pre-flight the problem returned and then eventually got worse as the upper flow control valve failed as well; making this a single pack ETOPS aircraft- a NO GO event per MEL XX-XX. Additionally; there were other anomalies occurring in the air system indicated by the air synoptic. Even if the lower valve was the only problem and deferred; the MEL XX-XX prohibited flight into ozone areas which would require extraordinary zig zagging flying perpendicular to all east bound and west tracks. I'm pretty sure ZZZZ [ARTCC] and ZZZZ1 [ARTCC] would not allow this and I wouldn't do it even if I could because it is unsafe.For all of these reasons the aircraft was properly refused with the concurrence and agreement from Maintenance Control; Dispatch and local ZZZZ MTX who knew this particular aircraft and its history well. The aircraft was out of service for a day and a half with ZZZZ MTX replacing a pack shut off valve. It flew to ZZZ1 where the same problems occurred again during descent. As of the time of writing this the aircraft remains out of service in ZZZ1.After my refusal; I called Dispatch for help with hotels and transportation- which is his job. He began to attack me by refusing at first to talk about hotels. He insisted we talk only about the aircraft I just refused. He appeared frantic and was combative; disrespectful; argumentative and treated me like I had done something wrong requiring me to defend myself. During the conversation and in texts afterwords he behaved as if he were working at Maintenance Control as a tech specialist; or as an aerospace engineer; or as a ZZZZ MTX technician- not a duty pilot at Dispatch. He sent information to me that was not accurate and not current while ignoring the fact that he was 4;500 miles away and I'm the one sitting in the cockpit with no less than 3 mechanics at our largest international MTX station. He was not helpful and only created more stress and conflict to a situation I had already resolved per my authority. Based on his actions; tone and approach- I question why this individual is working in a duty pilot. He was a safety threat to be mitigated.Nearly and hour after I had rightly refused the aircraft and the MTX Supervisor in ZZZZ had removed the aircraft from service- ZZZ Chief Pilot called demanding to know why I had refused the aircraft. I told him it was unsafe. His actions; tone and approach were interrogating; disrespectful; combative and argumentative. He continued to press for an explanation over and over demanding to know why I thought it was unsafe; claiming he wanted to know "so he can fix the aircraft." That is not in his role as a Chief Pilot per the FOM. I gave him an explanation and became angry as the decision was made and yet he kept pushing me and I told him so. He clearly did no research before the call; and chose to harass me during a challenging time as I tried to accommodate my crew. He was no help whatsoever and brought additional conflict and stress to a situation that had already been resolved. Chief Pilot was a safety threat to be mitigated.I suggest they both re-visit how to speak to our Captain's; what their roles actually are; and remind themselves that the flight department exists to serve the line pilots. If a Captain refuses an aircraft because it is unsafe- they both should respect that decision because that is what our policies require. Both of them second guessing my judgment when neither of them have real time facts is unacceptable and in violation of all of the aforementioned policies; procedures; culture and philosophy. Pilot pushing is well known at this airline and it is an attempt to force Captains into violating the very safety policies; procedures and philosophies this same airlines claims to hold so dear. The hypocrisy by some members of our flight department; in particular the two mentioned herein; cannot overstated. I made no less than 16 phone calls to Maintenance Control and dispatch; along with text messages that will validate these facts as will the log book history of this aircraft.Cause: Our company has made a commitment to " not spend one penny more than they have too" and there is no better evidence of this than the degradation of our customer experience and the maintenance of our aircraft. It is well none that the company has consciously stopped stocking parts and our turning our aircraft as quick as possible with no time for mechanics to repair anything. As a result; aircraft MTX items are deferred or some quick corrective action that doesn't fully investigate the issue as demonstrated by my event. This leaves the aircraft to continue until finally it hard breaks and a Captain says NO. It is also well known that that " nothing gets fixed until a Captain refuses the aircraft." This attitude and consistent demonstrated behavior flies in the face of our stated safety policies and elaborated commitment to safety and safety culture. Even worse; the airline goes into extraordinary length in our FOM to recognize the role our Captains play in the safe operation of our airline and require and demand us to be leaders and mentors and operate at the highest standards of safety. Yet when we demonstrate the leadership and commitment to safety they claim to celebrate and require; members of our flight department management that are more focused on their management career paths than anything else- work to obstruct; question; second guess; harass; intimidate; argue; criticize and and place obstacles and hurdles in the way of that very leadership. A safety culture hypocrisy."