They should have realized earlier, that there was a good chance to become fuel critical.
A diversion to a nearby airport ( Newark, La Guardia etc…..) would have been the better option, better than declaring an emergency, forcing all other traffic to move aside.

La Guardia? Take a look at the airport diagram and take a guess why that wasn’t an option.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/LGA_airport_map.gif

EWR? Winds were reported at 310/24g34. And what runway would you plan on them landing there? 22L or 4R? What would the crosswind component be on those runways?

What other airport has the capability to handle a 767? HPN? TEB? ISP? Yeah, a lot of airports around but none are helpful.

Sometimes last hour changes can make you fuel critical. How close to his planned fuel burn was he enroute? Were the winds stronger than forecast? Did changes in airport operations or routing changes increase the amount of fuel required?

I’ve been less than 30 minutes into a 4 hour flight, been given a reroute and been forced to declare “min fuel” because the routing around weather increased our burn significantly. We had enough for the flight but couldn’t accept any further delays. I’ve also been within 1 hour of the airport, been given delaying vectors because ATC had to slow the arrivals because of high winds, change in runways, weather, etc. that meant we when from having significant reserves upon landing to cutting it close. Weather was forecast to be fine so no alternate airport was planned yet plans changed.

We don’t know what his alternate(s) were and what weather they were experiencing. I’m sure a lot can change in a forecast from departure to arrival. It’s very possible EWR was his alternate but the crosswinds ended up being just as stiff if not worse there. Sure he could have used more of his reserves to go there and fight those winds but why should he if JFK has a perfectly usable runway that would make for an easier approach. Sometimes ATC gets tunnel vision and keep throwing aircraft after aircraft at a runway even with increasing tailwinds, inbound weather, etc. I’ve heard “well the last aircraft did it” more than a few times on arrival if you request vectors around weather rather than go through it. Not to mention sighs of disappointment if you deny a runway because the tailwinds are too high. Airports all have runway configurations that are ideal for arriving and departing aircraft, JFK is no different. As soon as operations require them to abandon that arrangement arrival and departure rates can decrease significantly and now create a whole other list of issues for them. “If all the airplanes would just accept runway X things would go a lot smoother…”

I would venture a guess this Captain isn’t new to JFK and quite verse in their ability to keep aircraft on a particular arrival despite unfavorable winds. “Well, the last aircraft did it…” It only takes 1 guy to stick up before others join in and start denying ATC assignments.

In IAH the preferred runways to use are those landing to the West. ATC will jam as many aircraft down that way until someone stops accepting it. I like to call it the “Houston Headwind”, 10 knots off the tail. That’s a pretty standard max tailwind component for aircraft and means 1 knot of increased winds makes landings impossible but they’ll push it until it becomes a problem.