It appears that airlines may be adding undue risk with their attempt to maximize efficiencies.
As noted in the FAR, protecting the traveling public is the goal, not airlines bottom line.
To quote, "Commercial aircraft have strict rules and regulations about operating in the vicinity of bad weather. Aircraft typically cannot take off unless the visibility at the destination airport is forecast to be at or above a certain distance, usually one-half mile. Moreover, airlines are cautious about aircraft operating in the vicinity of bad weather due to passenger injury. Generally, two-thirds of turbulence-related accidents occur at or above 30,000 feet. In fact, 46 percent of all passenger injuries in flight are due to turbulence encounters, and since 1985 have cost the major airlines more than 37 million dollars in personal injury lawsuits, according to the Department of Transportation. This issue alone would seem to leave most airline operators with no choice but to delay flights when turbulent weather approaches."
What would be the impact of multiple low fuel declarations be at JFK. "Under the current voluntary system, the FAA suggests that airlines hew to a limit of 100 operations per hour at JFK, and during some hours, airlines end up scheduling more than that."
azcentral.com/business/consu … 06-ON.html
With any miscalculation of fuel, might they limit themselves and the PIC to route options in flight and stacking at destination.