Quite amazing looking at some of these replies! Nowhere in section3.2 of the report (Causes) does it mention fuel or the First Officer's experience as being factors.
In my view most crews would have tried for the second approach, given the wind change, regardless of wheather they had 3 tonnes or 10 tonnes of fuel on board!
A few people seem to think that if an aircraft has lots of fuel on board, the approach won't become unstable below decision height and that somehow it will prevent the airfield lights from extinguishing in a thunderstorm. Perhaps this is a feature of Microsoft Flight Simulator?
If the aircraft had been carrying a few extra tonnes there is a greater chance that the tanks would have breached with horrific consequences.
If the aircraft had gone around from the second approach, there was sufficient fuel on board to take it to BCN.
The captain took more than legal minimum fuel, which in itself is normally quite fat, based on a great deal of experience. What he took was enough, although not fat. It did not bring the aircraft down.
Any chance of discussing the facts of the accident and the lessons to be learned from it rather than worrying the fuel policies and minimum hours requirements of various companies to death?