If I dispatch a flight from AAA to BBB, it holds inbound to BBB because it can't land (for whatever reason), and it uses up its allotted holding fuel, and I have to divert it to its alternate of CCC, it doesn't mean that the aircraft is being diverted because it's "running out of fuel". If one thinks about it, it's being diverted to prevent it from running out of fuel.
While I respect the need for media and a free press and all that, one of the things I absolutely detest about many media outlets is their penchant for breathlessly reporting facts while completely ignoring context. The media loves being able to "link" things. One day, it's China Airlines and an aircraft burning up from a fire (apparently fuel-fed). A day or two later, China Airlines diverts because of delays at an airport, some "airport" (and not "airline" spokesperson) mentions "fuel", and the media seemingly concludes China Airlines + "fuel" = another "newsworthy" story, or a way to extend the lifespan of the first story. The fact that the lead sentence of one of articles ("A China Airlines plane made an emergency landing at an airport in western Japan on Wednesday after it ran out of fuel") is so blatantly contradictory seems to make no difference. How did it land if it truly "ran out" of fuel? Another Gimli Glider or Air Transat scenario? Pretty damn unlikely, since the aircraft promptly refueled and re-launched to the original destination, without repairs or investigations. The fact is that it was just a "routine" diversion that had the bad luck to occur a day or two after a major news event. It was no BFD...until the media tried to make it one...
Coming tomorrow: China Airlines catering truck runs out of gas on the way back to the flight kitchen, complete with linked clips of the burned-up 737!