OK Max Angle, here's the problem I was faced with a few years ago. I had 9 aircraft inbound, all trans-oceanics, 6 of whom on first contact stated "minimum fuel", because of either adverse winds or bad planning. Now, 5 of these inbounds on minimum fuel aren't going to be number one and from the statement "minimum fuel", I cannot tell who has the least fuel of the 6. So, I have to ask all in turn if they are "declaring an emergency". And the answer from all 6 was NO. So I'm back to my original problem of sequencing, except that I now know that someone up there probably is genuinely low on fuel or will be if they are made number 6 in the sequence or have to hold. Now, not one of these minimum fuel aircraft declared an emergency even though 5 of them had to be vectored or speed controlled.
Many years ago if a Captain was in the same situation he would have said something along the lines of "We're low on fuel and don't have enough reserves left for holding. If there's any holding we need to divert". In which case ATC know exactly what the situation is and will ensure that, subject to weather and other emergencies that particular aircraft gets in ahead of others who may have to hold or will be told of the ATC situation which makes it impossible. There seems to be an increasing reluctance among the younger Captains these days to declare a fuel emergency for fear of jeopardising their future.
I appreciate that in this day and age commercial pressures play an increasing role in the way many fleets are operated and the luxury of the Captain getting the refuellers to "put a little extra in for Mum and the kids" no longer exists. Sadly, though many operators are taking off with not much more than is the absolute legal minimum fuel requirement.
However, the use of the phrase "minimum fuel" seems to be becoming more prevalent and if it is used by all operators then the whole system is at risk.
I'm sure you are aware of Avianca Flight 52 which crashed near New York back in 1990 after running out of fuel. It was only after 75 minutes holding that the crew declared that they were "running out of fuel". The point here being that they were probably close to "minimum fuel" when they entered the hold but they only decided to tell ATC after 75 minutes of holding. A "minimum fuel" call would have been meaningless as due to the weather I'm sure most of the other aircraft holding were in the same situation.
The NTSB report on the accident determined the cause as pilot error due to the crew never declaring a fuel emergency to air traffic control as per IATA guidelines.
The pertinent word here being "emergency". So that's what the actual problem is and why not only is it annoying R/T saying "minimum fuel" but is also meaningless to ATCOs. I hope this clarifies the situation.
On the beach