Of course, if someone had the foresight to ascertain the forecast/actual winds and aircraft limits thus designating a sensible runway (rather than sticking with a 'temporary' protocol) we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Alternatively, is the current runway designation protocol so backward that there has to be a number of GAs (with the potential for fuel emergencies etc) before management get off their backsides and decide on designating a runway that is far safer? Of course, safety and business priorities often conflict.
