From BEagle: "Lest others think that AAR crews are cavalier with their fuel planning".
No of course they aren't - and the criteria you mentioned are exactly the minima my current operation stipulate. Except that we don't use them! The bare legal minimum has little flexiblilty and no 'fat' should something go wrong - like mulitple aircraft all diverting on minimum fuel. The tanker pilots would happily go down to these minimums in the right circumstances. in fact, they will sometimes on a trail (a long distance fighter deployment) give fuel away knowing that they have to divert - for if the formation fuel burn has been higher that expected (quite common) it's preferable for the tanker to divert that a fighter which may have live weapons or requirements such a liquid oxygen. And tankers aren't carrying fare paying passengers.
As I mentioned, my current employer doesn't cut to the minimum. We have a policy of aiming to land with at least one hour's fuel left (2.4T for an A320) and the fuel plan always has built in extra to take it to this and usually more. Admittedly, my home base has quite severe weather from time to time, is in a mountainous area and had political considerations which make some nearby alternates unusable, but safety is always put ahead of profit. I have never heard of a pliot being castigated for carryng too much fuel in ten years at my company.
I did a JAA A320 rating last year to keep my JAR licence current. The TIRE gave me flight plan from his company - a Low Cost Carrier. It was printed that morning, from the live weather and I was suprised to see the fuel from LGW to AMS was 3.9T arriving with 1.9T using Rotterdam as the alternate with only the 5% contingency added. I can happily state I have never landed an A320 with less than 2T in 5000hrs on type.