As an ALPA-trained airline accident investigator and a retired airline captain with 17,000+ flying hours, military and civilian. I am appalled by this Airbus crew's decisions below about 200 feet. When I am looking at a runway from out of a side window (instead of the usual view from the front window), I GO-AROUND. I then either return for a landing on a runway better aligned with the winds, hold until the winds abate (not usually a good option), or procede to my best legal alternate.
The aircraft I flew for a major US airline (MD-80 & Boeing 737-series) had maximum crosswind limitations of 30 knots. "JAUSTIN" below corrected the wind reported in the press to 56 mph. I'll further refine that to 48 knots (1 knot is 86% of 1 mph). I do not know how much of that 48 knots was a direct crosswind component, but since there was damage done to the aircraft you can bet your sweet empenage that the truth will out, and they were probably exceeding stated aircraft limitations by a considerable margin.
That stunt would have gotten me fired. I hope it did that crew. To say luck was with them that day is an understatement. This was almost the video that would have been instrumental in solving the investigation of a landing crash that (might have) killed scores.

Watch the video clip again and listen. Viera directly states that the winds were 150 MPH. Now, I find that difficult to believe as that is hurricane force winds, but the fault is not with HuffPo making a math error...it's with them simply parroting what another member of the media says without doing any investigation of their own.

And that's worse.

Second that comment. Can't be good for the tires, either, hitting at such an angle. Now for the phone vids from the cabin...

The very first thing I was taught when learning to fly was if you encounter problems on approaching to land to add full power and go around.

As the old adage says, "there are old pilots and bold pilots but there are no old, bold pilots."

yes, and it also gives them a much needed moment to collect their luggage and visit the loo before landing.

Most modern airliners have an autoland capability, but they're limited as far as how much wind they can handle. We use it more for landing in heavy fog. Even then, both pilots are watching the system very closely to make sure it's doing what it's supposed do.

What? The pilot hung in there. If ATC said land he was just doing his job - and in the end he did it well.

I would have decoupled the transporter's Heisenburg compensator then eject the warp core.
And my tray would be in the upright and locked position.

You have got to be some kind of idiot who's never logged a second of "stick time". You might want to scrape together a few bucks and take an introductory lesson at your local airport. Then tell me about how shutting things down is going to help.

2,000,000 hours? You must have trained at the Wright Brothers Flying Academy in 1908.

The plane was LANDING -- shutting off the engines would have been a wee bit problematic (not to mention suicidal), don't' you think?

good one tot! seems like everyone else here took you literally.

AMERICANS ARE INTO HYPERBOLE...

We exaggerate everything, including the Democrats' chances this fall....

It does. The system was actually classified at the time the plane was originally built.

It was designed that way more out of necessity than anything else. Because of the landing gear configuration, the only way to land the plane in a crosswind was to crab it. If you used the traditional "wing low" method you'd hit the tip-gear on the runway first (bad).