As I assume by posting this w/o comment you want to state something along the line: "Dangerous, huh???"
That really is an interesting question to discuss:
My take:
Assuming we are looking at an A 320 (hard to tell from the 321 or the B757/767, but that is what Spanair usually flies on these routes, the B 767 they also fly has a different carriage/wingtip layout as far as one can tell from the vid) check this one, same wind same plane one yr ago which looks much more "dangerous" from my POV, the Hamburg one (but *truly* not "almost crashes"...):
There are established crosswind rates that are allowed (slightly above 30kts on the Airbus), and as long as you stay within those limits you should be fine, but of cause gusts can do you harm. In the HH case it was 28 kts, stiff, but rather random, standard...
*All* crosswind landings at high crosswinds (you *have* to put the nose and the wing into the wind to be able to hold trajectory = "crabbing") will *look* spectacular/scary but actually are "standard" and it is just the uninformed spectators/journalist that see something overly out of the order and transmit (their) scare (if you google crosswind landing videos you will find hundreds)... Here a "Top 10" including aborts, Canaries and Funchal - where aborts are the order rather than the exception - and Hong Kong (and the go-around is a *standard* maneuver under those conditions...):
If its an Airbus, you will have the flight software impeccably take care of pilot/gust input glitches (and I think that is what we see on the vids) and avoiding a stall, so still less reason for scare.
Without a METAR from the time/place (I dont recall it to have been Bilbao, but close) we wont know whether it indeed was dangerous or standard, my guess (checking the pprune forum has no notice on it) it was the latter.
Spectacular, but not overly dangerous. Standard.
"Random and shit. Isn´t it? Isn´t it? Isn´t it? Standard!"
Rattler (mods, feel free to move the latter part to the humor section...
)
