What are you blabbering on about mate - total word salad lol.
Word salad? It's just English vocabulary, mate.
You keep trying to distract and divert - T&Cs, fare conditions etc. A company is responsible for its marketing too, because people make decisions based on the marketing eg prominent "Signature" wording in the journey list.
I'm not deflecting or diverting. If you could explain how, then I'd be happy to respectfully clarify.
I agree, a company is responsible for its marketing. However, I don't think it is responsible for how consumers interpret their marketing so long as their marketing is not malicious or misleading. If you interpret "Signature" to mean bottomless amounts of whatever stock there is, and with china plates and steel cutlery on an on-demand basis - that's on you. If the company promise this, and not deliver, that's on them. In LNER's case, it's clear that it's the case of the former. Clever marketing, yes. But that does not absolve people who think that that means they get the earth just because they have not read into the detail that is easily accessable before they purchase.
LNER did not promise the former, yet they still provide a level of service that makes you think that you are entitled to always receive it in every case to that standard as a matter of course with your ticket. That's why I made the point that LNER are the victims of their own downfall, since they create inflated expectations from consumers who feel aggrieved whenever the catering offer changes or is downgraded, simply because they are used to a standard that was never promised to begin with as a paid up entitlement. Expecting otherwise is just wishful thinking in an idealist world that doesn't exist nor is feasible without drastic price increases to guarantee it.
I wish - probably like yourself - that you'd receive the highest level of service every time. I am merely stating that the situation as it is now, does not guarantee that. And there is no point in pretending that it does or reasonably should given how it currently works.
And the attempt to blame the customers is a delightful piece of PR: the luxurious use of metal cutlery has created snobs and lofty expectations of certain food...? Riiiiight.
PR from whom? I don't speak for LNER, represent them, or work for them. And I am not simply or solely blaming customers for LNER's inconsistent offering. If you re-read my post, I was referring to the impression that providing certain amenities makes towards consumer perception of what they are entitled to and what they are not, regardless what the company officially states it will promise. That is not an unreasonable point to make.
Definitely not the prominent "Signature" menu displayed on services in the journey planner?
Google the definition of 'heuristics'. You have proved my original point just by this sentence alone.
If you were sitting strategically they used to give you one on the way out with the trolley and one on the way back
Ah I understand. Yeah that still happens, but it's only on request from the passenger.
The Azumas are only equipped with enough storage for 2 full cold-drinks carts, and each cart is designed for the average demand of a full first class in one run. If it's a full train, then serving on the way back to the kitchen means depleting the stock for another drinks run later on. In most cases when first class is full, crews go into around half of the second cart just to satisfy the demand for one drinks run offering (ie 3/4 of the total provision combined from both cold-drinks carts). Re-stocking isn't so easy in case of this, since priority is given to replenishing plates, cutlerly, cups and glasses at major stations - there isn't the space on the supplier trolleys to accomodate enough stock. Hence why you are seeing more rationing being done strategically these days. Pre-Azumas there was ample padding in diagrams plus greater capacity for drinks stock. Nowadays the new 'Velocity' timetable reducing dwell times, and the DfT's conservative approach to the onboard storage provision on the IETs has changed the catering situation drastrically compared to what came before.
The Azumas capacity plays a major part in it all sadly, they are not at all suitable to match the kind of service that was previously provided on the HSTs and 225s. It influences what crews are able to consistently offer, even on the 225s. As much as people want to give the Azumas the benefit of the doubt from a passenger perspective, from an operational perspective they are a nightmare for any staff member who is not driving them.