It is many things it starts with the raw materials so the relative quality of the grapes being deployed which in large part reflect their provenance and vineyard location, then there is the blending process involving the mix of the 3 different Champagne grape varieties and the blending of grapes of different quality and provenance within a single variety. Then there is the dosage and yeasting process and the length of maturity.

Personal preference also plays a part in determining what is nice versus nasty.

Ultimately though it is normally pretty easy to tell a high quality fizz which I don't like is a high quality fizz. It is like comparing a McDonalds burger with and aged Angus burger. I typically don't like more meaty burgers or sausages for that matter but I can recognise them as higher quality when I taste them even if they aren't always to my taste.

So I find the LPGS drinkable but it isn't a favourite of mine whereas CdC I really like. I like Bolly (even NV) which is relatively cheap but well made but I hate Armand de Brignac which is expensive but not at all to my taste.

My objection to the lounge drink changes isn't cost driven it is taste driven. I hate Gordons and Bombay gin but like Tanqueray (which is a similar cost to the Bombay). If the JW Blue were being replaced by an interesting selection of cheaper single malts that could actually be a better overall offering (especially if the selection included Ardberg, Oban and Talisker).

You can reduce costs and provide a better service but you can't do both if you really don't care about the end service offering.