A few thoughts:
- LGW is historically more of a "bucket-and-spade" and LCC airport; and I don't think I'd equate the No. 1 lounge at LGW North Terminal with a typical NA "business class lounge" - nor other two lounges at LGW, for that matter. IIRC, they are all offered as a buy-up option on the LCCs, and accessible with several lounge access options, and of course billed as a pay lounge (with multiple offers at any one time) which may also account why it's typically rammed.
- my pre-paid meal on WS4 a couple of months ago was a *lot* nicer than the BOB options I saw (and the one the OP took a pic of). That said, I completely agree that this is an area where WS need to review their business model and strategy; I think if they played it smart, they could leapfrog the competition for a relatively modest outlay. Given the ongoing problems they (still) have with their 767s, I'd be thinking hard and fast about some quick wins to address customer satisfaction and overall feelings about this route.
- the gate area WS have allocated at LGW is right at the end of the terminal, at the end of a l-o-n-g corridor with few-to-no concessions nearby (and, IIRC, bad signage to inform you of that). Coupled with the weird boarding process once you get down there, this really could be improved. But I think WS are at the mercy of LGW wrt their gate area allocation - not sure what they can do about that part of it. Not quite sure what's up with the secondary passport checks (which I recall, too) - but recall *sometimes* getting this when boarding AC TATL from LHR, so it might be something that's imposed upon them by the airport, but not all the time?
- ISTR something about those upgrading to Plus being able to get a refund on pre-ordered meal charges, where applicable. But I could be wrong. Makes total sense, given the net revenue gain for WS.
- isn't west-coast to Hawaii flight time not that much different from YYZ-LGW?
Having not (yet) been to Hawaii, I can't speak to the offerings and expectations on that route from NA. But there seems to be a disconnect here.
Having had the misfortune to fly an AC 77W HD on a YVR-YYZ red-eye in the last 48 hours, I'd never want to set foot on an AC HD bird on a TATL route.
Paying $100 on Rouge for 35" seat pitch DUB-YYZ on a 767 made for a surprisingly decent flight earlier this summer, but regular seats looked as grim as the mainline HD.
BA Y last December was really underwhelming for several reasons; seat was a lot more cramped than I recall from a few years back, and (as mentioned on the BA FT forum) lots of in-flight service things are being enhanced away, and I'd really not hurry back.
Haven't flown TS for a bit, but UK friends have used them to visit two summers in a row, one does a lot of long-haul biz travel and didn't have any issues with their last couple of flights.
I agree with the OP that the WS 767 seat is fine.
If WS can get their 767 reliability issues fixed (and fast!), and have a serious rethink on their catering strategy, I'd still like to see them do well on this route (and maybe others to Europe in the future?).
That said, this has been a terrible first year for them and I fear even turning around what they *can* control might not save them from the reputation those birds (or should we call them "Aussie albatrosses"? have wrought).