Just to put a different spin on things if I may; my views would be slightly different on the above points, which of course may not be correct. I see it like this:

- On a flight by flight basis, BA would not have direct control of what is and isn't loaded, but from many departure stations did they ever? Although the previous system was far easier to predict uptake volumes, at many stations it was the handling agent compiling the meal figures to be loaded, not BA.
- Third party catering like this would usually work on a management fee basis with client satisfaction determining fees on a sliding scale. A third party management company would often own the stock, but always recharge back to said client anyway. Whilst it would be no good to mass over catering from a wastage point of view, simply selling 100% of loaded stock on every rotation serves no purpose when the backlash comes to a client about shortfalls; not a good way for TourVest to operate if they aspire to accomplish any sort of contract retention at all. Surely just a being associated with the two brand names would be a silver lining to them in itself.
- I would bet my Monopoly money that BA could compel Tourvest to load more stock, especially if they are not complying to elements of some sort of service level agreement which I will be gobsmacked if BA haven't imposed on them contractually.

Anyhow, a viewpoint from a slightly different angle never goes amiss. Who knows.