In fairness with BA, that's only very recent with the introduction of a couple of pre-order toasted sandwiches. For years before that, BA's BoB was cold only and in my view, it is still very poor and very poor value anyway. On balance, I just think that BoB on legacy carriers is generally a lot worse than on - say - U2 or W6.

In general, my sense is that despite what legacy airlines like to think, not everyone can do the low cost model well and that when legacies try to imitate low costs, they do it poorly. That's partly because the competitivity advantage of low costs over legacies has extremely little to do with offering a free sandwich and drinks vs BoB and a lot more to do with structural savings on personnel (own and subcontracted) costs, single plane single class model, exclusive point to point model and so on. For instance, the latter has deep ramifications which many of us typically underestimate: the cost of carrying a transfer bag is very high, the hub and spoke connecting model means that legacy airlines cannot use the very drastic ways in which low cost airlines deal with punctuality (FR is an extreme case here in some of its historical strategies), and of course, more simply, when you fly low cost you "know what you are buying". When people fly a legacy airline, many still have different expectations, and all the more so when many companies have moved to Y only on flights up to 4 or 6 hours when they used to cough for C a little bit more easily before.

But yes, whilst I wait to see the specifics, my guess is that AF's version of BoB will be a poor and expensive one. though perhaps not worse than BA (which is expensive and really poor) or LH (which is poor and really expensive).