subject2load

BAEC

Hamburger

Andriyko

The biggest shock in this thread is that we're talking about involving law. Over an item on the menu. In addition to the insistence of many that the item is not the scone as it clearly says on the menu but afternoon tea.

This discussion is going nowhere. Those who want to blame BA will continue stating that the product is afternoon tea. I can't read that menu in any other way. It's like group insanity that one item on the menu for some reason causes all of this confusion. No other item on the menu causes this confusion even though all of the items are listed in exactly the same font. People can tell red wine from white or still water from a soda, but for some reason they have difficulty reading the word 'scone' and see 'afternoon tea' instead. a 'red wine' is not fine print for 'Wine" but when it comes to the infamous scone it becomes fine print for the non-existing afternoon tea product. Items are either described in the same manner or they are not. If some want to be confused they're welcome to. But we're obviously worlds apart in our reading of the menu.

NickB

Well, "group insanity" could be an explanation for people not agreeing with you. But other explanations are conceivable. It could be that your way of seeing things is a tad rigid and that you struggle to see things from a different perspective to your own.

T8191

Oh no you don’t!

Good try, but ...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger

Andriyko

No, I am not struggling to see anything. I wrote many times that people may be surprised that it is a scone only for GBP5 if all they pay attention to is the title of the section, which is afternoon tea. But you are right that I can't see how anyone can be confused if they look further down to see what the item on the menu is (what you call 'fine print'). I just can't understand why 'Grand Sud Reserve French Syrah Malbec' is an item rather than fine print for WINE, but the scone (listed in the exactly same manner) is fine print for AFTERNOON TEA rather than a stand alone menu item. Do we read the menu in the same manner or do we suddenly become confused over one item when it suits us?

orbitmic

For anyone with a quirky taste for slightly surreal humour, this thread is slowly becoming a gem. (The following scenario is pure fiction, and any resemblance with any argument made in any FT thread would be purely coincidental...)

Prosecutor: I intend to demonstrate that Mr T(ea) took the victim's car whilst it was parked in front of Mr T's house and drove away with it

Defense lawyer: This is entirely wrong Mr T never touched, took, or drove the victim's car. The accusation is ludicrous and obviously wrong

Witness: I heard Mr T say that this was a nice car and that he was going down to see if the key was on it and drive away with it, and here is a photo of him entering the car which I took with my phone when he went down.

Defense lawyer: How many times do I need to repeat it? Mr T never drove the car. There is no witness that Mr T ever approached the car. Show me proof that Mr T ever touched the car! There is no such proof!

Prosecutor: Err... have you seen this photo?

Defense lawyer: It is irrelevant, he never touched the car!

Mr T: Of course I took the car! It was just parked in front of my house so I thought it was abandoned and I drove away with it. And yes of course I said that I was going to take the car earlier: it is a very nice car, why should I not drive away in it? I'm very proud to have driven away in that car.

Prosecutor: Ah, see? So since Mr T admits that he took the car and drove it away what exactly is your defense?

Defense lawyer: Mr T never took, touched, or drove in the car! I told you so many times. It is obvious that he never touched or took or drove away in the car. You must be blind if you think that he ever touched the car that is pure fabrication, I told you many times that he never took the car, show me any indication that he even knew that the car existed - there is no such proof. This is all madness or you just all hate Mr T and invent ridiculous stories to suggest that he took the car with no witness, no proof, and no confession whilst it is very obvious that Mr T never even approached or knew of the existence of the car!

Rinse...
Repeat...

NickB

Well, that settles it then. Given that you assure us that you have no problem whatsoever at putting yourself in somebody else's shoes and seeing things from their perspective, that leaves us with the alternative conclusion you drew earlier: those of us who do not agree with you are indeed collectively insane. That stands to reason and is a highly convincing explanation. No doubt the fact that those of us who are in that situation do not find this a very plausible explanation must be further proof of our mental derangement.

BAEC

@T8191 :-) .... Its Friday .... "Percy Pigs" anyone :-)

windowontheAside

That Mr T story describes exactly the approach adopted by some rather significant politicians of late. If you simply keep asserting something, then it IS true, regardless of fripperies like science that indicate otherwise.

It's astonishing how successful that strategy has become.

And yes, I am straying into Omni territory, but c'mon - no-one thinks this thread is still going anywhere useful/sensible still do they?

NWIFlyer

Folks, we are seeing some repetition here in terms of content, which is known as ‘piling on’. Please consider if what you’re posting is adding new ideas to the thread or simply re-hashing an existing opinion.

If the answer is the former, please continue to contribute. If it’s the latter, it may be a good time to let others have a chance ...

/mod

Andriyko

bastoj

I am surprised to see this subject is so emotive. To me, it seems pretty clear that yes, the menu is not lying to people and that some people will quickly pick up on the intended meaning. However, lots of people, probably less frequent flyers, in particular, will equally believe that it would include tea because of how it has been advertised, the cost etc. It doesn't take much empathy to understand that people can look at the same thing and draw different conclusions. Having flown with BA a fair bit, I'd take the position of assuming the worst and asking if it comes with a tea but lots of others would not.

I think the worst part is that when someone asks for an "Afternoon Tea", the CC accept that without saying that item does not exist and clarifying if they want a scone or a scone and a tea for £7.50. However, then given the official communications from BA except for the menu all seem to call the scone an afternoon tea it is easy to see why the crew probably think the scone is called that as well (especially if that is how it is shown on their credit card machine).

To sum up I think there is no right or wrong in this case, it can be seen both ways. But I personally would say that as BA is the multi-billion dollar company they should when they update the menus make it clearer because if it confuses even a subset of their customers that seems like an avoidable failure which ultimately leads to disatisfaction that they can easily avoid.

NickB

You latest posts added nothing to the substance of the issue that you had not already repeated ad nauseam earlier this thread and all I have to say to that is in post #282 . I suggest that you re-read that post, all the more so in the light of the post from our esteemed mod just above yours.
The only new item in your latest series of posts was the suggestion that the explanation for not seeing things your way had to be "collective insanity" so I answered to that and I think that I am done now on that too so please excuse me for not taking up your invitation to further answer on the same points.

origin

Please tell me there is a computerised system for counting, otherwise you would have gone through quite a few cups of tea..