Yes, it’s the Anglicised corruption that we use in Australia so why not use that term?
I don’t mean dumb down the whole thing but if it’s not a commonly used expression and probably not commonly understood, then don’t use it. People should be able to understand what’s in the food they’ve been offered.
I’m pretty well travelled but there are frequently terms on Qantas menus that I don’t understand. A couple of times when I’ve asked the Cabin crew they didn’t know either!
Well, see that's the odd thing. I've seen
garoupa even in Australia more than
grouper; truth told, this is the first time I've actually thought about that both words refer to the same fish. We obviously turn in different circles, but in no way is mine more upper class (perhaps less Anglo-Australian and more Asian).
So in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with
garoupa at all, and for me it comes to mind first compared to the other spelling.
I get that using some terms for various food items can be confusing for those that are not familiar with it or the cuisine from where it comes or is derived from. We've had this argument before; I just don't think it really holds strongly in this particular case.
The crew, particularly in First, should know what the dishes are. It's First Class - like any decent restaurant, they need to know their wares. Don't they get cheat sheets or illustrative guides, e.g. to help prep the food? Also, wouldn't they need to have such info to include list of ingredients to check for allergens? I've been on a E90 CBR-BNE flight where the FA appeared to have enough information on hand to confirm the absence of an allergen for a travel companion. Surely in this case, an FA should at least know that a garoupa is a white fish.
