Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

thinking people should monopolise tables in self service restaurants when they haven't got any food

266 replies

workshy · 05/06/2012 21:13

been out to Chester zoo today and had a fantastic time however we went to eat in one of the self service cafes, had to queue up for food for 15 minutes and then when we went to find a table there were none.

There were however lots of tables with one or 2 people sat on them with no food -when I asked if we could share there table we we told that the seats were taken by people who were still queuing for food and it would have taken us 10 minutes max to eat a bowl of pasta each

we were eventually shouted over by a very nice man who told us that they would be finished in a minute and he gave us his table

now I'm guilty of doing this in the past but now see the error of my ways -no issue with people sitting down to feed a baby while they wait for their partner, or people who are infirm sitting down to wait but these were people that just could be arsed

so AIBU to think that people shouldn't nick tables until they are actually ready to use them?

OP posts:
Noqontrol · 06/06/2012 23:50

You might not do that if you noticed the children next to me shouting 'mummy I need a poo right now' actually belonged to me. But it's kind of you to offer Grin

WorraLiberty · 07/06/2012 00:00

I'll ignore them if you promise to do the same

We can slip them our unwanted pickle slices under that table

I mean anyone would have to be clearly mad and bonkers to want to eat them...right??

Noqontrol · 07/06/2012 00:12

Oh I can ignore them, that's no problem.

But I couldn't mess the floor up with pickle slices for someone else to clean up, how rude I bloody love pickle slices, i couldn't give them to the floor, godammit, just ringing the out of hours emergency number now Grin

HaleAndPacemaker · 07/06/2012 00:48

Oh these threads do piss me off.

As a lone parent if I'm out for a coffee or lunch it's always either alone or with one dc.

Table hoggers make trips out a nightmare if I/we are going somewhere busy.

I've paid full price for food just as you have so why can we not have a table for two? Why are we expected to sit with strangers, or stand with our food going cold, or leave and come back later once you table hogging bastards have finished being selfish?

I fuly appreciate the "well there are six of us" argument, but with normal sized parties when you can see it's busy it's just rude.

And as for the "well it's only sensible to get a table first" brigade, how are you supposed to do that if you're the only adult short of potentially leaving your child and/or belongings out of sight? Totally unnecessary if people were just a little more thoughtful IMO.

I've been on here for five years and i think this is my first ever ranty post!

exoticfruits · 07/06/2012 07:00

I was a lone parent from the time my DS was 1 yr to 7 yrs. It was never a problem - by the time he was 2 yrs I parked him on a table, where I could see him, and went in the queue. The last thing you want in a queue with hot drinks is pushchair or a toddler. He was fine.
If I couldn't see him I went somewhere else I do that as an adult on my own - go somewhere else- it is horrible if too crowded however many you have in your party.
I can't understand - even after all these posts, why you would get food on an off chance you might get a table.

WasabiTillyMinto · 07/06/2012 08:21

Taking the table before getting food decreases turnover of customers so increases prices. So if you wonder why the foods expensive....

york67 · 07/06/2012 08:30

Plus as someone else said up thread if you are on your own there may be tables available when you join the queue. However, by the time you collect the food they could have been taken by people just arriving. Not really fair is it?

Sirzy · 07/06/2012 08:44

Again on your own you ask to share.

The turnover of tables argument doesn't work with me either. Are we really getting that wound up about how long people are sitting at their tables? Are you going to kick people out as soon as someone has eaten the last mouthful? Have a minimum spend to be able to have a table? You could go on forever with silly restrictions but places don't they are quite happy to have bums on seats.

exoticfruits · 07/06/2012 08:48

Of course the management wants you to queue first-they get a faster turnover!
They do however have to take some responsibility for a better system.
I am often on my own york67-generally someone is going -but if not it is simple on your own-as one you can easily join someone else.
If you want to queue first go ahead, but don't think that you have the high moral ground or that people will change.

exoticfruits · 07/06/2012 08:49

If I am meeting a friend the coffee or food is unimportant-we are going for social reasons-we want a seat and a chat.

exoticfruits · 07/06/2012 08:51

We don't want to have to join someone else and have to talk about recent bereavement or similar in front of them. We want our own table.
As a single person you can join another single person and neither is chatting.

tinkerbel72 · 07/06/2012 09:40

I think some people still haven't read / grasped the op ! She did 'ask' to share (though I use the word ask loosely as the tables don't belong to the table hoggers.) She was met with The response that the seats were already 'taken' by people in the queue. How was the op supposed to verify exactly how many people per table hogger were in the queue? For all we know the table hoggers could be just selfishly wanting the entire table to themselves.

The turnover time is a simple fact, even if some people can't grasp it! And it doesn't mean people having to jump up as soon as they've finished their last mouthful.

Clearly the best approach is that self service restaurants adopt the policy described upthread- tables first, for EVERYONE regardless of the size of party, with a member of staff monitoring and a queue for tables of necessary. If people cant/ won't wait in a queue for a table at peak times they are free to go elsewhere- no problem.

In essence, the system is really just like everyone bagging a table but it's done fairly on a first come first served basis. If anyone disagrees with the system it rather implies that they only like the idea of table bagging if they can queue jump ahead of other people Grin

bigjoeent · 07/06/2012 09:40

I'm in the find a seat first, then queue for food camp. I've 20 month old twins and a 5yo and no way am I standing in a queue with them, getting the food and then trying to find a table plus 2 high chairs. As we eat early at lunchtime before the rush, there generally isn't a lack of tables. I go early to make sure we can find a table. We're not waiting long between the children and DH finding a table, getting the HCs and settling before I arrive with the food.

I can understand people being irritated with this, and I am probably being selfish but I am trying to make my day out as stress free as possible. Oh, and don't try the my children can wait in line argument, try doing it with 2 inquisitive 20 month olds.

bigjoeent · 07/06/2012 09:43

Tinkerbel, no problems with the queue for a table approach, I just don't see many places using it, the ones that don't are typically at museums, theme parks etc. The extra staff involved to do this may also increase prices.

tinkerbel72 · 07/06/2012 09:51

I doubt there's a great increase in staffing costs as its a really simple system and is obviously something that's going to be used in places which are popular anyway. The poster upthread said it was introduced in her local cafe precisely because of people not being able to sit and eat due to table hoggers blocking up the tables without eating. So clearly a popular place with lots of customers. The only sort of place which wouldn't need the system is somewhere which always has plenty of free space... So youd need to ask yourself if you'd really want to eat there....

bigjoeent · 07/06/2012 09:59

A system may be simple but it doesn't mean that it always appropriate for a particular place

  1. just because it is simple doesn't mean that extra costs aren't attached. It is up to the cafe to determine whether or not the additional staff costs vs more efficient turnover of tables is worth it, especially with the economy as it is at the moment. Whilst they may only use it at busy times, I think that you underestimate the costs involved and the very tight margins that cafes operate on.

  2. Take the cafe national railway museum, very busy but with a number of entry points into the cafe, it wouldn't be feasible to have such a system as people could just walk in another way which would defeat it and cause more arguments.

Plus, I could only use this system if a cafe introduces it, if it doesn't I can't so I have to make the best of it. One place near us does use this system, I just get there early as its very popular. Simple really Smile

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread