To think people that dislike kids eat for free are mean

[sevnuwt]

My brother is saying he boycotts anywhere where the kids eat for free as he feels like he's paying extra as an adult for other people's kids to eat for free.

Aibu to think he's just being mean?

The price a childless adult pays has nothing to do with whether or not kids eat free- the price they charge for an adult meal will be the maximum that they have calculated most people will pay for that adult meal.

They may have calculated the price that adults will pay if their children eat for free though. I have stayed in Premier Inn many times and it is mainly families with children at breakfast as it isn't that good value per person unless you eat huge amounts.

Does he go to places that offer cheaper entrance to children? I don't see it as different to that.

The markup on restaurant food is so large that the price charged is not related to cost. A child's breakfast costs less than £1 for the ingredients. You are not subsidising kids meals, you are just paying more towards the fixed costs/restaurant's profit as you do with anything where adults cost more.

That depends on the child wine Dd1 tucked in a full cooked breakfast and fruit etc. Dh ate badly anything.
No way would we have a Premier Inn breakfast with dc.

Barely

The markup on restaurant food is so large that the price charged is not related to cost. A child's breakfast costs less than £1 for the ingredients.

It's not just the ingredient. What about the cost of the staff who cook the food and serve the food or cleaners. These costs will be higher if the restaurant is serving a huge buffet breakfast rather than a cup of coffee and pastry. Whilst younger children may not eat that much (although older ones will) they will often waste food and create mess so all-in-all maybe not that much cheaper than adults.

Also Premier inn serves free breakfast to children up to the age of 16. Many teenagers will eat a lot more than £1 worth of food.

You will have those staff on anyway. Kids don't take up their own tables and it you don't need more cooks to put a bit of extra food on.

Not much over. Sausage and bacon at wholesale prices are very cheap.

I find people obnoxious if they are too interested in what kind of deals other people are getting (with the exception of things where negotiating prices is customary). Either he's getting a good deal, or he's not. What kind of deal someone else is getting really shouldn't enter into it.

When it comes down to it he is just saying that £8.99 is a lot of money for breakfast if you don't want to eat a lot. It's worth it if you get to feed children too for the same price but if you don't have children with you that doesn't help.

This is such dense, simplistic thought. I ate with the dc at a place where there was a kids eat free offer this week. I could also pay with Tesco vouchers (which I did so obviously didn't even use the offer); there was a 25% offer if you downloaded a voucher and a set menu. So no one needed to pay full price if they didn't want to. I assume he boycotts anywhere that has any offer that he can't use.

And the utter irony. He is quibbling over a couple of sausages at Premier Inn, when if he holidays outside the school holidays his holidays are 'subsidised' by those with children who have to pay full whack. That is a lot more 'subsidy' than a free sausage.

Yanbu at all OP.

Of course it is how it works. That is basic economics. If you don't charge some people you will have to charge others more than you would have done to make a profit.

You clearly don't know much about economics. If charging children means that families don't eat breakfast at the hotel because of the specific price elasticity of that service for families then you make less not more. It depends if your main measure is revenue/ overall profit or profit margin really.

I get not choosing to eat in these places but not eating breakfast in your hotel is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Premier Inn breakfast are a lot cheaper for a full breakfast than those in other hotels even with the "kids eat free" thing.

He sounds a bit of an idiot.

Kids eat free is just a form of marketing. If he refuses to eat at kids eat free because he's "subsidising" the parents he should refuse to buy anything advertised at a sporting event he doesn't watch or that advertise on TV channels he doesn't watch - as that advertising is just "subsidising" the event/TV programmes. He shouldn't go to the cinema, many entertainment venues, or travel on public transport or on planes (child and/or senior citizen pricing). He probably shouldn't even stay at the hotel as most with a kids eat free breakfast will also have a kids stay free policy.

You clearly don't know much about economics. If charging children means that families don't eat breakfast at the hotel because of the specific price elasticity of that service for families then you make less not more. It depends if your main measure is revenue/ overall profit or profit margin really.

Alternatively, if they charged children as well as adults but lowered the price for everyone then families could pay a similar amount but it would be a better deal for people without families. That is how pretty much every other restaurant prices meals. Prices for small children are usually less but teenagers have to pay the same amount as adults as they can eat the same amount. Not saying that Premier Inn should do that as how they want to price things is up to them but it isn't a good deal for everyone else.

You will have those staff on anyway. Kids don't take up their own tables and it you don't need more cooks to put a bit of extra food on.e in other hotels even with the "kids eat free" thing.

If they are serving 450 people (e.g. 250 adults plus 200 children) rather than 250 people then of course they will need more staff to cook, serve the food and clean up afterwards. Children might not need their own tables but families need a bigger table than couples which would take up extra space.

Maybe dungeon, maybe not. I'm sure that they have done more analysis on it than us, however. The point is that it isn't 'simple' as the previous poster suggested.

Maybe dungeon, maybe not. I'm sure that they have done more analysis on it than us, however. The point is that it isn't 'simple' as the previous poster suggested.

I'm sure that they have done an analysis but it may be on the basis that almost everyone who stays at Premier Inn has children with them anyway so making the children's breakfasts free will seem like a good deal. They probably are charging adults more than they would have done if children weren't eating for free and while this is obviously not a problem for those with children, those without would be better off going elsewhere.

I really don't think most people have children with them. Not when I've stopped there anyway. They must think it makes business sense though or they wouldn't do it. There is also an offer where adults can have free breakfast if they eat dinner there.

I really don't think most people have children with them. Not when I've stopped there anyway. They must think it makes business sense though or they wouldn't do it. There is also an offer where adults can have free breakfast if they eat dinner there.

It perhaps depends on when you stay there. During school holidays (we always used to stay there a lot) they are usually packed with families at breakfast time. It may not be during term time but quite possibly many of the people who stay there are travelling on business so breakfast would be on expenses anyway.
I'm not saying it doesn't make business sense for them to do this, but it doesn't mean that paying adults aren't effectively subsiding the free children's breakfasts. Very possibly, if they did charge children they would lower the cost of adult breakfasts.

But equally it possibly isn't the case that this would result

The issue for me is the sniffy comment about 'basic economics' when we quite simply don't know the answer either way.

It is "basic economics" that if restaurants don't charge for children they can get away with charging the adults more as if they are all families they will see it as a good deal anyway. It is similar to all the "half price" meal offers that some restaurants seem to do permanently- they up their prices so that with the voucher you end up paying pretty much what you would do anyway. Without a voucher you end up paying more for the meal compared to competitors who don't do this. It may attract customers but it doesn't mean they are getting a particularly good deal.
Those without children and/or vouchers are certainly not getting a good deal. For this reason, I only stay at Premier inn and eat their breakfast with children and I only go to pizza express etc if I have a voucher.

No it isn't that simple which I have explained because it is down to elasticity of demand for different types of customer. You cannot base assumptions on how everyone behaves on your own personal spending patterns. It also isn't true that it is a bad deal for all adults, that is only the case if you don't eat much but want a cooked breakfast. Remember a lot of adults will be on business also.

No it isn't that simple which I have explained because it is down to elasticity of demand for different types of customer. You cannot base assumptions on how everyone behaves on your own personal spending patterns.

I'm not basing assumptions on my own spending. I'm basing my assumptions on logic. Restaurants will charge as much as they can. Children eating breakfast is not free so in order to give them free food they will have to charge adults more. They can't charge adults as much as they like because they have competition but they can get away with charging a lot more if they are not charging children anything.

It also isn't true that it is a bad deal for all adults, that is only the case if you don't eat much but want a cooked breakfast.

The rooms are quite expensive compared with similar rooms in similar hotels. It is worth paying if you have children because they can share the room and the beds are good. It is not worth the extra if no children. The cooked breakfasts cost more per adult than similar places such as Tobery Cavery or Weatherspoons.

All this talk of subsidizing seems to assume that restraunts, and breakfast service in particular, is a profit centre for hotels. But I would expect room prices to be subsidizing the restraunt.