Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that 1 hr 30 min restaurant slots are pants

31 replies

Cecillie · 05/11/2021 16:57

And seem to be much more common post Covid, despite places being at full capacity.
Booked two places in last few days, one for next week, dinner with a friend and one first week in December for pre Xmas meet up with friends.
We want to have a three course meal and drinks and a good chat
In both cases the booking confirmation has come through with my 1 hr 30 time slot booked.
Previously, the only place I knew locally that did that was Jamie’s and I avoided it for that reason.
Will call the restaurant and ask if it’s enforced, and if so give Money to the local pub instead
I’m not going out to “eat” per se, could save money and do that at home.

OP posts:
Thunderpunt · 05/11/2021 17:00

If you're not going out 'to eat' per se, why not just go for a drink....

StarlightLady · 05/11/2021 17:01

I wouldn’t go to a restaurant doing this. The one exception l did make was when it was their only table available (you could see it was full) on a “walk in”. It was explained that they did have one table but it was booked from 8:30.

TheTurn0fTheScrew · 05/11/2021 17:02

90mins is tight. I object less if it's two hours.

Sadiequeenofscots · 05/11/2021 17:02

When I meet certain groups of friends for a meal, we would generally spend far more on alcohol than food, so I feel that some restaurants will lose out for this reason. I would go elsewhere or chose somewhere that also has a bar

Cecillie · 05/11/2021 17:02

No we obviously want to eat, I was meaning it is supposed to be a social thing not just shovel down the food and go.

OP posts:
JustDanceAddict · 05/11/2021 17:04

I hate it too but have a booking next week with that restriction. By the time we leave it’ll be 10.15 so v unlikely they’ll be more diners then.

Cecillie · 05/11/2021 17:05

@StarlightLady
We are all older, live rurally so will be driving and have two non drinkers in group anyway. So we would be spending on a three course meal with coffee and some alcohol

@TheTurn0fTheScrew
Agreed , two hours wouldn’t seem nearly as bad

OP posts:
RaisinFlapjack · 05/11/2021 17:05

I though 2 hours was bad enough but 1:30 is ridiculously stingy!

I know exactly what you mean about not going out to “eat” - it’s not about refuelling, it’s about having a drink, a good browse of the menu, time for three courses and linger over coffee. Or even if you don’t want all that, just to know it’s an option. If you know you’re on a clock it changes the whole dynamic.

Thunderpunt · 05/11/2021 17:09

I'm just off to work but I'll give you an alternative perspective quickly. Last Friday table of 3 ladies. Had a bottle of wine and 3 main courses. (We also give olives FOC while they are waiting for mains to come out) Finished after about an hour and a half, they then sat there for a further hour and 10 minutes.... and had 2 large bottles of tap water.....We turned away another table of 2 people (walk ins) who could have generated another £60.....

speakout · 05/11/2021 17:11

The whole idea of slots makes me uncomfortable.
Restaurants should not be accepting so many bookings that they lose flexibility.
A lunch in the city last week at a "posh" place- we were given 2 hours- a table for 7.
The places was so busy , it took them 30 minutes to come take our order, even for drinks.
Feeling time constrained we decided against starters, and it was another 30 minutes before our mains arrived.
Not a relaxed or pleasant experience.
I don't mind saying it was The Ivy,

LaetitiaASD · 05/11/2021 17:11

I'm guessing that there are plenty of piss-takers and they need to be efficient to make up for money lost during covid.

That said, I regard any restaurant meal as a luxury and a treat, and very few luxuries or treats involve someone stood there with a stop-watch. I'd be sorely tempted to not go on principle even if it was a quick lunch for two.

SliceOfCakeCupOfTea · 05/11/2021 17:13

Yeah this drives me mad.

In my old restaurant we always offered 2hrs minimum for a booking, especially if it was a group.

On the occasion that someone was pushed into a 1.5hr timeslot it was hell for the servers, the kitchen and the guests because everyone is rushing too much and ultimately, someone will be pissed off.

Aroundtheworldin80moves · 05/11/2021 17:16

A lot depends on how efficient the service is IMO, and if there is a bar to sit in after. But I can understand a restaurant wanting to be able to book the same time for 7 and 9pm. Or 6&8pm.

TheDuchessOfBeddington · 05/11/2021 17:19

Can you move dinner up till 1 hour 15 minutes before last orders? So arrive after 19.45 if last orders is 21.00? That way you’ll get the table for the whole night. I agree OP 1.5 hours is too tight. I hate being rushed.

SheWoreYellow · 05/11/2021 17:19

Last place I was looking at said “our slots are by default xx, but if you would like longer, just ask”. Surely any restaurant would be fine if you said you don’t think you can get there courses and coffee done in 90 minutes. They’d be happy to have you.

SheWoreYellow · 05/11/2021 17:20

*three courses

girlmom21 · 05/11/2021 17:24

I can't imagine they'll kick you out if you're mid-meal but their service better be fast if they're expecting 3 courses in 90 minutes!

Aderyn21 · 05/11/2021 17:26

I would ignore any pre agreed time slot if the restaurant took half an hour to take my order and a further half hour to bring it. It's on them if their booking system goes to shit, at that point.
I get that sometimes people will linger over one course and that's bad luck for the restaurant if they have a walk in who would have spent more. But equally they might not have that walk in and the booked customer is filling a space that would otherwise be empty. Running a restaurant comes with those kinds of risks.
1.30 hours is going to cost customers in the long run because most people would look elsewhere if there was no decent bar to have coffee and more drinks in.

thepastisanothercountry · 05/11/2021 17:31

With good service 90 minutes is not too bad but if its remotely slow then it's just not going to happen especially for 3 courses.

Djifunrsn · 05/11/2021 17:33

It's quite common now. Last time I went out, did the 1h30 in the restaurant then moved on to pub.

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 05/11/2021 17:35

I agree - people want to sit and chat over the meal. The best bit can be at the end when you’ve finished eating but sit about at the table and maybe order more drinks.

Hottubtimemachine · 05/11/2021 17:38

It’s common and I hate it. Went for a birthday treat lunch in London last week (Duck and Waffle), food was wonderful but we were not allowed to order desert or more drinks as ‘time was up’. I only managed one glass of wine in my slot as I’m a slow drinker and would have loved another and a desert!

xxxGirlCrushxxx · 05/11/2021 17:41

iOS this happening since restaurants opened again when restrictions were lifted?

Or has it been like this for years?

Cecillie · 05/11/2021 17:54

@Hottubtimemachine
Wow, that’s really appalling! Terrible terrible customer service right there.

@xxxGirlCrushxxx
I only ever came across it in one chain before Covid.
Fully understand hospitality industry suffered big time but I actually want to give them my money and have a good evening !

OP posts:
CovidCorvid · 05/11/2021 17:58

We had this recently and due to slow service never got pudding which really annoyed me. We sat down with menus and were ready to order within minutes but nobody came for a bit to take the order. There were 10 of us so took a while to take the orders. Food was ages, we ate it. Then asked for pudding menu and were told we had to leave in less than ten minutes so couldn’t have pudding! Not going back there againL