To think you should sit at an appropriately sized table

[PerryClees]

AIBU to think that if you're a group of 2 you should sit at a table for 2 and leave the tables for 4 for larger groups?

We're at a cafe and 3 adults plus 2 kids crammed on to a table for 2 whilst there's a couple of guys taking up a table for 4. I wouldn't say anything to then obviously but it's a bit annoying. To answer the obvious questions: no, the table for 2 would not have been occupied when they got here, it only just opened and the seats were still on the table when we arrived. Also the seats are not better for the table of 4. The only advantage is more table space.

Theoretically, yes, but if the men at the 4 top were sat at their table first, before the family of 5 showed up, it's not fair to expect the men to move.

Unless the management/waitress was there to steer them to a smaller table, it's up to the customer to choose where to sit.

Yes, I wouldn't expect them to move. I just think it's a bit selfish/thoughtless of them to sit there in the first place.

Yes but that's what I'm asking. If it was up to you would you choose to sit at the large table or leave it for large groups?

Every now and then a small party needs a bit of extra table space, but yes, as a general rule, people should pick the smallest table that will work for them.

I agree with you. Same goes for train seats - so many times you see a single person in a seat for 4, meaning groups can’t sit together. I could kind of understand it if the 4 seat had a table they wanted to use, but the trains I’m generally on don’t and it just seems selfish.

I often go out alone and if I arrive somewhere and there is only a table for four, no I would rather not take it, but if it is that is the only option then I will have to - how do you know that wasn't the case?

If there's a table for two I'd take that. If not then whatever's table that's available, though I'd offer to move if a larger party came in and a smaller table had come free.
Far more annoying is those who occupy a bigger table, are just having a coffee with laptop out and have settled in for the duration during a busy service. Must drive the servers/owners mad.

The 4 seats have much more leg room though. Why should you only benefit from that if you have a family or are travelling with friends?

I agree with the op about the tables though.

They really don’t on the trains I use, at least not if anyone sits opposite!

My trains only have tables and sockets with the 4 seaters so if I want to work on the train I have to sit there

Train seats with tables seem a lot less claustrophobic and a more enjoyable experience. You can see more out the window.

If a sing person is sat there we tend to join them if in a group.

*single

I wouldn't say anything to then obviously

Why?
Its fine to politely say "Sorry to bother you, but as you're 2 people and we're struggling to fit around this table, I wondered if you'd mind swapping please?"

Yes, I wouldn't expect them to move. I just think it's a bit selfish/thoughtless of them to sit there in the first place.

Surely the waitress would just sit them wherever there was space.

Would you have refused a table if it was a table of 6? Because there was only 5 of you?

Well a table of 4 isn't size-appropriate for you either.

How did you manage to squeeze around the table? Were there chairs elsewhere? Why didn't you just ask the staff to put two tables together rather than passive aggressive glares and Mumsnet posts?

Absolutely fuck this one. Only decent tables are in a 4. There are plenty of groups of 3 who can sit with me. If I'm paying 100 quid for a seat I'll damn well pick my favourite seat and if the 4 are so bothered they can choose allocated seats before travelling

Sometimes you have to sit wherever is free. Maybe it was full when they arrived and they had to sit at a four as no twos were available.

I agree with you OP. I find it hard to understand this.

I'd always try to sit at a table for two when it's me and my husband ...but if I arrive and there are only bigger tables then that's where I'll sit.
If a larger group them comes in after us ,I'd move if we hadn't been served but not if we had.

Sometimes the 2 seater tables are tiny so if 2 people were eating full breakfasts then the table would be crowded and overflowing so it would make more sense for them to choose the bigger table to be more comfortable. I would generally choose the smallest table but then I would feel anxious that I was being judged by someone like you if I took the bigger one. There are many scenarios though where choosing the bigger one would be right for 2 people.

So this cafe had only just opened, the seats were still on the tables... and there was only one table in the entire restaurant that seated 4+ people? Because that would be a tiny restaurant indeed.

I find tables in restaurants and cafes are often as small as possible, and if you are having anything more than a drink, get very full very quickly. As a group of 4, I much prefer a table for 6 when eating out.

Don't agree about train tables at all, the seats are incomparable at tables and airlines. There are times I choose one over the other, I do not always want the same type of seat for various reasons.

In cafes people can sit where they want and I would have taken the bigger table too - but would have offered to swap if a family came in. However if another 2 had come in about me, what would have been the point of me taking the 2 just for another 2 to get the bogger table? In our local cafe it is predominantly 2s, and if you taek the bigger table you get more room but risk having to share the table when busy (which I don't mind either).

So all they did wrong was not offering to swap.