Pizza Hut Buffet

[IAKnowyou]

Posting here to hopefully get some quick answers.

So I will be going to Pizza Hut for the buffet, at the weekend with my child for one of her friend's parties.
There's a few of us going, and I've had a look online and at weekends it is 15.99 per adult and 10.99 for children !
I am absolutely not going to eat 15.99 worth of pizza! And I doubt my child will eat £11 worth.
Would I be unreasonable to just pay for my child and maybe have a slice of pizza or 2?
I know they charge different per head to stop this. But how do they police this ??
It's not a huge deal, but I would definitely like to know before I go, and like to know if other people do this or not ?
Thanks !

You are not wrong. The impact to Pizza Hut is the same. It really isn’t stealing, sharp practice sure but that’s not the same thing.

Well, that’s not quite true. If you are in a cafe you can share with someone- ie one person orders a cake and you both share it. Most cafes are fine with this.

EXACTLY! if they did, people would eat as much as they could, then load up their plate again with enough to feed themselves for the next few days.
some all you can eat places will even charge you if you leave too much food, and I completely agree with it to reduce food waste. taking home enough leftovers for another meal is not in the spirit of an all you can eat buffet. if they let you take it home, people will exploit that for whole extra meals. the prices will go up, and those same people will probably complain.

Very good point.

I love how people are still insisting I wasn't allowed to take the buffet pizza home that was on my plate that I couldn't eat. 🤦🏼‍♀️😂

I assure you, the Pizza Hut I visited did in fact allow me to do this. I'm not saying they'd make a habit of it, or that they should, but they did permit me to do just that on the occasion I was referring to. Repeating "they wouldn't do that" 27 thousand times doesn't make it less true 🤣

Thats because you bought the whole cake

Not relevant; I was replying to this:

It really is quite simple. If you visit a cafe/ restaurant with friends ,family, children, you order something for everyone ( except a baby/toddler). If someone doesn't want anything, then fine, they don't get to eat or drink from someone else's order.

from @montelbano . This was about cafes/restaurants in general.

It is not about eating £10.99 'worth' of pizza. In reality most children won't.

It is like people who go into a cafe and complain that the full English breakfast is £8 and they could feed their family for £8

It is a business- and they have huge overheads before making profit, there are wages, insurances, building costs/ rent / mortgage / maintenance, tax, national insurance, cleaning products, staff uniform, stock, gas, electric, business rates etc

I would eat before going out if you feel it isn't worth while as this could prove very embarrassing if getting publically humiliated for it.

Just eat before you go.

It is like people who go into a cafe and complain that the full English breakfast is £8 and they could feed their family for £8

It’s not quite like that. Everyone gets the same £8 breakfast. Not the case with a buffet.

Are you genuinely asking where people think your argument falls down, rather than just being snarky? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, this is where I think the flaw is:

You’re correct in saying the same amount of food is consumed whether Bob eats all 17 slices or Bob eats 15 and Jane eats two. But Pizza Hut is not charging on the basis of the amount of food consumed - otherwise it wouldn’t be “all you can eat”. Their loss as a business comes not from any “extra” food being consumed, because as you point out, there IS no extra food. The loss is from the fact that someone hasn’t paid their cover. Jane has essentially taken the place of a potential paying customer. It’s all very well saying “Oh, she only had two slices because Bob had taken too much, and by that time she was feeling a bit peckish”, but where do you draw the line? What if Bob had taken ten slices and couldn’t quite manage them, so Jane had eaten four? Is that still okay because there’s no net loss of food? What if Bob and Jane are part of a group of six, for example, and two of that group do the “Oh no, I’m not hungry - but if that last slice or two is only going to end up in the bin…” routine? The restaurant is two covers down; there could be another party of six who would have happily paid, but give up waiting for a table being taken up by the stealth sharers.

So no, it’s not a loss in terms of goods in the way that Sainsbury’s loses out on the value of a shoplifted item, but it’s still a loss.

The whole concept of all you can eat buffets is pretty gross, it’s just encouraging gluttony

The buffet is a bit of a con because the only customers who really benefit from it are greedy men. A woman of average appetite and small child are never going to get a good deal! None of these posters calling ‘thief’ would say the same to a man who wolfed down 15 slices of pizza on the spot. Because technically, technically, he’s done nothing wrong. What a win for the OP-bashers of AIBU! OP would be stealing and the greedy man wouldn’t be.

There’s no “technically, technically” about it. This mythical man HASN’T done anything wrong, full stop. You can use all judgemental language you like about someone being “greedy” and “wolfing down” food, but the clue is in the name with All You Can Eat. If you want a system where people are charged according to the amount of food they eat, congratulations - it already exists. It’s called the a la carte menu. Or maybe you think paying a set price for a set portion is wrong too? Maybe you think women should be charged less for a dish because they might leave some of it, whereas greeeeeeedy men might dare to actually finish it and enjoy it all?

It doesn’t have to be about stuffing yourself though. If we stick with the example of Pizza Hut, the buffet means I can try two or more different pizzas, some pasta and some salad for a lot less than paying for three separate dishes. It doesn’t necessarily mean I’ll eat a lot more; I might eat less pizza because I want to leave room for pasta.

@SpiggingBelgium

Nope, not being remotely "snarky", thanks. I was genuinely pointing out where I feel the difference is between the two scenarios and why it's not the same as shoplifting, where there is a very clear and quantifiable loss to the company. And having read your reply to my mine, I remain unconvinced that the two scenarios are remotely the same I'm afraid.

My elderly mum read that about a local restaurant and refused to go - she is tiny with an even tinier appetite and never clears her plate. I pointed out it was unlikely to be enforced for someone who took a small portion in the first place, but I think she hated the idea of feeling pressured to eat more than she comfortably could.

People seem to be confusion the price of admission with the basic cost of the food.

Say you wanted entry to DisneyLand Paris for a birthday party, and tried to argue that you should only pay for one ticket to cover both you and your child, because you probably wouldn't ride any rides, or maybe one or two... They'd laugh in your face.

Same with the buffet. You are being "admitted" to the use of it, as much or as little as you care to partake. You can't sneak and eat if you haven't paid, and still be an honest person of character.

People who think DisneyLand and Pizza Hut aren't worth the cost are free to go elsewhere. Not to cheat and steal.

I've no patience with those who think it's cute or funny to put one over on "the man" or "massive corporations." Those corporations provide employment and other social benefits, not the least of which is decent value and future prosperity for those of us in the middle and working classes who hold their shares in pension accounts. Shoplifting and stealing from them are not victimless crimes. If you don't like their terms, go elsewhere.

Well, I can’t force you to see the logic. Let
me know how it goes next time you go to a restaurant and tell them you won’t be eating but are just keeping your partner company.

I've no patience with those who think it's cute or funny to put one over on "the man" or "massive corporations."

Out of interest, would those of you saying it’s fine still say that if OP was trying to play the system at Uncle Mario’s Family Pizzeria instead of a chain restaurant?

@SpiggingBelgium
I have indeed done that many a time? For one when I had awful morning sickness and couldn't eat but wanted to go out with my partner as I was sick of being housebound, I've sat and had a drink while he's eaten. Most places have been absolutely fine.. I've also shared meals with others where I and them have a small appetite- also fine. In the real world, I tend to find that these things are - thankfully - completely fine.

Also, you don't need to "force" anyone to see your logic. I have my own views and logic, you have yours. Differences of opinion are allowed. No forcing necessary. 😀

Aside from the All you can eat debate - I think it's absolutely insane, the amount of people that think it's unacceptable to go to a cafe / restaurant etc and either not eat whilst someone else does, or share a meal between people?
This is perfectly acceptable, in most places.. dare I say in any restaurant!

No they aren’t. Pizza Hut is made to order.

I don't think it is acceptable.

They are businesses not a charity.

Bills need to be paid.

Someone that doesn't buy anything still uses their toilets, probably drinks 'free' water.

It's not about whether it's acceptable to the establishment it's unsociable and weird. If for e.g. I invited a friend out for lunch and they agreed and then turned up and didn't eat or drink anything and just sat their watching me stuff my face I'd feel so awkward and think they where weird

to be fair the article clearly quotes the owner specifically saying
a) that it does NOT apply to people like your mum who leave one or two potatoes but that the examples charged were excessive and left whole plates of food, and
b) it is very rarely applied.
So she's being a bit pedantic to refuse to go for that reason.

it's all a bit of a non-story really, if it had been me and I'd have disputed the additional charge (although I agree they were perfectly within their rights to add it) I'd have just paid the normal amount and walked out. Realistically they are not going to wrestle you to the floor and call the police for less than a fiver, and if they did the police would laugh in their face rather than attend. If it's got to the point you're arguing about that it's not as though you are going to come back next weekend so you wouldn't care if they banned you.

@Differentstarts and that would be very judgemental of you don't you think?
So suddenly consider a dear friend "weird" because they weren't hungry for lunch, but still wanted to spend time with you ?
I have often been to a cafe with family members and we've either shared something small, or one of us has eaten but not the other.
It's very normal actually.
Sometimes it's more about the atmosphere and company than the food. As long as you're buying at least something, it's perfectly okay.
I wouldn't suggest going to sit in a restaurant and not buy a thing, but use their tables and chairs.