U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Shopping and Consumer Products
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 06-16-2012, 04:40 AM
 
Location: West Los Angeles
10,420 posts, read 10,205,351 times
Reputation: 10362

Advertisements

This evening I went out to dinner with my mother and my aunt. We went to a restaurant with far fewer booths than tables with chairs. All the booths were occupied, which disappointed my aunt. All the booths could seat four people, yet in one case, a booth was occupied by only two people. I then remembered how twenty years ago, when I was a host at a restaurant, myself and other hosts would get a little annoyed when a party of just one or two people would request a booth that could seat four, since there were smaller tables intended to accommodate just one or two people.

Does anybody else these days get annoyed by people taking booths, when there are smaller tables that can accommodate them? I think people should take the smallest table available that suits their party size, as it's a more efficient use of the available resources.

Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2012, 05:45 AM
 
672 posts, read 1,843,212 times
Reputation: 1176
I prefer booths. I also make sure to tip really well because of the situation you mention. Booths and booth seats are more comfortable. I wish restaurants would realize this and build their resultants to reflect this. Some have and have built booths to fit parties of 2 or 1.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 10:27 AM
 
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
11,140 posts, read 14,800,760 times
Reputation: 25433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat View Post
Does anybody else these days get annoyed by people taking booths, when there are smaller tables that can accommodate them? I think people should take the smallest table available that suits their party size, as it's a more efficient use of the available resources.

Nope.
We always take booths because I don't like being in the open, really don't like people brushing by me.
If more restaraunts had two seater booths I'd use them, but they don't so we usually end up in a larger booth and I don't feel bad about taking the only option I feel comfortable with.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
18,540 posts, read 55,453,855 times
Reputation: 32261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat View Post
This evening I went out to dinner with my mother and my aunt. We went to a restaurant with far fewer booths than tables with chairs. All the booths were occupied, which disappointed my aunt. All the booths could seat four people, yet in one case, a booth was occupied by only two people. I then remembered how twenty years ago, when I was a host at a restaurant, myself and other hosts would get a little annoyed when a party of just one or two people would request a booth that could seat four, since there were smaller tables intended to accommodate just one or two people.

Does anybody else these days get annoyed by people taking booths, when there are smaller tables that can accommodate them? I think people should take the smallest table available that suits their party size, as it's a more efficient use of the available resources.

In a word, no. With open seating, first come first choice is more fair. If you want the expensive dining experience, where tables are reserved and assigned according to cash in hand and efficiency, that is still possible. In any event, your complaint would be with the restaurant and not the diners.

I have an odd story on how "efficiency" in public places can work. Back in the 1970s, multiplex movie theatres started becoming common. The owners would build a couple of big auditoriums, a couple of medium size ones, and a couple of "toilets" or small ones. When a new feature came out, it spent week one on the big screens, week two in the medium screens and then played out the run in the toilets. It was quite efficient until the incredible egos of the Hollywood set got involved.

Studios started DEMANDING that their films would always run in the largest auditorium - for the entire run - as part of negotiations. That might work if only one studio was involved, but ALL of them had the same bug up their *ss. I remember cramming people into small auditoriums while a big budget STINKER was hogging the large auditorium. Finally, the exhibitors got so frustrated that they made the new multiplexes with auditoriums all the same size (which due to financial considerations could never be large.)

Then... when a wildly popular film came out, with limited prints, we "interlocked" projectors that had the special selsyn motors and accumulators, and played the same film in more than one auditorium to accommodate the crowd. (At one time I interlocked FIVE auditoriums to run the same print. That was highly dangerous, because any damage to the print would create a major breakdown.)

By making all the auditoriums the same size, it turned off a lot of the audiences who wanted to experience the BIG screen, and turned them to video and big screen tvs, ultimately REDUCING the income to the studios from the theatres, and making many theatres go out of business.

My point is that always playing to efficiency, rather than the EXPERIENCE of the customer, is a fool's way of keeping and increasing a customer base. The two HAVE to be balanced for successful business.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 12:30 PM
 
31 posts, read 39,575 times
Reputation: 47
great point Harry and nice insight into the past
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Northern Illinois
2,187 posts, read 3,700,678 times
Reputation: 6361
Default Gotta disagree....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat View Post
This evening I went out to dinner with my mother and my aunt. We went to a restaurant with far fewer booths than tables with chairs. All the booths were occupied, which disappointed my aunt. All the booths could seat four people, yet in one case, a booth was occupied by only two people. I then remembered how twenty years ago, when I was a host at a restaurant, myself and other hosts would get a little annoyed when a party of just one or two people would request a booth that could seat four, since there were smaller tables intended to accommodate just one or two people.

Does anybody else these days get annoyed by people taking booths, when there are smaller tables that can accommodate them? I think people should take the smallest table available that suits their party size, as it's a more efficient use of the available resources.


When I go into a restaurant to eat, it is my choice to go to that particular restaurant, and my choice as to where I sit. Since I am/would be a paying customer (same as you), what I want at that particular time is for me to decide - not for you to decide where I sit because of how many people I am dining with that particular time. Also, it is definitely first come, first served. Besides, having been ushered to those dinky tables for two, by the time they stick all their restaurant "crap" on the table there is hardly room for your dinnerware when they serve the meal. It can be quite cramped and uncomfortable - and if I wanted to just generally have a bad meal experience - I would rather just stay home. Sorry - just my opinion....
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 01:52 PM
 
2,765 posts, read 3,061,629 times
Reputation: 2252
Sorry OP. We often dine in a "group" of two, and feel we have a right to a booth or a special seat too. This is especially true since we often arrive when things are not "packed". We also often will wait if we want a booth/special seat which is not available (after estimating and inquiring about the wait time).

Re the OP: In this case, you were a 'group' of three, not four. What would you have done if there were just two of you, especially if the place was not full when you were seated?

In cases where we dine at a busy place/time we are often more flexible with where we are seated if we choose it stay there.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 02:11 PM
 
Location: southwestern PA
20,419 posts, read 38,430,824 times
Reputation: 39085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat View Post

Does anybody else these days get annoyed by people taking booths, when there are smaller tables that can accommodate them?
Nope.
I am not at all annoyed.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Boca Raton, FL
5,322 posts, read 8,867,926 times
Reputation: 6655
Smile Well - just my opinion

I've gone to restaurants with the small booths (2 people) and they are fine.

My husband loves sitting in a booth. What he doesn't realize is that he is tall (6'3") and I have to sit on the inside - I feel so cramped. He does not like sitting on the inside.

I prefer a table but defer to whoever is with us or with me.

Today, we were at a new place for brunch and their booths are totally plush, extra cushions too - so very comfortable and they are not facing one another - booth goes around. Very nice; kind of high tech decor, very cool place.

Seating I can't stand at restaurants are the tables for two on down a row - I think it's very New York or something; can't stand that type of seating - one side is a booth and then they put all the small tables there.

To the OP - I do not get annoyed. I have enough in my life to worry about.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,836 posts, read 60,943,751 times
Reputation: 54925
Doesn't bother me in the least. First come, first served.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Shopping and Consumer Products
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top