Has anyone ever been to a place where there is scenic outdoor seating
as well as inside, and been told the outside is only for dining and
not just for sitting there for a drink? Someone claims they were
told to sit inside in a dark bar.

Whether there was a line waiting to eat outside I don't know. But,
has anyone ever run into this policy? Does it have merit?

On 6/15/2012 2:09 PM, Kalmia wrote:
> Has anyone ever been to a place where there is scenic outdoor seating
> as well as inside, and been told the outside is only for dining and
> not just for sitting there for a drink? Someone claims they were
> told to sit inside in a dark bar.
>
> Whether there was a line waiting to eat outside I don't know. But,
> has anyone ever run into this policy? Does it have merit?


A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
table goes down.

George L

On 15/06/2012 3:18 PM, George Leppla wrote:

>
> A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
> a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
> for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
> table goes down.
>
>
I am not sure about that. The probably make more money off drinks than
they do off dinners. The markup on alcohol is high and there is almost
no labour involved.

On 6/15/2012 4:22 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>> MartyB
> The person wanted to sit outside and have a drink an hour before he
> was to meet his friends for inside dining. They told him not allowed.
> They supposedly told him the outside tables were for dining only, not
> just a drink. Of course, he took umbrage.

So this person wanted to tie up an entire dining table for an hour while
he nursed a drink waiting for his friends? I think that takes a lot of
nerve. I'd have shown him the bar... or the door.

Here is a perfect example of why the customer is NOT always right.

George L

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone ever been to a place where there is scenic outdoor seating
> as well as inside, and been told the outside is only for dining and
> not just for sitting there for a drink? Someone claims they were
> told to sit inside in a dark bar.
>
> Whether there was a line waiting to eat outside I don't know. But,
> has anyone ever run into this policy? Does it have merit?

I have not but people who are ordering just a drink would usually go into
the bar.

On 6/15/2012 5:34 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 15/06/2012 3:18 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>
>>
>> A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
>> a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
>> for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
>> table goes down.
>>
>>
> I am not sure about that. The probably make more money off drinks than
> they do off dinners. The markup on alcohol is high and there is almost
> no labour involved.

It wouldn't surprise me if the permit for outside dining would
specify it is not to be used as an outside bar. Around here they
are pretty picky about outdoor dining areas.

nancy

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:09:42 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:

>Has anyone ever been to a place where there is scenic outdoor seating
>as well as inside, and been told the outside is only for dining and
>not just for sitting there for a drink? Someone claims they were
>told to sit inside in a dark bar.
>
>Whether there was a line waiting to eat outside I don't know. But,
>has anyone ever run into this policy? Does it have merit?

On Lung Guyland there are many restos right on the water that have
outdoor patios, I haven't found one yet that didn't care how plastered
you got at an outside table... many have outdoor bars, you sit on a
stool right on the sand, no shoes. Actually restos prefer catering to
the drinkers, the profit is much higher on booze then food... most
restos wouldn't survive without their boozers. I've frequented this
resto very often:
http://www.soundviewrestaurant.com/l...sound-view.cfm

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:18:43 -0500, George Leppla
> wrote:

>On 6/15/2012 2:09 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>> Has anyone ever been to a place where there is scenic outdoor seating
>> as well as inside, and been told the outside is only for dining and
>> not just for sitting there for a drink? Someone claims they were
>> told to sit inside in a dark bar.
>>
>> Whether there was a line waiting to eat outside I don't know. But,
>> has anyone ever run into this policy? Does it have merit?
>
>
>A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
>a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
>for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
>table goes down.

Bullshit... the profit margin on booze is far higher than on food.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:34:43 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 15/06/2012 3:18 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>
>>
>> A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
>> a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
>> for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
>> table goes down.
>>
>>
>I am not sure about that. The probably make more money off drinks than
>they do off dinners. The markup on alcohol is high and there is almost
>no labour involved.

And the server isn't standing around, they have to serve booze and
boozers are the best tippers... the barmaid is a tit job, literally!
LOL George has obviously never been on a cruise.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:49:14 -0400, Nancy Young <replyto@inemail>
wrote:

>On 6/15/2012 5:34 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 15/06/2012 3:18 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
>>> a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
>>> for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
>>> table goes down.
>>>
>>>
>> I am not sure about that. The probably make more money off drinks than
>> they do off dinners. The markup on alcohol is high and there is almost
>> no labour involved.
>
>It wouldn't surprise me if the permit for outside dining would
>specify it is not to be used as an outside bar. Around here they
>are pretty picky about outdoor dining areas.
>
>nancy

Obviously zoning is picky but plenty of eaterys do have outside
dining, even up here in the sticks quite a few have large properties
with more outside dining than inside.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:45:46 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
>> Has anyone ever been to a place where there is scenic outdoor seating
>> as well as inside, and been told the outside is only for dining and
>> not just for sitting there for a drink? Someone claims they were
>> told to sit inside in a dark bar.
>>
>> Whether there was a line waiting to eat outside I don't know. But,
>> has anyone ever run into this policy? Does it have merit?
>
>I have not but people who are ordering just a drink would usually go into
>the bar.

All the eateries I've patronized that offered outdoor service, and
ther ehave been many, provided tables that sat over a dozen to tables
that sat one or two, I've never encountered such a problem but then I
wouldn't patronize such a dump. Anyway such restos are very used to
setting up small folding tablee and chaire for singles, it's no
biggie.

On 15/06/2012 5:49 PM, Nancy Young wrote:

>
> It wouldn't surprise me if the permit for outside dining would
> specify it is not to be used as an outside bar. Around here they
> are pretty picky about outdoor dining areas.
>


Around here liquor rules can be a little difficult to understand, though
there is a lot more allowed than there used to be. They used to allow
liquor to be sold at licensed restaurants on Sundays and then the New
York style bars started operating under Tavern licences they had to
sell at least as much in food as they did in liquor. If I understand
correctly, in South Carolina, bars can sell liquor only in those little
mini bar bottles.



However, this is a second hand account and the OP said that the person
said that he wanted to sit at the table for an hour and drink.
Depending on how many tables they have and how busy they are, I can
understand them not wanting one person nursing a drink or two for an
hour if there could have been a party of people at that table. If there
was limited outdoor table space I can understand the owners not wanting
one person taking up a table. I can also understand a waitress not
wanting to have one of her tables taken up by a lone drinker when she
could make more in tips from a table full of diners.

On 15/06/2012 6:40 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>>
>> A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
>> a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
>> for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
>> table goes down.
>
> Bullshit... the profit margin on booze is far higher than on food.

Agreed, but in this case it was a single drinker who wanted to nurse a
drink for an hour. A table of diners would have had at least as much to
drink plus food.

On 6/15/2012 5:40 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
>> >a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
>> >for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
>> >table goes down.

> Bullshit... the profit margin on booze is far higher than on food.


Sure... one guy nursing a drink for an hour is much more profitable than
2 to 4 people having drinks and a full meal.

Thanks for playing.... please see Carol on your way out for your lovely
parting gifts.

George L

On Jun 15, 4:41*pm, Andy > wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote:
> > Things are changing in that regard. Bars have been sued in the
> aftermath
> > of crashes involving people who got drunk at their bars. In Ontario, it
> > is illegal to sell alcoholic drinks to patrons who are obviously drunk.
>
> In Old City, Quebec, after 2am, at the hostel I asked the guard where I
> could buy beers.
>
> He said there were no after hours places to buy beer.
>
> He pulled out his key chain and opened the soda machine and pulled out
> his "private reserve" of beer. We sat and talked and got drunk in the wee
> early hours of the Canadian morning.
>
> A fond memory I'll never forget!
>
> Andy

When was this...yesterday?

On Jun 15, 4:34*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 15/06/2012 3:18 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>
>
>
> > A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
> > a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
> > for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
> > table goes down.
>
> I am not sure about that. The probably make more money off drinks than
> they do off dinners. The markup on alcohol is high and there is almost
> no labour involved.

You only make more money from drinkers if you overserve. In some
states, overserving can get you into trouble criminally and civilly.
In the ever more distant past, I used to drive after drinking too much
at drinking establishments. Lots of folks still do that. Most
businesses that focus primarily on alcohol sales *must* overserve to
be profitable. I have no problem with someone stumbling home from a
neighborhood bar, but people usually drive home after being
overserved. I'm not proud of the fact that I used to drive after
drinking too much. It was a moral failing on my part, but it gives me
insight into the overserving dilemma.

--Bryan

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:41:03 -0500, Andy wrote:

> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> Things are changing in that regard. Bars have been sued in the
> aftermath
>> of crashes involving people who got drunk at their bars. In Ontario, it
>> is illegal to sell alcoholic drinks to patrons who are obviously drunk.
>
> In Old City, Quebec, after 2am, at the hostel I asked the guard where I
> could buy beers.
>
> He said there were no after hours places to buy beer.
>
> He pulled out his key chain and opened the soda machine and pulled out
> his "private reserve" of beer. We sat and talked and got drunk in the wee
> early hours of the Canadian morning.
>
> A fond memory I'll never forget!

Did you go down on each other afterwards?

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:13:01 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 15/06/2012 6:40 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
>>> a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
>>> for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
>>> table goes down.
>>
>> Bullshit... the profit margin on booze is far higher than on food.
>
>Agreed, but in this case it was a single drinker who wanted to nurse a
>drink for an hour. A table of diners would have had at least as much to
>drink plus food.

Stop it already... a single patron would be seated at a small table
for one or two, not a banquet table. Cafes all over the planet will
gladly seat a single patron outdoors, even to spend an hour nursing a
demitasse and reading a newspaper, all over Europe, NYC, even right
down the road here in Woodstock. And people patronizing restos with
sidewalk cafes don't mind one bit sharing a table... Oui, garcon...
I'd rather sit over there at that wee table across from big tits, and
refresh her drink, please... five minutes later... hey mister, thank
you for the drink but would you mind removing your tongue from my
cleavage! LOL

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:38:14 -0500, George Leppla
> wrote:

>On 6/15/2012 5:40 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
>>> >a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
>>> >for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
>>> >table goes down.
>
>> Bullshit... the profit margin on booze is far higher than on food.
>
>
>Sure... one guy nursing a drink for an hour is much more profitable than
>2 to 4 people having drinks and a full meal.
>
>Thanks for playing.... please see Carol on your way out for your lovely
>parting gifts.
>
>George L

George, you are a real asshole, and a big fat liar... no way have you
ever been on a cruise or to a resto above a burger flippin' fast food
joint... that's why you don't know that a real restaurant is not going
to seat a single person at a table for four in a crowded room, in fact
that would embarrass the person by accentuating that they are all
alone... decent restos have more tact than a low life unemployed
unskilled douchebag the likes of you.

On 6/15/12 3:09 PM, Kalmia wrote:
> Has anyone ever been to a place where there is scenic outdoor seating
> as well as inside, and been told the outside is only for dining and
> not just for sitting there for a drink? Someone claims they were
> told to sit inside in a dark bar.
>
> Whether there was a line waiting to eat outside I don't know. But,
> has anyone ever run into this policy? Does it have merit?

I haven't run into it, but I can see its point. The most desirable real
estate goes to those who spend the most, I guess?

Goomba

On Jun 15, 12:09*pm, Kalmia > wrote:
> Has anyone ever been to a place where there is scenic outdoor seating
> as well as inside, and been told the outside is only for dining and
> not just for sitting there for a drink? * Someone claims they were
> told to sit inside in a dark bar.
>
> Whether there was a line waiting to eat outside I don't know. *But,
> has anyone ever run into this policy? *Does it have merit?

This place is right up the street from me. It has the best outdoor
seating ever and they don't care if you sit and drink and have
appetizers or dinner or what. It's always busy and always very good.

http://bellinghamcliffhouse.com/

If you're ever down this way, I heartily recommend "The Oar House" in
Pensacola FL. All seating has beautiful views and is outside/sheltered -
unless you can really brave the FL sunshine and there are tables out on
their pier. Fine dining it's not but every one else is welcome if you just
want to nurse a drink and read a book to honeymooners and large family
gatherings. I was seated where I could watch yachts being raised out of the
water for storage. Found it fascinating but it's easy to entertain old
folks. Polly

On 6/15/2012 8:06 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> Stop it already... a single patron would be seated at a small table
> for one or two, not a banquet table. Cafes all over the planet will
> gladly seat a single patron outdoors, even to spend an hour nursing a
> demitasse and reading a newspaper, all over Europe, NYC, even right
> down the road here in Woodstock.

Yes, I can see it now. You sitting on a folding chair in front of a
convenience store in Woodstock, NY... enjoying the smell of the ocean air.

George L

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:34:43 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 15/06/2012 3:18 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>
>>
>> A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
>> a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
>> for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
>> table goes down.
>>
>>
>I am not sure about that. The probably make more money off drinks than
>they do off dinners. The markup on alcohol is high and there is almost
>no labour involved.

Normally I'd agree, but the picture changes in this case. A table for
two for 60 minutes can bring in $150+ including the profit from a
bottle of wine, perhaps cocktails. Or it can bring in $10 from two
people sipping their Bud Light

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:22:59 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:

>
>The person wanted to sit outside and have a drink an hour before he
>was to meet his friends for inside dining. They told him not allowed.
>They supposedly told him the outside tables were for dining only, not
>just a drink. Of course, he took umbrage.

Depends on circumstances.

If this was 3:00 in the afternoon and all the tables were empty, let
the guy have his drink. If it was 7:00 and tables were filling up, go
wait elsewhere. He'd be nursing a $7 drink instead of that table
bringing in $100 or more.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> A table for
> two for 60 minutes can bring in $150+ including the profit from a
> bottle of wine, perhaps cocktails.

WHOA! Damn Ed, you must go to some very nice restaurants!


> Or it can bring in $10 from two
> people sipping their Bud Light

The only two people I know that would drink Bud Light is Andy and his
(evil?) twin. heheheh

Gary

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 6/15/2012 8:06 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> > Stop it already... a single patron would be seated at a small table
> > for one or two, not a banquet table. Cafes all over the planet will
> > gladly seat a single patron outdoors, even to spend an hour nursing a
> > demitasse and reading a newspaper, all over Europe, NYC, even right
> > down the road here in Woodstock.
>
> Yes, I can see it now. You sitting on a folding chair in front of a
> convenience store in Woodstock, NY... enjoying the smell of the ocean air.
>
> George L

LOL! You make some comment once here and it can haunt you in the future.
Ppl in RFC don't forget anything, so it seems.

I live exactly one mile from the ocean so I do smell the ocean air anytime
the wind is from the NE, E, SE. Last few days and for a few more the wind
is gusty from the NE. I love that...that's pretty much "no pollution" air
and I keep my windows open.

Gary

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:18:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:22:59 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:
>
>>
>>The person wanted to sit outside and have a drink an hour before he
>>was to meet his friends for inside dining. They told him not allowed.
>>They supposedly told him the outside tables were for dining only, not
>>just a drink. Of course, he took umbrage.
>
>Depends on circumstances.
>
>If this was 3:00 in the afternoon and all the tables were empty, let
>the guy have his drink. If it was 7:00 and tables were filling up, go
>wait elsewhere. He'd be nursing a $7 drink instead of that table
>bringing in $100 or more.

Under those circumstances I'd call up my party of six and tell them
we're dining elsewhere and then tell that resto to shove the
reservations up their ass... not only would they never see my business
again but I'd tell everyone I know to stay away. However I've never
had that experience and I've been in that situation dozens of times,
they always found me seating outdoors and with probably the best view.
Many times when I happend to be out on Lung Guyland's east end I'd
just drop in unannounced, no reservations, and ask to be seated
outside and they always found me a small table where I could enjoy a
pitcher of 2nis. I can certainly understand why they'd refuse Leppla,
they'd not want to seat his ugliness anywhere and I can't blame them,
the sight of that blob would ruin everyone's appetite. In my younger
days all the bar maids at my favorite haunts knew me, I always got
seated and was very well taken care of.

On 16/06/2012 10:17 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> Under those circumstances I'd call up my party of six and tell them
> we're dining elsewhere and then tell that resto to shove the
> reservations up their ass...

And if I were one of the other party and knew the guy to be the type who
would insist on taking up an entire table to nurse a drink for an hour I
would tell him to go ahead and leave, but we're still going to that place.

One of the reasons I don't like going out for meals with some people is
that their take on restaurants is completely different from mine. For
instance, I have a sister in law who raves about restaurants where I
have had bad experience. Conversely, she does not like the places that I
like. Don't worry, we have found a perfect solution. We don't make
dinner plans that include her. That avoids getting dragged into the
drama of her restaurant nightmares.

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:11:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:34:43 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On 15/06/2012 3:18 PM, George Leppla wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A restaurant has the right to decide which is a dining area and which is
>>> a drinking area. If you have too many drinkers taking up tables meant
>>> for dining, your waitstaff ends up standing around and your profit per
>>> table goes down.
>>>
>>>
>>I am not sure about that. The probably make more money off drinks than
>>they do off dinners. The markup on alcohol is high and there is almost
>>no labour involved.
>
>Normally I'd agree, but the picture changes in this case. A table for
>two for 60 minutes can bring in $150+ including the profit from a
>bottle of wine, perhaps cocktails. Or it can bring in $10 from two
>people sipping their Bud Light

You may think that way but restaurants do not... you obviously have no
experience in retail business, especially not in the restaurant
business, a business that caters to the public in about the most
intimate ways... you think exactly how people in manufacturing think,
in businesses that don't deal with the public, factory workers don't
develop the same people skills.

Restaurants want repeat business, repeat business is the lifeblood of
their existance, they are not going to turn anyone away who is waiting
for their party to arrive even if while waiting they order nothing
more than a toothpic, lest they never come back... if management is
even a little smart they will find outside seating, even if they need
to send a busboy out on the run to a local store amd buy a small table
and chairs. And anyway restaurants always want to look busy, a full
house is great for business... at eateries just starting out they get
their family members and friends to dress up and occupy the tables
(like shills), just so prospective patrons would look inside and think
there's a crowd, the food must be good here. Just like folks don't
like to dine in an overly crowded resto they like even less to dine in
a resto that's sparsely occupied or empty. If I walk into a
restaurant and it's sparsely populated or empty, especially at meal
time, I make a quick about face and leave as though I entered by
mistake. There is always a good reason why a resto is devoid of
customers. And that's true of all retail businesses... how many of
yoose ladies are gonna take a chance at a hair salon that you walk in
on a Friday afternoon and you're the only patron?

On Jun 15, 10:13*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 12:09*pm, Kalmia > wrote:
>
> > Has anyone ever been to a place where there is scenic outdoor seating
> > as well as inside, and been told the outside is only for dining and
> > not just for sitting there for a drink? * Someone claims they were
> > told to sit inside in a dark bar.
>
> > Whether there was a line waiting to eat outside I don't know. *But,
> > has anyone ever run into this policy? *Does it have merit?
>
> This place is right up the street from me. *It has the best outdoor
> seating ever and they don't care if you sit and drink and have
> appetizers or dinner or what. * It's always busy and always very good.
>
> http://bellinghamcliffhouse.com/

I am going to try to get more info on this incident. Like, time of
day, number of ppl wtg for those outside tables etc.

On 16/06/2012 12:28 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> Restaurants want repeat business, repeat business is the lifeblood of
> their existance, they are not going to turn anyone away who is waiting
> for their party to arrive even if while waiting they order nothing
> more than a toothpic, lest they never come back...

The restaurant in this second hand anecdote did not turn anyone away.
They just told him he could not sit at a table in the dining area.



> If I walk into a
> restaurant and it's sparsely populated or empty, especially at meal
> time, I make a quick about face and leave as though I entered by
> mistake. There is always a good reason why a resto is devoid of
> customers.


You must love places like McDonalds. They seem to do lots of business
and there usually people lined up at the counters. I have been to a
number of restaurants where I have had great food and could not
understand why they were not busier. In fact, a few months ago we
joined my bother and sister in law and some friends of theirs for dinner
to celebrate SiL's birthday. The restaurant was at the site one of
those referred to above. It had been my favourite, but it went under.

The new business was an Italian restaurant. I don't usually go out for
Italian food and experience tells me not to expect much from them, but I
was impressed with this place. There were two guys who came in for a
drink while we were there, but for most of our meal we were the only
diners. Best calamari I ever had.... by far.

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> wrote:


>
>I am going to try to get more info on this incident. Like, time of
>day, number of ppl wtg for those outside tables etc.

Would be good to know. Some restaurants won't seat you until your
entire party has arrived, and with good reason, IMO.