3 ms·

3-4 hours is a long time. That sounds like a leisurely dinner set on "Italian Mode" [no offence] with a reservation, not a work lunch on Tuesday in the US. Thi

3-4 hours is a long time. That sounds like a leisurely dinner set on "Italian Mode" [no offence] with a reservation, not a work lunch on Tuesday in the US. This ritual or ceremony of waiter, menu, waiting, ordering, signalling for the cheque that you apparently find vile... I enjoy it. Any inefficiency you have declared is part of the experience of going out to eat. You want fast food? Go get fast food. You want a butler and cook? Hire them. You want to go out to dinner? Here's a waitress, menu, and some time for walking back and forth between their station and your table and their other tables in their zone. All of this is, or at least should be, factored in to the restaurant's business. It's been 100 years, at least in the US. If they don't get it by now, at least you should.

navhc2 5y ago
Then you should continue patronizing restaurants that have the traditional method, and whoever doesn't want that can seek out restaurants with more efficient methods. Forcing your definition of what a restaurant "should be" is detrimental to everyone, more choice is better for everyone.
fleddr 5y ago
It didn't say any of those steps are vile. I said that in my opinion, they are needless steps that don't add value to guests or the restaurant itself. A restaurant wants to know your order. Why does this simple thing take 20-30 mins? Whom benefits? How does it enrich your experience exactly, this useless waiting and pointing at a menu?