Aussie restaurant stuns diners with an unusual menu request—it's not what you'd expect!
- Replies 23
Whoever said dining out was an easy decision clearly hasn't been to an Australian restaurant in a while!
Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.
As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.
Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.
'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.
The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.
In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.
Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'
'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.
On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.
'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.
'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.
Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.
Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'
On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.
'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.
'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.
As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?
We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!
Just as there are many aspects to consider when it comes to knowing which eatery is best for you, there are also some instances that demand—quite literally—that you pay closer attention to the menu itself.
As evidenced by this Sydney restaurant, whose menu has recently gone viral on social media, extra caution and double-checking are required when it comes to certain establishments.
Taking to the popular forum website Reddit, an Aussie diner shared a photo of the back of the menu, quickly attracting the attention of many users who found themselves divided over whether the restaurant's unusual request was fair or not.
An unconventional policy at a restaurant in Sydney has ignited a debate regarding its fairness. Credit: Reddit.
'Is this common practice for restaurants to require a minimum spend?' the user asked, referring to a note on the back of the menu that stated a minimum 'dine in' spending requirement of $20 per person and a $30 'no show' fee for bookings with reduced numbers.
'This is calculated from the average spend per customer,' explained the restaurant.
The unusual statement sparked a fierce debate online, with opinions varying on whether such a minimum spending requirement and 'no-show' surcharge was justified.
In the restaurant's defence, some people agreed with the decision to charge for a minimum spend. 'It's not common, but if the place is small and people are coming just for a chat, then it makes sense,' commented one individual.
Another empathised with the restaurant's plight: 'For small, local businesses, especially with limited seating, it can be very frustrating to have groups of people come in and just order a couple of items and use the place as a hang-out spot and spend hours there.'
'Honestly, this seems reasonable. You don't want six people to show up and share a plate of hot chips,' added a third supporter of the policy.
On the other hand, a number of people found the requirement unfair and potentially off-putting.
'Not common, and I hope it doesn't become common. If they want to enforce it, that's fine, but I'm going to eat somewhere I won't feel like a burden for wanting to sit and enjoy an $18 pasta dish,' stated one disgruntled commenter.
'My only real gripe is if you can easily buy a meal and drink for under the minimum spend, essentially forcing you to buy something you don't want,' another user chimed in.
Opinions on the minimum spending requirement were divided among commenters. Credit: Pexels/Lisa Fotios.
Opinions were also sharply divided when it came to the $30 'no-show' fee. Some argued in favour of the surcharge, with one pointing out that not showing up is a 'massive loss for the company'.
Another person added, 'This type of thing exists to prevent people who book a table of eight and literally do not turn up and don't call in advance. Now you've got an empty table on a Saturday night that could have gone to someone else. People like this should pay.'
On the flip side, some remained unconvinced that the surcharge was justified and even suggested alternative solutions.
'Charging for no-shows is unconscionable. People could make a booking in the best of faith, and one or more members of their party could fall ill,' one concerned commenter said.
'Seems these folks have problems associated with reservations. Just switch to no bookings,' another user advised.
As you can see, this Aussie restaurant's menu request certainly struck a chord in the online community. Members, we're super curious to know what you think about it. Is it fair for a restaurant to have minimum spending requirements and charge a 'no-show' fee? Or do you think these demands are a bit over the top?
We'd love to hear your opinions on this one! Let's get the conversation going in the comments below!
.png){kind=icon}
