GodAtum

I think in big cities such as New York and London it's not too bad but most touristy places you hardly ever see people dining alone. I usually eat in hotel restaurants (not necessarily the hotel I'm staying in) as they tend to be able to cater for single diners more better.

Same here, I tend to want to eat and get out quickly.

deubster

I eat alone often and enjoy it. Most of my trips are multi-day (3 - 10 days), and I usually have to endure at least one day of the client taking me out to dinner. That's OK, but I'd really rather take my book and eat alone. I get to choose the type of restaurant and I always get back to my hotel a lot earlier than when eating with others.

I have a lot of things to do, like write reports on the day's activity, prepare materials for the following day, get clothes ready (iron if necessary), catch up on email and news, call the wife, and get to bed at a decent hour. Any spare time (rare) is spent with a book or the occasional TV show or movie.

In any event, I look at eating with others as the occasionally necessary evil, to be endured as infrequently as possible, since it always winds up cutting into my sleep time and making the job more of a chore.

TMOliver

I have found dining alone occasionally to be a pleasant alternative, preferable to the unpredictable vicissitudes of "room service" (a fate often worse than eating in the hotel's restaurant). I can better concentrate on ordering, the food and the wine. Then there are the actions of others at table, often a grim commentary on the human condition.

I don't even mind the frequent bad or less than preferable table, understanding the perspective of resturant management (except when it's close to the swinging doors from the kitchen - I'll leave instead of accepting that fate! - or some dark corner). I don't hesitate to bring a newspaper or a travel guide (even for dinner).

I do bow my neck when it comes to attitude and service, quick to call attention to unacceptable practices and willing to carry my complaints up the ladder. After all, I'm paying. I've never flatly refused to pay for a meal, but a stranger in a strange place, have been unhesitant about "making a (small) scene", when the acts of commission and omission were to glaring to be ignored or some remedy had not been attempted.

Before complaining, I do try for a value judgement...."Shucks, at this resturant they seem to treat nearly everybody that way!" Some places seem unable to do better, even when they try.

acunningham

Hmm, let's see... at a quick estimate, I've eaten breakfast, lunch or dinner alone in a restaurant, cafe, or similar, around 600 to 700 times in the last 12 months. What I want from restaurants is:

1. I arrive, and am immediately shown a table and menu. I'm generally staying in city centre areas, so if I see a queue at one restaurant, I'll go next door.

2. Two minutes later, the waiter/waitress is back to take my order. If it's one of my favourite places to eat in a city I've been in for over a month, I probably have much of the menu memorised and have decided what I want before arriving.

3. My food arrives quickly.

4. THE FOOD IS GOOD. Always #1 priority!

5. The portions aren't too large. American chain restaurants take note!

6. I can take my time to eat.

7. As soon as I finish, the waiter/waitress arrives with the next dish. When you eat out twice a day every day, sitting staring at restaurant walls gets old fast.

7. As soon as I finish the last dish, the bill arrives. If I still have the menu, I'll probably have totalled up the amount anyway, unless in the USA where I'm never quite sure how much the tax will be.

8. I pay and leave.

Quality of food and efficiency of service are what I value. I'll take fast competent service over gushingly friendly service any day.

Oh, and smartphones are a blessing for the frequent solo diner. I can be doing something useful while waiting, such as reading FT.

jspira

A queue might indicate a more popular - and possibly better - restaurant. Going "next door" doesn´t mean food or service will be any better. I usually pick out restaurants in advance anyway, so I am unlikely to want to make a switch. A short wait is not a bad sign.

If it´s not a restaurant I´ve been to before several times, two minutes is a ridiculously short period of time and I would think very little of the restaurant if the waiter came back within 2 minutes except to ask about beverages.

I actually care more if it arrives well prepared and hot. Quick is a relative term. Some dishes take 20 minutes to prepare, some take 5.

I must concur here.

I don´t eat in chain restaurants but portion size is important. I prefer quality over quantity.

If you are going to take your time - and why shouldn´t you - why the rush (nos. 2, 3, and 7)?

If I wanted an assembly line, I´d eat in a factory. If the food arrives as you state, it´s sitting around getting cold. Different courses should be somewhat spaced out.


This all sounds very rushed. I would not like to be presented with the check immediately - it shows the restaurant is pushing me out.



Efficiency is good but a restaurant that operates like an assembly line is probably not the dining experience I am after.

acunningham

The difference is that time spent eating is not time wasted, but time spent waiting is. I go to restaurants to eat good food, not to wait!

jspira

I donät see the time spent not eating as having been wasted. I don´t enjoy jumping from one course to another, at least if one wishes to degust one´s meal.

acunningham

If I was eating out once or twice a week, I'd probably be the same. However, when eating out twice a day every day for months on end, waiting gets old fast.

braslvr

+1. Especially if I'm alone. 45 minutes to an hour is the longest I want to be doing the whole eating experience in any restaurant. It's also why I despise eating out in large groups... I pretty much agree with your whole list.

acunningham

I tend to agree, though rather than wait in the queue, I'll come back a quieter day (Mondays for example).

bniu

dining alone, I almost always get take-out, and thus avoid paying the tip. Some establishments even save you the tax for take-out. I prefer dining alone infront of my laptop for some "dinner entertainment".

SFflyer123

In the old days, you had to bring a book or a newspaper to read when dining alone, or else it was pretty boring (for me). Now, however, with the pda devices, you can just dine for hours and surf the internet, just like I do at home. You can get work done, answer e-mails, and dine alone. It's fantastic. Just great! ^

jspira

While I tend to do that at breakfast, I like to enjoy my main meal of the day (which could either be midday or in the evening) and I try to choose restaurants that will be interesting enough to keep my attention (with food and wine) where and whenver possible.

Of course, failing that, having a smartphone (PDAs are a bit old fashioned today) or small tablet is an excellent source of amusement and entertainment.

Easy Victor

While away on biz, I usually dine alone, and don't mind it a bit. I take a magazine/book/Kindle and enjoy myself immensely. I try to find unusual dining places in advance of my trip. Unfortunatly, most of my biz travels get to places that don't have postcards...or memorable restaurants.

At home, I love to dine out with family and friends-the more the merrier!

kochleffel

I usually dine alone in restaurants when traveling (because I usually travel alone), and I always take a book or, lately, a kindle. Because of this I try to avoid places where it will be too dark to read.

My experience has been that bar-and-grill restaurants are almost always comfortable, "fine dining" not always. Some of the latter still seem to think that single diners hurt their image.

I really try to avoid chain "family restaurants" except for a quick breakfast or lunch. Those seem to be the ones where the server brings the salad and the main course together, leaves the check on the table, and is never seen again. I don't always want dessert but I almost always want coffee after the main course, and if I order "coffee later," sometimes "later" is interpreted as meaning "with the main course" instead of "immediately."

It annoys me when the main course comes before I finish the salad. I don't think I'm especially slow in eating salad.